How Important Is Resolution?
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
When did the EBU say it wasn't good enough? They specifically endorsed 720p over 1080i (although they did say they'd prefer 1080p, but given the choices available to them they'd rather have 720p instead of interlaced).
And the BBC considers Varicam 720p to be HD, just no 720p from anything less than a Varicam.
Rakesh Jacob
Veteran
Resolution is just so easily measured and marketed. It's such a very definable and conveyable parameter that's easy for companies to manipulate and stick on the side of a box. So as far as consumer perception goes, unfortunately, Resolution is pretty important; as far as image aesthetic and perceived quality goes, the percentages in the article seem on the right track.
Long ago they said that interlace sucks and they would prefer going progressive only, and that 720p is not quite HD, so they wanted 1080p. These were just recommendations, so no one cared much. I will dig up those statements when I have time. Yes, given the choice they would rather go 720p.
BBC considers 720p to be standard def, but they allow using Varicams, go figure. They come up with unrealistic standards then they make concessions because they already have the equipment or they have got a good contract.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/tv_standards_worldwide.pdf
Barry_Green
Moderator
Or, perhaps, because it's good enough?
The BBC recommendations aren't about pixels. They're about what they feel holds up best on an end-to-end production chain. Which is why Super16 and HDV and 35mbps MPEG2 get a "fail", but the Varicam and HDX900 get a "pass".
Think about it -- they say they accept the Varicam and HDX900 as HD. What other 720p cameras are out there? Hmmm.... let's think about that one hard. Well, there's the Varicam, and there's the HDX900, and there's... yep, that's about it. Nothing else of any actual quality. HD100? I don't think so. HM700? No. EX1? HVX? All already ruled out because of the HDV or MPEG-2 restrictions or chip-size restrictions, so none of them count. So the Varicam and HDX900 are pretty much the only decent-quality 720p cameras on the market, so they get approval. The other cameras that do high-quality 720p (such as the HPX2700) also do 1080, so why bother shooting 720 on them?
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Yes, it is the most marketable thing to the uninitiated. I think it was Alvy Ray Smith, way back in the day, did a test on how much res the human I can see in motion pictures. He guessed it was about 2K. Anything beyond that, even on a big screen isn't really helping. I guess that's why the studios use 2K scanners to digitize.
But people need something to latch on to. For a camera like the Red, the raw footage and latitude are much more significant improvements than increased resolution. Those raw files have spoiled me in post.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's for them to make a ruling on. I haven't heard any results of any testing from Discovery or the BBC about it. Alan Roberts, who does the BBC camera evaluations, said the HPX300 "passes all the important tests for me", but whether that translates into a formal "okay" in the HD Book remains to be seen.
Last edited:
From the article below it sounds like the BBC is doing a fantastic job of mucking up the video on the way to the consumer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8415636.stm
9.7 Mbit/s is about the same as HD Lite feed from DirecTV and Dish Network, AFAIK their bitrate is about 9-12 Mbit/s. So, instead of pushing 1080p50 @ 16-19 Mbit/s BBC decided to save on bitrate. Recently I read an article on how BBC had difficulties providing enough HD content off-the-air, and finally they were able to squish 5 HD channels and I don't know how many SD channels. I see how they achieved it.
It is really a shame because BBC is rolling out a new DVB-T2 network, they use MPEG-4 instead of MPEG-2, so they could really be the first in the world to implement 1080p50.
EDIT: now reading about it, looks like it is 5 OTA HD channels total, with BBC having just one.
Last edited:
Billy Pilgrim
Stye in my eye
I shot a feature on the DVX, with the picture cropped to the 2.35:1 ratio. We watched it on a standard def DVD, upconverted on an HDTV. It looked surprisingly sharp and clean, and no one said anything about it because they were wrapped up in the story. The only comment in regards to the look was "It looks like a real movie!" It'll probably look terrible on a 60 foot screen, but, even if my film has a chance of being distributed, it'll probably be seen mostly on DVD, on smaller home television sets.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I am a writer, first and foremost, and I agree with what seems to be the spirit of your post.
That being said, it is important to understand the benefits and/or drawbacks of the tools at your disposal if you decide to see a project through to some sort of distribution.
Most of what has been said here hurts my feeble head, but like Billy Pilgrim, I have shot a number of films, including a feature, on a DVX. With good lighting, script and performances, it doesn't really matter all that much in an isolated environment. The difference only really presents itself (all other things being equal) in a side by side comparison.