What is 1080 native HD?

Radek Svoboda · June 20th, 2005, 04:40 PM

OK Barry, Let's hope that is the case. If is and camera has superb lens, then Panasonic better starts making 1080p Varicam. From presentation they had less than year ago, they mentioned 1080p in 2007 or 2008, I don't remember. If they moved date earlier, we are in for revolution. I'm sure Sony will follow.

But, reading your article, it clearly said 1080i and 720p uncompressed. As I said, you have CCD, ADC, compression, then write progressive to interlaced. Doing it before makes not sense as you would have to change again to progressive (remove it from interlaced stream) before compression. So if true 1080p is available from CCD, it would not be written to progressive before compression.

As to Steven White's post that I have backwards. I don't. You misunderstood what I said.

I will not involved these discussions anymore but you failed to change my conviction and Jan Crittenden has not answer this question at all.

Can you get a statement from Panasonic that uncompressed 1080p is available over the 1080i stream? Why don't you have Panasonic answer that, in this forum? They will not. So why make conclusions it exists?

Radek

Barry Green · June 20th, 2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda

If is and camera has superb lens, then Panasonic better starts making 1080p Varicam.

They already are. (okay, I don't know it for a fact, but I do believe they're working on a P2 version of the VariCam, and I'm 97% certain that it will be 1080p.)

Quote:

But, reading your article, it clearly said 1080i and 720p uncompressed.

Must I say this again? Really? Okay, then I will.

The camera outputs two signals, either 720p or 1080i. That is what the analog component video outputs carry. It has nothing to do with the internals, the CCD, or anything. The final output of the camera is either 720p or 1080i. Just like it is on the JVC. When you connect it to the monitor, you will be sending that monitor either a 720p or a 1080i signal.

When outputting 720p, you are outputting an uncompressed 720p signal carried within a 720p stream.

When outputting 1080i, you are outputting an uncompressed 1080i signal carried within a 1080i stream.

When outputting 1080p, you are outputting an uncompressed 1080p signal that has 2:3 or 2:3:3:2 pulldown applied, carried within a 1080i signal.

That *is* how it works. It has nothing to do with compression -- NOTHING. All this happens before the compression engine touches the signal. The 1080p image is scanned off the CCD at 24 or 30 progressive frames per second. It is converted to interlace for output. It has nothing nothing nothing to do with the compression engine -- that's the whole point of it being uncompressed.

Quote:

Can you get a statement from Panasonic that uncompressed 1080p is available over the 1080i stream? Why don't you have Panasonic answer that, in this forum?

I'll ask them to. And then, hopefully, once it is confirmed from Panasonic, you will drop this line of questioning? I know that if Jan were to say "sorry, no uncompressed 1080p-over-1080i is available", I'd sure quit insisting it was. Hopefully we can settle the issue soon. I will send her a link to this thread and hope that we will get a definitive statement.

Tommy James · June 24th, 2005, 03:34 PM

It is really disturbing to me that the engineers from the 1080i networks would ban the JVC HD100 because it does not capture 1080i natively and there is a conception that this camera would not be as compatible as would be a Sony HDV Camera. First of all I believe the opposite is true.
1. The JVC records video at the 19.7 megabit per secound rate which is the native bandwidth of all HDTV broadcasting. The Sony records at over 25 megabits per secound and must be further compressed before it can be broadcasted.
2. Progressive video can much more easily be converted to interlace as no interpolation or deinterlacing is required merely a division of the progressive image into the odd and even interlaced fields which results in an almost lossless conversion.
3. For fast action sports 720p video even when converted to 1080i produces less artifacting than native 1080i video. Look at the diving video footage at the Olympics. Horrible artifacting occured that could have been avoided if the JVC HD100 were available at the time.
4. The 1080i networks want to ban the JVC HD100 camera even before it is available. This shows a total lack of consideration.
I can understand that the 1080i networks really want to promote their 1080i format. However the best way to promote your format is to do it with a camera that generates the best possible footage.

David Kennett · June 25th, 2005, 03:17 PM

Tommy,

I don't know why engineers would evaluate a picture on anything but the final result either. Kinda reminds me of the double-blind listening tests Stereo Review would do on speakers, amplifiers, etc. Making your evaluation without having any idea of the technology involved takes away the possibility of prejudice coloring your judgement.

I was just reading an article on lenses, and it promoted the idea that the lens with the highest resolution was not necessarily the sharpest looking. It revolved around what we have called "depth of modulation" in the TV world. There could be a lower "depth of modulation" for fine detail than for larger objects. In this case, a picture with technically higher resolution might not look as sharp as a lens which maintained a high DOM for the fine detail, and then fell off sharply at the limits of the system. In the audio world, an audio amp that was flat to say 10KHz, with nothing above 11 KHz might sound better than an amp that started dropping off at 5 KHz, but still had some response at 20KHz. All this has said to me that maybe we would be better off giving up some pixel resolution for a better frame rate.

If you've read some of my posts elsewhere, you'll know that I contend that interlaced scanning must be displayed on a CRT to be seen properly. It would be interesting to compare 1080i with some action on a CRT 1080i display with other displays.

Nick Hiltgen · July 1st, 2005, 01:51 AM

As enjoying as the debate between the mythical camera has been it seems to me that there really hasn't been any hard answers as to what the technician means. (note: it never hurts to ask questions, no one understands what technicians are talking about even other technicians) If the outdoor HD channel is like the other HDNET channels they will want something that is native 1080i not something (like the old JVC HD) that is 720p and converted to 1080i or GASP something that is shot in standard definition and then converted to 1080i. So for now it seems like they jsut want something that is shot with the sony HD cameras (be they 700,730, 750 900 or 950) and possibly the z1 though some of the networks are hesitant about using anything with HDV compression. Personally it sounds like this engineer wasn't terribly enlightened or had done his homework extensively and forgot that he was speaking geek and few could understand what he was saying... (ahem... been there... done that...) It probably wouldn't hurt to call him back and clarify what EXACTLY he meant though.

Tommy James · July 1st, 2005, 11:03 AM

Well quite frankly I think these engineers don't know what they are talking about when they attempt to ban HDV cameras. First of all the engineers say that they don't think that the HDV 19.7 megabit per secound bandwidth is adequate for high definition and they want to go with 100 megabits per secound. But when they are reminded that the FCC has only allocated the broadcasters the 19.7 megabit per secound bandwidth they reply that they are technicians not politicians. Now I'm not saying that it is impossible to broadcast at these mega bandwidths but I'm sure that the FCC is not going to give away this kind of bandwidth for free. In the meantime the engineers have sold themselves on the idea that high definition broadcasting is impractical and HDV is beneath their dignity so they end up broadcasting in crummy standard definition.

Steve Crisdale · July 2nd, 2005, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy James

Well quite frankly I think these engineers don't know what they are talking about when they attempt to ban HDV cameras.

Maybe they understand enough to know they don't like the prospect of what it could do to their standing within the broadcast industry. Fear is a mighty fine motivator of a dismissive attitude, and I'm sure there's more than just broadcast technicians who will be more than a little wary of what HDV could potentially alter within the current broadcast industry set-up.

It's the potential of what HDV could bring about that may have us HDV exponents excited... just don't expect everyone's excitement over HDV to be as positive.

June 24th, 2005, 03:34 PM	#18
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Will 1080i networks ban the JVC HD100? It is really disturbing to me that the engineers from the 1080i networks would ban the JVC HD100 because it does not capture 1080i natively and there is a conception that this camera would not be as compatible as would be a Sony HDV Camera. First of all I believe the opposite is true. 1. The JVC records video at the 19.7 megabit per secound rate which is the native bandwidth of all HDTV broadcasting. The Sony records at over 25 megabits per secound and must be further compressed before it can be broadcasted. 2. Progressive video can much more easily be converted to interlace as no interpolation or deinterlacing is required merely a division of the progressive image into the odd and even interlaced fields which results in an almost lossless conversion. 3. For fast action sports 720p video even when converted to 1080i produces less artifacting than native 1080i video. Look at the diving video footage at the Olympics. Horrible artifacting occured that could have been avoided if the JVC HD100 were available at the time. 4. The 1080i networks want to ban the JVC HD100 camera even before it is available. This shows a total lack of consideration. I can understand that the 1080i networks really want to promote their 1080i format. However the best way to promote your format is to do it with a camera that generates the best possible footage.

June 25th, 2005, 03:17 PM	#19
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	Tommy, I don't know why engineers would evaluate a picture on anything but the final result either. Kinda reminds me of the double-blind listening tests Stereo Review would do on speakers, amplifiers, etc. Making your evaluation without having any idea of the technology involved takes away the possibility of prejudice coloring your judgement. I was just reading an article on lenses, and it promoted the idea that the lens with the highest resolution was not necessarily the sharpest looking. It revolved around what we have called "depth of modulation" in the TV world. There could be a lower "depth of modulation" for fine detail than for larger objects. In this case, a picture with technically higher resolution might not look as sharp as a lens which maintained a high DOM for the fine detail, and then fell off sharply at the limits of the system. In the audio world, an audio amp that was flat to say 10KHz, with nothing above 11 KHz might sound better than an amp that started dropping off at 5 KHz, but still had some response at 20KHz. All this has said to me that maybe we would be better off giving up some pixel resolution for a better frame rate. If you've read some of my posts elsewhere, you'll know that I contend that interlaced scanning must be displayed on a CRT to be seen properly. It would be interesting to compare 1080i with some action on a CRT 1080i display with other displays. __________________ Dave

June 20th, 2005, 04:40 PM	#16
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	OK Barry, Let's hope that is the case. If is and camera has superb lens, then Panasonic better starts making 1080p Varicam. From presentation they had less than year ago, they mentioned 1080p in 2007 or 2008, I don't remember. If they moved date earlier, we are in for revolution. I'm sure Sony will follow. But, reading your article, it clearly said 1080i and 720p uncompressed. As I said, you have CCD, ADC, compression, then write progressive to interlaced. Doing it before makes not sense as you would have to change again to progressive (remove it from interlaced stream) before compression. So if true 1080p is available from CCD, it would not be written to progressive before compression. As to Steven White's post that I have backwards. I don't. You misunderstood what I said. I will not involved these discussions anymore but you failed to change my conviction and Jan Crittenden has not answer this question at all. Can you get a statement from Panasonic that uncompressed 1080p is available over the 1080i stream? Why don't you have Panasonic answer that, in this forum? They will not. So why make conclusions it exists? Radek

July 1st, 2005, 01:51 AM	#20
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	As enjoying as the debate between the mythical camera has been it seems to me that there really hasn't been any hard answers as to what the technician means. (note: it never hurts to ask questions, no one understands what technicians are talking about even other technicians) If the outdoor HD channel is like the other HDNET channels they will want something that is native 1080i not something (like the old JVC HD) that is 720p and converted to 1080i or GASP something that is shot in standard definition and then converted to 1080i. So for now it seems like they jsut want something that is shot with the sony HD cameras (be they 700,730, 750 900 or 950) and possibly the z1 though some of the networks are hesitant about using anything with HDV compression. Personally it sounds like this engineer wasn't terribly enlightened or had done his homework extensively and forgot that he was speaking geek and few could understand what he was saying... (ahem... been there... done that...) It probably wouldn't hurt to call him back and clarify what EXACTLY he meant though.

July 1st, 2005, 11:03 AM	#21
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Well quite frankly I think these engineers don't know what they are talking about when they attempt to ban HDV cameras. First of all the engineers say that they don't think that the HDV 19.7 megabit per secound bandwidth is adequate for high definition and they want to go with 100 megabits per secound. But when they are reminded that the FCC has only allocated the broadcasters the 19.7 megabit per secound bandwidth they reply that they are technicians not politicians. Now I'm not saying that it is impossible to broadcast at these mega bandwidths but I'm sure that the FCC is not going to give away this kind of bandwidth for free. In the meantime the engineers have sold themselves on the idea that high definition broadcasting is impractical and HDV is beneath their dignity so they end up broadcasting in crummy standard definition.