SxS vs SDI (comparison) at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds
Sony PMW-300, PXW-X200, PXW-X180 (back to EX3 & EX1) recording to SxS flash memory.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 8th, 2008, 04:38 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Malmo Sweden
Posts: 103
SxS vs SDI (comparison)

Here Untitled Document you can see a couple op pngs in full res that i took from the window of my studio. One is recorded on the SxS in 1080p HQ and the other captured with a Blackmagic in uncompressed 4:2:2 10 bit. I made the test very fast after receiving the camera back from the service for a firmware upgrade and i didnt realize that it was some picture profile on. I will make some more detailed tests and post it. So far I can see that if I zoom in on the pics, the one from the SxS shows some mosquito noise that is not present in the other from the SDI. I didnt have time to look much more but you can tell your opinions.
Martin Chab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2008, 05:12 PM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 596
Um, I'll take your word for it. For my money, Long GOP Mpeg is pretty impressive, comparing it to SDI. I really don't see much difference!

Thanks for this!
__________________
Sony EX3, Vegas 9.0 64bit, Windows 7(64), Core i7, 12GB, RAID1 & 0, HotSwap SATA, 30" LCD(2560x1600)-GTX285 & 24" LCD(1360x768)-7800GT
Ted OMalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2008, 06:17 PM   #3
Better than Halle Berry
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 435
It's hard to tell the way it looks in my browser as a still vs. playing back in motion on a calibrated monitor. Of course it's a no-brainer that the SDI should have less apparent compression artifacts compared to 35Mbit XDCAM HD. That said this is one of the best codecs I've seen yet in that infinite trade-off between efficiency, storage requirements and image quality.

-Noah

Last edited by Noah Kadner; September 9th, 2008 at 09:47 AM.
Noah Kadner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 03:35 AM   #4
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
Mosquito noise in particular shows up more with a moving image as the noise varies from frame to frame.

The difference between the compressed and uncompressed material is small. I have done similar tests and visually the difference is very small. However there are artifacts introduced by the compression and no matter how small every de-code, re-encode process that your material may encounter from the edit to final viewing will add artifacts on top of artifacts. It is this concatenation that can lead to bigger problems further down the chain.

The MPEG produced by the EX cameras is very, very good and if handled carefully will produce stunning results. However if you can utilize the uncompressed output using something like a Flash XDR you will have material that should be more robust in post production.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com
Alister Chapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 04:42 AM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alister Chapman View Post
Mosquito noise in particular shows up more with a moving image as the noise varies from frame to frame...
The "busy pixels" are only busy with moving images - comparing stills doesn't make sense to me.
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive
Piotr Wozniacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 06:31 AM   #6
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Malmo Sweden
Posts: 103
if you like when i make new tests i can post the footage instead of stills
Martin Chab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 06:38 AM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Chab View Post
if you like when i make new tests i can post the footage instead of stills
Please do; would be of great interest - especially to those who're planning to buy FlashXDR.
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive
Piotr Wozniacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 07:07 AM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,570
Which codec did you record to?

[edit] Pays to read the first post, 10 bit!
Bob Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 07:35 AM   #9
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Chab View Post
...I can see that if I zoom in on the pics, the one from the SxS shows some mosquito noise that is not present in the other from the SDI.
It's pretty a much a given that SDI is superior, but think about it: the average person viewing your material is *not* going to zoom in on the pics. I think Alister says it best by pointing out that "the MPEG produced by the EX cameras is very, very good and if handled carefully will produce stunning results." Enough said...
__________________
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 September 9th, 2008, 08:51 AM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Malmo Sweden
Posts: 103
May be there is no point to discuss if SDI is better or if the difference it would be seen, etc. Each tool is good or not for the intended work. Im sure that for chroma keying or for extreme post treatment (call color grading or whatever) SDI will make a huge difference. To film my kid playing at the playground...well, of course i wouldnt take the extra work and cost that comes from shooting uncompressed. Anyway is good to know how much each system can give and that the whole point. Ill continue the research and post the results.
Personally i work a lot making compositing and complex post-processing and sometimes i would give my entire kingdom for a better footage without noise, better color resolution, deeper chroma sampling and so on.
Martin Chab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 08:53 AM   #11
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Malmo Sweden
Posts: 103
Bob, the codec was Blackmagic 4:2:2 10 bits RGB uncompressed
Martin Chab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 09:17 AM   #12
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Chab View Post
I'll continue the research and post the results.
Yes, that is the main thing -- and please do so by all means. Many thanks for all you've done so far.
__________________
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 September 9th, 2008, 01:50 PM   #13
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
The SDI improvement can be seen on the surface of the water. On the other pic it's not mosquito noise, it's mpeg block noise.
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2008, 02:46 PM   #14
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 29
Also, notice the dynamic range. I don't know if SDI bypasses the gama curves, but if you look at the side of the car in the SDI photo, it is much brighter and a lot more detail available around the wheel than on the MPEG picture. You see the same thing around the rusty bolts at the base of the column - you can see into the shadows there better in the SDI picture.
Bill Spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2008, 07:18 AM   #15
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alister Chapman View Post

The difference between the compressed and uncompressed material is small. I have done similar tests and visually the difference is very small. However there are artifacts introduced by the compression and no matter how small every de-code, re-encode process that your material may encounter from the edit to final viewing will add artifacts on top of artifacts. It is this concatenation that can lead to bigger problems further down the chain.
Unless you convert all your footage to uncompressed or a lossless codec like ProRes. Then you can color correct and do effects without degradation. As good as the EX1 MPEG may be, MPEG is for acquisition only, like HDV. If you have anything more than just straight cuts you have to convert it to uncompressed or ProRes if you want no degradation.
Michael Maier 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 XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:47 AM.


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