Sanyo's Impact

Wayne Morellini · April 21st, 2006, 11:54 AM

Sorry, I was implying a few more things than what you were talking about. I implied using the H264 at the same data rate would be preferable (otherwise you would have to increase the mpeg 4 data rate, i.e. 19mb/s). WMV is ahead of Mpeg4, but behind h264. But you cannot compare WMV to Mpeg4 so easily. WMV has the option to use blurring to hide macro blocking etc, I think on as standard, if you want to loss HD resolution that would be a good start. There are codec data rate reduction methods that eliminate detail (and noise as side effect)/make a flatter looking image, but less noise, looks cleaner, but less detailed (as a cartoon also does the same). Turn those features off, and it might appear that it is not that far ahead of the Sanyo (I expect wmv would look similar at 6Mb/s).

Still, there is, reportedly, a few ways to do Mpeg4 including repackaging Mpeg2 in a Mpeg4 data structure. I read of a advanced mpeg2 codec that did SD (720 horizontal pixel variety) at 1Mb/s. So maybe this is what you are seeing, an advanced mpeg2 codec in Mpeg4.

Another thing is latitude problems effecting the codec, and low light noise problem degrading the codec. Shoot the same footage, adjusted for the same range and lighting performance, and run it through wmv, you should see it's performance drop. Comparing this camera's footage with WMV footage converted from other HD cameras with better range and noise (which is every HD camera out there at the moment) in low/very contrasty light, is like comparing Apples and ants. There is just not going to be a match.

It is what it is, it could be a lot better with some minor adjustments, and much better again with better codec lens and sensor. Passing on suggestions for a firmware upgrade is one of the few things you can do to help your present cameras. Pity, I would have bought one if they had done it so (probably with a lot of people around this site).

Thanks

Wayne.

Chris Taylor · April 21st, 2006, 12:08 PM

Alas H264 would have very much turned me off :-( I don't like h264

nasty codec. It takes insane power to edit and make it and even insane power just to look at it :-(

Maybe it is superior and it probably is but until we have the hardware and software to more effeciently interact with it I prefer something more standard and forgiving tha H264

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

Wayne Morellini · April 21st, 2006, 12:15 PM

Cheap h264 codec:
www.ambarella.com

Follow the news history I posted. I think it will answer.

Chris Taylor · April 21st, 2006, 12:17 PM

Its not the cost that bothers me so much that nothing can TOUCH h264 effeciently

Not one of my portables will play h264 editing it is a pain and slow as you know what and playback is NEVER assured on my or anyone elses systems (you think codec issues abound with HD1 files ?? :-)

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

Wayne Morellini · April 21st, 2006, 02:27 PM

I have been saying that the codec has enough power to enable editing on camera. I think other uses for the chip technology should be easy enough. It has been reported it is based on an array of many Sparc RISC Microprocessors. There has been talk in those news article of professional version. If they dropped this chip in a external USB, or a PCI card, it should be able to do it.

Newer systems (and newer graphics cards) enable h264 viewing. AMD is talking with clearspeed, a, probably, similarly powerful, low power consumption, array of processors to the Ambarella, as a co-processors for their processors. It is obvious that Intel might also be working on this. Next gen 3D (To be announced) also have a much improved architecture that might also help in this area (I have been waiting for this architecture from around 2001).

There has been a process of slow change in computer power, and this year we will hopefully seeing results in the consumer end (apart from GPU's that have been using array principles for simplified graphics circuits fro years).

I think the prospect for h264 is not so bad, but remember the JVC HD1/10, one software package and not enough power on many systems, that eventually changed. I forgot to mention, Sony is planing NLE on Playstation 3, plenty of power. Still, in the meantime, before all the cheap options, 5Ghz, and eventually four core CPU's. Here is a place with some nifty MB stuff:

http://www.win-ent.com/
http://www.win-ent.com/MB-06047.htm

Calin Brabandt · May 8th, 2006, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Taylor

Not one of my portables will play h264 editing it is a pain and slow as you know what and playback is NEVER assured on my or anyone elses systems (you think codec issues abound with HD1 files ?? :-)
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

If you're on Windows, try the CoreAVC decoder.

http://coreavc.corecodec.org/

It brings AVC decoding down to roughly the same CPU requirements as many mpeg2 and H.263 ("mpeg4") decoders. CoreAVC is very efficient code!

BTW, As an H.264 decoder, CoreAVC will not decode Sanyo HD-1 video.

Wayne Morellini · May 8th, 2006, 03:33 PM

Do they do encoding or transcoding h264 for editing? I would like to fit the editing on a laptop for h264 camera (if I get one) so very efficient GPU hogging code would help (especially with future GPU chipsets).

Calin Brabandt · May 10th, 2006, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini

Do they do encoding or transcoding h264 for editing? I would like to fit the editing on a laptop for h264 camera (if I get one) so very efficient GPU hogging code would help (especially with future GPU chipsets).

I don't think the Core projects do encoding yet, but I believe it's their goal to provide an encoder one day. I'm very impressed with their decoders so we'll just have to see if they ever release a similarly efficient encoder.

April 21st, 2006, 11:54 AM	#16
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Sorry, I was implying a few more things than what you were talking about. I implied using the H264 at the same data rate would be preferable (otherwise you would have to increase the mpeg 4 data rate, i.e. 19mb/s). WMV is ahead of Mpeg4, but behind h264. But you cannot compare WMV to Mpeg4 so easily. WMV has the option to use blurring to hide macro blocking etc, I think on as standard, if you want to loss HD resolution that would be a good start. There are codec data rate reduction methods that eliminate detail (and noise as side effect)/make a flatter looking image, but less noise, looks cleaner, but less detailed (as a cartoon also does the same). Turn those features off, and it might appear that it is not that far ahead of the Sanyo (I expect wmv would look similar at 6Mb/s). Still, there is, reportedly, a few ways to do Mpeg4 including repackaging Mpeg2 in a Mpeg4 data structure. I read of a advanced mpeg2 codec that did SD (720 horizontal pixel variety) at 1Mb/s. So maybe this is what you are seeing, an advanced mpeg2 codec in Mpeg4. Another thing is latitude problems effecting the codec, and low light noise problem degrading the codec. Shoot the same footage, adjusted for the same range and lighting performance, and run it through wmv, you should see it's performance drop. Comparing this camera's footage with WMV footage converted from other HD cameras with better range and noise (which is every HD camera out there at the moment) in low/very contrasty light, is like comparing Apples and ants. There is just not going to be a match. It is what it is, it could be a lot better with some minor adjustments, and much better again with better codec lens and sensor. Passing on suggestions for a firmware upgrade is one of the few things you can do to help your present cameras. Pity, I would have bought one if they had done it so (probably with a lot of people around this site). Thanks Wayne.

April 21st, 2006, 12:08 PM	#17
Chris Taylor Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Levittown PA Posts: 132	Alas H264 would have very much turned me off :-( I don't like h264 nasty codec. It takes insane power to edit and make it and even insane power just to look at it :-( Maybe it is superior and it probably is but until we have the hardware and software to more effeciently interact with it I prefer something more standard and forgiving tha H264 Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/

April 21st, 2006, 12:15 PM	#18
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Cheap h264 codec: www.ambarella.com Follow the news history I posted. I think it will answer.

April 21st, 2006, 12:17 PM	#19
Chris Taylor Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Levittown PA Posts: 132	Its not the cost that bothers me so much that nothing can TOUCH h264 effeciently Not one of my portables will play h264 editing it is a pain and slow as you know what and playback is NEVER assured on my or anyone elses systems (you think codec issues abound with HD1 files ?? :-) Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/

April 21st, 2006, 02:27 PM	#20
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	I have been saying that the codec has enough power to enable editing on camera. I think other uses for the chip technology should be easy enough. It has been reported it is based on an array of many Sparc RISC Microprocessors. There has been talk in those news article of professional version. If they dropped this chip in a external USB, or a PCI card, it should be able to do it. Newer systems (and newer graphics cards) enable h264 viewing. AMD is talking with clearspeed, a, probably, similarly powerful, low power consumption, array of processors to the Ambarella, as a co-processors for their processors. It is obvious that Intel might also be working on this. Next gen 3D (To be announced) also have a much improved architecture that might also help in this area (I have been waiting for this architecture from around 2001). There has been a process of slow change in computer power, and this year we will hopefully seeing results in the consumer end (apart from GPU's that have been using array principles for simplified graphics circuits fro years). I think the prospect for h264 is not so bad, but remember the JVC HD1/10, one software package and not enough power on many systems, that eventually changed. I forgot to mention, Sony is planing NLE on Playstation 3, plenty of power. Still, in the meantime, before all the cheap options, 5Ghz, and eventually four core CPU's. Here is a place with some nifty MB stuff: http://www.win-ent.com/ http://www.win-ent.com/MB-06047.htm

May 8th, 2006, 03:33 PM	#22
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Do they do encoding or transcoding h264 for editing? I would like to fit the editing on a laptop for h264 camera (if I get one) so very efficient GPU hogging code would help (especially with future GPU chipsets).