Re: Sony HDR HC7, help me understand Full HD ? at DVinfo.net

Justin Faragher · July 17th, 2007, 06:32 AM

Hi Guys

Got myself a HC7 and must say I'm loving it, but I'm very curious about the term Full HD as Sony has flogged it to death when it came to marketing the PS3 and that it's the only true Full HD next gen consoles. What I'm getting at is, Sony when it comes to the PS3 say 1980x1080P is full HD but when I check my .m2t from my HC7files I get 1440x1080 and here I'm assuming that the vertical res (1080) is progressive and not interlaced ?.

Is it only the vertical lines (1080P) that dictate if a device is full HD and not the horizontal res, surely more horizontal res would give you a better picture ? I also read somewhere that MiniDv tape cannot capture at 1980x1080P and is limited to 1440x1080P

Thanks for reading...

Chris Medico · July 17th, 2007, 06:51 AM

You are correct that HDV is 1440x1080. And also correct that the marketing of FULL HD relates to the camera giving you 1080 instead of 720.

Even though 1440 is less than 1920 the actual effect it makes in the video is not substantial.

My personal advice is to not worry so much about playing the numbers game and instead get out and show us the world though your electronic eyes! ;)

Chris

Douglas Spotted Eagle · July 17th, 2007, 08:01 AM

Full HD isn't just a Sony marketing term, but aside from that, "Full HD" refers to 1080. Not 1080p or i, just 1080. I'm sure a new buzz word will be created for 1080p60 when it becomes commonly available.

Chris' advice is sound; don't worry about the numbers so much, just go make great pictures.

Graham Hickling · July 17th, 2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Faragher

Hi Guys

I'm assuming that the vertical res (1080) is progressive and not interlaced ?.

Nope - it's interlaced. And yes, I agree that Sony regularly plays fast and loose with this stuff in their ads.

Justin Faragher · July 17th, 2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Hickling

Nope - it's interlaced. And yes, I agree that Sony regularly plays fast and loose with this stuff in their ads.

hmm the plot thickens, so would'nt 1080i then be the same then as 720p, which in Sony's eyes is not true HD ?

Dave Blackhurst · July 17th, 2007, 02:48 PM

true HD = many definititions... including I believe both 720 and 1080 i and p...

"full HD" is what seems to be the marketing term for "we finally managed to get the full maximum HD specification at least as far as the current technology let us..."

That's why you see so many "HDTVs" of differing "flavors", and no doubt it will continue as technology moves forward. The "HDTV" of 2-3 years ago was typically only 768 (720) lines of resolution (ignoring those funky "EDTV/HDready" sets..., now they are pushing the 1080 stuff...

Joseph Freeman · July 18th, 2007, 05:24 PM

But isn't "Full HD" misleading?

The HDV standard states that the resolution is 1440 x 1080 (with a 1.333 "anamorphic" pixel aspect ration) stretching the image to a 1920 x 1080 resolution.

The HD standard has some variations, but mainly for what we're concerned with, the main resolutions are 1920 x 1080 (square pixels) or 1280 x 720 (square pixels).

If it was up to me, "Full HDV" should be on the sticker on the side of the HC-7.

Now, interlace and progressive has nothing to do with resolution, but how the image is recorded. So any type of resolution could be recorded as interlaced or progressive. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

But that's all the technical mumbo jumbo.

No matter, the HC-7 has been great and produces very nice images. Seriously, like others have said before, once you go HDV, you'll never go back to DV.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · July 18th, 2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Freeman

But isn't "Full HD" misleading?

The HDV standard states that the resolution is 1440 x 1080 (with a 1.333 "anamorphic" pixel aspect ration) stretching the image to a 1920 x 1080 resolution.

The HD standard has some variations, but mainly for what we're concerned with, the main resolutions are 1920 x 1080 (square pixels) or 1280 x 720 (square pixels).

Not misleading at all. If that were the case, until recently there hasn't been a single, "full HD broadcast" of any kind, because Varicam, HDCAM, XDCAM, etc haven't (and don't) record full raster information on tape. Additionally, no one broadcasts a 1920 x 1080 signal either.

Full HD has virtually nothing to do with the acquisition format and everything to do with the display. A "Full HD" camcorder for example, might record 960 x 540 pixels on tape, but display 1920 x 1080 pixels on output (This is exactly what the HVX200 camcorder does).

The HD standard is related to display, not to acquisition. If the standard were for acquisition, then you can count the number of "ATSC HD standard" compliant camcorders on both hands and have fingers left over.

Mikko Lopponen · July 20th, 2007, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Not misleading at all.
The HD standard is related to display, not to acquisition.

Then it is clearly misleading.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · July 20th, 2007, 08:27 AM

Then by your context, there isn't a camera you've likely had your hands upon that is HD.

By the ATSC standard for HD delivery being applied to an acquisition device, then no HDV, HVX, HDCAM, XDCAM, Varicam, Infinity product are 1080 High Def cameras. None of them record a full raster 1080 image to whatever their recording medium is.

"Full HD" is a consumer designation relating to output/display, not to acquisition. It's not misleading at all, IMO. So it is obviously *not* "clearly misleading. At worst, it's a debatable point not worth debating because (1) it doesn't relate to camcorders/recording devices, (2)It's a consumer-oriented designation in the consumer-video channel.

Graham Hickling · July 20th, 2007, 11:28 PM

Funny! - I had just finished reading this thread and the very next site I visited was here: http://camcorder.jvc.com/microsites/GZHD3/index.html

Scroll down slightly to the white panel and you'll see JVC referring to their new camera as being "FullHD" They even have a nice glossey-gold logo for it.

Nick Ambrose · July 20th, 2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Full HD isn't just a Sony marketing term, but aside from that, "Full HD" refers to 1080. Not 1080p or i, just 1080. I'm sure a new buzz word will be created for 1080p60 when it becomes commonly available.

Chris' advice is sound; don't worry about the numbers so much, just go make great pictures.

"Fuller HD" ? "Mega HD" "Bestest (for now) HD" ?

Jim Fields · July 23rd, 2007, 08:19 AM

Would "Full HD" be more from scanning a 35mm negative at a 4K res? or Filming at 4K be more like real true HD.

I have a JVC HD110U and dont think of it as full HD in any way shape or form due to it being an "HDV" camera, and not a Sony F900, or Vericam, or Red, or a Genesis camera, etc.

In my opinion, HDV is a marketing scam, yes I have an HDV camera, yes I use it. Yes I want an HDV camera for use around the house for things like the baby, etc. I am only interested in the "larger" image format, better quality, and of course lack of being able to film in low light.

Graham Hickling · July 23rd, 2007, 04:09 PM

Everyone knows that there are various resolutions of HD, suiting various purposes and budgets. All are genuine HD, in that they are larger than SD, so I don't know what "HDV is a scam" is supposed to mean.

As far as I'm aware, Sony kicked off the stupid "720 isn't true HD" meme when trying to position the PS3 relative to the XBox360 - i.e., in the context of delivery systems, as DSE points out. FullHD seems to be an outgrowth of that.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · July 23rd, 2007, 07:17 PM

<sigh> one can only wonder where these myths began.

Sony didn't start the "720p isn't true HD" story. Sony wasn't a member of the Grand Alliance when that story began. Second, it is true that 720p was intended as a "stepping stone" to 1080p HD, which still hasn't come to fruition for the broadcast world. But 720p is here, now. However, notice that all manufacturers are now stepping to the 1080 trough.

BTW, there are only two resolutions for HD; period.

1920 x 1080
1280 x 720
Nothing else.

The standard is based on the delivery/display mechanism. If we someday have a mechanism that carries a 320 x 240 payload that displays in a 1920 x 1080 display, then it's HD. We've lived with smaller than display resolutions in our cameras for years. And will continue to do so for many more years. No one complains about Varicam, HDCAM, etc for not being full raster.

July 17th, 2007, 06:32 AM	#1
Justin Faragher Tourist Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: South Africa Posts: 4	Re: Sony HDR HC7, help me understand Full HD ? Hi Guys Got myself a HC7 and must say I'm loving it, but I'm very curious about the term Full HD as Sony has flogged it to death when it came to marketing the PS3 and that it's the only true Full HD next gen consoles. What I'm getting at is, Sony when it comes to the PS3 say 1980x1080P is full HD but when I check my .m2t from my HC7files I get 1440x1080 and here I'm assuming that the vertical res (1080) is progressive and not interlaced ?. Is it only the vertical lines (1080P) that dictate if a device is full HD and not the horizontal res, surely more horizontal res would give you a better picture ? I also read somewhere that MiniDv tape cannot capture at 1980x1080P and is limited to 1440x1080P Thanks for reading...

July 17th, 2007, 06:51 AM	#2
Chris Medico Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Efland NC, USA Posts: 2,322	You are correct that HDV is 1440x1080. And also correct that the marketing of FULL HD relates to the camera giving you 1080 instead of 720. Even though 1440 is less than 1920 the actual effect it makes in the video is not substantial. My personal advice is to not worry so much about playing the numbers game and instead get out and show us the world though your electronic eyes! ;) Chris __________________ http://www.LandYachtMedia.com

July 17th, 2007, 08:01 AM	#3
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Full HD isn't just a Sony marketing term, but aside from that, "Full HD" refers to 1080. Not 1080p or i, just 1080. I'm sure a new buzz word will be created for 1080p60 when it becomes commonly available. Chris' advice is sound; don't worry about the numbers so much, just go make great pictures. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

July 18th, 2007, 05:24 PM	#7
Joseph Freeman Tourist Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Los Angeles metro, CA Posts: 3	HDV Standard But isn't "Full HD" misleading? The HDV standard states that the resolution is 1440 x 1080 (with a 1.333 "anamorphic" pixel aspect ration) stretching the image to a 1920 x 1080 resolution. The HD standard has some variations, but mainly for what we're concerned with, the main resolutions are 1920 x 1080 (square pixels) or 1280 x 720 (square pixels). If it was up to me, "Full HDV" should be on the sticker on the side of the HC-7. Now, interlace and progressive has nothing to do with resolution, but how the image is recorded. So any type of resolution could be recorded as interlaced or progressive. (Correct me if I'm wrong). But that's all the technical mumbo jumbo. No matter, the HC-7 has been great and produces very nice images. Seriously, like others have said before, once you go HDV, you'll never go back to DV.

July 20th, 2007, 08:27 AM	#10
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Then by your context, there isn't a camera you've likely had your hands upon that is HD. By the ATSC standard for HD delivery being applied to an acquisition device, then no HDV, HVX, HDCAM, XDCAM, Varicam, Infinity product are 1080 High Def cameras. None of them record a full raster 1080 image to whatever their recording medium is. "Full HD" is a consumer designation relating to output/display, not to acquisition. It's not misleading at all, IMO. So it is obviously not "clearly misleading. At worst, it's a debatable point not worth debating because (1) it doesn't relate to camcorders/recording devices, (2)It's a consumer-oriented designation in the consumer-video channel. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

July 17th, 2007, 02:48 PM	#6
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	true HD = many definititions... including I believe both 720 and 1080 i and p... "full HD" is what seems to be the marketing term for "we finally managed to get the full maximum HD specification at least as far as the current technology let us..." That's why you see so many "HDTVs" of differing "flavors", and no doubt it will continue as technology moves forward. The "HDTV" of 2-3 years ago was typically only 768 (720) lines of resolution (ignoring those funky "EDTV/HDready" sets..., now they are pushing the 1080 stuff...

July 20th, 2007, 11:28 PM	#11
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	Funny! - I had just finished reading this thread and the very next site I visited was here: http://camcorder.jvc.com/microsites/GZHD3/index.html Scroll down slightly to the white panel and you'll see JVC referring to their new camera as being "FullHD" They even have a nice glossey-gold logo for it. Last edited by Graham Hickling; July 21st, 2007 at 05:22 PM.

July 23rd, 2007, 08:19 AM	#13
Jim Fields Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fort Worth Texas Posts: 247	Would "Full HD" be more from scanning a 35mm negative at a 4K res? or Filming at 4K be more like real true HD. I have a JVC HD110U and dont think of it as full HD in any way shape or form due to it being an "HDV" camera, and not a Sony F900, or Vericam, or Red, or a Genesis camera, etc. In my opinion, HDV is a marketing scam, yes I have an HDV camera, yes I use it. Yes I want an HDV camera for use around the house for things like the baby, etc. I am only interested in the "larger" image format, better quality, and of course lack of being able to film in low light.

July 23rd, 2007, 04:09 PM	#14
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	Everyone knows that there are various resolutions of HD, suiting various purposes and budgets. All are genuine HD, in that they are larger than SD, so I don't know what "HDV is a scam" is supposed to mean. As far as I'm aware, Sony kicked off the stupid "720 isn't true HD" meme when trying to position the PS3 relative to the XBox360 - i.e., in the context of delivery systems, as DSE points out. FullHD seems to be an outgrowth of that.

July 23rd, 2007, 07:17 PM	#15
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	<sigh> one can only wonder where these myths began. Sony didn't start the "720p isn't true HD" story. Sony wasn't a member of the Grand Alliance when that story began. Second, it is true that 720p was intended as a "stepping stone" to 1080p HD, which still hasn't come to fruition for the broadcast world. But 720p is here, now. However, notice that all manufacturers are now stepping to the 1080 trough. BTW, there are only two resolutions for HD; period. 1920 x 1080 1280 x 720 Nothing else. The standard is based on the delivery/display mechanism. If we someday have a mechanism that carries a 320 x 240 payload that displays in a 1920 x 1080 display, then it's HD. We've lived with smaller than display resolutions in our cameras for years. And will continue to do so for many more years. No one complains about Varicam, HDCAM, etc for not being full raster. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com