The best my Video Making Machine (LOL, D90) is capable of doing is 1080i ... ... I've stated many times movie making is NOT my best subject so I'm wondering given only the two choices, 1080i or 720p which make a better looking video? I could guess but I'm not interested in guesses ... Guessing is for the birds ... ... So I would like to know what the general consensus, what everyone thinks? The POLL is JUST for FUN as I would rather HEAR what those who creates their own Video's have to say ... Thanks in advance [size=1.2em][shadow=grey,left]w00d[/shadow][/size] [hr]
I do my stuff in 720 because I have no money. Ha, well really because with all my gear and youtube being on the internet, 1080 is just a PIA for me and makes the video worse. My video card hates 1080, the SD card fills up faster, takes twice as long to upload, edit and even buffer to watch 1080 on YouTube. So I like 720.
I like 1080P (you left that one out). It does make large files and my computer struggles A LOT with them natively. My POV camera has a memory card, I think it's 16 GB, and I've never filled it from a days flying. We like to watch YouTube videos on the flat screen via a Logitech Revue Google TV device and 1080P looks just great viewed this way so it's worth the effort. YouTube does the scaling to all the lower bit rates automatically so why not?
LOL, I'm gonna smack you on your noggin I said "The best my Video Making Machine (LOL, D90) is capable of doing is 1080i" So out of those two choices which would you use?
My personal opinion would be 720P. I like getting all the information together at the same time in a TRUE HD format (interlaced in any resolution is not true HD). The following snippet it a bit long-winded, but describes accurately the difference between interlaced scan and progressive scan... What is the difference between interlaced and progressive video? There are basically two ways to display video: interlaced scan or progressive scan. Progressive scan, used in computer monitors and digital televisions, displays all the horizontal lines of a picture at one time as a single frame . Interlaced scan, used in standard television formats (NTSC, PAL, and SECAM), displays only half of the horizontal lines at a time (the first field , containing the odd-numbered lines, is displayed, followed by the second field, containing the even-numbered lines). Interlacing relies on phosphor persistence of the TV tube to blend the fields together over a fraction of a second into a seemingly single picture. The advantage of interlaced video is that a high refresh rate (50 or 60 Hz) can be achieved with only half the bandwidth. The disadvantage is that the horizontal resolution is essentially cut in half, and the video is often filtered to avoid flicker (interfield twitter) and other artifacts. It may help to understand the difference by considering how the source images are captured. A film camera captures full frames in intervals that are 1/24th of a second long, whereas a video camera alternately scans fields of odd and even lines in 1/60th of a second intervals, resulting in interlaced frames that are 1/30th of a second long. (Unlike projected film, where the entire frame is shown in an instant, many progressive-scan displays trace a series of lines from top to bottom, but the end result is about the same.) DVD is specifically designed to be displayed on interlaced-scan displays, which represent 99.9 percent of the more than one billion TVs worldwide. However, most DVD content comes from film, which is inherently progressive. To make film content work in interlaced form, the video from each film frame is split into two video fields —240 lines in one field, and 240 lines in the other— and encoded as separate fields in the MPEG-2 stream. A complication is that film runs at 24 frames per second, whereas TV runs at 30 frames (60 fields) per second for NTSC, or 25 frames (50 fields) per second for PAL and SECAM. For PAL/SECAM display, the simple solution is to show the film frames at 25 per second, which is a 4 percent speed increase, and to speed up the audio to match. For NTSC display, the solution is to spread 24 frames across 60 fields by alternating the display of the first film frame for 2 video fields and the next film frame for 3 video fields. This is called 2-3 pulldown . The sequence works as shown below, where A through D represent film frames; A1, A2, B1, and so on represent the separation of each film frame into two video fields; and 1 through 5 represent the final video frames. Film frames: | A | B | C | D | Video fields: |A1 A2|B1 B2|B1 C2|C1 D2|D1 D2| Video frames: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | For MPEG-2 encoding, repeated fields (B1 and D2) are not actually stored twice. Instead, a flag is set to tell the decoder to repeat the field. (The inverted order of C2 and C1, and D2 and D1 are because of the requirement that top and bottom fields alternate. Since the fields are from the same film frame, the order doesn't matter.) MPEG-2 also has a flag to indicate when a frame is progressive (that the two fields come from the same instant in time). For film content, the progressive_frame flag should be true for every frame. See 3.4 for more MPEG-2 details. As you can see, there are a couple of problems inherent in 2-3 pulldown: 1) some film frames are shown for a longer period of time than others, causing judder , or jerkiness, that shows up especially in smooth pans; 2) if you freeze the video on the third or fourth video frame when there is motion in the picture you will see two separate images combined in a flickering mess. Most DVD players avoid the second problem by only pausing on coherent frames or by only showing one field, although some allow you to freeze on flicker-frames. (This is what the frame/field still option in the player's setup menu refers to.) Most DVD players are hooked up to interlaced TVs, so there's not much that can be done about artifacts from film conversion.
Thanks ALL I knew what the basic 'definition' of HD, Interlaced vs Progressive scan is but NOT w/ so much detail ... excellent! ... LOL, but it must be pay-back for ALL my 'long winded' posts GC, your post has me thinking about specifications in general as specifications do not always reflect the real world experience. Yes the HD 'spec' says we should be able to see a difference but can you (or anyone) see a visual difference between 720p or 1080p on YouTube? I suppose that's what I'm actually asking can a difference be seen? I know my eye's are getting OLD and I could use some new glasses but at least on YouTube I see NO a difference ... In point of fact what is (rhetorical) the benefit of the increased 'resolution' if it's not to show the picture in a larger format ... ... which leads to my issue w/ YouTube!?! [RANT] [size=1.25em]YouTube[/size] could at least display our Vid's somewhat [size=1.1em]LARGER[/size], too [size=0.7em]small[/size] [size=0.6em]yes[/size]? And 'Full-Screen' IMO is too large [/RANT] LMAO, In the title did anyone notice I entered 1024i ... ... and not being able to remember correct numbers is also a sign of OLD [size=1.2em][shadow=grey,left]w00d[/shadow][/size] [hr]
@Golden Child - Great post! @w00d - Your computer monitor is progressive scan so isn't the question how good is the YouTube conversion from "i" to "p" if any is applied?
Sorry my fault, I should NOT have include 1080i in my question as I was thinking about the 'resolution' Better said, or should read "Does anyone see a visual difference between 720p and 1080p when viewing on YouTube?" Do we see a difference between the two 'resolutions' EDIT: I have modified, fixed my last post in an effort to clarify what I was trying to ask [hr]
On my computer the difference is noticeable but minimal and both 720 and 1080 tax my (old) GPU. On the other hand watching the two resolutions is very noticeable on our flat screen television viewed via the Logitech Revue Google TV box. I suppose this is due to the small window we usually watch YouTube videos in on our computer screens. I seldom watch any YouTube videos full screen on my computer.
This is what I'm thinking ... and at least for the higher resolutions ... I think YouTube should increase the viewing size appropriate to the particular video resolution ... ... 'Small for LOW res' and of coarse 'Large for HIGH res', agreed ?
It depends on where you view a YouTube video. When we use the YouTube embed code in this forum, for example, the YouTube video gets scaled to a relatively small window size. Of course you also have the option to view the video on YouTube in a larger size by clicking the lower right YouTube logo on the video itself. However you can also choose the embed size for some websites when you use the YouTube "embed" option. Try This: Find a video in your video manager and select it. | Click the "Share" button. | Click the "Embed" button. You will see several canned window size options. You also have a option to create a custom size. You are usually only limited by the websites design on the width of a embedded video. Embedding a video that is too large can sometimes break the websites style formatting and cause funky shifting of margins and worse.
I'm talking about when viewed at the YouTube site with respect to them being too small and the HTML code would be great if I was creating my own site. I just don't see how the HTML Code would help at either this site or on YourTube per say!
I only watch YouTube in full screen HD at 720. I can't hardly tell much of a difference between 1080 and 720, other than at 1080 the video will never stop pausing to buffer, or just be a slow frame by frame annoying to watch because my video card is weak. 1080 takes a long time to upload and then a long time to edit. I use the YouTube editing tools for trim and joining. As it is trimming two 720 vids at 3 mins each and then joining them is a few hours to accomplish, but at least it stays 720 after the edit.
Well D'oh, I didn't know about the 'large' player ... ... LMAO, but Yes I went and had a look and DID find it ... ... That's exactly what I was looking for with my notable gruffness Thanks [quote author=Pelagic Pilot link=topic=1366.msg9508#msg9508 date=1339611476]I only watch YouTube in full screen HD at 720. I can't hardly tell much of a difference between 1080 and 720, other than at 1080 the video will never stop pausing to buffer, or just be a slow frame by frame annoying to watch because my video card is weak. <snip>[/quote] Yes that too, the endless buffering at the higher rez's drives me to suicide ... LMAO [hr]
It's all good w00d! So there are actually three options: The standard default YouTube video size, the "Large Player" option and also full screen as Pelagic Pilot pointed out.
