I do seriously want faster frame rates but for the moment would be perfectly happy to instead have a higher quality 720p/60 delivery scaled up to 1080p or higher by the display.
Where 1080p/60 encoding might make sense in in newer video disc technologies where they will easily have the available space. Sadly however there is no compatible way either HD DVD or Blu-Ray can support this under the current specs.
I'd expect the next generation of highdef discs (some new standard) to embrace both higher frame rates and bit depths. For this cycle it is just not going to happen but eventually folks will start making libraries of media this good to (re)release on future media.
I don't think it will be too long before the declining storage cost of electronic media makes it cheap to electronically 'film', process, and store at, say, 72 FPS and then release 24 FPS movies but archive for the future faster frame rate higher definition sales.
- Tom Craig Birkmaier wrote:
At 7:10 PM -0500 11/11/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: Craig Birkmaier wrote:The ITU paper said that the advantage of using MPEG-2 in the 1080 at 60p mode was cost. Quoting: "A large number of display and capturing devices will support 1080@60p/50p in the near future and it is urgently desired to add support for these video formats in the existing MPEG standard. Complexity is one of the biggest issues for such applications, especially for software solution. Although AVC(14496-10 | H.264) supports such video formats, complexity is too high for some applications, especially simple software based applications, because of high demand of CPU and memory resources. In addition, it is not always possible to assign the entirety of the available CPU resource to the video decoder in some applications. We believe that there is a great demand for MPEG-2 video, especially for software based solutions. MPEG-2 video is the appropriate format for such applications, in terms of both complexity and picture quality."The ITU is correct that there are (will be) displays and cameras that can deal with 1080@50/60P.It is important to note however, that many, if not most of the 1080P displays on the market today could not handle 1080@50/60P because the internal image processing circuitry cannot handle the clocks necessary for input formats with these pixel clocks. This may not be a problem, IF, the display has an HDMI input that can handle the higher clock rates directly. For example, Sony notes that 1080P sources bypass their Digital Reality Creation (image processing) circuitry.What this means is that it may well be possible to deliver 1080@50/60P to some existing displays via an external box that can connect via HDMI. Sony and Panasonic both note that the only way to do this today is via their Blu-Ray DVD players, and at least for now, they are delivering 1080@24P, which is already covered by the MPEG-2 standard.As for thew complexity issue and software codecs, I am already using a software codec to play H.264 720P files. I have seen a variety of tests and demos that involved using the MPEG-2 tools for higher frame rate sources. These tests were shot on film at frame rates of 36, 60, and 72 frames per second. The good news is that you can use longer GOPs with more B-frames, which helps with coding efficiency relative to 1080@30i, but you have much more detail to encode.I have major doubts that it would be possible to deliver 1080@50/60P using MPEG-2 at bit rates that are useful to broadcasters. The peak bit rate requirements will peak to beyond 30 Mbps consistently. This suggests that the RIGHT WAY to deal with 1080@50/60P in MPEG-2 land is to resample to 720P for emission...but we have been through all of this before.I suspect that what is REALLY happening here is directly related to intellectual property issues, and to the desire to extend proven MPEG-2 designs to higher clock rates. This might be worthwhile, IF there were practical applications for the new MPEG-2 level that the ITU is suggesting.I have participated in ITU activities related to the 1920 x 1080 Common Image Format. This is a very political process, driven by some politically powerful people with the desire to have one HDTV format to rule them all.This is wrong-headed, but certainly not something new. This battle has be raging for nearly two decades, and will likely still be the subject of international political wrangling for another decade, until 1080@50/60P becomes an economically attractive proposition.If you open the other zipped files, you'll see that they are also adding AVC modes. For studio or ultra high def purposes. "Legacy technology" is *always* considered, Craig. It's called "good engineering."There comes a time when enough is enough.Interlace WAS and IS a very crude analog compression technology that has no place in our new digital world. This did not stop the ATSC and the CE industry from embracing a legacy technology that afforded them some competitive protection, while allowing them to load up both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 with a bunch of unnecessary intellectual property. This was not good engineering, but rather, protectionist engineering making it easier for the CE industry to defend its turf from the advancing Moore's Law tidal wave.Frankly, getting rid of an interlaced format that should never have existed (1080i), by moving to progressive HDTV formats that have little practical use for emission is a waste of time.It's time to forget about formats and focus on proper image processing and encoding practices that could care less about the size or frame rate of the raster that is being processed. The MPEG compression codecs are limited only by performance and complexity issues - they could care less about formats. That is why there are levels and profiles to place some upper bounds on an implementation level.Thanks to Moore's Law, it is now possible to consider higher clock speeds and increased codec complexity. That is why the ITU and ISO created the Joint Video Team and developed the H.264 codec rater than extending MPEG-2 to higher clock speeds. By the time 1080@50/60P becomes a practical format for acquisition and emission coding, there will be a replacement for H.264. That's the way things should work in our digital world.Extending legacy designs is not a good engineering practice. It is just another attempt to delay the application of good engineering practices to protect a legacy.Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
-- Tom Barry trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.