Mike...

I suspect your plate is pretty full. Nevertheless, I would appreciate hearing whether you think this has merit.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/non-linear-editing-pc/140068-video-signal-measurement-standardization.html
Thanx,
Bill R.

Dear Bill,

Mike is with his family for the holidays.

I will send him an email, notifying him of your post.

The device certainly sound like something we could do, but our plate is full at this time.

Thanx, Dan.
Merry Xmas.

Hi Bill-

Sorry for the slow reply. I have been thinking about your request. Yes, it has plenty of merit. I am thinking about how this functionality could be included in the current or future version of our recorders. I think the best design would integrate this capability (to another device, like a recorder), rather than carrying around a separate box, but would like your thoughts.

Mike Schell

Mike...

thanx for taking the time to look at this. i would think there's great added value to be able to look at the waveform, histogram and color channel vectors of a signal stream being captured. but, considering the whole workflow, capture is only a part of the process. So, writing to a C-D capture device like nano-flash would, at the least, guarantee that the captured signal is "legal". But, after download to the NLE, and CC, FX, etc, the stream will be sent(exported) on its way to the final delivery media(DVD, Bluray, film, etc.). After it leaves the NLE, how are the levels tracked if this device isn't portable? If a C-D recorder becomes a distribution device, of course, then my question is answered, however, I think we're quite a long ways from nano-flash, for example, to be a distribution device.

Hi Bill-
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, adding these color and level measurements to the incoming HD-SDI stream would be a great feature to our recorders. I am still considering how this could be incorporated.

I do think that Compact Flash could become a deliverable format, assuming the client (a TV station for example) has a nanoFlash for playback. Alternatively, since all TV video is stored on a server in MPEG2 or MPEG4, the nanoFlash or Flash XDR could be used to compress the final video to the desired broadcast bitrate (18 Mbps, for example) and a MXF file could be delivered to the TV station for direct upload to the server. The MXF file could be delivered via CF card to optical media.

On the other hand, high end productions would require a 100Mbps file and therefore need a nanoFlash for playback. Given the relative costs of the nanoFlash compared to HDCAM or HDCAM SR rental, this is not a far out scenario.

I've been playing with Vidscope, a software set of scopes by a company called Hamlet, in Great Britain. It's quite adequate and worth the look see, if for no other reason than to see how software can be implemented. There's a demo version available from the US distributor, here:
Sencore | VidScope TV Monitoring and Signal Analysis Software (http://www.sencore.com/products/hamlet-video-solutions/79)

In order to take on the the HDCAM SR boys, how about creating a 10 bit 160 mbs Long Gop mastering option. My tests have shown that the best workflow for maintaining quality is to 1. Shoot 8 bit 100 Mbps Long GOP. 2. Edit and grade 10 bit Uncompressed (the difference between 8 bit grading and 10 bit grading is huge). 3. And then transfer the final edit via HD-SDI 10 bit to HDCAM SR. This is the expensive part.

However if if there was a 10 bit 160 Mbps Long Gop mastering format. This would be very useful. I don't know if this is technically possible. If it is. This could really take on HDCAM SR.

In order to take on the the HDCAM SR boys, how about creating a 10 bit 160 mbs Long Gop mastering option. My tests have shown that the best workflow for maintaining quality is to:

1. Shoot 8 bit 100 Mbps Long GOP.

2. Edit and grade 10 bit Uncompressed (the difference between 8 bit grading and 10 bit grading is huge).

3. And then transfer the final edit via HD-SDI 10 bit to HDCAM SR. This is the expensive part.

However if if there was a 10 bit 160 Mbps Long Gop mastering format. This would be very useful. I don't know if this is technically possible. If it is. This could really take on HDCAM SR.

Dear Steve,

I completely agree with your items 1, 2 and 3.

We are working to ensure that number 3 is as easy and reasonable as possible.

It is our intention to work with the leading conversion/transfer houses so that Flash XDR footage is widely accepted as a source for conversion to another format.

If you have HD-SDI output on your Non-Linear Editing computer, consider doing the following. (Please forgive me if this is already obvious.)

1. Ingest your Flash XDR footage from the CompactFlash Cards
(transfer the files to your computer using a CompactFlash card reader, or via HD-SDI).

2. Edit and color correct your footage.

3. Send your completed project out through the HD-SDI to the Flash, recording at 100 Mbps, to CompactFlash cards.

4. Transfer your project to the format of your choice, using a Flash XDR to play your completed project through the HD-SDI output to the tape deck/other media of your choosing via HD-SDI. Of course, this may be done off-site.

If you have a conversion/transfer house in mind, please let us know. We want to work with them to ensure that they have Flash XDR's or nanoFlashes.

All bells and whistles aside, I don't care much for enhancements that delay hardware delivery. I'm so excited about a delivery of nano-flash, my suggestion is to get the hardware out the door and deal with people's wish list later.

In order to take on the the HDCAM SR boys, how about creating a 10 bit 160 mbs Long Gop mastering option. My tests have shown that the best workflow for maintaining quality is to 1. Shoot 8 bit 100 Mbps Long GOP. 2. Edit and grade 10 bit Uncompressed (the difference between 8 bit grading and 10 bit grading is huge). 3. And then transfer the final edit via HD-SDI 10 bit to HDCAM SR. This is the expensive part.

However if if there was a 10 bit 160 Mbps Long Gop mastering format. This would be very useful. I don't know if this is technically possible. If it is. This could really take on HDCAM SR.

Hi Steve-
Thanks for the recommendations. Just to be clear, I'm sure in an ideal world you would like to acquire in 10-bit and edit/grade in 10-bit. But, from your comments, it seems that acquiring in 8-bit is not that critical compared to editing and grading in 10-bit. If so, can you shed some light on the difference?

Currently we don't have 10-bit support on the nanoFlash, but we do have some creative engineers...

Thanks-

All bells and whistles aside, I don't care much for enhancements that delay hardware delivery. I'm so excited about a delivery of nano-flash, my suggestion is to get the hardware out the door and deal with people's wish list later.

Hi Bill-
We're working on nanoFlash at a much greater pace now that we have Dan on board to help with sales/marketing and with the improvements in the XDR code base, which transfer directly over to nanoFlash (with some minor changes).

Hi Mike
My observations are based on playing around in FCP. I get much better (cleaner) results when grading in 10 bit than I do using 8 bit, even though the original footage is 8 bit.

I not not sure of the technical reasons for this, but the results do speak for themselves.

Dear Steve,

We are in full agreement with your findings.

Personally, I have not run side-by-side tests, but I feel that you are on solid technical ground when you say the footage looks better when graded in 10-bit internally.

I agree I have found the same that grading in 10bit offers better results.