High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

HDTV Is Here, Really

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-01-2005, 09:50 PM   #16  
SoCal TV production
 
Videopark's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 67
Posts: 21
Default

While the Sony HDC-1000 and 1500 cameras have a progressive 1080 sensor, it is used to output either 720p or 1080i. There is no current recorder that records 1080p60 nor any production equipment except for some special monitors that use that format. No one is producing in 1080p60. Yes, 1080p24 is popular in sitcoms.

Considering that 1080p60 takes up twice the bandwidth of 1080i30, I don't see much improvement in PQ.
Videopark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2005, 02:35 PM   #17  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 679
Default

i30 to p60 would be 4 times the bandwidth. The most likely first presentations of 1080p60 will be video games.
fryet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2005, 02:53 PM   #18  
Crabtree's Bludgeon
 
maicaw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fryet
i30 to p60 would be 4 times the bandwidth..
on a pixels/sec basis wouldn't bandwidth just double - 60 frames of 2 megapix vs 30 frames of 2 megapix per second @24 bits per pixel- unless you envision some less lossy compression scheme. - 1080p increases the bandwidth required for that green component cable to over 100mhz - for HDMI the total bitstream would exceed 2gb/sec - ( the XBOX360 claims to shuffle bits internally at over 256 gb/sec and vectors (flops) at 10^12/sec - PS3 promises even higher bitstream - oh Lordy!!
maicaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2005, 12:59 PM   #19  
SoCal TV production
 
Videopark's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 67
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fryet
i30 to p60 would be 4 times the bandwidth. The most likely first presentations of 1080p60 will be video games.
1080p60 is twice the bandwidth of 1080i30. You are adding twice as many scanning lines per frame, thus 2x the bandwidth.
Videopark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2005, 03:04 PM   #20  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,976
Default

A lot of people don't realize that 1080i/30fps and 1080p/30fps is the same bandwidth. Assuming a common frame for the 1080i/30fps two fields, the difference becomes just a transmission method, interlaced vs. progressive, the image will be the same.
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2005, 03:23 PM   #21  
Crabtree's Bludgeon
 
maicaw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,001
Default yottaflops

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
Assuming a common frame for the 1080i/30fps two fields, the difference becomes just a transmission method, interlaced vs. progressive, the image will be the same.
I'd like to see an analytical discussion of why 60p for video games would look better than 30p - the trailers and screen shots I see of available video games look like they are rendered at 800x600 and 30p at best --- can a game console really render 1920x1080p at 60 frames per second without needing a liquid cooled dual processor doing yottaflops - how long does it take to render a single second (24 frames) for a feature animated flick - usually hours on mega$$ mainframes.

Last edited by maicaw; 12-03-2005 at 03:38 PM..
maicaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2005, 04:09 PM   #22  
SoCal TV production
 
Videopark's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 67
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
A lot of people don't realize that 1080i/30fps and 1080p/30fps is the same bandwidth. Assuming a common frame for the 1080i/30fps two fields, the difference becomes just a transmission method, interlaced vs. progressive, the image will be the same.
My point was that 60 frames takes twice the bandwidth as 60 fields. I'm not sure if we agree. 30 frames made up of 60 interlace fields is the same as 30 frames made from 30 progressive frames.

There is an image difference between progressive and interlace, especially with motion and interfield lines flickering at the field rate. The image is not the same.
Videopark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2005, 12:23 AM   #23  
Mr. Wizard
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ferndale, Michigan
Age: 71
Posts: 5,981
Default

60 Hz games look better because the motion is smoother... with twice as many frames, each object only moves half as far between frames... and since many games also read the controller once per frame, that may make it more responsive.

A more common res is 720p/60, and the framerate WILL drop with increased spatial res... but there's plenty of custom hardware in a modern graphics card.
RSawdey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2005, 07:16 AM   #24  
What is HD?
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
Default

It has been said that the PS3 will be capable of 1080p/60, but the real question is: Will game developers actually use it? Highly unlikely for quite some time due to the demand it would take to program at this level. Also, why would devs, develop games that only about 1% of TV owners can actually get use out of it? So, for a while, I think the only use for 1018p will be blu-ray movies. I think the debate over 1080p/60 is kind of mute, at least for the next several years. Just my opinion. I could be WAY off.
HDnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2005, 06:01 PM   #25  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,976
Default

Quote:

My point was that 60 frames takes twice the bandwidth as 60 fields. I'm not sure if we agree. 30 frames made up of 60 interlace fields is the same as 30 frames made from 30 progressive frames.
The progressive frames are made up of 1080 lines of video at 60 per second for 1080p/60fps. The interlaced fields are made up of 540 lines of video at 60 per second, or half the bandwidth of the 1080 lines progressive. Therefore the bandwidth required for 1080i/30fps is the same as 1080p30/fps where fps is frames per second.
Quote:
There is an image difference between progressive and interlace, especially with motion and interfield lines flickering at the field rate. The image is not the same.
Only on CRT based displays or if the source video is interlaced. On fixed pixel displays they are deinterlaced, like progressive DVD players. If both fields are made from the same image when the two fields are deinterlaced and put back together, the original image is restored.

Excerpt from http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.1:
Quote:
There's enormous confusion about whether DVD video is progressive or interlaced. Here's the one true answer: Progressive-source video (such as from film) is usually encoded on DVD as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by a progressive player to recreate the original progressive video.

Last edited by rbinck; 12-05-2005 at 07:27 PM.. Reason: typo
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2005, 06:42 PM   #26  
SoCal TV production
 
Videopark's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 67
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
The progressive frames are made up of 1080 lines of video at 60 per second for 1080p/60fps. The interlaced fields are made up of 540 lines of video at 60 per second, or half the bandwidth of the 1080 lines progressive. Therefore the bandwidth required for 1080i/30fps is the same as 1080p/fps where fps is frames per second.
Sorry, I'm confused. You say "half the bandwidth of the 1080 lines progressive" and then say "is the same as".

I am talking about the difference between 1080p60 and 1080i30.

You have 60 frames per second with 1080p60.
You have 30 frames per second with 1080i30.

1920x1080x60=124,416,000
1920x1080x30= 62,208,000

I don't know how you can say these are equal. 60 frames takes twice the bandwidth as 30 frames. You may be saying that 60 interlaced fields creating 30 frames is the same pixel count and bandwidth as 30 progressive frames and that is true. But that is not my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
Only on CRT based displays or if the source video is interlaced. On fixed pixel displays they are deinterlaced, like progressive DVD players. If both fields are made from the same image when the two fields are deinterlaced and put back together, the original image is restored.
But only if the fields are the same. In a motion picture transferred to 60 Hz video with a 3:2 pulldown, you can do a reverse telecine to recover the original 24 frames. That is not the case with video that contains interfield motion. Since the fields are NOT the same due to motion, you have to perform some type of interpolation when you deinterlace.
Videopark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2005, 08:33 PM   #27  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,976
Default

I was never takling about 1080i/30fps vs. 1080p/60fps. Here is the original quote that you first responded to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
A lot of people don't realize that 1080i/30fps and 1080p/30fps is the same bandwidth. Assuming a common frame for the 1080i/30fps two fields, the difference becomes just a transmission method, interlaced vs. progressive, the image will be the same.
If you notice I was comparing 1080i/30fps with 1080p/30fps. Why not 1080p/60fps? Because 1080p/60fps is not a ATSC format, and therefore would not be a bandwidth issue.

Quote:
But only if the fields are the same.
That's what I said. Actually, I said if both fields were taken from the same image, such as film as you indicated. To me this is important as most broadcasts are going toward progressive sources. Any programming that originates on film, for example. See the hidden point here is once the broadcasters go to all progressive cameras, then the interlaced method of transmitting the video to our houses will not be a detriment, because the motion differences between field will not be there.
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 07:00 AM   #28  
SoCal TV production
 
Videopark's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 67
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
I was never takling about 1080i/30fps vs. 1080p/60fps. Here is the original quote that you first responded to:

If you notice I was comparing 1080i/30fps with 1080p/30fps. Why not 1080p/60fps? Because 1080p/60fps is not a ATSC format, and therefore would not be a bandwidth issue.
I think the confusion comes from using the term "interlace" which would mean two fields making a frame. The field rate is twice the frame rate so if someone said 30 frames interlaced I would think about 60 fields. If someone said 30 frames progressive, I would think 30 frames which would flicker horribly. Yes, in that comparison the two would have the same bandwidth but the 30 frames progressive would not be useable due to the flicker. It would work if you would flash each frame twice but I don't know of anyone suggesting shooting 30 progressive frames. They would shot 24 frames.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
To me this is important as most broadcasts are going toward progressive sources. Any programming that originates on film, for example. See the hidden point here is once the broadcasters go to all progressive cameras, then the interlaced method of transmitting the video to our houses will not be a detriment, because the motion differences between field will not be there.
NBC, CBS, HDNET, HBO, Showtime are using 1080i and are not moving toward progressive nor are using progressive cameras. While film and some shows are shot 24 frames, they are transmitted interlace from those companies.

We can hope that films transferred to the new HD DVDs will be 24 fps progressive on disk.

Even if you take a 720p source and convert it to interlace, you still will have motion discontinuities since you have to take the 60 frames and convert to 60 fields. The fields won't be identical.
Videopark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 10:51 AM   #29  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,976
Default

I read somewhere that Seinfield was shot on film at 30fps.

It seems like we are voilently agreeing on the frames/fields thing.

See the thing is 1080p/30fps is the ATSC standard not 1080/60fps. So obviously if that were to be transmitted, the displays would have to be refreshed at a higher rate. The transmission frame rate does not have to match the display refresh rate anymore, like it does in the old analog CRT world.

I have read several places that CBS and ESPN was buying 1080p/60fps cameras (one post earlier in this thread) and some 1080p/24fps cameras. Is this incorrect?
Videopark, I know you can speak to this:

Back in my earlier days I was in the industrial control systems business. We used a system called machine vision. Basically a progressive CCD camera frame was placed into a video matrix and a computer would analyze the video and look for abnormalities. We had to use progressive cameras due to the motion of the objects. The sort of things we would "look" for was a broken drill bit. There was an output out of the system that would drive an interlaced TV monitor, as well as an optional progressive monitor. The video section would interlace the video matrix by shifting out the odd lines followed by the even lines. There was never any motion interlacing artifacts, not that it mattered, because the computer did all of the work, the monitors were just there for operator verification.

Now when I read that CBS is getting all progressive 1080p cameras, some 60fps and others 24fps, I would assume that the resulting interlaced video would come from a common frame capture. Actually I didn't assume, I read this somewhere, but now I can't find where. In any case I understand that with a 1080p camera taking captures at the rate of 60 per second, that the odd lines could be used for one field and the even lines used from the next capture for the next field, but is that the way 1080i is generated universally? What about when a 1080p/24fps camera is used? It seems to me a better method would be to use every other progressive frame on the 60fps camera and interlace the video after all of the processing is done.

I really appreciate your participation in this thread.

Last edited by rbinck; 12-05-2005 at 10:54 AM..
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 11:11 AM   #30  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 270
Default

Wow...reading you two guys disucss the same thing just in different wording almost made my head explode due to the frustration that I couldn't slap the both of you and say "This what you both were saying". You both were talking about the same thing, just wording it differently. Heh...that's funny.
Beastslayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to HDTV Is Here, Really
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is 1080 really worth it? Some Basic Questions. Doyle Lonnigan Flat-Panel TVs 6 08-28-2008 02:51 PM
Is this really true? paul123 DirecTV Forum 24 03-26-2007 08:09 AM
Why HDTV is Useless jagzjagz The High Definition Lounge 9 03-25-2006 06:38 PM
New HDTV, is this a good one? darktidus Rear-Projection TVs 6 08-18-2005 04:58 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands