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 12-05-2005, 11:46 AM   #31  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beastslayer1
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.
Exactly! It appears we have two very knowledgeable people saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles. I really learn quite a bit when there's a passionate discussion going back and forth and both sides make valid points.
teranova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 01:25 PM   #32  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,971
Default

Let me say this. I have been to Videopark's web site and I assure you he is more knowledgeable about video production than I. I would assume that that extends to video delivery and display as far as the current state of the TV business. I suspect, but not sure, that he is comming from the traditional points of view which is basically analog based. There are different approaches being trotted out by the digital video processing suppliers that do not use the traditional analog approaches. Videopark can give us valuable information to the state of the broadcast and production side of the equasion and I appreciate his knowledge and the willingness to share it.
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 02:37 PM   #33  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 407
Default

Don't sell yourself short! You know your stuff and you have a good way of explaining complex issues to neophytes like myself.
I really enjoy a good debate between intelligent people who express their points of view without sarcasm or condescension!
teranova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 02:48 PM   #34  
Crabtree's Bludgeon
 
maicaw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teranova
Don't sell yourself short! You know your stuff and you have a good way of explaining complex issues to neophytes
I second that - and I might add that he is the main reason this forum is as popular as it is - some of the prolific posters imply that one pat answer fits all threads and seem unwilling to actually rationally discuss the question in the context presented
maicaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2005, 06:43 PM   #35  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 270
Default

Hey the more views and knowledge...the better. I say "The more the better." We need knowledge and from all sources. Please continue to contribute both rbinck and videopark. That's what the posts and threads are for.

wow...I remember when this website was just a couple of posters and a few threads. Now look at what it is now.

Remember..."Knowledge is power...right?!"
Beastslayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 10:00 AM   #36  
His and Her Room!
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Clear Lake, Texas
Posts: 121
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cass
Here is an article I think some of you may find interesting.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features..._hoffner.shtml

One point is that even if it is filmed in 1080p (not likely), there is no hardware to support editing of this material. No editing, no programming!
westcott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 07:29 PM   #37  
Mr. Wizard
 

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

Discussions of 1080p, without including the framerate, are confusing... and the article linked, as well as your post, leave it out all too often...

HDTV is not 'filmed'... it's 'captured' or 'shot' or 'taped'. Since film (real, physical film) is shot at 24 fps, it would be pointless and inefficient to oversample it to 60 fps.

When Lucas shoots HD, the 1080p/60 camera streams raw uncompressed RGB to a hard disk array... via SDI, as your link says. The Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was created this way... there are good tech articles describing the process. Other films produced completely in HD are Spy Kids 3, and King Kong. I saw AOTC in a theater with a digital projector @ 1080p/24.

Once captured, no custom hardware is required to edit... it's done on Graphics Workstations. Since there are multiple movies already produced in HDTV, programming obviously already exists.
RSawdey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 10:26 PM   #38  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSawdey
Discussions of 1080p, without including the framerate, are confusing... and the article linked, as well as your post, leave it out all too often...

HDTV is not 'filmed'... it's 'captured' or 'shot' or 'taped'. Since film (real, physical film) is shot at 24 fps, it would be pointless and inefficient to oversample it to 60 fps.

When Lucas shoots HD, the 1080p/60 camera streams raw uncompressed RGB to a hard disk array... via SDI, as your link says. The Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was created this way... there are good tech articles describing the process. Other films produced completely in HD are Spy Kids 3, and King Kong. I saw AOTC in a theater with a digital projector @ 1080p/24.

Once captured, no custom hardware is required to edit... it's done on Graphics Workstations. Since there are multiple movies already produced in HDTV, programming obviously already exists.
According to IMDB.Com (Inter Movie Data Base) technical specs, King Kong was shot on Super 35mm film.

Last edited by teranova; 12-06-2005 at 10:29 PM.. Reason: reposition
teranova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2005, 11:22 PM   #39  
Crabtree's Bludgeon
 
maicaw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSawdey
When Lucas shoots HD, the 1080p/60 camera streams raw uncompressed RGB to a hard disk array... via SDI, as your link says. The Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was created this way... there are good tech articles describing the process.
I think the process involved in making 2 hour video-based epics - that cost $100million+ for hardware, media, production and sets - never mind the crew and talent salaries -is fascinating - here's an eight page article in a professional journal - George Lucas discusses his ongoing effort to shape the future of digital cinema. (2002) http://www.theasc.com/magazine/sep02...ing/index.html
and simiple but technical articles at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
- but for me I don't thnk I will be getting my hands on anything better than a $5000 Sony in my lifetime.- nor an opportunity to view video - raw uncompressed or it's equivalent that ASC types compare - except with strangers on a bad screen in a multiplex -certainly not on my HT setup - I especailly liked this Lucas comment
Quote:
....You [watch it] digitally projected and say either, ‘It looks like s**t' or ‘It looks great.' If that isn't enough, then wait till Spy Kids 2 comes out. In the end, cinematography is not about technology; it's about art, it's about taste, it's about understanding your craft, it's about lighting and composition, and anyone who gets off on technological things is missing the point. I care about good lighting and good composition. I'm not interested in an engineer who knows a lot about the technology; you get into these kind of arcane discussions about ‘black curves' and things that no audience is ever going to see.
All of us [working in digital] are using different styles of photography, different kinds of conditions and different kinds of lighting. Coppola has just shot some unbelievably gorgeous material, wide shots of cities with incredible detail at magic hour and all kinds of available-light material, whereas Rodriguez has lit his to be very bombastic color, really exuberant and wild. So it doesn't have to do with the technology, it has to do with the eyes of the filmmakers working in the medium and what they want to do with it.

Last edited by maicaw; 12-06-2005 at 11:37 PM..
maicaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 12:23 PM   #40  
SoCal TV production
 
Videopark's Avatar
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
I read somewhere that Seinfield was shot on film at 30fps.
Could have been. I did some commercials that were shot at 30 but besides spending 20% more on film, there is not much difference. The motion is a little cleaner but it starts to look more like video and the film guys don't like that. With a show that has little motion, I don't see the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
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:
Funny the assumptions you see. People that are buying a 1080p camera have no desire to shoot 1080p60! Sony has the HDC-1000 camera that can output 1080p60. But the reason it is selling is because it is multi-standard and can output 1080i30 and 720p60 native from the same camera chips (their first camera that could do this). If you are renting stages like CBS does in Hollywood, you must have a camera that can switch standards for your different clients. ABC will not accept a conversion from 1080i30 to 720p60. They insist on shooting in 720p native. There is no one producing in 1080p60 since there are no recorders yet. That may happen but I don't see a big rush to a non-standard format. Networks and stations have to spend a lot to convert to "standard" HD. They aren't looking to dump any more money than that have to.

I was in Bristol at ESPN two months ago and their HD cameras are Thompson/Grass Valley that are also multi-standard. They do all HD in 720p as you know.

Film will be produced at 24 and transferred at 24.

While some may desire to shoot sports at 1080p60, I don't think you would see much difference between that and 720p60 (1920 vs. 1280).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
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. ... 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.
When converting from 1080p to 1080i, you simply take line one from progressive scan one and line two from progressive frame 2.

When 24p cameras are used, you preform the standard 3:2 pulldown as from film.

One reason 24 fps is so poplar in Hollywood is the ease in converting to different standards. For NTSC, you do the 3:2 pulldown and for PAL you increase the frame rate to 25 fps. That looks much better than trying to get 60 fields into 25 frames.
Videopark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 02:38 PM   #41  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,971
Default

Quote:
When converting from 1080p to 1080i, you simply take line one from progressive scan one and line two from progressive frame 2.
How long will this antiquated NTSC method be held onto do you think? Why wouldn't the interlace from a common frame on 1080 line video at 30fps? It must be the downstream equipment between the cameras and the transmitters. If 25fps works for PAL, 30fps would work for ATSC.
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 03:05 PM   #42  
SoCal TV production
 
Videopark's Avatar
 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
How long will this antiquated NTSC method be held onto do you think? Why wouldn't the interlace from a common frame on 1080 line video at 30fps? It must be the downstream equipment between the cameras and the transmitters. If 25fps works for PAL, 30fps would work for ATSC.
Except for the flicker and motion discontinuities. The 25 fps film is sent for two fields so you get 50 "flashes" of light per second. Once everyone gets displays that update upon new pixel input, then it will be only the motion judder that will be the problem.

30 fps progressive frames has less motion smoothness than 60 fields per second.

And 24 fps will be around for a long time. We have almost 100 years of movies in the vault. the 24 fps has a certain look that Hollywood likes. It is not a technological argument but a creative, artistic one.

With TV libraries containing almost 50 years of material shot on NTSC, you'll see that stuff fort the rest of your life!

And due to the existing standards, we will have 1080i and 720p for a long time. Remember, CBS and NBC like 1080i. They aren't changing anytime soon.
Videopark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 03:41 PM   #43  
Crabtree's Bludgeon
 
maicaw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck
Why wouldn't the interlace (come) from a common frame on 1080 line video at 30fps? If 25fps works for PAL, 30fps would work for ATSC.
and I guess the real point which has been made several times in this thread - is -- if 24fps - film - can be presented as 48fps - as is the case for any film projector - same frame twice then the next one - etc. - what's the problem with doing the same thing with 30p video - on a fixed pixel display - 30p frames are each shown twice- as in film this is the statement by Mr. Park - I find confusing --[QUOTE]Videopark-
Quote:
Except for the flicker and motion discontinuities. The 25 fps film is sent for two fields so you get 50 "flashes" of light per second. Once everyone gets displays that update upon new pixel input, then it will be only the motion judder that will be the problem.---30 fps progressive frames has less motion smoothness than 60 fields per second.
and fixed pixel displays update the pixels at the refresh rate which is 6o times per second (60 screensofallthevideopixels per second)- whether the incoming video contains 30 or 60 complete screensofallthevideopixels -in the same manner that film -at 48 screens/framesofphotographs per second derived from 24 screen/framesofphotographs per second feeding into the projector- --to belabor the point - if film can be shot and presented as a series of photographs taken at 24 per second - what's the problem with 30 framesof allthepixelsvideo - and don't say interlacing - that's technological roadkill

Last edited by maicaw; 12-08-2005 at 04:10 PM.. Reason: This was posted after rbinks following post so he answered some of it already
maicaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 04:03 PM   #44  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,971
Default

Flicker would not be a problem for 30fps progressive cameras if the two fields of the interlaced video was taken from the same capture. There would still be 60 fields per second, just derived from a common capture at 30fps. Same as 24fps video ends up with 60 fields per second via the 3:2.

Quote:
The 25 fps film is sent for two fields so you get 50 "flashes" of light per second.
Which is important for CRT based displays. Not so for fixed pixel displays such as LCD or plasmas as the 25fps video can be read into a video buffer and the display refreshed at any other rate required to reduce flicker. There are 100Hz refresh TVs even that receive 50fps video. There is nothing to say, other than availibility of equipment, that two 30fps fields could not be sent to make 60 per second just like the 25Hz PAL video.

Quote:
30 fps progressive frames has less motion smoothness than 60 fields per second.
This is a point that many people both ignore or don't believe when comparing progressive vs interlaced. They talk about 720p being preferable to 1080i for fast motion and blame the interlace for all of the problem when really it is the frame rate difference that is the bulk of the problem.

Another point I would make is the amount of video where motion smoothness is at issue is fairly small considering it is mainly sporting events. If the video is sourced from film or 24p cameras, which I think is the most of the HD video these days, the interlaced fields do not matter. The compression of 1080i signal is far more problematic than the interlace.

To sum up, we are left with 60 field per second 1080 line interlaced video for sports and live events because it handles fast motion better than progressive video would at 30 frames per second because even though there is the interlace artifact it is still better smoothness than progressive video at 30fps. Or we get to watch 60 frames per second on networks that broadcast in 720p/60fps. Argueing over format is somewhat fruitless because we have what we have and will have it for some time.

Last edited by rbinck; 12-08-2005 at 04:06 PM..
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 04:18 PM   #45  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,971
Default

Sorry for the redundancy, maicaw an I were posting at the same time, or thereabouts.
rbinck 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 11:04 AM.



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