Why do you need/want progressive?

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

You long post was perfect. You summarized the issues well. It's why I have always supported progressive -- not a brand name.

Now the V1 24p, 25p, and 50p are still carried by interlace, so it can be screwed-up by one's display. But, the internals suggest are 60p and this suggests that on a NON tape media -- Sony is close to 1080/60p.

Thanks.

I'm hoping someone gets a chance soon to try HDMI capture and see if 60p might be obtainable out HDMI.

[Christopher Johnson]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I realize my post was long, but just to summarize. When you refer the "look" of interlace, it's 60 frames a second that creates it, not the interlacing. That's why 60p is touted as the best format for sports (not 60i). Interlacing is bad and creates artifacts as well as loses resolution.

Motion progressive images are ALWAYS more pleasing to the eye then the equivalent interlaced images, but make sure to compare the same frame rate. Compare 60i to 60p or 50i to 50p. 60i to 24p is not a very informative comparison for seeing the effects of interlacing since the frame rates are so different.

Wow, I have been a professional editor for 10 years and didnt know that. So, for example, The World Series, on FOX HD local, which has that live quality, could actually be progressive? Thats amazing. I've never even heard it discussed in editor circles before.

What kind of camera can actually pull this "60p looks-like-live camera" off? And is it possible to turn it into 30p in post, if one decides they want the more filmic look after the fact? How flexible.

Where are more examples of this being broadcasts?

Color me surprised.

-Christopher

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Fox, ESPN, ABC are all 720p at 60p. There are quite a few 60p cameras starting under 10K and going all the way to the top including JVC new ProHDV cams. Even the new JVC HD110 does 60p off analog component.

You can turn 60p into 30p or 24p with the same motion blur/artificating issues as with turning 60i into 30p or 24p.

[David Ziegelheim]

Shouldn't 60p have twice the information as 60i to work with in creating 30p or 24p? Isn't 60p to 30p a matter of just drawing alternate frames with no de-interlacing?

[Stephen van Vuuren]

You won't lose resolution going from 60p to 30p or 24p since you are basically throwing out frames, but because 60p is shot with 1/60th or faster shutter speed, you will need to post process if you want 1/48th shutter look which can result in artifacts or some softness. With many 60p cams also shooting 24p, the best course is to shoot 24p when thats the look you want.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

Fox, ESPN, ABC are all 720p at 60p. There are quite a few 60p cameras starting under 10K and going all the way to the top including JVC new ProHDV cams. Even the new JVC HD110 does 60p off analog component.

And JVC's coming CONSUMER HD camcorder is 1080/60p to 30GB hard disk. The V1's ClearVid is step 1 of Sony's move to progressive.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

And JVC's coming CONSUMER HD camcorder is 1080/60p to 30GB hard disk. The V1's ClearVid is step 1 of Sony's move to progressive.

I submit it would be more accurate to say that the V1 is Sony's move into low-end progressive. HDCAM has always been progressive, XDCam as well.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Do you think I wouldn't tell a 50% cut in resolution? This would be lower than that of an SD, progressive 'factory' DVD. All my 1080i video has far more detail that any SD DVD on the displays in question!

Frankly, when buying the LCD I was very suspicious how it would display my HDV; I was very positively surprised!

I'm not saying that what you (and the article) mention is untrue, let's try and solve this 'mistery' as I bet many would benefit!

Steve, further on this because you (and the article you linked to) introduced a lot of confusion. I'd appreciate it if you gave us some more details on how de-interlacing was implemented on those displays that failed vs those that passed the test. While I still doubt it very much that I wouldn't notice a 50% resolution drop, I'd like to be able to educatively pick the right display to check the V1's 50i vs 25p modes, after I can finally put my hands on it. Also, is there a software or resolution charts (as those mentioned in the article in question) available somewhere? TIA

Piotr

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

I submit it would be more accurate to say that the V1 is Sony's move into low-end progressive. HDCAM has always been progressive, XDCam as well.

You are correct, but what I really meant to say step towards 1080/60p.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Steve, further on this because you (and the article you linked to) introduced a lot of confusion. I'd appreciate it if you gave us some more details on how de-interlacing was implemented on those displays that failed vs those that passed the test.

Here's a link to my HDV@Work story on "What is 1080?"

Everyone buying an HDTV should stay on top of this topic should regularly visit:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/index.php?

What's sad is in my story I noted that more sets in 2006 should pass when more failed.

My Sony A10 passed which is why I bought it. BUT, passing does not mean there are no artifacts FROM deinterlacing as I found AFTER buying.

Passing simply means "bob" is not used. My set uses regional deinterlacing which means ONLY the moving objects lose V. rez. I can far too often see a region lose 50% resolution.

A good interlacer can cost $10,000 or more.

There are 4 interlace sins:

1) Line flicker
2) Line Twitter
3) MPEG-2 artifacts caused by the separate encoding of fields
4) Deinterlacing artifacts

Which is why the world is moving to progressive.

The problem is that OTA is limited to 1080i when MPEG-2 is used. Premium services like HBO HD can use MPEG-4 and Bluray can use 1080p, but if MPEG-2 is used the much higher data rate requires 50GB discs. But, Sony may use AVC eventually. There is a lot of pressure to move past MPEG-2 given the steller performance of VC-1 on HD DVDs.

Having said this, the majority of 1080i looks great!

And, remember that 720p ALWAYS looks a bit softer than top quality 1080i. So you can imagine how great 1080p will look in a few years!

[Rob Lohman]

Steve,

Are you saying blu-ray does not support VC-1? It does. Both formats support MPEG-2, H.264 & VC-1 encodings.

The new Superman movie will be available in both formats with a 1080p VC-1 encoding for example.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Rob Lohman

Steve,

Are you saying blu-ray does not support VC-1?

Of course not. The question is will any studios in the BR camp pay MS for VC-1? AVC is licensed from the MPEG group and not MS. My assumption is that Sony, at least, will not pay money to MS.

But, given the poor reviews of BR using MPEG-2 (despite a very public claim by Sony that MPEG-2 is the BEST codec) studios may change their minds. And, that may include Sony.

But, perhaps its the players not the codec which is why the Sony is delayed.

[David Ziegelheim]

Now I'm confused. I though Blu-ray supported the MPEG4-Part 10/AVC. That MPEG 2 was for backward compatibility.

[Alex Huppenthal]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Here's a link to my HDV@Work story on "What is 1080?"

Everyone buying an HDTV should stay on top of this topic should regularly visit:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/index.php?

What's sad is in my story I noted that more sets in 2006 should pass when more failed.

My Sony A10 passed which is why I bought it. BUT, passing does not mean there are no artifacts FROM deinterlacing as I found AFTER buying.

Passing simply means "bob" is not used. My set uses regional deinterlacing which means ONLY the moving objects lose V. rez. I can far too often see a region lose 50% resolution.

A good interlacer can cost $10,000 or more.

There are 4 interlace sins:

1) Line flicker
2) Line Twitter
3) MPEG-2 artifacts caused by the separate encoding of fields
4) Deinterlacing artifacts

Which is why the world is moving to progressive.

The problem is that OTA is limited to 1080i when MPEG-2 is used. Premium services like HBO HD can use MPEG-4 and Bluray can use 1080p, but if MPEG-2 is used the much higher data rate requires 50GB discs. But, Sony may use AVC eventually. There is a lot of pressure to move past MPEG-2 given the steller performance of VC-1 on HD DVDs.

Having said this, the majority of 1080i looks great!

And, remember that 720p ALWAYS looks a bit softer than top quality 1080i. So you can imagine how great 1080p will look in a few years!

Steve,

That is well worth repeating, and repeating and repeating.. interlaced must go, interlaced must go.. :-)

I have more trouble with interlaced recovery that any single element in video production. Period.

[David Ziegelheim]

There are 4 interlace sins:

1) Line flicker
2) Line Twitter
3) MPEG-2 artifacts caused by the separate encoding of fields
4) Deinterlacing artifacts

Which is why the world is moving to progressive.

Fixing those things is probably more a by product of going progressive. Display devices are going progressive because the underlying technology--LCD, DLP, plasma, LCOS--is progressive. If analog broadcasts to CRTs were the only available technology, we would probably still be interlaced.