Aww, "Full HD" is so disparaging and belittling, please don't use!

[newpball]

A "great" article defending the great 720P.

I expect an "the great features of interlaced" article to follow shortly.

http://www.provideocoalition.com/why-full-hd-is-disparaging-misleading-and-quite-empty

[Skiller]

I was going to write something, but now I'm just thinking...

Don't feed the trolls.

[budwzr]

What he's saying is that 720p IS HD. It's 4X the resolution of SD. It's easier all around to edit and distribute given the current state of hardware out there. And I agree.

However, I do shoot in 1080p on my camcorder because if I need to stabilize there's room left to crop the borders, and you can pan within 1080p like a Ken Burns effect.

So I capture in 1080p, and keep the master, but final render to 720p. It plays well everywhere and it's lighter on resources.

[racer-x]

Or better yet.............shoot 4k and use the KB effect.

[budwzr]

Or better yet.............shoot 4k and use the KB effect.

Yeah, but I like to shoot 60p, and 4K60p is still expensive. I'm just a hobbyist.

[racer-x]

Or better yet.............shoot 4k and use the KB effect.

Yeah, but I like to shoot 60p, and 4K60p is still expensive. I'm just a hobbyist.

Yeah, I too shoot 1080/60p. Here is an example of 1080p reduced to 720p via KB effect...

[newpball]

Or better yet.............shoot 4k and use the KB effect.

Yeah, but I like to shoot 60p, and 4K60p is still expensive. I'm just a hobbyist.

Indeed that is expensive and very hard to handle right now!

Not only does it require an expensive camera you need a lot of bandwidth to capture this with any decent quality.

But full HD, e.g. 1080p either 30 or even 60 is not a problem anymore, pretty mainstream I would say! Even most new consumer grade video cameras have those options now.

There is absolutely no reason to use any 'half backed' 720 HD.

Except of course with traditional broadcasters, they still seem to drool over 720p while perhaps shedding tears there is no 720i version.

But we all know how cutting edge those broadcast engineers are.

[budwzr]

Nice shot. Was that a seal or sea lion slipping through there?

[racer-x]

I'm pretty sure it was an Otter or maybe a Beaver. No Seals or Sea Lions on this river.

[budwzr]

I'm pretty sure it was an Otter or maybe a Beaver. No Seals or Sea Lions on this river.

Oh, right. Rivers are fresh water, hehehe. You got lucky on that shot. Or did you see a bunch of them ahead of time and seized the moment?

[racer-x]

I got Lucky. I happened to be shooting the Icy stream when a Stork landed near by and spooked the Otter out from underneath the ice.

[budwzr]

Here's my "wildlife" video.

http://files.videohelp.com/u/135518/Fat%20Squirrel.mp4

[racer-x]

Oh, Cmon' that looks like a zoo scene........

Looks like that Squirrel don't wanna share his nuts.

[budwzr]

What zoo has squirrels? That was shot in the wild. I chummed the area with Doritos.

[racer-x]

Good thinking. Back in the old days when we wanted to get back at a PIA co-worker, we would put a loaf of bread on the roof of his car. The seagulls would come after it and crap all over the car..........

[pippas]

What he's saying is that 720p IS HD. It's 4X the resolution of SD. It's easier all around to edit and distribute given the current state of hardware out there. And I agree.

+1......I much prefer the higher frame rate of 720/50p to the 'better' resolution of 1080/25p....especially where there is any rapid motion or fast panning.

And the benefits of the higher frame rate is not dependent on the size or resolution of the display you're viewing on ..

[lordsmurf]

There is absolutely no reason to use any 'half backed' 720 HD.

This is just as stupid as your "no overscan" argument. There's many good reasons to use 720p. And most "HD" TVs can't actually resolve 1080p anyway. There's more to "1080" than just numbers and pixels.

You're making simpleton arguments regarding complex operations.

If anything, shooting 1080p and downscaling to 720p can yield some good results. But again, it just depends.

"Full HD" is a retarded term. Both are HD. Neither is more "full" than the other. (And that was the article's main point.)

[newpball]

And most "HD" TVs can't actually resolve 1080p anyway.

Really how so?

If anything, shooting 1080p and downscaling to 720p can yield some good results.

By throwing away 50% of the resolution?
Why would anybody in his right mind throw away 50% resolution? Or even claim that it really does not matter much. Who are they fooling but themselves?

"Full HD" is a retarded term. Both are HD. Neither is more "full" than the other. (And that was the article's main point.)

One has double the resolution of the other, and I for one find that very significant.

The whole world records 1080p or higher, from professional film makers all the way down to folks doing cell phone selfies. But one group does not, and is trying to tell everybody that 720p is really great. And it is trying to make people believe that 1 mega pixel is pretty much the same as 2 mega pixels. And of course it is the same group that loves to keep using IRE idiocy, interlaced video, overscanning, archaic closed capture technology, more confusing color spaces, TV levels. On and on......

But seriously, you are trying to tell me there is not much of a difference between 720 and 1080, so little in fact that we should discourage distinguishing them?

[pippas]

The whole world records 1080p or higher.........

Sadly, in many cases that only means 1080/25p or 1080/30p. And that lower frame rate means that 720/50p or 60p footage can and often does look better.
Now, if the whole world recorded as 1080/50p (or 1080/60p) - or higher - that might be a different story. But it doesn't.

And when there is significant motion involved, the often 'stuttering' footage created by the slower frame rate can look a lot worse than the 720/50p equivalent, regardless of the extra 'resolution' available from 1080 footage.......

[newpball]

Now, if the whole world recorded as 1080/50p (or 1080/60p) - or higher that might be a different story.

Most of the newer HD cameras can record 1080/60p already, even some portable phones can!

I'd say 2-3 three years at most and most consumer devices can record.

And I can predict that 2-3 years from now those same broadcast engineers will be complaining that their 720/30p stuff is no longer taken for full. And that is disparaging and belittling, after they are brilliant engineers and know everything better. By then I predict they will lobby the government to obstruct the "Youtubes", "Sky TVs" and the "Netflixes" because if makes them look bad and backwards.

And were there is motion involved, the often 'stuttering' footage created by slower frame rate can look al ot worse then the 720/50p equivalent, regardless of the extra 'resolution' available from 1080.......

Oh I see, so now 1080/30p stutters!

The excuses start to become more comical.



By the way, 4K/60p 4:2:2 HEVC "coming soon to a smart phone" near you:

http://www.ntt.co.jp/news2015/1503e/150326a.html

[Skiller]

The excuses start to become more comical.

The only thing I think is comical is your infantile and ignorant behavior.

[pippas]

Oh I see, so now 1080/30p stutters!

Certainly can -- and looks awful when it does! (Your footage should be OK if you don't move the camera about too much.)

Why do you think the broadcasters use 1080i for sport?... they need the extra images (fields rather than frames in this case of course) so they can get away from the stuttering that the lower image rates with can introduce with sports material..

Shame that your 1080/50 or 60p stuff is not well supported so far. Not Blu-ray compatible...(although they are in the process of updating that).... not within the specs of most hardware media players (latest Popcorn using the Sigma 8911 should be OK though....

No, this magic '1080' figure used without caveats is - as others have suggested - often just marketing hype. Bit like when the audio world uses 'RMS Watts' to describe amplifier output power. There's no such thing as an 'RMS Watt' ... or any other kind of classification of a 'Watt'....but that doesn't stop the marketing men from using the term to sell stuff.

Bit like '1080'.....not always that important in reality, but a magical marketing buzz word.....

[newpball]

Why do you think the broadcasters use 1080i for sport?... they need the extra images (fields rather than frames in this case of course) so they can get away from the stuttering that the lower image rates with can introduce with sports material..

Utter nonsense!

Stuttering happens when the video fps and the display refresh rate do not match.

Test have shown that consumers prefer "stuttering" 720 progressive over "incredibly smooth" 1080 interlaced also in fast moving scenes!

Interlaced video simply sucks, big time! It's fine to have legacy material but anyone who in 2015 still prefers to record interlaced is dreaming in nostalgia land.

Everybody except stuffy old engineers know that interlaced sucks big time.
In 2015 it is a stupid and backward technology!

Comparison of HDTV formats in a consumer environment:
https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1082906/1082906.pdf

[usually_quiet]

I'm pretty sure it was an Otter or maybe a Beaver. No Seals or Sea Lions on this river.

Nice video. It was an otter. The body is too long for a beaver. Plus, beavers are are largely nocturnal. I worked at a garden center near a creek one summer. A beaver moved into the area. We never saw it during the day, but it cut down small trees in the nursery at night.

[pippas]

Utter nonsense!

I'm glad you've written that. Now at least I know I shan't have to take any notice of your comments...they're almost certain to be - as you say - 'utter nonsense'

You might like to let the broadcasters know they don't need to use 1080i, and that their decision to use it is an error on their part? I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear from an expert like you....

[lordsmurf]

Test have shown

I call BS.

[newpball]

Test have shown

I call BS.

So what part of the German study I included in my prior posting do you disagree with?

[usually_quiet]

Test have shown

I call BS.

So what part of the German study I included in my prior posting do you disagree with?

I call BS too. 720p59.94 and 1080i29.97 are difficult to tell apart on a HDTV that is competent at deinterlacing. I read the study, and looking at the data, I agree with the researcher's conclusion, namely: "Although 720p50 is perceived to have a better quality than 1080i50, this difference is not significant in a statistical sense."

[newpball]

Test have shown

I call BS.

So what part of the German study I included in my prior posting do you disagree with?

I call BS too. 720p59.94 and 1080i29.97 are difficult to tell apart on a HDTV that is competent at deinterlacing. I read the study, and looking at the data, I agree with the researcher's conclusion, namely: "Although 720p50 is perceived to have a better quality than 1080i50, this difference is not significant in a statistical sense."

So basically you would not be able to see the difference between 720 and 1080? You realize that 1080 is twice the resolution of 720 right?

Of course the setup in that test was utterly ridiculous, look at the picture of the test room. No kidding they cannot see the difference in resolution between 720 and 1080!



This would be more to it:

[jagabo]

The viewers were viewing from a distance of 5x the screen height. That's about 10.5 feet for a 50" HDTV -- too far away to see the resolution difference between 1920x1080 and 1280x720. So they intentionally removed the resolution advantage of 1080i leaving only the deinterlacing disadvantage. The results would have been different if the viewers were watching from 3x the screen height.

Some other faults:

There was no mention of whether or not they disabled overscan on the TVs to get pixel-for-pixel accuracy.

The used live broadcast sporting events as their source. There was no mention of whether or not those events were made with 1080i or 720p cameras. It's entirely possible the 1080i broadcasts were simply upscaled from 720p.

They used AviSynth's Bob() deinterlacer! One of the worst.

This study was obviously paid for by someone with a vested interest in the outcome.