One of my favorite things about the Ex1 is the fact that it will record 720p. Not only will it record the broadcast standard of 720p at 60p or 50p but they were smart enough to make the 720p record 24p as well.

Why is this important?

Well cause it offers less compression.

The EX1 in the HQ mode with record 35mbits no matter what framerate is used. If 35mbits is a great quality level for 60p then 24p will be even better yet. The same is true for 30p and 25p. 30p alone could look more like what 60p would look if it was encoded at 70mbits/s. Of course the motion prediction has to work harder because the frames are further apart but that still overall gives more bits to use per frame.

I predict that it will almost be impossible to break the codec on this camera when shooting 720p 24p.

The HVX200 ends up using around 40 mbits when shooting 720p 24p. 35mbits isn't that much less and it is interframe which makes the compression even better. If you use the same ratio the 720p 24p could look more like it has double the birtate over the HVX200.

When compared to the way JVC does 720p encoding the 35mbits is double the datarate of the JVC flavor of HDV which should lead to some very superior looking 720p video compared to JVC. The EX1 also down samples 1080 to 720 in the DSP which gives a level of detail that a raw 720p chip could never do. All that and the fact that it has 1/2" chips is going to make it hard to justify the $12,000 cost of a JVC 250 unless you really must have a shoulder mount camera.

The more I hear about this camera, the better it sounds. Thomas, I like your thinking. You bring up some good points!

The HVX200 ends up using around 40 mbits when shooting 720p 24p. 35mbits isn't that much less and it is interframe which makes the compression even better. If you use the same ratio the 720p 24p could look more like it has double the birtate over the HVX200.

Excellent observation. This thought had occurred to me as well--and it bears repeating that the HQ mode is VBR 35mbs, which would probably be the equivalent of at least another 10mbs if the recording were CBR.

Either way, I'm sure the image will look extremely clean.

Another quick thing to point out.

80mbits/s is the max bitrate you can have with Main profile/high level HD. This is the 4:2:0 full resolution flavor of mpeg2. That is the best looking compression you can get for 1920x1080 or 720p 60p video. HD at 80mbits/s is like SD at 15mbits/s for main profile/main level. Encode some complex SD video at 15mbits and you will see just how good mpeg2 is at that bitrate. The only way to get mpeg2 to look any better is to use the 4:2:2 profile and encode with 4:2:2. It should be noted that after a certain bitrate all the higher bitrates do is make sure the B frames and some of the P frames don't fall apart in super complex video. The closer to that max level you reach the more you are sure every single frame even if it is a B frame will look perfect.

If 24p is 2.5x smaller then 60p that puts the max bitrate you would ever need for the best looking quality at 32mbits/s or slightly less then what you get on the EX1. This means it should be virtually impossible to break the codec no matter what situation you are in. Any other bitrate over 35mbits/s would be a total waste and it wouldn't help at all because the compression is already pretty darn near perfect.

I have a question about 720 60p.

How much storage does it take up compared to 1080 30p?

Not having a progressive camera now, one of the things I am looking forward to is in HD shooting is 60p and the motion control in post.

Thanks

Thomas great points and easy to understand thanks.

I have a question about 720 60p.

How much storage does it take up compared to 1080 30p?

It should take up the same amount as 1080 30p because it has twice the temporal sampling but roughly half the spatial resolution. If you were shooting HQ mode with either format they should both be consuming the same 35 mbs bandwidth.

Those who are interested in 720p you will be pleased to know that EBU, after extensive testing with ordinary viewers, has urged the European broadcasters to adopt the 720p 50fps standard over the 1080i 25fps. Ultimately, when camera technology and bandwith permits everything will be standarised at 1080p 50fps.

Probably thats the reason for the sudden love affair between Sony's newer cameras and 720p.

they were smart enough to make the 720p record 24p as well.

Why is this important?

Well cause it offers less compression.

Thomas, that's a good point. Kind of the same thing we've talked about for awhile now with DVD authoring. Using 24P instead of a pulldown to 60i for DVD material, you can get more time or less compression with the same bit rate, and then allowing the player to do the pull down for you on output.

-gb-

Is there that much of a visual difference between 720p and 1080p?

A lot of folks can't tell the difference between SD & HD.

For those with a camera that does both, is this true in your experience?

If so, then I could see shooting everything in 60p and going home with a lot of options in post.

Is there that much of a visual difference between 720p and 1080p?

A lot of folks can't tell the difference between SD & HD.

For those with a camera that does both, is this true in your experience?

If so, then I could see shooting everything in 60p and go home with a lot of options in post.

I can tell you this: when watching on a full HD (1920x1080) screen with pixel-to-pixel mapping (like a PC monitor for example), the 1080 material DOES look much better than 720p - but only when you *UPSCALE* the latter to view full screen. This should also be true with HDTVs: on a full HD screen, a 1080 stuff will generally look better than an upscaled 720p - but depending of the upscaler quality.

But this also brings forward another consideration: the real world resolution of a HD (1080) camera is 1000 TV lines at the best, so... Using EDTV (aka "HD ready" ones) in conjunction with 720p video could be worth trying!

I have a question about 720 60p.

How much storage does it take up compared to 1080 30p?

Not having a progressive camera now, one of the things I am looking forward to is in HD shooting is 60p and the motion control in post.

Thanks

This is why the quality gets better for lower framerates with 720p because the encoded datarate always stays the same.

720p 60p = 35mbits/s
720p 30p = 35mbits/s
720p 24p = 35mbits/s
1080i 60i = 35mbits/s

because there are less frames that means more bits can be used for each frame. So to answer your question 35mbits/s is used no matter what format you shoot in.

If it was an I frame only format such as DVCPROHD then the more frames there are per second means the size will be that much larger.

This is why the quality gets better for lower framerates with 720p because the encoded datarate always stays the same.

Except that the 35mbit/s HQ rate is VBR - at this point we don't know that it actually tries to max out the available bit rate when shooting at a lower resolution/frame rate. It certainly makes sense that it might, and I hope that it does, but there's also always the possibility that Sony aimed for a lower average bit rate (while allowing it to spike to 35 for high motion scenes) in order to increase recording times in 720 mode.

I can tell you this: when watching on a full HD (1920x1080) screen with pixel-to-pixel mapping (like a PC monitor for example), the 1080 material DOES look much better than 720p - but only when you *UPSCALE* the latter to view full screen. This should also be true with HDTVs: on a full HD screen, a 1080 stuff will generally look better than an upscaled 720p - but depending of the upscaler quality.

But this also brings forward another consideration: the real world resolution of a HD (1080) camera is 1000 TV lines at the best, so... Using EDTV (aka "HD ready" ones) in conjunction with 720p video could be worth trying!

It's probably also worth noting considerably more 720p resolution plasma/lcd televisions get sold than full 1080p ones (well here in Australia at least, but I imagine the price difference between the two translates to similar sales figures elsewhere) so though extra resolution is always a good thing, the number of people who can actually appreciate full 1080p as opposed to 720p is still fairly small.

Is there a compatability issue if one puts out a 1080p product and the television/player is 720p?

Whe Blu-Ray of HD-DVD get out there, are they spec'd at 1080p or will there be different variants that only play 720p?

The HVX200 ends up using around 40 mbits when shooting 720p 24p.

Actually, the HVX200 uses approximately 54Mbps when shooting 720 24psF. You get 10 minutes on a 4GB P2 card in that mode.

35mbits isn't that much less and it is interframe which makes the compression even better.

The tradeoff is that, while you do indeed get better compression, you are also getting lower resolution. Specifically this codec (XDCAM) is throwing away a lot of time data- and thus reducing temporal resolution.

Images reconstructed from interframe codecs will vary depending on the specific decoding implementation. Intraframe codecs contain all the information in each frame for frame reconstruction. Interframe depends on math and data from other frames to reconstruct a frame. You can do the math "right" several ways... but get different results because the steps along the way are different- or simply because the programmer makes different assumptions about precision in the data.

If you use the same ratio the 720p 24p could look more like it has double the birtate over the HVX200.


Unfortunately, I think that this is irrational exuberance.

The other thing that XDCAM seems to be tossing out the window compared to DVCPRO HD is 4:2:2. I've posted elsewhere that this will make little difference unless your work is going to be heavily posted or displayed in a large format. Of course if that is how you work.... its almost enough to stay with the older HVX200.

I say almost, because the HD/SDI output will give those of us who need all that data some options.

The one thing that XDCAM gains vs DVCPRO HD is that it is a full raster codec. More pixels is good in my book.

I expect that the XDCAM EX is going to be a much better camera than the HVX200, but this is going to be on the strength of its lens system, CA correction and sensor.

If I am proven right and the camera is better it will be DESPITE (as in not in any way because of) the XDCAM format.

Eventually Panasonic will release a competitor that is very similar in specification and records AVC Intra on P2 (or maybe they'll see the light and use SxS... I can dream right?)

Compared to the rez numbers we ran from the HVX200 and what we're hearing from some preliminary tests, the XDCAM EX resolves close to a 1000 lines. The HVX200 was around 500 lines.

Don't forget though that downsampling a 1080p to 720 would also effectively get you better colour sampling too. Because that 720p compressed will be 4:2:0 max no matter how it's compressed. For some work that could be advantageous.

Whether it is better to do 720p vs 1080p will probably come down to actually trying things out and experimenting with the camera itself.

In my experience these things are never as simple as the math suggests!

cheers
paul

Compared to the rez numbers we ran from the HVX200 and what we're hearing from some preliminary tests, the XDCAM EX resolves close to a 1000 lines. The HVX200 was around 500 lines.

Yeah, but that isn't DVCPRO HD's fault, rather that's the camera's problem. That is part of what I expect to be radically better on the XDCAM EX.

To be clear, and getting a bit old school:
I expect the camera portion of the XDCAM EX to kick the ass of the the HVX200.

I expect the recorder section of the HVX200 to be better than the XDCAM EX

On the other hand... I think the HPX500 will shoot better images than the XDCAM EX, and they'll gain the benefit of being recorded in DVCPRO HD.

I have no experience with Panasonic's AVC Intra, but it sounds impressive. As much as it might pain them Sony should adopt AVC Intra, or a similar codec, before Panny gets the idea to make an HVX300 that uses AVC Intra and has a camera section that is competitive with the EX1.

Of course- I think these are the last days of heavily compressed "pro" video. Storage is going to catch up to the needs of video fairly soon. The next generation of codecs will give us greater and greater bandwidth until eventually we are all working in losslessly compressed HD, 2K and even 4K.

I hear you...
But I'm also hearing XDCAM at 35Mb/s HQ has no visible artifacts.

Having said that, I'm hoping RED will come up with a Mini RED that offers
2K images and sells for less than $8K USD.

I hear you...
But I'm also hearing XDCAM at 35Mb/s HQ has no visible artifacts.

Visible is the key word. There are artifacts aplenty in compressed video. Do a difference key against the uncompressed version and see what I'm on about.

The important thing is that every tool in the post workflow not only can see them- but can potentially be "confused" by them

Having said that, I'm hoping RED will come up with a Mini RED that offers
2K images and sells for less than $8K USD.

Stop it! I can't handle that much excitement!

Of course given the reality of RED's delivery schedule on RED One I am not too excited about whatever their plans are for the RED Mini.

Also... 2K 16:9 is only a few more pixels than 1080p. I'll take them- but it isn't a huge deal.

Being unable to resist spouting my own RED Mini dreams...

The most exciting thing about a 2K RED Mini for cheap is that they'd likely use a 2K codec derived REDCODE- which is a very good looking codec.

What I really want is a VERY cheap (like $3000 USD- about what a used 16mm camera runs for) 2K camera with a 16mm sensor size (close to 2/3") and PL film lens mounts. Sort of doing to 16mm what they've already done to 35mm

What I really want is a VERY cheap (like $3000 USD- about what a used 16mm camera runs for) 2K camera with a 16mm sensor size (close to 2/3") and PL film lens mounts. Sort of doing to 16mm what they've already done to 35mm

actually a 16mm sensor is closer to a 4/3" "video" sensor size, since video manufacturers use the--what i think is now dishonest--historical way of measuring sensor sizes based on the diameter of a glass tube and the useable area in the center. one reference:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp

"The size designation does not define the diagonal of the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the tube. Engineers soon discovered that for various reasons the usable area of this imaging plane was approximately two thirds of the designated size. This designation has clearly stuck (although it should have been thrown out long ago)."

... so a 35mm-wide sensor using this measurement system should be designated 2.5" or almost 8/3" lol.

a 2/3" sensor is closer to 8mm film width. :(

i had posted about this once a long time ago:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=96091

a 2/3" sensor is closer to 8mm film width. :(
Yeah, but 8mm film didn't give you 8mm of image either. Lots was cropped off for the sprocket holes. You ended up with about 6mm x 4mm.

For that matter, "35mm film" as used in the movies doesn't get anywhere within striking distance of 35mm, in any direction. The actual size used is about 22x12mm...

In practice, a 2/3" 4:3 sensor is close to the same size as a frame of 16mm film. But a 2/3" 16:9 sensor is not quite as large as a frame of Super16 film.

Yeah, but 8mm film didn't give you 8mm of image either. Lots was cropped off for the sprocket holes. You ended up with about 6mm x 4mm.

For that matter, "35mm film" as used in the movies doesn't get anywhere within striking distance of 35mm, in any direction. The actual size used is about 22x12mm...

In practice, a 2/3" 4:3 sensor is close to the same size as a frame of 16mm film. But a 2/3" 16:9 sensor is not quite as large as a frame of Super16 film.

oops! i don't know what i'm talking about. barry is right. i forget that motion picture camera film size is != still camera film size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film#Technical_specifications
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=473963&postcount=10

Ali Husain;

Check out the frame size specifications on the Wikipedia page for 16mm film here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film

camera aperture: 0.404 by 0.295 in (10.26 by 7.49 mm)
projector aperture (full 1.33): 0.378 by 0.276 in (9.60 by 7.01 mm)
projector aperture (1.85): 0.378 by 0.205 in (9.60 by 5.20 mm)

and I think you'll agree that a 2/3" 4:3 video camera comes very close to the specifications for 16mm's full 1.33 projector aperture. (8.8mm x 6.6mm)

It's certainly closer than any other video format.

Incidentally a 1" camera is a close match for Super 16mm. Of course, I wouldn't dare to match footage from an old 1" camera- if I could even get a working one- to Super 16. I'd rather match it with a modern HD camcorder.

8mm is an almost exact match to a 1/3" 4:3 video camera

Oh, and RED matches 35mm and super 35 very nicely. :)

um what does any of this have to do with 720p from the EX1?

Alexander, the only reason why you feel as though mpeg2 isn't good enough is because you have not seen it done the right way. I also write software that deals with a lot of mpeg2 encoding and I know what it is and is not capable of. If you give it enough bits it is virtually perfect. The whole and only point to this thread is that 720p 24p does have a lot of bits to work with which is why it will look so good. Intraframe is kind of a waste because even if you have a solid black frame it still takes up the same amount of space.

Personally I am affended that you said I was irrational. I am pointing out a fact that the encoded video is going to look so much better at 720p 24p due to how many bits it can have. Clearly you have never dealt with mpeg2 quality at this level before. I suggest encoding a SD video at 15mbits/s and taking a look at just how good it is compared to the source. Well that is what 720p 24p at 35mbits will look like. Is it perfect? Of course not but then neither is DVCPROHD compared to uncompressed. They will both end up with typical DCT based compression artifacts. The mpeg2 however may have less of those artifacts due to the fact that it can adjust how many bits to use per frame unlike Intraframe which will always use the same amount of bits.

There is also a huge difference between interlaced 4:2:0 and progressive 4:2:0. Progressive 4:2:0 isn't all that bad even for keying if you have the right tools. I know a lot of people who have used XDCAMHD footage even interlaced from the 350 for keying and they said the results were great. DVCPROHD from the HVX200 is far from perfect for keying and is only nice for those who are too lazy to actually try to capture to an uncompressed or lightly compressed format. DVCPROHD isn't very far from DV in terms of compression artifacts and in fact it gets compressed even harder.

Who told you 24p on the HVX200 uses 54 mbits? Everyplace I have ever checked says 40mbits which is 2.5x smaller then 100 mbits the max for 60p. That is pretty simple math there. Are you sure you are not mixing in the amount of space the audio takes up on the card?

All:

The Sony XDCAM EX will make may me money the same way my JVC HD100 did. I saw this same back and forth debating between HVX 200, Z1U, JVC 100, and the Canon XH1 last year. Finally, everyone started shooting with their particular choice and made nice pictures. And the debate somewhat subsided.

There are thousands of issues to consider before making a choice on cameras and believe it or not, resolution quality is lower on my priority list than ease of workflow/flexibility. But that's me. There are several options and choices.

The bottom line is that until it starts (Sony XDCAM EX) shipping, everyone is going to make their own choices based on their own production philosophy or in my case "marketing philosophy".

After all, in the final analysis I've never had a client go:
"Man, Long GOP MPEG 2 4:2:0 is inferior to Intraframe 4:2:2." They almost always say, "That's look so clear. I'm glad I hired a professional."

Keeping one foot in the real world.

David

I agree with Thomas. More bits with slower frame rate equals better video. ;)

I used HDV before switching to XDCAM HD. Every year I spend many months shooting weather footage. The first year I had my Z1 I shot at 60i, the second year 50i. The difference in picture quality is quite surprising! My 50i footage holds up so much better in post production compared to my 60i material. As this is very similar footage shot with the same camera my guess is that the difference is simply down to more data per frame at 50i. So shooting 720/24P with a EX1 should be ultra clean and robust.

To compare the XDCAM and DVCPRO codecs simply by quoting numbers and saying one is better than the other because it's intra or inter is nonsense. They are very different codecs, born out of different requirements at different periods in time. Both do a decent job, both have strengths and weaknesses. Most people that rubbish long gop codecs have never used them properly with correctly set up edit equipment or don't understand the way modern applications reconstruct the GOP sequence with empty frames around edits to prevent excessive concatenation.

No codec is perfect, despite what the designers or code writers may say. Your best bet is to find the package that fits your needs best. Once you have chosen your system work out how to get the most from it, find out it's flaws so you can avoid them where possible. Then find it's strengths and make the most of them.

I
No codec is perfect, despite what the designers or code writers may say. Your best bet is to find the package that fits your needs best. Once you have chosen your system work out how to get the most from it, find out it's flaws so you can avoid them where possible. Then find it's strengths and make the most of them.


Alister,

Well said. Once this camera gets into some experienced hands hopefully we'll start discussing how to get the best looks and sharing workflows rather than discussing inordinate specs that don't apply. Hopefully most people on this forum will stay focused on how to get the most out of the EX.

Before I even get going- I am not interested in a flame war. I am responded because you say I offended you, and frankly because you make some good points.

I am not interested in offending anybody, and I hope anyone who is offended accepts my apologies.

um what does any of this have to do with 720p from the EX1?

The EX1 is a complete system- its the camera, lens, codec, i/o options, recording media- everything. In order to understand the eventual results you have to understand all the parts.

Right now I am excited about everything this camera offers except the codec. This is ameliorated by the presence of an uncompressed HD/SDI 4:2:2 output. Ameliorated- not entirely set aside.


Alexander, the only reason why you feel as though mpeg2 isn't good enough is because you have not seen it done the right way.

That is an assumption on your part that is both irrelevant and incorrect.

For your information, I've worked with XDCAM HD, DVCPRO HD, HDCAM, HDCAM SR, HDV and a lot of other formats. Both on set and in post.


I also write software that deals with a lot of mpeg2 encoding and I know what it is and is not capable of. If you give it enough bits it is virtually perfect.

That is argument from authority, and its great- but just as useless as me telling you I worked with the various codecs.

Here is the crux- do a difference key between the compressed format and the uncompressed images. Concrete experimental data.


The whole and only point to this thread is that 720p 24p does have a lot of bits to work with which is why it will look so good. Intraframe is kind of a waste because even if you have a solid black frame it still takes up the same amount of space.

Here is where our objectives differ. As a result our evaluation of the image data will differ.

You are interested in coding efficiency. You want the image to "look good." Perceptual image quality.

I am interested in image data. I need the image to not only have a good deal of perceptual image quality, but for the data to support a great deal of objective image quality- as shown by compositing and manipulation tests.

I remain very disappointed that XDCAM offers 4:2:0 encoding. I thought it offered 4:2:2. That extra image data matters enough to my work that I'd be willing to accept a bit more compression.

Personally I am affended that you said I was irrational.

Again I apologize for any perceived slight.

However, I'd like to draw your attention the fact that I was using Alan Greenspan's phrase- "irrational exuberance." I hoped my audience might catch that and realize it as a way of saying that I disagree with the fundamental assumptions, the subsequent analysis and resulting optimism.

It certainly isn't a comment on you personally.

I am pointing out a fact that the encoded video is going to look so much better at 720p 24p due to how many bits it can have. Clearly you have never dealt with mpeg2 quality at this level before.

Sorry- you are making unfounded assumptions again.

I suggest encoding a SD video at 15mbits/s and taking a look at just how good it is compared to the source.

A test that involves "looking" isn't much of a test for my workflow. Like I said earlier a comparison of difference keys is useful. I can think of a few other tests... but that's what I am after.

There is also a huge difference between interlaced 4:2:0 and progressive 4:2:0. Progressive 4:2:0 isn't all that bad even for keying if you have the right tools.

"isn't all that bad for keying" is a nightmare. I need a codec that is actually good for keying.

I know a lot of people who have used XDCAMHD footage even interlaced from the 350 for keying and they said the results were great.

Keying what? Shot under what conditions? The variables are too many.

I can unfortunately speak only from my own experience. XDCAM works reasonably well for simple green screen footage. Spill suppression is a bit harder than it should be. XDCAM work's more poorly for bluescreen, and rather badly for keying orange or other colors.

Once you pull the key integrating the plate with the new background is a bit harder to manage.

DVCPROHD from the HVX200 is far from perfect for keying

The key element in your statement is the HVX200. I am quite underwhelmed by the HVX200's performance on set as a camera.

Try footage from the AJ-HDC27 Varicam instead, then get back to me. I am very intrigued by the HPX500 as well- but haven't posted it yet, but for the little bit I operated it it seems rock solid.

and is only nice for those who are too lazy to actually try to capture to an uncompressed or lightly compressed format.

Too lazy eh? I can think of a thousand situations where laziness isn't an issue... its just next to impossible to manage uncompressed capture.

For example.... how about a jib shot from a dolly of some fast moving subjects. Or maybe steadicam footage? How about handheld?

DVCPROHD isn't very far from DV in terms of compression artifacts and in fact it gets compressed even harder.

Yeah, but DV is a huge step above HDV, just as DVCPRO is to XDCAM, despite being an older codec.

The HDV codec was designed to optimize storage efficiency and costs. The DV based codecs were designed around image quality. I am convinced Sony sees XDCAM relative to HDV the same way they saw DVCAM relative to DV.

Both HDV and XDCAM produce great images in terms of visual perception. For a simple project without a lot of compositing and grading you'd be silly not to consider them. Sticking to these two formats XDCAM is much better- because of all the bits it has to sling around compared to HDV.

Once you do add those elements to your post mix, the extra color data in DVCPRO HD matters a LOT.

No, it certainly isn't perfect. For one the image raster in DVCPRO HD sucks. Also the compression technology is old.

I am looking forward to working with AVC Intra cameras. Full raster HD, 4:2:2, VBR , up to 100Mbit/s and a modern codec.

<dream>I'd like to start the EX2 wish list right now- give me a high bitrate intraframe codec like AVC Intra- with more bits if practical. A new 2/3" 2K imager block capable of doing justice to a ARRI/Zeiss Vario-Sonnar zoom.

Oh- that would be a Silicon Images camera eh?</dream>

Who told you 24p on the HVX200 uses 54 mbits? Everyplace I have ever checked says 40mbits which is 2.5x smaller then 100 mbits the max for 60p. That is pretty simple math there. Are you sure you are not mixing in the amount of space the audio takes up on the card?

Uh nobody told me anything. I based that on the fact that we got 10 minutes on a 4GB P2 card.

I did forget about audio- because we were using two system sound on my last show. I looked at the HVX200 footage on my system right now. 24psN is ~49Mbits/s, including 4 channels of PCM audio- which comes out to 2.92Mbits/s. So call it 46Mbit/s for the video.

So... I am "wasting" 11Mbits/s compared to XDCAM, but for my trouble I get 4:2:2 and intraframe compression.

Sorry, this got so long- I still have more to say. I've said some of it peripherally already- but is really in response to other posts.

I am looking forward to working with AVC Intra cameras. Full raster HD, 4:2:2, VBR , up to 100Mbit/s and a modern codec.

<dream>I'd like to start the EX2 wish list right now- give me a high bitrate intraframe codec like AVC Intra- with more bits if practical.

AVC-Intra requires too much computer horsepower at the moment for real time editing. This is part of the reason why Sony is not adopting it at this time.

It's quite obvious that you feel the XDCAM HD format is too inferior for your needs. XDCAM HD is Sony's mid level HD offering. If you have to have an extremely pristine image for your workflow, this is not the camera for you. You'll need to look towards the PDW-700 using 50mbit 4:2:2 recording.

And don't worry about a flame war, it's NOT going to happen at DVINFO.

-gb-

After all, in the final analysis I've never had a client go:
"Man, Long GOP MPEG 2 4:2:0 is inferior to Intraframe 4:2:2." They almost always say, "That's look so clear. I'm glad I hired a professional."

Keeping one foot in the real world.

David

lol

Good point- but a point that depends on who your client is and what they expect.

If I am selling to a private client a "Joe Sixpack" I think they'll be very pleased with any of these cameras. Heck, I could use some of the consumer HDV and AVCHD cameras and my results will often leave them thrilled to tears. (literally!) MiniDV is still an excellent format for this market, and production costs are king. These guys say stuff like

If I am selling to an industrial client who is going to distribute my program as a DVD advertisement, then they'll be pleased as plum.

If I am selling to a local business client for broadcast the format starts to break- but I can still do 98% of things they are likely to ask for. Actually I can do 100%, but there will be times I have to rotoscope stuff that should be keyable.

Now, if my client is PBS/WETA or Discovery for HD broadcast, even then for some material XDCAM is awesome, but for material that must undergo heavy compositing they may well reject the resulting work and invoke penalty clauses. Dealing with these sorts of clients I have heard them say, "Man Long GOP 4:2:0 is KILLING me. I wish you had used DVCPRO HD or HDCAM"

If my client is a VFX Supervisor on a science fiction show, again they may reject the work, invoke penalty clauses- and I may not work again with them. I've heard these clients say, "Man TIFF image sequences are hurting... can't you work in OpenEXR?" amongst many other very technical issues.

Now MY reality is I have to deal with all these clients. Despite that, I have terrible budget constraints. I have to use these cameras, and while I have issues with the XDCAM format, overall I feel the camera is strong enough to use on at least some projects- possibly all the ones where I am expected to "bring my own camera."

We'll just have to wait for the "shootout" between the HVX200 and the EX1

Long GOP XDCAM vs DVCProHD for keying.

720p60 video of fast action slowed to 23.98 to see how the codecs fair when stressed.

Then there's the battle of CMOS 1920x1080 vs CCD 960x540.

How the cameras compare in "low light."

How fast the SxS card xfers vs P2.

Production is never going to be "one size fits all" industry.

I remember training a group on Panasonic NLE called Postbox about 10 years ago. All of the people there had never worked on any NLE apps and some were not even computer literate. They absolutely hated the fact that there were two or three software applications they were going to have to learn to get the most from their project. One said to me "this is crazy in our old edit suite all I have to do is use the switcher not all these programs".

The EX maybe one of the best cams at 720p for certain projects, for other maybe the HVX would work better, for another maybe RED is the answer. As a professional it's our jobs to find what tools work best for a job and forums like this help us to debate what tools might be better for one of those projects.

We're all really fortunate that there are so many great tools to be creative with in this generation of tech. It's a lot better then lugging around 3/4" porta-pack deck connected to a tube camera.

AVC-Intra requires too much computer horsepower at the moment for real time editing. This is part of the reason why Sony is not adopting it at this time.

It's quite obvious that you feel the XDCAM HD format is too inferior for your needs. XDCAM HD is Sony's mid level HD offering. If you have to have an extremely pristine image for your workflow, this is not the camera for you. You'll need to look towards the PDW-700 using 50mbit 4:2:2 recording.

And don't worry about a flame war, it's NOT going to happen at DVINFO.

-gb-

RE: AVC Intra processing. Time will fix this as all things subject to Moore's law. Until then we have i/o boards.

I also would be thrilled with AVC Intra at acquisition then captured/converted to ProRes or DNxHD. I'm thinking AJA ioHD or the like, unless the software conversion is realtime or faster. With AVC Intra that can be a post only solution- my on set workflow can be P2 only.

As an aside- are you sure that an 8 core FCP system can't handle AVC Intra? I thought it could- but I have no experience with AVC Intra.

RE: PDW-700
I would love that camera and that codec- but for the money I can't see not buying a RED. I figure a full RED system is $60K- that includes two zooms and the kit of RED primes.

My guesstimate is that the PDW-700 is going to sell, body only, for about $30k.

Less camera for more? Nope, PDW-700 is officially off my radar.

If Sony expects to sell me a PDW-700 it has to be $30k USD ready to run on set- or less.

The Panasonic HPX500 is on my radar, that can be ready to run for less than $20k USD. Although DVCPRO HD is not ideal, it works on more than 99% of my shots. I'd only use an on set solution like the AJA ioHD occasionally- but it would get used.

XDCAM is on my radar because it is born ready to run, and the HD/SDI out works for me on a film set. I'm almost always tethered to a monitor anyway- so I might as well stick an AJA box in between the camera and the monitor for those shots that require 4:2:2

The EX1 does leave me some shots, like steadicam or handhelds, that could potentially have me stuck in post with extra work.

That leaves me with a ready to run camera system for HD compositing for about $13k. (EX1, AJA ioHD, some camera accessories like follow focus, matte box etc.) This is a good deal, and I think I may bite.

I am leaving my options open though. I'd like to get both an HPX500 and an EX1, but I have to test them out. I know Discovery will accept DVCPRO HD- but I am unclear on their rules for XDCAM.

We'll just have to wait for the "shootout" between the HVX200 and the EX1

Long GOP XDCAM vs DVCProHD for keying.

720p60 video of fast action slowed to 23.98 to see how the codecs fair when stressed.

Then there's the battle of CMOS 1920x1080 vs CCD 960x540.

How the cameras compare in "low light."

How fast the SxS card xfers vs P2.

Oh, I don't think it will be much of a competition. I think rather poorly of the HVX200 as a camera. I thought it was standout for post when everything in its price range was HDV- specifically because of DVCPRO HD.

Looking at a camera like the XL-H1 its a toss up vs the HVX200 for my work. I think the XL-H1 is a better camera but the recorder throws that all away. If you tether both of them to a solution like the AJA ioHD the XL-H1 comes out on top. In every other situation the HVX200 is a better camera system. (Especially since the HVX lacks HD/SDI or HDMI output!)

XDCAM, even at 4:2:0, really blurs things. If the XL-H1 used the same recording as the EX1 it would be a very hard call.

Given that I think the EX1 is gonna smoke the HVX200 and the XL-H1 as a camera the benefits of DVCPRO vs XDCAM are less important.

That doesn't make XDCAM better... it means that for my uses the EX1 is likely to be a better solution than the HVX200. Compared to the HPX500 I think the EX1 is a lesser camera- and the HPX recorder is better overall- but i think the price of the EX1 makes it worth dealing with any disadvantages.

Alexander, I think you hit a key point here.

We're not buying codecs, we're buying entire camera systems and those camera systems in turn fit into a work flow.

The story never ends though (actually a good thing) because a year from now Panasonic will come out with something to compete with the EX1.

I think some people felt the HVX200 with DVCProHD P2 workflow wasn't the leap over HDV in every aspect they were hoping for.

Personally I think the EX1 will be closer to meeting fairly high expectations.

Despite waiting patiently, there is one question that would enable an informed workflow plan, for me and others, that hasn't been asked, despite frequent opportunities. Please, no supposition or hypotheticals.

We need to know definitively if the camera outputs 4:2:2 SDI when playing back from SxS card memory, or only during live shooting, or if at all.

Does the SDI output, by definition, confirm the signal is 4:2:2, or does the 4:2:0 file system system fit the SDI spec. Does the camera convert the 4:2:0 files to 4:2:2 on the fly through the SDI output?

I don't care to debate the relative merits of either system. If my AJA Kona 2 card, which is SDI in only, can be used to capture the signal from the camera, playing back from memory cards, then I should be able to convert to an intermediate codec for compositing purposes, my ultimate need and the driver of this question. TIA.

Since no-one seems to know for sure about this important issue yet, if anyone has the opportunity to ask Sony about it, we'd all greatly appreciate an answer.

We need to know definitively if the camera outputs 4:2:2 SDI when playing back from SxS card memory, or only during live shooting, or if at all.


I don't know how you would you get 4:2:2 playback from a 4:2:0 recording? Once you have thrown those pixels away their gone, right?

Unless I am totally missing something.

Oct 10th, 11th is HD World in NYC (Javits Center). Sony will have a booth there and I suspect the EX1 will be there. I'm also interested in the HD-SDI port.

I do believe it's 4:2:2 out.

I do suspect it'll send out of the SDI port at the same time it records to cards.

I do suspect one can send info recorded on the cards out of the SDI port since that port can also downconvert to Standard Def. Keep in mind that 4:2:0 bumped to 4:2:2 is just "upconverting" the color sampling in that case though.

I am interested in using the EX1 SDI out Standard Def with something like Flip4Mac Pipeline to convert it to DVCPro50 or IMX50 for Standard Def work.

I hope to get close enough to the Sony booth to ask these questions. Inevitably the'll be 50 people in front of me asking if they can use their PD-170 batteries with it or whether it records standard def XDCAM (all stuff they should know before walking into the booth).

Chris, the SDI out will be 4:2:2. I'm pretty sure that's in the Sony marketing material/brochure and it's part of the spec. Heck you can convert HDV 4:2:0 Long GOP to DVCPROHD 4:2:2 I frame. It's a conversion. That's all. Upconverted off the card won't have the data that live out the SDI port would have though.

If it captured 4:2:2 to memory card, it would of been sold as a 4:2:2 camera, not just advertised as an XDCAM 4:2:0.

On the other hand, I'm sure capturing SDI 4:2:2 off of those 1920x1080 sensors is going to be awesome. Especially tied to the upcoming FLASH XDR drive.

PLEASE! I understand that the camera's file structure is 4:2:0! It is NOT a 4:2:2 capture to the cards, I think everyone accepts that. We accept that the SDI signal out is 4:2:2 during live shooting. The quesion is, does playout from the memory cards create an INTERPOLATED 4:2:2 signal??

I can't be any clearer than that. Please, no more guesswork. If you know the SDI spec is 4:2:2 by definiton, then feel free to say so. If not, don't add to the confusion. I am more than willing to wait to hear the facts from the horses mouth so long as it is fact, not supposition. Don't muddy the waters. Unless you ARE Muddy Waters, Then feel free. Love dem Blues. (I'm taking Blues Guitar classes)

We need to know definitively if the camera outputs 4:2:2 SDI when playing back from SxS card memory, or only during live shooting, or if at all.

Since no-one seems to know for sure about this important issue yet, if anyone has the opportunity to ask Sony about it, we'd all greatly appreciate an answer.

It works pretty much the same as the other cameras offering HDSDI output.

Live from camera head to HDSDI = Uncompressed 4:2:2

Record to internal media = 4:2:0 with MPEG compression applied

Internal media played back through HDSDI = Up conversion to 4:2:2 uncompressed as necessitated by the HDSDI spec.

Why do you think no one knows for sure about this issue? The camera has already been in the hands of reviewers and selected shooters.

But the scenario I described pretty much applies to several cameras, including the current XDCAM HD cameras.

-gb-

It works pretty much the same as the other cameras offering HDSDI output.
-gb-

My point exactly..
LOL

I know Discovery will accept DVCPRO HD- but I am unclear on their rules for XDCAM.

Discovery HD accepts the XDCAM HD codec in 35mb for FULL, UNLIMITED program content. HDV is limited to no more than 15% of the content.

Discovery HD WILL NOT accept material from the HVX200. I'm sure it's not the codec, but the fact that sensors are low resolution native, then upsampled to 1280x720. Or, they're put off by 1/3 cameras. But I seem to recall they started accepting the JVC HD cameras which are also 1/3 sensors. The HPX500 also uses a lower native resolution (960x540) that gets doubled to 1920x1080 so I'm not sure how Discovery HD engineers have ruled on that camera. Since you mentioned your interest in the 500, I thought you might want to look into that further.

HDNET uses and owns XDCAM HD cameras.

I have no reason to believe that Discovery HD wouldn't accept the XDCAM EX camera since it has image quality equal to, and in some cases better than the existing full size XDCAM HD cameras.

-gb-

As described in the beloved Wikipedia regarding SDI.

For all serial digital interfaces, the native color encoding is 4:2:2 YCbCr format.

(Dual link could be 4:4:4 but that's another story).

As described in the beloved Wikipedia regarding SDI.

For all serial digital interfaces, the native color encoding is 4:2:2 YCbCr format.

(Dual link could be 4:4:4 but that's another story).

You beat me to it, Craig. (grin)

I was ready to paste the same section.

-gb-

Internal media played back through HDSDI = Up conversion to 4:2:2 uncompressed as necessitated by the HDSDI spec.

Why do you think no one knows for sure about this issue? The camera has already been in the hands of reviewers and selected shooters.

But the scenario I described pretty much applies to several cameras, including the current XDCAM HD cameras.

-gb-

I think it unsure because I have read every review and article, post and thread, here and elsewhere, have saved every review and article and no-one has stated such. The tech info provided by Sony does not state specifically, and because, since this camera was announced, I have read as much misinformation and speculation as fact. I need to plan a workflow and equipment purchases with that flow in mind, as do others. Accurate information will help that planning, when it is available.

I am glad that you are clear that the HDSDI spec stipulates that the signal must be 4:2:2 exclusively. That too is the first time I have read that bit of information flatly stated. As I'm not familiar with the HD SDI spec myself, I'm going to do a little digging and confirm for myself, maybe get a further education.

Finally, the EX is an all-new design with a different market niche, so I don't see the relevance to previous models in the XDCam lineup. Historically, new technology means new features and benefits, which means new capabilities, more options. Looking forward to actually using the EX.

The quesion is, does playout from the memory cards create an INTERPOLATED 4:2:2 signal??

I think I get what he's getting at.

Short answer: NO.

Once the signal is recorded to the SxS, its 4:2:0- that's it.

It is in fact converted to 4:2:2 for playback over the HD/SDI. This is required by the HD/SDI specification. (SMPTE 292M) Its a bit hard to get the actual spec... as the SMPTE sells it for way too much.

That conversion does not interpolate or otherwise try to display additional information. All of the "extra" information is zeroed out- i.e. it contains no information.

The signal coming out is the same data that you have on the SxS, and a lot of wasted bandwidth. Quality wise it might as well be 4:2:0.

Put differently the HD/SDI link is like a picture frame. You can put a very nice picture in it, or a rather bad one. The frame works the same and doesn't actually alter the picture.

You can get the same result by copying the SxS media to a computer then converting it there to Uncompressed HD 4:2:2.

Just remember- you aren't interpolating or any such. No information is created in this process.

If you need the full 4:2:2 image quality, then the SxS card is useless. You have to record that while the action is happening. You can do that via the HD/SDI link to some sort of outboard recorder.

Does that answer the question properly?