Just to recap, unless you have an HD TV (which are still bloody expensive), you're not really missing anything. In Europe, you'll see some real momentum next year and it'll be the must have thing by next christmas, and will probably much more mainstream by '06.
Zo, do you know in what countries (in Europe) HDTV will be broadcasted next year or so ?
Also, is there a (large) quality-difference in broadcasting HD 1080i video as opposed to 35mm ?
Also, is there a (large) quality-difference in broadcasting HD 1080i video as opposed to 35mm ?
Ohhh, yea. HDTV is 1,920 pixels wide, while good 35mm is roughly 5,000 pixels wide.
I find it hard to believe that Europe is totally in the dark with HDTV. There has got to be something. Start looking for little HDTV advertisements at the beginning of shows somewhere in the corners of your screen. Most broadcasts here in the US are standard definition, but simultaneously broadcast the same show in HDTV on another channel. You would never suspect that a standard broadcast came from a HDTV source if it were not for those little images they put on the screen. Also look out for black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. That most likely means it is HDTV scaled down for a normal broadcast.
We, Eutelsat, as well as Astra are more than ready to broadcast HD. We already do.
Nonetheless the US has gotten further ahead mostly because of *gasp* the US Government and the FCC which has, by law, obliged TV stations to all broadcast in HD by... uh 2007?
Here in Europe things are a bit slower in the execution phase because of the fact that there are a few standards being discussed and there are no cheap HDTV decoders available yet. HDTVs are plentiful, but if there is no content, consumers wont come and broadcasters dont care (they have no pressure).
Also a fundamental factor is the bandwidth needed to broadcast normal DVB-S channel (like you see on SKY TV nowadays), versus an HDTV broadcast.
HDTV, if done in MPEG2, will take up a LOT more bandwdith. Plus, for a few years you will have broadcasters sending both in MPEG2 as well as HD, so, even more costly to them.
While us satellite operators couldnt be happier about them needing more bandwidth, the broadcasters (most of them) wont spend more money than they have to, with the exception of state run TVs like RAI, France5, BBC, etc etc.
So... what are they all waiting for? They (and specifically me) are working on jumping directly to the next generation of technology, ie MPEG4 AVC and VC-1 HDTV rather than MPEG2 HDTV. With roughly the same bandwidth broadcasters use today to send their video, they will be able to send it in HD format. Isn't this counter productive for us the satellite company whose business is to sell as much bandwidth as possible? Yes, but guess what, you gotta go with the flow, and if we don't help out our customers, our competitors will, or they will just ditch satellite and broadcast in DVB-T (terrestrial) or simply offer HDTV over ADSL (which is popping up everywhere now, I have 120 TV channels over ADSL at home hooked up to my TV via SCART).
So... in a nutshell you just got an overview of the current state of TV in Europe That'll be 5,000euros for this report, thank you
What's the deal with interlacing ? All tv sets use it since the beginning, and I guess even the HDTV sets still use it. It's a far outdated technology (since 1953 ?) and it ruins the screen image considerably. Will the future TV set be more (non-interlaced) like a computer screen, and will it therefore be a much better platform for HDTV/MPG4 ? MPG2 is still interlaced, as is 1080i (hence the 'i'). When do we finaly get rid of tv video images been horizontaly cut into a few hundred pieces ?
If the internet can broadcast streaming MPG4 H.264 video's of a very good quality, why shouldn't the 'real' broadcast stations ?
Progressive is what you want. And its up to two factors: the decoder box, and the TV.
A progressive scan TV is superior, but costs more. It needs more punch to be able to do that.
Interlacing is/was a perfect way to have good quality and dreastically reduce amount of power needed to send an image, etc.
Anyway, in future, look out for products that are:
720i or 720p, and of course, 1080i and 1080p.
The little "p" stands for "progressive".
I believe Sharp just announced a flatscreen capable of 1080p that will be on market now or very soon. Costs a small fortune. But once you see a broadcast in 1080p on proper equipment... wow... its just staggering. I've never seen such beautiful image quality.
which leads me to another issue: the HD cameras. Many camera men are learning and will have to learn all new ways for recording TV and footage. Because HD is so hi-res, you have to totally adapt and be more careful. Its a lot less forgiving.
I think I'm putting too much stress on my G5 and cable modem. My G5 has crashed twice, my network once, and my cable modem 3 times. I still have the files up, but may need to take them down sometime soon. I'll keep them up for a few more days but if you need more time, just ask.
I think I'm putting too much stress on my G5 and cable modem. My G5 has crashed twice, my network once, and my cable modem 3 times. I still have the files up, but may need to take them down sometime soon. I'll keep them up for a few more days but if you need more time, just ask.
Naw dude save your computer, next time it would be better to offer thme as a torrent , that would save your comp a lot of strress . But thank you for the peak into 4 part 10.
Thanks Zo for your reports, i am now better informed but still none the wiser. Really keen on seeing a broadcast in 1080p on proper equipment as you say it's so staggering. Maybe next year for us in Europe?
Actually tripdragon, believe it or not they are torrents. Peep it HERE. I just don't think the darn thing works so I didn't bother. I can't download anything to my laptop. Maybe it is just my IP address, but you're welcome to take a shot if you like.
EDIT: I just got a nifty idea. If you get the torrents to work, point the saved file to a piece you already downloaded. Since it is the same file, it should automatically resume the download. If the download already finished, you could help seed the torrent. It's up to you. I'm new at torrents, but learning fast. 8)
Ohhh, yea. HDTV is 1,920 pixels wide, while good 35mm is roughly 5,000 pixels wide.
you're talkin' rubbish, mate. considering all different aspect ratios and excluding super35 your average movie shown in your crappy theater of choice is about 2000-2500 pixels wide after framing.
the crux of the matter is _how_ the dp and post handle your desired format and not _what_ the format is. of course there's never gonna be any sd-video-blowup rivaling film, but when it comes to hd, a couple of hundred pixels more or less is _not_ where someone makes or breaks the quality of the movie/projection.
Typically, film resolution is 2K per frame, or about 2020x1092 pixels for 1.85 theatrical release format 35mm, although the image size can vary from 1K to 4K, and the pixel dimentions depend on the aspect ratio of your final film.
Straight from the book.
Its true most films have a near-HDTV resolution, but 35mm is capable of much more. Although my estimate for "good 35mm" may have been a little high, it was pretty close. Unless you know exactly what kind of media you have, it is best to play it safe and use the high resolution when, for example, making titles in Photoshop. I didn't really want to get into aspect ratios and such because they tend to confuse people which is why I only gave the horizontal resolution.
Its true most films have a near-HDTV resolution, but 35mm is capable of much more. Although my estimate for "good 35mm" may have been a little high, it was pretty close.
hell yeah! you missed the target by only... wait a minute... 100% or so!
just think of this: spidey2 was the first commercial hollywood film ever to have a di (digital intermediate) of 4k... see? more so, every 35mm feature you watch in the cinema is most probably the fourth or fifth generation copy so again, hd-quality/resolution is in most cases the best you get.
every talk of "good 35mm" or "35mm is capable of much more" etc. is purely academic.
There's also the issue of dynamic contrast (or the amount of steps between the lightest and darkest color). 35mm is 7 stops I believe. Video was maybe, what, four or five ? How much is HDTV ?
Next there's the more 'emotional' parameters like color reproduction and grain, wich is something we learned to appreciate because whe all grew up with a zillion movies and tv-shows shot on 35mm. But I think HDTV (with a little help of post-production) already does a pretty good job faking this.
Fact: High Quality 35mm film has a maximum resolution of 4096x2730 with an 1.5 aspect ratio. (4K)
Now, I admit my earlier guess of 5,000 pixels was wrong, but by less than 1,000 pixels.
"Spidey2" may have been the first film ever to have a digital intermediate of 4k, but that is because the technology is brand new. Film used those resolutions for years, however getting it to the theaters at that resolution was not practical. The importance of digital technology is that all copies sent to theaters can be first or second generation, since there is no loss making master copies of digital files.
Before digital technology arrived, it was (and still is) important to efficiently use the most resolution you can in anticipation of the generation effects by making copies. This is mainly where the high quality film is used. Most films in theaters are not first generation, and therefore no longer have the high picture resolution it started with so cheaper film can be used.
Although 35mm film potentially has a much greater resolution than HDTV, this benefit is nearly canceled by the imperfections accumulated by the generation effect as well as the added cost of high resolution film. As digital technology becomes more commonplace in the movie industry, we will see more high resolution films in theaters or perhaps first generation/perfect digital copies. (Hopefully at 4K)
In terms of resolution, it isn't possible to compare a 35mm film to a VHS or VGA resolution because like any photographic film, its resolution is based on a myriad of tiny light sensitive crystals embedded into the film. When these are struck by light, they change color to match the light that has hit them, and produce a photo. But a 35mm film, based on average crystal size, would be about 5000 x 5000 pixels. This is also the resolution Photoshop artists use to create movie backdrops for the cinema. Nevertheless, the human eye can barely see the equivalent of 3000 x 3000 pixels of such a small area. So when a 35mm movie is scanned into a computer to get its full resolution for digital editing, it will be scanned in at 4096 horizontal pixels, also known as 4K.
I can't wait to see a BD-ROM version of the entire LoTR trilogy in 1080p.
That must be simply mind blowing
for sure, if only the movie wouldn't suck so much...
Quote:
But a 35mm film, based on average crystal size, would be about 5000 x 5000 pixels. This is also the resolution Photoshop artists use to create movie backdrops for the cinema. Nevertheless, the human eye can barely see the equivalent of 3000 x 3000 pixels of such a small area. So when a 35mm movie is scanned into a computer to get its full resolution for digital editing, it will be scanned in at 4096 horizontal pixels, also known as 4K.
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is."
Comments
Originally posted by ZO
Just to recap, unless you have an HD TV (which are still bloody expensive), you're not really missing anything. In Europe, you'll see some real momentum next year and it'll be the must have thing by next christmas, and will probably much more mainstream by '06.
Zo, do you know in what countries (in Europe) HDTV will be broadcasted next year or so ?
Also, is there a (large) quality-difference in broadcasting HD 1080i video as opposed to 35mm ?
Originally posted by BigBlue
Also, is there a (large) quality-difference in broadcasting HD 1080i video as opposed to 35mm ?
Ohhh, yea. HDTV is 1,920 pixels wide, while good 35mm is roughly 5,000 pixels wide.
I find it hard to believe that Europe is totally in the dark with HDTV. There has got to be something. Start looking for little HDTV advertisements at the beginning of shows somewhere in the corners of your screen. Most broadcasts here in the US are standard definition, but simultaneously broadcast the same show in HDTV on another channel. You would never suspect that a standard broadcast came from a HDTV source if it were not for those little images they put on the screen. Also look out for black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. That most likely means it is HDTV scaled down for a normal broadcast.
Nonetheless the US has gotten further ahead mostly because of *gasp* the US Government and the FCC which has, by law, obliged TV stations to all broadcast in HD by... uh 2007?
Here in Europe things are a bit slower in the execution phase because of the fact that there are a few standards being discussed and there are no cheap HDTV decoders available yet. HDTVs are plentiful, but if there is no content, consumers wont come and broadcasters dont care (they have no pressure).
Also a fundamental factor is the bandwidth needed to broadcast normal DVB-S channel (like you see on SKY TV nowadays), versus an HDTV broadcast.
HDTV, if done in MPEG2, will take up a LOT more bandwdith. Plus, for a few years you will have broadcasters sending both in MPEG2 as well as HD, so, even more costly to them.
While us satellite operators couldnt be happier about them needing more bandwidth, the broadcasters (most of them) wont spend more money than they have to, with the exception of state run TVs like RAI, France5, BBC, etc etc.
So... what are they all waiting for? They (and specifically me) are working on jumping directly to the next generation of technology, ie MPEG4 AVC and VC-1 HDTV rather than MPEG2 HDTV. With roughly the same bandwidth broadcasters use today to send their video, they will be able to send it in HD format. Isn't this counter productive for us the satellite company whose business is to sell as much bandwidth as possible? Yes, but guess what, you gotta go with the flow, and if we don't help out our customers, our competitors will, or they will just ditch satellite and broadcast in DVB-T (terrestrial) or simply offer HDTV over ADSL (which is popping up everywhere now, I have 120 TV channels over ADSL at home hooked up to my TV via SCART).
So... in a nutshell you just got an overview of the current state of TV in Europe
If the internet can broadcast streaming MPG4 H.264 video's of a very good quality, why shouldn't the 'real' broadcast stations ?
A progressive scan TV is superior, but costs more. It needs more punch to be able to do that.
Interlacing is/was a perfect way to have good quality and dreastically reduce amount of power needed to send an image, etc.
Anyway, in future, look out for products that are:
720i or 720p, and of course, 1080i and 1080p.
The little "p" stands for "progressive".
I believe Sharp just announced a flatscreen capable of 1080p that will be on market now or very soon. Costs a small fortune. But once you see a broadcast in 1080p on proper equipment... wow... its just staggering. I've never seen such beautiful image quality.
which leads me to another issue: the HD cameras. Many camera men are learning and will have to learn all new ways for recording TV and footage. Because HD is so hi-res, you have to totally adapt and be more careful. Its a lot less forgiving.
Originally posted by Ebby
I think I'm putting too much stress on my G5 and cable modem. My G5 has crashed twice, my network once, and my cable modem 3 times. I still have the files up, but may need to take them down sometime soon. I'll keep them up for a few more days but if you need more time, just ask.
Naw dude save your computer, next time it would be better to offer thme as a torrent , that would save your comp a lot of strress . But thank you for the peak into 4 part 10.
EDIT: I just got a nifty idea. If you get the torrents to work, point the saved file to a piece you already downloaded. Since it is the same file, it should automatically resume the download. If the download already finished, you could help seed the torrent. It's up to you. I'm new at torrents, but learning fast. 8)
Originally posted by Ebby
Ohhh, yea. HDTV is 1,920 pixels wide, while good 35mm is roughly 5,000 pixels wide.
you're talkin' rubbish, mate. considering all different aspect ratios and excluding super35 your average movie shown in your crappy theater of choice is about 2000-2500 pixels wide after framing.
the crux of the matter is _how_ the dp and post handle your desired format and not _what_ the format is. of course there's never gonna be any sd-video-blowup rivaling film, but when it comes to hd, a couple of hundred pixels more or less is _not_ where someone makes or breaks the quality of the movie/projection.
Typically, film resolution is 2K per frame, or about 2020x1092 pixels for 1.85 theatrical release format 35mm, although the image size can vary from 1K to 4K, and the pixel dimentions depend on the aspect ratio of your final film.
Straight from the book.
Its true most films have a near-HDTV resolution, but 35mm is capable of much more. Although my estimate for "good 35mm" may have been a little high, it was pretty close. Unless you know exactly what kind of media you have, it is best to play it safe and use the high resolution when, for example, making titles in Photoshop. I didn't really want to get into aspect ratios and such because they tend to confuse people which is why I only gave the horizontal resolution.
Originally posted by Ebby
Straight from the book.
Its true most films have a near-HDTV resolution, but 35mm is capable of much more. Although my estimate for "good 35mm" may have been a little high, it was pretty close.
hell yeah! you missed the target by only... wait a minute... 100% or so!
just think of this: spidey2 was the first commercial hollywood film ever to have a di (digital intermediate) of 4k... see? more so, every 35mm feature you watch in the cinema is most probably the fourth or fifth generation copy so again, hd-quality/resolution is in most cases the best you get.
every talk of "good 35mm" or "35mm is capable of much more" etc. is purely academic.
Next there's the more 'emotional' parameters like color reproduction and grain, wich is something we learned to appreciate because whe all grew up with a zillion movies and tv-shows shot on 35mm. But I think HDTV (with a little help of post-production) already does a pretty good job faking this.
Now, I admit my earlier guess of 5,000 pixels was wrong, but by less than 1,000 pixels.
"Spidey2" may have been the first film ever to have a digital intermediate of 4k, but that is because the technology is brand new. Film used those resolutions for years, however getting it to the theaters at that resolution was not practical. The importance of digital technology is that all copies sent to theaters can be first or second generation, since there is no loss making master copies of digital files.
Before digital technology arrived, it was (and still is) important to efficiently use the most resolution you can in anticipation of the generation effects by making copies. This is mainly where the high quality film is used. Most films in theaters are not first generation, and therefore no longer have the high picture resolution it started with so cheaper film can be used.
Although 35mm film potentially has a much greater resolution than HDTV, this benefit is nearly canceled by the imperfections accumulated by the generation effect as well as the added cost of high resolution film. As digital technology becomes more commonplace in the movie industry, we will see more high resolution films in theaters or perhaps first generation/perfect digital copies. (Hopefully at 4K)
That must be simply mind blowing
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/H.264
Also, you can do a search on MPEG2 to understand today's technology.
BTW, in the MPEG4 article, it mentions OSX 10.4 and how it will be buil-in to the OS
Resolution
In terms of resolution, it isn't possible to compare a 35mm film to a VHS or VGA resolution because like any photographic film, its resolution is based on a myriad of tiny light sensitive crystals embedded into the film. When these are struck by light, they change color to match the light that has hit them, and produce a photo. But a 35mm film, based on average crystal size, would be about 5000 x 5000 pixels. This is also the resolution Photoshop artists use to create movie backdrops for the cinema. Nevertheless, the human eye can barely see the equivalent of 3000 x 3000 pixels of such a small area. So when a 35mm movie is scanned into a computer to get its full resolution for digital editing, it will be scanned in at 4096 horizontal pixels, also known as 4K.
http://www.divx.com/support/guides/guide.php?gid=10
You were all right
Originally posted by ZO
I can't wait to see a BD-ROM version of the entire LoTR trilogy in 1080p.
That must be simply mind blowing
for sure, if only the movie wouldn't suck so much...
But a 35mm film, based on average crystal size, would be about 5000 x 5000 pixels. This is also the resolution Photoshop artists use to create movie backdrops for the cinema. Nevertheless, the human eye can barely see the equivalent of 3000 x 3000 pixels of such a small area. So when a 35mm movie is scanned into a computer to get its full resolution for digital editing, it will be scanned in at 4096 horizontal pixels, also known as 4K.
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is."
Originally posted by Strangelove
for sure, if only the movie wouldn't suck so much...
What ??!!
Well, tastes differ ...