I don't think Douglas was being testy, he's more likely being factual.

You cannot say "filmaker" and "don't obsess over every detail" in the same sentence. It's not natural. Even your arguement here is testomony to obsessing over details.

What I don't get is that you are willing to become a member of an elite club, but don't want to pay the entrance fee.

Time after time I read posts about folks whom want and think that 24p on ANY camera will make them a filmaker. They get the cheapest cam they can afford, and then nickle and dime themselves to eternity trying to make it work. When after adding up the receipts and sweat equity in the end, they should have just paid the extra for the real deal to begin with.

I would tend to think that "passionate" film makers know this and go the extra mile, obsessing over the details to get the right tools for the job. I'm sorry but your point is not valid.

People seemed obsessed with acquiring at higher resolutions and not lower compression. For any decent posting, less compression is better, much better. The only I see this highly compressed format even leaking into the pro world will be via a camera that WILL shoot less compression that has the AVCHD compression as an option in emergency or remote field situations, say an HVX-200a that will allow the option to P2 cards as an alternative to DVCproHD.



ash =o)

Let's not forget that there will also be AVC Intra, maybe it isn't lower compression but at least it's friendlier, i.e. intra-frame instead of GOP based.

At the Apple/Sony XDCAM HD seminar in Dallas, a question was asked about the forthcoming AVCHD and the Sony rep said pointblank, "AVCHD is a consumer format." Those were the first words out of his mouth when the phrase AVCHD was mentioned. So that's not just DSE's claim, it's Sony's official stance also. Mike Curtis of HD for Indies was also present and can verify what I just said. Come to think of it, he might have been the one that posed the question.

-gb-

I don't obsess over the technology. Making films on the other hand... and even then only up to a point.

'sigh' ...again my point was that I don't think AVCHD is set up as strictly a consumer format. It doesn't matter if Sony is treating it as such.

First of all, I own both a DVX and an XL2, so that isn't even remotely what I was talking about, but yeah, I don't think you should have to pay some high price to be in some "elite" club. There are plenty of young filmakers out there with little money that would probably appreciate a 24p camera in a lower price bracket. I hated the look of video when I first started making films, but it's all that was available at the time.The technology is here, it can be done. It just isn't being done and I merely made some observations as to why.

The idea of a camera like the DVX is to democratize filmmaking and level the playing field. I just wish these companies would take it a step further.

Granted, 24p does not make you a good filmmaker, but it does make your works look more like film, thus making people a little more accepting of said films, thus giving your film a chance of wider audience. And don't even give me that cr@p about it's only the story that counts when I see filmmakers (good and bad ones) everyday stressing how professional their films look.

Why even put quasi frame modes (i.e. CineFrame, Pro-Cinema, Frame Mode, etc...) in cameras like the HC1, HC3, GS400/500, etc... if consumers don't want a filmic look? The idea that consumers and enthusiasts don't want this sort of thing is ridiculous when there are a number of cameras in the sub $2K category that attempt to mimic the look of film. I'll bet you money that at least one of these Sony cameras have some version of Cineframe mode. Why not not just go a little further and actually give the consumer/enthusiast 24p? Gee, could it be that some people might not buy the over $3k cameras any longer? Let's not forget Panasonic helped develop the AVCHD codec. Maybe Sony is trying to save the almighty dollar by using the same CMOS chip in every camera they make? The idea that consumers don't want 24p rings a little false to me. Do you think they aren't putting these faux film modes in these cameras just because the designers haven't got anything better to do.

Elitism and snobbery bore me to tears. Thinking that it's perfectly acceptable for 24p cameras to be only available to those who can afford thousands of dollars is offensive to me.

Tony I'm not sure that you appreciate just how far these companies have already taken the democratization of filmmaking... just a few short years ago, a camcorder like the DVX for under $4,000 or an HD camera under $10,000 was just a pipe dream. Frankly, speaking in relative terms, I'm amazed at just how *inexpensive* this gear is these days. While you choose to be offended about those prices, as for myself I'm grateful that we can have so much for so little. If these manufacturers could sell these things for $100, don't you think they would? And yet I'll bet there will still be some people complaining about the pricing even then.

The bang-for-buck return on the current $4,000 to $10,000 camera range is nothing short of revolutionary, and certainly does not shut out anyone who has the passion, drive and ambition to actualize their dreams.

Chris,

I'm not offended at the prices per se. Granted I think the prices are moving a little slow for my tastes. I was merely offended at the idea that it should be an "elite" club. That you can only achieve by having money. Hey, I just remember what it was like being a 14 year old kid trying to make films and absolutely hating the look of video. I am grateful, but I'm also a working man that can afford these cameras. Some people can't.

Obviously there is a market for sub $2k cameras to have a filmic look.

I think what Peter meant when he said that filmmaking is an elite club, has more to do with the fact that many try but few succeed. Elite not meaning snobbery but instead being successful in the face of a variety of seemingly insurmountable odds, as opposed to those who try at it and fail for any number of reasons spanning a wide range of circumstances.

Nobody needs a camera or a lot of money to be a filmmaker... all anybody needs in order to become a filmmaker is a business card, a telephone and people skills.

True...but it doesn't hurt either. I personally needed a Canon 8mm camcorder, my friends, and the woods behind my house. :)

The thing is, it's not up to Sony to decide that. It's up to the MARKET to decide.

What did they say about S-VHS? "It's a consumer format." Consumers never adopted it, but a whole lot of pros shot a lot of footage on AG-456's.

What did they say about DV? "It's a consumer format." Didn't stop a whole lot of pros from adopting the VX1000, and then cameras like the DV500, DVX, and anything related to DVCAM (which is, let's not forget, fundamentally identical to the "consumer format" but for tape speed).

What did they say about HDV? "It's a consumer format." Didn't stop the Z1 and HD100 and XLH1 from being introduced and adopted by some who find that "consumer format" enough for them.

So -- again, I must pose the question, for those who insist that this is targeted and sentenced to be "consumer only": if HDV is "good enough" for pros, why on earth wouldn't you rather have AVC-HD?

Let's go through it again:
HDV = 1440x1080, AVC-HD = 1920x1080
HDV = 4:2:0, AVC-HD = 4:2:0
HDV = long-GOP, AVC-HD = long-GOP
HDV = compressed MPEG-1 Layer 2 audio, AVC-HD = uncompressed 7.1 channels of 48khz 16-bit audio
HDV = compressed MPEG-1 Layer 2 audio, AVC-HD = 5.1 channels of Dolby Digital AC-3 audio
HDV = no support for 24p, AVC-HD has support for all the same resolutions and formats as HDV, plus 24p in both 720 and 1080

HDV = 19 or 25 megabits of MPEG-2. AVC-HD = 18 (and perhaps 24?) megabits of H.264, which is 2.25 to 2.5 times more efficient than MPEG-2 at equivalent bitrate (so, spoken in terms of MPEG-2, that would be like having somewhere between 40 and 60 megabits of MPEG-2).

HDV = tape-based, AVC-HD = tapeless (to hard disk, SD card, or mini-DVD)
HDV = largely incompatible between manufacturers, AVC-HD should be 100% cross-compatible among all manufacturers.

The way I read that chart, in the 9 categories, AVC-HD is the clear winner in 7, and they tie in 2.

There's a world of difference between saying that AVC-HD is a "CONSUMER FORMAT" and saying that the existing Sony products are "consumer products." Yes the ones Sony announced are aimed squarely at consumers and only consumers. But the AVC-HD format appears (on paper) to be better in almost every conceivable way than HDV, and the only ways that it's not better, it's at least a match. Not inferior at all. So if HDV is "good enough" for some pros, why wouldn't AVC-HD be better?

Stick a great camera head in front of AVC-HD, and that same great camera head in front of HDV, and you should get better results from the AVC-HD format. Just like you could stick a $299 Sharp Viewcam on the front of a DV deck, or a Sony DSR450 or SDX900 recording to DV. DV may be a "consumer format" but an SDX900 recording DV is by no means a "consumer camera", and the format certainly holds up plenty well.

I don't doubt that these little AVC-HD cameras won't hold up as compared to an FX1. But an AVC-HD FX2 would be substantially better than an HDV FX1, of that I have no doubt.

It just remains to be seen if the manufacturers will build a product that takes advantage of the format's potential.

Unless the license is somewhere near $3K what is the point of $3K, what is the actual license cost, and what is it for, true 24p, or some 24p lookalike? The reality is that until enough HDTV's get sold, there is no real use for 24p for consumers. Until the majority of sets are HD that support 24p modes, then it might not appear outside prosumer equipment.

I consider HDV a consumer format, and as such they offer prosumer models that professionals and serious users use. The same may happen with AVCHD one day, otherwise they might as well stick to 12 and 15mb/s.

Still, I would like to see what Steve Mullen has to say, he has been around and probably knows a bit about what JVC is upto with it's HDD HD camera (that they announced to dealers but didn't release).

Re-edit:

I think also that the Sony rep might have been reflecting an official opinion of where AVCHD is being targeted for the present future. Despite what we may think here, it is not in our hands, but in the manufacturers' hands.

I agree one million percent. I mean even in the end if they never end up taking AVCHD farther than basic consumer cameras, people would be crazy not to at least admit that that makes no sense.

Anyone that says:
"Prosumer cameras should be HDV and consumer cameras should be AVCHD"
Would be crazy, what would be the reasoning behind that? The format has more technical potential than HDV even if it's never realized.

In large business this is a common strategy, if you sell yesterdays product forever people stop buying and you go broke (unless it's food etc). They lower cost to keep demand up but this lowers profit. To raise cost and profit up, and start the cycle again, they introduce new products, and hold the cost up as long as it provides the best return. It is as much about what you are prepared to pay as it is about cost/profit. This is the sort of supply and demand modeling that big business had been using most of last century. If you look at the HD prosumer equipment all it did was go into similar price categories to what SD prosumer started out in (except for the HD1/10).

I read an article about small camcorder/still manufacturers eating into the market and forcing the camcorder manufacturers to drop pricing (those sub-$100 solid sate consumer cameras that consumers buy). They must be rubbing their hands together, as they realise they can offer HD level cameras at SD prices.

I have been involved around the consumer electronics area for sometime, and what I am about to say does not include excessive salaries and top heavy infrastructure and waste of some big companies. I am familiar with some of the costing, and consider this. The DVCPRO/HD standard was based off the idea of stringing a number of SD compression units together to make 50-100Mb/s. If these sub $100 camera manufacturers wanted to they could string four 2-6mb/s Mpeg4 SD codec chips together to make a 720p camera, or more for 1080p. The chips would be a fraction of the price of the camera. It is possible, I would not like to see the results, unless it was done very well, but it is possible. Will it happen, maybe not, because the whole industry is aimed towards limiting features to price, so as not to eat into higher profits, but it is possible. Not so much a conspiracy, just business.

I have though about synchronising cheap cameras together to get HD, but the Sanyo HD1's price rather puts water on that in most cases.

I agree, I think AVCHD at 24mb/s would be good enough for TV, and at the low end for cinema, but the Pana 100Mb/s 10bit AVC Intra as possibly in the sweet spot, with cineform and lossless above it.

1/Some comparative info that i think might be usefull

HC3 Poids : 500 g
Dimensions : 82 x 78 x 139 mm
CMOS Super HAD 2 103 000 pixels

HC1 Poids : 680 g
Dimensions : 71 x 94 x 188 mm
CMOS Super HAD 2 969 000 pixels

SR1 Poids 720g
Dimensions 78×84×165mm
"number of entire pixels" 2 100 000 pixels

HC1 slimmer, longer, handier ?, somewhat better defined ??
HC3 Lighter but Bulkier, shorter

2/ According to the general page presenting theSR1

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...feature01.html

the SR1 has indeed a USB connexion supporting stils and the video stream, as well as the announced HDMI ,Component and S outputs. But the HiRes pic sof the SR1 do not show the usb plug ?? and what about a Firewire ?? No firewire in a sony product ??

You said it better than I Chris. It's a business.

Once again... why is there even talk of compressed formats? ONLY because of bandwidth and storage issues. How can anyone argue that professional acquisition will head the OTHER direction, meaning towards LESS compression. People keep talking of higher resolution and I say that is but a PART of the issue. I bet anyone, any amount of money that acquisition in the professional world (broadcast/film) will head toward uncompressed. Delivery will always look to compression because of bandwidth limitations and bandwidth cost money.

Need some examples... look at the world of pro audio and pro photography. Almost every professional digital camera has a RAW option and most retail CDs are recorded in 24-bit 96k... these are LESS compresssed than just a few years ago...



ash =o)

Isn't this entire DV Info Net forum built up on people using consumer formats for pro results? Where is the Varicam forum? Where is the F950 forum? I have to agree with Barry Green here. We for the most part are all using something that uses a consumer format. The fact that 24p is in the specs might mean at some point somebody will have it. 24p wasn't in the HDV specs but that didn't stop JVC and Canon. Granted the format is a mess because of the way they did it but now with AVCHD the specs are there. Why put 24p in the specs? Is it only to support a true 24p recording mode for cineframe so a 3-2 pulldown doesn't have to be added? The result would still be jerky but you wouldn't have to worry about pulldown. If a 24p license costs too much then just do what Canon did with 24F. If pros swear by it for HDV it would look even better with AVCHD.

Though a possibility, a Panasonic-developed 100-Mbps, 10-bit AVC Intra format is not a certainty -- while they haven't officially ruled it out, they haven't confirmed it, either. But if one were developed, why would Cineform be better, given that no one knows this as-yet hypothetical AVC Intra format's specs, let alone seen footage produced in it?

As a side note, if I were Panasonic, I wouldn't stop at 100 Mbps -- I'd go to 200 Mbps.

The reason DV became a prosumer and professional format is solely becaue networks adopted it. Barry says it was aimed at consumers which in general is true but the DV cam really exploded and created the "prosumer" segent. Before that, there was Hi8 and S-VHS but they saw very limited penetration. MTV and others began adopting DV and eventually almost everyone did. I do not see the same happening to a highly compressed format. Several networks are already anti-HDV and even HVX and require XDCAMs to be shot at the highest quality. The word "professional" is completely subjective but I refer to it as broadcast, corporate and film work. I just dont see a big adoption of super compressed acquisition with prices the way they are. DV made sense because it was a FRACTION of the cost of a Betacam. With so many cameras already under $10K, the broadcast world just doesnt care if it goes lower.

As far as evening the playing field or democracy, it has almost nothing to do with cameras and never has. I could could GIVE 99.99% of indie film makers a 35mm camera and all the free film they could use and most would not get their movie distributed. Script, ACTORS, crew and production values is the ticket, not a camera.




ash =o)

Licensing 24p! Can anyone "own" a frame rate? I'l just make mine 23.99999999999p and avoid all that. That's like licensing 60Hz AC power!

Most topics have been well covered, but I question the advantage of ever using uncompressed anything. I can get a very nice 7 megapixel picture compressed to less than 3 MB. That's about what a ONE megapixel UNcompressed image takes. Which way would YOU want your 3MB used? Want 720p60 uncompressed? I'll compress my 2000p60 to the same data rate and get a BETTER picture.

The careful use of limited compression can always help - even in production. Don't kid yourself, there will always be pressures for the most efficient use of transmission and storage capabilities.

I agree with you whole heartedly. In one of the linked interviews it was expressly said that it had DVCPROHD quality at 50mb/s, and double at double that rate (100Mb/s). No other rate is mentioned, but I imagine that the really expensive line of cameras eventually may have 200-600Mb/s.

There is a bottom line in quality, lossless. Lossless tends to peak out on most codecs at around 2:1 on average, the better codecs can go to 3:1 on average (though there are reports on higher rates then this on some codecs). H264 lossless (they have developed this, I posted a link to a table of this in the other thread) would likely be 2:1 to 3:1 as with most codecs. So I can calculate approx lossless and visually lossless from that. H264 is aimed at quality at high compression, so I don't assume it is the best for lossless. Taking DVCPROHD as an indication of minimal broadcast quality, and double that for 100MB/s H264, pretty much puts you in a sweet spot in broadcast acquisition standards, but I do not image it is visually lossless. This gives you an indication of relative quality at the bottom and top ends, from which you can estimate. Wait to see. (I think the normal cineform sample I have seen looks sufficiently soft myself, the cineform bayer looks sharper (though I have to visually confirm) probably because of that way it has to work to ensure bayer accuracy).

David,

Try 25p, run slower, and adjust the pitch through a very good sound process (with a big processing resolution to avoid introducing sound errors).

Given that almost nothing is delivered to viewers without being processed digitally these days, it shouldn't be too hard to make a digital video camera which delivers "film-like" results. And considering most consumers are happy with SD DVDs at 720x480 resolution with 4:2:0 color, how much better than that do we need to record to make film irrelevant? I'd guess the coming round of moderately-compressed HD cameras will bring us very close to looking like film at prices mere mortals can afford, so this debate should be about over. Does anyone here shoot film for anything now?

Less than ten years ago many professional photographers told me they'd never take digital photography seriously; today even National Geographic is going digital. Film is on its way out for both photos and video except for the most esoteric purposes. Good riddance, too: film is environmentally unfriendly and difficult to preserve.

Digital all the way Kevin. No more banks of slides, 8x10 polaroids, scans, etc. etc (of course, I miss those dark room chemicals, mmmmm). Just shoot, qualify during capture, edit, and deliver on disk -same day, too.

Do you do any CC or compositing? Sorry but even codecs like DVCproHD start to fall off pretty fast. I bet I could show most people uncompressed SD and it would look better than highly compressed HD. Define "better" picture? Do you mean more resolution because people mistakenly think that means better picture when in many cases, it does not.



ash =o)

YOu proved my point... all thes "I will never go digital" guys are shooting RAW, not compressed... with more and more movies going thru extensive CC and post compositing, LESS compression will be the goal for ACQUISITION.



ash =o)

There is really no way to compare the two. It makes sense for a still image to be raw because people tend to stare at it for a given length of time. More attention is put on the contents and image quality of that one image. The delivery medium is also different in this case. Many times the photo may go through many changes and end up printed very large in a magazine or a large photograph. Artifacts would show up very fast in this situation. The other major reason to shoot raw still images is because they can. It is something that is no problem at all in terms of current technology. It make take more cards but shooting raw is no problem at all.

Thinking of shooting HD video uncompressed is rather insane. Anybody who thinks this will happen is living in a dream world. Even uncompressed SD is expensive. Since every single frame isn't studied for long periods of time the level of compression isn't as important as it is with still images. The final medium for viewing isn't as high of a standard as with photography. Most consumers will never ever see what uncompressed HD or even SD looks like. Where with photography consumers get to see a perfect version all the time.

Sorry that is a poor argument, are you aware that many post houses are already editing in uncompressed SD? Motion makes artifacting WORSE, it does not mask it. While it may be some time before there is true uncompressed acquisition, I do not think for one second the move will be towards MORE compression and that is what we are talking about with these cameras. I am not sure how you guys work but have you seen A/B footage from a compressed format that has been CCed, had graphics added, etc. etc.? Then squeeze that thru some compression for broadcast and YUCK. There is a reason MOST networks wont take compressed acquisition for anything but b-roll or SOME reality TV. Again, look at the music world. How many albums are being tracked by recording in MP3 format? NONE... the more compressed the delivery of music has become, the LESS compressed the acquisition has become. It only makes sense because compression equals degradation.

To further prove my point, check out the Andromeda project on the DVX. Same camera head, just a different delivery and recording method and VASTLY improved results. How did they get it? By bypassing the compression.

http://www.reel-stream.com/andromeda.php


ash =o)

I took a look at this post to see the discussion on the HDR-UX1 and HDR-SR1 AVCHD camcorders but what I see here seems to be... er... um... well, I can't really tell. :-\

You're right, John, it has gone way off topic and for that I apologize. I'll try to figure out where the split should be and move all this stuff to a separate discussion. Sorry about that,

Thank goodness, I was almost going to post on that myself last night, I haven't seen anything quiet like this either (except in that flash drive thread, but that kept relatively on topic). Important, heated, discussion for another thread.

But to contribute to the other thread, DVD looks a lot less desirable when viewed on a DVD resolution large screen from a closer seating distance. I did some calculations once, and concluded what people thought they were seeing, was equivalent to around 19Mb/s or so (or was that 15mb/s) Mpeg2 SD. Coincidentally the same data rate as the JVC PD1 (SD equivalent of the HD1/10) . These cameras are known for their SD image quality.

I think I'll just change the thread title to reflect the real topic here.

First of all HDCAM and DVCPROHD are both still compressed. DVCPRHD is well known to have issues with color correction and multiple effects. My whole point is that the equipment needs for still photography and audio are much much less than what they are for video. We do raw photos because we can with no problem at all. We can do high quality 24 bit audio because we can and it doesn't really hurt anything in terms of equipment. Even HDCAM SR is slightly compressed and that is about as close as we may ever get to uncompressed HD shooting. The Andromeda is a bad example because this needs to be tied to a computer. This may work for a locked down set for a high budget production but it is not very practical for other types of shooting.

You get me wrong. I would love to have less compression. Having studied visual effects in college I would love for everything to be 12 bit RGB but the fact is that I just do not see it coming yet. Shooting uncompressed or even close to uncompressed video on the go is almost impossible right now. Recording uncompressed audio or still images is not hard at all.

While many places are editing uncompressed SD chances are it didn't start out as that. Most high end SD video is either DVCPRO50 or digibeta. This means it is a compressed 50 mbit video and not uncompressed. Even with SD it is very hard to shoot uncompressed video because it has too much bandwidth.

Even though AVCHD has a lower bandwidth meaning higher compression in theory it should look much better than HDV which means hopefully much higher quality.

Again I do agree with you that I wish we could have less compression for a decent price. The only thing I was trying to point out is why it is easier with photos and audio to go uncompressed as a standard.

For the record, as of NAB 2006, 24p is part of the HDV spec. 24p on the HD100, 110, etc.; 24f in the Canon XL H1, and 24p in the XDCAM HD, which is similar to HDV.

heath

ps-Link to the new HDV specifications:

http://www.hdv-info.org/HDVSpecifications.pdf

I should have posted this over in that flash drive thread, but here it is. IBM is planning 100GB SD card (can go bigger, and make an array for higher data rates):

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/.../vettiger.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=1143&tag=nl.e539
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...11_162423.html

As you can see (apart from the 3.2TB holographic disk plans from Toshiba, I think) lossless/higher data rate portable recording is soon to be viable within the coming year or so.

I never said current formats are not compressed, I said future PROFESSIONAL ACQUISITION formats will head towards less compression.



ash =o)

Yes and no.

Obviously professionals prefer less compression, that part would never be in doubt. But uncompressed? That's probably quite a ways away. Even HDCAM-SR uses MPEG-4 compression (at 440 megabits per second, so somewhere around 4:1 compression?)

AVC-HD isn't about being a "professional" format, but I do think it'll be adopted by professionals just like DV was. DV was never "intended" to be a professional format, but it undoubtedly was heavily adopted by professionals at all levels. I expect AVC-HD will garner similar acceptance (depending on the type of product the manufacturers produce!) And yes, compression is absolutely integral to any sort of functional workflow right now. With DVCPRO-HD I could have multiple streams of 1080 high-def, including transitions, running on my G5 in realtime, off the internal hard disk (no RAID necessary.) That simply could not happen with uncompressed at this stage of the game.

Less-compressed is of course better; that's why Sony developed MPEG-IMX (using I-frame-only) and Panasonic is going with AVC-Intra (50 megabits -- and perhaps more -- of I-frame-only) in their higher-end professional gear. And as capacities increase I expect that they will introduce milder and milder forms of compression.

But 50 megabits still represents a compression ratio of somewhere around 30 to one (and that's based on 8-bit, rather than 10-bit, and full-raster obviously).

Someday, yes, when capacity and bandwidth and processor capabilities all allow for it, uncompressed will be the way we trend. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon. To work with this footage in today's environment, and today's workflow, and today's IT capabilities, heavy compression will continue to be the order of the day for the foreseeable future.

It depends on how you define professional... I always say there will be some apps that will prefer convenience over quality. I mean if you are an ENG guy shooting a car accident, fire, football game, etc. I dont think it matters, those guys surely are pros in that they get paid to shoot but I am more talking about stuff that gets broadcast, CCed, run thru a post house, etc. I cant imagine shooting a highly compressed format for a music video, etc.

Barry you are talking about it being adopted because it can help overcome some of the technological limitations but what about when those limitations are overcome? That is my entire point, HDV, DVCproHD, etc. etc. etc. are really there not because they are the best, but because they are the best within the affordable technical specs. I just dont see a big move towards more compression, especially when the big networks are currently shunning such...



ash =o)