unless maybe if it's a widescreen CRT

Can anyone confirm that 1440x1080 HD cameras are 4:3 ?
which leaves 1920x1080 as the widescreen HD spec

I've noticed there are 1920x1440 4:3 cameras
Again it wouldnt surprise me if the top and bottom lines are discarded to make 1920x1080 wide screen images.
These then downscaled to 1440x1080, digitally compressed for transmission
then at our end decompressed and upscaled to 1920x1080
and interlaced if required

The days when the source and display were a direct match leaving the transmission method to just do that are long gone. Even PAL is a form of compression

If the camera uses pixels with ratio 1.333 (i.e. rectangular), then it works out:

1.333 x 1440 = 1919.52 => 1920x1080 = 16:9 aspect ratio

There's HD and there's Full HD (which is 1920x1080)...

Even a wide screen crt if it's HD ready, has to work with a 720P progressive scan signal. If it can't it's not HD ready. Unless any one knows differently only 1 such TV was ever made (By Samsung). By definition any HD TV has to at a minimum work with 720P and 1080i, therefore interlacing is not a requirement of any HD TV. It's true that all 1920 x 1080 TV's don't work with 1080p, but this is as a result of the electronics rather than the screen, which in effect always get's a 1080p signal.

I think I said something similar earlier

Are cameras available with oblong pixels?

I changed the quote re HD spec sentence to say 1920 in a later post

May be i'm wrong but pretty sure the term full HD was coined for 1920 x 1080p capable TV's (which is not a requirement of the HD ready spec). There are a number of 1920 x 1080 sets not 1080p capable which can only be labelled HD Ready

I know

If the optimum output from the HD box is 1440x1080p, as that's how I think the data is transmitted, do any boxes have a setting for 1440x1080p?
The display would then need to decide whether to upscale that
The next step is to let the boxes do the upscaling to 1920x1080p. Again do any boxes have a setting for 1920x1080p? I believe there are displays that can take that.

I've given up on 1280x720p as it seems to be an early compromise

If you do the maths, 1440x1080 is exactly 4:3 and 1920x1080 is exaxctly 16:9.

Yes. High Definition in terms of broadcasting and HDTV is anything between 1280x720p and 1920x1080p... and Full HD is the term for 1920x1080p for TV sets, and for video capture...


Yes, hence the 1440x1080 resolution... I believe this is one: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...elTechSpecsAct


The definitive answer to why 1440x1080 (broadcast) is here: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...6#post30552246

Great thanks
I also noticed it's interlaced 1440 x1080i

So many conflicting standards in this digital broadcasting game.
How we ever get a decent picture at the end of it is a miracle

Please also see this post of mine on the freesat forum.

thanks - I think tht says it all

I think you're getting confused with this 4:3 stuff- 1440 x 1080 is no more 4:3 than 720 x 576 is (what most widescreen SD broadcasts are on the BBC and Five).

No it doesn't see my post (on the Freesat section)

Exactly. The Canon XH-A1s someone posted a link to is widescreen.

As is the Canon HV30 which I own and which has exactly the same pixel resolution and ratio and is also 16:9.

Here's some footage from the XH-A1 just to prove it is 16:9 (not mine):

http://www.vimeo.com/962277

Please note that Canon don't make broadcast cameras only lenses and specialist rigs, if you want to look at broadcast cameras you need to look at Sony, Ikegami, Thompson, and my personal favourite Panasonic.

Bob

Now I'm going to be pedantic. Whereas the above is essentially true, BBC R&D have developed settings profiles for at least one of Canon's top of the range cameras so that they can be used in situations where a larger camera would cause problems.

I've used a Canon XL1 for broadcast.

It's a bit off subject, but I think RED are the up and coming people (for motion film anyway).

BTW my Canon camera is for home use, I'm not a professional.

As a fringe terrestial (variable reception) viewer just about to receive a Humax Freesat PVR, and slightly concerned about the soft SD picture experienced by some members, I would like to ask;
Are the viewers experiencing an inferior SD freesat picture in the minority?

Is this a problem due to lack of bandspace that will eventually be overcome?

Do some viewers see Freesat only as a necessary alternative to Freeview in fringe areas?

Or is the majority view that Freesat is the future for more HD TV, as when analogue finishes the terrestial digital bandwidth looks more and more to be spoken for?

Since there are people who can get a perfectly good SD picture (one that some have mistaken for HD) then I think we can take it as read that the system (Freesat/Humax) is perfectly capable of generating such a picture and problems are most likely down to poor adjustment of sets.


No. Otherwise there would not be people who can get an excellent picture now.


Some undoubtably do but I think they are wrong. With the extreme contention for DTT bandwidth there is little chance of there ever being more than two or three HD channels on Freeview.

On DSat, however, it's really just a matter of the HD equipment becoming mainstream and the programme material filtering through.

Freesat was designed to give an alternative service to those like yourself who currently can't and may never get a decent Freeview signal. Due to the requirement to transmit all regional variations from one location on Satellite (A terrestrial transmitter has only to transmit it's local regions) then bandwidth is equally short on Astra2D.

However there is considerable scope for BBC and ITV to make very large bandwidth savings by agglomerating regional broadcasts and rearranging these (plus there is always the possibility that when contracts with Sky run out the sat owners may find Sky are outbid for suitable space).

All in all the outlook for HD channels on DSat is a great deal better than it is on DTT.

For me I persoanally believe that at least some of the SD softness is a firmware problem as I've observed a better picture from recorded SD than live SD.

However, some SD is good. I think a lot of it is down to the broadcast as well which ranges from very good on some channels such as FIVE to terrible on channels such as Zone Reality. I would expect similar channel to channel variation on Freeview.


Some have commented on the fact that Freesat is transmitted at a lower bit rate than Freeview, although there is a different compression standard so this might explain that.


Freesat to me is the only alternative to Freeview unless you're prepared to pay for Sky.


I believe Freesat is the future for digital tv as although Freeview is going to get HD, there's a shortage of bandwidth. The argument over this has been raging for some time regarding quality changes that might result to the Freeview picture, but irrespective of that, long term when satelitte channels are moved and reordered between sats and bandwidth becomes available on Astra 2D as a result, satelitte has a better long term future as there is more bandwidth available once shuffling has been done. Terrestrial is permanently stuck with a fixed bandwidth thats already run out and is entirely dependant on codec changes to make room via efficiency.

There's another way with Freeview
Not all channels broadcast all the time, so by arranging an HD slot just before or after other channels start up or shut down there's room for the extra bandwidth

However the main advantage of sat4free and subsequently Freesat is that you can choose the regional programme you want rather than being at the whim of the coverage maps. Or choose a region where youre going on holiday in a few days. Or choose a programme which isnt deemed interesting to your nominal region.

A further advantage is that some sattelite channels still have a semblence of a 'does what it says on the tin' text service rather than a 'might as well use the PC' interactive service.