Walter Graff
Forum Replies Created
-
“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. -
[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. -
“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. -
“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. -
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. -
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 -
I’d say next time send it to Roger Macie. He’ll fix it just as good, if not better and do it a lot faster.
Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
walter@bluesky-web.com
http://www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass. -
“.for the money it’s about the same as the JVC HZ-CA13U PL.”
But nowhere near the final quality of a true lens adapter and quality lens.
-
Might be the monitor you are viewing or it could be the settings on the camera. Here are some stills from my camera and they don’t exhibit any noise problems. I could make noise if I want. Often, if you are viewing on an LCD monitor you will see all sorts of noise in the blacks which is not the camera but the monitor.
https://www.bluesky-web.com/hdv.htm
Walter Graff
BlueSky Media, Inc.
walter@bluesky-web.com
http://www.bluesky-web.com
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass. -
Generally the same concert lighitng is used and cameras simply record it.