Posted by Frank on 06/12/06 17:18

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:31:37 +0100, in 'rec.video.production',
in article <Re: Varicam or Not Varicam?>,
Spex <No.spam@ta.com> wrote:

>Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:26:08 -0400, Spex wrote
>> (in article <448c27ff$0$69373$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>):
>>
>>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was on a shoot last week that was supposed to be an HD shoot on a
>>>> Varicam.
>>>> The camera itself was not as tall as I remembered other Varicams. It had
>>>> "DVCPro HD" printed on one side and 720P on the other. The Varicam logo
>>>> looked askew as if it had fallen off and had been reglued.
>>>>
>>>> So looking it up on the net shows me a 1280x720 camera. The 720 I'm
>>>> familiar
>>>> with is 720x480. What is it about this variacam that would make them put
>>>> 720
>>>> on the camera rather than 1280?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ty (confused in Baltimore) Ford
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
>>>> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>>>>
>>> Don't know where you get that frame size from???
>>>
>>> DVCPro HD is 960x720p or 1280x1080(i or p) or 1440x1080 (i or p).
>>>
>>> 960x(720)<------ this is the 720p the badge on the camera is referring to.
>>>
>>> I have never thought 960x720 was really HD. Do you?
>>
>> No, but what do I know. I thought SD was everything through 720 and HD
>> started with 1080 and went up.
>
>If only that was the case. 480p (720x480) is also bizarrely considered a
>HD resolution!


I've never heard people who know better refer to 480p as HDTV (High
Definition Television). I have heard people refer to 480p as EDTV
(Enhanced Definition Television), however.

I believe that the FCC and/or the FTC have promulgated a rule which
states that televisions sold to the public that only have at best 480p
capability cannot be labeled "HDTV" even if they contain a built-in
ATSC tuner.


>This HD broadcast revolution amounts to little more than a con. In the
>UK the Sky satellite broadcaster is quite content to up rez SD material
>knowing that the vast majority of the public have not seen a good
>quality SD source much less seen a pukka HD source. I believe the BBC
>are doing the same with its HD channel.
>
>>
>> The pity is that after multi-stream broadcasting, HD really isn't HD any more
>> due to compression. Even with only one HD stream, according to a TV CE here
>> in Baltimore, the compression on O-T-A broadcast is something like 40:1.
>> The last amazing O-T-A HD I saw was NBC's coverage of the Utah Winter
>> Olympics.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>>
>We can dream for the day that the improvements in compression technology
>actually result in better picture quality rather than freeing up
>bandwidth for more poker channels.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/

[Back to original message]