1080p--an actual 1920 X 1080 frame size?

F

filmfan222

Well-known member
I was reading the specs on the new HDX and it said one of the 24p modes is 1080p.

a) does this mean I will have a true 1920X1080 frame size, 16:9?

b) what other modes could 1080p be? Ive notec the Z1 has 1440X1080 which isnt exactly 16:9. How does it achieve the widescreen spec for HD?
 
Most likely it will not be 1920x1080 sampled pixels but will be achieved by some sort of offset CCD's and rectangular pixels. However, the specs have not been released yet, so nobody can truthfully answer this question, yet. Wait another week to find out.
 
No HD camera records 1920x1080. HDCAM and HDV both record at 1440x1080, and digitally upsample upon playback. DVCPRO-HD does the same in 50i mode, apparently (haven't confirmed that yet). In 60i mode it uses a slightly smaller luma grid, 1280x1080.

The end frame size is always 1920x1080, but the recorded image never is.

The Z1 has a 960x1080 pixel CCD, it uses pixel shift to upsample to 1440x1080 for recording, and then upsamples again to 1920x1080 on playback.
 
Guys, guys, guys,

For all of the horror that is being focused on the imager and the frame size, you would think that the Varicam could never sell and no one would be caught dead with it. And the HDCam not too far behind. For the folks living and breathing in the HD domain, these are all nothing more than known compromises they are willing to accept for the performance and the price of the cameras. If you want higher, they you need to pay more.

There is so much more to the resolution of a camera than its basic chip size. Sampling frequency, spatial offset, and dsp bit depth are as critical if not more so than anything else. Remember that the chip is an analog device, the signal coming off of it is an analog signal. The sampling frequency is how many times the changes in that signal are sampled and the quantizing is the bit depth of the DSP. These last two steps can take a 1080 X1920 chip and turn it into real mush, or something so sharp that the monitors cannot resolve it.

High Def recording is much more of a compromise that we think it should be if we stare only at the numbers. My suggestion is and always has been look at the pictures. If we only looked at the numbers, Varicam would never have sold, and yet the number of guys that own a Varicam that have shot with the CineAlta, are numerous, and they like the look of the Varicam better.

To sum up, do not let the numbers fool you into thinking that the product is good or bad. The only thing I think we can really draw from the numbers is light sensitivity. The smaller the pixel, the more highly packed the chip, the less sensitivity it will have. The pictures should sell the camera.

Peace out!

Jan
 
Yeah, but we don't have any pictures to look at yet. Either of the camera or from the camera.

Please, just release some stuff before NAB, that way I can get some sleep the night before.
 
jan, nab starts on the 16th..exhibits on the 18th...was wondering if the sheets will come off on the 16th? or is mum the word? ;)
 
MattC said:
Peace out???
Click to expand...


Well, things are pretty stressfull here. To have everyone going off the deep end as if the world is going to end because the frame size is smaller, it seemed that every one needed some fresh air and a little Peace. After that it was a shorthand version of over and out. ;-)

Hope that helps,

Jan
 
unfortunately I started this thread. Sorry! :-)

I was actually concerned about the size of the frame in relation to computer graphics work Im doing. Us CG people have been really comfortable in the SD realm because we can get around with low render times and low resolution at 720X480. I was just pondering the nightmare of how my little bag of SD tricks (noise, less detailed models, vaseline on the maya camera :-) is gonna go out the door and Im gonna have to adjust to this massive frame size. I have a movie Im planning to shoot with some form of HD and the technical logistics just jumped when I was thinking frame size as just one aspect.
 
I knew Jan was "down", but I really hope I don't see her at NAB throwin' Panny signs in the air.

I smell a knife fight between Panny and Sony reps. :grin:
 
filmfan222 said:
unfortunately I started this thread. Sorry! :-)

I was actually concerned about the size of the frame in relation to computer graphics work Im doing. Us CG people have been really comfortable in the SD realm because we can get around with low render times and low resolution at 720X480. I was just pondering the nightmare of how my little bag of SD tricks (noise, less detailed models, vaseline on the maya camera :-) is gonna go out the door and Im gonna have to adjust to this massive frame size. I have a movie Im planning to shoot with some form of HD and the technical logistics just jumped when I was thinking frame size as just one aspect.
Click to expand...

You'll probably just have to throw together a small renderfarm and get whatever licenses you need to network render your stuff.

Alternatively, you can also pay to use a renderfarm, they charge per hour IIRC. There's a number of services that let you do that.

Either way, you'll have to spend quite a bit of money.
 
filmfan222 said:
I was just pondering the nightmare of how my little bag of SD tricks (noise, less detailed models, vaseline on the maya camera :-)
Click to expand...

I completely hear you. I was so happy when I learned that I was making rendered images way too "perfect", and the time and effort saved when I found I had to "dumb" images down to match in post. I really don't think render times will be insanely higher. You will still have to add noise and some blur to match like DV, just a higher resolution and slightly less blur and noise.

I have rendered out the same scenes at 480 and 720, and it's not a huge difference. Still it will be taxing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top