Spot|DSE wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:25 PM
Geez Filmy, whatcha slummin' over there for? :-)
I've answered most of your post in another place on this thread, but since you've chimed in, I'll add one thing...
You mention "What makes 35mm film stock 35mm film stock?
Would someone question 35 mm film stock whether it's Premiere, Vision, or Expression stock? Nope. Because the frame size is the frame size regardless. Same with the frame rate.
Udderwise, I think I'm done w/this thread. Afterall, I just got my clock cleaned by a winking drugstore cowboy who keeps saying how cute I should think he is. I still haven't decided how I feel about that. :-)
DavidMcKnight wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:38 PM
It doesn't make him a bad perthon....

VegasVidKid wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:43 PM

Do any televangelists broadcast in hi-def yet? Probably would require a whole new hair spray technology. :)
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:45 PM
What is it you think I'm thinking?

Hint: The trouble with these long theads is people jump in at post 10 or 45 or 60 and think they know what's its all about. I've said what's true. There is no one standard on how HD is defined. Don't take my word for it. Check with the various trade groups. It depends on not only who you ask, but exactly what you ask and if you're talking about devices that transmit, receive, play, capture or record. If you're limiting the discussing to the United States or speaking about other parts of the world, etc, etc..

Spot started out asking is HDV "true" HD or not?

Maybe at this point the best answer is its in the eye of the beholder.

What gets these threads going is if anyone has the nerve to take a positon opposite what Spot says on cameras, or copyright issues or external monitors or any of his pet peeves then you know who gets his feathers all ruffled and for sure a certain lap dog comes nipping at my heels.

Pretty silly, but oh so predictable and everyone that's followed this forum for any length of time knows it.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:49 PM
Oh no.... just the thought of Tammy Fay in HD is going to give many nightmares!

I got a question, why or why does it seem all the wives of televangelists seem to wear pounds of makeup, especially eye shadow, too much lipstick and have enough hair in some loud color for a racoon to make a nest?
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:56 PM
Let's try this again just for your sake, BB. You can read this for yourself on the ATSC website, in the SMPTE books, and a number of other places.
ATSC definition
High Definition Television (HDTV) – High definition television has a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical(V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9. ITU-R 14 further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard.*
High-definition television provides significantly improved picture quality relative to conventional (analog NTSC) television and a wide screen format (16:9 aspect ratio). The ATSC Standard enables transmission of HDTV pictures at several frame rates and one of two picture formats; these are listed in the top line of Table 5.1. The ATSC Standard also enables the delivery digital sound in various formats.

Table 5.1
Vertical Lines- 1080/720
Pixels- 1920/1280
Aspect Ratio- 16:9
Picture Rate-60I, 50i, 30P, 25P (amended), 24P

ergo, anything that is 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720 is therefore HD. This IS the standard, and has been so for quite a while. HDV meets that standard. And the answer to HDTV is the same response. The standard doesn't say the display device must DISPLAY the native resolution, it just says it has to approximate double SD. Transmitters must transmit 720 or 1080. Capture must capture 720 or 1080, camera must record 720 or 1080. The receiving device must receive 720 or 1080. And HD is an international standard, frame rate not withstanding. Colorspace of all HD is ITU 709.
*Studio interlaced HDTV standard is 1080.
It has nothing to do with "the eye of the beholder." Just what part of this isn't standard?
Grazie wrote on 2/5/2005, 9:10 PM
Spot? - I think, I maybe incorrect, and if so please inform me how to make things better, but your use of those vertical line bars that has made it impossible for me to read this thread.

I don't have a wide screen 16:9 monitor. Would you mind awfully editing it down so I can easily read yours and everybody elses comments without having to scroll Right<>Left every other line? . . Or is there a setting in IE that I can use to have web pages auto to WordWrap?

Thank you,

Hulk wrote on 2/5/2005, 9:12 PM

That is a GOOD example of an HD monitor that will do a variety of formats natively.

I was more referring to Plasma and LCDs. I'm not sure that 34" is enough to really do 1920x1080 justice. Of course this is subjective, but I don't think DVDs get soft until over 27" screen size. Although I personally thinkg that 34" is more worth the money than a 42" plasma with half the resolution and double the cost.

My point is that for a very large percentage of the large format "HD" monitors being sold they can't even do justice to 1440x1080. HDV1 and HDV2 are for the most part above and beyond the capability of most of the "HD" display devices being purchased currently.

So, in that HDV is at least as high quality as the HD monitors most people are buying, YES, HDV is HD.

I have a feeling this HDV spec will be with us for a long time. As good as the Sony cameras are, there will be improvements. CCDs will get better, hardware MPEG encoding in the cameras will get better, cameras will be offered with better optics, etc... The resolution or the recording format won't be a problem. The resolution is definitely HD, and 25MBps is more than enough bandwidth to work with as hardware compression gets better and better.

Just look at how good DV cams have become since their introduction.

More troubling is the fact that HDV 1080i is interlaced and LCDs and Plasma are inherently progressive. Deinterlacing by various methods must be performed for playback on these displays. And no matter how good the DSP for this conversion there is some loss.

- Mark
apit34356 wrote on 2/5/2005, 9:39 PM
filmy, I just about dropped my laptop when I read " 8mm, 16mm,35mm and 70mm are all film to me". Surely your are not suggesting that all film stock are "equal"? Poor "stock" will degrade any great shot.
Grazie wrote on 2/5/2005, 9:43 PM
Spot thanks! - I can read it all again. - G :)
Coursedesign wrote on 2/5/2005, 10:07 PM
To those who suggest that LCD monitors are better than plasma screens:
Where can I buy a large LCD that has a better picture than a $10K Pioneer Elite HD plasma screen?

Or how about an LCD that's even close to the best plasmas today?Apologies if I have missed something, I just haven't seen it.

Between the ATSC etc. definition of HD and somebody's observation that "if it looks like HD, smells like HD and tastes like HD, by gum it is HD," this issue should be settled now.

Finders keepers, losers weepers.

I understand that a lot of people get tears in their eyes thinking about their expensive SD cameras becoming second class citizens when clients start asking for HD, which will start happening gradually this spring onwards.

Well, you can still use your lighting gear, tripod, audio gear, etc. etc. Probably even keep your NLE. And you can make a lot of money if you are so inclined, with existing SD equipment just fine, before it's time to sell it on eBay :O).

Today's SD DV25 will soon be tomorrow's Hi-8. In the meantime you can do a lot with this gear.

2005 will be the Year of HD. Big time!

There will be many flavors, and a wide price range from $2,000 - $200,000 for a single HD camcorder.

Better wear a napkin at NAB.... :O) :O)
John_Cline wrote on 2/5/2005, 10:09 PM

The beauty of an HD TV is that you can sit much closer to it than a conventional TV. The reason that we have traditionally sat further back from a standard-def analog TV is that it looks like hell if you sit close. I find the same thing applies to plasma TV's as well. I have a 34" XBR and I sit MUCH closer than I would a conventional TV. If I sit further back, I'm just looking at a 16x9 window, if I sit closer, it fills my field of vision and I find that more immersive and it is more like looking through a 16x9 window. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I find it fascinating that I can focus on the hot dog vendors in the stands in a wide shot of a baseball game or the individual blades of grass in a close-up during a football game. For me, TV is all about transporting me to someplace I either haven't been or can never go. HDTV does that for me in a way that standard-def TV never could. I've seen 3D HDTV and that will just be icing on the cake.

Speaking of 3D TV (and this is way OT from this thread) perhaps there are some people here that don't know about the "Pulfrich Effect." It's a way of seeing a fairly convincing 3D effect on either a standard or HD TV. Take a pair of sunglasses and remove one of the lenses or, if you don't want to destroy a pair of sunglasses, just hold a lens over one eye. The secret of the Pulfrich effect is merely that one eye is darkened. Although both eyes see the same image, the darkened eye transmits the image to the brain somewhat later because of a differential between the response times of the rods and cones in the eye. The brain calculates spatial depth information from this parallax that does not actually exist. It only works on images with a lot of horizontal movement, like an automobile race or certain parts of a football game. Try it on tomorrow's Super Bowl game and let me know what you see. I shot a music video once that was all horizontal movement and we distributed cheap cardboard "Pulfrich" glasses, everyone was amazed and was convinced that I had done some sort of post-production trickery to achieve the effect. Of course, I hadn't, but the effect was quite convincing. The Rolling Stones did a music video once and made a really big promotional deal of it. The sitcom, "Third Rock from the Sun" did it too and had a huge promotional blitz behind that one episode as well. There is a lot of information about the "Pulfrich effect" on the net Google it.

By the way, HDV IS HD.

filmy wrote on 2/5/2005, 10:59 PM
>>> Surely your are not suggesting that all film stock are "equal"?<<<

No, what I am saying is just what my post said - that I have seen really great films that were shot in Super 8 and 16 and really bad ones shot in 35. Just because someone shoots in a different format does not make it less of a "film". My point being that is someone shoots HDV or HD does not make it less of a "Shot in HD" type of scenerio if the basic HD spec fits both.

And on the comment about film stock - film stock can make a "good film" bad but "good" film stock does not mean that a bad film will be any better. The point is that film is still film - stock be damned. I was trying to *not* get into the whole tech side of things because that is sort of what got Spot to ask the question "is HDV true HD?" in the first place. Not all cameras are created equal, not all lenses are created equal, not all tape stock is created equal...and so on. But for the most part each item in its own "format" is based on the same basic spec - whatever that might be. Lord knows how broad that might be for NTSC as an example - but most people are not going to argue if a $200 camcorder is "true" NTSC when compared to a digibeta or even a vari-cam.
JJKizak wrote on 2/6/2005, 6:51 AM
I showed one of my friends many recordings on my HDTV (Sony 34"with MY-HD card) which are really outstanding. He told me today his 36" Toshiba is just as good and will hold off buying an HDTV. He wears glasses for reading. How many people who have marginal eyesight are in this same boat who cannot tell the difference between HD and analog? This will alone distort peoples perceived ideas of what to purchase in the future.

Coursedesign wrote on 2/6/2005, 9:14 AM
It seems from a lot of studies that when people actually see real HD for the first time, they are quite taken by it. Interesting to see Spot's note that women were better at seeing the details. This seems quite likely to be widespread. I think men tend to look at many things back and forth (including the megababes in the HD demos used in stores).

The 27" CRT HDTVs I have seen in stores aren't even as good as the best SDTVs of the same size. The problem is the coarse shadowmask that really interferes with the image. Like looking through a screen door.

Now, what have I learned from this discussion?
That, by analogy, a 35mm feature film isn't really 35mm unless it's been shot on special order 25 ASA film stock. Anything more grainy than that, you're not using the format to its full potential.

Some DPs used Vision2 500 ASA film for artistic reasons. What were they
thinking? It's obviously not 35mm. I couldn't watch a film like that, because it doesn't represent the One and Only Truth. Yes, folks the dark forces are near. (drum rolls heard from a distance.) The Orchs are coming.
Hulk wrote on 2/6/2005, 9:40 AM

Yes, we agree, HDV is HD.

I'm not going to try and define at what size HD is "necessary" on a display device, that's just too subjective. As you said, sitting closer to your 34" HD set provides you with a more immersive experience than sitting farther from a SD set of the same size. The increased resolution allows you to sit closer without seeing SD imperfections. That makes perfect sense, there is no way I could argue with that, nor any reason to do so. I would probably prefer sitting farther away from a larger screen and that's why screens come in a variety of sizes; to suit the wide range of people's preferences.

If cost were not a factor every display device in my house would be HD, right down to the 9" TV in my bathroom! No doubt about it. Financial realties that we (most of us anyway) have to abide by force us to make value decisions. CRT HD from some, LCD or plasma for others. And SD is still a good solution for many people. We all have our priorities and we pick a solution that best fits our price/performance curve. Since both the "price" and the "performance" critera are different from person to person the ratio can become wildly different. All too often these threads explode into flames because one person tries to force thier "price/performance" curve on another person.

I like threads where we can share experiences as to what works for each individual. Exactly like the experience you've shared above. It's a concrete example of how a specific HD setup enhances your viewing experience and why.

Thanks for sharing.

Hulk wrote on 2/6/2005, 9:49 AM

You bring up a good point. I've often wondered if such people really can't see the difference, assuming good source material and playback device, or the don't WANT to see the difference. Too much hassle and cost buying and setting up new equipment, etc... There is also the fact that excellent SD material displayed on good sets does look very good. It's tough for many "practical" people to swallow the extra cost.

This reminds me very much of high end audio. I've been into high end audio since the day I walked into a high end audio store (9th grade) and heard the Kef 104.2's. I was blown away.

It has taken 10 years for my wife to begin to open her perspective and realize that she CAN hear the difference between a set of $200 bookshelf speakers and a pair of B&W Nautilus 803's. I believe people have an even harder time with high end audio than high end video because they can't see high end audio. Plus, since the bass is what most people associate with high end audio, the influx of cheap subwoofers makes people think that lots of bass is high end.

There seems to be a defensive barrier many people put up against new technology that they think will have a big learning curve and be expensive. And in reality this IS often the case! I hate to admit it but I have aunts and uncles that still don't really understand how to navigate DVD menus.

HD is coming. Eventually everyone will jump from the SD ship to the HD ship. Some won't do it voluntarily, they'll be forced to as the government sinks the SD ship ;)

- Mark
Coursedesign wrote on 2/6/2005, 11:34 AM
"Eventually everyone will jump from the SD ship to the HD ship. Some won't do it voluntarily, they'll be forced to as the government sinks the SD ship ;)"

They are being forced to DTV, not HD. DTV can be 480i, i.e. the same Standard Definition resolution as the old anal-
og broadcast, but transmitted digitally.

HD is not mandatory, and may never be :O(.

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/6/2005, 11:36 AM
I suspect what Hulk means is that as DTV becomes a forced issue, HDTV is a natural part of that progression. Even though DTV and HDTV are very separate issues, they are inextricably linked in that the marketing push for DTV is arm in arm with the marketing push for HDTV.
Coursedesign wrote on 2/6/2005, 11:43 AM
Unfortunately it seems that the beancounters at many TV broadcasters see DTV primarily as an opportunity to squeeze in more advertising channels in their bandwidth (which brings in money) rather than doing anything for the picture quality (which costs money).
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/6/2005, 1:56 PM
There is also the fact that excellent SD material displayed on good sets does look very good. It's tough for many "practical" people to swallow the extra cost.

Good point, Mark. That's probably where I fall in all this. I have a 36" Sony Wega which I keep meticulously calibrated. When I watch DVDs or get a good broadcast program, the image sings--it's beautiful--it looks as good as the day I got (shortly after they came out a few years ago). That was a hard pill to swallow, they weren't, and still aren't, cheap!

Yes, I can see a clear difference between the Wega's image and a HD image. But I can't justify the additional thousands of dollars in expense and tossing a perfectly good television set that provides a beautiful picture aside. To me, the difference in image is not worth it, not at this time.

Coursedesign wrote on 2/6/2005, 3:12 PM
"the marketing push for DTV is arm in arm with the marketing push for HDTV"

I don't see much marketing push for HDTV anywhere. There are the occasional ads for VOOM (which is about to be absorbed so may not last long), other than that, what is there? A few store displays here and there (that sometimes even show SD content...).

All the print advertising I see is "Buy a Big Screen Now!" They even offer talking points for teenagers to use on their parents, "Educational programs are much more effective on a big screen..." (for once, they're right).

The educational result so far with the public is "I have HDTV at home, just look, it's a Big Screen!"

I'm worried that TV execs will wake up and say "hey, about as few people watch our stuff in real HD as have been watching "Star Trek - The Freighter Years", so let's save some money and go back to producing in SD, saving HD for special occasions... I already see grumblings to that effect.

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/7/2005, 7:17 AM
From various posts on the web:
Posted in 18 forums
Responses as follows:
total of 212 responses that actually answer the question as opposed to the "why even ask?" posts. If you count those, or their resulting responses, there are a total of 241 posts.
43 people say that HDV is not "true" HD
121 people say HDV is "true" HD
The discrepancy in numbers is found in multiple posters.

It's very interesting to read responses as to why some feel HDV isn't "true" HD. Most of them base it around the MPEG compression. Hmmm....not too informed, as MPEG has been used as a professional compression format for years, albeit a different compression ratio.
Or, it's that anything professional needs to be full raster sampled. Hmmm.....lotsa formats don't sample full raster.
Still others say that HD means Uncompressed.
Then there was the one guy who posted that if it comes off of MiniDV tape it can't be professional, and can't be HD.
finally, there is my favorite:
"So technospeakgobbledygook stats and compression figures aside...I've looked at the picture and I love it. I've showed it to clients and they love it. "

this guy gets it.
I'll have all this compiled later in the week in an article format for anyone interested.
Hulk wrote on 2/7/2005, 9:14 AM
When I say the SD ship is sinking, I meant the analog ship. I mean being locked into 480 interlaced lines at 60Hz here in North America. Once the front end of TV is digital there will be more flexibility in the back end, or the actual display device. Right now, without a converter box there is now way a SD display is gonna handle any HD content, or digital SD content fo that matter. But a digital front end can convert any signal (basically) to work with any display device. Once broadcasters know that everyone will be able to view their content, at least at the resolution capability of their screen, they will be much more likely to broadcast HD.