HD standards!?! 1080 and 720

[mmm]

I am being very tempted by the JVC HD100, but I have concerns too:

Does anyone know what the deal is with HD standards in the US and Europe?

I know that in the US 1080i and 720p are both broadcast, but is it a Betamax sceneario? Does anyone know the plan in Europe? I heard it was heading for a 720 broadcast standard, but HDTV hasn't really got off the ground here yet. Most of the few HDTVs out in the UK seem to only support 720 resolution

Obviously the HVX offers both of these, but I may have to buy before that arrives. I did read that the JVC will output 1080(I guess progressive!). That must be a simple uprez, but the fx1/z1 do quite an uprez aswell from their native pixel count. Is there news on the HVX CCDs yet? I should think their will be some scaling going on there to make 1080.

HD seems a little undecided. Could one format be knocked out of the market?

 

[David Jimerson]

No one can say at this time.

In fact, no one can say if HD is ever really going to catch on.

 

[mmm]

Can 1080 and 720 co-exsist though? With VHS and Betamax that didn't work, obviously, but is this different?

 

[Barry_Green]

The US adopted 720p AND 1080i AND 1080p as broadcast standards.

Europe seems to have no interest in such a split system, the EBU is currently debating whether to endorse 720p or 1080i. So far they seem nearly unanimous on one aspect: they strongly prefer progressive-scan. The debate is over whether 720p is high-enough resolution, or whether they should just wait for 1080p.

Almost all HDTVs are currently native 720p. There are very few native 1080 sets out there. Almost all DLPs, LCDs, and Plasmas are native 720p.

Whether Europe will adopt 720p, or wait for 1080p, or go 1080i, remains to be seen. As does the whole question of when they will adopt a broadcast standard.

Whether you should go for an HD100 or wait for an HVX, or any other product, is of course up to your own discretion. The HD100 keeps getting delayed -- people are now saying "late August", so the time gap between the HD100 and the HVX may be very short indeed.

Also consider your shooting needs -- the main advantage of 720p vs. 1080 is 720p's variable frame rate and 60p "reality" mode. 720/24p doesn't really hold a candle to 1080/24p. 720/30p isn't competitive with 1080/30p. So the big advantage to 720p is that it can have variable frame rates and it can record at 60p -- 720/60p does a better job with sports and high-action stuff than 1080/60i does, which is why the big sports networks (ABC/Fox/ESPN) all chose 720p. The HD100 offers neither advantage -- you can't record 60p, and you have no access to variable frame rates. If all you need is 24p or 30p, and 720 is enough resolution, the HD100 may be a perfectly acceptable choice. Just be aware of what you're getting, and more specifically what you're not getting, and make an informed choice.

 

[Sirius_Doggy]

My HD TV supports both 1080i and 720p.................... so YES, they can co-exist.
I believe most of the US networks have already made their choice and will not change easily. I beleive NBC has chosen 1080i and ABC has chosen 720p.

 

[Barry_Green]

ABC, Fox, ESPN are all 720p. NBC, CBS, and PBS are all 1080i. I believe Discovery is also 1080i.

 

[Neil Rowe]

..yeah barry , i was shopping for HD monitors/tvs yesterday, and was suprised to see a 37" LCD set at naitive 1920x1080 res at best buy the other day for apx 2225.00 . it even had a little sticker saying. "this set is capeable of displaying a full 1080 Hd signal at naitive resolution 1920x1080." ..downside was it only had a 600:1 contrast ratio. but ive seen some very very nice images that rivaled or were even better than higher rated screens from screens with even less impressive of a contrast ratio. anyway i couldnt see the picture quality cause it wasnt hooked up yet..or jst not hooked up right so no picture to see at the time. most like you said are 1280x720 or ive seen alot that just have some arbitrary resolution like 1380x 960 or somthing stupid like that that just scale everything to the resolution it has.

 

[mmm]

... The HD100 keeps getting delayed -- people are now saying "late August", so the time gap between the HD100 and the HVX may be very short indeed.

I spoke to Optex in the UK today and they are still saying mid-July. I asked why they weren't being delayed, and he said that they had ordered very early on and had units secured. If that is the case, I'll try and get my hands on the camera there as he said they would be keeping a demo model. I guess we'll know if this is true very soon!

720/24p doesn't really hold a candle to 1080/24p. 720/30p isn't competitive with 1080/30p.

...but if the HVX uprezzes its 1080 signal from a CCD that isn't much higher rez that JVC's native 1280 x 720, it won't make much odds. Basically I'm wondering whether the advantage of 1080 will be as apparent in these new lower end cameras as it is in Cinealta/Varicam. 1080 may end up using a far higher data rate for little advantage. Once we get the HD100 we can see how it compares to the Z1 resolution wise. Do we still not know the HVX's CCD resolution?

I have also heard that ProHdv tends to give better results than dvcproHD in 720p and obviously is far cheaper at present. Add to that the JVC's great form factor and lenses and it becomes very tempting. That is why the lack of 1080 and a"reality" mode are my major concerns.

 

[thisiswells]

Digital Television has certainly caught on.. even if in SD it's so superior to analog broadcasting. I realize most of us (me, included) have Digital Cable or Satalite, but Digital broadcasting IS a step in the right direction even higher definition content isn't always available, it IS digital, which is good.

My HDTV displays all of them, but I'm not sure what it's native format is. Barry has convinced me it is 720P and does some kind of conversion to display 1080i as natively having two pixel dimensions isn't quite possible.

anyone else have a USDTV receiver? Barry!?!

 

[mmm]

So on most HDTVs, 1080 shouldn't look any better should it...? If they just down-rez it to 720.

 

[Barry_Green]

In most circumstances 1080 doesn't really look any better anyway, even on a CRT that shows 1080 at its best. Interlaced 1080 vs. progressive 720 is pretty much a wash.

USDTV? No, never bothered with it. If they had HD channels instead of SD I would have signed up, but I'm on cable for SD channels and OTA for HD. USDTV might be a decent alternative if you don't have cable already, but you get a bazillion channels on cable vs. not that many for USDTV. But, again, if they offered ESPN-HD and their other channels in HD instead of just DTV, yeah I'd sign up in a minute.

I have also heard that ProHdv tends to give better results than dvcproHD in 720p and obviously is far cheaper at present.

Wherever you heard that, they're dead wrong. HDV does not, under any circumstances, deliver better results than DVCPRO-HD. It just doesn't. Granted it's much more competitive in 720p than it is in 1080i -- in 1080i DVCPRO-HD mops the floor with HDV. But in 720p HDV does hold up better, in comparison. However, it still has only half the color resolution and when the shot starts moving, DVCPRO-HD starts to kick major HDV butt. In static shots HDV is pretty competitive with DVCPRO-HD. In moving shots it's no contest.

 

[mmm]

Wherever you heard that, they're dead wrong. HDV does not, under any circumstances, deliver better results than DVCPRO-HD. It just doesn't. Granted it's much more competitive in 720p than it is in 1080i -- in 1080i DVCPRO-HD mops the floor with HDV. But in 720p HDV does hold up better, in comparison. However, it still has only half the color resolution and when the shot starts moving, DVCPRO-HD starts to kick major HDV butt. In static shots HDV is pretty competitive with DVCPRO-HD. In moving shots it's no contest.

It is on DVXuser, it links to another site where the guy seems pretty switched on:

"I believe these tests are somewhat flawed, although I may reach some of the same conclusions, these tests don't have contain that proof. My comments are on the other forum here : http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthre...7199#post327199

David Newman
CTO, CineForm"

On the link he says:

"In the long run I do believe 1080i60 DVCPRO-HD is superior to 1080i60 HDV, because 100Mb/s vs 25Mb/s will win out (and DVCPRO_HD only has a 12% res drop over HDV.) It will be worth some real world tests to show whether the difference is significant (for purchase decisions.) Yet for cameras shooting 720p24 I think HDV wins for practical applications as 19Mb/s MPEG2 is a match for 40Mb/s DVCPRO-HD, and the resolution gain of HDV is significant (33% more pixels.)"

ProHD is only half the bitrate and using GOP it should make them competitive should it. Obviously 4:2:2 is better, but must be at the expense of higher compression...? Obviously crazy movement is not great though, but in general isn't ProHD a far more efficient codec.

I am no expert!!! This is just from what I have read!! :undecided

 

[Barry_Green]

MPEG compression is more efficient, when it works well -- but consider that DVCPROHD is using 5x as much bandwidth! ProHD is using 19 megabits, DVCPRO-HD is using 100 megabits. Is MPEG's efficiency enough to overcome a 5x gain in bandwidth? Assuredly not.

One concession I would make to David's view is that HDV does encode the full luminance grid, 1280 x 720, whereas DVCPRO-HD encodes 960x720. That somewhat counteracts the lower 4:2:0 color sampling of HDV. Whether a 33% luma gain for HDV counteracts a 50% chroma gain for DVCPRO-HD remains to be seen. David also is making the argument based on the lower frame rates: at 24p, DVCPRO-HD has double the bandwidth of HDV, but HDV's MPEG-2 compression may provide enough efficiency to overcome the bandwidth limitation. At 30p, DVCPRO-HD has 2.5x as much bandwidth, and at 60p DVCPRO-HD has over 5x as much bandwidth.

On a still shot, they'll probably be pretty competitive -- especially at 24p. But when the shot starts moving, DVCPRO-HD is easily superior. When you go to 30p, DVCPRO-HD is even more superior. When you hit 60p, DVCPRO-HD is immeasurably superior (especially because current implementations of HDV don't even allow for 60p encoding due to hardware restrictions).

I think the JVC HD100, in 24p, is likely to produce the best-looking HDV footage of all HDV cameras. It uses the slowest frame rate with the most bits-per-pixel, meaning the least compression artifacts and the least susceptibility to motion-introduced resolution loss. HDV 720/24p is likely the best implementation of HDV anyone's going to see. But from the testing I did, I still would say that under any likely shooting conditions, DVCPRO-HD is going to deliver better-looking footage, and certainly will be more reliable (i.e., no motion artifacts, no HDV "surprises" in the editing suite). And when it comes to using faster frame rates it's no contest at all. Not at all.

 

[mmm]

MPEG compression is more efficient, when it works well -- but consider that DVCPROHD is using 5x as much bandwidth! ProHD is using 19 megabits, DVCPRO-HD is using 100 megabits. Is MPEG's efficiency enough to overcome a 5x gain in bandwidth? Assuredly not.

But like you go on to say, it isn't really 5x, because ProHD doesn't support 60p so there is no comparison. At 24p, the bitrate is only double. I will mainly be using 25p, is that 19Mbit (ProHD) & 50 Mbit (DVCPROHD)?? Or is it still 40Mbit in DVCPROHD?

Your tests clearly show the chroma sampling advantage, but at a guess I would say that the real world footage winner will depend on the camera and not the codec.

I may still wait for the HVX, but in order to shoot 720p, it appears that the JVC may give very similar results without the expense of P2 and backup issues. I am not a fan of slow-mo anyway and if the HVX simply up-rezzes to 1080, there is no advantage there either. AF and OIS would be nice though :undecided

It is a tough one, and compromise is the name of the game in this price band. Like I always say: "good filmmaking is good compromising."

 

[Barry_Green]

But like you go on to say, it isn't really 5x, because ProHD doesn't support 60p so there is no comparison.

Correct. There is no comparison.

At 24p, the bitrate is only double.

As is the chroma sampling.

I will mainly be using 25p, is that 19Mbit (ProHD) & 50 Mbit (DVCPROHD)??

No, 30p would occupy 50 Mbit. 25p would be around 42 megabits.

Your tests clearly show the chroma sampling advantage

And also the variable resolution disadvantage that comes into play with HDV...

but at a guess I would say that the real world footage winner will depend on the camera and not the codec.

Absolutely! A horrible camera head recording to DVCPRO-HD could very well produce far inferior results as compared to a great camera head recording to 24p HDV. There is much more to the story than just the format. I've only been talking about the format, and avoiding talking about the cameras, because there are no cameras yet; the format is the only thing we can actually compare. Camera comparisons will come when the cameras are released.

I may still wait for the HVX, but in order to shoot 720p, it appears that the JVC may give very similar results without the expense of P2 and backup issues.

Not sure about "very similar", but I will say that the JVC is likely to deliver the best HDV footage someone will ever get. Whether it's in any way comparable to the HVX footage is something that will have to be seen.

if the HVX simply up-rezzes to 1080, there is no advantage there either.

While one can never say never, I would be tempted to use the word to say that Panasonic would *never* release a camera that did something as lame as digitally up-rezzing footage in-camera! It will have a high-def chipset that delivers 1080 resolution -- whether it does it through spatial offset, or native resolution, or some new technology that we don't even know about, that remains to be seen. But I feel very (VERY) confident in predicting that it will not be some interpolation/uprez thing.

AF and OIS would be nice though :undecided

Yes, but those aren't the only things that are different between those cameras.

If you compare them, the chart might look something like this:

Features the JVC has, that the HVX doesn't:
Interchangeable lenses
Shoulder-mount form factor
480/60p recording
"motion smoothing" feature
ability to record on a tape, even if it is just HDV

Features the HVX has, that the JVC doesn't:
4:2:2 color sampling
1080/24p
1080/30p
1080/60i
720/60p
720/variable frame rates, from as slow as 4p to as fast as 60p
DVCPRO50 4:2:2 standard-def, in 24p, 30p, and 60i
480/DV variable frame rates (downrezzed from P2 card)
DV in 30p
Uncompressed audio!
4 channels of audio
Expanded focus viewfinder
P2 capability
Cinegamma
Much longer battery life (5 hrs, vs. about 90 minutes for JVC)
Optical image stabilization
Autofocus
Ability to use firewire input for NLE viewing/scrubbing in HD or DV50

Bad features of the JVC, that the HVX doesn't have:
Variable-resolution MPEG artifacts
Unpredictable MPEG artifacting
Complete lack of HD "reality" 60p
Compressed audio recording in HD mode
No ability to use firewire input for NLE viewing/scrubbing in HD

Bad features of the HVX, that the JVC doesn't have:
can't record any form of HD to built-in tape drive
No interchangeable lens.

It is a tough one, and compromise is the name of the game in this price band. "

Doesn't seem that tough. Apart from the lens, it looks like a no-brainer to me. I mean, seriously, people compare 720 to 1080 and in that comparison, 720 has only one advantage: its 60p mode is clearer and artifact-free as compared to 1080/60i.

1080/24p beats 720/24p all day -- it's got twice the pixels.
1080/30p beats 720/30p all day long -- same reason.
So 720 is really only competitive with 1080 when it comes to 60p vs. 60i -- and the JVC can't do 60p. So it misses the one advantage that it could have had.

Yet the HVX does all the 720, and more, including 60p and variable frame rates, and 4:2:2, and then on top of that it gives you 1080 as well.

I'm not saying the JVC's not a good camera, even a revolutionary camera -- but to lump it next to the HVX and think the JVC is anywhere near the same caliber, based on specifications alone, is just silly. The JVC is nowhere near as full-featured as the HVX is. On paper. But, it's all in the images, and that part of the equation remains to be seen. If the JVC's 720p looks brilliantly gorgeous, and the HVX's 1080 looks bad by comparison, then there's no doubt which way people will go.

The way I see it, looking on paper, there are basically only four criteria someone should use to determine to buy the JVC instead of the HVX:
1) if they absolutely positively must have interchangeable lenses
2) if they absolutely positively must record to tape, even if they understand the compromises they're making by choosing HDV
3) if they absolutely positively must have a shoulder-mount form factor.
4) if they absolutely cannot wait and must have something sooner than the HVX's release date.

Other than those four factors, the HVX is substantially ahead, feature-wise, spec-wise, on paper. It's not even close.

Choose the JVC if you like it, if you meet one or more of the four criteria, or just because you like the way it looks, or whatever reason -- just don't kid yourself into thinking it's something that it isn't. It is what it is. And what it is looks very attractive. But it isn't what it isn't.

 

[mmm]

I love the idea of the HVX, and I really can't wait to see the HVX and HD100 next to each other. I mean I REALLY can't wait, hence the anxious speculation!

If money is no object, the HVX is very probably the winner here, and certainly is on paper it wipes the floor with the HD100. But we don't shoot films on paper and for everyone on this board, I presume money is an object.

There are compromises with both cameras; that we can see before we get them! Well they can't make a Genesis for 6k can they!

Panasonic, JVC and Sony have all compromised differently and as a result we actually have very different products. Which is good for us I suppose.

Sony has compromised the camera in order to get in to the market way ahead of everyone else. Hats off to them, what an innovation. But for me, it doesn't fit my fictional drama needs.

JVC fits those exact needs very well with the exclusively progressive (in HD) HD100. Now there must have been reasons to make that decision - format & CCD limitations etc, but it may mean that the CCDs produce a kick ass progressive picture.

Panasonic has the fewest limitations in the camera, but instead passes them on elsewhere. Capture will be very expensive for now, as will data storage. I will have to see when the camera arrives whether the limitation on my wallet is worth it.

My questions about 720p have been to figure out if this is really my preferred format. It appears pretty competitive for my needs.

If I had to have the extra features of the HVX, I would have to also invest in P2/HD, and I have to justify that extra expense. For some people it may be a no brainer, but for many including myself it is a real brain melter... not helped by having no production models! :laugh:

 

[mmm]

Just realised how long our essays to each other are Barry!! Thank god it isn't a long distance phonecall!

This conversation really requires a pub and a few pints of cider. That would make things clearer :beer:

 

[Barry_Green]

mmm, your post is absolutely exactly what it should be. Your examination of the various cameras, and recognizing that their are compromises in each, and determining which suits your needs better, is the way I wish everyone would approach the subject.

I really do think that it will be an easy choice between the cameras, simply because they're all so very different. If they were basically the same, that's when it gets hard to choose between them. I know there will be many people who look at the cameras (not the footage mind you, but the cameras themselves) and immediately buy the JVC. And there's not a thing wrong with that. Then there will be others who will look at the spec sheets, and immediately order an HVX. Nothing wrong with that either.

But in this price range, it does behoove (did I just use that word? seriously?) the user to get some hands-on time with each. Spending $6,000 based on some web postings seems not-the-best-way to make such a heavy purchase.

With that said, I seriously doubt purchasers of any of these three cameras (HD100, Z1, or HVX) will be anything less than thrilled. I mean, of course we have to see them to know for sure, and as long as someone's making an informed choice based on the actual capabilities, it's just hard to see how one would go wrong with any of them.

 

[mmm]

Thanks Barry! I'll take that as a compliment from a man I respect as one of the most sensible, logical forum posters I've ever seen.

I think I have learnt nearly everything I can until the cameras arrive. Now just got to sit and wait with £4.5k burning a hole in my pocket!

 

[Erik Olson]

Why don't you two get a room already? It's just getting a little out of hand now.

:evil:

Barry,

Have you had any experience routing Z1U to a portable 1080i-compatible LCD monitor for the director or producer? Wireless options? We need a "24-frame" style set-up for on-set direction, no recording or switching necessary.

Cheers,

e