iFrame

Byron K wrote on 10/17/2009, 12:42 AM

Anybody else heard of this? I hear it's going to be Apple's new small format "standard" 960x540, exactly half of 1920x1080.

Ran across this while researching the Xacti HD2000. Sanyo just released the American version HD2000A and VPC-FH1A which are the only cameras to support this odd resolution.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/14908/what_is_iframe_and_why_did_apple_release_it_today

Comments

John_Cline wrote on 10/17/2009, 1:55 AM

960x540 is actually a useful image size. I just wrote to Sanyo inquiring if there will be a firmware upgrade for the previous VPC-FH1 camcorders to upgrade them to the VPC-FH1A model. I can't imagine that there was any sort of hardware change required to support the 960x540 frame size.

Chienworks wrote on 10/17/2009, 5:11 AM

Apple is taking credit for introducing the 960x540 frame size? Sheesh. I missed my chance. I've been exporting test files to that size for years. I guess i should have patented it while i had the chance.

*pout*

Hmmmm. Maybe if i send in some screen shots showing directories full of files that size and the dates i created them i can file a claim for "prior art".

TheHappyFriar wrote on 10/17/2009, 6:14 AM

I made a trailer for a new game a few months back @ 1/2 HD res. I don't get credit either? :D

farss wrote on 10/17/2009, 6:27 AM

Good thing I already registered the name HalfFullHD :)

Bob.

jrazz wrote on 10/17/2009, 7:50 AM

And here I thought you guys were talking about inserting a window in a webpage, otherwise known as an iframe. Shows you what I know :)

j razz

musicvid10 wrote on 10/17/2009, 9:29 AM

960x540 is one-fourth the resolution of 1920x1080, not one-half.

Laurence wrote on 10/17/2009, 9:44 AM

Yeah, it's a quarter of the area, half the width and height, and a good size for extracting a progressive from interlaced HD footage. Yeah I've used that many times in the past too.

musicvid10 wrote on 10/17/2009, 10:12 AM

Although this will identify me as a bit of a rebel, I generally use the ratio 9:5 SAR rather than 16:9 for my widescreen renders. The dimensions of 9:5 SAR are simple enough to figure in one's head and are mutually factorable by the natural integers 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64, 96 . . .

The number 16 is important because some codecs require pixel dimensions in multiples of sixteen or they will render less efficiently (they must make up garbage information to fill the blocks or else throw an error). Thus 853.3333x480 becomes 864x480, a difference of less than 1% horizontal resolution, and will render at that resolution using any codec.

Thus from a mathematical perspective, 16:9 is an arguably ridiculous ratio and sometimes useless for video editing, at least with 480 SD, 720 and 960 HD .

Since 1080 HD is not evenly factorable by 16 (as 960, 720 and 480 vertical resolutions are), this is an argument that I am unlikely to win. However, note that to re-render 1920x1080 efficiently using 16x16 macroblock encoders (MPEG-2, MPEG-4), it should be rendered at 1920x1088, 1920x1072, or another multiple of 16. 1280 HD, or even 1120 HD or 1040 HD (don't shoot me!) would seem a more logical standard, at least by my "KISS" way of thinking. 8x8 Macroblocking is not widely supported, nor is it likely to be for some time to come.