Posts Tagged ‘HDTV’

High Dynamic Range Video: Part 2

In: Technology

By: Steve Stanfill on Sep 01, 2010 at 8:37 am

Last week we discussed briefly the production of still photographs in high dynamic range.  Just recently, there has been some activity in doing ultra high fidelity video, using all the pieces of hi-def, plus increasing dynamic range and color bit depth.  Whether these technologies will make it into our living rooms in the near future is anybody’s guess, but they probably will see some type of implementation in the long term.

The upside we’ve already covered a bit in last week’s post.  Moving video to a dynamic range that more closely resembles what the eye is capable of perceiving is a good thing.  In the case of TV, it would resemble more “looking out the window” rather than at a TV screen.

The short video sample I posted last week was produced literally as a series of still HDR photographs (processed as I described last week), resembling more time lapse photography (which it truly was) rather than actual video.  If the same technique were to be used to produce video, the camera would need to take at least 3 pictures 24 times a second, or 72 frames per second to equal the current cinema standard of 24 fps.  (See discussion on this frame rate in this previous post.)  Then, that data stream would have to be processed in real time combining the over and under exposures of the same frame into one and sending it down the wire 24 times a second.  That’s alot of processing horsepower, and because of the complexity of the process, I do not think that this technique will ever be used for serious video production.

There are, however, those out there who are experimenting with High Dynamic Range capable CMOS sensors and associated A/D codecs.  There are some prototype sensors out there that are flirting with the 12 f-stop dynamic range specification, which is very close to the dynamic range of the eye.  But even with this vastly simpler technology, because of the additional digital information required, changes will have to be made.

One such camera is in the hands of Professor Alan Chalmers of the University of Warrick, UK.  With a 1080p resolution, his camera produces 24 meg of digital information per frame.  By my calculations, that would mean that a minute of footage would require 36 gig of storage space, and the superfast network architecture to support that storage/transmission.  This is 27 gig more per minute than standard uncompressed 1080p HD video.  Transmission and storage over existing infrastructure would require compression algorithms of nearly 100:1.  (See discussion of video codecs here.) That kind of compression, while theoretically possible, is certain to come with its own artifacts and compromises.

Production would also have to change.  As we all know, some actors and actresses have not benefited from the increased resolution of HD video.  This problem would be exacerbated in HDR.  More care (read money) would also have to be exercised in production of HDR; the guy behind the Rockefeller Center studio window making hand signals will be seen.

I personally hope that some of these technologies do take hold.  Increasing picture resolution through HD technology over the last few years has made a vast difference in the viewing experience for most of us.  I suspect that these next iterations of ultra high fidelity video have the potential to be at least as significant as hi-def has been in the last decade.  Present examples of this technology actually compress the tone-maps to make them viewable within present media constraints.  When/if genuine HDR television comes of age, we will see that HD was just the beginning.

More examples to view

Until next time….

0
VN:F [1.7.4_987]

Rate Me

Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Tags

, , , , ,

High Dynamic Range Video: Part 1

In: Technology

By: Steve Stanfill on Aug 25, 2010 at 8:11 am

I spent some time this past weekend mounting a couple of prints from my trip to my ancestral Montana home last summer for my office at work.  As an avid amateur photographer, I’m always trying new techniques to produce the strongest photographs possible.  One of my favorite techniques that I use quite often is known as HDR (high dynamic range) photography in pro and serious amateur photography circles.  It is a relatively new technique, though not a new idea, made possible by the strong digital processing options available to digital photographers today.

Here’s the thing.  If we are to consider the action of the pupil in the eye adjusting to varying light, the eye has almost 24 f-stops of dynamic range–said another way, we can see a starlit sky in the dead of the arctic night all the way to sun blazing off of a placid lake on the equator at noon-an increase of one f-stop essentially doubling the brightness perceived.  But even at a static pupil aperture, the eye can still detect between 11 and 14 f-stops of dynamic range, and we use the dynamic range of that wonderful instrument daily to see detail that no past or present camera (including film) technology can capture.

The state of the art dynamic range available from the sensors on high end digital cameras or video cameras today is about 8.5 f-stops–material outside of that shows up as either straight black or straight white.  So while an eye can look at a scene and see 11-14 f-stops of dynamic range, a digital camera/video camera will only detect slightly more than 8 f-stops, and because this is a logarithmic scale, this is a significant difference in performance.

The technique I presently use in my digital photography is to bracket three quick exposures, one under exposed, one properly exposed, and the final over exposed.  Both my cameras can be set to do this automatically, and both support “rapid fire” exposures–up to 8 frames per second.  So this can be done quickly as one is shooting the picture(s), but (and here’s the rub) these three negatives must then be combined digitally using computer processing techniques to create a single high dynamic range image.  In other words, almost 64 megabits of data from multiple negatives must be processed to create a single 20 megapixel image in HDR.  The results are stunning–detail that looks realistic to the eye when properly done.  Like anything else, this technique can be taken to the extreme and not all HDR pictures are particularly life-like.

So what does this have to do with my TV?  Most current video displays have the raw ability (if not the actual circuitry) to display dynamic range that simply isn’t available in most video content.  It is possible that the “next big thing” in video will be getting the content, storage, transmission streams, etc. to move to true high fidelity video (not just high definition) by increasing the dynamic range to something closer to what the human eye can perceive.  My sense is that this element may be more important to video cognoscenti than 3D in terms of actually enhancing the video experience.

Next week, I’ll discuss the fine points of this future technology and the ramifications to the industry should it be adopted.  In the meantime, take a look at this sample of HDR video–understand it’s highly compressed and just a rough approximation of what is possible, but very intriguing nonetheless.

HDR video sample

Until next week….

0
VN:F [1.7.4_987]

Rate Me

Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Tags

, , ,

3D Pundits-Gotta love ‘em

In: Technology

By: Steve Stanfill on Aug 11, 2010 at 8:43 am

In followup to my post last week, Studio Daily, a great web site dedicated to the professional motion picture/audio industry, has posted the latest forecasts for sales of flat panel internet-enabled HDTVs.  Interestingly, from a professional group who has heavily promoted the idea and pushed acceptance of 3DTV, they are now willing to admit that for this year anyway, sales of 3DTV are a bit of a “bust”– 4.2 million 3DTV units contrasted with 27.7 million units of Internet Enabled TV (IETV).

“Despite aggressive promotions from the industry and intense consumer interest generated by the blockbuster Avatar and other titles, the 3D TV market in 2010 will be limited to a small pool of enthusiastic early adopters,” said Riddhi Patel, director and principal analyst for television systems at iSuppli. “In contrast, IETV is entering the mainstream in 2010. This is because 3D is still dealing with a number of barriers, including cost, content availability and interoperability, while IETV provides immediate benefits by allowing TV viewers to access a range of content readily available on the Internet.”

Duh!!  Obviously a true statement, but I get the feeling that the industry in general and content providers specifically would much rather have had 3D enter the mainstream in 2010 rather than that “internet thing” where video has become something of an industry phenomenon.  Loads of “free” (You Tube) and “commercial reduced” content is made available on the internet, ironically by many of the same content providers who extract premium prices for the same content from cable companies and other more traditional distribution mechanisms.  I’m not complaining, particularly as a consumer, but it points out the schizophrenia that is rampant in the business at present.

As I’ve discussed before, 3D will enter the mainstream if and only if it is embraced by a broad consumer spectrum.  My sense is that consumers may not be willing to pay a premium for 3D equipment and content.  I’m already seeing that at my local theatre–it has one screen playing a local 3D release in 3D (at a $3 price premium) and 3 other screens playing the same release in 2D.  Local folks don’t seem that enamored by the experience, particularly at $12+ per ticket.  (Having said that, IMAX has proven that there is a niche for “enhanced” visual experience, and one of my local theatre contacts indicated that there seems to be some customer excitement when those two technologies are combined, even at a $5 price delta.)  The question remains as to whether 3D will be accepted as mainstream, or simply remain a niche for certain content.  Message to industry–if the primary goal of 3D production is to extract additional profit as opposed to truly enhancing the visual experience on appropriate content, good luck on selling that to a broad consumer base.

Until next time….

4
VN:F [1.7.4_987]

Rate Me

Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Internet Ready HDTV–Ready for Prime Time?

In: Technology

By: Steve Stanfill on Aug 04, 2010 at 8:05 am

In this column I’ve discussed a number of new technologies for HDTV.  While visiting with a colleague the other day, the subject of “internet ready” televisions came up, and it occurred to me that I had not covered that topic in this space.

The current definition for “internet ready” TV is not the same as it was several years ago, when several manufacturers and/or service providers offered the ability to surf the web on your television set.  Most of the interfaces for these products were so poorly designed and the performance so dismal that they died a quick and welcome death in the marketplace.

However, with the recent interest in streaming web based video, internet interface specific to video and audio content is certainly a timely consideration for HDTV designers eager to get a “leg up” on competition.  A number of manufacturers are presently offering internet interfaces specific to video providers such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Google, and Vudu.  I’ve tried a number of these interfaces, and in general they’re pretty good.  It’s a great idea to have the TV be the master control center of the video experience, which, I think is the idea here.  Further, it is a popular option–internet ready televisions are significantly outselling 3D ready televisions.  But here’s a couple of things to consider….

The problem with most of the internet video implementations that I’ve seen is that the vendor interfaces are “frozen in time”.  Now, I think that most would agree that the likes of Google, Amazon, and Netflix are going to be around for a long time, but some of the niche providers in this space haven’t even come on line yet.  Most of these sets do not have the capability to refresh internal EPROM with a new interface/provider subset, although Samsung specifically is experimenting with an Apple-like App Store (presently with about two dozen apps vs. Apple’s 185,000) which might get around this problem as new content providers come on line.  It remains to be seen, but it seems Samsung is at least thinking ahead about the future possibilities in this space.

Internet ready sets will cost between $250~$350 more than their non-internet ready cousins, and several companies offer sets identical in every particular except for this feature set, so it’s relatively easy to compare the actual cost associated with the internet interface.  With that delta, several other possibilities come to mind which may be a better fit, depending on your circumstances.

1)  You can save the money altogether and muddle through with the current interfaces you presently use to access these services (Wii, PS3, some Blu-Ray players, etc.)

2)  You can buy a new full featured, killer BluRay player that has the same internet capability for less money, AND has the ability to flash its EPROM with updates from the net.

3)  For about twice the money, you can purchase a Mac mini (or similar computer) that supports superb video through an HDMI interface to your television, and be ready for anything that the streaming space presently offers or will yet offer in the future.  This would mitigate some fear of obsolescence around a major purchase like a large LED HDTV.

At all events, it makes sense to think about your options carefully before plunking down the big bucks.

Until next time…

1
VN:F [1.7.4_987]

Rate Me

Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Tags

, , , , ,

So Where Does Plasma Fit in HDTV?

In: Blog, Technology

By: Steve Stanfill on Jun 02, 2010 at 8:15 am

Last week I discussed the LED iteration of LCD panel sets and the incumbent advantages of this newer display technology.  A colleague asked me after that article whether plasma sets are still “in the running” as far as display technology goes.

It’s a good question with a bunch of potential answers.

Plasma sets were considered “high end” a few years ago, and commanded astonishingly high prices.  The picture they produced was generally bright, had good contrast ratio, and had fast response time–all weaknesses in the LCD display technology of the time.  They also were prone to “burn in” (a phenomenon that leaves a permanent “ghost image” of displayed information that has been left on the screen too long–video game backgrounds, menu options, etc. carelessly left displaying at full brightness for several hours at a time), produced buzzing sounds, and were offered only in 720p.

Plasma displays work by actually creating light in very tiny “vessels” in a screen matrix that are excited by an electrical charge, literally creating “plasma” from a mixture of noble gases in these vessels.  If you remember your high school physics, plasma is a “4th” state of matter (like solid, liquid, and gas) that is highly electrically charged, and which exhibits different characteristics than the other three states of matter.  Forcing the gas mixture into a “plasma” state via an electrical charge then causes phosphors to glow at various brightness levels and colors depending on the phosphor used in the vessel.

These millions of plasma vessels are then sandwiched between two heavy plates of glass to create a display with extraordinary brightness and contrast.

Given the state of the art LED/LCD screens available, should you consider a plasma HDTV?

Here’s the thing.  Plasma sets can be very good indeed, and your individual situation can dictate whether you should consider a plasma display:

1)  If you have an extraordinarily bright room, or routinely watch a lot of TV in the daylight hours, a plasma set might be just the ticket.  Brightness on these sets is extraordinary, and this aspect alone can be worth it.

2)  If you are shopping for a specific screen size that is not available with other technologies (particularly a larger size–60″ plus), consider a plasma set.  If you’ve shopped much, you will discover that commercially available sets tend to standardize on certain screen sizes, and specific technologies support specific screen sizes.  An example–you can’t find an LED set in a 50 inch size, but you can find it in a plasma set.

3)  Plasma has come way down in cost, such that most LED/LCD sets are more expensive than similarly sized plasma displays.

Remember that plasma displays are heavy, use quite a bit of power, and must be maintained a little differently than other technologies.  Be sure you look for a set that is 1080p as well, and is a current model.  Older plasma sets had issues that have largely been corrected in current model offerings–I would not buy one used.  ‘Nuff said.

Until next time….

1
VN:F [1.7.4_987]

Rate Me

Rating: 4.5/5 (10 votes cast)

Tags

, ,