FORUMS: list search recent posts

How much longer for 720p?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Dave Gage
How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 25, 2013 at 8:57:17 pm

Everything I do at this point goes directly to the web, which is entirely instructional video. Most of what I've done recently comes from ScreenFlow screen captures exported out at 1600x1000. When I shoot with a camera, I shoot at 1920x1080 at 30p. I'm in the habit of editing in a 720p timeline so I have the ability to pan and zoom via editing when I shoot with the camera. I've carried this over to the screen captured classes also which allows me re-size the screen. The 720p project size also keeps my exported PR422 file sizes down which I do archive for later cutting promotional sales videos.

With 4k already out, how much longer do you think 720p is going to be relevant? Should I be beginning to make the shift over to 1080p?

I saw a PBS station yesterday in HD with Julia Child doing a black and white cooking show. Who ever did the up rez on it did a great job. I suppose in 5-10 years, re-coding the 720p to 1080p or 4000p wouldn't be a huge deal. Has anybody done this today and have any thoughts on it?

I'd rather not change my workflow at this point, but it will save time and money down the road, it might be worth it.

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 25, 2013 at 9:45:27 pm

Screens are getting higher res but for web access smaller with the uptake of pad/ mobile. 720p at higher frame rates is probably going to be relevant for a while. There are still broadcasters going out SD.

I don't expect 4k to impact on 1080 cameras for many years. If your client are happy with your work and it is largely for web use then I don't see you have much need to change. Perhaps the next step is shoot 2k, edit 1080. Lots of interesting cameras like the Blackmagic or the digital bolex to consider.


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 12:22:21 am

[Michael Gissing] "If your client are happy with your work and it is largely for web use then I don't see you have much need to change."

The client is myself. It's instructional video for my website in the members area and then I will ultimately make the best/most popular classes available for separate paid download.

Really what I'm doing at this point is live classes via Adobe Connect which I screen capture with ScreenFlow and then edit and add a bunch of lower 3rd comments and notes to clarify what I said (or add something that I may have missed saying in the presentation). They're actually coming out great, but with 3 new classes a week, it's a lot of work on top of everything I already had going.

I was shooting 5-10 minute tutorial videos with a camera in my studio, but this class thing has worked out great since members can attend live classes and/or watch the archived videos, so it has helped with membership sales. With that said, when I get caught up, I will also go back to shooting in the studio with the camera. When I do, I will take a look again at the BlackMagic and similar cameras.

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 25, 2013 at 10:00:10 pm

[Dave Gage] "I saw a PBS station yesterday in HD with Julia Child doing a black and white cooking show."

Was it shot on 16 or 35mm thought? May not have been an uprez.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 25, 2013 at 11:13:38 pm

With ABC, FOX and ESPN all being 720p...it won't be going away anytime soon. It takes a LOT of money to retool for a different format. This is why many smaller market stations are still SD.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 25, 2013 at 11:48:29 pm

[Shane Ross] "With ABC, FOX and ESPN all being 720p...it won't be going away anytime soon. It takes a LOT of money to retool for a different format."

Hey Shane, just a heads-up, a good source I spoke with at the HPA Retreat told me ABC, FOX and ESPN are all switching to 1080p this year, possibly right around NAB.

David Roth Weiss
ProMax Systems
Burbank
DRW@ProMax.com

Sales | Integration | Support

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 12:23:13 am

[David Roth Weiss] "Hey Shane, just a heads-up, a good source I spoke with at the HPA Retreat told me ABC, FOX and ESPN are all switching to 1080p this year, possibly right around NAB."

Really? Switching to 1080i60 seems like a lateral move (if not slightly backward due to interlace artifacts, IMO) and 1080p60 would present compatibility issues with many HDTVs wouldn't it?

I did a comparison of 1080i60 and 720p60 a few years ago and if I paused and did an A/B comparison the 1080i60 was a bit sharper. When I played a split screen test though no one could tell the difference standing arms length away from a 45" Sony Bravia HDTV we used as a client monitor. I stuck my nose in my 24" JVC b'cast monitor and couldn't tell a difference either. Small text on video game huds ended up being the tie breaker (I was developing a workflow for a company that covered the video game industry). The interlacing destroyed the fine detail making the text on the HUDs unreadable where as the progressive was still pristine and legible. Even though the show delivered to the network in 1080i60 on HDCAM (maybe SR, can't remember) all acquisition and editing was done in 720p60 because it yielded the same, if not better image quality, than 1080i60 in the same workflow. The company is also primarily web-based for distribution and progressive compresses a heck of a lot cleaner than interlaced so that was an influencing factor as well.

With all that being said, I think 720p will eventually 'die out' because it's a smaller number than 1080 and not because people can actually tell a difference.


-Andrew




Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 1:18:44 am

[Andrew Kimery] "With all that being said, I think 720p will eventually 'die out' because it's a smaller number than 1080 and not because people can actually tell a difference."

I think a bigger deal is if we can get 1080p60 added to ATSC.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 3:35:55 am

[Gary Huff] "I think a bigger deal is if we can get 1080p60 added to ATSC."

I believe in 1080p60 was added to ATSC but turners made prior to this update won't be able to decode the signal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

I think 1080p60, like 4K, won't make it to broadcast but will eventually be used by streaming video services.




Return to posts index


Dave Gage
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 12:24:53 am

[Gary Huff] "
Was it shot on 16 or 35mm thought? May not have been an uprez."


No way of knowing. But, the video was clearly from the 60's or 70's at best. It did look surprising good, but in a "classic" kind of way.

Dave


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 4:30:53 am

[Gary Huff] "I saw a PBS station yesterday in HD with Julia Child doing a black and white cooking show. Was it shot on 16 or 35mm thought? May not have been an uprez."

Julia's shows were all shot on tape, no film, ever.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:22:09 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Julia's shows were all shot on tape, no film, ever."

Thanks for that, I had no idea what was used (never seen one myself).


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:56:08 pm

[Gary Huff] "Thanks for that, I had no idea what was used (never seen one myself)."

I edited all her shows that she did in the 90's and also some historical compendiums, so I have an intimate knowledge of her library.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 6:54:52 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I edited all her shows that she did in the 90's and also some historical compendiums, so I have an intimate knowledge of her library."

Herb,

What I saw was B & W and definitely shot prior to the 90's, but for B & W footage which appeared to be 50's-70's era, it was extremely clean and pristine in HD. Really, some of the better B & W footage I've seen converted to HD. Kudos to you if this was something you had a hand in.

Dave


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 7:27:54 pm

[Dave Gage] "What I saw was B & W and definitely shot prior to the 90's, but for B & W footage which appeared to be 50's-70's era, it was extremely clean and pristine in HD. Really, some of the better B & W footage I've seen converted to HD. Kudos to you if this was something you had a hand in."

I had no hand in it. Julia's original show, "The French Chef" was shot at WGBH starting in 1963, I don't remember when they went to color. The original was standard looking studio B&W, whoever did the blow up is the firm you should be saluting. Probably a quick call to WGBH, who still own the library, would settle it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 25, 2013 at 11:10:34 pm

YouTube supports 1080. I believe they briefly supported 4K already but pulled it down.
As far as the viewer is concerned bandwidth is an issue.
With HEVC coming a lower data rate (I hear roughly 40% lower) will yield the same quality. That might begin to make 4K viable. Of course one would need the decoder and the monitor to view it on. I think we're still 2 or 3 years away from that.
I suspect for most people 720p is still a comfortable frame size but 1080 is becoming easier to support on the web very quickly.
I believe Vimeo supports 1080 in their Plus accounts as well (free are still 720).



Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 12:52:06 am

[Craig Seeman] "YouTube supports 1080. I believe they briefly supported 4K already but pulled it down.
As far as the viewer is concerned bandwidth is an issue."


Before I post the video at my website, I use Compressor and take the PR422 master from FCP X down to 640x360 and encode with x264 with both .mp4 and .m4v extensions for the Flash player and to also accommodate HTML5. I'm just trying to future-proof as much as reasonable so I don't have to go back in a couple of years and re-edit 100-400 videos in a 1080 or 2k timeline. But, as I asked in the first post...

How does an up-rez to 1080 or even 2k or 4k come out? Has anyone here had to do that yet? I would think that if you can up-rez SD to HD with good hardware and software, this should be possible. And again, I'm not making movies here, just instructional video that I hope will last for a decade or two since I know the content is good.

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 1:18:04 am

[Dave Gage] "How does an up-rez to 1080 or even 2k or 4k come out?"

I wouldn't bother uprezzing for "future-proofing"...just a good quality master at the highest resolution that was supported by the original material.

YouTube still supports 4k if you upload to it with that resolution. The trick is to select "Original" as the frame size in the menu where you pick your resolution.


Return to posts index


Dave Gage
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 5:07:47 am

[Gary Huff] "
I wouldn't bother uprezzing for "future-proofing"...just a good quality master at the highest resolution that was supported by the original material."


Okay, the best I could do today is 1080p anyway and since it seems there's not a huge difference in 720p and 1080p, I'll stick with what I'm doing. And frankly, because these classes go through the Adobe Connect servers anyway, the video quality is somewhere between okay and kinda crappy (did I mention my camera is the built-in webcam on my 2011 17" MBP). I believe their frame rate is currently 10-15 fps, but in theory, they are supposed to be upgrading that soon. Maybe when they do, I'll take a look at changing over to the 1920x1200 screen capture and 1080p timeline.

Thanks again,
Dave


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 1:05:24 pm

The networks' intent will be 1080p/59.94 for internal prod/post. FCP X handles this quite well. Not so for others. Transmission may still be 720p for a while.Obviously conversion from 1080p/59.94 to 720p/59.94 is a no-brainer.

Right now with most internet speeds, 720p/23.976 is a real sweet spot for Internet videos.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Graff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 6:14:59 pm

Forgive me for sounding flippant but I find this thread frankly ignorant. Why would you want to shoot 1080 and edit 720? You are scaling and I'd rather have a true progressive image to start with for the web rather than relying on software to scale. Like the silly mine is bigger, the argument that 1080 is 'bigger' than 720 so it MUST be better is absurd. 720 is true progressive. 1080 is not. 1080 is two interlaced fields combined which makes for some pretty crappy issues related to motion and edges. It will look better as a still frame but once you moves watch out.

All this marketing crap for TVs has confused an awful lot of people. Sorry but 1080 can not be discerned on a computer screen from 720 nor a 42 inch set for that matter given comparable sets The only place were the slightly extra h rez of 1080 might make a difference is on a 40 foot screen and even then its about the process of how you got there not just because its a bigger number. And what you see on a TV screen NOT just about resolution Contrast and brightness being number the number one two and three factor (since resolution perception is about contrast) and then things like motion response, how the color is processed, and the video scaling circuitry in your TV are just some factors. And not all HDTVs and video processors are created equal. And yes that means a TV labeled 720p can make a better picture than a 1080.

As for the silly notion that ABC, etc are switching to 1080, poppycock. I work at all three listed and no one is switching to what is a less than perfect format for TV anytime. In fact I am at ABC now and shared this thread with some engineering coworkers and they got a good laugh.

Very simply 720 and 1080 are two different ways to send water down a pipe. Both have advantages and disadvantages but overall are really the same thing in the end. 720 is far better for motion, and 1080 offers slightly higher rez when blown up to large (over 4 foot size screens) but other than that who uses what is politics as in what company gave what network a deal to use their stuff in the beginning.

Frankly having so many formats is stupid and causes major hassles for us that work with it in the broadcast world. But everyone wants a piece of the puzzle.

As for 1080p for broadcast, don't hold your breath. Everything is now 4K? Laughable. Some of what you watch now that says 1080 isn't even and most all TVs scale any format to somewhere between 1080 and 720, that is if your cable company even broadcasts stuff anywhere near the resolution they claim.


Walter Graff
waltergraff.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 6:26:35 pm

[Walter Graff] "Forgive me for sounding flippant but I find this thread frankly ignorant. Why would you want to shoot 1080 and edit 720? You are scaling and I'd rather have a true progressive image to start with for the web rather than relying on software to scale. Like the silly mine is bigger, the argument that 1080 is 'bigger' than 720 so it MUST be better is absurd. 720 is true progressive. 1080 is not. 1080 is two interlaced fields combined which makes for some pretty crappy issues related to motion and edges. It will look better as a still frame but once you moves watch out."

I've obviously been shooting and editing incorrectly for the last 7 years

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Walter Graff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 6:41:17 pm

No you haven't been shooting and editing wrong, just not making the best use of your ingredients.

Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
walter@bluesky-web.com
http://www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 7:25:57 pm

[Walter Graff] "All this marketing crap for TVs has confused an awful lot of people. Sorry but 1080 can not be discerned on a computer screen from 720"

For someone tossing around a parcel of "ignorants," that's an awfully silly thing to say.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 7:37:33 pm

[Walter Graff] "720 is true progressive. 1080 is not. 1080 is two interlaced fields combined which makes for some pretty crappy issues related to motion and edges. "

This is not correct if you are talking about PsF recording. The whole frame - as an NLE sees - is the "same" (outside of spatial differences) in 23.98, 24, 25, 50, 59.95 P or PsF recordings. So scaling a 1080p frame to a 720p frame of the same frame rate DOES NOT introduce interlace, motion or interpolation artifacts.

In the 24p world, it's quite common to edit 1080p/23.98 and cross-convert to 720p/59.94 (with pulldown added) for delivery. Besides, the rational offered in the OP was for creative and not technical reasons. By your reasoning, should he shoot 720p and blow up some shots? Is this better? That would introduce obvious image degradation by comparison.

[Walter Graff] "As for the silly notion that ABC, etc are switching to 1080, poppycock. I work at all three listed and no one is switching to what is a less than perfect format for TV anytime. In fact I am at ABC now and shared this thread with some engineering coworkers and they got a good laugh. "

The consideration is for 1080p/59.94 for INTERNAL infrastructure over 3G SDI. This may get messed up in translation as these rumors spread, but I do personally know of active discussions related to that. This would be independent of the broadcast and transmission side of the house.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Graff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 8:15:48 pm

"This is not correct if you are talking about PsF recording. The whole frame - as an NLE sees - is the "same" (outside of spatial differences) in 23.98, 24, 25, 50, 59.95 P or PsF recordings. So scaling a 1080p frame to a 720p frame of the same frame rate DOES NOT introduce interlace, motion or interpolation artifacts."

I never said with scaling. Inherent with PsF recording. Sony took a betacam transport, doubled the frequency sampling and doubled the speed of the tape. You get HD without having to reinvent the wheel. And to protect themselves from interlace they created a record system that is 2 half frames that can either be combined for 1080 or split for interlace or their fancy name PsF. Nice but what you give away is the same problems inherent in interlace in certain situations and that is mostly motion blurring and edge issues since 1080 catered to the old interlace when they should have dumped it all for progressive in the first place. If you edit the stuff as I do each week, I'm sure you are familiar with the jitter issues. It's the reason why ESPN went with 720p over 1080. In tests... some I was involved with we had serious issues with sports motion and 1080.

"By your reasoning, should he shoot 720p and blow up some shots? Is this better? That would introduce obvious image degradation by comparison."
You are correct. I didn't read what he posted correctly about moving picts in edit. Sorry. So he's shooting 1080 and putting that in a 720 frame so he can move picts around. Works. And if the 720 footage is good you can blow up your pict pretty well too.

Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
walter@bluesky-web.com
http://www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 8:28:21 pm

[Walter Graff] "If you edit the stuff as I do each week, I'm sure you are familiar with the jitter issues. It's the reason why ESPN went with 720p over 1080. In tests... some I was involved with we had serious issues with sports motion and 1080. "

I get what you are saying, but you are mixing apples and oranges. The issue you describe is a frame rate issue. 30 unique images as captured at the sensor versus 60 unique images. That's what defined the motion resolution.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Graff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 10:31:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I get what you are saying, but you are mixing apples and oranges. The issue you describe is a frame rate issue. 30 unique images as captured at the sensor versus 60 unique images. That's what defined the motion resolution.
"


Frame rate is part of it but that is tied to the method of capturing two "half fields" and combining them as segmented frame does as opposed to true P that captures one whole bucket at once. Not saying this for you Oliver but for those that might not be familiar. It's basically a pulldown. Recorded independently of each other but able to make interlace or progressive as you know. Not apples and oranges more like navels and navels except Sony didn't want to buy new ones so used old technology to make a new format.

Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
walter@bluesky-web.com
http://www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 8:41:42 pm

[Walter Graff] "Sony took a betacam transport, doubled the frequency sampling and doubled the speed of the tape. You get HD without having to reinvent the wheel. And to protect themselves from interlace they created a record system that is 2 half frames that can either be combined for 1080 or split for interlace or their fancy name PsF. "

PS: Don't you think that's a huge oversimplification of the engineering side? While it is true that you can "overlay" progressive capabilities on an engineering infrastructure built on interlace (including switchers, routers, monitors, etc.), the key difference is the temporal relationship of when the two fields (or half-frames) are captured. If the imager is capturing progressively, both fields occur at the same instance in time and therefore the complete frame is a de facto progressive image. If the fields are captured at different points in time, the whole frame is split-field, i.e. interlaced.

The key difference between Sony's PsF "progressive segmented" frames and Panasonic's "true progressive" frames in 720p, is how the lines are read out - resulting in the incompatibility of pumping 720p signals through an otherwise interlaced facility.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Graff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 10:18:40 pm

"PS: Don't you think that's a huge oversimplification of the engineering side?"

Of course it is, but not untrue. Sony didn't want to spend money on RD. Make a new system with an old transport and you make lots of profit. But the downside is you have to figure out how to make things work within limitations. And do you make it for the future or do you hang on to the past just in case. They chose the latter. They are not alone. Panasonic made a whole line of "HD" prosumer cameras based on line doubling so they would not have to use a HD chipset. No one noticed. They already lost their shirts inventing P2 and another costly mistake like M2 would have been a disaster.

"If the imager is capturing progressively, both fields occur at the same instance in time and therefore the complete frame is a de facto progressive image."

It is mostly. Again it has some limitations which ar inherent to that method of "line doubling". Lots of motion is not something 1080i likes. I know that all too well when houses I work at that are 1080 and I have a lot of motion and someone wants slow mo. Rhymes with on no.


"The key difference between Sony's PsF "progressive segmented" frames and Panasonic's "true progressive" frames in 720p, is how the lines are read out - resulting in the incompatibility of pumping 720p signals through an otherwise interlaced facility."

Interlace is dead in the markets I work in. Took about five years. So while segmented frame served a purpose initially it's a dead horse in terms of interlace now mostly anywhere except one horse markets. Sony should have looked forward, not backward.

Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
walter@bluesky-web.com
http://www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 11:16:48 pm

[Walter Graff] "Of course it is, but not untrue. Sony didn't want to spend money on RD. Make a new system with an old transport and you make lots of profit. "

What you are describing is the process that got us HDCAM VTRs. Are you forgetting that Sony had at least 3 HD format before that? Including uncompressed open reel analog, uncompressed open reel digital and compressed U-matic style analog. These were horrendously expensive, so HDCAM came about, built on the previous R&D of Digital Betacam. So I think Sony put in quite a lot of effort. FWIW - the PsF solution came from a collaboration with Laser Pacific, IIRC. It was not simply Sony's solution.

[Walter Graff] "It is mostly. Again it has some limitations which ar inherent to that method of "line doubling". "

There is no "line doubling" in PsF. To call it that adds confusion. Odd lines are filled in with even lines. Both sets are captured at the same point in time and combined for a frame. There are 1080 unique vertical pixels' worth of data. Doubling implies that something is made out of half the image to fill in the missing half and that's simply not the case. If there's any perceived "doubling" occurring, it's a function of persistent of phosphors, lag in LCDs and persistent of vision.

[Walter Graff] "So while segmented frame served a purpose initially it's a dead horse in terms of interlace now mostly anywhere except one horse markets. Sony should have looked forward, not backward."

Actually they have. PsF is purely a function of recording to tape and a method to pass a signal down a cable. It isn't a factor in the pick-up system within the camera and it isn't a factor within an NLE until you have to pass the signal through a Kona, BMD or other I/O card. I work largely in a total file-based world and hardly ever deal with tape anymore. PsF or P makes no difference, because it's all P inside the computer.

[Walter Graff] "It's basically a pulldown"

Hmm.... Not sure I would say that. Again, "pulldown" implies doubling and that's not the case. A camera sensor, like a CMOS is capturing the whole frame at once, regardless of whether the end signal is P or PsF. It's really a matter of whether the data is read out one way or another.

It is true that if you take a 1080/29.97 signal (P or PsF) and convert it to a 720p/59.94 file, then yes either doubling (1 field to 1 frame) or pulldown (1 frame twice for two frames) does occur. So if that's what you mean, then I guess, yes.

As an example, I work with 1080/23.98 media all the time. I can guarantee you that each individual frame is indistinguishable (in terms of progressive versus interlace characteristics) whether it was recorded on film, a 5D, an Alexa or re-ingested from HDCAM. But, when I convert that to 720p/59.94 for delivery, pulldown is added. Each frame is clean in regards to motion, but there are added redundant frames, due to the 24-to-60 conversion.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Graff
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 12:59:31 am

"What you are describing is the process that got us HDCAM VTRs. Are you forgetting that Sony had at least 3 HD format before that?"

And I worked on NHKs test footage in 1984 at the LA Olympics with NBC. Apples. Sony also created still to this day the best consumer format in Betamax. JVC beat them. I'm not talking about equipment. Talking about a consumer electronics company who invents professional equipment so they can make consumer equipment. And in Sony making the method of recording HD they were thinking about how they could use it across the spectrum of their products. In fact PsF was invented specifically for the motion picture industry and 24fps so that as Sony thought, they could have seamless integration across the board from pro to consumer viewing.


"FWIW - the PsF solution came from a collaboration with Laser Pacific, IIRC. It was not simply Sony's solution."

It WAS Sony's solution to something it desperately wanted, the film industry. Laser P was in because they were Hollywoods go-to place. I'll let you in on the origin as told to me by Takeo Eguchi of Sony. Back when George Lucas was the hot technology guy and a film guy, something Sony wanted to conquer with videotape, Sony whooed him to make movies with video. Lucas wasn't interested in new technology as he knew the problems of getting there and promised Sony he'd start making Sonys digital system part of his movie making if they could come up with something with "todays" technology. They did. And that is why Laser Pacific was involved. In a way George Lucus was a big part of HD.

Morita was always jealous of film. He was desperate for Sony to own the film industry and he made it very clear that engineers were to do just that. DId you know that he thought the invention of Betacam would be the format that would replace film. I know, crazy. In fact as told to me by Michael Schulhof, the former head of Sony US, once Mortia saw a film crew in the building in Japan in the 80s shooting an internal piece on Sony. 35mm crew. He asked why it wasn't being shot on Betacam. The project had shot 95% of the film and there was no real reason. Wasn't good enough for Morita. The million dollar project was scrapped and reshoot on Beta. Of course after his death Sony not only got the film business but the company. One of the things that helped take Sony down actually.


"There is no "line doubling" in PsF. To call it that adds confusion. "

Of course not, hence my quotation marks. Just saying that segmented frame allowed you to have a variety of options depending on what you wanted it to be, SD or HD. Yes again a simplistic answer, but you get it.

"Doubling implies that something is made out of half the image to fill in the missing half and that's simply not the case."

To use your own words "Odd lines are filled in with even lines. Both sets are captured at the same point in time and combined for a frame. " Hence my liberty to say line doubling. Yes recorded as two sets independently, but still a interlace way of recoding for that possibility. Might be confusing to someone who doesn't know, but you and I understand it well enough.


"I work largely in a total file-based world and hardly ever deal with tape anymore. PsF or P makes no difference, because it's all P inside the computer."

I too am all digital. Haven't used a tape since the last years Oscar show were all we could get for one of the low budget entries was a HDCAM tape. And we didn't have an HDCAM player cause it was a 720p house. Everything else came off the internet.

Today I worked on a 87 terabyte server. I remember my first non linear system was a DPS Velocity in late 90s. 10 bit before anyone knew what it meant. I had four 60 gig hard drives. I think each one cost me $700. 87 terabytes would have cost gold bars back then.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
walter@bluesky-web.com
http://www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 1:49:36 am

[Walter Graff] "Thanks for sharing your thoughts."

And you, too. Thanks.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 27, 2013 at 1:53:34 am

[Walter Graff] "Hence my liberty to say line doubling."

Not so much.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Mar 1, 2013 at 5:27:46 pm

"[Walter Graff] "It's basically a pulldown"

[Oliver Peters] "Hmm.... Not sure I would say that. Again, "pulldown" implies doubling and that's not the case."

I'll just jump in to state that I've always lamented the vague uses of the term "pulldown", which is interchangeably used to describe the doubling (and attendant cadence) of fields (and frames), and also a speed variation (and often both).

Post production does seem to collect many half-understood and poorly labelled concepts and terms which get perpetuated ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Feb 26, 2013 at 7:38:24 pm

[Walter Graff] "1080 is two interlaced fields combined which makes for some pretty crappy issues related to motion and edges. It will look better as a still frame but once you moves watch out."

1080i60 is interlaced but 1080p60, 1080p30 and 1080p24 are not. It's fine to be flippant but not inaccurate. ;)




Return to posts index

Keith Clark
Re: How much longer for 720p?
on Mar 1, 2013 at 4:41:24 pm

Wow, I loved reading this thread. A lot of great information.
I find it ironic that the original initiator's question stemmed from material acquired from an on-board i sight camera.
I love Creative Cow!!
Keith


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]