Frage von Nightfly!:
Hello everybody!
Thanks to various HDV format and the products of different companies, I have asked myself the question:
(1)
What is the HDV format for now would be
the most appropriate and which format should support a new HDV camera s.Besten so you can work
flexibly in the future, synonymous with the recorded shooting.
Here I first came across the following article:
720p or 1080i It follows: There are currently no favorite but only company-orientations (eg Sony1080i, JVC 720p).
As this may not help with a purchase, I came to the following question (s.Titel):
(2) What format can be better
if needed to convert to the other in order
to respond
flexibly to
trends that could?
These are presented to me at the other questions:
(3) How do I Convert s.Besten of "1080i" in reverse "720p" and?
(4) How does this affect the quality?
Unfortunately I have no answers and that I would be happy about Answers Relating to my questions.
You can check off the whole course, and say that the format next persist, such as "DVD-r" and "DVD + r"
But on the other hand, it can just as synonymous with the video recorders with "VHS run"
"Video2000"and, or!?
Greetings and thanks in ADVANCE,
Nightfly.
Antwort von Martin:
The algorithms for the conversion of one format to another will always be perfect, especially if the offline can passsieren. Therefore, we should look at times to provide as much image information, the different format, for definitely not when converting larger, in the perfect Kovertierung could possibly remain the same.
So 720p with 50 fps - that's 1280 x 720 x 50 pixels per second, therefore, 46.08 Mpixel / s
Pure HDTV 1080i with 50 fields per second has
1080 / 2 * 1920 * 50 = 51.84 Mpixel / s. That is more image information.
HDV 1080i but has fewer horizontal resolution, in fact only 1440 pixels. This results in 1080 / 2 * 1440 * 50 = 38.88 Mpixel / s. The image information is less than 720p.
Unfortunately, the truth is not now as easy as "720p is better." The result is, of course, with still images at 1080i the picture better - it will not be next to take the same picture 50 instead of 25 times per second, instead, one has to 1080i in Stillimage just the higher resolution - synonymous with HDV.
For fast-moving images then 720p ahead, because there can actually change the image information of frame to frame and dramatically higher pixel rate has a positive effect. I would therefore expect that projected in the Picture a fast pans 720p HDV camera, to 1080, is better than the 1080i HDV Camera. Also, the quality difference between Stillimage and pivot should be less than 720p in 1080i.
But practically times: Did I miss something? In Germany there is indeed a 720p-camera in the consumer sector in the price range of SonyHDR-HC1?
Greeting
Martin
Antwort von gammanagel:
Hello,
If someone asks me what format I want, then, of course, or full 1080P HDTV.
If you have not truly unique film is now begetting, then I can only guess WAIT.
There currently is anyway only DV will be appropriately distributed among the people, for who is running even with the camera to the people with HDTV TV and show them the beautiful movies. There remain only yes Calculator and Camera for playback.
The reviews from the JVC camera with 720p (Does not come off because of the 720p) not so good, so is only 1080i at the moment.
720p is the LCD TV to be better, because they often (the affordable) to support 1200x720 and cope better with progressive images.
mfg
Elimar
Antwort von Markus:
Hi All,
at first I thought, if I wanted to upgrade to HDV, I would (to me even though I usually always bring with Sonygedreht) the JVC GY-HD100. In the era of progressive flat-screen TVs, a progressive format is certainly a step ahead. Especially since the HDV1 specification (720p) has rectangular pixels no longer synonymous, which connect to the computer (no conversion simplifies longer necessary if the final format) should be a video file.
More on HDV:
"
HDV1 and HDV2 "
Sonderausgabe der Magazine Highway (kostenlos erhältlich)
Doch dann tauchten Meldungen auf, welche Probleme der HD100 hat (siehe u.a.
Problems with the JVC GY-HD100). Then I played with the idea, with the Z1 next stay with Sonyzu. However tell me this is not 1080/50i-Format especially to ...
So I'll wait until HDV has overcome the teething problems and are mature products on the market. How long do my high-resolution flat-screen TVs even with standard definition content - which incidentally looks better than its reputation! ;-)
Antwort von Nightfly!:
Danke erstmal s.martin, Elimar (Gamma nail) and Markus!
Conversion of one format to another will always be perfect There currently is anyway only makes sense DV So I'll wait From your text I understand that a transformation / conversion, although probably a good chance but there is no quality experience in this regard. And should also wait for the man with HDV, even better where the wind blows.
So with respect to my four questions:
(1) Hard to judge.
(2) Presumably, both well into andere.Kein difference.
(3) --
(4) Hardly. Good quality.
Thank you! Hoping for a few more opinions.
Greeting
Nightfly.
Antwort von wolfgang:
What is described here as differences 720p and 1080i, is more correct in some points only in theory. A problem of 1080i is that it is performing at Progressive media must be deinterlaced - no preference whether it now does a software or hardware. And here is 1080i of losing his Resolutionnatürlich something - so that the distance to 720p not particularly large fails.
This is supported by studies synonymous with test groups, which have shown that up to 50 inches 720p of the groups of subjects has to be ahead. The higher Resolutionvon 1080i is used only for larger display areas (Beamer). The recommendations are therefore more likely today to broadcasters 720 50p (note the difference to 720 25p).
Round and around Herkonvertieren goes quite well in high-quality encoders like Procoder Express, of course, synonymous or other good encoders. However, the question whether such a workflow is basically good - at every step, you lose measurable conversion quality. A workflow, the step
m2t -> m2t -> editing and finales Video
includes,
is worse than if
m2t -> Intermediate (Canopus HQ or Cineform) - runs> Video Editing and finales.
Further tests to here:
http://www.videotreffpunkt.com/thread.php?threadid=1595&boardid=43&styleid=6
The often-cited problems with the HD101, I was able to confirm, at least not on my tester. This does not mean that it does not exist. Test here:
http://www.videotreffpunkt.com/thread.php?threadid=1457&boardid=36&styleid=6
Antwort von Martin:
What is described here as differences 720p and 1080i, is more correct in some points only in theory. A problem of 1080i is that it is performing at Progressive media must be deinterlaced - no preference whether it now does a software or hardware. And here is 1080i of losing his Resolutionnatürlich something - so that the distance to 720p not particularly large fails.
For a stationary camera, I can not understand the statement. Here is the deinterlacer in the Picture of the full 1080-Resolutionberechnen is because the images do not change. Only if the motion is Resolutiongeringer.
Greeting
Martin
Antwort von wolfgang:
That's hardly a typical "no-na" statement - tschuldige times when I say. If between fields is no motion blur, is the difference in quality after the Deintelacen vie naturally less than in one motion. Can not be otherwise.
The detail can be used, depending on deinterlacing algorithm, some minor differences (one field is discarded and interpolated, the lines of the two fields together counted). Differences in the Mechansimen can even see in DV avi when more static image if you will, for example in such things as sharpness. But of course this is on static images is much lower than in movement.
Only: We always speak of Video and Film, which belongs to halt movement. Otherwise, we probably better to use a camera!
;)
The net is full of myths and stories relating to "Vermatschung" of HC1, as have been written about this very much. Meanwhile, much to suggest that this observation appears to hold has causes:
- The motion blur in high-resolution images, which results in extremely fine structures, the exact procedure that i Vermatschung (grass, branches of trees, both in distance filmed) as a car out. The explanation is simply that if the fine structure in the size of the row height, and the grass is approximately offset by the movement between fields are, then you have the purest mud. This is no other way, and is located in the characteristic of the interlaced mode. And since you will then help the best deinterlacing algorithm hardly what - you can see that before and after.
- And halt the generation of the vision devices available today.
As long as we do then the output to progressive vision equipment, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of 1080i. This situation could improve over a few possibilities:
- Either we get of the industry but at some 50p images at affordable prices. 1080 50p but is no longer on mini-DV tape can be saved, then there will be more likely to be chips or hard disks, on which we filmed. Panasonic so goes this way, JVC seems more and more synonymous. Taking this path is not synonymous in the post-running without problems. The file sizes are equal to twice times the data rates can be lowered no more, are at 1080i rather too low, resulting in the formation of artifacts in single images.
- Or we get 720 50p synonymous in the consumer area, what I would consider to be a more viable solution. The files are still manageable, the Resolutionist itself perfectly adequate on a 50-inch plasma - and the motion resolution anyway.
- Or we get visual equipment that can actually represent the views fields as fields, and can use at least the potential advantage of better motion resolution of an interlaced method 50i.
And then there's the huge disadvantage of this post, the one at 1080 5i has been compared, with 720 25p. Have you ever tasted play the m2t files from both systems on a modern medium machine? Or the intermediates of this? As you can see clear benefits for the editing of 720p - the preview capabilities of the material are significantly better.
As long as we do of the 3 above do not score, I'll even wait more to 720p camcorder - which hold the JVC HD101, a first device for professional use is, but will probably meet other devices. Personally I use in the meantime, the PD1, and that in whole and not at all bad, is already very close s.The various approaches HDV camcorder that exist today. Their material is extremely good to 720p inflatable.
Antwort von chrisgau:
The technique is interlaced during playback on progressive displays (LCD / Plasma Television, LCD / DLP projectors, etc.) completely unssinnig and technically absurd. The interlaced technology is a relic of the long era in which the lack of transmission bandwidth to transmit 50 or 60
full frames per second. Today, this is certainly not the case anymore. It is virtually impossible to calculate at any time from two half-images taken at different times to
a consistent picture. This is always a compromise might be the one can bear, although that is not completely useless.
In my view it would have been optimal, with the jump to HDTV using a single, progressive format with a multiple of 24 as a refresh rate too. This one would last the external pull-down procedures for conversion of film to video and the interlaced technique can say goodbye to the museum. The number of lines you have to stop both s.The desired bandwidth adjust as synonymous s.The minimum block size of Kompressionsalgorythmen.
Assuming, however, towards the current state of things as annoying boundary condition 720p/50Hz is certainly a very good format because it provides images s.progressives b) a significantly improved image resolution aufweistc) of most displays is understood (as opposed to 1080p) and d) no bandwidth-and performance-killer, like 1080p (who has ever tried 1080p encodes in H.264/AVC to get liquid on his calculator to run is likely, sicherlicherlich have been close to despair).
Regards,
Christian
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
Anyone who has seen time an HDMI input from a good DVD playing of a good DVD player with a good scaler and deinterlacer in the player on a panel with 1920x1080 resolution (Oehbach HDMI cable connection), will have only marvel and wonder why not look without HDTV / HDV?
Actually, you need the whole HDTV or HDV Gedönse not ... if the panel is not too large, ie, remains below 40 ".
For large-scale projections, the safe is a very, very different topic!
So folks, even deliver your intersections down right ...
Antwort von Nightfly!:
Booyah!
Thank you, Peter Bruno, chrisgau, Martin and especially wolfgang,
for your comments and assessments.
This has brought me many new aspects.
With thanks
Nightfly.
Antwort von ferbie:
The technique is interlaced during playback on progressive displays (LCD / Plasma Television, LCD / DLP projectors, etc.) completely unssinnig and technically absurd. [...] A relic of the long era in which the lack of transmission bandwidth to transmit 50 or 60 full frames per second. [...] It is virtually impossible to calculate at any time from two half-images taken at different times to a consistent picture. [...] In my view it would have been optimal, with the jump to HDTV using a single, progressive format with a multiple of 24 as a refresh rate of finally clever coments about!
wolfgang had a wish for the future with an HD format called 50p ... why ask that?
Hello, is now seriously? everywhere with lossy codecs is rumkomprimiert color, is dissolved in a fraction of luminanzbandbreite ... but allerunwichtigste, namely, the frame rate, which we now want to drive in a totally unnecessary height?
Antwort von WeiZen:
Moin,
because the panels are made for NTSC = 60. In PAL land must then be charged 50 of Converted on 60th The synonymous leads to poorer images.
@ Bruno
Anyone who has seen time an HDMI input from a good DVD playing of a good DVD player with a good scaler and deinterlacer in the player on a panel with 1920x1080 resolution (Oehbach HDMI cable connection), will have only marvel and wonder why not look without HDTV / HDV? You want to go now, whitening is not really someone that a SD AVI upscaled to HD as good as an HD AVI? Not really, right?
The AVI an SD on a HD panel has to look no worse than on an SD panel, which has provided a good scale properly.
I can reproduce itself. But it will never reach the Resolutioneines HD signals. As synonymous.
G
Antwort von chrisgau:
Actually, you need the whole HDTV or HDV Gedönse not ... if the panel is not too large, ie, remains below 40 ".
For large-scale projections, the safe is a very, very different topic!
Agreed. I watch DVD's on a Mitsubishi HC900 Projector 2.3m on a 16:9 screen and even then I'm at about 3.8m distance with (good!) PAL DVD's not totally unhappy.
However ... Since I have committed the crime, connect my PC over DVI temporarily s.den projector and play times, the 720p version of "King Kong" trailer, I think a good deal of dissatisfaction with normal PAL letters become. The resolution advantage could be clearly seen even on my 1024x576 DLP. Everything seemed platically and realistic. Only the slight Geruckel (Trailer 60Hz, because the PC to 75Hz, the projector was problems with 1024x576 and 60Hz) was a bit annoying.
What is scary, but often forget is the PAL speedup by the 2:2 pulldown process. I got used to the fact that the PAL nunmal no other way. But why this nonsense now lives on in the new HDTV world, simply does not want me in the head. Even if one former TV-preserved foods (which were recorded at 50/60Hz) synonymous want to reuse in HDTV (the projected Someone's in see Pro7/Sat1), there would be no problem in addition to 50 and 6oHz synonymous as 48 or 72Hz in the Standard incorporate here. I can not imagine that this would overwhelm the current display. That would eliminate the way, synonymous with the Ruckel Effects 3:2 pulldown process for film-to-NTSC (60Hz) transfers.
Ah, yes ... How beautiful would the world be if corporations were to do that, which would be technically possible.
Regards,
Christian
Antwort von Jan:
Hello you,
which is not always the best) is traversed (logically and consistently well known (see FW vs USB).
Actually, the system would have to go for upcoming TV on 720P. 720p is easier to compress and could be on the digital television networks with lower speed transport to the recipient. This allows multiple channels and the channels would be much cheaper.
Premiere makes it probably even despite all the criticism before interlaced with another way to go.
Well the issue is more likely what's a professional debater, or acute / critics of the existing system's
I just need to tell the Talkshow with HDV / DV is currently hard to bear.
I have a complete system of Sony - particularly in my department (finally sound, great Rückprofernseher (Ok, do not synonymous of the resolution), HC 1st
Each "Normalo" was with the HC 1schwenken as he wants and inspect the live image with YUV.
Almost every customer especially (the one with just under ¬ 1,000 normal mini DV and 70cm Television could not grasp the quality)
Ok this applies less to the professionals, can join one Sonyhätte synonymous LCD Television or higher category, the "favorable" benq 3750 (1920x1080, the picture would have me more interested), but for consumer customers, despite HDV / HDTV displeasure (Inwa)
to see an advantage.
Well now, I probably get another 10 protest Mail's .....
Nevertheless
LG
January
Antwort von Martin:
1080 50p but is no longer on mini-DV tape can be saved, then there will be more likely to be chips or hard disks, on which we filmed. Why? The data rate on a DV tape is) at 3.5 Mbyte / s (see other posts in the forum. Or 28 Mbit / s. MPEG4 at this data rate should super-can generate detailed images, synonymous with full 1080/50p resolution (1920 x 1080 instead of 1440 x 1080).
Also, I find it rather stupid to be real in the camera at 1440x1080 inflated 1920 x 1080, before the images reach the Calculator.
Greeting
Martin
Antwort von Martin:
In my view it would have been optimal, with the jump to HDTV using a single, progressive format with a multiple of 24 as a refresh rate too. This one would last the external pull-down procedures for conversion of film to video and the interlaced technique can say goodbye to the museum. The number of lines you have to stop both s.The desired bandwidth adjust as synonymous s.The minimum block size of Kompressionsalgorythmen.
One would not believe how old they are HDTV definitions. LCD and plasma screens at that time were not seriously in sight ...
With HDV you had more intelligence and more recent evidence, however, can be incorporated ...
Greeting
Martin
Greeting
Martin
Antwort von WeiZen:
Actually, the system would have to go for upcoming TV on 720P. 720p is easier to compress and could be on the digital television networks with lower speed transport to the recipient. This allows multiple channels and the channels would be much cheaper.
Premiere makes it probably even despite all the criticism before interlaced with another way to go. Moin,
But apparently they do not. Premiere has already been mentioned, Sat1 and Pro7 synonymous send 1080i.
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
With HDV you had more intelligence and more recent evidence, however, can be incorporated ... HDV is not synonymous sharper as we have tried to suggest that the picture is just bigger. One DV pixel is as "sharp" as an HDV / HDTV pixel!
Antwort von Stephan Kexel:
Also, I find it rather stupid to be real in the camera at 1440x1080 inflated 1920 x 1080, before the images reach the Calculator. Where is it done? HDV? It is not the bean. In a transmission remain FW 1440 at 1440!
Antwort von Stephan Kexel:
In my view it would have been optimal, with the jump to HDTV using a single, progressive format with a multiple of 24 as a refresh rate too. This one would last the external pull-down procedures for conversion of film to video and the interlaced technique can say goodbye to the museum. The number of lines you have to stop both s.The desired bandwidth adjust as synonymous s.The minimum block size of Kompressionsalgorythmen.
One would not believe how old they are HDTV definitions. LCD and plasma screens at that time were not seriously in sight ...
With HDV you had more intelligence and more recent evidence, however, can be incorporated ...
Greeting
Martin
Greeting
Martin Whether the definition used in HD yet 50i, 60i or 25p and 30p but is not dependent on the device. This is due to the recording of her.
If the recording is in natural light, there are no problems. The problems arise in artificial light. We are in PAL land and have a 50Hz mains frequency of 50Hz, and thus a flatten in artificial light. The NTSC country has a 60Hz mains frequency of 60Hz, and thus a flatten. Therefore, = 25 or 50 frames PAL and NTSC = 30 or 60 pictures.
Anyone who views with a PAL camera in the U.S. has long vacation and interiors filmed in his photographs closely at times will recognize this "wrong" frequency flatten.
Antwort von Holger:
So many half truths ..
1. HDV 1080i has 1440 * 1080 pixel Resolutionmit non-square pixels, they are gestretched of playback devices horizontally to 16:9. The same procedure as with most other video formats.
2. The pixel resolution is contained in the ideal case by a factor of 1.7 higher than 720p.
3. Once motion is in the Picture is (at times even film) seem to be moving all the elements of a Cine - shutter of around 1 / 50 sec, more or less blurred: exposure time - motion. This blurring because the eye needs to see a nice, smooth motion!
Only in short, the individual shutters are properly sharp, movements appear but mostly unpleasant hacked!
4. 50i interlaced sequence zechnet at a distance of 1 / 50 sec 2 fields, records wärend p25 each 1 / 25 sec a complete picture. The first thing is this is a different kind of motion playback at 50i, which looks like a typical videomäßig, but contains more motion resolution. Therefore 50i (60i) is preferred for News and Sport.
5. I deinterlace 1080i interlaced Stillimage "without moving to 1080p 25, I've ever ah algorithm approximate the FULL picture information & Sharpness synonymous progressive! Movements are naturally converted by the offset between fields in the "floating" blur, but that is no loss of resolution but exactly what a true progressive Blid with 1 / 50 shutter synonymous happened: relative blur
6.The cheap optics, together with the tiny chips of the current HDV Cams (1 / 3 inches) does not provide any real sharpness and resolution to take advantage of the high pixel resolution:
- Lenses have aberrations and resolution issues, especially with large aperture
- The little chips and to solve low noise.
- Compression destroyed more information.
Therefore, the result of a really GOOD SD Cam of the Resolutionher is often not significantly worse than HDV, especially in low light area. But had a higher-quality camera hardware (better optics, 2 / 3 inch chips, etc.), then HDV would be significantly better. But only then. Kamrás the cost to bring the s.20.000 EUR, usually without HD Optics.
Antwort von chrisgau:
5. I deinterlace 1080i interlaced Stillimage "without moving to 1080p 25, I've ever ah algorithm approximate the FULL picture information & Sharpness synonymous progressive! Movements are naturally converted by the offset between fields in the "floating" blur, but that is no loss of resolution but exactly what a true progressive Blid with 1 / 50 shutter synonymous happened: relative blur Hmm ... I draw two fields (half resolution 1080 => 540 lines that correctly?) at two separate times for each 1/50s. Then I mix together the two images with more or less clever system to a full screen (1080 lines of resolution), which is then shown to 1/25s. That is - roughly described - the interlacing-correction procedures, or (please fals, I should have it wrong)? If so, I would be the "shot through the front of the knee in the back call.
Why do I draw instead of two fields on each 1/25s not prefer two full frames per 1/25s? Also in this way I get in fast motion "relative blur. What should actually this whole interlaced spasm? Why did the machines do not simply draw fifty (or of me on the film and from sixty-video transfer, please only 48, 72 ..) frames per second, so we can simply forget in the processing and presentation potential error components, "De-interlacing . If this is all a question of bandwidth and the available storage medium to be, I would be willing to 1080 lines, and waivers to be recorded, preferring instead frames with 720 lines.
So far, no one here has been synonymous only one argument, the advantage of this interlacing, in connection with HDTV playback should have left. I therefore assume that there is no advantage.
For this reason, I will certainly never again buy a camera that offers no possibility of progressive recording. Returning to the subject, I would say the need for de-interlacing should generally be avoided in the approach. Not s.Symptom herumkurieren, but cure the disease.
Regards,
Christian
Antwort von Stephan Kexel:
Why do I draw instead of two fields on each 1/25s not prefer two full frames per 1/25s? Also in this way I get in fast motion "relative blur. I would call that not in this case "relative blur," but erher "not liquid"!
Antwort von wrunge:
> Why do I draw instead of two fields on each 1/25s rather not two "full frames per 1/25s?
that would then be 50p.
Interlaced is both a historical legacy: In order for the old TV tubes flicker is not too much has been introduced, the interlaced, was with the speed of each written in two consecutive 2x one field over the entire image area. Together with the brief afterglow of the tube had been a reasonably tolerable Picture.
Today, of course, irrelevent.
The other is bandwidth: 50i (PAL and synonymous HDI) will redeem the moves simply better (not nice! On) that require 50 fields but is not more bandwidth than 25 p.
50p would require twice the bandwidth or double compression, as 50 FULL frames / s are transmitted. The difference is, however, hardly wargenommen as tests have shown, although each of the individual pictures twice Resolutionhat. In addition, the exposure time is reduced to 1 / 100, corresponding to an aperture loss in production.
Technically, 50p or 60p would be ideal. But the eye is learned on film / Story = 24 fps, why change when what? Everything else is Reality - Look, no preference whether p or i.
> For this reason, I will certainly never buy a camera> which offers no possibility of progressive recording
Unfortunately gibts da little choice ..
But you can get synonymous with well-deinterlace-s material very cinematic look.
Antwort von Nightfly!:
Hello!
Small summary of the issues under consideration:
(1) What format should support a new HDV camera s.Besten so you can work flexibly in the future, synonymous with the recorded shooting.
Difficult to assess:
- 1080i better at Resolutionvon movements
- 1080i editing disadvantage (high Rechnerperformence required)
- Easier to compress 720p
(2) What format can be better if needed to convert to the other in order to respond flexibly to trends that could?
None of this has been both favored.
(3) How do I Convert s.Besten of "1080i" in reverse "720p" and?
Procoder and other good encoder
(4) How does this affect the quality?
Good quality but of course with differences in quality MEASURABLE
I would be glad if someone could say something else to question 2.
In principle, I would think of 1080i to 720p would be due to the resolution difference, the better!?
Greeting
Nightfly.
Antwort von wrunge:
All frames are of course the best solution. And so s.besten high as possible. It is possible that even as a DV Avi store and replay on tape. For DVD video, the time Resolutionzur's just limited to 576p, but eventually there will be an advantage because at higher resolutions. Happy is he who has not packed his films.
Interlace videos are really a legacy from the halt start time TV where they were not able to transfer data quickly.
Antwort von derTHOMMESisses:
hello people
in the whole consumer-and prosumer cameras is the image quality falls, and not least because of Optics and recording procedures used - but synonymous with the quality of the encoder! They're always set to a compromise with little or no camera movement artifacts at the expense of the (mathematical) resolution. Beis arrest (Tripod, little exercise) higher resolution, better contrast, etc.
Since a camera can not know what happens next, and since the encoders are all set at various stages of these trade-offs, falling comparisons yes synonymous so hard.
Fewer problems has been so for off-line encoders - and 2-pass VBR keyword. (Dawn's?)
So: What in the (H) DV camcorders happened, would the cheapest, most editing software does not allow it to pass. To access data rates at 1080i or 720p or whatever synonymous always come to much below 30MBit/sec. lie must be a (hardware) encoder dig pretty data. For Comparison: DVC Pro50 (Also standard definition) is pure of comparing the technical data produces around with Beta-SP (analog) to.
The quality or the walking of one system to another it is indeed a double-edged thing: First of all - how well (such as low-compression) is the starting material, and how good is the converter?
Gruss,
thommes [/ list]
Antwort von chrisgau:
50p would require twice the bandwidth or double compression, as 50 FULL frames / s are transmitted. That is not quite true, since only the compressed data stream is transmitted. And consists of a "Group of Pictures" in which individual images represent only difference information on the previous images (I, P-and B-frames). Therefore, the bandwidth of 50i to 50p is growing, certainly, but not proportional.
In addition, the exposure time is reduced to 1 / 100, corresponding to an aperture loss in production. Hmmm ... I do not understand. Can you tell me the exact times. I would have guessed as a 1/50s shutter speed.
But the eye is learned on film / Story = 24 fps, why change when what? Everything else is Reality - Look, no preference whether p or i. I feel really only concerned that there should be full frames. Whether I now 24 frames each twice, so with 48Hz (reproducing optimized film-video transfer), or the whole somewhat accelerated, and 25 frames per second with 50Hz ... which can then be the creative decision of the camera man. I see not just stop, why should be recorded nor interlaced.
Unfortunately gibts da little choice .. Right. Synonymous s.Recherche gave me a lot and a portion of good fortune on Ebay, at cost or less favorable s.eine almost new JVC GR-PD1 to come. This is obviously not the
ideal camera, but at least meets the demand for real progressive record.
Regards,
Christian
Antwort von Martin:
Hmm ... I draw two fields (half resolution 1080 => 540 lines that correctly?) at two separate times for each 1/50s. Then I mix together the two images with more or less clever system to a full screen (1080 lines of resolution), which is then shown to 1/25s. That is - roughly described - the interlacing-correction procedures, or (please fals, I should have it wrong)? Just assemble the two fields into a whole would not deliver bedsonders good results. Instead, a decent deinterlacer should analyze movements and calculate intermediate steps. Therefore, the material of several frames is analyzed. The process works equally well for 25p or 50i - but it is very costly. 25p delivers when it this way, "50p" is inflated, korekte at least 50% of cases, sharp images ...
If so, I would be the "shot through the front of the knee in the back call.
jepp, so as that the process was historically used only to make CRT TVs flicker on - with the result that, on today's TVs, the picture is much worse.
Greeting
Martin
Antwort von wolfgang:
So I will here again for the record that the European Broadcast Union (EBU) 720 50p recommends for HD in Europe:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html
Considered synonymous bottom of the article, the links where you can find the details - and because I want to posit any direct link to a pdf.
Because someone has asked why 50p instead of 25p? Well, of course, because of the better motion resolution.
And a very good report, which has been compared in a thesis 720p versus 1080i, can be found here (registration required):
http://www.film-tv-video.de/reportdetails+M57e8e82c6f9.html
And this report is extremely interesting - because it clearly shows where 720p and 1080i when measured by test groups have their strengths.
And because times had been told earlier that the deinterlacer are so good --
High-quality de-interlacer therefore consist of much more complex algorithms, but can never provide completely accurate results.
And that is the consequence:
Empirical studies have shown that required for the same viewing distance from a progressive image reproduction in relation to an interlaced image display around 35% (factor 1.6) less lines to achieve comparable to Vertical Resolution. On this basis rests the 720/50p-System, which was developed as an alternative to the existing 1.080/50i-System.
And the Conclusion is very clear:
The investigations have shown under the conditions described that a high-definition signal with 50 progressive frames per second and recorded a spatial Resolutionvon 1,280 x 720 pixels on a screen with a Resolutionabseits any television standard (1,366 x 768), which the viewer perceived image quality in all examined genres is classified as higher quality, than with a high-definition signal recorded with 50 interlaced frames per second and a spatial Resolutionvon 1,920 x 1,080 pixels.
...
These findings can make the presumption that a 720/50p-Signal, shown on a 1,280 x 720 panel, provides a much better picture quality than a 1.080/50i-Signal shown on a 1,920 x 1,080-panel.
Consequently canceled must be a recommendation for a production and broadcast standard in the broadcasting sector in favor of the 720/50p-Systems.
The final sentence is interesting:
In the long term, many broadcasters, Manufacturer and watch the bodies 1.080/50p-Format, so 1080 lines with progressive sequence, when the TV system of the future. This standard is both in the ITU-R BT.709-5 specifies as synonymous in the SMPTE 274M, the EBU has also already this perspective in their EBU Tech. 3298-E was added.
Who wants to know the details, there should read times. And since the thing with empirical test groups has been evaliert, I think the time for one of the best available, which were examined, we stop at the moment.
Antwort von jens:
So I will here again for the record that the European Broadcast Union (EBU) 720 50p recommends for HD in Europe:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html What really appreciate it, will impact significantly to the above recommendation. From the social, I know that these "recommendations" are often no more than "nice". Ok, probably not quite as comparable ...
Speculative Regards,
Jens
Antwort von wrunge:
in the end it all academic discussions. 720p50 course is "better" than 1080i50. one 1080i50 Field has 540 lines of resolution (just once viewed as full screen) and one 720p50 picture just 720 lines. is thus technically better.
Bandwidth (HDV vs 720p):
1080i = 540 * 1440 * 50 = 3,880,000 pixels / sec
720p50: 720 * 1280 * 50 = 4,608,000 pixels / sec
720p50 thus has about 20% more information.
But: bandwidth requirement is higher.
There was the argument that the bandwidth does not increase linearly - that is true, if one with GOP's coded. But, within a GOP nunmal is only a certain bandwidth. And here we come to the core problem of MPEG / HDV - a lot of movement within the GOP - bad picture. Either artifacts or the Resolutionwird reduced (less bad). To save the quality, higher bandwidth is absolutely necessary, or lost, the higher Resolutiongeh.
And what does it?
Garnix while TV garbage in best Resolutionund-class, successful Independent Movies with a DVX are produced in standard definition.
That is to say:
News, sports, EB, YAW film industry for the best possible technical quality. Here can score HD. But only good HD.
Storytelling: Forget this discussion. Here is the abstract film look is in the foreground. 24/25p, deep black, cinematic color, low DOF, linear gradation. DAS makes the quality of the image.
Focus: The eye is always looking for the relative severity points. A typical HD video image may be technically sharper than a film image, but due to the high depth of sharpness is uniform and thus the "value" of sharpness but rejected. The eye from blunts.
A film image focused by the low DOF the focus is currently on a major point. The eye perceives this issue as a contrast to the surrounding blur synonymous as very important and was particularly sharp - just in relation to the environment. Thus, one can produce sharper images with SD subjective than with HD and large depth of field and much higher resolution.
HDV (not eches HD!) Storyteller is therefore not an argument to purchase a camera.
Antwort von Axel:
A film image focused by the low DOF the focus is currently on a major point. The eye perceives this issue as a contrast to the surrounding blur synonymous as very important and was particularly sharp - just in relation to the environment. Thus, one can produce sharper images with SD subjective than with HD and large depth of field and much higher resolution.
HDV (not eches HD!) Storyteller is therefore not an argument to purchase a camera. Provided one can reduce the DOF with SD or next. But exactly! Images with large depth of field than we recognize as very "realistic". Our own everyday
perception of image detail, but picks out a rather fuzzy environment.
Anonymous, class argues. Has really helped me!
Antwort von wolfgang:
What really appreciate it, will impact significantly to the above recommendation. From the social, I know that these "recommendations" are often no more than "nice". Ok, probably not quite as comparable ...
Speculative Regards,
Jens When you know that the bandwidth of a station will cost an enormous amount of money, then an already aware that 720 50p will still be the better choice, compared with 1080 50p.
Obs be the recommendation or the economics behind this is to me personally rather secondary.
With economic Sincerely,
Wolfgang
Antwort von inwa:
So 720p with 50 fps - that's 1280 x 720 x 50 pixels per second, therefore, 46.08 Mpixel / s
Pure HDTV 1080i with 50 fields per second has
1080 / 2 * 1920 * 50 = 51.84 Mpixel / s. That is more image information.
HDV 1080i but has fewer horizontal resolution, in fact only 1440 pixels. This results in 1080 / 2 * 1440 * 50 = 38.88 Mpixel / s. The image information is less than 720p.
Unfortunately, the truth is not now as easy as "720p is better." 1080i is for sure better performances in movies as 720p "only" twice as many images and therefore brings them in movies, according to the journal Professionel Produktuion "little sharper picture than PAL (576 lines).
1080i can be converted synonymous with some programs in 1080p or 720p. The reverse conversion of 720p to 1080i but not recommended, since the loss of sharpness is considerably compared to the 1080i recording.
When 720p or 1080i is better depends of the relative viewing distance from the image height. For the normal living room TV is up to sizes of 42 inches according to research by the BBC HDTV 720p be better. This is hardly surprising, since the higher 1080i Resolutionauf TVs of this size is a "Normalbetrachtungsabstand not seen."
Greetings - Steff
Antwort von wolfgang:
This is just out in the test above: up to 50 inches is 720 50p better to just play to his advantage over 1080i is the higher pixel count - and then, of course, when shooting with fast movements () about sports.
One can therefore grundätzlich not say that 720p or 1080i is better - it's more about what is the context in which they prefer. In our living room, where, after standing around Christmas probably even more 42 and 50 Inch Plasmas and LCDs, ranging usually completely 720p.
For the home theater area with 3m Beamer 1080i would be better.
Antwort von chrisgau:
For the home theater area with 3m Beamer 1080i would be better. Sorry, but something with i s.end is a beamer (let's leave the old tube sets left out) will never be better. Interlaced on a progressive display technology simply does not fit together. And the search for THE super software that converts 1080i to 1080p you can probably safely give up ... my opinion is simply not. Either I draw at the outset of progressive or do I have with the interlaced artifacts (live and I do not want to understand just why you should do it).
In the movies that's an entirely different matter. This is the source material anyway but always progressive. It does not matter whether the material on the disk in-between interlaced and progressive form is ... because the origin was a progressive de-interlacing software will always be able to ultimately produce a progressive output.
Resolutionund refresh rate can-variable parameters remain (unless within an expanded standards). That is a question of creative decision-making (24p as a standard film frame rate to 50p in sports real-acting and News) and economic constraints (bandwidth, etc.).
The record of the material, however, should always be progressive. Regards,
Christian
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
So our Philips 37PF9830 HDready with 1920x1080 Resolutionwird always fed with 1080i material, of different sources. Experience has shown that image quality has never been there, we now have in our living room.
Antwort von wolfgang:
With me, you're running an open door, why do you think I have the PD1 in use?
In empririschen test was 1080i but certainly in some situations synonymous occasionally out better if I have to now remember correctly. Although 720 50p significantly more often has been elected.
Antwort von Bruno Peter:
The panel has about 0.427-mm pixels, have created a small graphic here:
zum Bild If you are downloading the graphics and prints unscaliert one can guess about what it is and the way to test their own "low vision" and once the distance measure to all the pixels to "see" because we want to see
everything ...
Antwort von Gast0815:
What it all wrong perceives, and makes the whole discussion again flare up is:
1080p50 is 50 frames
1080i50 means 50 frames = Score of 100 half-frames
Thus
s.ist realize that 1080p is not even likely to be less computationally intensive than 1080i
b) is mathematically provable that 1080i is data-intensive than 720p
c) the question arises whether 1080i50 still offers an advantage in sports photography, since 100 fields compared to 50 full frames make little difference to the human eye more
Antwort von wolfgang:
Nope, this is not. 1080 50i consists of 50 fields.
