XDCAM HD - new forum? - Page 4 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony ENG / EFP Shoulder Mounts

Sony ENG / EFP Shoulder Mounts
Sony PDW-F800, PDW-700, PDW-850, PXW-X500 (XDCAM HD) and PMW-400, PMW-320 (XDCAM EX).


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 22nd, 2006, 07:13 AM   #46
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Grant
The other thing with noise is it only gets worse in post, that's why I'm a big fan of larger CCDs, if nothing else the lower noise levels means you can push the footage around more in post. Just last week I did some post work on typical DV footage from a 1/3" 3 CCD camera. It had already been CC'd and the noise in the interior shots was just woeful despite a fair amount of light being used.
I'm starting to feel different about XDCAM HD codec. I agree with you 100% on bigger chips. Ever since I started shooting on 2/3" chips I never looked back. Though I do get assignments frequently to shoot promotional clips (not broadcast) of club dancing, boutique make-overís and fashion clips with the PD170 which I really like.

One question that pops up with the release of the F350 is how they handle over and under-cranking capability. If they have a marker every 6 or 15 frames for the GOP how do they handle over-cranking at 5 fps or time-lapse recording (one frame every 5 minutes etc)?

I'm definitely going to stay positive and open on the XDCAM HD F330 & F350. Actually the only other camera I've been considering for HD production is the Infinity HD camera, because it has 2/3" chips and includes the 2/3" HD Lens in the price. The only thing is that if you want to records using a 4:2:2 color-space you have to use some weird codec called JPG2000 HD @ 110Mb/s. The good new is this camera with lens will come in under $35K! Although the F330 with good HD glass will come in under $25K. If I were going for the F350 I think you get much better value on the Infinity, since you know your going to have to add at least $14K to the $26K of the F350 for your HD glass.
Douglas Call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 07:38 AM   #47
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 301
Interesting MPEG article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Heath
All that said, you may be interested in reading this paper from IBC 18 months ago - http://www.broadcastpapers.com/ibc20...DDEL-print.htm . In particular, note the figures for MPEG2 bitrates given in Table 1 - 12-20Mbs for transmission to home, 25-40Mbs for broadcast contribution circuits, and 30-50Mbs for live e-cinema. Going on those figures, 35Mbs for HD is considered within the industry to be high for a broadcast contribution circuit, and even within the range for live e-cinema! (In other words, pretty good.
I did read that article it's very interesting, by any chance have you ever heard of a codec called JPEG 2000? Check out the little blurb below.

JPEG 2000 compression is also frame accurateómaking it
ideal for post-production editing or compositing work. It syncs
with audio and metadata better than other schemes. It also
provides 4:2:2, 10 bit image quality, which combined with its
other features make it ideal for HD. This is one reason why
acceptance is growing for this format. Recently, the Digital
Cinema Initiatives Committee selected JPEG 2000 as the
standard for digital motion picture content and delivery.

end blurb.
Douglas Call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 10:56 AM   #48
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
If Avid and FCP support JPEG2000 then Infinity will be a real success.
Steve Connor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 11:01 AM   #49
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Connor
If Avid and FCP support JPEG2000 then Infinity will be a real success.
you can bet J2K is going to be VERY successful. It's a brilliant technology that blows most anything else in its class away. I'm certain we'll soon see support for this in most every application, because there isn't a lot to implementing it.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 04:00 PM   #50
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle
you can bet J2K is going to be VERY successful. It's a brilliant technology that blows most anything else in its class away. I'm certain we'll soon see support for this in most every application, because there isn't a lot to implementing it.
Wow that sounds like a good recommendation. Well I guess I'll be buying a new J2K enabled camera at NAB 2006 event this year. I wonder why more pro-camcorder manufacturers aren't using or implementing this codec.
Douglas Call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 04:20 PM   #51
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
J2K was late to the party due in great part to hardware, but that has changed in the last year as TI and Philips have started shipping the necessary chips.
J2k is totally scaleable, and kudos to Grass Valley for implementing it. It's expensive at an entry level of 35k, but since everyone is so into superlatives, it blows the HDV and P2 formats out of the water, and more importantly, it's scaleability can carry over to the editing platform. Quality of image is wonderful, but you don't need a proxy or compressed media format *if* the NLE can use the scaling properly. You can have an image on your timeline that is scanned at say...5% and while it looks acceptable for editing you can then dial it up to 95% for rendering, and your color hasn't shifted, nada. you're just editing on a lesser grade frame of the image because of the way the thumbnail is created.
I'm very impressed with the J2K technology, and have been since participating in a panel for J2K at NIST several years ago. I hope Sony, Adobe, Avid, etc jump all over this, and I suspect they'll have to. Canopus for certain, will be there soon, given that Grass Valley has purchased Canopus.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2006, 05:25 PM   #52
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Call
Actually the only other camera I've been considering for HD production is the Infinity HD camera, because it has 2/3" chips and includes the 2/3" HD Lens in the price. The only thing is that if you want to records using a 4:2:2 color-space you have to use some weird codec called JPG2000 HD @ 110Mb/s. The good new is this camera with lens will come in under $35K!
The most descriptive article I've come across on the Infinity is here - http://www.nzcrews.tv/infinity_on_horizon/ . The whole article may be worth looking at, but as a brief extract:

Quote:
Depending upon the configuration of the camera, we provide codecs for all those formats, so we can provide codecs for DV25, DV50, IMX30, 40, 50, MPEG I frame and long GOP. All these standard formats are now chosen by the customer on a shot by shot basis.
...................Further to that, I think thereís a very important breakthrough that weíve put in this and that is the inclusion of JPEG 2000. JPEG 2000 is a new format thatís been discussed by a lot of companies. It is already accepted by the Digital Cinema market as being the compression format of choice.
In addition to many codecs, it provides a choice of two media - Compact Flash and Rev Pro. A small TV station may do a range of work, from local news to occasional features which may have an archival value, or possible wider saleability. Being able to shoot news DV25 onto Compact Flash may be most appropriate from a speed/ease of editing point of view (backing up to Rev Pro as you go?), whilst the same camera may be better used HD JPEG 2000 onto Rev Pro for feature work.

Like P2, and unlike XDCAM, Compact Flash doesn't need a dedicated (and expensive) drive to interface with an NLE - many computers come standard with a reader slot. And whilst CF capacities are comparable to P2 cards, Compact Flash prices are much lower.

In principle and on paper the Infinity would seem to have much to commend it, but other than it being 2/3", little has so far been released about the camera front end. If that turns out to be at least comparable to the opposition, the recording flexibility of the Infinity could make it very, very attractive indeed. Early days, but worth keeping an eye on.
David Heath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2006, 07:14 PM   #53
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
What seems odd to me is that there isn't more talk about doing something in between HDV and other more expensive options. The HVX200 is a move in the right direction but doesn't work for many of us because of the high price of P2 memory, so how about something like that using a restrained data rate ~50 Mbps recording to more affordable stock media cards? And forget the fancy $35K cameras: give me a good 1/2" sensor with a fixed lens for under $15K and I'd be happy. I'm puzzled why we're not seeing anything along those lines yet...
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2006, 01:07 AM   #54
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw
Now that the Sony XDCAM HD cameras & deck have been officially announced, should we consider having a new forum to discuss those items?
Done... finally! Thanks for the suggestion, Kevin!
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2006, 01:16 PM   #55
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Centreville Va
Posts: 1,828
If anyone wants to test MJpeg2000, you can download 30day eval versions from Lead Technologies at
http://www.leadcodecs.com/

I think the individual mjpeg2000 codec goes for 9.95 (directshow).

Don't know how good they are, but they have a good reputation in the still image world, at least among Delphi developers.
Joe Carney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2006, 07:17 PM   #56
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Posts: 72
On the subject of Codecs, where does Avid's DNxHD fit in. They claim it offers the best size/quality ratio and it is free. Is anyone out there working on hardware that will allow camcorders to natively capture in this format?
Jerry Matese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2006, 06:57 AM   #57
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,570
Just wanted to add a few things about XDCAM that haven't been bought up already.
The decks are selling at around $10K, now that's not small change but still cheaper than a JH3. However the decks provide connectivity via Gbit ethernet which means just about any PC or Mac made today comes ready to connect, no need for expensive SDI cards and RAID disks, this is a huge saving for a TV station, they can use cheap IT ethernet switches instead of expensive SDI bits and pieces.
Now I've only seen this demoed on Sony's Xpri system but it's pretty impressive stuff. XDCAM disks include mpeg 4 proxies, you only need ingest these tiny files to start editing, once you're finished the system only captures what full res footage it needs, this must be way faster than the P2 workflow and remember you can keep all the original footage on the affordable disks in case you realise later you need something not already ingested. In the demo I watched at NAB last year within less than 5 minutes of the disk going into the drive editing commenced, you don't even need to get all the proxies into the system before you can start, this has to be a killer for ENG.
I might also mention that the disks come with a basic viewing and editing package on the disk, how neat is that. You can copy that and the mpeg-4 proxies onto a single DVD for the client to view while you retain the masters. I had one given to me last year to look at, very impressive and totally simple to use, being able to view and log 40 minutes of footage from a DVD without needing anything other than a basic PC has got to be another big selling point.
I suspect the argument against the format based on the use of higher bitrate HDV is going to come to nothing. The bigger CCDs are going to deliver a lower noise image to the encoder and noise has to be HDVs worst enemy, no wonder the HVX200 doesn't record in HDV.
What's going to be interesting is Sony have just released an upmarket range of HDV decks, they look like they're aimed at the broadcast market as they'll record HDV onto D5 shell DV tapes for 4 hour recording times. If HDV becomes a content delivery standard for broadcast then I think the noise issue is going to need to get more attention
Bob Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2006, 04:18 PM   #58
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 301
ARe you refering to the SD XDCAM 4:2:2 50Mbit/s

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Grant
The decks are selling at around $10K, now that's not small change but still cheaper than a JH3. However the decks provide connectivity via Gbit ethernet which means just about any PC or Mac made today comes ready to connect, no need for expensive SDI cards and RAID disks, this is a huge saving for a TV station, they can use cheap IT ethernet switches instead of expensive SDI bits and pieces.
XDCAM disks include mpeg 4 proxies, you only need ingest these tiny files to start editing, once you're finished the system only captures what full res footage it needs
You mention seeing a lot of this XDCAM equipment demoed last year. Are your refering to the older XDCAM SD gear or are you refering to the new not yet available XDCAM HD gear. The reason I ask is there is a significant difference between the two formats. The SD allowed frame accurate editing and was providing a (4:2:2) colorspace. The new XDCAM HD video I believe use the long GOP to record the video material and doesn't allow frame accurate edits. Therefore all your comments about the proxies will be different and the editing will be different. I'm not so sure your comparisons are actually accurate to the new HD version of the camera.
Douglas Call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2006, 04:23 PM   #59
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
XDCAM HD is 4:2:0
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2006, 05:06 PM   #60
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Call
The new XDCAM HD video I believe use the long GOP to record the video material and doesn't allow frame accurate edits.
Dang, haven't we gotten past that myth yet? Yes, XDCAM HD uses a GOP-structured MPEG2 video stream, but that doesn't mean you can't do frame-accurate editing.

By the way, does anyone happen to know what the GOP structure is for XDCAM HD?
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony ENG / EFP Shoulder Mounts

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network