Tweet
Answer To Doc Mordrid's 1080 Production Question
Doc,
For the hundredth time, you are not producing in 1080 at 60 frames per second.
True 1080p production has been a fantasy until recently.
By true 1080p production, I am speaking of the Holy Grail of 1080p production -- 1080p at a full 60 frames per second (1080/60p).
The hype relative to 1080p fraudulent consumer television marketing is that TVs are being sold that are way ahead of the production hardware.
So -- as a consequence -- people are buying expensive 1080p TV in the erroneous belief that they are going see a quality gain over 720p TVs.
In the vast majority of cases, they won't.
Why?
Because current high definition TV production is often constained by the equipment that is available.
In the high definition video production world, that has -- until recently -- been constrained to cameras that shoot 720p at a full 60 frames per second (720/60p) *or* 1080/60i (interlaced) *or* 1080p at a low temporal resolution of 24 frames per second.
Trust me.
If you are a low-end high definition video producer today you are likely shooting 1080/60i (INTERLACED!).
Now you can take the top 1080i consumer camcorder available today and compare its footage to the footage recorded by the $45,000 720p Panasonic AJ-HDC27H VariCam and -- I guarantee you -- the footage by the Varicam will look better on a 1080p TV.
This is where amateurs get so confused.
They buy into the notion that a higher number for resolution is the most important factor that decides image quality and that is a false belief!!!!
There are many other factors... the quality of the lens of the camera... the quality of the imager inside of the camera... the quality of many internal components that have absolutely nothing to do with sheer numeric resolution!!!!
Note that the producers of the BBC "Planet Earth" series used a $45,000 720p Panasonic AJ-HDC27H camera to acquire the footage for their series:
The series turned out to be so stunning -- even with video acquired in 720p -- that many individuals (see Apulo's thread) are under the mistaken impression that the series footage "had to be 1080p" when it clearly wasn't.
Apulo's remark in the other thread was hilarious to me because on the one hand he trashed 720p as being "barely better than 720 x 480 SD" and then -- simultaneously -- he gushed over the quality of the "Planet Earth" series, where -- unknown to him -- the footage was acquired with a 720p camera... the $45,000 Panasonic VariCam.
This is a prime example of consumer ignorance.
Now let's cut to the chase.
A 720p TV is going to show every bit as much detail from the 720p video acquired by the Panasonic VariCam as you would see on a 1080p TV.
But many ignorant consumers believe that they're going to see a better picture with a 1080p TV even when the source material is constrained to 720p!!!!
And I don't care how big the TV happens to be.
If the source material is 720p, then that 1080p TV is not going to show more detail than a 720p TV.
The only way a 1080p TV could show more detail would be if the source material were acquired at a true 1080 resolution.
So let's look at reality.
Until very recently, there have been essentially two choices available to 1080 photographers:
1. 1080/60i cameras (and these arguably are not as good as top shelf 720/60p cameras such as the Panasonic VariCam);
2. 1080/24p cameras.
Due to the fact most American TVs operate at a 60Hz refresh rate, even the 1080/24p material often has to be electronically altered to be shown on those TVs.
The Holy Grail of 1080 production... 1080/60p... has not even existed until very recently.
So, in answer to your question, you are not likely acquiring at 1080p unless you have INCREDIBLY DEEP POCKETS and can afford something like a brand new Sony F-23 CineAlta with the SRW-1 recorder:
And even then, you have to buy the optional recorder to be able to record that data-intensive 1080/60p format:
And I'm not even sure how many people are actually doing that because the FAQ on the Sony Web site said such recording was not expected to be ready until very recently:
Did they actually get it working?
Can anybody point to an article where somebody is currently using this camera to do 1080/60p production?
If you intend to market true 1080/60p format, you have two ways to distribute it.
You can distribute via Blu-ray Disc, which practically nobody has adopted, relatively speaking.
So your business model would seem to be flawed -- even in that scenario -- because practically nobody will be able to see your production in true 1080p format.
So you could shoot in 1080/24p format, but that's also only possible with extremely expensive cameras and -- even then -- there's a problem.
With the native 1080/24p format, many people who have 1080p TVs might be screwed, depending on the model of 1080p TV they purchased.
Why?
Because many so-called "1080p" TVs sold to date won't be able to accept a native 1080/24p signal.
You could distribute via download, but even that option is going to be difficult due to the bandwidth problem that makes 1080p such a "pie-in-the-sky" proposition right now for the Internet.
What about broadcast distribution?
That presents another problem.
There is no ATSC 1080/60p format!
So that means high definition distributed via broadcast is distributed via 720p or 1080i.
So even if you can afford a 1080/60p camera/recorder combo, you're probably going to have to wait years -- years -- for the distribution systems to be viable for distributing that format.
Right now, hype is selling a lot of 1080p TVs.
Jerry Jones
For the hundredth time, you are not producing in 1080 at 60 frames per second.
True 1080p production has been a fantasy until recently.
By true 1080p production, I am speaking of the Holy Grail of 1080p production -- 1080p at a full 60 frames per second (1080/60p).
The hype relative to 1080p fraudulent consumer television marketing is that TVs are being sold that are way ahead of the production hardware.
So -- as a consequence -- people are buying expensive 1080p TV in the erroneous belief that they are going see a quality gain over 720p TVs.
In the vast majority of cases, they won't.
Why?
Because current high definition TV production is often constained by the equipment that is available.
In the high definition video production world, that has -- until recently -- been constrained to cameras that shoot 720p at a full 60 frames per second (720/60p) *or* 1080/60i (interlaced) *or* 1080p at a low temporal resolution of 24 frames per second.
Trust me.
If you are a low-end high definition video producer today you are likely shooting 1080/60i (INTERLACED!).
Now you can take the top 1080i consumer camcorder available today and compare its footage to the footage recorded by the $45,000 720p Panasonic AJ-HDC27H VariCam and -- I guarantee you -- the footage by the Varicam will look better on a 1080p TV.
This is where amateurs get so confused.
They buy into the notion that a higher number for resolution is the most important factor that decides image quality and that is a false belief!!!!
There are many other factors... the quality of the lens of the camera... the quality of the imager inside of the camera... the quality of many internal components that have absolutely nothing to do with sheer numeric resolution!!!!
Note that the producers of the BBC "Planet Earth" series used a $45,000 720p Panasonic AJ-HDC27H camera to acquire the footage for their series:
The series turned out to be so stunning -- even with video acquired in 720p -- that many individuals (see Apulo's thread) are under the mistaken impression that the series footage "had to be 1080p" when it clearly wasn't.
Apulo's remark in the other thread was hilarious to me because on the one hand he trashed 720p as being "barely better than 720 x 480 SD" and then -- simultaneously -- he gushed over the quality of the "Planet Earth" series, where -- unknown to him -- the footage was acquired with a 720p camera... the $45,000 Panasonic VariCam.
This is a prime example of consumer ignorance.
Now let's cut to the chase.
A 720p TV is going to show every bit as much detail from the 720p video acquired by the Panasonic VariCam as you would see on a 1080p TV.
But many ignorant consumers believe that they're going to see a better picture with a 1080p TV even when the source material is constrained to 720p!!!!
And I don't care how big the TV happens to be.
If the source material is 720p, then that 1080p TV is not going to show more detail than a 720p TV.
The only way a 1080p TV could show more detail would be if the source material were acquired at a true 1080 resolution.
So let's look at reality.
Until very recently, there have been essentially two choices available to 1080 photographers:
1. 1080/60i cameras (and these arguably are not as good as top shelf 720/60p cameras such as the Panasonic VariCam);
2. 1080/24p cameras.
Due to the fact most American TVs operate at a 60Hz refresh rate, even the 1080/24p material often has to be electronically altered to be shown on those TVs.
The Holy Grail of 1080 production... 1080/60p... has not even existed until very recently.
So, in answer to your question, you are not likely acquiring at 1080p unless you have INCREDIBLY DEEP POCKETS and can afford something like a brand new Sony F-23 CineAlta with the SRW-1 recorder:
And even then, you have to buy the optional recorder to be able to record that data-intensive 1080/60p format:
And I'm not even sure how many people are actually doing that because the FAQ on the Sony Web site said such recording was not expected to be ready until very recently:
Does the F23 support 1080/60P RGB 4:4:4 recording?
It is currently planned to be supported in 3Q of FY2007.
It is currently planned to be supported in 3Q of FY2007.
Can anybody point to an article where somebody is currently using this camera to do 1080/60p production?
If you intend to market true 1080/60p format, you have two ways to distribute it.
You can distribute via Blu-ray Disc, which practically nobody has adopted, relatively speaking.
So your business model would seem to be flawed -- even in that scenario -- because practically nobody will be able to see your production in true 1080p format.
So you could shoot in 1080/24p format, but that's also only possible with extremely expensive cameras and -- even then -- there's a problem.
With the native 1080/24p format, many people who have 1080p TVs might be screwed, depending on the model of 1080p TV they purchased.
Why?
Because many so-called "1080p" TVs sold to date won't be able to accept a native 1080/24p signal.
You could distribute via download, but even that option is going to be difficult due to the bandwidth problem that makes 1080p such a "pie-in-the-sky" proposition right now for the Internet.
What about broadcast distribution?
That presents another problem.
There is no ATSC 1080/60p format!
So that means high definition distributed via broadcast is distributed via 720p or 1080i.
So even if you can afford a 1080/60p camera/recorder combo, you're probably going to have to wait years -- years -- for the distribution systems to be viable for distributing that format.
Right now, hype is selling a lot of 1080p TVs.
Jerry Jones
Comment