Do I need a HD monitor for proper editing?

Randall Morton · November 25th, 2003, 11:21 AM

Well I guess you are right if you go by the defintion set by the TV manufaturers. I still contend that many people(As the writer of the article I linked above) do not consider anything less than 1920 x 1080 "true HD".
Of course the TV manufaturers would set the definition of 720P as HD so that they would be able to label these sets HD.

I also have a 720P display and the JVC HD10 and they both provide an outstanding picture in HD. But, I don't consider it "True HD" and I will remain ignorant, along with many others, on this matter.

Paul Mogg · November 25th, 2003, 12:47 PM

Then by that argument, there is no HD at all! As the high end cameras do not put 1920 lines to tape, only 1440, at least that is my understanding of it, and that's why there's so little difference in look (if any) between 1080 and 720p HD.

Randall Morton · November 25th, 2003, 04:05 PM

In my argument I am distinguishing between HD & "True HD". I'm saying that many knowledgeable people in the video & film industry do not consider anything below 1920 x 1080 "true HD".

The following is only a quote from a link below.

"Digital cinema, as is implemented today, is in the HD video format (1920*1080 pixel). Its mastering is usually done with a telecine process, which converts film to video, along video-based color correction technologies."

The above is full "true HD" resolution and the difference can be seen especially on larger screens.

Link to article.
http://www.imagica.com/newsrelease/00009e.html

Les Dit · November 25th, 2003, 07:46 PM

Sure , many years ago, I also considered the lower than 1900 across versions not HD, but that was then and this is now.
Now there are different 'flavors' considered HD. Confusing to dumb consumers, yes.
You mention 'big screens', well, most digital theaters have been showing 1280 material, and compared to the usual out of focus and poorly projected film, it looked better.
Well projected film still looks better. ( Read: not the mall theaters ).
It's fun to be an HD 'phile' , but it's all meaningless to me. Having a $3K 1280 camera, now that's really something!
-Les

Ken Hodson · November 25th, 2003, 09:45 PM

For those who have seen both (1080i & 720p) what are your thoughts on how they compare?
ken

David Newman · November 26th, 2003, 10:54 AM

If we look at the standards 1920x1080i and 1280x720p60 the pixel rate is nearly indentical (the amount of visual information.)

1920x1080x30 = 62208000 pixels per second
1280x720x60 = 55296000 pps

If you take the fact that much of the 1080i cameras samples at 1440 (or less) horizontally.

1440x1080x30 = 46656000 pps

720p60 is often perceived as the best HD format for live shooting. This is the format that is best for sports, news and anything that is shot live.

If 24p film was the originating source

1920x1080x24 = 4976640 pps is clearly better than 720p24:

1280x720x24 = 22118400 pps.

This is way both standard exists as both are best at something. Both are true HD.

Randall Morton · November 26th, 2003, 02:52 PM

Well, it looks like I have been wrong on this, but there were a lot of other people that gave me that impression. I agree about 720P looking like true HD. It looks great on my 92" screen. The HD10 also looks great. Thanks for the education.

November 25th, 2003, 12:47 PM	#17
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	Then by that argument, there is no HD at all! As the high end cameras do not put 1920 lines to tape, only 1440, at least that is my understanding of it, and that's why there's so little difference in look (if any) between 1080 and 720p HD. __________________ Paul

November 25th, 2003, 07:46 PM	#19
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	True HD Sure , many years ago, I also considered the lower than 1900 across versions not HD, but that was then and this is now. Now there are different 'flavors' considered HD. Confusing to dumb consumers, yes. You mention 'big screens', well, most digital theaters have been showing 1280 material, and compared to the usual out of focus and poorly projected film, it looked better. Well projected film still looks better. ( Read: not the mall theaters ). It's fun to be an HD 'phile' , but it's all meaningless to me. Having a $3K 1280 camera, now that's really something! -Les

November 25th, 2003, 09:45 PM	#20
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	For those who have seen both (1080i & 720p) what are your thoughts on how they compare? ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

November 25th, 2003, 11:21 AM	#16
Randall Morton Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 39	Well I guess you are right if you go by the defintion set by the TV manufaturers. I still contend that many people(As the writer of the article I linked above) do not consider anything less than 1920 x 1080 "true HD". Of course the TV manufaturers would set the definition of 720P as HD so that they would be able to label these sets HD. I also have a 720P display and the JVC HD10 and they both provide an outstanding picture in HD. But, I don't consider it "True HD" and I will remain ignorant, along with many others, on this matter.

November 25th, 2003, 04:05 PM	#18
Randall Morton Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 39	In my argument I am distinguishing between HD & "True HD". I'm saying that many knowledgeable people in the video & film industry do not consider anything below 1920 x 1080 "true HD". The following is only a quote from a link below. "Digital cinema, as is implemented today, is in the HD video format (1920*1080 pixel). Its mastering is usually done with a telecine process, which converts film to video, along video-based color correction technologies." The above is full "true HD" resolution and the difference can be seen especially on larger screens. Link to article. http://www.imagica.com/newsrelease/00009e.html

November 26th, 2003, 10:54 AM	#21
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	If we look at the standards 1920x1080i and 1280x720p60 the pixel rate is nearly indentical (the amount of visual information.) 1920x1080x30 = 62208000 pixels per second 1280x720x60 = 55296000 pps If you take the fact that much of the 1080i cameras samples at 1440 (or less) horizontally. 1440x1080x30 = 46656000 pps 720p60 is often perceived as the best HD format for live shooting. This is the format that is best for sports, news and anything that is shot live. If 24p film was the originating source 1920x1080x24 = 4976640 pps is clearly better than 720p24: 1280x720x24 = 22118400 pps. This is way both standard exists as both are best at something. Both are true HD.

November 26th, 2003, 02:52 PM	#22
Randall Morton Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 39	Well, it looks like I have been wrong on this, but there were a lot of other people that gave me that impression. I agree about 720P looking like true HD. It looks great on my 92" screen. The HD10 also looks great. Thanks for the education.