I don't usually get involved in religious discussions (arguments?), but I can't help myself sometimes.

I'm the Senior Video Engineer for all the Metropolitan Opera Presents telecasts. We send 1080i/5.1 to over a thousand theaters around the world, live, every couple of weeks. It's sent 8-bit compressed. Not only has the quality of the viewing been praised by every single review, but we just won an emmy award for it. I've also shot a number of shows in video for theatrical release, including a series of outdoor concerts in HiDef 3D shot this summer.

The extra two bits provide nothing to speak of except for a higher signal to noise ratio. The best state of the art video camera doesn't come close to the signal to noise ratio of 8-bit. (And ONE of my cameras costs over a hundred grand). Editing/grading/keying is another story, as you're performing mathematical changes to the bits. So you acquire in 8-bit and you add two bits (of zero) to make it 10-bit in the editor. That way the manipulations don't truncate some of the low bit info in the 8-bits you acquired.

Sometimes I want to just yell "HEY those of us that work in the real world really think these esoteric discussions are no different from the ones about needing $750 power cords for your audio amplifier".

But I try to remind myself I don't know everything, and that my needs aren't necessarily the same as others needs. I understand striving for the very best quality, even if others can't see it, but recording 10-bit uncompressed in the field strikes me as having far more down sides than up sides.

Billy

At least in my part of the woods, the customer is always right.

Not so much a religion as keeping one's options open.

if I could just convince the 10 bit purists to read, re-read and actually understand this, it would short circuit a lot of this heated discussion.

i'd like to do a double blind study of my own where the 10 bit purists are forced to reveal in an A/B comparison (AT VIEWING DISTANCE) of which footage was acquired 10 bit uncompressed and which which an 8 bit compressed, like a Nano.

I certainly don't care what anybody else thinks about this topic as we all have our own worlds with clients calling the format shots.

I certainly don't do uncompressed for my health. My clients REQUIRE it. To refuse simply makes them go to someone who will.

If you want 10bit, solutions are well known.

If 8bit will work, you're in the right place.


Can't we all get along and just say "go with what floats your boat?"

Then we can get off this 8/10 RAMBLE (look how many pages are devoted to this "discussion") and get back on the subject at hand: CD's stellar products.

...Hi Steve:
It is precisely because the web formats are so relatively low quality, that one must begin with as high a resolution possible with low noise, so that the resulting encoded web video looks as prestine as it possibly can.

I agree Daniel. The client doesn't know any better and it's not necessarily our job to educate them. I'll gladly shoot and post uncompressed for anyone willing to pay for it. I'll use Zeiss lenses or whatever else they want if they're willing to pay for it.

But what I choose to own and use for my own projects will more closely reflect the technology that I consider to be "good enough". Bang for my buck is the most important thing for me and the CD products are absolutely exceeding in that regard.

However, I'm still pursuing an uncompressed capture system for myself. Not to contribute to the 8 vs. 10 bit discussion but more to use my camera's dual link SDI and 4:4:4 Filmstream output.

If you all agree that 4:2:2 is much better than 4:2:0, then we can also agree that 4:4:4 is even better yet.

However, even if I had a 4:4:4 capture system, I'm not planning on giving up my XDR anytime soon. This box is awesome and getting better all the time.

Agreed, Aaron.

And "even" I'll say there's such little (as in VERY) visual difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, but ask the green screen guys. There is no doubt you get a cleaner pull...yet, the average observer will never see it.

My motto: if the (end) viewer can't see it, it isn't a problem. "Good enough" is powerful medicine.

Oh Yes You Can :-) !
 

...Hi Alister: I run an Avid certified HP Workstation Laptop PC (Model nw9440). I have the nVidia Quadro graphics card ( FX1500 M but not the 256 MB version = I run a special version of this model with the 512 MB of DDR 3 on board video RAM ). My laptop runs on 4 GB of dual channel DDR 2 667 Mhz RAM together with a special version of system HDD @ 7,200 RPM. Now this baby is plugged into the special HP advanced docking station, which is equipped with Express Card *54* bus running a firewire 800 interface to a 1 TB Raid 0 array. My Avid system runs one stream of uncompressed HD already without studdering. I can do video mix downs if I need to pile on lots of lower thirds and effects, CC, etcetera.
.....A G-Raid 2 TB is enough. I will switch from FW 800 to an express 54 speed eSata interface card. No problem.
....Nope. I have already made the decision not to purchase any 64 GB CF nedia unless it's offered to me dirt cheap. I will wait for the 128 GB CF cards.
....I was thinking a couple of 500 GB Nexto DI's. Soon the CF media will be @ 100 MBps, so not too long to wait. I will learn to integrate dump times into my production workflow.
...To be able to have uncompressed I am willing to accept certain considerations.

* It doesn't really matter if your system isn't quite fast enough to playback uncompressed HD or SD anyway. You put up with the studdering for editing purposes and then copy out your completed sequence to another CF card and put that into your XDR or Nano and then play it out in realtime. No problem. If you are delivering on the web or on Blu-ray, then you export via QT Ref into your DVD authoring program or Web encoder and/or render out to Blu-ray DVD .ISO and burn baby burn. Frankly, I don't see where there's a problem Alister. (??)

Here I don't disagree with you at all. But note that your post that I responded to had nothing to do with pleasing a client, or keeping one's options open, it just said that "Uncompressed 10bit is key for big screen", which I wanted to point out was just your opinion (and that of your clients), not a fact, or based on any real world truths.

Billy

Current XDR is Way Good Enough, but Uncompressed 10 bit....
 

Hi friends:
I agree with most of what you've been saying about those 8 wonderful bits, but I was a bit surprised (Ha ! Ha ?) you folks had great difficulties seeing how or telling the difference visually between 8 or 10 bits. Man ! I can clearly see the difference in a big screen projection or on a Sony HD Monitor (Which I have) between the color depth and digital vibrance of the signal. I really don't find this difference hard to see at all. I just shot some live action Canon 24 F @ Long GOP 140 Mbps on my XDR and it looked so close to uncompressed that it's scary-real scary, but 10 bit uncompressed 4:2:2 HD wins :-)

Coming from a film (yes that plastic stuff) background (EFX), I do not have to be sold on 10B, uncompressed (or unsold as some might want).

Yet, a feature I did in '05 was shot not only 8B (HDV), but totally messed up when the client brought it into (then not-ready-for-prime time) FCP and deinterlaced and...well, it was ugly.

Yet, it was "acceptable" in theaters, on film. Lesson learned.

All this is not unlike the 2K/4K numbers game. I have 2K in-house, and YES, if you blow the comparisons up, say, 400%, you WILL see the differences (been there done that a lot). Whether that matters on the final screen is the call.

I prefer my camera original to be as good in ALL ways as is affordable/practical. It's a tough balance sometimes, but things are getting SO much better.

Long GOP has improved dramatically recently and while I will likely remain U/10 for output to film and efx work, I will be doing a feature 100% on nanoFLASH in January.

Now, I've already overstayed my welcome on this one.

I now return you to where we started...only later.

Dear Daniel,

No, you have not overstayed your welcome.

We appreciate your insight and opinions.

Hi Daniel:
For me it's just the fact that you need to make the argument - that somehow 10 bit 4:2:2 is outlandish. This has been a standard in high end TV broadcast and digital cinema for several years now as far as image acquisition goes. If you have to shoot for effects and/or film out then you do 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 uncompressed. If you shoot doc for cable channel, then 8 bit HDV is just fine even and *Several* discovery shows have been shot this way. The XDR and Nano are a way big freakin improvement to say *the least !*

Thanks Dan.

I'm just getting out of this thread.

I earlier suggested a "sticky" for the 8/10 condition just to avoid taking up space going back and forth like this.

Hey. Aren't you supposed to be hard at work on the 1,238 improvements we have demanded?????

SLACKER!

8bit or 10bit
 

How about 12 bit!! The MegaCine recorder offers support for any format in either single link or dual link uncompressed in 4:4:4 color space, 10 and 12 bit, has genlock in and out, TC in and out, Mark it has RS232/422 for your edit system needs. Offers 90minutes of record time in 4:4:4, battery operated and best of all has Fibre Channel running at 2Gbps to transfer your files.
This recorder would probably work well with the Viper also!

Thanks
David Rogers

I think the MegaCine is just big enough to fall outside of the realm of a camera mounted recorder. Heck, the XDR is too big according to some folks (I'm fine with XDR). The MegaCine is monstrous by comparison though. Plus I've never heard of anyone who actually uses one or has seen it in the wild. Looks nice on the PDF though. Naturally, having a dual link 4:4:4 camera, I lust for boxes like that.

.....Hi David: I'm googling it ! I'm googling it now ! :-)

...The XDR should still beat the panys off of it at the uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 level, which is perfectly fine for film out. - Man ! 12 bit 4:4:4 hmmmmmmmm, let's plug this into a Sony SRW 9000 with the 9003 board stuffed in it ! :-)

8-10 or 12bit
 

Yes at about 18lbs, its portable, though not something to mount on your camera. Definitely something to be used with a bigger crew. I haven't seen one either, though its been around for about a year now. The same folks that developed the Cunima and Easylook cameras came up with this, plus they have a product similar to the NanoFlash. The downside is about an $8K purchase price. Makes the Flash XDR/Nano look very good.

David

12 bit would be interesting but my camera design already conformed to the HD-SDI standard which is 10 bit. I believe my camera takes 12 bits of linear sensor data and fits it to 10 bit log. 10 bit log can fit a lot of data, more than 16 bits linear if I recall correctly.

I wouldn't have a whole lot of use for 12 bit, since my camera outputs 10 bit log. Unless of course I'm entirely ignorant of how or why MegaCine would use 12 bits. It could be that this doesn't refer to the capability of the input signal at all.

The Mega Cine Recorder has Great Potential but Not So Hot !
 

Hi David:
OK. Read the PDF. @ $40,000.00 ! Nope ! The XDR is smaller and Dan's XDR mount for the XL H1 works great ! I don't need 4:4:4 recording capability, but it would be nice to have this choice. I'll wait for the XDR's uncompressed mode and save my sheckles.

Mark,
If I would be in your position, to get a better picture, instead of trying to record 10b Uncompress, I would try to get a better camera.
It makes the same sense to record 25Mbps Long GOPs from a Viper, Phantom, RED or so than recording 10b Uncompress from a Canon or from any SONY HDV camera.
The system are not balanced: Very good image badly recorded, or poor noisy picture perfectly recorded.
I've gave my "vote of confidence" to the MPEG-2 LGOP long ago (when I bought my EX-1) but only after reading a lot of serious literature related with MPEG-2.
I've been more than one year waiting for the NANO because I was sure about what it would add to my EX-1 picture:
If only the 10 Mbps that separates the HDV from the EX-1 footage (both 420) makes such HUGE difference, think what you can get when you multiply your data rate x4 or x6 and with a 422 sampling.
The camera have his limitations, the NANO have his limitations, but together gives a quality that to be beaten would cost you a lot, a lot of money.
Tomorrow I start a shooting for a short that will be printed in 35mm.
Rafael

Ballance or Unballanced Camera
 

HI Rafael:
Huh ? So if I understood your post correctly, then you are advancing the idea I have a mis-matched camera to use with uncompressed ? Well, if this is what you are stating, then I will humbly agree to disagree with you. First, the Canon HDV camcorders are well known for their quality optics, and the Xl H1 is well accepted for its overall image quality - even in HDV 4:2:0 tape mode.

I'm assuming you are well aware of the Xl H1's uncompressed HD-SDI output ? My experience since I purchased the Flash XDR, and used it instead of HDV tape, created a boost in overall performance of about 2 X. The results were like purchasing another camera. The XDR aforded me an instant upgrade from 1440 x 1080 thick raster HD to Full Rater HD @ 1920 x 1080. The XDR also afforded me a color space boost of 2 bits per channel from HDV's 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Once the XDR goes uncompressed, then I think the combination will be another step up. I would say right now the H1 & XDR are a perfect match for other.

I look forward to seeing some video posts of your new digital HD to film out in 35 MM. What compression and codec settings are you planning to use Rafael ? EDIT: My audio went from 16 bit to 24 bit as well.

Hi Mark,
please don't take me wrong.
My english is very short, and I know that my statement quite often sounds very hard.
You wrote:
"My experience since I purchased the Flash XDR, and used it instead of HDV tape, created a boost in overall performance of about 2 X. The results were like purchasing another camera".
That's the point Mark.
You have improved a lot thanks to the NANO.
If you want to have another leap in quality, this won't come by recording 10b Uncompress.
Will come from a better camera.
10b over 8b have BIG advantages, but more advantages will give you to change your 1/3" CCDs by a1/2" CCD or CMOS.
The post of Allister about the noise is quite revealing.
In short Mark, I'm sure that is possible to get MUCH, MUCH better picture with the EX-1 at 100Mbps, that with the Canon at 10b Uncompress.
As I've commented, tomorrow (5 AM, my God) I start to shoot a short for the Lao national Film Archive (Don't you know them:-).
My intention is to shoot 1080p24. Edit native and send to Color. From Color, out in 10b Unc or Prores.
Is possible that I pass the picture by "Video Purifier" before CC.
I go to try the "Low Noise PP" of Allister. yesterday I tried first time (I was using the one of Bill Ravens), I think looks great. I will try to test it tonight in low light conditions.
Cheers,
rafael

Well we have to agree to disagree there. I couldn't edit stuttering video, how do you judge pace, how do you work with sound or music when it's skipping and jumping?

I'm unable to play 10b Unc 1080p25 from my CalDigit eSATA RAID 0.
Not even stuttering.
No problem with 720p25.
To move a single HD 10b stream you need at least the G-Speed eSPro

The average GPU won't cope with 1080 at 10b.
Will ask you to reduce the size or the bit depth.
This will happens even with compressed codecs (Prores).
10b Uncompress is a very expensive workflow.
I can not afford it.
Rafael

Hop, Skip, and Jump ! :-)
 

...Hi Alister: I keep forgetting that not everyone edits on Avid :-) In Media Composer, you have this little resolution button in your lower Left below the timeline, which was created precisely for this problem. If the video stream you are trying to play is simply too much for your system to keep up, then you have three possible settings to select from this little button, which takes the heat off of your playback needs by dropping the playback resolution of your preview and record windows. This works well especially with uncompressed resolutions. Green/Green = top (Full) playback resolution, Yellow/Green = Half (50 % reduction) resolution, and Yellow/Yellow = Lowest resolution (75 % reduction) resolution. This works really well for video stuttering or jumping.

Alt+P will force playback in FCP to playback at fastest speed possible, allowing FCP to drop frames in order to keep up. This is best used when your system can't keep up with what you're editing.

And yes, the MegaCine seems very expensive since for that much you could get an S.two recorder which seems like a much more compact system and is proven with a number of feature films being shot on it.

And Mark, I really appreciate the fact that you're trying to get an uncompressed recorder to the market (trust me, you don't know how much), but I'd have to agree that your personal quality revelation will come from a better camera and not from 10 bit uncompressed recording.

Optics are a big deal but the overall package and what comes out of the SDI port in the end is what's most important. I'm not saying the XDR is as good a picture as you can get but you'll notice a huge difference with a better camera.

Hi Aaron,

In another post, Daniel Browning seemed to indicate that the noise and brightness difference between a 1/3" Canon and a 1/2" Sony would be about 2 f stops in favour of the Sony and whatever difference one prefers between the CMOS and CCD cameras. He also said he did not think there was any noise difference due to the sensor technology. So unless the two cameras are different in optic quality, I presume the signal from the SDI would be similar (except for the brightness factor). If the 1/3" is set to 2 f stops brighter (4 times the ISO number), the two cameras should be the same unless the optics are indeed different.

A good test of the real world results might be to set the 1/3" camera with an ISO equivalent of 4x the 1/2" camera and get a "real" 10 bit signal from each sensor size and compare it to a "real" 8 bit signal from each sensor size. That would yield 2 results from each camera to tell the tale and make the comparisons.

If Daniel is correct, then in practical terms and using the signal directly from the sensor, the 1/2" camera has the advantage in low light with equal optics. With lots of light, there is no real advantage based on the sensor size.

Alan

I'll blow your mind even further with this one. In order for a 1/3" camera to produce a picture as sharp as a 1/2" sensor camera, the lens on the 1/3" system would need to have more than twice the resolving power since it's creating an image onto a much smaller area.

Yup, that's right I said it. Smaller sensors require MUCH better optics to produce a picture as sharp as a larger sensor.

Oh, and there's much more to camera processing than optics too. Assuming the SDI signal on two different cameras is anything near the same is a huge leap. There is a LOT going on between the sensor and SDI port on any given camera system.

I have Media Composer as well as FCP, premiere and vegas, all of which handle issues with decompressing differently. No matter what preview mode you use, if the system can't get the data off the disks fast enough it will skip and jump. This isn't about preview decompression or CPU performance, this is about disc performance. Simply previewing at lower resolution won't help. I really do think you are underestimating the kind of hard drive performance required for a pleasant uncompressed 10 bit edit experience. I do also agree with everyone else that quality always starts at the optics, then sensor etc. While I loved my H1, the EX is in a different class and all the uncompressed in the world won't give you the benefits of bigger sensors and better optics. The laws of physics come in to play big time on small sensors. Especially diffraction limiting on 1/3" sensors past f5.6.

Nvidia cards do 16 bpc half float just fine. Autodesk Flint/Flame/Inferno, Nuke, Digital Fusion and flipbook apps like framecycler, Rv, etc.. work with 16 bpc half images just fine in Hardware on most Nvidia cards out there. The current output is limited to 10 bpc simply because the display devices are limited to that depth but the internal processing is still at a much higher depth.

10 bit is Now Reasonable
 

Hi Alister: I'm so sorry, but I just can't accept the premise that uncompressed is outlandish. If you have two 10,000 RPM A/V rated HDD's running in a hardware Raid 0 configuration and are output via eSata, then are you suggesting these are going to studder ?
....I never suggested that going uncompressed would suddenly make my Canon 20 X stock optical zoom lens on my XL H1 any sharper than it already is. The increase in quality (And I should never have expressed it in this manner originally) is really more of a *less loss of quality* proposition. 10 Bit uncompressed gives you a sort of image degredation insurance and a greater flexibility in digital compositing, as well as a better look in transfers to 35 mm film and digital projection. Unless big screen TV's get a whole lot better than they already are, and a means of satellite and cable delivery system can be designed which provides much less video and audio compression, then shooting 10 bit uncompressed for TV broadcast is overkill. However, 10 bit uncompressed shooting as digital cinema origination is not only reasonable but absolutely justifiable. This is not to say one can't originate material for cinema film out which was shot on HDV, as movies like *The Signal* and *Crank 2:High Voltage* clearly demonstrate. Uncompressed is very demanding on a system for sure, but it's possible. I'm already playing back and editing single stream uncompressed HD on my laptop with an external FW 800 Raid 0 HDD now, and my CPU is only a Core 2 Duo 2.16 Ghz with an L 2 cache of 4 MB. This CPU is relatively slow by today's standards, but the nVidia GPU takes up the slack and off loads some of the playback demand from the CPU so it works well.

2 streams of 10 bit Uncompressed HD... YES, probably stutter with a single stream too.

How on earth you manage to edit uncompressed over firewire 800 is beyond me. Given that firewire 800's theoretical max is less than 80 MB/s and a single stream of 8 bit uncompressed is 98 MB/s even if everything was perfect there would not be sufficient bandwidth to transfer every frame in real time.

I've been working with uncompressed 10 bit HD for 4 years. I can assure you that being realistic you need at least a 4 drive setup, if not more. On paper 2 of the very best drives might just be able to sustain a single stream, but once you start filling up your array the performance will fall off very quickly. If your already working with uncompressed then you know how quickly drives fill up.

All I'm trying to say is that you seem obsessed with uncompressed, IMHO you will gain very little, if any advantage by using 10 bit uncompressed over 8 bit at 100 Mb/s or higher with your current setup. All it will do is cost a lot of money in expensive raid arrays, bigger hard drives and extra flash cards. You would be better off spending the money on improving your front end as those improvements would make a much more significant improvement to your finished productions.

Apples & Oranges
 

Hi Alister:

"All I'm trying to say is that you seem obsessed with uncompressed, IMHO you will gain very little, if any advantage by using 10 bit uncompressed over 8 bit at 100 Mb/s or higher with your current setup. All it will do is cost a lot of money in expensive raid arrays, bigger hard drives and extra flash cards. You would be better off spending the money on improving your front end as those improvements would make a much more significant improvement to your finished productions."

..............You're kidding right ? Alister, I'm not obsessed with anything. IMHO I don't think you understand what I'm trying to tell you. ** I'm not suggesting uncompressed 10 bit for anything other than digital Cinema origination, and as a prestine source for deep compression web video !**

..............Once again I'm not using it to so much to ***Improve visual quality, as I am to secure less loss of quality.*** If you want to use Long Gop 100 Mbps to do a cinema film out, then by all means be my guest, but why would I do that when I can have full uncompressed 10 bit available to me from the same device ? I will wait for Convergent Design to release the uncompressed option firmware, and I will gladly pay to add this ****CHOICE**** to my XDR menu. Heck, I might get a client who chooses to shoot HDV for cinema film out, and I'll happily oblige him. After all, this has been done before to great success.

...............I really don't see the big deal here. (??) For anything Tv, I would never shoot above MXF 50 Mbps Long GOP (Until Avid makes Long GOP 100 Mbps + fully compatible, then I will shoot at 160 Long GOP).

...............As for my NLE Setup for Avid, I have an external FW 800 Raid 0 array consisting of 2 x 7,200 RPM drives (Not 10K RPM), and I can play back one stream (Not two !) of uncompressed HD without difficulty. The reason I can is because I use a FireWire 800 interface card which is interfaced with my laptop base station using ExpressCard 54 (Not 34) bus. My nVidia card also plays a special roll in playback. In Avid I usually don't use more than one or two streams max anyway. I prefer to perform video mixdowns of effects, titling, and color correction. If you don't believe me, then fine, there's nothing I can do about that, so I won't try to debate the issue with you any further. My setup works just fine for SD & HD uncompressed 10 bit. If you are not using Intel Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad CPU's in your system, then I highly advise you to start. These CPU's really can handle more overloading than a single Pentium 4 grade.

Have a nice day Alister :-)

P.S. 10 bit uncompressed is not outlandish and is in fact a viable option depending on your application.

C'mon Mark. It's all good fun. You know we're just gonna keep poking you until either get a new camera or make your own recorder.

I for one am poking until the new recorder is finished!

:-)

Keep Poking :-)
 

Hi Aaron:

Yeah. Well poking I don't mind that :-) I need the pokes sometimes. More like you need to hit me with a baseball bat to get the SD card recorder out ! ;-) I'm trying to arrive at a freakin budget for this Winter's expenditure. We have to make the now three circuit boards and snap them (Bend them to fit) into our little box. The box is minimalist and is almost all screen (Kinda Apple-ish). When you record the screen becomes an HD @ full raster confidence monitor. The prototype will be first plastic, then once it all fits it gets disassembled and an aluminium box is custom machined to replace it. BTW, the first version of this recorder is 10 bit uncompressed due to financial considerations. We have to decide on how much and how I will raise the big cash if we go into codec territory to offer compressed resolutions. Right now this is a big "IF" for the project. Folks like Alister will expect some sort of reliable compressed format. I originally wanted my own version of mp4, but right now I'm too cheap to pay anything extra to any consortiums unless we have to.

Sounds good Mark. If you lived closer, I'd probably be trying to help build this thing. Oh yeah, and probably be going broke doing it. Working the day job(s) in order to finance such a beast :-)

Post a motto up in your work lab: "Beholden to no one"

Gotta love self financing,... the ups and the downs.

Hi Aaron:
I wished you lived closer so we could use your amazing Viper camera ! I want to test our 4:4:4 10 bit and we will probably throw in 12 bit because the chip can do it as well with your camera.

In that case then, I'll make a promise. You get a box working and me and the Viper will fly up there to shoot it.