Comments

B_JM wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:12 PM
The "great divide" between "hollywood" (or Hollywood North) is still pretty far apart in regards to the accepted D-Cinema specifications and HD (of any type) ..

you can look them up yourself , but in brief (Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI)) ..

"digital cinema, which defines a 4K (4096 by 2160) delivery system that will be compatible with both 4K projectors and with 2K projectors. 12 BIT color. Brighness same or better than current film standards. "

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:15 PM
As I mentioned in a post further up this thread, I was referring to 1080p being an argument that even 1080i or 720p aren't HD. Or being used to argue that HDV isn't HD. I'm well aware of hundreds of discussions of 1080p. Just not in relationship to describing something as not being HD or being HD.
B_JM wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:18 PM
yes - sorry , i JUST read your other post regarding this,,,,,

post first and let the dust settle is my motto ..... !

B_JM wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:19 PM
I'm really supprised in fact that this question even has to be asked (is hdv HD)

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:40 PM
I don't think it needs to be asked, but I'm trying to find an explanation as to why some "pros" are saying that HDV is "fake" HDV, and I'm trying to gauge the level of understanding of the general communities out there. It's seemingly clear as mud to many.
What you know, and what I know, or believe we know, isn't remotely close to what a lot of the world thinks out there. And with so many "pros" compromising their positions based on what other "pros" have to say....it's kinda funny in a way.
I'd like to see this thread continue for a bit more, just to keep hearing what folks think, or think they think.
Barry_Green wrote on 2/4/2005, 9:47 PM
<<Many may feel "True HD" should be a noninterlaced format like 1080p (similar to film). If that's the case, then HDV is not "True HD"... >>

HDV supports 720p, completely progressive, non-interlaced, at frame rates of 25p, 30p, 50p and 60p. The Sony cameras don't shoot it, but the Sony cameras are not all that is HDV. Future HDV cameras are free to choose 720p as well, if they want to.

<<No one broadcasts 1080p, not very many displays are 1080p, and nothing is deliverable in a standard of 1080p, but there are lots of hi-def everythings out there>>
Not so sure about that -- 1080/24p and 1080/30p are both part of the ATSC standard for broadcastable hi-def. I don't know exactly who's broadcasting what right now, but broadcasters are certainly free to broadcast 1080/24p or 1080/30p if they choose to. As far as delivery, nobody's delivering HD-anything yet except by broadcast... HD-DVD and blu-ray will almost certainly be delivering 1080/24p programming.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/4/2005, 10:01 PM
Of course 1080p is part of the ATSC standard, but read the NAB stats. No one is broadcasting it. (By no one, I mean in the US, there are only 3 stations programming it according to NAB, that may change after this April's conference) Much of it due to cost. There are many stations broadcasting 1080i of course, most are simulcasting, and some just have the channel sitting idle showing station ID's, weather info, or similar.
But...like most threads, this one has gone significantly off-topic.
The question was, and still is, do you (meaning anyone) feel that HDV isn't "true" HD, or that it is "true" HD, and why do you feel one way or the other.
wcoxe1 wrote on 2/4/2005, 10:57 PM
HDV="Poor man's HD" I like that one. It shows where it and we will be in the future.

Personally, I was terribly disappointed when it came out. Oh, don't get me wrong, it is better than SD DV, but it is still not 1920 x 1080 anything.

I wrote the powers that be when the comment period started with the simple comment that if there is more than one "standard" there would NEVER be a standard. And that is exactly what we have. A mess.

No one is happy. The consumer can't figure out what to buy and what to avoid because no one, not even the sellers, can figure out what HD is.

Me, I want a MINIMUM of 1920 x 1080 because I believe that old adage: "The minimum becomes the maximum." In other words, if you have several "Standards," then the worst one will by default become the best you will ever get.

That certainly seems to be the way things are turning out, and HDV certainly didn't reach for the stars. It will become the "Maximum" for many years. What a disappointment.
Grazie wrote on 2/4/2005, 11:19 PM
Spot, if you think this thread is getting "low" on definition, why are you asking the question? What will you get out of it being answered? What is your purpose? And, when will we know when you've got enough responses? - Grazie

Grazie

PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti

PC 10 64-bit 64gb * Intel® Core™i9 - 3.3GHz * 40Gb NVIDIA  GeForce RTX 2070

Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX60HS Bridge

JJKizak wrote on 2/5/2005, 5:55 AM
HD to the consumer (me) is what you see on an HDTV broadcastwise.
After I found out that most of it is transferred around the country via MPEG2 data stream and it looks that good and it's then called HDV then as far as HDTV goes there is no difference. Theatre's? I don't know.

JJK
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:18 AM
If you can't see the confusion surrounding HD, HDV, standards, etc in this thread Grazie, then I can't answer your question. Seems like your question answered itself, doesn't it? I'll have enough answers when I get to that portion of my article. Why do you ask your question? Do you not think that understanding the state of the state is important? 56 posts on what should be a simple question indicates someone thinks so.
mhbstevens wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:34 AM
To my mind, Spot's question comes down to this: Is "High Definition" a standard to be adhered too by a majority of film-makers or is it just a general term meaning "a step up from DV" or "the best we have available today"

The way the term is used here leans towards the later. As far as Joe Public is concerned its just the "new upgraded thing" and he probably see it only in relation to TV and is quite unaware of its available formats or evenunderstands interlacing. Go into a consumer electronics store and ask for a HD large screen monitor and you likely be shown something thats 600x800! See who carries 1080x1960 monitors!

No matter what your own definiation of what constitutes High Definition anyone with technical knowlege and a historical perspective must know interlaceing is old make-do technology that as soon as economics and technology will allow will be gone. It just makes no sence in the long term. Even Joe Public knows that the wide projection screen, TV and computer monitor technoly is converging and when it gets there its not going to be interlaced. 1080i may be today's HD but its just a transition. The next generation of HDV cameras, when prices are down and data rates and storage inproved will all be 1980x1080p at least, may be even more like 4000x2000p

These are changing sands and rapidly improveing technologies so the answer to Scot's question is not only changing daily it will be answered differently by a person who is on a different rung of the technology ladder. For someone like me who is just a hobbyist and who is just buying his first HDV camera, sure 1080i is "HD to me", but next year it may not be. It certainly is only a first step and in no way a standard to be keept very long.

Sco'ts question is driven obviously because Sony has asked him if 1080i was the right format for thier new cameras, as opposed to 720p. That's a question I can not answer. For now 1080i seems to have been well recieved but I'm sure futuire cameras will be progressive and I feel they need to be.

Mike
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:39 AM
What "standards" are you talking about?

One TRADE group, not a standards body, ie the Consumer Electronics Association which all the major manufacturers including Sony belong to or the CEA defined HD (relative to TV) this way:

Minimum resolution: 720p or 1080i or higher, aspect ratio 16:9

I'd say that's very ambiguous. It sure looks like DVD-R verses DVD+R or Microsoft browser verses Netscape "standards" verses W3C "recomendations" or betamax verses VHS or NTSC verses PAL all over again.

Standards? What standards?

There aren't any real standards. That's the point.

There is only ONE organization accepted as far as settings standards. That is the ISO or International Organization for Standardization.

AFAIK, they are silent on any HD standard.

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage

Grazie wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:44 AM
Ouch!

Spot, I wake up confused! . .and yes, of course, I do see the confusion.

However, it was your, "But...like most threads, this one has gone significantly off-topic." that made me ask the question. You didn't see this? You didn't see that I would understand your concern that this thread had gone off topic? . . Ok . . . .

"56 posts on what should be a simple question indicates someone thinks so." - and you think this thread had gone OFF topic .. . ok .. ? And yes, you would appear to have something of a mandate with 56 pieces of feedback. But 65 would be better . . :)

It is the definition of definitions ( viz Bob above ) about this High Definition stuff that sounds straight.

Loosely quoting Bertrand Russell - "It is the ACT of apprehension we need to apprehend rather than what we are apprehending that needs to be apprehended" . . well something along those lines . . . took me more than a week to understand this too!

So, when and where do we see this article?

Best regards,

Grazie

Grazie

PC 7 64-bit 16gb * Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz * 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti

PC 10 64-bit 64gb * Intel® Core™i9 - 3.3GHz * 40Gb NVIDIA  GeForce RTX 2070

Cameras: Canon XF300 + PowerShot SX60HS Bridge

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/5/2005, 9:31 AM
No, Sony hasn't asked me anything about what's right, not right, or potentially right. In fact, I've not talked to Sony about this at all, so I don't know where the "obviously because Sony has asked him if 1080i was the right format for thier new cameras" or anything remotely related to that.
My question is driven because there are posts on many forums around the 'net that make comments that HDV isn't "true" HDV, there are the HDV-haters that can't explain their emotion towards a camera, then there are the Billyboy's that claim it's not necessary to have HDV, then there are the John Cline's that see HDV as a fabulous step up to the next level, and there are the Jody Eldreds that say it's scary how close it is to their F900 cameras in terms of quality. It couldn't possibly get more diverse than that.
I'm trying to find the cross section of the various groups. Sony doesn't ask me squat about their cameras. Or any other product. What could possibly make you think I'm remotely important to what Sony might think, decide, or put into the market?
John_Cline wrote on 2/5/2005, 10:04 AM
BillyBoy sputtered, "What "standards" are you talking about?"

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action. Hmmm... how about some of these?:

ATSC Standard for Digital Television (DTV)

John
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 10:04 AM
Spot, just ONCE, try to keep your dislike of me and stop using out of context qutes in your half-baked "arguments", its called being adult. Try it some time.

Of course Sony doesn't ask Spot about camera designs, no more than any attorney would ask Spot about legal advice. Still, as we are all painfully aware, that's doesn't stop Spot from pontificating on every topic under the sun.
mark2929 wrote on 2/5/2005, 10:10 AM
To be Honest I have not bothered to look technicly at the HDV Spec....I just assumed I had enough info to be happy with the Quality I would get from a HDV Camera.. So Rightly or Wrongly this was my assesment from what I percieved to be the Difference..

1 HD Is the Format used By The Industry to make Films to Compete with 35mm using Cameras like the Viper

2 HDV Is a Consumer Format about 4 Times the Resolution of DV ..Although Nowhere near the Defination of HD Its a great Improvement which can Now be given FILM Like Qualites with Codecs ,which can give an almost undetectable Progressive render.. Also using colour Correction you can emulate different Film Stocks !

3 HD TV This is an area of Confusion for me as far as I am aware there are many different standards..

Spot hope this helps your Question
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 10:16 AM
Nothing more amusiing then watching Spot's lap dog go bow-wow.

The question John, which flew over your head (many do) when I asked what standards, was WHICH standards? I gave "standards" for TV manufacturers, who's Consumer Electronics Association states simply 720p, 1080i or higher. In other words they're saying it OK for Sony, Sharp, Samsung, whoever, to label any TV they make HD capable or HD ready (depending if or not it has a tuner) if it meets the above. You're saying BROADCASTERS have set of standards for how a HD signal should be broadcast. I'm sure they got some group for digital cameras/projectors etc.. that may or may not have THEIR standards.

The point is when Joe Average asks what is HD, the answer depends on WHO he asks. Kind of silly, don't you think?
John_Cline wrote on 2/5/2005, 11:14 AM
Minimum resolution: 720p or 1080i or higher, aspect ratio 16:9

What more does "Joe Average" need to know? As long as he buys a TV capable of these minimum specs and the TV and tuner (either internal or external) is capable of decoding and displaying all 18 ATSC formats, then he's set.

Billy, I don't even know why you're "contributing" to this thread, you bought a plasma TV, which in my opinion has the worst looking image of any HD display technology available at the moment and can't display the full resolution of an HDV camcorder anyway.

Back to the original question; yes, HDV IS HD. No question about it.

John
DigVid wrote on 2/5/2005, 11:42 AM
mhbstevens wrote on 2/5/2005, 12:28 PM
Let ma appologise to Scot for my definitive erronious statementt hat he was Sonys undercover spy infiltrating the customers. I knew that was the wrong thing to say and I should have just said that the way Scott askes questions makes me feel he is looking out for Sony and if he is there is nothing wrong with that. My wording was quite inappropiate and I am sorry.

BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 1:16 PM
John, I'm glad you added "in your opinion" when commenting on plasma, since the majority opinion is 180 degrees from yours. Side by side, viiewing the same material, a LCD can't come close to a plasma. Comparing a CRT is laughable, because of the inherent deflection any CRT tube generates meaning always some part of the screen will be slightly out of convergience. That problem increases as the screen gets larger. Have you ever see a 50 or 65 inch CRT? Aside from the deflecton issue cauing a misconvergence of the screen's prosphers typically at the edge of the screen there is a unevenness in brightness levels as well.

One test is to look at a high resolution test pattern on a CRT type TV and then look at the same pattern on a LCD then look at it on a plasma. If you can't see a difference, may I suggest its time to visit your eye doctor. The fine lines (if you adjust black point, white point and focus) can be 100% resolved on a plasma. Just try too on a large screen CRT.

SweetPea wrote on 2/5/2005, 1:26 PM
uhdv is the shit!
ultra-high definition video. the video has 1600x1200 res,(13 times better than hd)and 22.2ch surround sound. 2 speakers up front, 2 subs up front, six speakers around you just above ear level, 9 speakers around you at ear level, and 5 speakers around you just below ear level.

it is so realistic that you can get sick. it is better than looking out the cleanest window you can find