New Video from SI-1920HDVR

[Wayne Morellini]

Thanks David.

What is the minimum CPU/Spec then to be 1080p territory?

Is the GPU used at all?

I'm just making sure that whatever I buy it is future proofed.

Are you guys setup to take in h264 1080 and transcode to cineform, and transcode out. Forgive my naivety, as I do not have the experience in Cineform and h264. What's needed for real timed transcode?

[David Newman]

Any fast Dual core or dual proc system will edit 1080p very well. GPU is not used for standard NLE opterations (can be useful for your compositor.)

Transoding from 264? Why? If a new format use 264 as an aquistion format yes we can convert it, but today it is a promising distribution only format. 264 is a poor choice for an aquistion format. For real-time transcode, you need enough CPU for the decode and enough left over from the encode (as 264 is a CPU hog, this will likely require a quad core system.)

[Wayne Morellini]

But no GPU help.

There are 18Mb/s+ H264 cameras coming, much better then the Mpeg2 distribution format at that rate. And Panasonic is talking 50Mb/s H264. So another problem format change as with HDV. Even though pocket cam is first for H264, still useful camera to have.


Thanks for your help

Wayne.

[David Newman]

No point in waiting for a future format, 264 is going to be a terrible post production format, so yes we will convert it. The beauty of working with an intermediate format, camera changes are much easier to deal with.

[Dan Euritt]

as an acquisition format, h.264 is a huge step up from hdv... what will happen in the near future is that software apps will continue to take advantage of purevideo decoding for both mpeg2 and h.264, so you'll be able to edit it natively a lot easier.

so far, i know that matrox, intervideo, nero, and cyberlink all have various products out that support purevideo h.264 decoding, and there is more to come:

"Latest Nero's 7.2 ShowTime 3 already really supports NVIDIA
h264 hardware acceleration. At least it works on my 7600GT. When HW acceleration is turned on, CPU usage drops approx. by 30% (less, than in DVD case)." http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=99687&page=11

i don't think that purevideo technology supports the encoding side of the fence, but if you have ever encoded with nero h.264, you know how fast it works already... the potential is here and now.

so the object is to acquire with h.264 at the same bitrate/framerate you will use to distribute it with on hd dvd... you'll use purevideo for real-time editing, and you'll only have to render transitions, titles, etc.

[David Newman]

Another Carlsbad guy. H.264 is a fine distribution format, in fact a great one, however the further a codec is optimized for distribution the worse it is optimized for post in the professional markets. We see H.264 in cameras as just other format to fix for post, it will be good for business.

[Ari Presler]

You can always output to H.264 for distribution and keep your original CineForm RAW (digital negative) and be ready for the next better distribution format using SVC.

-----------------------

If you want to see the Silicon Imaging SI-1920 D-Cinema Camera and Cineform RAW Workflow IN OPERATION at NAB2006. Take a look at the comprehensive video produced by Studio Daily:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news...ines/6536.html

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by David Newman

No point in waiting for a future format, 264 is going to be a terrible post production format, so yes we will convert it. The beauty of working with an intermediate format, camera changes are much easier to deal with.

The H264 camera were supposed to be announced in March, but didn't make it. I know the most likely release period, but is confidential. Actually I was meaning to email you about something around NAB, probably this week.

The possibility of at least 3 cameras this year from various H264 solutions, and Panasonic professional solution next year.

With the GPU DX10/11 processing enhancements, Clearspeed (If AMD adopts it) and cell etc H264 will probably become child's play in the coming years. Then they can get onto really efficient codecs, probably taking cues from the teleconferencing codecs etc, which is sort of remotely similar to the direction I was going. Hmm, I just had another really excellent idea, about a couple of other things and a new direction, a big easy pay dirt.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by David Newman

..H.264 is a fine distribution format, in fact a great one, however the further a codec is optimized for distribution the worse it is optimized for post in the professional markets. We see H.264 in cameras as just other format to fix for post, it will be good for business.

What do you think I am talking to you about it for ;)

There is no pocket cams with cineform yet, and this is the best format for them so far. As long as we can get this into cineform in realtime or faster, and similarly out again, h264 will serve it's purpose. But I agree with Dan, the format is preferable to Mpeg2, the better compression at similar bit rates should help in extreme movement (and low light) where there are problems in HDV (though 50MB/s could do away with it completely).


Thanks

Wayne.

[Dan Euritt]

yes, i wouldn't want to have to do a bunch of color-correction with h.264 footage >ack!< it would certainly put a dampner on the idea of aquisition and distribution both using the same codec and the same bitrate.

but the die was already cast with hdv, because it records at a lower bitrate per pixel than we currently distribute sd dvd's at... since my workflow doesn't usually require color or gamma correction, my h.264 dream camera would allow for recording at selectable bitrates... think about how short your post-production time would be, if you didn't need to re-encode the source footage before putting it onto dvd... shoot, edit, and distribute, all without re-encoding the camera original footage.

if i'm going to build an hd-capable editing pc, i would look at putting in a purevideo card over a standard video card, because of the editing r.o.i.... but money spent on an intermediate codec is not useable for anything other than editing; you'd still have to buy a video card for the pc.

"Adobe Premiere 2.0 integrates GPU accelerated desktop playback which dramitically enhances the workflow for editing HD video footage and Adobe After Effects 7.0 allows artists to use the GPU for both high fidelity preview and final rendering. Features include working in true 3D space and comprehesive GPU acceleration of motion blur, lights, shadows, blending, color correction, blurs and matting." http://www.videoguys.com/fx540.html

liquid edition has been leveraging the processing power of the computer's video card for quite awhile now, it's probably just a matter of time until they support h.264 as well(?).

[Kevin Shaw]

Dan: do you see any signs of H.264 being tested for use in cameras comparable to the SI-1920, and when do you think we might see direct H.264 editing become commonplace? Seems to me the SI-1920 offers unique high-end capabilities with an established workflow which H.264 can't match yet -- is there a practical way to edit H.264 footage in real time at HD resolution?

By the way, count me as one of those people who likes to color-correct much of my footage. Sounds like that's another area where H.264 isn't up to speed yet as a production format compared to other options, but I admire your enthusiasm for the future potential.

[Wayne Morellini]

I'm not really suggesting that anybody use it for the high end, just a question about cineform in general. H264 is upto Eng level. Even if there was an 10bit+ version, I don't think that precision was an objective. It is just the possibility of an improvement over mpeg2 at the same data rates, when shooting at the extremes (though double, or tripling, the Mpeg2 data rates I suspect might do better). Any sign of macro blocking at the target resolution I think makes a codec junk suitable for only the most basic consumer. The Sanyo HD1 9mb/s Mpeg4 for instance, at 720p resolution, not so great, as a downscaled transfer to SD resolutions on DVD, not so bad (resolution wise, but camera is cheap and nasty otherwise, they could have easily made it match a JVC HD1 with better low light, but not).

I saw something that looked like a video to H264 encoder hardware in a diagram of man ATI card at toms-hardware, or extreme, I posted something somewhere awhile ago. I had links in my technical thread, but somebody seems to keep deleting relevant on topic things, so it use as a technical links repository seems to be greatly diminished. I now saving copies when I post there.

Anyway, this is not the place to discuss such things in detail. A forum H264 basics forum would be nice.

[Jason Rodriguez]

BTW, H.264 was made to be a very efficient codec at lower bit-rates. That's where it's strength lies. Throwing bits at the problem and trying to make improvements in the picture quality that way is actually quite inefficient . . . same problem with Jpeg2K, and why certain manufacturers are learning the hard-way why J2K makes for a really inefficient editing codec.

Also consider that if you increase the bit-rate of H.264, it's no longer in a delivery specification . . . i.e., you can't have high-bit-rate 50Mb/s H.264 and dump that to a HD-DVD or use it for on-air broadcast . . . you're going to have to re-render and re-sample it to those format's specifications. So in essence, when you throw more bits at the codec, you've now created an intermediary codec out of what was supposet to be a delivery codec-only problem being the codec wasn't designed from the ground-up to be a intermediary format in the first place. So you might as well use an intermediary codec like Cineform that is optimzied for a post-production workflow to get the maximum quality out of your footage from start-to-finish.

[Dan Euritt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Dan: do you see any signs of H.264 being tested for use in cameras comparable to the SI-1920

"Panasonic also announced it will offer an optional professional AVC-Intra (H.264 Compliant) codec for the AJ-HPC2000 in addition to their its supported DVCPRO HD codec... The new AJ-HPC2000 is equipped with a native HD progressive 2/3” 3-CCD system and 14-bit A/D processing."
https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro.../nab06_16.html

kevin, do you know of any major camera manufacturers that have considered using cineform as an acquisition format?

as i pointed out in this thread, the problem with intermediate codecs is that they are now competing with pc video cards used in the gaming industry, which is a HUGE business... that means a lot of hardware-based video processing power for dirt cheap.

months ago, wayne and i both predicted on this website that h.264 would be used for acquisition, and this is where i think that the future of hd editing is headed... you have to understand the i.t. industry to see the trends.

putting cineform on this si-1920hdvr camera is a killer application, because it takes cineform out of it's dead-end future as an intermediate codec... i hope that somebody puts cineform on a portable sdi recorder, similar in size to the fs-4... it's the perfect app for the xlh1.

[Wayne Morellini]

Well I definitely said the h264 was not mean to be precise etc. As an Eng format maybe OK, but that is still a level or more down from Cineform.