Talk:High-definition video
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Merge "High Definition Video" with "Digital Photography"
Against: Video (including HDTV) is not necessarily digital, despite today's standards. Against: Digital photography generally refers to still photography.
Against: Video doesn't necssarily to be digital, but HDTV is a digital format. However, I am against the suggestion to merge with Digital photography; The term refers to taking still picture using digital technology, not motion picture.
Against --Wulf 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Against --myselfalso 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Resolution
"High-definition television (HDTV) resolution is 1080 interlaced lines or 720 progressive lines.": I was under the impression 1080p is also a possibility. Could anyone clarify? Mikecron 18:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, 1080p is (currently) the "best" form of HD video. --Wulf 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- However, 1080p can only be broadcast at 24-30 frames per second. That rate is fine for movies, but high motion content such as sports require 50-60 images per second. An interlaced "frame" is two images, so 1080i is acceptable for sports, whereas 1080p is not.
[edit] See my post at Talk:YCbCr
Please see my post about Sony Extended Video/Sony Higher Definition/xvYCC at Talk:YCbCr. (P.S., is there a way to superscript text in MediaWiki? Please reply on my talk page.) Thanks :) Wulf 07:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Do we have references for this movie having been shot in HDTV? If this is true, it's the first time HD has ever fooled me.Algr 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- See here: [1]. --Cab88 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well how about that. Thanks! Algr 07:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge "High-definition video" with "High-definition television".
against - While HDV is used with HDTV it is also used in film and for viewing on a computer and soon to be used with HD DVD's..
Against - "Television" implies broadcast and mass media, whereas "Video" includes computer monitor displays, digital cinematography, and even security cameras.Algr 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Against - While HDTV uses high def video, they are not same. hdv can be used in reference to not just presentation on tv but also on monitors etc. hdtv, at max can encompass hd transmission, but not hd video.
Against - BUT there needs to be a sharper seperation between hdtv and hdv facts, e.g. hd ready is a label for hd-tv. these tv sets are also able to display hdv, but their main funcion is to display broadcasted hd content. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] High def VIDEO versus TELEVISION
Seems to be a lot of bleed from the HDTV article into this one. I agree that there is a distinction between HD video content in general and HDTV (though I'm not completely familiar with the relative standards, and whether such are similar or in constrast). However, this article is not doing enough to make that distinction. Alot of duplication with HDTV. So, I've added the following sentence "It is important to note the difference between general purpose high-definition video as discussed in this article, and its specific applictions in television (HDTV), filming (HDV) and video storage systems (HDDVD and |Blu-ray)." Hopefully we can work to make the as discussed in this article statement more true. Audiodude 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted every duplicate section with HDTV and other articles High-definition pre-recorded media and compression, Analogue High-definition television systems. This does not mean this page is meaningless. In fact, it should ocus more on the visual advantatges of high definion, as technical details have already been described in other pages. Thewikipedian 11:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cheaper 1080i/p displays
The last line of the heading Format Considerations is inaccurate.
It says "An LCD capable of native 1080i resolution still costs over a thousand US dollars." However a Dell 24" monitor (resolution: 1920x1200) can be had for well under $1000 now.
[edit] Movies that have been shot in HD
The current text for this reads:
"Arguing that film is not high quality enough to make movies (in part because of poor film development processing, poor monitoring system, and a general inabilty to see what the camera is actually capturing) and the increasing usage of computer generated, augmented or edited picture sequences has led some directors to engage in shooting their movies using the HD format via high-end digital cameras. Although this argument is flawd as film has a much wider dynamic range as it can generally handle twice to four times the contrast as even the best HD cameras, not to mention that 35mm film can resolve up to 6000 lines while the best in HD so far can only resolve less than 1900 usable lines. Generally if somebody is pushing for HD, it's actually to save money on film stock and transfers to digital for special effects. Some examples are George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez.
Many television shows with science fiction themes and special effects — such as Star Trek: Enterprise and Stargate — have also begun to use digital cameras."
This includes bald statements that are pushing one view. Would it not be better for a pro and con argument as to the benefits of HD vs the benefits of film and then the disadvantages. An analysis of visual acuity, the general seating distances in theatres and the colour gamut that the average person can perceive would be useful. After all, it's what the audience perceives that is the issue. There is also no mention in the current article of sensitivity to light. If the director wants to shoot in available street light at night, what are their options? What happens as you increase the speed of the film stock and also its grain? It states that 35 mm film can resolve up to 6000 lines (reference please as this seems a lot), but does not state what the final release print resolution is. What are the implications when matting is used? In normal film technology this introduces a third process of degradation. If you are using lots of matting, such as in Sci-Fi, this might be a good argument for using HD digital.
If I knew the answers to these issues I might try to address them, but sadly I do not. --CloudSurfer 02:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The recent edits to this section have removed the POV issues. Thank you. The issues of matting and losses in the processing to the release print are still not mentioned. Do we have any facts with references on the effective resolution, colour gamut and contrast ratios of the final product? Another issue that occurs to me is that of shutter speed in terms of its effect on motion. Isn't there someone who is studying this at film school? --CloudSurfer 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
