Hack Turns iPhone Camera Into HD Camcorder

An anonymous reader writes "Monsters and Friends has just released the beta of Drunknbass, a new iPhone hack that allows the unit's camera to capture video. 'While the iPhone's 2.0 megapixel camera resolution may be mediocre for a still camera, it is excellent resolution for a consumer video camera.' A standard definition Canon digital camcorder uses a 680K pixel sensor chip (because a standard definition TV's resolution is only 520 x 360), while one of Canon's HD camcorders uses a 2.9 megapixel sensor. The beta presently allows 5 second clips at 10 frames per second, but the finished version will soon allow infinite recording at 45 frames per second. Video of Drunknbass in action can be found on YouTube."

infinite

[peas_n_carrots (1025360)]

"infinite recording" amazing how they are able to defy the laws of physics. Nay, common sense even!

Re:infinite

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

Presumably, for the pedantic, this is to indicate that the length of the recording is bounded by the power supply and capacity of the device in question, rather than some arbitrary limit (which is presumably related to a maximum size of some volatile-memory buffer, and the inability to process and write the video file fast enough to prevent said buffer from filling).

How many seconds of video is that?

[billstewart (78916)]

The iPhone comes with up to 8GB of flash. I don't know what bit rate this application will actually be recording at once it's out of beta, but typical HD TV takes about 9 Mbps, which is about 1MB/sec (though it's slower than 45fps.) So theoretically you could get a couple hours of that resolution of video into the flash (if the battery holds out that long), but of course that's only if you're not storing much of anything else.

Re:How many seconds of video is that?

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

HDTV at 9Mb/s is pretty heavily compressed. You would find it very hard to get anything like that compression ratio without interframe compression, which makes the resulting footage unsuitable for editing. Standard definition DV footage is 3.6MB/s (28.8Mb/s). Modern HD cameras use a better compression to get the same data rate with high definition footage. This would fill up the iPhone's storage in around 40 minutes.

I never understood why Apple, back when they had FireWire controllers in their iPods, did not allow you to plug in an iSight and record directly on to that. It would have been a really great way of getting cheap video recording capabilities in to the hands of a lot of people, and copying recorded clips from the iPod would have been a lot faster than copying it from a DV tape.

Re:How many seconds of video is that?

[jackpot777 (1159971)]

Depends on the compression and resolution. Here's a cheap / cheerful video camera that uses SD cards [camcorderinfo.com] and it encodes H.264 (Quicktime movie format). One hour of video fits onto a 2GB card, and that's at 720p (1280 x 720). There's probably some pixellation, but four hours of video on an 8GB iPhone isn't too shabby. Mind you, that's at 30fps, so reduce recording time for that too.

Editing using iMovie HD is pretty easy too. Apple + T to split the file at the playhead, Delete the clips you've partitioned off.

HD, SD

[acrobg (1175095)]

HD is based on resolution, not framerate. The fact that it's 10fps makes it largely useless at this point in time. Then again, 45fps is not al lthat useful, as in North America, the main framerates used and broadcast for HD are 24 (technically 23.976), 30 (29.97), and 60. Also, standard definition resolution is 720x480, not the number listed in the article.

Re:HD, SD

[idiotwithastick (1036612)]

Lens quality and size probably don't help either, because such a small lens can't collect enough light, nor can it zoom very much (if at all) or change focus. Most of the cell phone camera photos I've seen are crappy in quality (grainy), and the video is even worse because it is easy for the hand to shake when carrying such a small object. Pretty worthless as a video camera for that reason.

Re:HD, SD

[cgenman (325138)]

There is also the useful pixels question. You could take a really awful first-gen cellphone image, then take a HD picture of the cellphone. It would technically be High Resolution, but it would look terrible. Similarly, the iPhone's camera is pretty bad with a low fidelity lense, narrow light tolerances, sensor lag, long exposure times, etc.

2MP iPhone image [terrywhite.com] vs 2MP Powershot A60 image [steves-digicams.com] vs a One Megapixel film image [kenrockwell.com].

Is the iPhone really high-def?

Re:

[JonathanBoyd (644397)]

Not saying the iPhone camera is any good, but your links aren't terribly useful for comparison, given that they're of three different locations with totally different lighting conditions. Looks like the iPhone one is indoors in poor lighting. IIRC, the iPhone doesn't have a flash, so I'd expect a terrible picture there. Most compact cameras take poor photos indoors without a flash. I'd be more interested in how good it is outdoors.

Re:HD, SD

[twistedsymphony (956982)]

45fps is not al lthat useful, as in North America, the main framerates used and broadcast for HD are 24 (technically 23.976), 30 (29.97), and 60. Also, standard definition resolution is 720x480, not the number listed in the article.

Saying they'll be capable of 45FPS doesn't necessarily mean it will record at that speed... simply that 45 is the upper limit of their capabilities. Presumably they would be able to capture 24 or 30FPS clips with ease once they expand to that point.

as for SD resolution SD is 704x480 and that can be 16:9 or 4:3 depending on aspect ratio of the pixels it is also interlaced. if using square pixels then an interlaced 640x480 resolution can be used but only in 4:3. You're probably thinking of EDTV (Enhanced Definition) which can be 704x480 or 720x480 and progressive scan.

Some game consoles and other devices will produce a 720x480 interlaced or 640x480 progressive resolution can called them SD or ED but they're really not in compliance with the spec.

Re:

[Lumpy (12016)]

HD is based on resolution and not lens quality either. HD video requires real lenses upwards of $1000.00 to get good HD. anything you record in the iPhone with it's lens will be better at SD because the lens barely can take a decent photo compared to a $200.00 point and shoot digital camera. (Yes coworker has an Iphone. my 6 year old Canon A20 kicks it's butt in photo taking) Any kind of HD video out of that phone will look like crap.

Scale it back to record at 640X480 and interpolate the pixels so you c

Why does this have to be a hack?

[badfish99 (826052)]

Most of the high-end phones I have seen can do this, and also do "video calls". How come the iphone couldn't do it out of the box?

Re:Why does this have to be a hack?

[cgenman (325138)]

You must be from a backwater part of the world, like Europe or Asia. Here in the good old USofA we're waiting until video calling is really, really good to support it... Or at least until the phone companies figure out how to combine screwjob pricing with iron-clad lock-in.

Re:

[amRadioHed (463061)]

You know the old engineering maxim, "Sarcasm. Video phones. Universal health care. Pick two".

Re:

[Nazlfrag (1035012)]

Typical, trust America to pick sarcasm twice. Still, you've done a great job from your pioneering work on the Constitution and Bill of Rights to your postmodern masterstroke of elevating the word 'Not' into a complete phrase, expressing only the highest form of humour. Unfortunately it's all going to come to a crashing halt if you elect Hillary, as universal healthcare and videophones for all will come about, naturally paid for by the blood and sweat of the working man depriving him of his doubly sarcastic

Re:

[venicebeach (702856)]

The camera is on the wrong side for video conferencing. However, it has been achieved using mirrors:

Mirror-base videoconferencing developed for iPhone [engadget.com]

Re:

[eMago (267564)]

Imagine what AT&T would have to pay for the bandwidth if everyone made a video or two a day and pushed it to youtube or the personal blog. Perhaps the network would slow down significantly. I guess in this case, it is clearly an intended deficiency.

Re:

[angryphase (766302)]

As ZDNet's Jason D. O'Grady [zdnet.com] has discussed before why did the iPhone not have ANY of these features on release?

• Third Party Support
• Browser Plugins (flash/javscript)
• Carrier Choice
• Phone and data price plans
• Removable battery
• 3G
• Front facing camera (video calls?)

Article is a bit dated now, and some of the features are questionable, but you get the idea. Apple were flexing their 'we choose, you buy' stance to the Nth degree with this one. As a former supporter of the 'idea' of an iPhone (and now an avid

Re:Why does this have to be a hack?

[DECS (891519)]

Those questions all have simple answers.

Why didn't Apple "add third party support"? Because doing so would take time. Selling the iPhone for eight months to an ecstatic audience before getting the SDK out means that there will be a demand for apps that will push developers to ship them. Releasing the iPhone in Feb 2007 would mean the new phone had no apps or users, and therefore no reasons to build apps for another eight months.

Why no "browser plugins" which by Flash/Javascript you mean Flash (Javascript is there)? Yes, why doesn't Apple release an ARM binary for Adobe's Flash, a slow POS environment that only works well on Windows and sort of works fair on the Mac, neither of which has steep power management needs. Hmm, maybe because Apple has no desire to push Adobe's plans for building a proprietary version of the web in place of HTML and Ajax. Maybe because the only good reason for Flash other than YouTube is Flash ads, which iPhone users don't really miss, and there's better ways to deliver video than proprietary Flash. Apple convinced Google to support H.264 instead.

Why no "carrier choice?" Because there is no carrier choice. There are two incompatible networks in the US, and "supporting choice" means supporting a fucked up broken system that doesn't work and that puts all control in the hands of the four main bad choices you can make (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and Tmobile). That's a PlaysforSure choice.

By "phone and data price plans" do you mean the lowest priced smartphone contract in the US, or something else?

"Removable battery" is a cliche for morons to babble about. Check out phones with a removable battery: thicker, wasted space, shitty cover. Treo. Blackjack battery is so small you have to buy a bigger battery and a fatter cover to get a day out of the unit using 3G. Ask anyone who complains about a removable battery how many times they've bought a replacement battery, and whether it cost more than $100, or was priced like an easy to find DIY replacement iPod battery: $15.

3G is a buzzword. Do you mean EVDO, which is all over the US but only works with CDMA2000 networks unlike AT&T, or UMTS, which is only in cities? This isn't Europe. Further, Apple doesn't have chips to deliver 3G worldwide, and can't deliver battery magic beyond what other phones do. 3G users burn through their battery much faster even when just talking. Check out the mobile forums full of people asking how to force their HTC phones into EDGE only mode. That's why.

Video calls? You mean on a 3G phone, or our ubiquitous WiFi networks in modern America?

"We choose you buy" is the fucking definition of engineering. If you don't like that, stick with an "every feature that sounds good" Windows Mobile or Nokia phone that sucks in reality. Right, it's "arrogance in the face of consumers." That's the most arrogant bullshit ever: dreaming unworkable ignorant ideas and then demanding they be shoehorned in and cost nothing, and if they aren't, the engineers involved are arrogant.

The Register's examples look good in photos, but have no Flash RAM, deliver a shitty web experience, and are the same unworkable crap LG has been cranking out in the past, all based on Flash Lite on top of Symbian.

Canalys, Symbian: Apple iPhone Already Leads Windows Mobile in US Market Share, Q3 2007 [roughlydrafted.com]
In its first full quarter of sales, the iPhone has already climbed past Microsoft's entire lineup of Windows Mobile smartphones in North America, according to figures compiled by Canalys and published by Symbian. That puts the iPhone ahead of smartphones running Symbian, Linux, and the Palm OS, but behind the first place RIM BlackBerry. The figures mesh with retail sales data already reported by NPD, which similarly described the size of the US market with a 27% chunk bit out by Apple's iPhone.

Re:

[stewbacca (1033764)]

OTOH the iphone has a max. 8 hours battery life (12 hours if you really push it and disable everything), nonreplacable, and is simply *not usable* unless you carry around mains power supply to keep it charged.. and power plants are kinda heavy.

Yes, because I'm NEVER around a PC with a USB port at work all day long and I don't have a $10 charger that fits in the lighter of my car to charge my iPhone....oh wait...

I've had my iPhone since August, and I've never seen the batterly level below half. I list

Re:

[notthe9 (800486)]

It will last a solid week on standby. Here [apple.com] is Apple's claims. In seeing friends' iPhones (my phone is a dated plastic thing that makes calls and...oh yeah, makes calls), Apple's numbers seem a lot more right than GP's.

A shitty phone camera makes a shitty camcorder

[by Anonymous Coward]

9/10ths of a camera's quality is determined by the optics and a pinhole lens on a pinhole sized sensor will not give you an HD picture. There's a reason why pro cameras are huge.

Song in the YouTube video - Bowie's "Rebel Rebel"

[G3ckoG33k (647276)]

The song in the YouTube video is Bowie's "Rebel Rebel", not the original from 1974 but the version from early 2001 or so.

Drunknbass selecta!

[akirapill (1137883)]

but it seems obvious from the name that this hack was meant for junglist VJ selectas. Boh!

Resolution is pointless...

[ComputerPhreak (1057874)]

Everyone seems to have this misconception that resolution == quality when it comes to cameras and camcorders. This is evidenced by crap like: 'While the iPhone's 2.0 megapixel camera resolution may be mediocre for a still camera, it is excellent resolution for a consumer video camera.' In reality, the quality of the lens and CCD have a far greater impact on quality than the resolution. I'd take a sub-megapixel professional camera over a 4 megapixel cameraphone camera any day, and the cameraphone, despite having 100 times as many pixels, won't produce a higher quality image.

HD is more then just resolution

[headbulb (534102)]

High Definition today is sometimes sub par. Let me first say this is a neat iphone hack.

I remember the first time I saw a professional VCR playback video. The image was great. I could hardly believe a tape could play that.

One of the greatest strengths of HD is that it's digital. Yet is also one of it's downfalls. Sure analog in general has bigger faults. (mostly from the handling of the signal) But digital compressing and the limiting of the color space. Can be of bigger annoyance (YUV RGB 8 bit for each color. Or 8:6:6 for yuv)

Usually images or series of images are compressed using some variant of jpeg. Which uses blocks of 16x16 or multiples of that. Which causes jaggies or fuzzies from where one dramatic color ends and the other begins. Usually this isn't a problem unless the image becomes more compressed.

The color space resolution, Sorry but 8 bit for each channel hasn't cut it since 2000, while 16 million colors is enough for most applications, for gray scale it's still just 256 shades. Since an equal amount of red, green and blue are needed. A scene may call for a large set of blue, for example is Nemo. There is alot of color banding going on for the color blue. The eye can distinguish 256 shades of a color. (In this case it would be 216 since yuv does some funky things).

While most these arn't a big deal. I don't see it as true HD. Resolution alone does not make HD. Many of the things that the proponents of HD are pointing out. Analog can do better, If only the signal was handled better. What I want is 10 bits per RGB.

Some people hate me for pointing out the compression artifacts, It's hard to not notice them once you know they are there. Well if I got anything wrong or if you want to add anything. Go ahead.

Re:

[ZombieRoboNinja (905329)]

I'm not sure I understand all the complaints here. You're saying 24-bit color is too limited a color space? Can you point me to a still image or video where the difference between two adjacent shades (of blue or gray or whatever) are clearly visible, with banding or whatever? Because I'm fairly sure I can't tell the difference... sounds kind of like the audiophiles who complain about how 256k MP3 is "unlistenable," despite the fact that the vast majority of people are unable to hear a difference.

Re:

[headbulb (534102)]

I did. Finding Nemo.

Or I almost hate to admit I watched this Disney show. Remember the Titans. There is a scene with the coach in a hallway. The hallway has some color banding problems. It's too dark and the remaining colors to represent that are limited. From dvd.

Most the time 24 bit is sufficient. But there are cases where it isn't. Finding Nemo. Remember the titans.

Come to think of it. Most these compression artifacts are more noticeable in moving images. Since the moving compounds the problem.

As I said

Re:

[cgenman (325138)]

Are you sure these are color space issues and not just overly aggressive compression? These sort of image problems seem endemic on Microsoft's download service due primarily to the massive lossy compression they employ.

Re:HD is more then just resolution

[by Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at this picture [uwcs.co.uk] - it includes, in big letters, several words and numbers with blue levels between 250 and 255.

How much can *you* see?

(If you have to look at your screen from a funny angle to get colour distortion, you're cheating. Also, if you have to recolour the background, you're cheating. Though you can do that to prove the features you're looking for are there, if you're sceptical.

Two

[headbulb (534102)]

I can see two, And the third by angle of the lcd. Which lcd's are poor at color anyways.

Most the time it's not a big problem. It's good enough for a large percentage of people.

Cover a greater area then transition it's easier to see the color difference. Which is really where the problem of color banding shows up. That image you provided is a good example of, The Small 252 text up in the corner. (left hand) The bigger stuff is more noticeable while the smaller stuff while further out of range isn't.

megapixel image sensor != HD camcorder

[i_b_don (1049110)]

A camcorder is not about pixel size of image sensor, it's all about pushing data around and processing it in huge volumes.

In order to build a camcorder that's worth anything you need to be able to capture the data, encode the data, and store the data. Features like anti-shake and other things are nice too, but lets stick with the basics.

Capturing the image. If capturing the image were all it took to make a HD camcorder any old $100 3Mpixel still camera would be a camcorder. But ok, the iphone can capture a single frame "HD video".

Encoding the image. You don't REALLY think this thing will store the data in an unencoded format do you? Do you know how much storage that requires? My old *non HD* camcorder would store in DV mode, which I bet still has SOME encoding, was 10 GB per hour. Now try that in HD. 40 GB an hour? 60 GB an hour? Ok... so you've got to encode it. I *highly* doubt that the iphone can handle the processing power that's required to encode a HD video *in real time* at 45 frames a second. Someone is smoking something and they're not sharing.

Storing the image. Even well encoded HD video takes a significant amount of space. My HD camcorder which is 1080i (interlaced) still requires 10 GB per hour of HD space (the same as my old DV camera becuase it's mpeg2 encoded). So lets say for the sake of arguement that the iphone can do the encoding, how much disk space does it have? Maybe you can stick a decent sized memory card on it (i don't know) or maybe it's got 4 or 8 GB of disk store space built in... you still don't have much space to store a decent sized video.

The fourth major hurdle is: can the iphone busses push around that much data? That's a tremendous amount of data to be pushed around on this thing when it wasn't designed for that much throughput. I am highly skeptical that it could even come close to those pixel pushing levels. here's a quick test... can it PLAY a HD video? If it can, i may be wrong on this count.

Overall though, I would give good odds that there's no way they can get HD video at 45 frames per second.

d

Standard definition

[nmg196 (184961)]

Standard definition is most certainly NOT 520 x 360. I've never come across ANY device using that resolution.

Standard definition is usually 640x480 (US NTSC format) or 725x575 (UK PAL) or similar. There are other resolutions in use around the world, but those two probably cover 90% of the SD market. There is NO broadcast TV standard which has a resolution as low as 520x360. Even if it did, it would be a 187K pixel sensor - the article poster does not know how to how to use his calculator.

Re:

[nmg196 (184961)]

Sorry to correct my own post, UK PAL is actually 576 lines, or sometimes 525 lines, depending on the standard variant (PAL-I, PAL-N etc) and weather you're referring to the visible lines on screen or all the lines in the signal including teletext data lines etc.

Either way, it shows why imported American region 1 DVDs (480 line) look really blurry compared to our UK 576 line PAL discs :)

Pointless, if true.

[Johnno74 (252399)]

There is no way the iphone CPU has the horsepower to encode HD @ 75FPS at anything much better than mjpeg, I'd be surprised if it can even do mpeg2.

Thats a huge number of kbps. I can't even be bothered working it out. With a max of 8gb of storage space available you'd only get a few minutes of video, if that.

Re:Pointless, if true.

[Cheesey (70139)]

This has been overhyped already I think. The guy has a demo working that records into RAM - this works, but it's no good for continuously recording long pieces of video, where you have to continuously write data to Flash as well as running the codec. The demo runs at low framerate or low resolution, but because it's capable of high resolutions xor high framerates for short periods of time, the Youtube comment morons and the mp3newswire hack have both assumed that it will eventually work as well as a HD camcorder.

I'll believe it when I see it. Is this an example of someone borrowing Jobs' reality distortion field? It's made by Apple, so it's magically capable of doing anything you want?

and, really....?

[Facegarden (967477)]

Really, this makes me wonder, what the bloody hell have Apple's development team been doing for the last year? I mean, seriously, the hardware is great, but the phone lacks so many basic features it's ridiculous. People with no inherent knowledge of the platform and much less time on their hands have managed to produce video recording while others have made MMS capability, two features that absolutely every other freaking phone on the market with an image sensor have, yet Jobs's holy grail of a device, however capable, has no support for either feature. I'm relatively certain that just before they allow 3rd party software they're going to enable these features so they don't look completely incompetent in the face of so many developers, but still, it's been a year since we've seen it, and plenty longer since it's been in development, and they don't seem to give a rat's ass about some of the most basic and and appreciated features of phones today. I mean really, if every hot girl in the world got an iPhone, we'd all be screwed, because as far as I'm concerned, the best perk of all this new technology is my hot friends sending me racy pictures after they've been drinking far too much with their other hot friends. I'm running off, but the point is that these features seem painfully simple considering the 3rd party people who've managed to do it with no help at all, yet somehow apple doesn't seem to have the time. And why? They have, without a doubt, created what could potentially be the greatest phone on the face of the earth, but it just falls short on some of the simplest places, and worst of all, it's been PROVEN by these 3rd parties that there's nothing about the device that says they can't happen! It's just bloody mad really. -Taylor

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

I mean really, if every hot girl in the world got an iPhone, we'd all be screwed

Really?

Now I *really* want get an iphone into the hands of every hot girl in the world.

MMS is idiotic, Let it die!

[SuperKendall (25149)]

In a world where people can get email on phones with image attachments, a specific protocol to send images (and a sucky protocol at that) is just insane. MMS hails from a time when you needed something specific because phones couldn't support much. Let it die!!

Other features you consider to be "basic" are just not useful or important to that many people.

I *think* this may end up vaporware...

[tgd (2822)]

Its a cool technical achievement and I checked it out on my phone yesterday. Very cool.

However, and this really is just a guess on my part so it may be wrong, based on the recording length its suggesting and the average size of a JPEG snapshot on the iPhone, I suspect its just rapidly capturing images into memory.

There is a HUGE jump from being able to capture JPEG images into memory (which is done in hardware) to being able to do encryption of 2mp frames into a reasonable video format. I've never seen anything that suggested the iPhone has a hardware h.264 encoder, and it definitely can't do it in software.

The guy who wrote this may find he's got a much harder path to get any further with it.

it's about the CCD, not pixels

[PureCreditor (300490)]

Although the iPhone packs enough pixels for HD-*resolution* video, anything coming out of iPhone's CCD is nothing close to HD-*quality*. It's all due to the tiny size of the light sensor embedded in the iPhone. And if I remember, the iPhone uses CMOS instead of CCD, which is already a poor choice to begin with, and coupled with the extremely tiny size of the sensor, the quality is bound to be sub-sub-sub-par...

In terms of the effort, I'm very supportive of the author. Anything to further our understanding of this "mysterious" iPhone firmware is great. On the other hand, the application will find limited usefulness.

For real HD recording, nothing beats a good ol' HD camcorder. Even the "video mode" in digital cameras result in high pixelation...

Re:HD

[by Anonymous Coward]

If it only manages 10 frames a second it's not HD regardless of what resolution it is.

Thanks for reading two thirds of the summary.

Re:

[xENoLocO (773565)]

RTFS?

Re:

[Skuld-Chan (302449)]

Not to mention there are other smartphones that do a pretty good job out of the box. I was really impressed with the recorded video from the Nokia n95 - if the memory capacity was over 2gigs I could actually see it replacing my old Digital 8 camcorder.

Re:HD

[phoebe (196531)]

520 x 360 is not standard definition TV's resolution either. SDTV is 640x480, NTSC is 720x480 and PAL is 768x576; Display resolution [wikipedia.org].

Presumably the article implies field size which is 400 for PAL, 350 for NTSC.

Re:

[Rah'Dick (976472)]

I guess this is just another attempt of the entertainment industry to make established standards look worse because they want to sell their latest crap. I for one won't be buying a LCD TV with blurry noise all over the place and virtually no sound dynamics because they all compress the hell out of any signal, because "people want louder-sounding music".

I'm going to get a good old CRT TV and hook the receiver up to my stereo. F**k HD - I see no reason to watch the same old crap in even higher resolution. An

Re:HD

[kestasjk (933987)]

Yeah, and while we're talking about an iPhone hardhack let me express how angry I am about the current state of toasters.

God those things piss me off, how I long for the good old days of using a frying pan. Modern toasters leave that disgusting "modern toaster" taste in your mouth, and leave criss cross patterns on the toast next to where the heating elements are.

Your average idiot just looks at it and says "wow, look at how shiny it is!", and I just laugh at them when their toast inevitably burns, because they can't see the degree to which the bread has been toasted.

I truly despair for the world. Woe is me.

Re:HD

[iluvcapra (782887)]

Digital NTSC is 720x480, though all NTSC televisions are 4:3, not 3:2. Don't ask me why Sony picked a funny wide format for their first digital deck. Analogue NTSC, er NTSC OTA until next year (we'll just see won't we), is 525 x ~360, though the visible res is only ~486x~360 (depending on your TV) because the VBR is counted in the 525.

Wikipedia has the nasty tendency of being TOO up-to-date :P, and simply rewriting history as if everyone uses an LCD. Of course my knowledge is almost exclusively gleaned from old guys in the tape room at a certain NBC affiliate in Minneapolis (my first internship, wow that was long ago), so correct me if I'm wrong.

OTOH, if you give any kind of explanation that doesn't end with NTSC being 4:3, you're probably skipping a step somewhere. The NTSC frame was defined off of the silent film 4 perf aperture, which is 4:3.

Aspect Ratio

[Shawn Parr (712602)]

Digital NTSC is 720x480, though all NTSC televisions are 4:3, not 3:2.

You do realize that TV, at least in SD land, does not use square pixels, right? It has an aspect ratio of .9, so that the pixels are wider than they are tall. This is why there is some discrepancy when converting graphics from PC to video, and why recent versions of Photoshop, et. al, have NTSC and PAL settings in their create a document dialog box.

Re:HD

[terrymr (316118)]

No mic on the iPhone ?

I wonder how people use it for phone calls then.