Home Theater Concepts: Is a 1440x1080 HD Camcorder Inferior to a 1920x1080 HD Camcorder?

[rfowkes]

The question has been raised regarding how good 1440x1080 resolution from HD camcorders is when compared to "full" 1920x1080 resolution devices. While it is technically accurate to say that 1920x1080 images contain more pixels than 1440x1080 images the actual appearance to the native eye is not as different as logic might make you think. And the choice of "1440" as the resolution in the horizontal direction in a "1920x1080" world is not an arbitrary number but carefully selected due to

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2008/05/home_theater_concepts_is_a_1440x1080_hd_camcorder_inferior_to_a_1920x1080_hd_camcorder.php]Read Column[/url]

[rfowkes]

I just wanted to clarify one item in the article. I realize that the way that a 1440x1080 image looks on a 1920x1080 display will depend a lot on how your scaling device (whether external or internal to the display) handles the 1440x1080 to 1920x1080 translation. However, in most cases this should not be a major issue unless the video processing is really bad. The main point of the article is that I don't consider the leap from 1440x1080 to 1920x1080 as great as, say, a 720p to 1080p display at close distances. While I would recommend a 1920x1080 camera for those buiyng new, you might find that there are some great buys in 1440x1080 hardware and it might meet you needs quite nicely if cost is a consideration while still being a "1080" device.

[palmharbor]

Does a high fidelity tweeter that goes from 5Khz to 35K hz sound better than one that goes from 5K to 25Khz?
No you cannot make a decision on one peramiter....what is the most important thing is
the signal to noise ratio. If your work is for birthday parties, children's plays, etc....the new baby etc
it doesn't matter....I have 8mm analog Sony tapes
that look better than JVC digital video tapes.

[rfowkes]

You make an interesting analogy (analogogy? <g>) and I understand your point (although there are those who would insist that those frequencies that are beyond the audible sound range contribute something to the audible sound). It all gets down to a question about what you are using a camera for. I had recently talked to an acquaintence who had just purchased a 1440x1080 HD digital camcorder and was bemoaning the fact that he had not waited for a new 1920x1080 HD camcorder because he was now "a generation behind." My response that he was worrying too much about what is really a minor difference in picture quality that he probably wouldn't even notice. This is what prompted my brief article. While resolution of digital images is producing the type of motion pictures that now make HD digital recording an affordable situation in a very small package some advances are significant and others are minor. I'm not disputing that analog recorders (or good old fashioned film cameras) can produce some striking moving images. That's a given. What the high resolution digital movie cameras offer are more convenient ways of capturing, storing, processing, editing and distributing the resulting product. A digital camera strives to eventually reach the point of infinite resolution which is actually a theoretical description of analog (film) photography which is only limited by the characteristics of the film emulsion, the properties and capabilities of the lens and the design of the projection device or other display. In just about every case the real limiting factor is the human eye just as the ear is the limiting factor in audio.

[videograbber]

Here's another take...

> Is a 1440x1080 HD Camcorder Inferior to a 1920x1080 HD Camcorder? <

Of course it is! That's a no-brainer... the 1920 HD camcorder has +33% greater horizontal resolution, and hence visible detail (during static scenes). Assuming, naturally, that all other factors are equal. The problem however is that all other factors are rarely (if ever) equal. For example, that 1920 vidcam may have a poorer quality lens on it, to achieve the same price point as the 1440 vidcam, and thus have a worse quality picture as a result.

Resolution is only one characteristic of picture quality, and not necessarily the most important one. But it's easy to put on a spec sheet, and play a numbers game. Don't fall for it.

> In other words, sometimes let your eyes tell you which you prefer, not simply the specification sheets. <

I'd disagree with this statement. "Sometimes" is the wrong word to use. I'd say always look beyond the spec sheets. They're useful to identify the list of features supported, but not the qualitative performance characteristics. What makes more sense? If you had two units in front of you, would you buy the one that looked best to you, or had the best spec sheet? When you can't use your own eyes directly, then do some research to find out what others have found, preferably respected reviewers familiar with the product category.

Buying by a spec sheet (or, "by the numbers") holds huge opportunities for disappointment. Especially when you think you got "the best", only later to find a friend or co-worker with a better unit, who paid less to boot. That's the bottom line.

- Tim

[videograbber]

Robert wrote:

> ...because he was now "a generation behind." <

You might want to ask him if he's ever seen the eye-popping, sharp, detailed, high-contrast video programming like 'Bikini Destinations' or 'Get Out' on HDNet, or some of the incredible nature documentaries on Discovery Home Theatre, on his big 1920x1080 screen. About as real as you can get, with loads of detail and almost 3-dimensional look.

Oh, wait. All produced with 1440 HDcams. Too bad. So "last gen". I need to e-mail Bennett Productions and let Casey and the crew know they need to dump all that old, obsolete 1440 gear, and get modernized.

- Tim

[Richard]

I'd say always look beyond the spec sheets. They're useful to identify the list of features supported, but not the qualitative performance characteristics.

Unless a product has received a review from an outside source that knows his stuff creating a real spec sheet you are correct. You CANNOT depend on manufacturers to tell you about performance, only sales and bragging rights.

[rfowkes]

Tim,

I appreciate your input and, of course, agree with what you have stated. And your point is well taken that "always" is a more appropriate term than "sometimes" in this and most such cases. Well said.

Apparently I should have called my article something like, "Is a 1920x1080 HD Camcorder really that much better than a 1440x1080 HD Camcorder?" or somthing like that to convey a better idea of what the content was. You are absolutely correct in pointing out that the performance of a camera involves much more than just the spec numbers of the image and similar. If such specs were the only factor then I would stop carrying around my Nikon D300 and rely solely on my pocket sized point and shoot 8.1 Megapixel Sony Cybershot unit! <g>

Also, the fact that a static image will probably benefit the most from increased horizontal resolution and the fact that we are talking about motion pictures here strengthens my thesis even more. As I said before, this whole discussion arose out of a conversation with a friend who panicked that he was no longer on the bleeding edge because his 1440x1080 HD camcorder was no longer "state of the art." As I had wrestled with the same concept a few months earlier (my 2007 Sony HDR-SR8 still had the "newness" glow to it) I decided to tell him that numbers don't tell the whole story. The bottom line to all this is that not all upgrades are revolutionary. Some are evolutionary and the average (or even above average) user would be hard pressed to discover any real world advantages to what amounts to an incremental upgrade. If those of us involved in home theater and such were to jump at each new product we would all go bonkers.

[jcook01]

This whole thread has ignored the most important argument related to current technology 1440 vs 1920 HDCams, the use of MPEG2 vs MPEG4, and the resultant resolution of the final captured product.

Case in point compare actual footage taken with the HDV Canon HV20/30 series against any 1920 MPEG4 HDCam out there, the realized resoultion results are similar.

Two other points to consider are tape based HDV (1440) vs internal Hard Disk based HDCams (1920) as well as the ability to edit in MPEG2 vs MPEG4. MPEG2 holds up well against most of the MPEG4 cams out there and if your NLE doesn't support MPEG4 it's a moot point unless you wish to buy new software too.

At first glance tapeless HDCams appear to have an advantage until you realize that eventually you'll have to store that data elsewhere. Whether it be on a RAID, bluray etc. you'll have pay to store the data. On the other hand miniDV tapes are relatively cheap, hold up well over time and aren't prone to disk drive failure. If you're travelling for a prolonged period of time taking daily video footage and don't have the ability to archive your HDCams HS based footage then the miniDV HDV cams appear to have an advantage.


....so the question as to which is better 1920 or 1440 is really just one of several questions one needs to ask.

[rfowkes]

Excellent points. Yes, there are several questions that need to be asked regarding High Definition camcorders and which specifications are really the most important (as is the case in most discussions on this forum). My original hypothesis was that people shouldn't obsess over a particular specification (in this case 1920 vs. 1440) at the expense of the overall picture (pun intended). As you stated, there are many factors to consider.

And the issue of Hard Drive vs. tape based cameras has many sides to it as well. Yes, Hard Drive cameras are at a slight risk of Hard Drive failure but then we also have the possibility of tape jams in tape based equipment. The possibility of Hard Drive failure will become a moot point once large scale memory completely replaces the Hard Drive storage (coming faster than I would have thought). In addition, tape based camcorders require heavier transports and all the associated potential for problems so that's another data point to consider. And as "stable" as tape has become, especially in a digital context, there is still the question of entropy messing with magnetic fields and tape formulations over time so shelf storage could become an issue in ceratin cases. On the other hand, you can pack a bunch of tapes for a long shoot whereas the Hard Drive is finite (although having the capability 13-20 hours of the highest quality High Definition video should be enough for most people to deal with.) And while it is true that it might be inconvenient to dump the raw footage to a DVD for archival storage while on the go, it is possible and most people will have access to a desktop or capable laptop at a reasonable pointr in time.

The discussion goes on and on and several valid arguments can be made for either scenario or even some others. The point here, once more, is that too much emphasis should not be placed on just one aspect of the entire process.