Current status: Casablanca and 720P

[CraigJanos]

Hi Volker. Not to start anything here, but In all seriousness...have you ever seen a 720p image produced from a professional camera/camcorder like the JVC GYHD200/250? Personally, I would put the images I record with this camera up against any good 1080i image, anyday. Not to mention, filmmakers in general, prefer the look of a 720p image over 1080i image. I know everything is subjective. The JVC HD200/250 has the capability to record in 1080i as well. I experimented with this, but I liked the look of 720p better and went back to the 720p mode. I actually know a few videographers that prefer the 720p mode on their new Panasonic and Sony cameras that offer 1080i and 720p. Just my thoughts...

[Volker]

When I was still working for MacroSystem I took the chance to play with a professional JCV camera that was sent in by a customer.
And I have seen some of the footage that this "pro" customer had been recording with his camera.
Compared to everything I was used from the Sony Z1 for example, the JVC footage looked awful.
Ok, you get a more cinematic feeling when you shoot in "p" mode. But on the other hand every pan was jerking compared to the "i" footage.
My eyes just prefer the smooth "i" signal for some reason.
And no, I also don't want to start anything here.

Most of the TV stations decided to jump on the 1080i train. Think about it...

[IanPearson]

Well just to add a little more conjecture to the debate, since 1080i at any one time gives you only half of the frame information, it is effectively only 540 actual resolution.

Look at the following site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JXfyvlPh0 which very nicely explains the difference between i and p.

Ian

[TimKennelly]

Personal preference for 1080i aside, bringing that up is a horribly weak argument for the essentially non-functionality of the 720p format on our machines for most of the time.

[swisscasauser]

Hi,

I agree with you Tim...this is not an argument, and to Volker about most of the HD Channels choosing 1080i...that's not the reality...for exemple HD Swiss is 720p, and even ARD/ZDF have also made this choice.

I must say, in comparison to the others (BBC, Nat Geo, Canal+ in France, ARTE...), HD Swiss is the best HD channel I've ever seen in term of image quality...so far...

And just another thing...it is physically impossible for a human eye to see the difference between 720p and 1080i...

Cheers

Vincent

[Volker]

Please don't forget that I am no more writing on the behalf of the MacroSystem company.
So I did not mean to justify the lack of the 720p support with my personal thoughts about this format.
But in comparision I would always prefer the 1080i signal. It feels more smooth.

I have seen BBC HD (1080i) and arte HD (720p) on a Full HD TV with a native resolution of 1920x1080. Guess why BBC HD looked better on that TV than arte HD. Any upscaling process will have a negative effect on the image quality. Right?
Most of the video productions that are broadcast by arte HD for example actually have been recorded in 1080i mode by the film makers. The TV station will downscale this to 720p and your TV will upscale it again to 1080i. Just my 2 cents.

[swisscasauser]

Arte HD is 1080i and not 720p.

The problem with Arte is that most of their programs are from SD sources upscaled in HD.
That's the reason why the image is not so good.
And in fact, the HD channels are never really using full HD definition, most of the 1080i channels are in fact in 1440x1080 or even 1280x1080.
There's also another problem that influences the image quality...the bandwidth...HD Swiss is ~16/17 mb/s, but Arte is only 11/12 mb/s. HD Tv on adsl (iptv) is even less...about 5 mb/s...

And don't be afraid, I know that you're no more writing on the behalf of Macrosystem.

[Alan]

Here is an interesting comment.

"And just another thing...it is physically impossible for a human eye to see the difference between 720p and 1080i..."

It would be true if it had said. "If you are standing far enough away from the TV". Actually most viewers sit to far away to actually see the difference. Its fun to go into the local TV store and look at the different displays from different distances. The general quality of the picture can be more important than than its resolution.

Cheers Alan

[swisscasauser]

Not really a question of distance Alan...just the size of the screen...

Under 40-42" it is physically impossible for a human to see the difference. Pixels are too small...

You can see many subjective things like color temperature, noise etc...but it has nothing to do with the definition...

[Alan]

Hi Vincent,
We may be saying the same thing in a different way. I use a 26" Sony lcd TV as an editing monitor and I can certainly see the pixels. Its a 720 screen this means that at about 13" high each pixel is about 0.045 mm high, about the thickness of a human hair. At normal viewing of about a meter I can see a faint pattern of them, at half a meter they are beginning to show up as faint horizontal lines. Certainly at a distance I would watch my edited video they cannot be seen. As a little experiment I've just sacrificed one of my few remaining hairs which measures 0.06 mm diameter, and standing 3 meters away from it, against the light of the window its easily seen. I find that rather surprising.

Cheers Alan.