I'm locked in a debate with my stock footage library. I shot footage recently in HQ mode, 1080 24p. I transferred the clips via the USB provided, didn't touch the original folder, burned it to DVD and sent it off.

The people at the library logged it on their website as "XDCam digital files"
when all of their other clips are labeled, "HD 1080p". When I quizzed her why, her reply was..... "This format is compressed and is an HDV format, not true 1920 x1080 HD as is all our other HD content."

Every spec from Sony about my camera, as well as all the reviews from people like Simon Wyndham, state clearly that not only am I delivering "true 1920x1080 HD, but that if extraordinary steps are taken, it can be delivered in full 4.2.2 color space (which I'm not at the moment).

If they re-wrapped the files via FCP, why couldn't they remain 1920x1080 HD? Did I blow it by simply burning the folder to a DVD? I didn't purchase the camera for anything other than true 1920x1080 HD output. If she's wrong, then it makes a difference in several ways. Please advise me...Thanks!

it is pixel for pixel 1920x1080 (which most other "true" HD cameras don't even deliver on the chip end.....even an F900 is 1440x1080). The whole "true" or "real" HD discussion is kind of bothersome, and I assume what people generally mean is on MPEG compressed I-frame HD. But HDCAM and DVCProHD are all compressed HD formats too. I think its all really just semantics and marketing ploys to get people to buy into more costly gear.

But yes, its 1920x1080 in 4.2.0 colorspace, but you can record 4.2.2. 10-bit if you can record live out the HD-SDI output.

Thanks... as I thought. She just sent me this followup as well:

"Just for clarification, the best way for me to explain the difference we see is XDCam employs interframe as well as intraframe compression. HD Cam only employs intraframe compression."

Essentially, she's wanting to represent and categorize this footage in the same realm as previous models of "prosumer" cameras with far inferior image and specs. I'm curious to see what other's comments will be as well.

Michael, can you send me a private mail with the name of this stock footage house? I'd be happy to help set the record straight.

-gb-

Greg, your offer of intervention is most generous. However, as this has already grown a bit testy, that path might not be the best diplomacy.

Rather... if you could weigh in here with full explanation (validation), I'd be happy to cut and paste, quoting you, over to this person.

with much appreciation...

I think what she's saying is technically correct but not meaningful. The EX1's codec, as I understand it, is "grown up" long-GOP, but still related to HDV. But what matters is the image quality. If you were to take your EX1 footage and encode to ProRes, I wonder if they would be able to tell the difference.

Pre-judging image quality based on a category of technology is making less sense as those technologies improve over time.

I recall seeing some tests of compressed video back in the 1980's. The frame rate was probably about 10 fps, and the compression blocks would only go away when all movement ended. The model could make only the slowest moves and the scene was very simple to minimize detail.

The general thought at the time was compression of any kind was useless.

Two decades later and look where we are.

Long-GOP compression might have been a problem a few years ago with HDV. But this isn't HDV. The data rate is different and the compression algorithm is different. And the results are absolutely unrelated.

Weird...
Where is it written that intraframe makes true HD.

Some people learn just enough to make themselves worse off.

As I read these responses to my initial question, I find people answering both "yes" and others "no". This seems to me a very straightforward question and I'm receiving confusing replies.

The camera is either producing 1920x1080 native 1080p content or it isn't. I had one person say a resounding yes and the rest are saying..."well... no...because it's this or that with compression". I'm as lost as when I posted it in that regard. Of course image quality is what it's all about.. but I'm being boxed in and my material labeled as "non HD" over the assertion that it's not true 1920x1080 HD.

As an aside...I took some footage I shot at an Obama rally (under perfect professional lighting, courtesy of CNN) over to a professional post facility here in Austin. They crowded around the monitor and the overall consensus was it produces a better image than the $15K Panasonic P2 camera. Still... I have to concede that my image looks nothing like the razor sharp HD I see on Discovery Channel.... and I saw some behind the scenes as they rolled credits... they aren't packing F900's around the deserts of Morrocco... it was some small, hand-held chassis camera like the EX-1.

I'll check back later to see if anyone can define the EX-1... spring's in the air here in Austin and I'm going out to shoot.

I'm not sure I understand this post?

What am I missing?

Are you asking us if the EX1 produces native 1920x1080P.

Do you own the EX1, or renting?

I believe you would know it uses NATIVE 1920x1080 sensors and produces a progressive image at FULL 1080P. Yes, it only records 4:2:0 to it's internal memory cards, but can offer 4:2:2 10bit via SDI.

If you're not seeing razor sharp image, it's either you, or your camera.
The EX1 played backed on a 1080P set is as razor sharp than anything I've ever seen.

In fact, it's probably to sharp. I now shoot with DETAIL OFF.

Michael, Sony's official view is that there are 3 tiers in their product offering for HD.

HDCAM/SR is high end
XDCAM HD is medium level
HDV is consumer/prosumer

However, early on with XDCAM HD, it was the opinion of most who saw the quality of images, that XDCAM HD is not squarely in the middle, but closer to the top end. The higher data rate removes a lot of the motion artifacts that can plague HDV. It's not the inter-frame compression of long GOP at fault, it's how much compression and how intelligently it's applied that determine the outcome.

I wonder what this stock HD firm will say about the PDW 700 with its 50mb 4:2:2 color space. If they try to call that image less than HD, they are nuts.

Also a reminder, Discovery HD has one of the most rigorous acceptance criteria for HD and they certified XDCAM HD @ 35VBR as acceptable for unlimited content acquisition, whereas they limit HDV to no more than 15% of a given program.

All is not lost though, at some point, you'll have the ability to strap on a portable flash recorder and take the HDSDI feed into a very high quality codec.

-gb-

Greg,
Out of curiosity, did the Discovery Channel acceptance of XDCAM HD also span over to EX @ 35mb/s? If you, or others know?

Greg,
Out of curiosity, did the Discovery Channel acceptance of XDCAM HD also span over to EX @ 35mb/s? If you, or others know?

From what I understand the EX HQ footage is acceptable for broadcast on Discovery.

I used to shoot on a Z1 and then moved over to the EX1. Night and day difference in image quality. Not just the better compression, but the 1/2 chips make a big difference as well.

If they put EX1 footage into the same class as HDV they are nuts and will loose sales because of undervaluing the footage they represent.

Daniel Weber

Discovery Channel acceptance of XDCAM HD...Please be careful how you phrase this.

There are *no* limitations whatsoever placed upon HDV, etc. by Discovery Channel.

What you guys are talking about pertains only to Discovery HD, which is still a relatively small slice of Discovery Channel's total programming. The restrictions have more to do with sensor size (1/3rd-inch) than format (HDV).

The EX1 at 35mb/s has been approved by Discovery HD at the "Silver" level along with XDCAM HD at 35mb/s (provided an HD lens is used). Silver level means the camera can be used for 100% of the production. HDV is restricted to a maximum of 20% of the total production and even then you must have justification for using it, such as no other way to get the shot.

The refusal to accept long gop codecs is normally from those that don't really understand codecs. HDCAM SR uses a long gop codec. It uses a variant of MPEG 4, yet no one complains that SR is no good!

As I read these responses to my initial question, I find people answering both "yes" and others "no". This seems to me a very straightforward question and I'm receiving confusing replies.

The camera is either producing 1920x1080 native 1080p content or it isn't. I had one person say a resounding yes and the rest are saying..."well... no...because .............
The definitive answer to your question as posed has to be a resounding "yes", since it has 3 1920x1080 chips AND records full raster 1920x1080 24p.

But I think Rob Collins hits the nail on the head when he says "I think what she's saying is technically correct but not meaningful." because resolution is only one facet of "quality" (whatever that is). "Full HD" or "True HD" I believe were originally coined to apply to displays, where the definition has a straightforward meaning - they have to have 3x1920x1080 pixels and be capable of handling a progressive source.

I do have sympathy with the lady you're dealing with - there's an obvious reason for trying to categorise the quality of clips within such a library. But doing it solely on the basis of the recording codec, or even worse on the RESOLUTION of the recording codec is not the way to do it. (That said, what is the answer?!)

Heck, on that basis, any consumer HDV camera (at 1440x1080) would score better than a 2/3" DVCProHD camera (1280x1080) with an expensive HD lens! Yet which do think would look the best to the eye? (Should for the money.)

I appreciate all the comments here and I will absolutely be cutting and pasting several as quotes into an email to forward to this individual.

Chris (Hurd), I notice you're in San Marcos... just down the highway from me. Please let me know if I can contact you outside the forum. I'd really benefit from bringing these clips and letting you view them and weigh in on what I'm seeing and the results I'm getting.

Thanks to all.

Weird...
Where is it written that intraframe makes true HD.

Some people learn just enough to make themselves worse off.

That is the perfect way to describe what I'm constantly up against.
Well put man.

You may be best to agree with the lady and just move on.

Then next time you work for them, simply supply the clips uncompressed and let them pass judgment by eye.

Just tell them they are full 1080p clips captured by a Cinealta.

The question you asked "is it 1920x1080" isn't really the issue she is worrying about. She said, " "This format is compressed and is an HDV format, not true 1920 x1080 HD as is all our other HD content.""

What she is saying is that "I don't care if the sensors are 1920x1080 and thus the same resolution as from HDCAM/CineAlta."

She is saying she has two categories of recording: intra-frame 4:2:2 and inter-frame 4:2:0. She correctly says you did not give her intra-frame 4:2:2 video even if your camera has 1920x1080 chips

Your goal should not to debate 1920x1080 since that's not her issue. You need to convince her that XDCAM EX is the same codec as XDCAM HD --- plus --- unlike other XDCAM HD cameras the chips are "Full HD" just like CineAlta/HDCAM. In other words, "better" than XDCAM HD with their only 1440x1080 chips.

And, better than XDCAM HD and HDCAM/CineAlta because the recording is "Full HD" not just the chips.

Try avoid the 4:2:0 verses 4:2:2 issue.

If she insists HDV and XDCAM HD are the SAME -- you are screwed. Of course they are since they are both 4:2:0 MPEG-2. But, that's like saying a dog and cat are the same because they are both mammals. If she doesn't get it by logic, I doubt you'll get very far if you bring up Profiles&Levels, VBR/CBR, and bit rates.

If she insists HDV and XDCAM HD are the SAME -- you are screwed. Of course they are since they are both 4:2:0 MPEG-2.

Same basic underlying codec maybe, but not the same thing.

If a stock house (or anyone else) wants to distinguish between different types of HD footage, why don't they just specify the recording format, resolution and bit rate for each clip? Using the term 'true HD' to say one type of footage meets some unspecified criteria while others don't is a practice which should stop because it's inaccurate.

intraframe and interframe has no link with 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
you can have interframe at 4:2:0 (like mpeg2) and intraframe at 4:2:0 (like PAL DV) but all combinations are possible.
simply give them the video in the format that will set it in the right category wherever it comes from.

intraframe and interframe has no link with 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
you can have interframe at 4:2:0 (like mpeg2) and intraframe at 4:2:0 (like PAL DV) but all combinations are possible.
simply give them the video in the format that will set it in the right category wherever it comes from.

I think you are missing the point -- big time. She is classifying video based upon the ORIGINAL recording codec. As long as she does this, HDV and XDCAM HD and XDCAM EX are the "same."

You can talk all you want about higher bit-rates the recording by VBR vs CBR -- but she likely is not going to be convinced. Briningg PAL DV in is a red herring.

She seems to be using a different category system: intra-frame 4:2:2 vs inter-frame 4:2:0. It's her library -- she gets to make the rules.

Is she right to do this? No. But she's the buyer.

But, there is a network that only wants camera's with 2/3-inch CCDs. Why do you think Pana pushes chip size and not resolution?

quote: "She is classifying video based upon the ORIGINAL recording codec"
but if you encode the way you want and tell her that it is the native codec, how would she guess what is your real native codec ?
Admittedly you have to lie but it is for the right cause...

The lack of understanding about codecs and formats from so called professionals is quite worrying. I hear the same all the time... "we only accept 4:2:2" is a common one, but the very same people happily take HDCAM which is 4:1:1 (some would argue it's actually 3:1:1).

All the common acquisition codecs and formats have strengths and weaknesses. DVCPRO HD throws away a third of the resolution but provides a robust codec at the expense of disk space.
HDCAM heavily sub samples the chroma and has no direct workflow that dosn't involved transcoding into another format or uncompressing/re-compressing for editing, each pass adding artifacts especially as each time you go from 1440 to 1920 and back. However it is reasonably robust.
XDCAM HD is currently only 4:2:0 and quite highly compressed but it does offer a good workflow that dosn't have to involve transcoding. The 4:2:0 colour space is around the same resolution as HDCAM's. 1920 XDCAM EX avoids the issue of 1440-1920 conversion.

You need to go to HDCAM SR or hard disk recording to get 4:2:2 full resolution recording, or wait another couple of months for 50mb XDCAM HD.

If they are worried about the high compression ratio you could shoot at 720P/35mb/s which is much less compressed than 1920.

I may reveal myself as more on the "so-called" side of things with this question, but could an argument be made that any interframe compression results in less than "true 1080p" (or 720 or 480 for that matter) footage since not every frame is actually being recorded by the sensors?

Again, I think it's a meaningless point since no one seems to be able to "break the codec" to differentiate between actual and estimated frames. And I think my EX1 is the greatest thing since my children--often better.

Perhaps an enlightened stock footage house would simply name the camera with which the footage was shot (along with format, of course), and let the buyer decide.

Dub your material to HDCAM and give it to her in HDCAM tapes. She will never be able to tell the difference because she clearly knows nothing about the subject and that will solve your problem. Actually few people would be able to tell the difference anyways. We are talking 1920x1080 4:2:0 versus 1440x1080 3:1:1 .
Yes, it's 35 Mbit/s versus 144 Mbit/s but still way less difference than SD to HD.
Give her what she wants. Better than trying to educate somebody who should know her business better to begin with.

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's fair for her to classify XDCAM EX footage as XDCAM footage. As good as EX footage is, it's not quite HDCAM quality, at the same time she's not calling it HDV either.

And personally I think that's reasonable. If people are purchasing stock footage they should know exactly what quality and codec that footage is. Defining EX footage as "XDCAM" footage as apposed to "HDCAM" and "HDV" sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Mark, I'm quoting Michael's original message. Cataloging it as XDCAM is not really the problem. That's accurate.

Calling it HDV is WRONG. 35mbps VBR is not 25mbps CBR (HDV). Saying the format is "compressed" implies others, such as DVCProHD and HDCAM are not compressed. That is WRONG too. There are inter and intra frame codecs but BOTH are compressed. It is TRUE 1920x1080p. Many other "1080 HD" codecs (including XDCAM HD) are actually 1440x1080 at some point. She states "all our other HD content" is 1920x1080. I'll bet she is VERY WRONG about that. If she is stating things as she has below she is MISREPRESENTING her library to buyers.

Someone needs to tell her that. It would be good to come from a customer or potential customer though.

I do think someone selling footage to stock houses has a right to have their material represented ACCURATELY rather than have someone potentially undervalue their work through misidentification.

I'm locked in a debate with my stock footage library. I shot footage recently in HQ mode, 1080 24p. I transferred the clips via the USB provided, didn't touch the original folder, burned it to DVD and sent it off.

The people at the library logged it on their website as "XDCam digital files"
when all of their other clips are labeled, "HD 1080p". When I quizzed her why, her reply was..... "This format is compressed and is an HDV format, not true 1920 x1080 HD as is all our other HD content."

Every spec from Sony about my camera, as well as all the reviews from people like Simon Wyndham, state clearly that not only am I delivering "true 1920x1080 HD, but that if extraordinary steps are taken, it can be delivered in full 4.2.2 color space (which I'm not at the moment).

If they re-wrapped the files via FCP, why couldn't they remain 1920x1080 HD? Did I blow it by simply burning the folder to a DVD? I didn't purchase the camera for anything other than true 1920x1080 HD output. If she's wrong, then it makes a difference in several ways. Please advise me...Thanks!

Craig, obviously she is wrong in her assessment of the footage - but so long as the actual footage is listed as "XDCAM digital files" on their website (Michael didn't suggest that it was labelled "HDV" or "less than 1080p" on the website) then I don't think it should be a problem in terms of potential clients being put off by the website's categorization of the footage.

My point is that the woman from the stock agency can be as ignorant as she likes so long as the footage is listed correctly (which it appears to be).

My point is that the woman from the stock agency can be as ignorant as she likes so long as the footage is listed correctly (which it appears to be).
But is the rest of the footage labelled correctly? Quoting again from the original post, she says:
".........not true 1920 x1080 HD as is all our other HD content."
Which rather begs the question how their other content originated. If she's accurate then it can't be HDCAM - not good enough at 1440x1080, not DVCProHD, that's less still at 1280x1080. So maybe the question is what camera and format does one need to shoot on to get it labelled same as "all our other HD content."?

If people call to inquire about the footage and she talks to them as she has to Michael than she is discouraging sales. Also XDCAM digital files does not differentiate between Standard Def XDCAM and HD (or EX) and one may very well mistake the footage for lower res 16:9 SD.

Craig, obviously she is wrong in her assessment of the footage - but so long as the actual footage is listed as "XDCAM digital files" on their website (Michael didn't suggest that it was labelled "HDV" or "less than 1080p" on the website) then I don't think it should be a problem in terms of potential clients being put off by the website's categorization of the footage.

My point is that the woman from the stock agency can be as ignorant as she likes so long as the footage is listed correctly (which it appears to be).