great interview about the equipment-z1-hvx-xl h1 , etc.

[K. Forman]

Speaking of the Canon H1 and all of these formats, has anyone made a deck that will work with all of them yet?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Keith Forman

Speaking of the Canon H1 and all of these formats, has anyone made a deck that will work with all of them yet?

No, and that alone is the rub. I implored Sony to make a deck that would play the Pf, 1080, and 720 formats in all framerates when I learned of the new decks they've recently announced. My voice fell on deaf ears.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

People say you can think of 1080i60 say as 540p60, but really it's more like vertically wobbled 378p60.

And yet resolution chart images from current low-cost 1080i cameras come close to what's produced by HD cameras costing 10+ times as much, and clearly exceed the resolution of SD video by a wide margin. So I don't know about numbers, but when I play 1080i video on my HDTV, people consistently remark on how good it looks.

[Josh Oakhurst]

Figured I'd finally jump in here -

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

1080 is the future, whether we need to debate semantics, processes, or actualities of the media conversions.

Yes. Exactly. Thank you Douglas for putting it so eloquently.

I'm not an engineer - and there are a ton of people in here smarter than I,
But I probably speak for a good slice of the pro-sumer camera buying contingent. I think and make buying purchases in laymens terms and what my eye sees is most important.

IMHO - 720 sucks on a 1080 monitor. As stated by someone else: "720 was designed as an interium format" - I.E. MEDIUM DEFINITION (in the JVC HD100 case - NO I don't loathe the Varicam - I was simply speaking of the "Small Four" Indie HD cameras).

I'm not concerned with the specs - I know what I see (obviously, this is completely arbitrary. During my interview with FresHDV, my opinions were requested, remember). Your creative process/ workflow could be way different from mine.

Keep in mind, I believe the JVC HD100 to be a fine camera - the image does look great coming out of the viewfinder.

There is no perfect Indie HD camera on the market. However, I do think everyone who buys a JVC now for the progressive feature, and those who pay a premium to work with the hassles of P2 are going to be pissed off in 18 - 24 months when cheaper and easier 1080p is avaiable.

Progressive is better - just not how its currently packaged for Indie HD users.

[David Kennett]

How about somebody setting up a double blind viewing test?

Do one test on a 1080p display, and another on a 720p display. I figure these two are likely to dominate viewers' homes for the forseeable future. Niether the participants nor the administrator know the sources, and participants only compare two pictures at a time, only identifying a preference. A wide variety of equipment could be used to create the sources, with identical shots. The beauty of such a system is that NOBODY can bring any prejudices to the table.

I remember Stereo Review doing such tests years ago on CD players (then new), and various audio amps - tube and transistor. Niether the "golden ears" nor the "techno-nerds" could pick consistent differences. Speakers seemed to be the only big variable.

[Kurth Bousman]

Well looks like we've come full circle . Welcome Josh . I hope you didn't mind me starting this diatribe on dvinfo. Thanks for stepping in with your two cents. I , for one, enjoyed how you phrased the situation . Keep it up .Kurth

[Thomas Smet]

Are we talking 720p from the HD100 here? I think we are making the mistake as I tried pointing out of thinking of 720p as only what you get from the HD100. While I think the HD100 is a great HD camera for the price I do admit it isn't as good as 720p could be. How does Varicam footage look on a 1080p display? How about good 1080p 30p/24p down converted to 720p and then shown on a 1080p display? I know this point doesn't really matter since really the only way to shoot 720p is to use the HD100 or the Varicam. My point however is I think we are all thinking in terms of what the camera is doing to base what the format is like which is wrong. DV from a 1/3" camera and a 2/3" camera can be very different even though they use the exact same 4:1:1 DV format. Trying to compare 720p from one camera to 1080i from another is useless. There are many aspects that go into how the image looks other than resolution. Some people may not like the look of the JVC but then again there are some that love it. The only real way to ever compare 720p to 1080i and get a fair test is for both formats to come from the same source.

[Graeme Nattress]

Originally Posted by Josh Oakhurst

IMHO - 720 sucks on a 1080 monitor. As stated by someone else: "720 was designed as an interium format" - I.E. MEDIUM DEFINITION (in the JVC HD100 case - NO I don't loathe the Varicam - I was simply speaking of the "Small Four" Indie HD cameras).

If 720p sucks on your 1080 monitor, then that 1080 monitor is broken.

Sure 720p is an "interim" format - but what is it the part-way stage to? It's the partway stage to 1080p. Back when, 1080p60 was not a reality. There's still no commericial camera out there that can shoot 1080p60. Ok, easier target, 1080p30 or 1080p25 or 1080p24 - sure you can shoot that today, the most affordable being the Sony HDCAMs. They will do real 1080p at these rates, real progressive, really nice, but not affordable. No HDV cam (ie affordable HD) does real 1080p at any frame rate. The HVX200 does 1080p, but only at 1080i resolution. (XDCAM HD is on the horizon - no 60p, no specs on resolution of the 1080p30)

But for ages we've been able to shoot 720p at any frame rate - 24p, 30p, 60p.

1080i is NOT an interim format. It's a dead end. Interlace is as dead as SD. 1080i is not going anywhere and it's not a part-way solution to 1080p. The number "1080" might be the same, but interlace is so radically different to progressive, it's not an interim solution.

So yes, 720p is interim, but in the best sense that if you want 1080p60 tomorrow, 720p60 is the best format to shoot now, not 1080i60.

If you just want the lower frame rates, 720p30 raised to 1080p30 will give a very equivalent visual quality to 1080i60 de-interlaced to 1080p30, but you need less system requirements while editing.

So is 720p "Medium definition" - yes, compared to 1080p it is. Is 1080i "Medium definition" - yes, compared to 1080p it is. Remember the interlace filtering reduces 1080i's resolution to about that of 720p vertically, and that's not just on motion - that's everything. Things in motion are reduced to 50% of 70%, about 35%. Interlace is very 1940s.

Originally Posted by Josh Oakhurst

There is no perfect Indie HD camera on the market. However, I do think everyone who buys a JVC now for the progressive feature, and those who pay a premium to work with the hassles of P2 are going to be pissed off in 18 - 24 months when cheaper and easier 1080p is avaiable.

Progressive is better - just not how its currently packaged for Indie HD users.

Pissed off? Doubt it if they can make money off their camera in the meantime. Annoyed that something better comes along? Something better ALWAYS comes along.

The EBU also thinks along similar lines:

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_300-wood.pdf

There's some very good points in there:

Given that all modern TVs are inherently progressive,
given that good de-interlacing is hard,
it makes sense to have a few, expensive, really good de-interlacers in the broadcast chain, before transmission, rather than fit a multitude of inferior de-interlacers to every HD TV - this, of course, necessitates broadcasting HD in only progressive not interlaced.

There is a compression quality efficiency of 720p50 over 1080i50 that allows you to deliver better images at 720p50 than 1080i50 for smaller bandwidth.

"It is relatively easy to convert a progressive delivered image to an interlaced form, but it's much more difficult to convert an interlaced image to progressive form to suit it to thenew displays."
"all the arguments we have found support broadcasting a signal that does not need de-interlacing."

There's a lot of good meat in that article - take a read - it's enlightening.

Graeme

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Again...it's not being defined as acquisition vs display....
no point in continuing to talk about 1080p 60, because it's not relative to *this* market here and now. Not at all. Sure, the HVX "records" 1080p60, but I fall back on my earlier question...if I record VHS to HDCAM, is my video now 3:1:1 uncompressed, 1920 x 1080 HD?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

The EBU also thinks along similar lines:

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_300-wood.pdf

There's some very good points in there:

There are indeed some good points in there, but whilst the science behind the BBC measurements about screen size and resolution can't be argued with, some of the other conclusions can be - namely that they foresaw "the vast majority of large flat screens for European homes being in the range 30-40 inches", with viewing distances averaging 2.7m.

The viewing distance is uncannily accurate in my own case, but since that document was written many people within the industry have been taken by surprise by the rate at which screen sizes have leapt up, and the sweet spot for displays in UK stores is probably already at 42", with a fair number of 50" - and that's before HD broadcasting has even started!

If the document was being written today, it would probably foresee the vast majority as being in the 37"-42" range, with a significant percentage going up to 50". Referring to the chart (fig 4) then a significant percentage of observers now find an advantage in 1080 resolutions, and this is part of the "what if" conclusions on page 8, (though at the time closer viewing distances seemed more likely than bigger screens). I do note they then conclude that 1080p would be more suitable than 720p, and presume this includes 1080p/25 for appropiate programming?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by David Heath

If the document was being written today, it would probably foresee the vast majority as being in the 37"-42" range, with a significant percentage going up to 50". Referring to the chart (fig 4) then a significant percentage of observers now find an advantage in 1080 resolutions, and this is part of the "what if" conclusions on page 8, (though at the time closer viewing distances seemed more likely than bigger screens). I do note they then conclude that 1080p would be more suitable than 720p, and presume this includes 1080p/25 for appropiate programming?

Which is all well and good to say for the EU, but that said, according to CE Daily (March, 2006), Peddie Research, and CES, the vasst majority of HD displays sold in the US in the past year are 46" and larger, with 50million of the same sizes expected to be sold in the next 12 months. Maybe all the analysts in the US are wrong?

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, screens get bigger, but UK homes do not. I find it very cramped to now visit the UK after living in Canada. Most homes in the UK don't have enough room for an old 27" never mind a 50" widescreen monster set.

Reading fig 4 is interesting. It's showing that 720p meets mosts people's needs for most TV sizes at the average viewing distance. However, it's a chart of horizontal, not vertical resolution. I guess that's to keep the interlace factor out of the equation. You can think of 1080i having a vertical resolution somewhere between 378 lines and 756 lines, depending on content and movement.

Something else I found interesting: "If the three colour primary
points are not spatially coincident (as they are not in practice), it may be that to fully exploit a given signal resolution, a higher resolution panel is needed to avoid spatial aliasing effects. In other words, it may be that a 1080p panel is needed in order to fully use the 720p delivery format."

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Which is all well and good to say for the EU, but that said, according to CE Daily (March, 2006), Peddie Research, and CES, the vasst majority of HD displays sold in the US in the past year are 46" and larger, with 50million of the same sizes expected to be sold in the next 12 months. Maybe all the analysts in the US are wrong?

Homes, TV's and viewing distances have always been greater in the USA, though.

Graeme

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Homes, TV's and viewing distances have always been greater in the USA, though.

Graeme

Exactly. And, more television displays are sold in the US and Japan than anywhere else in the world. Which is why it seems silly to keep seeing folks referring to the EU, it'd debate on standards, room size, viewing distance, framerate, etc. It's not relevant to the *majority* of this community or this particular debate. There are literally dozens of standards around the world, but the two that matter most are PAL and NTSC in the grand view, and in HD, it's mostly about framerate, but we don't see folks referring to Brazil or Germany in these discussion. I'm not clear as to why we're referring to EU, either.
Bottom line is, manufacturers prefer to build bigger displays, many people tend to want bigger displays, and at the end of the day (currently) more bigger than smaller displays have been sold. So perspective is very relevant to the discussion. If we're talking 46" and smaller, there is little reason to talk about any of this, right? Because at 32ppi and square pixels, 46" is native scale for 720

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Yes, screens get bigger, but UK homes do not. I find it very cramped to now visit the UK after living in Canada. Most homes in the UK don't have enough room for an old 27" never mind a 50" widescreen monster set.

UK home? Most of us live in a shoebox - and count ourselves lucky.... but I digress.

With a view to buying a new screen I measured up at home and found the viewing distance was pretty well 2.6-2.7metres, almost exactly the figure the BBC research used for their tests.

Currently I watch a 32" widescreen CRT TV, and that seems more or less "right". That follows on from a 36" 4:3 TV which was a mistake - too big - though the problem was it's height and bulk rather than screen size. I feel the limiting factor has been not screen size, but the size of the piece of furniture.

Many stores here recently were giving away brochures which would unfold and could be used to give an idea of how varying screen sizes would look in your home. My conclusion was that for a screen flat on the wall 42" was a bit too small, and anything over 50" would be oppressive. Now that 50" prices are falling and becoming acceptable, this is probably what we'll get within the next year. The big difference will be losing that piece of furniture in the corner of the room,and even a much bigger screen on the wall will give us more space. I suspect this is why rear projection TVs, even DLP ones, haven't made much of a mark here.

The real importance of the BBC research - and it's relevance to the rest of the world outside of Europe - is that it primarily deals with angle of view and resolution of the eye, and screen size etc is secondary to that. I can well believe US and Canadian room sizes are bigger than the UK, and viewing distances and screen sizes are correspondingly bigger. I suspect that means similar angles of view in all these countries.

What figure 4 shows is that whilst 720p was acceptable for envisaged screen sizes and angles of view at the time of writing, then for the situation now around half will appreciate something better.