Sony HVR-1000U

This camera is yet but another interlace offering from Sony. But the question needs to be raised "who in this digital day and age wants an interlace camcorder?" Progressive scanning is what most people want because it offers far superior picture quality. Interlace scanning is a relic left over from the analog era and this format should be retired as soon as possible.
 
Great camera for the education market. It is big,HD,cheap, and Sony. HDMI out is a plus. deinterlacing technology has stepped up to where it doesn't matter if you shoot 60i in most cases.

They sums it up in their press release.
"The new HVR-HD1000U model is targeted toward wedding videographers, freelancers and educational video creators, offering them more versatility and more opportunities for generating business with a moderately priced camera."
 
The problem with interlace 1080i is not just the interlacing artifacts that are created but the fact that 1080i is a bandwidth hog and it overloads the compression engine. 1080i offers no picture quality improvement over 720p however since the compression engine regards 1080i as a higher resolution format it puts a tremendous strain on the compression engine. The result is that if there is fast motion in the 1080i mode the picture either blocks up or the compression engine subsamples the picture down to standard definition. I really do not see the point of full high definition 1080i if the compression engine simply tosses all the additional resolution that is gained and you end up with worse picture quality.
 
For the sake of argumment I won't argue with what you said. :) I would like to add that in hdv 720p is compressed to a 19MB stream and 1080i is compressed in a 25MB stream. In real world usage 720p isn't higher resolution that 1080i. Maybe in extreme fast motion but at 720p 30 frames it is being compressed at 19MB. The thing with fast motion is that there is motion blur so it is hard for casual viewers to see any compression artifacts.

Bottom line is why we trippin a couple of years ago we were all shooting interlaced and magic bullet was flying off the shelves. Now we all acting brand new because we can shoot progressive now? LOL Everybody just send me your old interlaced equipment.

androbot2084 said:
The problem with interlace 1080i is not just the interlacing artifacts that are created but the fact that 1080i is a bandwidth hog and it overloads the compression engine. 1080i offers no picture quality improvement over 720p however since the compression engine regards 1080i as a higher resolution format it puts a tremendous strain on the compression engine. The result is that if there is fast motion in the 1080i mode the picture either blocks up or the compression engine subsamples the picture down to standard definition. I really do not see the point of full high definition 1080i if the compression engine simply tosses all the additional resolution that is gained and you end up with worse picture quality.
Click to expand...
 
androbot2084 said:
1080i offers no picture quality improvement over 720p ............... I really do not see the point of full high definition 1080i if the compression engine simply tosses all the additional resolution that is gained and you end up with worse picture quality.
Click to expand...
No picture quality improvement? In the vertical direction that may be true, interlace manages to counterbalance much of the benefit of more lines, but HORIZONTALLY 1080 is clearly superior to 720.

If the argument was solely 720p/50 v 1080i/25 then maybe the better compressibility of p material may swing the argument. But in practice a LOT of current HD material is originated at 24/25fps to gain film look, and the argument then becomes 720p/25 v 1080p/25 - a very different story.

With a 1080i/25 transmission architecture in place, it's then possible to transmit 1080p/25 over it as 1080psf/25 with no quality drop or resolution loss.
 
Again there is no quality improvement that interlace 1080i has over the 720p format and in actuality 1080i is worse quality than 720p. The only superiority that 1080i has over 720p is a marketing advantage in which 1080i allows the resolution numbers to be artificailly inflated in order to sell more cameras. When resolution is fairly measured and counted it can be demonstrated that 720p delivers about the same numbers of pixels per second as 1080i.

It is true that a 1080p can be converted to an interlace 1080i stream. However the temporal resolution will be limited to 30 frames per second which will be less temporal resolution than 720p which has 60 frames per second. Lower temporal resolution means more blurring during fast action and defeats the purpose of starting with a higher resolution format.
 
androbot2084 said:
Again there is no quality improvement that interlace 1080i has over the 720p format
Click to expand...
In the horizontal direction 720 systems have 1280 pixels max - 1080 systems have 1920. Can you really call that no improvement?
and in actuality 1080i is worse quality than 720p.
Click to expand...
Not true. Even the EBU (who are currently very pro 720) don't claim that. What they DO claim (and which I wouldn't dispute) is that 720p COMPRESSES better than 1080i at low bitrates.
When resolution is fairly measured and counted it can be demonstrated that 720p delivers about the same numbers of pixels per second as 1080i.
Click to expand...
That should properly be stated as 720p/50 v 1080i/25 to be true. It's equally true to say that 720p/25 has less than half the no of pixels per second as 1080i(psf)/25.
It is true that a 1080p can be converted to an interlace 1080i stream. However the temporal resolution will be limited to 30 frames per second which will be less temporal resolution than 720p which has 60 frames per second.
Click to expand...
720p does not HAVE to have 60 frames per second - which is why it is meaningless without the descriptor. 720p can have 24,25,30, 50 or 60 fps.
Lower temporal resolution means more blurring during fast action and defeats the purpose of starting with a higher resolution format.
Click to expand...
Buy any HD-DVD or Blu-Ray feature film disc and you'll find it is 24fps. In Europe at present, nearly ALL drama is being deliberately produced at 24/25fps, and same with much other material, like Planet Earth. It's because for this type of material producers like "film look motion". Smooth temporal motion may be preferred for sport, but not for drama.

So what are broadcasters to do? The choice then becomes 720p/50 v 1080i/25 for such as sport, news etc, but also 720p/25 v 1080psf/25 for most other material. And it's because of the latter scenario (which the EBU strangely fails to even acknowledge) that most broadcasters are going down the 1080 i/psf route for now, with the hope that in the future it will be 1080p/25(50).
 
Assumming that 1080i is higher resolution than 720p and this will only be the case if motion is minimized the fact remains that resolution is not the sole indicator of picture quality. With the introduction of black interlace scanning lines this will cause the picture to appear dimmer than a full progressive monitor where all of the lines are lit up. Therefore 720p delivers a picture that is brighter and that has a better contrast ratio.

The EBU is not the only organiztion that is pro progressive. The United States department of Defense NASA, Panasonic, ABC, Fox, ESPN, and the computer industry and the film industry are very much pro progressive. Even so called 1080i networks originate most of there material using the 1080p format.

Of course not all 720p formats deliver the full 60 frames per second. However not all 1080i formats deliver the full 1920x1080 pixel raster either. However I would dare say that even so called EDTV formats such as 720p30 and 480p60 can rival 1080i formats when we assume that the interlace scanning confuses the human psychovisual system to such a high degree that half the resolution is thrown out after the human brain processes it. However it can also be argued that 1080i can be deinterlaced so that some of this lost resolution can be recovered.

The reason why Hollywood chooses 24 frames per second is to save film stock. This will change once we go to digital projection . The official position of the American Society of Cinematographers is that the Super Dimension 65mm format and the IMAX HD format with its 48 frames per second offers superior picture quality for fast action however the ASC feels that 48fps is must be intercut with 24fps to preserve the film look. Therefore higher framerates will be reserved for special effects during the times of the movie when a more immersive experience is desired.

The 1080p60 format will never be the only resolution format of the future because as soon as this format is supported there will be other competing formats such as 480p240 720p120 or 1500p30 that will compete.

Also we have to realize that interlace scanning is not the way that the human visual system compresses information. The human retina compresses information by concentrating resolution near the fovea and decreasing resolution along the peripheral portions of the retina. Thus interlace scanning is grossly artificial.
 
Last edited:
androbot2084 said:
Assumming that 1080i is higher resolution than 720p and this will only be the case if motion is minimized ...........
Click to expand...
Such comments may have validity in the vertical direction, but you are ignoring the horizontal. As I've pointed out before, horizontally 1080 systtems are superior to 720 ones, end of story.
The EBU is not the only organiztion that is pro progressive. The United States department of Defense NASA, Panasonic, ABC, Fox, ESPN, and the computer industry and the film industry are very much pro progressive.
Click to expand...
And I am in favour of progressive over interlace IN PRINCIPLE, I won't argue with you there. But I'm also in favour of 1080 systems over 720, and 50fps ones over 24/25fps in general.

Hence, I would ideally want 1080p/50. Which is impractical most of the time. And hence one has to be pragmatic - which one of the attributes should be sacrificed for the best possible end result?

It depends on the channel, but most of the time the answer is easy. The material comes as 24/25fps progressive anyway, so it makes sense to go for 1080p/25. And transmitting it 1080psf/25 means that *when the occasion demands it* you can switch to 1080i/25 for the motion aspect. Yes, it's a compromise, but a very pragmatic one.

For a channel which was purely sport, say, the choice may be far less clear cut. Especially since in the past most displays only had horizontal resolutions around the 1300-1400 mark, and many 1080 devices were subsampled to 1440. But that's changing now, with "Full HD" panels becoming the norm, and more and more acquisition becoming 1920 - even at the Sony EX price level.
Even so called 1080i networks originate most of there material using the 1080p format.
Click to expand...
Exactly. More properly 1080p/25. So how should it best be transmitted? The choices are then 1080psf/25, or 720p/25? The former is progressive, high res, low motion rate, the latter is progressive, lower res, low motion rate. In this case, being 720 throws potential resolution away for no gain. No channel should call itself a "1080i network" anyway - they are 1080i/psf channels.
Of course not all 720p formats deliver the full 60 frames per second. However not all 1080i formats deliver the full 1920x1080 pixel raster either..
Click to expand...
True enough, but not all 720p formats deliver the full 1280x720 either. Go to DVCProHD and you only get 960x720. An apples for apples comparison only makes sense if you compare the best each system is capable of - full raster.
The reason why Hollywood chooses 24 frames per second is to save film stock. This will change once we go to digital projection .
Click to expand...
I'd agree with the first statement historically, but........ will it change? At least for such as drama? There is a LOT of pro 24fps frame rate feeling in the industry at the moment - "the film look". To the extent that when (pre HD) drama was being recorded on PAL cameras, the pictures were frequently deliberately treated to introduce "film flicker".
 
The 720p format has equal square pixel resolution in both the horizontal and the vertical directions. The 1080i HDV format has a lopsided 1440x540 pixel raster in each field.

For sports networks 720p is the only rational choice because the 1080i format introduces compression blocking artifacts which make the picture almost unwatchable.

DVC Pro HD may have only 960x720 luma resolution but the chroma resolution is 4:2:2 versus the HDV chroma resolution of 4:2:0. Also the intraframe compression of DVC Pro HD is vastly superior to the long GOP of HDV. However DVC Pro HD is not broadcasted.

As far as Hollywood is concerned of course there is a massive resistance to changing the 24p framerate. However with the introduction of 120 hertz televisions which can interpolate higher framerates the consumer will have the ultimate say over what the frame rate will be.

Now back to the topic I would agree that if the Sony HVR-1000u supported 1080p progressive scanning even at lower frame rates such as 24p,25p or 30p then this camera would be a good choice. But my understanding is that this camera is an interlace camera only with no true progressive capture other than a frame mode.
 
All the manual controls are accessed through the focus ring... You have to go into the menu to tell it what you want the ring to do. It's not an inuitive system by any means... I would take an HV20 over the HD1000 any day.
 
I played with this thing today, it is basically a cheap sony consumer camera in the shell of a big camera. Great for those wedding guys that want big cameras to make them look good. Anyway, its not worth the money, next time I see it Ill post a video of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top