Apple now has its own HD Video Format -- 540p

Question

Level 2

250 points

Apple now has its own HD Video Format -- 540p

October 13, 2009 – Sanyo announced that it will release the VPC-HD2000A and VPC-FH1A in North America. These two high definition camcorders have been available since early this year, but have yet to see a wide release on this side of the globe. The HD2000A and FH1A will have the same exact specs as their previously released cousins, but with one extra feature: compatibility with iFrame, a "next-generation" video format developed by Apple to make video files smaller and easier to edit.

The HD2000A and FH1A will be the first camcorders to support iFrame—a test run for the new format's success. While iFrame uses the same MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 compression codec as other high definition camcorders on the market, video recorded in this setting has a resolution of 960x540 and progressive scanning at 30 frames per second (30p). With these limitations of resolution and frame rate, it's clear that iFrame is designed to provide users with smaller, easier to edit video files. Full 1920x1080, 60i AVCHD files can be a chore for even the most robust hardware and software.

"This format offers a major breakthrough in reducing the time it takes for consumers to import, edit and share high quality video," said Tom Van Voy, General Manager of the Consumer Products Group for SANYO North America.

This should import directly into iMovie 09.

Cheers, author; The Ins and Outs of iMovie 09: Maximum Quality HD and DV

Posted on Oct 14, 2009 9:29 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Oct 14, 2009 9:56 AM in response to Steve Mullen

Personally I see this as an endorsement of the 960 x 540 format that  has used with its other products for quite a time now. 540p is never going to be 1080p or even 1080i but the difference for the average consumer has been vastly overstated by many.

The fact that 3rd party cameras have begun to appear that shoot in this mode and  now supports the import of this format tends to tell me that others are beginning to see what  have been telling us from the beginning.

Reply

Answer 2

Steve Mullen Author

Level 2

250 points

Oct 14, 2009 4:58 PM in response to Winston Churchill

An "endorsement" -- I don't think it's that since Sanyo is hardly a major player in the camcorder.

It indicates that what I, and others have said, is true -- Apple is going to try to replace traditional camcorders with iPhone's and iPod's shooting iFrame at 540p to match Apple TV at 540p. It also eliminates the "I shoot 1080i -- where is BD support"?

And, of course, it matches iM09 perfectly. Especially, a version of iM on an iPhone or iPod.

Reply

Answer 3

jigbobby

Level 1

24 points

Oct 14, 2009 6:01 PM in response to Steve Mullen

An endorsement of mediocrity is nothing to get too excited about. As Steve stated, this puts the final nail in the coffin of a true Apple HD workflow. Sony must be celebrating, as I'm sure Dell is. The notion that the ordinary joe will appreciate the speed and efficiency of 540p is bunk. Ordinary joe bought a 13mb still camera for his web pics. He also bought an HD camcorder for his web videos. Think he's gonna settle for a 540p sticker on his computer when his TV and his Blu-ray player say 1080p?

Reply

Answer 4

Oct 14, 2009 6:08 PM in response to Steve Mullen

OK so Sanyo is no Sony but it isn't exactly a corner shop establishment, and we need to see what others will do. But I'm not convinced that this is  manipulating the format around it's hardware products, but rather it producing its hardware around what people want.

540p is good, disproportionately better than SD, it suits the bandwidth, most delivery methods and storage available to most of us today and makes physical delivery redundant to all but a few. It's arguably better than 720p and 1080i at low data rates and I have to wonder why we haven't had our lives made easier by this format long before now.

I'll still be shooting at 1080, but I'll continue to deliver at 540 for the foreseeable future because that's what my audience can take, I have the processing power and storage that allow me to do this and revisit this footage should I ever wish to do so if and when my audience is ready to receive it, but that's not the case for most people.

No it isn't 1080, but it's not significantly less acceptable but it is substantially more convenient.

Reply

Answer 5

Oct 14, 2009 6:31 PM in response to jigbobby

jigbobby wrote:
...... Ordinary joe bought a 13mb still camera for his web pics. He also bought an HD camcorder for his web videos. Think he's gonna settle for a 540p sticker on his computer when his TV and his Blu-ray player say 1080p?

Ordinary Joe doesn't have these things, they may have a 13 MP pocket camera with an inferior lens that really doesn't do 13 MP justice and their photos are resized anyway so they don't take ages to load on the web, they may have an 1080i/720p HD camera but are unlikely to be able to make best use of it because it isn't 1080p and BD sales are stalling and they have no other way to deliver their movies and don't notice that much difference when they do.

Apple hasn't taken anything away from those like you who want the best from their top of the range equipment, they're just making it convenient for those that want convenience. The days when we all get together to watch your superior quality media that can only be watched on your superior equipment are gone, most of us want to watch what you have to offer at our own convenience and if this is means a small and likely unnoticeable loss of quality in most cases then so be it.

Reply

Answer 6

Oct 14, 2009 7:24 PM in response to Steve Mullen

I just purchased a Panasonic GH1 camcorder and it is amazing how fast I can fill up an 8GB data card with video(~1 hour a video for 8GB at 1080P/24FPS AVCHD.) Now I am running out of hard drive space (500GB internal laptop). If given the choice I might consider recording in iFrame. Not having to transcode would be awesome and the lower data rate would allow me to archive more video footage on my laptop.

On the downside, My old Flip Mino HD's files were imported into iMovie without transcoding, or at least it imported faster than real time. I am not sure why iFrame's ability to be natively imported into iMovie is such a big deal when this has been done in the past at higher resolutions too!

Reply

Answer 7

Oct 14, 2009 7:38 PM in response to TouchOfClass

Because starting with 540p and ending with 540p without conversion is better than converting 720p to 540p, especially if the 720p was the same or nearly the same data rate as the 540p to begin with.

Reply

Answer 8

Oct 14, 2009 9:15 PM in response to Winston Churchill

OK. While I agree with Winston, here is my concern. Its a proprietary solution. Apple is going against the grain. This was there downfall in the mid 90's that gave windows the edge. While many users are going to the web, the web is 720p. Why force down to 540 when everything else is at least 720p.

Now, we also have HDTV, Bluray devices, AVCHD (which can be edited natively on windows i might add) Apple, as usual, is in their own little sandbox forcing the world to see it through their sunglasses. The power is behind the masses not a unique few that understand the benefits of 540p. I hope Apple and Sanyo pony up and use their power and marketing budgets to educate the world on the benefits of iframe and 540 or they just wasted a lot of development dollars that could have been used to build a better 720p device that the rest of the world publishes and consumes.

Reply

Answer 9

Oct 14, 2009 9:16 PM in response to Steve Mullen

FYI:

my panasonic GH1 supposedly records 1080P/24P AVCHD at 17Mbps. Exporting from iMovie at iFrame settings (520P/30P h.264) is 4Mbps

Thats 4 times as many crappy videos of my family hooray!!

Reply

Answer 10

Oct 15, 2009 1:57 AM in response to Steve Mullen

The Apple Knowledge Base article "iMovie '09: About the iFrame Video format" can be found here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3905

John

Reply

Answer 11

Steve Mullen Author

Level 2

250 points

Oct 15, 2009 4:11 AM in response to John Cogdell

I find all the conflicting comments to have validity.

When I was in grad school, I had a pair of Altec Voice of the Theater speakers that were 4x2x3 FEET. The thought of listening on earphones would have been absurd. And, for years my generation took part in a move toward ever better equipment finally arriving at HDTV -- and looking forward to UHTV.

At the same time there has been a move to "tiny" and "cute" gadgets. You can buy a Hello Kitty pink laptop in Japan. iPhones, that can't connect reliably enough for business use, fit into this category. iPods seems to me only a way to buy stuff I don't want from iTunes. Likewise, AppleTV.

These devices all sacrifice quality for mobility -- think MP3 vs CDs. So iFrame fits perfectly into this world where QUALITY of image and sound has very little value to buyers. And, this is the future. Apple, as Sony once did (think WalkMan), is actively PUSHING the world into this future. It's a very clever marketing scheme that is working -- worldwide.

The reason for my eBook is that there ARE ways to use what Apple does well with what other companies do well. iFrame is fine for many Apple users. It is "good enough." iFrame doesn't prevent others of us from shooting 1080i or 720p and making 1080i discs for BD players and 1080i movies for the WDTV. We can have iMovie Ease of Use and Quality.

For example, we know that AVCHD really is H.264/AVC and by using H.264/AVC we avoid the needless transcode to AIC. We know how to avoid having 1080i chopped to 540p. We buy a WDTV rather than an AppleTV. And, we selectively use Apple products: iTunes for listening to FREE Internet radio from around the world, iMovie and iPhoto when we don't need the pro quality of Avid/FCP and Photoshop.

And in a few years, when AT&T get's it network ready, maybe an iPhone shooting 540p. iFrame is no threat to us.

Reply

Answer 12

Oct 15, 2009 4:30 AM in response to Sheryl Kingstone

We shouldn't forget this is an alternative not a replacement.

Those of us that have high quality cameras with large HDD's may not wish to shoot at 540p and don't need to, and those that have the means to edit their movies and deliver them at 1080p can still do so.

Most don't have the ability to shoot at 1080p and fewer have the ability to deliver it to the tv screen and some of those that can shoot at 1080p and can deliver it to the tv might simply want to deliver it to friends and family or over the internet. In such cases the delivery format needs to be restricted by datarate.

At a low datarates 720p is is more highly compressed than 540p and is arguably lower in quality because of this, and when it comes to converting 1080 to highly compressed delivery formats it's much better to scale to 540 than 720. Whilst 720p has become the popular delivery format at low datarates, that doesn't make it the best delivery format. Apple has always provided, and yes pushed I suppose, the 540p format, but it has still allowed you to export at 720p if you choose to. My point being you are free to choose, but I choose to deliver at 540p because I believe it best to do so in most cases. The exception being if your camera shoots at 720p, then I'd have to agree you should export at 720p.

All I'm saying is that when we are shooting with low datarate delivery in mind we are now being offered 540p instead of 720p which is far more convenient for delivery at 540p. All Apple are doing is supporting the import of this format.

You are not being forced to shoot and deliver at 540p, you are just being given a better alternative to 1080p than 720p.

Reply

Answer 13

Oct 15, 2009 7:02 AM in response to Steve Mullen

Um...

It's not HD, it's lower resolution that 576p that's the SD that most countries use (PAL)

576i has been used by most of the world since 1967 for TV broadcasts....

Reply

Answer 14

Oct 15, 2009 7:31 AM in response to David Doukidis

David, folks will debate what HD is all day here, for me we have to call 540p something and since HD is relative and 540p isn't SD because it won't play on SD equipment, I'm happy calling it HD, besides which 576p/480p isn't SD either, some areas of the world classify it as ED and others as HD.

Reply

Answer 15

Steve Mullen Author

Level 2

250 points

Oct 15, 2009 7:38 AM in response to David Doukidis

"Um... It's not HD ..."

Quite correct -- it is definitely not HD.

540p has 518,600-pixels.

PAL has 414,720-pixels.

Not really much difference. You might as well shoot PAL DV at 1080i50 since you would get about the same detail and smoother motion.

The minimum for HD is 1 million pixels i.e., 720p.

Those shooting FullHD are working with 2 million pixels.

Most computer screens today offer at least 1 million pixels i.e., 720p.

Most HDTVs offer 2 million pixels.

So iFrame is a long way from HD. The solution to AVCHD becoming huge AIC files is simpler than a new video format -- Apple could have written a native AVCHD codec as do PC applications.

The answer to slow editing is faster computers -- specifically a Quad Core MBP.

BUT, in this economy Apple is interested in the MacBook and, honestly, it would really struggle with native AVCHD. And, an iPhone/iPod would never be able to work with FullHD. So, Apple has built a format that fits their biggest volume area.

Reply