What's the deal with # of p? 480p, 720p, 1080p?

[Inertially]

It's always mentioned in advertisements, this many p, and the more p, the better.
What does it really say? Or do?

It's just resolution right? Vertical lines.
It doesn't really say much about the actual picture quality of the video does it?
Why is more better?

One camera shoots 480p, another camera shoots 480p video.
And the video quality of one is much worse than the other..

Shoot 480p on a cheap camera with very little compression vs a video shot on a XH A1, sized to 480p and compressed heavily and the video shot on the XH A1 will be much better.

So why is the number of p hyped so much?

[fritzi93]

The "p" stands for progressive, look it up in the glossary over <-- there. The 480 is shorthand indicating resolution, specifically vertical resolution. You have some reading to do.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

[1337assassin]

you are right.. they are resolutions, and i and p represent the way in which data is read and displayed, with p being the most smooth display, 720p may look closer to 1080i

480 is like "NTSC" only about 640 × 480

720 is "HDTV", 1280 x 720

1080 is "HD", 1920 x 1080

2160 is "Quad HD", 3840 x 2160

so there is obvious differences, many people buy Blu-Ray disks and convert them to 480 or 720, but the reason HD is so beautiful is specifically because of its higher resolution, and nothing else.

a single layer DVD looks about the same quality as a double-layer DVD when the single layer is played at half-size

a Blu-Ray Movie looks like a Double Layer DVD when the DVD is played at about 1/4th the original size. so if BluRay was to be magnified 4 times it would look about like a regular DVD

but higher resolution means higher file sizes, and quad HD media may be well over 50GB per movie..

would it look better than HD? most certainly, especially on large dimension screens

so the bigger is of course always better.. and any tampering with the original file size makes it much worse than the original.. it may mot be apparent on your curent screen, but may be or would be on a much bigger screen

so converting blu-ray to 480 is the same as going out and buying a normal single-layer DVD.. which sets you back a good 10 years

[jagabo]

Video quality starts with resolution. Obviously, what happens afterward has an effect (eg too much compression). Here's a sample from a 16p video:



Enlarge and process it any way you want. Do you think it could ever look as good as even this crappy 1080p sample (click on the image to see it in full 1080p):

[1337assassin]

Video quality starts with resolution. Here's a sample from a 16p video:

and the quality the High Resolution sample above, as it is displayed in the forum, before clicking to enlarge, is about the quality and crisp clarity that 2160p would look like, if it were displayed at the same size as the full original image

[deadrats]

It's always mentioned in advertisements, this many p, and the more p, the better.
What does it really say? Or do?

It's just resolution right? Vertical lines.
It doesn't really say much about the actual picture quality of the video does it?
Why is more better?

One camera shoots 480p, another camera shoots 480p video.
And the video quality of one is much worse than the other..

Shoot 480p on a cheap camera with very little compression vs a video shot on a XH A1, sized to 480p and compressed heavily and the video shot on the XH A1 will be much better.

So why is the number of p hyped so much?

as already mentioned the "p" stands for "progressive" and refers to scan type, the other scan type is "interlaced".

in the simplest terms, a single frame that is 1920x1080p will be composed of 2073600 pixels, where as a single frame that is 1920x1080i is composed 1080 lines and each line is in turn composed of 1920 pixels, when the image is displayed a progressive scan type frame will have all the pixels displayed on the screen simultaneously whereas an interlaced frame will display each frame line by line.

interlacing is really a broadcasting technology that saves bandwidth as each frame can be broken up into smaller parts and transmitted in 2 portions whereas a progressive frame needs to be broadcast in one complete piece.

as for your question regarding quality, the less compression a particular video uses the bit rate it needs to maintain quality goes up, if the cheap camera is skimping on the compression AND skimping on the bit rate, then naturally the quality will be lower.

think of it this way, a 720x480 video is composed of 345600 pixels per frame, if the bit rate was a dvd standard 9.8 mb/s and had an ntsc standard frame rate of 23.97 fps but no compression was used, then that would mean that each frame only had 408844.4 bits which works out to roughly 1.18 bits per pixel, no wonder the quality would be pathetic. if however you use good compression techniques those 1.18 bits can be used to represent numerous pixels and with a compression scheme like mpeg-1 you get good quality, with a more advanced compression scheme like mpeg-2 you get better quality, mpeg-4 asp is more advanced still so the quality gets better and finally with avc, currently the most advanced video compression scheme available, you can get excellent quality with a ratio of 1.18 bits per pixel.

when h265 finally arrives (side note, the x264 developer's have indicated that they are already working on h265, but the compression scheme is so advanced that it takes forever to encode just a single frame of video on even the fastest hardware), the quality will improve even more.

[edDV]

p is about movie DVD and Blu-Ray. They are talking 24 or 23.976 fps.

Good if pro produced. Really ugly if you do it on the cheap with consumer camcorders.

[edDV]

Shoot 480p on a cheap camera with very little compression vs a video shot on a XH A1, sized to 480p and compressed heavily and the video shot on the XH A1 will be much better.

It is moslly about deinterlace when needed and needs the of compression codecs.

The XH-A1 is a tool. What are you trying to do with it?

[1337assassin]

if you ask me what is most important, i'd say spend less on the camera, and more on the hard drives, Blu-Ray players, and Blu-Ray Burners, as well as HD TV's etc.. i think they are up to 3TB now.. and a Blu-Ray Burner would complete the set

lens is important.. as are image sensors etc.. but you will achieve much better quality playnig uncompressed video than compressed video.. regardless of the camera..

and you'd achieve better quality video for payback, and enjoyment, and viewing,... which is what its for.. its not about the camera.. 20 years from now everyone will be laughing at your camera anyway.. but your movies will be in the largest format possible

once its compressed, all of it is gone forever

[1337assassin]

movie companies keep all of their video in raw format, thats the reason they are able to re-master movies into Blu-ray, which came out on single-layer DVD's

and its also the reason they will be able to remaster those same movies for 2160p Quad HD media as well

keep them as big as possible

[1337assassin]

if you shoot two movies at 420p one on a high-end pro camera, and one on a prosumer, or consumer end- point and shoot camera, and they are both compressed the same.. of course the pro one will look better..if all other factors are the same, including subject, lighting, cameraman, etc..

however, if you compress the pro one, and leave the point and shoot one uncompressed, the point and shoot will look much better, if both cameras are handled by a skilled professional

90% of the time a "Crappy" video has little to do with the camera, and more to do with the user.. people who buy point and shoots, or the lower end cameras are generally not interested in making high-quality movies, they just want to record something for some reason.. so the video ends up looking like crap..

but give the same person a pro camera, and the quality will be just about as crappy, save he may respect the art a little more.

and likewise, give a pro any point and shoot, and you cant tell the difference between that camera and a pro camera

most hollywood and tv movies are filmed with a combination of cinema cameras, and cheap prosumer ones.. and nobody can tell which shots were made with which cameras

[edDV]

The OP is silent. We still have littleclue what he/she/it is trying to do.

[jagabo]

So why is the number of p hyped so much?

I suppose that's the OP's reason for ranting. The reality is, it's an easy number for marketing to state. Many people don't even know what it means but "know" they want 1080p.

[1337assassin]

The OP is silent. We still have littleclue what he/she/it is trying to do.

ya.. but i've never let that stop me

99.99% of video quality is everything that happens outside of the camera

any camera, even the very cheapest money can buy, can make outstanding videos on any professional hollywood set.

the lighting, the angle, the props, the mood, the motion, the subject, the background, storyline, prop, acting, etc, make for 90% of the quality of what is captured

and the editing is the next biggest step.. you can edit a great movie from any 8mm camera.. i mean truly outstanding.. even by today's standards.. that includes all of the shading and cutting, and splicing, and sound effects, and visual effects, etc etc etc


and then, the end of all of that, is the rendering and compression to fit on a specific type of media.. maybe single-layer DVD, maybe Dual-Layer DVD, maybe Blu-Ray disk, and its all and only about compression.

and that could be source files from a really soso 480p camera..

people seem generally more concerned with the quality of their resolution than with what is actually being displayed and filling the image..

i'd say go out and just try and make great movies.. the resolution will have no bearing on whether or not your final movie is a great movie or not

afterall.. would anyone argue that VHS, or DVD movies suddenly all suck now because of Blu-Ray? no.. they are great movies.. absolutely great.

[1337assassin]

if i could prioritize what i would spend money on.. the camera would be the last thing.. after props, sets, lighting, audio recording devices, actors, actresses, cranes, cable pulleys, camera lifts, tripods, tracks, Computers, Editing Software and Hardware, and Burning capabilities.

then, after all that.. a camera

honestly, you could set your cell phone on top of those hollywood camera lifts on set and make an outstanding movie.. in fact.. you could make the exact movie you saw in the cinema, all on your cellular phone.. only much smaller than what you saw in the theater

and if your output media was for some sort of keychain media player.. nobody would ever know the difference that it was your phone, and not a hollywood movie camera

[edDV]

The OP is silent. We still have littleclue what he/she/it is trying to do.

ya.. but i've never let that stop me

99.99% of video quality is everything that happens outside of the camera

any camera, even the very cheapest money can buy, can make outstanding videos on any professional hollywood set.

the lighting, the angle, the props, the mood, the motion, the subject, the background, storyline, prop, acting, etc, make for 90% of the quality of what is captured.

At this point I was going to say I disagree with you 80%. After reading the rest I'd say I disagree 98%.

Garbage in Garbage out.

The other things you mention are important but picture quality starts with the camera. "Hollywood" production is a top down process. The camera, lighting and direction set the quality for all downstream processes.

Go to NAB in April where they shoot the same sets with the complete pro camera line and then tell me you see no difference. If you ask in advance they will let you use your consumer cam.

[edDV]

...
honestly, you could set your cell phone on top of those hollywood camera lifts on set and make an outstanding movie.. in fact.. you could make the exact movie you saw in the cinema, all on your cellular phone.. only much smaller than what you saw in the theater.

No. This is the remaining 2%. The cellphone video will look like good cellphone video on the first take but wouldn't survive decode, editing/compositing, recode and distribution.

[Inertially]

I do not believe that "the camera does not matter"
And that any video shot on a professional set will look good.

You're telling me that you can take a 5 year old Nokia cellphone that captures little .3gp video clips into a great looking picture?
Show me an example if you can.

As i've said, i've seen "480p" video output from two different cameras using the same MJPEG compression
One is awful, the other is much better/acceptable.

You need good tools and the skills the use them.
You can be the best welder in the world, but all you have is matchbox and some solder, what results are you going to get?

That's like saying it's not about the car, it's the driver.

Okay, put me in a GTR with a full tank of gas. and put Schumacher in a Power Wheel with no batteries, let's see who wins.

[edDV]

As i've said, i've seen "480p" video output from two different cameras.
One is awful, the other is much better/acceptable.

I think what you are missing is 480p, 720p, etc are not an indication of quality.

The camera quality is a function of lens, sensor, processing and storage. Cameras are optimized to different shooting conditions. An awful cellphone cam can be made to output 720p or even 1080p but all they are only dividing crap video into smaller pixels. The sensor video most likely lacks anywhere near that resolution.

[Inertially]

in the simplest terms, a single frame that is 1920x1080p will be composed of 2073600 pixels, where as a single frame that is 1920x1080i is composed 1080 lines and each line is in turn composed of 1920 pixels,

1920x1080i is composed of 1080 lines?
I thought interlaced videos output half, so 540 alternating lines at a time?

[1337assassin]

ok, speaking of welding, an excellent example.. you can take the best welding machine in the world, the best arc welding machine, and put it into the hands of an amateur or novice, with any type of welding rod you can think up, on any type of material.. and you wont even get a weld.. you'll get holes, burnthrough, breaks, slag welds, cracks, and complete failures

on the other hand, you can take the worst welding machine in the world, one with erratic current fluctuations, a little tiny one.. whatever, and you can choose the most unsuitable rods available , on the most unforgiving of metals and positions, of the thinnest metals, and a pro can weld it, without a problem

that will take you no less than 5 years of constant welding to achieve, if not 20

the quality of the camera doesnt matter.. not unless you are the type of person who looks at a VHS or Single-Layer DVD blockbuster of the past, today, and wants to lose his lunch because you have never been so repulsed by what you saw..

what you see compared at shows is not even compressed and has little or no bearing on what you see in the end product for your use

yes, a cell phone could make the same movie.. it doesnt really matter, yes, if the output resolution is the size of a sim card.. nobody knows.. it doesnt matter, because the resolution is too small

likewise, it doesnt matter if you are using a pro camera or a prosumer one.. if your end product is going to be 480p

not all pixels are equal..dark scenes may only be capturing 30% of the pixel capability and there is simply not 70% of any other information available to process, hence your camera, regardless of price, is doing what a camera with far less capabilities could do

and the smae video size, of a little sim card size monitor, wouldnt matter what you shot it at, as your giant camera would be rendered down and compressed to be the same exact quality as that of the tiniest of cameras

In fact, most Hollywood post-processing takes great pains to remove pixel information, by adding colorization, darkening, shading, cropping, and any number of other of post-filming effects

the movie, any movie, would simply look like crap if all it was was a :HD video, super high def, crispy shiny spanking bright and ubervivid feat of "HDness"

it would also be very painful to look at. much like most of the crap u see filmed in consumer HD

it doesnt matter what your resolution is, your movie is always going to suck if it sucks, and its going to be great if its great.. no amount of resolution or lack of resolution will ever change that.

your ultra-crispy super crackly, spanking turbo accelerated HD ultra delineated video capture isnt a testament to anything but the vanity of the user..

it looks like crap..

and the vast majority of users out there today think their little HD cmaera makes them a great film maker.. and validates their video as "good work" simply because its ultra crisp-crackly on steroids

but its simply not true. its painful to behold, in fact

on the other hand, a real film maker can roll his own black and white film by hand and produce FAR superior results to what ANYONE on earth is capable of doing simply through the use of HiDef alone..

crap in, crap out..

and that has nothing to do with the camera. but everything to do with what is in front of the lens, and the way it behaves in frame

hi-def has little or no intrinsic value to the quality of movies

im just as happy watching movies on VHS as i am on Blu-ray.. in fact.. most VHS was alot better.. especially scary stories

they have to do so much post-processing on HD to get it to NOT look like your average neighborhood and average neighbors, that all they are really doing is trying to go for the same feeling and effects we got with VHS..

[edDV]

in the simplest terms, a single frame that is 1920x1080p will be composed of 2073600 pixels, where as a single frame that is 1920x1080i is composed 1080 lines and each line is in turn composed of 1920 pixels,

1920x1080i is composed of 1080 lines?
I thought interlaced videos output half, so 540 alternating lines at a time?

Wrong, 1080i has 1080 vertical lines, and usually 1440 or 1920 horizontal pixels. The video is sent or recorded with 1920 or 1440 x 540 odd then even lines to make 1080.

All this has zero relationship to the native resolution of the source. Like an upscaling DVD player, native resolution could be 720x480 or less. Native 1920x1080 cameras are very expensive.

[1337assassin]

and like wise, your HD Blu-Ray movie, filmed in HD 1080p, doesnt look any different than NTSC to someone with an 8 inch analog tv

[Inertially]

in the simplest terms, a single frame that is 1920x1080p will be composed of 2073600 pixels, where as a single frame that is 1920x1080i is composed 1080 lines and each line is in turn composed of 1920 pixels,

1920x1080i is composed of 1080 lines?
I thought interlaced videos output half, so 540 alternating lines at a time?

Wrong, 1080i has 1080 vertical lines, and usually 1440 or 1920 horizontal pixels. The video is sent or recorded with 1920 or 1440 x 540 odd then even lines to make 1080.

All this has zero relationship to the native resolution of the source. Like an upscaling DVD player, native resolution could be 720x480 or less. Native 1920x1080 cameras are very expensive.

Yes, "sending" or "outputting" alternating lines is what I meant.


VHS acceptable quality.
So are old BW films
Show me an epic film that was shot in 4 pixels by 3 pixels.
Reprocess gone with the wind or whatever to 4x3 pixels, it will lose some impact.

I think you're thinking more in terms of the film's content or story or message rather than the technical aspects.

Quality does matter, I haven't seen anything that will convince be otherwise and everything that says to me that is so.

Watch a video with broken in and out audio with noise, black and white noise/dots scattered, random lines, and cuts out for 10 seconds at a time every 3 seconds.

Presentation matters.

I don't even know why this argument is being pushed onto me.

Take the screenshot of the Korean show posted above.

You would watch that show in this quality, with equally distorted audio?



I'm sure if the Titanic were shown in theaters like that, it wouldn't have received the response that it did.

[1337assassin]

well.. all my point really is, is that i dont think its sane, rational, or intelligent for people to be touting around who's cameras better than who's..

and that i personally would not buy a high end camera unless i had already purchased everything else i needed which is much more important

tell me this.. which do u think is honestly more important, having a High end camera that can record 1080p but that will almost always be compressed to 480, or having one of those giant, extendable hollywood filming cranes that can go anywhere, in any direction, turning the camera at any angle, etc.. and a track and cart

which do u really think produces the best movies? the camera.. or the cart and crane?

any camera would work.. to produce movies that were 1000's of times better than the guy holding his "prosumer" camcorder which isnt even shoulder mounted..

in fact, most of those high-end consumer cameras look like really cheap crappy ones, simply because the video is so difficult to hold still and move around smoothly

[Inertially]

The camera.

But, really the crane, because you could then sell the crane for money, then buy a many, better cameras.

I bet you shoot with a camcorder that you think has reasonable picture quality.

I'm not convinced someone can produce a blockbuster in this day with one of these, it's 480p widescreen:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Car-Key-Chain-Hidden-Camera-Spy-Camera-video-Recorder-/17052284476...item27b3f41e61

Unless you can show me an example

Edit: wtf nevermind, I checked out sample footage from that thing and it's wayy better than the video off my camera... that's cool, im might get one LOL

[1337assassin]

nevermind, I checked out sample footage from that thing and it's wayy better than the video off my camera...

i'm telling you. most little point-and-shoot hand-helds today produce awesome quality

the only difference between a highend camera and a point and shoot , and the only reason you'd want one over the other, is for 2 separate manual control rings, one for manual focus and one for manual zoom, and a separate external manual knob or ring to adjust aperture on-the-fly.. and XLR inputs, and the ability to set on the shoulder..

however, any camera with all of the above functions is way above prosumer.. but used to be standard in every VHS camcorder

however, there are some third party shoulder mounts, and even some third party XRL inputs

other than that.. there is no reason to get a larger prosumer over a small point and shoot.. the video quality is identical

[1337assassin]

and between HD and 3CCD, there arernt many people who have use for the difference

[1337assassin]

and most people using HD cameras are not outputting Blu-ray

[1337assassin]

its like saying you you need a DSLR to take point-and-shoot photos.. when a little canon ixux will produce superior results in most situations for most users..

a DSLR is for people who need full manual control for artistic creativity, as it is with full-manual external control Camcorders