Social Feed

(Make that "More...", apparently you can't edit the subject when you make a typo.)

Here's some more info that a few of you will find interesting, a few of you will be infuriated by, and most won't understand. Don't worry...I OWN a production company and worked in TV many years and didn't understand some of this until recently.

Many of you claim that 1280 x 1080i isn't "HD", because it doesn't conform to the ATSC standards- which doesn't fly because those standards only apply to broadcast. And, as I've pointed out many times- no one seems to see the fairly obvious fact that 1280 x 1080 is HIGHER resolution than 1280 x 720...which no one seems to have a problem with anymore. (They did in the early days of broadcast HD.)

Then, a few of you came back with a slightly better argument- that 1280x1080 isn't a native 16:9 aspect ratio. A few weeks ago, I posted a rather long essay on pixel aspect ratio. In essence, DV and DVD pictures are ALL 720x480, whether they are widescreen or not. The difference is how your equipment- usually the monitor- inturprets the pixel aspect ratio.

1920x1080 and 1280x720 use a square P.A.R.- called 1.0. This is just an easier way of saying 1:1. Now, as I said, DV and DVD uses a 720x480 aspect ratio. In square pixels, this would be a 3:2 aspect ratio. But by assigning a 0.9 P.A.R., we get a picture pretty close to 4:3. By giving it a 1.2 P.A.R., we get pretty close to 16:9.

So the actual pixel count is unimportant to the aspect ratio, because we can adjust the P.A.R. And, ATSC standards aside, analog television was always defined by the number of VERTICAL lines. The horizontal resolution varies between different types of equipment. The composite output of any type of NTSC equipment always puts out 525 lines, whether it's a $59 VHS player, or a $20,000 Betacam deck. It's the horizontal resolution that varies.

It's true that a P.A.R. of 1.0 or less results in a superior picture. But the definition of HD lies in the number of vertical lines, and the method of displaying them. 1280x720i is the same resolution as 1280x720p. But only 720p qualifies as "HD". At some point, it was decided that 720i didn't "look" good enough to be considered "HD". An interlaced picture must be at least 1080 lines before it's "HD" The horzontal resolution is not important, as far as the "definition" goes.

I think Tom asked me what horizontal resolution I considered acceptable- I think he asked me if 960 qualified. I said no- to me 1280 was the minimum. After all 960 is only slightly more than 720- which is generally considered the top quality level of SD. (Remember, the ATSC standard for SD is only 640- inferior to DVD and DV.)

I also conceeded the point that a 1.5 P.A.R. is much higher than the accepted 1.2, and therefore may be "stretched" to a point that is unacceptable.

HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART! This is the part that made me THANKFUL for 1280x1080i, and is going to drive some of you into a rage.

Yesterday, I upgraded my After Effects software to the new version 7.0 Pro. After Effects is a piece of software used in both television and film for special effects. The software itself can handle a resolution of 30,000 x 30,000- far greater than anyone would ever need, or that any computer could ever handle. By way of comparison, IMAX is 4096 x 3002. And...get ready for this...most digital cinema projectors in use are only 1280 x 1024. (Yup...HD-Lite is superior to most digital cinema projectors, although next-generation digital cimema will be 2048x1536 or higher.)

The point is...After Effects is used by serious pros, and can easily handle full 1920x1080 HD as long as your computer can. Here's what it has to say about pixel aspect ratios on page 117 of the users guide. (I removed the parts not related to HD.)

"COMMON PIXEL ASPECT RATIOS FOR ASSETS...

...1.0...Your footage...is 1920 x 1080 HD (not HDV or DVCPRO HD), is 1280 x 720 HD or HDV...

...1.33...HDV 1080/DVCPRO HD 720...Your footage has a 1440 x 1080 or 960 x 720 frame size...

...1.5...DVCPRO HD 1080...Your footage has a 1280 x 1080 frame size..."

Now some might argue that HDV is not a professional format. However, it will undoubtedly make it's way into broadcast use if it hasn't already. The Sony FX-1 HDV camera is essentially the same as the VX-2000 DV camera except for the CCD resolution and the recording method. I use the VX-2000 for shooting commercials for broadcast, and I have seen them used by a Nickelodeon crew. They are were standard issue for producers of PBS's Frontline. So this camera- which sells for under $4000- is capable of doing 1280 x720p in low resolution mode, or 1440 x 1080i in high resolution mode.

However, no one can argue that DVCPRO-HD is not a professional format. I shot in DVCPRO-25 when I worked in TV news. A DVCPRO-HD camcorder starts at about $57,000. There is essentially no market for them other than HD television producers. Sure, it's cheaper than HDCAM, but not by much.

Go read that chart again...DVCPRO-HD records in 1280x1080 in high resolution mode, and 960 x 720 in low resolution mode.

These arguments that DISH is engaging in false advertising simply won't ever fly. They could downrez to 960 x 720p and still be considered HD by the television industry.

If you want 1920 x 1080i-and who doesn't - tell them. Vote with your dollars. If you have better options (cable, I guess), use them. But filing FTC complaints is a waste of time. If Panasonic can sell a $81,000 camcorder that records 960 x 720 and calls it HD, we should be thankful for 1280x1080...but also we need to let DISH know we expect better before they think they can make it worse. Stop wasting your time whining on message boards about "deceptive advertising", and let DISH know that you want and expect the best possible picture. The customers have the power here- not the government. (Hey, that's a nice change of pace!)