What Defines High Definition?

ponder

I've posted before on this topic indirectly, but I'm fascinated on how there still seems to be different conclusions on what high definition is.

It goes all the way from the friend that exclaims that he'll have the Superbowl in high def and when you get to his party, it's just a ntsc signal/format that he's watching on a new big screen he got. Same thing with a local sports bar we have here - wonderful collection of flat panels and ESPN, but it's not high def. All the flat panels have that ridiculous "morphed" look to accommodate the wide screen display.... What a waste of capability.

Here's where the argument starts. The movie on HBO HD.... is that really high definition? If the movie was originally shot with emulsion film (Panavision, whatever, pick your poison), to me, that is not really high definition. It looks great! It was transmitted in high def signal but to me, it's not high def.

Here comes the high def dvds now with something that shaping up to be another Betamax-like battle (sigh), but these movies were, once again, shot with cameras that used film originally, the dailys being rushed to editing/screening in the age old dance steps that Hollywood has employed for years, decades actually. They process it on to a high def dvd and now "magically", it becomes high defintion?

Fantastic conversions from original IMAX presentations. Once again, the wow factor is there and don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with what I see and all the work put into production, but is this high definition? IMAX is that huge frame format (emulsion film) with IMAX cameras, but it wasn't a high definition camera.

I think we can all conclude that some programs are obviously high def, The Today Show on NBC I'm watching right now, live broadcast, using high def cameras. Even some of the commercials (ERA Real Estate spots that just came out), which bodes well for high def finally establishing itself as the dominate signal.

I see continual sparring on transmission issues and presentation, but nobody seems to want to address camera and source issue.

The friend with the Superbowl party finally "got the picture" and has been enjoying the games in high def now. That actually happened a while back when a neighbor grabbed his simple Samsung hd tuner (terrestrial) and plugged it in mid-game. I remember my friend saying "Holy (expletive deleted)!" when he saw the difference.

Lee Stewart

According to the ATSC "Grand Alliance", HD can be defined by any TV signal that has at least:

1280x720P . . . or. . . 1920x1080i.

As far as HD on HDTV - transition period is upon us. Some will be HDTV while others will be NTSC upconverted to HDTV so the image quality will vary.

As HDTV is only 6 years old and NTSC is 54 years old, you can see what is happening as far as program content and the available library of programs.

ponder

Once again.... A transmission issue.... The signal is high definition so therefore, the re-run of "Seinfeld" is now, magically, high definition. We know this is obviously not true.

Now, take the "Seinfeld" episode and re-release it in HD DVD with re-formatting. Is this high def?

Very interesting that you used the phrase "upconverted" for stuff that was originally meant for NTSC.

I can see in the future it would be VERY helpful if a production would have to indicate it was "upconverted" or "re-converted" from another source that was not a high def camera.

I know a lot of people are rolling their eyes with me droning on about this, but to me the "source" and camera/production equipment has now become far more important to me in defining what high def actually is.

The "Today Show" or sporting events have that "spooky" clarity to the final presentation that reveals that a high definition camera was used. Same thing with some PBS shows. An upconverted motion picture still looks great, but it doesn't have that "high def look"

I have a fear that many productions are going to tout high def in the future when they actually are not.

To me, high def is created at a source, a camera, not in transmission. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree.

maicaw

DETAIL

The detail in the displayed image is resolved to 1.0 arc-minute - which is considered normal 20/20 vision - (viewing 7-8 feet from a 50" diagonal screen) - Healthy eyed people could view from slightly farther distance than "normal" people - about 75dpi from 3 feet away - think newspaper page photo at arms length.

paulc

Wrong. Film has far more inherent "resolution" than the best HD resolution, 1920 x 1080. Besides, film is a continuous tone medium, so it isn't "separated" into pixels.

ponder

Sure, I agree. That's been the big problem with digital cameras - no way could they match the quality of film.

They finally got that breakthrough where pixelation finally matched film, high speed grainy film, but film, and that took forever! I don't know a lot about it, was it Caltech?

So for your definition we can include a motion picture that is converted because it's already a source that has better quality than a high def camera could achieve.

So if we walk through Longwood Gardens (old PBS high def stuff), shooting, simultaneously with motion picture quality film and camera right alongside a high def camera, one MUST assume that the motion picture quality stock would be far more breathtaking, but yet it's not! It would not get that "ooohh and aaahhh" reaction from the viewer like the stuff sourced and processed right across the board with high def equipment. Is it simply the fact that the high def camera footage is new and we're not use to it?

Now let's really throw a monkey wrench in. The Japanese experimented with "Ultra High Definition" and the test subjects viewing it were getting motion sickness with pan shots because the detail was too great. This medium could only be achieved with the experimental camera and was quite startling!

There is just something about a high def camera that really makes a difference and I can't explain it.

maicaw

Film is captured and processed for optical display The electronic editing is a bastardization -
Video is captured electronically, processed electronically to be displayed electronically -
Squirt HD video on a big screen and it looks like crap - Strain 24fps film onto a 60~ HD video fixed pixel display and it looks like grainless 60~ mush.

maicaw

As for "Ultra High Definition" making the Japanese audience queazy -
IMax already has twice the detail/resolution of that format
10K x 7K (70Mpix) for IMax vs 7K x 4K (30Mpix) for "Ultra High Definition"

and just to keep everything in scale
film has 10+Mpix for 35mm - and for HDTV 2 Mpix [max]

Lee Stewart

The issue is what is the intended "display?"

If we talk about film then it is a movie theater on a large screen.

If we discuss HD-CAM then it is intended to be seen on an HDTV usually 60" or less.

Yes they have shot and will shoot movies in HD-CAM 24 but for the most part, it is transfered over to 35 mm film for presentation. Also Hollywood wants the film look so they use special filters to create that look which the nature shows or sports events don't use.

Resolution is not really the issue. Resolution follows screen size. the larger the screen, the more resolution you will need. For 80" and less, 1920x1080 is fine.

The Sharp UHD LCD shown just recently has 6000x2000 pixel arrangement. Is it the future? . . . unknown. But after 2017 when HDTV becomes saturated in the marketplace, there will be another HDTV format to come along. The three contenders are:

2500x2000
4000x2000
6000x2000

If you go to the Upcoming Display Cat. I have given a link to the Evans and Sutherland Laser projector that handles 5000x4000. (commerical application)

Oh and the resolution of IMAX is 30,000 x 20,000, if you believe what Kodak said years ago about the resolution of motion picture film (moving images not still frames):

2500x2000 - 35mm film

6000x4000 - 70mm film

As IMAX's negative is 5X bigger than a single frame of 70mm then you could assume that the resolution is also 5X greater though I am not sure on that math.

Yet anyone who ever saw SHOWSCAN said it was the best image quality of any film format . It used standard 70mm film moving at 60 Fps as opposed to 24 Fps.

There was one film made by IMAX in what was called IMAX HD that moved the film at 48 Fps but it only showed a few times in Europe somewhere then was pulled.

Type A

Heres something to make it a little more simple. Have you ever seen a poorly 'colorized' movie? Even though this film was shot in black and white, it is still touted as being in color! Does it look as good as a movie that was shot from a color camera....no, and it never will.

Its the same with an upconverted film/video that was originally shot for standard definition. While the resolution easily exists to satisfy hd resolutions (1280x720 or better), the color quality is often still not there! As a result, something shot in HD will almost always look better overall...save one thing: its lack of abilities in low light. Hd doesnt do as well with low light. Why? Well, Im guessing here, but I think its because the color reproduction of hd cameras is so much greater, that lighting is more critical. You must have good lighting to portray good colors. When light is lacking, it doesnt matter the resolution capturing abilities of your HD camera, something will be missing in the final result of your hd film, because the lighting wasnt there to provide what is expected of a hd production.

Get used to programs that were upconverted, yet pale in comparison to what you would expect of a "hd" broadcast. Also get used to hd productions not being perfect. Im sure as technology progresses, low light hd will improve, but I doubt you will ever see vast improvements in converted sd material. simply because, even though the resolution is there, the film/video was still shot with just an sd camera.

__________________
Mitsubishi HC3000U HD projector
Dual Optoma 106" screens
Harman Kardon AVR-7000 receiver
Bose 901 VI, 301 IV, VCS 10
Bose AM-6 Series III
Sony STR-DG600 receiver
JVC GR-HD1 HD camcorder
Xbox 360 Pro / PS3 40 Gig
HD DVD 0 / Blu Ray 15
Games 18 / Games 2
Gateway 901x HTPC (modified)
Sling Box Pro w/HD Connect Cable
Dish 211 receiver w/Absolute HD pack
HP Pavilion dv-6000 laptop (HTPC2GO)
Link-Theater Gallery - 100,000+ views
Link-55 Restoration Updated 6/21/08

Rick-F

Ponder: "So if we walk through Longwood Gardens (old PBS high def stuff), shooting, simultaneously with motion picture quality film and camera right alongside a high def camera, one MUST assume that the motion picture quality stock would be far more breathtaking, but yet it's not! It would not get that "ooohh and aaahhh" reaction from the viewer like the stuff sourced and processed right across the board with high def equipment. Is it simply the fact that the high def camera footage is new and we're not use to it? "

The film is damn sure more breathtaking on a a LARGE screen -- say 40 feet or more . . . If the film image is properly digitized to the highest resolution possible, it will look every bit as good as the HD-TV camera product. But not not all film images are expertly digitized.

Remember also that many film makers and TV directors do NOT want the image produced to look like Discovery-HD -- it is art; they want it to look like what they want it to look like . . . that may or or may not please your eye. I'm sure the makers of "Shindler' List" were not looking for that "ooohh and aaahhhh" reaction from the picture quality.

Many moves are shot digitally and transferred to FILM for exhibition. Many are shot on FILM and then transferred to digital media (usually tape). It's not all about the PICTURE-- but if it is for you, stick to "Happy Feet" -- personally I'd rather see "Casablanca" on a 19" SD TV than "Happy Feet" in 1080P on a 103" Plasma.

BobY

Film has higher resolution and better color rendition than HD video.

Don't confuse the quality of the film-to-video conversion with the quality of film imagery.

On the other hand, because of the inherently lower frame rate of film (24Fps versus either 30Fps or 60Fps for video), most people would say video looks more "real" than film.

It usually does. So what? There are few film directors who want their films to look like video. The "realism" of video capture hurts the "suspension of disbelief" needed for film.

IMHO, dramas filmed at higher frame rates look so "real", it makes me acutely aware I'm watching a staged dramatization and not something that involves real people and real events.

paulc

Throw into the stew the fact that one CAN film a feature using HD cameras AND make the final product look damn, damn close to being shot on film.

No matter, there are still going to be those who insist on working with what they are comfortable with. I have a filmmaking pal who insists on Fuji stock and developing for oversaturation. I'm damn sure she could use a HD cam and get the same results. AND if she shot HD video, she'd have more flexibility in getting the look she wants. BUT, it may take a few more years for that notion to really get through!

ponder

So..... this is the more perfect way to bring something to a living room with an "electronic" screen? You may have hit on something inadvertantly.

Hollywood makes stuff to put up on really big screens, not my living room. We can agree that film has better quality than electronic process, but I don't have a motion picture projecter in my house. I'm sure some very wealthy people in Hollywood and elsewhere do, but this is a freakish abnormality afforded to a lucky few.

When the IMAX folks went out to create, they didn't really intend their quality footage to be experienced via dvd, or even hd dvd did they? Oh sure - they could assume that someday it would probably end up with the home consumer eventually but that was not the original goal.

The above processes can be transferred to home environment with mixed results. Within their original intent, they are, spectacular in quality but only in their correct environments.

Can we conclude that high definition exists in its own right? My wrap up point is posed as a simple question; Do high definition cameras exist or not and what are they used for?

Should be a simple question, but it's getting kind of muddled.

ponder

I'm not sure, but I think this is what Lucas is trying to tell everybody in Hollywood.... They're not being very receptive to the idea though...