Sony HDV Handycam DSR 0000

Tommy Haupfear · March 21st, 2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

No matter how well your HDV footage is aquired, it will always have less resolution than your 1920x1080 HDTV.

That is if you have a 1080p HDTV (very few currently exist). Most consumer HDTVs sold today are only capable of displaying 720p and 1080i of which there is little difference.

1080p - 1920x1080
1080i - 1920x540 (two fields)
720p - 1280x720

So is it still up in the air whether the Sony will be 720p or 1080i?

I don't think we'll be seeing a 1080p consumer cam anytime soon.

Frederic Lumiere · March 21st, 2004, 04:45 PM

Here's a good article on the topic:

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/videography/printer_7015.shtml

Ignacio Rodriguez · March 21st, 2004, 05:49 PM

ITU HD 1080i is 1920x1080, HDV 1080i seems to be 1440x1080.

Tommy can you tell us where the 1920x540 number comes from?

Frederic Lumiere · March 21st, 2004, 05:51 PM

You are correct Ignacio.

I removed my question after doing a bit of research.

I guess anything above or equal to 1280 X 720 is considered HD.

Tommy Haupfear · March 21st, 2004, 06:07 PM

Ignacio, I went back and edited my post to reperesent the two 1920x540 fields. 1080i is of course interlaced which leaves two fields of 1920x540.

Johann Adler · March 21st, 2004, 06:29 PM

1440x1080i is not a specific HD format. So technically, if Sony does not have a 1280x720p mode and it uses the 1440x1080i format exlusively, then it is not a true HDV camcorder according to specs.

But of course its image quality will be HD. But keep in mind that reducing the horizontal resolution to 1440 is not a big deal. The resolution is still superior to 1280x720p and far superior to SDTV.

One concern about the resolution loss is that it is not a natively 16:9 resolution. This is a big deal, because it indicates that the CCD will be 4:3 and the video will be anamorphically squeezed to widescreen. This is similar to what High Resolution CCDs like the PDX-10 and Optura Xi/300 do now with DV's 720x480 format (a 4/3 resolution with non-square pixels).

Concerning the issue of wanting progressive video. Think of it like this: If you want progressive using a 1080i format, just separate fields and select even/odd and resize to 16:9 EDTV resolution. You will get 960x540 in true progressive (no interlaced artifacts or field blending). Of course this is perfect for DVD production, the benefits of HDTV are mostly lost (except for increased detail, sharpness, lower noise, etc).

So its what best fits your needs really. The previous JVC 1280x720p is best for high motion filming (sports), but the increased resolution of 1440x1080i is significant enough to warrant its use for most cases.

Edited:

I just read that Sony's pro HDCAM also has 1440 horizontal pixels? And the chroma is subsampled below 4:2:2?

Here's the link:
http://videoexpert.home.att.net/artic3/262hdvr.htm

Tommy Haupfear · March 21st, 2004, 07:12 PM

Quote:

The resolution is still superior to 1280x720p and far superior to SDTV.

Even comparing 1080i to 720p will bring about much debate as each have their own strengths. I prefer 720p just because I use a HTPC and my TV is native 768p. 720p may have fewer dots and lines but it handles motion much better with no artifacts (temporal resolution). 1080i is best with static images for delivering its full resolution potential (spatial resolution).

The following is from Joe Kane of http://www.videoessentials.com.

Quote:

The whole idea of television is to have moving pictures. And since there is usually motion, the average resolution is always going to be well below 1080. It's rare that the picture would ever reach a resolution of 1080. Calculations based on average motion mean vertical resolution is going to be somewhere around 635 lines. It's not a numerical average because what determines the actual resolution is the amount of motion. But 720p has a solid 720 lines all the time. I believe 720p is a better direction for the time being.

Ignacio Rodriguez · March 21st, 2004, 09:48 PM

Very interesting Johann, Tommy, thanks for all the insight.

Love this place. And can't wait to get my hands on one of these new cams and see what their video looks like on the right monitor!

Wayne Orr · March 21st, 2004, 10:25 PM

Wow! I guess all you folks already have your Hi Def televisions?

Anyway, here is some additional information: http://tinyurl.com/3cbnl

Chris Hurd · March 22nd, 2004, 12:30 AM

The wife says "no" until they come down substantially in price. But she did give two thumbs up on the home theater, so it ain't all that bad around this house.

Nick Hiltgen · March 22nd, 2004, 12:45 AM

Tommy thanks for the post.

I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays witha DVI input so I could run it from my computer. WHen I select the monitor it gives me two options either 640x800 or 1920 x540 and for the life od me I couldn't figure out why that was now if only I could figure out how to get the 1280 x 720 resolution...

Also I may be mistaken but I believe even the cinealta camer when it's hooked up to a monitor only does 1080 48i so I agree VERY few 1080/24p displays exist.

Tommy Haupfear · March 22nd, 2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Wow! I guess all you folks already have your Hi Def televisions?

I bought my first HDTV in 1998 and its been a long wait for widescreen (let alone HD) consumer cams.

Tommy Haupfear · March 22nd, 2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

if only I could figure out how to get the 1280 x 720 resolution...

Unfortunately digital TVs don't always cooperate with the output from your computer. I don't want to stray off this topic but you can try using Powerstrip to obtain a custom resolution that both your PC and TV will be happy with (ATI video cards are usually better for this). You can also check out the HTPC forums over at http://www.hometheaterforum.com and at http://www.avsforum.com.

Daymon Hoffman · March 22nd, 2004, 06:01 PM

I actually think an AVI based format would have been better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives. Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2 is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want). Also every frame could be a K frame for perfect editing and quality as said. And all still with 1 hour on a tape (if not more). :P

But oh well no use dreaming we're stuck with shi*y MPEG2 for a long time now. Guess we'll just have to hope they dont choke it and the features to much. Come on Canon :)

Boyd Ostroff · March 22nd, 2004, 06:22 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays -->>>

Which display do you have? Is it one of the 16:9 panels that is native 1280x768? I have a 17" Sony 16:9 LCD (SDM-V72W) and it supported 1280x768 right out of the box when plugged it into my Macintosh. I believe that all newer versions of Windows and MacOS should recognize the available display resolutions due to some self-configuring circuitry built into the monitor. Otherwise you might need to install some drivers, which should have been provided on a CD with the monitor.

March 21st, 2004, 05:49 PM	#93
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	ITU HD 1080i is 1920x1080, HDV 1080i seems to be 1440x1080. Tommy can you tell us where the 1920x540 number comes from? __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

March 21st, 2004, 09:48 PM	#98
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Very interesting Johann, Tommy, thanks for all the insight. Love this place. And can't wait to get my hands on one of these new cams and see what their video looks like on the right monitor! __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

March 22nd, 2004, 12:30 AM	#100
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	The wife says "no" until they come down substantially in price. But she did give two thumbs up on the home theater, so it ain't all that bad around this house. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

March 22nd, 2004, 06:01 PM	#104
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	I actually think an AVI based format would have been better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives. Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2 is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want). Also every frame could be a K frame for perfect editing and quality as said. And all still with 1 hour on a tape (if not more). :P But oh well no use dreaming we're stuck with shi*y MPEG2 for a long time now. Guess we'll just have to hope they dont choke it and the features to much. Come on Canon :) __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

March 21st, 2004, 04:45 PM	#92
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Here's a good article on the topic: http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/videography/printer_7015.shtml

March 21st, 2004, 05:51 PM	#94
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	You are correct Ignacio. I removed my question after doing a bit of research. I guess anything above or equal to 1280 X 720 is considered HD.

March 21st, 2004, 06:07 PM	#95
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Ignacio, I went back and edited my post to reperesent the two 1920x540 fields. 1080i is of course interlaced which leaves two fields of 1920x540.

March 21st, 2004, 06:29 PM	#96
Johann Adler Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 40	1440x1080i is not a specific HD format. So technically, if Sony does not have a 1280x720p mode and it uses the 1440x1080i format exlusively, then it is not a true HDV camcorder according to specs. But of course its image quality will be HD. But keep in mind that reducing the horizontal resolution to 1440 is not a big deal. The resolution is still superior to 1280x720p and far superior to SDTV. One concern about the resolution loss is that it is not a natively 16:9 resolution. This is a big deal, because it indicates that the CCD will be 4:3 and the video will be anamorphically squeezed to widescreen. This is similar to what High Resolution CCDs like the PDX-10 and Optura Xi/300 do now with DV's 720x480 format (a 4/3 resolution with non-square pixels). Concerning the issue of wanting progressive video. Think of it like this: If you want progressive using a 1080i format, just separate fields and select even/odd and resize to 16:9 EDTV resolution. You will get 960x540 in true progressive (no interlaced artifacts or field blending). Of course this is perfect for DVD production, the benefits of HDTV are mostly lost (except for increased detail, sharpness, lower noise, etc). So its what best fits your needs really. The previous JVC 1280x720p is best for high motion filming (sports), but the increased resolution of 1440x1080i is significant enough to warrant its use for most cases. Edited: I just read that Sony's pro HDCAM also has 1440 horizontal pixels? And the chroma is subsampled below 4:2:2? Here's the link: http://videoexpert.home.att.net/artic3/262hdvr.htm

March 21st, 2004, 10:25 PM	#99
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	Wow! I guess all you folks already have your Hi Def televisions? Anyway, here is some additional information: http://tinyurl.com/3cbnl

March 22nd, 2004, 12:45 AM	#101
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	Tommy thanks for the post. I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays witha DVI input so I could run it from my computer. WHen I select the monitor it gives me two options either 640x800 or 1920 x540 and for the life od me I couldn't figure out why that was now if only I could figure out how to get the 1280 x 720 resolution... Also I may be mistaken but I believe even the cinealta camer when it's hooked up to a monitor only does 1080 48i so I agree VERY few 1080/24p displays exist.

March 22nd, 2004, 06:22 PM	#105
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays -->>> Which display do you have? Is it one of the 16:9 panels that is native 1280x768? I have a 17" Sony 16:9 LCD (SDM-V72W) and it supported 1280x768 right out of the box when plugged it into my Macintosh. I believe that all newer versions of Windows and MacOS should recognize the available display resolutions due to some self-configuring circuitry built into the monitor. Otherwise you might need to install some drivers, which should have been provided on a CD with the monitor.