i am skeptical about 1080i because it's an interlaced capture mode. 1080p would be sweet. but i think that doesn't exist
spytap, here's a challenge for you. how long before "true film look" and "simulated film look" will meet in a circa-$5000 prosumer camera? what do you think?
5? 10? 15? 20 years?
when i say where "true film look" and "simulated film look" meet i mean along the lines of where "cd audio" and "160kbps mp3 audio" meet ... in other words, imperceptible difference for most intents and purposes
where "true film look" means shot on film and "simulated film look" means shot on video, 24p, or post-processed, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
i am skeptical about 1080i because it's an interlaced capture mode. 1080p would be sweet. but i think that doesn't exist
spytap, here's a challenge for you. how long before "true film look" and "simulated film look" will meet in a circa-$5000 prosumer camera? what do you think?
5? 10? 15? 20 years?
when i say where "true film look" and "simulated film look" meet i mean along the lines of where "cd audio" and "160kbps mp3 audio" meet ... in other words, imperceptible difference for most intents and purposes
where "true film look" means shot on film and "simulated film look" means shot on video, 24p, or post-processed, etc.
1080p does, in fact, exist, and newer tvs are showcasing it. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, broadcasts that take advantage of it.
As to the other question, I don't think it'll have anything to do with the camera at all. The market for high-level film-mimicking cameras is pretty well wrapped up by $180,000 - $500,000 models, with the best right now, the Viper Filmstream, coming in well over a million (before lenses or addons). See http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/pr...cameras/viper/ for more interesting info.
I think the prosumer film-look will be achieved in postproduction using filters on editing software programs. I think these will begin popping up as a sort of "final pass" filter to give it "that final touch of a film-like" look. Now, I dont believe the quality will be the same, as you'd be destroying information from an already inferior signal, but I think for most people it'll look at least somewhat similar. Now the real question for the program will be what kind of film stock to mimic, as different film stocks have different uses, and digital just has "on" or "off" for the most part. There are already programs that purport to do this, but when you're working with an inferior signal, trying to change the information to make it look better, you can't add information. Film is inherently more flexible and has different contrast and color aspects, so it's difficult. These programs give you a list of a hundred film stocks that you want to mimic, with mild success. The software engineer that figures out how to let the program scan for lighting and choose the film stock by itself is the one that's going to become rich. It's somewhat possible now, like I said, with modest results, but still user-unfriendly as you already need to know a ton about the different film stocks. The person who makes it easy for the average joe to click a button and get something that he thinks looks like a real movie is going to be the one reaping in the cash.
1080p does, in fact, exist, and newer tvs are showcasing it. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, broadcasts that take advantage of it.
....
1080p exists only as marketing hype. It is no part of the HDTV standard. There are no 1080p broadcasts. If you knew anything about 1080i, you would know that the great criticism of it is that most broadcasters broadcast only a fraction of the data rate mandated by the HDTV standard. HDTV broadcasts can be improved by fully complying with the standard.
1080p exists only as marketing hype. It is no part of the HDTV standard. There are no 1080p broadcasts. If you knew anything about 1080i, you would know that the great criticism of it is that most broadcasters broadcast only a fraction of the data rate mandated by the HDTV standard. HDTV broadcasts can be improved by fully complying with the standard.
Wow, if you're going to be a dick, at least be right when you're doing it.
A) Half of your post is spent agreeing with me, right after you tell me that I'm wrong.
The other half is misinformed or just plain ignorant.
Yes, HDTV spec allows for 1080p, whether the broadcasters choose to so implement it at this time doesn't matter, it's part of the spec and expected to become the standard HDTV resolution once sets are more standardized. Feel free to check it out yourself here: http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele.../hdtv/95x5.htm
In Addition, broadcast (and current broadcast at that) isn't the only HD realm by far, especially since 1080p sets are just now beginning to hit the streets. There's this little thing called the "home video" market that's been driving entertainment and consumer electronics for years now. Keep in mind that both blu-ray and HD-DVD are allowing for 1080p, and digital cable and satellite providers are making sure the bandwidth is there for full 1080p operation. Now, aside from the future ability to play these formats (which, if you're dropping 5 grand on bleeding-edge specs, you're expecting it to be compatable with a couple years worth of technology growth) what part of my above answer would make you decide to be a jerk and state "If you knew anything about 1080i"?
Someone asked if 1080p existed, I replied that it did and sets were just now beginning to hit the streets (true). Within the next year, HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs will hit the streets (true) and 1080p will be offered on some cable providers. Seems like not only is it not just a gimmick, but that's it's being widely adopted while you're spouting off nonsense you read in other forums.
Do me a favor, feel free to disagree, feel free to research your argument, but don't be an ass about it.
Wow, if you're going to be a dick, at least be right when you're doing it.
A) Half of your post is spent agreeing with me, right after you tell me that I'm wrong.
The other half is misinformed or just plain ignorant.
Yes, HDTV spec allows for 1080p, whether the broadcasters choose to so implement it at this time doesn't matter, it's part of the spec and expected to become the standard HDTV resolution once sets are more standardized. Feel free to check it out yourself here: http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele.../hdtv/95x5.htm
In Addition, broadcast (and current broadcast at that) isn't the only HD realm by far, especially since 1080p sets are just now beginning to hit the streets. There's this little thing called the "home video" market that's been driving entertainment and consumer electronics for years now. Keep in mind that both blu-ray and HD-DVD are allowing for 1080p, and digital cable and satellite providers are making sure the bandwidth is there for full 1080p operation. Now, aside from the future ability to play these formats (which, if you're dropping 5 grand on bleeding-edge specs, you're expecting it to be compatable with a couple years worth of technology growth) what part of my above answer would make you decide to be a jerk and state "If you knew anything about 1080i"?
Someone asked if 1080p existed, I replied that it did and sets were just now beginning to hit the streets (true). Within the next year, HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs will hit the streets (true) and 1080p will be offered on some cable providers. Seems like not only is it not just a gimmick, but that's it's being widely adopted while you're spouting off nonsense you read in other forums.
Do me a favor, feel free to disagree, feel free to research your argument, but don't be an ass about it.
If you are going to post a reference, post an official reference if you can find one that supports your point of view. A college professor's lecture notes are not official documents.
If you are going to post a reference, post an official reference if you can find one that supports your point of view. A college professor's lecture notes are not official documents.
So no objections to the other 99% of my post? Feel the need to nitpick? Don't know how to apologize or tuck your tail between your legs? Too lazy to do any work yourself? Fine, here: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a.pdf
I'll even save you the trouble of having to use that pesky table of contents, Check out the top of page 24.
Now are we happy?
For everyone else, yes, 1080p exists, and yes, it's going to be all the rage within 12 months. It's going to be in both of the new DVD Standards, Digital Cable and Satellite, and all of the higher end television sets coming out will support it. Enjoy.
So no objections to the other 99% of my post? Feel the need to nitpick? Don't know how to apologize or tuck your tail between your legs? Too lazy to do any work yourself? Fine, here: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a.pdf
I'll even save you the trouble of having to use that pesky table of contents, Check out the top of page 24.
Now are we happy?
For everyone else, yes, 1080p exists, and yes, it's going to be all the rage within 12 months. It's going to be in both of the new DVD Standards, Digital Cable and Satellite, and all of the higher end television sets coming out will support it. Enjoy.
That's what gets you off? You get excited about 1080/30p over 1080/60i? Do you now? You understand that these are both 30 fps formats with essentially identical data rates, don't you? The thing that excites people who know what they are talking about is 720/60p because this progressive scan format has twice the frame rate of 1080i (1080/60i). OTOH, 1080/30p is really just 1080/60i passed through a Faroudja filter. This is not the future; this is the present for high-end HDTV sets.
That's what gets you off? You get excited about 1080/30p over 1080/60i? Do you now? You understand that these are both 30 fps formats with essentially identical data rates, don't you? The thing that excites people who know what they are talking about is 720/60p because this progressive scan format has twice the frame rate of 1080i (1080/60i). OTOH, 1080/30p is really just 1080/60i passed through a Faroudja filter. This is not the future; this is the present for high-end HDTV sets.
How many times do you normally change your argument before you admit that you're wrong?
"1080p doesn't exist! Oh, it does? Well I don't like it!"
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
i am skeptical about 1080i because it's an interlaced capture mode. 1080p would be sweet. but i think that doesn't exist
spytap, here's a challenge for you. how long before "true film look" and "simulated film look" will meet in a circa-$5000 prosumer camera? what do you think?
5? 10? 15? 20 years?
when i say where "true film look" and "simulated film look" meet i mean along the lines of where "cd audio" and "160kbps mp3 audio" meet ... in other words, imperceptible difference for most intents and purposes
where "true film look" means shot on film and "simulated film look" means shot on video, 24p, or post-processed, etc.
Originally posted by sunilraman
i am skeptical about 1080i because it's an interlaced capture mode. 1080p would be sweet. but i think that doesn't exist
spytap, here's a challenge for you. how long before "true film look" and "simulated film look" will meet in a circa-$5000 prosumer camera? what do you think?
5? 10? 15? 20 years?
when i say where "true film look" and "simulated film look" meet i mean along the lines of where "cd audio" and "160kbps mp3 audio" meet ... in other words, imperceptible difference for most intents and purposes
where "true film look" means shot on film and "simulated film look" means shot on video, 24p, or post-processed, etc.
1080p does, in fact, exist, and newer tvs are showcasing it. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, broadcasts that take advantage of it.
As to the other question, I don't think it'll have anything to do with the camera at all. The market for high-level film-mimicking cameras is pretty well wrapped up by $180,000 - $500,000 models, with the best right now, the Viper Filmstream, coming in well over a million (before lenses or addons). See http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/pr...cameras/viper/ for more interesting info.
I think the prosumer film-look will be achieved in postproduction using filters on editing software programs. I think these will begin popping up as a sort of "final pass" filter to give it "that final touch of a film-like" look. Now, I dont believe the quality will be the same, as you'd be destroying information from an already inferior signal, but I think for most people it'll look at least somewhat similar. Now the real question for the program will be what kind of film stock to mimic, as different film stocks have different uses, and digital just has "on" or "off" for the most part. There are already programs that purport to do this, but when you're working with an inferior signal, trying to change the information to make it look better, you can't add information. Film is inherently more flexible and has different contrast and color aspects, so it's difficult. These programs give you a list of a hundred film stocks that you want to mimic, with mild success. The software engineer that figures out how to let the program scan for lighting and choose the film stock by itself is the one that's going to become rich. It's somewhat possible now, like I said, with modest results, but still user-unfriendly as you already need to know a ton about the different film stocks. The person who makes it easy for the average joe to click a button and get something that he thinks looks like a real movie is going to be the one reaping in the cash.
Originally posted by Spytap
1080p does, in fact, exist, and newer tvs are showcasing it. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, broadcasts that take advantage of it.
....
1080p exists only as marketing hype. It is no part of the HDTV standard. There are no 1080p broadcasts. If you knew anything about 1080i, you would know that the great criticism of it is that most broadcasters broadcast only a fraction of the data rate mandated by the HDTV standard. HDTV broadcasts can be improved by fully complying with the standard.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
1080p exists only as marketing hype. It is no part of the HDTV standard. There are no 1080p broadcasts. If you knew anything about 1080i, you would know that the great criticism of it is that most broadcasters broadcast only a fraction of the data rate mandated by the HDTV standard. HDTV broadcasts can be improved by fully complying with the standard.
Wow, if you're going to be a dick, at least be right when you're doing it.
A) Half of your post is spent agreeing with me, right after you tell me that I'm wrong.
Yes, HDTV spec allows for 1080p, whether the broadcasters choose to so implement it at this time doesn't matter, it's part of the spec and expected to become the standard HDTV resolution once sets are more standardized. Feel free to check it out yourself here: http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele.../hdtv/95x5.htm
In Addition, broadcast (and current broadcast at that) isn't the only HD realm by far, especially since 1080p sets are just now beginning to hit the streets. There's this little thing called the "home video" market that's been driving entertainment and consumer electronics for years now. Keep in mind that both blu-ray and HD-DVD are allowing for 1080p, and digital cable and satellite providers are making sure the bandwidth is there for full 1080p operation. Now, aside from the future ability to play these formats (which, if you're dropping 5 grand on bleeding-edge specs, you're expecting it to be compatable with a couple years worth of technology growth) what part of my above answer would make you decide to be a jerk and state "If you knew anything about 1080i"?
Someone asked if 1080p existed, I replied that it did and sets were just now beginning to hit the streets (true). Within the next year, HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs will hit the streets (true) and 1080p will be offered on some cable providers. Seems like not only is it not just a gimmick, but that's it's being widely adopted while you're spouting off nonsense you read in other forums.
Do me a favor, feel free to disagree, feel free to research your argument, but don't be an ass about it.
Originally posted by Spytap
Wow, if you're going to be a dick, at least be right when you're doing it.
A) Half of your post is spent agreeing with me, right after you tell me that I'm wrong.
Yes, HDTV spec allows for 1080p, whether the broadcasters choose to so implement it at this time doesn't matter, it's part of the spec and expected to become the standard HDTV resolution once sets are more standardized. Feel free to check it out yourself here: http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele.../hdtv/95x5.htm
In Addition, broadcast (and current broadcast at that) isn't the only HD realm by far, especially since 1080p sets are just now beginning to hit the streets. There's this little thing called the "home video" market that's been driving entertainment and consumer electronics for years now. Keep in mind that both blu-ray and HD-DVD are allowing for 1080p, and digital cable and satellite providers are making sure the bandwidth is there for full 1080p operation. Now, aside from the future ability to play these formats (which, if you're dropping 5 grand on bleeding-edge specs, you're expecting it to be compatable with a couple years worth of technology growth) what part of my above answer would make you decide to be a jerk and state "If you knew anything about 1080i"?
Someone asked if 1080p existed, I replied that it did and sets were just now beginning to hit the streets (true). Within the next year, HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs will hit the streets (true) and 1080p will be offered on some cable providers. Seems like not only is it not just a gimmick, but that's it's being widely adopted while you're spouting off nonsense you read in other forums.
Do me a favor, feel free to disagree, feel free to research your argument, but don't be an ass about it.
If you are going to post a reference, post an official reference if you can find one that supports your point of view. A college professor's lecture notes are not official documents.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
If you are going to post a reference, post an official reference if you can find one that supports your point of view. A college professor's lecture notes are not official documents.
So no objections to the other 99% of my post? Feel the need to nitpick? Don't know how to apologize or tuck your tail between your legs? Too lazy to do any work yourself? Fine, here: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a.pdf
I'll even save you the trouble of having to use that pesky table of contents, Check out the top of page 24.
Now are we happy?
For everyone else, yes, 1080p exists, and yes, it's going to be all the rage within 12 months. It's going to be in both of the new DVD Standards, Digital Cable and Satellite, and all of the higher end television sets coming out will support it. Enjoy.
Originally posted by Spytap
So no objections to the other 99% of my post? Feel the need to nitpick? Don't know how to apologize or tuck your tail between your legs? Too lazy to do any work yourself? Fine, here: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a.pdf
I'll even save you the trouble of having to use that pesky table of contents, Check out the top of page 24.
Now are we happy?
For everyone else, yes, 1080p exists, and yes, it's going to be all the rage within 12 months. It's going to be in both of the new DVD Standards, Digital Cable and Satellite, and all of the higher end television sets coming out will support it. Enjoy.
That's what gets you off? You get excited about 1080/30p over 1080/60i? Do you now? You understand that these are both 30 fps formats with essentially identical data rates, don't you? The thing that excites people who know what they are talking about is 720/60p because this progressive scan format has twice the frame rate of 1080i (1080/60i). OTOH, 1080/30p is really just 1080/60i passed through a Faroudja filter. This is not the future; this is the present for high-end HDTV sets.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
That's what gets you off? You get excited about 1080/30p over 1080/60i? Do you now? You understand that these are both 30 fps formats with essentially identical data rates, don't you? The thing that excites people who know what they are talking about is 720/60p because this progressive scan format has twice the frame rate of 1080i (1080/60i). OTOH, 1080/30p is really just 1080/60i passed through a Faroudja filter. This is not the future; this is the present for high-end HDTV sets.
How many times do you normally change your argument before you admit that you're wrong?
"1080p doesn't exist! Oh, it does? Well I don't like it!"
Jesus, shut up.