Anyone done FX1/ Z1u 60i hdv to 24p files?

Graeme Nattress · July 16th, 2005, 10:14 AM

First, I've never been lucky enough to see a decent HDTV broadcast. They're all over compressed. Second, what size 1080p screen do you think would be suitable for viewing distances appropriate for a normal home? Personally, that resolution is not practical in the vast majority of homes.

Graeme

Douglas Spotted Eagle · July 16th, 2005, 10:22 AM

Native resolution would be 68.8 inches (based on 32 pix per inch)
Optimally, a 60" television is what you'll want. Is that too big? I'd dispute it is. And this is only if you want to view at native. Most folks won't care/know the diff RIGHT NOW, but we're moving towards the original proposal of 60p, and getting there a heckuva lot faster than people thought we would. Just a month ago, someone commented that we'd not see 60p displays for at least another 6 years. They were only off by 5 years, 11 months.

Thomas Smet · July 16th, 2005, 11:26 PM

Wow I didn't realize the Czech Republic was the capital of the HD movement. Heck I think I should move there so I can finally watch decent HD.

Radek why are you talking about 720p like it is some nasty disease? I thought the whole point here is not what the broadcast format will be in 5 years but what kind of video can we get out of the cameras we can buy today. I personally don't really give a rats but what moronic format some dumb suit wants to throw at us in the future. I care about what the video looks like that I shoot today.

Currently Graeme is the only one of us to have seen and compared footage from both of the formats. I think we can all agree that when it comes to image quality Graeme knows his stuff. If he says the 720p from the JVC looks just as good if not better than the 1080i from SONY well maybe it does. While it does kind of suck to only have 30p 720p right now, 1080p is also limited to 30p. This means in terms of motion they will look the same. It's kind of funny how people will say 720p 30p looks like garbage but then say 1080p 30p will look perfect.

Graeme Nattress · July 17th, 2005, 10:43 AM

For your 60" wide TV, showing full 1080p, you have to be about 9 ft back to not see any pixels. I dare say you can actually sit a lot closer and not be bothered by pixels though.

I have to wonder, however, how many people are able to set up a screen and projector (I don't think a 60" TV set is at all practical) to get the benefit of 720p, never mind 1080p, especially given that the projector is going to be a lot futher back still.

Graeme

Kyle Edwards · July 17th, 2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

For your 60" wide TV, showing full 1080p, you have to be about 9 ft back to not see any pixels. I dare say you can actually sit a lot closer and not be bothered by pixels though.

At the local Best Buy they have plenty of HDTVs on display and watching 90% of them, they look very pixelated. I know this can be because of the signal being routed from one box to 100 TVs or the material they are showing or the settings of the TV.

Now do some of those TVs have a built in deinterlacer? I'm pretty sure I remember Samsung having one built in. I'm not too sure.

If you watch 1080p footage frame by frame on your computer, you do not see any pixels. Why would you see it on a TV that is made to display that resolution?

Peter Moore · July 17th, 2005, 02:14 PM

20/20 vision wields approximately 1/60th of a degree resolution for the human eye.

So, my 50" TV is 1280x720.
The height of the TV is 24.5".

Each pixel, then, is .034" tall. The viewing distance (x) ideally would be the distance at which .034" (y) is less than or equal to 1/60th of a degree of vision for me.

So the calculation is:

tan ( 1/60 degrees ) = .034 / x
x = 117"

So you want to be approximately 10 feet away from a 50" 720p screen in order to no longer be able to perceive scan lines with 20/20 vision.

As it so happens, the rule of thumb for TV watching is double the screen diagonal size, which happens to yield, in this case, 100", whereas my 20/20 formula yields 117". Not bad. And 10 feet is not very far in a decent size living room. For a 10" projection screen, you want to be 20 feet away. Well, that's not so bad either, because the throw length for projectors is going to be more than that anyway, so if you can't sit 20 feet back then your room's too small anyway.

Now, I'm gonna wait for 1080p projectors because I don't want o have to be 20 feet away - I wasnt to be able to sit as close as I would in a movie theater, i.e., have the screen take up more than 50% of my field of view. If we had 1080p screens, we'd be able to sit closer to the same TV, or have bigger picture sizes, without sacrificing picture quality.

July 16th, 2005, 10:14 AM	#61
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	First, I've never been lucky enough to see a decent HDTV broadcast. They're all over compressed. Second, what size 1080p screen do you think would be suitable for viewing distances appropriate for a normal home? Personally, that resolution is not practical in the vast majority of homes. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

July 16th, 2005, 10:22 AM	#62
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Native resolution would be 68.8 inches (based on 32 pix per inch) Optimally, a 60" television is what you'll want. Is that too big? I'd dispute it is. And this is only if you want to view at native. Most folks won't care/know the diff RIGHT NOW, but we're moving towards the original proposal of 60p, and getting there a heckuva lot faster than people thought we would. Just a month ago, someone commented that we'd not see 60p displays for at least another 6 years. They were only off by 5 years, 11 months. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

July 17th, 2005, 10:43 AM	#64
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	For your 60" wide TV, showing full 1080p, you have to be about 9 ft back to not see any pixels. I dare say you can actually sit a lot closer and not be bothered by pixels though. I have to wonder, however, how many people are able to set up a screen and projector (I don't think a 60" TV set is at all practical) to get the benefit of 720p, never mind 1080p, especially given that the projector is going to be a lot futher back still. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

July 16th, 2005, 11:26 PM	#63
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Wow I didn't realize the Czech Republic was the capital of the HD movement. Heck I think I should move there so I can finally watch decent HD. Radek why are you talking about 720p like it is some nasty disease? I thought the whole point here is not what the broadcast format will be in 5 years but what kind of video can we get out of the cameras we can buy today. I personally don't really give a rats but what moronic format some dumb suit wants to throw at us in the future. I care about what the video looks like that I shoot today. Currently Graeme is the only one of us to have seen and compared footage from both of the formats. I think we can all agree that when it comes to image quality Graeme knows his stuff. If he says the 720p from the JVC looks just as good if not better than the 1080i from SONY well maybe it does. While it does kind of suck to only have 30p 720p right now, 1080p is also limited to 30p. This means in terms of motion they will look the same. It's kind of funny how people will say 720p 30p looks like garbage but then say 1080p 30p will look perfect.

July 17th, 2005, 02:14 PM	#66
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	20/20 vision wields approximately 1/60th of a degree resolution for the human eye. So, my 50" TV is 1280x720. The height of the TV is 24.5". Each pixel, then, is .034" tall. The viewing distance (x) ideally would be the distance at which .034" (y) is less than or equal to 1/60th of a degree of vision for me. So the calculation is: tan ( 1/60 degrees ) = .034 / x x = 117" So you want to be approximately 10 feet away from a 50" 720p screen in order to no longer be able to perceive scan lines with 20/20 vision. As it so happens, the rule of thumb for TV watching is double the screen diagonal size, which happens to yield, in this case, 100", whereas my 20/20 formula yields 117". Not bad. And 10 feet is not very far in a decent size living room. For a 10" projection screen, you want to be 20 feet away. Well, that's not so bad either, because the throw length for projectors is going to be more than that anyway, so if you can't sit 20 feet back then your room's too small anyway. Now, I'm gonna wait for 1080p projectors because I don't want o have to be 20 feet away - I wasnt to be able to sit as close as I would in a movie theater, i.e., have the screen take up more than 50% of my field of view. If we had 1080p screens, we'd be able to sit closer to the same TV, or have bigger picture sizes, without sacrificing picture quality.