Hi Aaron:
OK. Cool. I will let you know. Please be patient, as we are very far from having an assembled and functional prototype to test with at this time.

A Salient Point for 10 bit in the middle of your post chain
 

Hi friends:
In an article on post production 8 vs 10 bits and uncompressed versus compression by well known and very well respected videographer and post production expert, Mr. Ron Shook states the following.....

"You might wonder, “If my post chain starts at 8bit on the tape and ends with an edit master 8bit tape, what’s the big deal?” Well, in the first place, it's not a huge deal and in many cases we will see very little practical difference. But we are far more likely to have no difference whatsoever, if the middle of the chain is **processed at a higher bit depth.** This fact points to some rules that I consider to be truisms. Once you take quality away at any point in the postproduction chain you'll never get it back. Stacking quality compromises on top of quality compromises can result in even more than simple additive quality loss. **And…, the best defense against losing quality is a bit of what on the surface might seem like overkill.**" (** Emphasis mine)

,,,,,This is the idea I've been trying to get across from the very beginning. The whole 10 bit thingy (like uncompressed) is not to increase quality, rather, it's to avoid cumulative overall reduction in quality from the post process.

I've never said 8bit start to end. I do acquisition in an affordable format but instantly convert those to higher quality files to work with. My post workflow is VERY high quality.

The reasons why many professionals start in 10 bit uncompressed
 

Hi Aaron:
Yup. In Ron Shook's article he discusses exactly at what point in the production workflow quality is taken away, and it's at the NLE stage in the journey. Ron states that if you captured your footage at a 3 to 1 compression ratio, then the only way to avoid recompression and possible concantanation is to output as uncompressed only. In fact I have seen a great deal of finished projects on cable specialty channels which show the tell tale signs of quality loss due to too much compression, and originating in 4:2:0.

1. Anemic colors

2. A perceptable granular affect across the overall image. (Looks like slight snow)

3. Slightly anemic blacks.

Ron states in his article that Discovery Channel US demands uncompressed post ! I think you can get highly excellent results using HDV origination, but you have to really pay very close attention in post and bump up to uncompressed output, as well as color correct in 10 bit. Also, Primary color correction is by no means close to enough to finesse HDV into looking right for broadcast. CC is where Avid Media Composer coloapses dramatically. FCS comes into play big time with Color. This is primary & secondary CC at its best to me. Discovery Canada is using Flash XDR's for acquisitions with Long GOP 50 Mbps. XDR's Long GOP is full raster and 4:2:2 color space, but I don't know how they are posting their show for broadcast. (??) I would like to know what their post situation is for that show.

Concantanation is an interesting subject and what causes it. This seems to be something networks fear the most.

What is BBC's Format Spec for Broadcasting ?
 

Hey Alister or Someone who lives in Great Britain and works for BBC:

Can you tell us what the broadcast specification is for video productions shot for broadcst on the BBC ?

Hi mark,
I think that you can find them in the website of Alister.
rafael

Hi Mark,

Most of the folks, including my self, are working like that. Acquire as you can and make the rest of the way in Uncompress to avoid re-compressions. This is very feasible. Acquiring directly in 10b not so much.

rafael

Hi Rafael:
Yes, even with FCP 7.0, if you capture your 8 bit Nano or XDR Long GOP compressed as an uncompressed 10 bit project (If your computer can play HD Uncompressed that is) and you edit normally with transitions, lower thirds, CC, etc, then output as uncompressed, your program should not attain any additional compression. It may not look *higher in Quality,* but it also *won't loose quality.* I am assuming this kind of approach is what is ment by Discovery Channel's stipulation for uncompressed post. - Not necessatily uncompressed image acquisition.

That article is 4 years old and things have moved on. Discovery no longer stipulate uncompressed editing. You can use DNxHD or ProRes.

Mark, I really question your understanding of codecs and compression. 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 sampling will not in itself lead to "Anemic" colours. The sampling effects the chroma resolution not the colour depth. Colours will be just as vibrant.

Over compression will not lead to a "snow" like look. What you will see is macro blocking. Take a noisy picture and over compress it and the noise is softened or even reduced by the compressor as it softens the picture to reduce the amount of data to be recorded. In bad cases or multiple compression passes the image will degrade due to concatenation of the macro blocks.

There is no reason why black should not be black in even the most highly compressed codec, even a 2 bit codec would show black as black. This is more likely down to sloppy setup somewhere in the production chain and is likely not a "fault" with the codec.

No one here is debating the advantages of using uncompressed or 10bit in post. It's the practicalities and cost implications of acquiring 10 bit uncompressed that's in question.

The BBC's official minimum standard for HD broadcast is 50 Mb/s minimum bit rate with 1/2" or larger sensors. There is much confusion at the moment as to whether you can get dispensations to use the XDCAM EX cameras at 35Mb/s. The BBC won't allow cameras with sensors smaller than 1/2" due to sensor noise and diffraction issues.

Hi Mark,
I prefer to work native in FC, whatever the stuff I work with. I need RT.
From Color some times I export in 10b (when not in Prores).
Then I send back to FC or AE.
As intermediate codec is for sure the only way to ensure no loses, but I can not dream in doing the whole way in 10b Unc. For me is OK when I'm working with a reduced amount of footage, and I don't need RT anymore.
Mark, by definition 10b can hold more of the original picture but the headaches and investment to get that theoretical better quality, do not worth the effort, from my point of view.
rafael

Concatenation
 

.....Yes I know. The reason I cited it was because it gives a good explanation of the basic points we have been discussing.
.....Ouch ! I suppose I'm having a little difficulty in understanding your reaction to uncompressed image acquisition and my reasons for wanting to have that "option" in my XDR menu. I think your point was well made about the required robustness of a system required to handle the throughput needs of uncompressed video. Since my workstation class laptop *can* already play a single stream of uncompressed, and my laptop is not that powerful, I have concluded the external HDD technology and the FW 800 & eSata interfaces must be fast enough for at least single stream work. Since I'm used to performing video mix downs on single streams of video, I can get away with uncompressed. I believe my graphics card has allot to do with this. Perhaps your setup requires a much superior interface for multiple streams of uncompressed video, which is a far more expensive post proposition.
...Yes. Of course they will be. Perhaps I should have been more clearer in my earlier posting. I wasn't saying the use of these codecs will automatically lead to crappy looking video at broadcast. I was trying to make the point that one must pay much more closer attention to how they are treated in post production so they do not suffer from the effects of broadcast concatenation.
....No but concatenation will.
...Then get over it ! If you want to play, then you must pay ! There never was an industry were this old addage applied more. There's no such thing as an economy lens or camera or NLE or post setup in the broadcast or film industries in which I work.

...Thanks for posting this info. The BBC is known for its high specifications for broadcast.

Actually I think that if you add to the end of that sentence "...compared to the amount you actually gain" then that would sum it up nicely.
I think that for many, myself included, if the results were going to so much better then we'd shoot uncompressed and deal with the consequences, but if you're only getting 1% gain then why bother?

Steve

Umm, how about the products that this forum is all about? And most of the cameras and lenses that are discussed here? And the budget that most forum users have available. I just don't get where you're coming from. I want the nano to do as much as possible too; don't get me wrong. But there are many areas in the creating and delivering of a quality end product that need improving LONG before any improvement is needed in the quality of the nano's pictures. The least expensive lens on the cameras I use costs more than your camera, your XDR, and your whole editing system put together. (I take a little liberty here, perhaps, but you should get the idea).


The nano is the bargain of the century in this business. How many of us do you think would be here if the nano started at $30,000 and went up as each feature and cable was added?


The "prosumer" (no insult meant) cameras are bargains in this business too, as is Final Cut Studio. When was the last time you priced current state of the art broadcast equipment? Broadcast cameras with lenses are well into six figures. Specialty cameras and specialty lenses are EACH into six figures. There is a reason for this; their quality is better and their sales are lower. Have you priced a Sony state of the art tape machine lately?

I don't mean to convey any animosity in this message, I just don't understand why you feel that acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed will make any worthwhile difference when you're using a camera chain that's under ten grand. (And as I said in a previous message, pages ago in this thread, once you get your footage into an editor, and are messing with the bits, it's a different story. Multiple lossy compression-decompression stages can really ruin a picture in short order, and editing in 10-bit allows you to preserve all 8 bits you acquired even if you're not subjecting the footage to multiple compress-decompress steps).

Billy

ps I've noticed a tendency here on the forum to lump 10-bit, uncompressed, and 4:4:4 into a single "entity". Each is a separate change though, and each has its particular benefit, along with its particular price to pay...

Hi Billy:
You wrote: "Umm, how about the products that this forum is all about? And most of the cameras and lenses that are discussed here? And the budget that most forum users have available. I just don't get where you're coming from. I want the nano to do as much as possible too; don't get me wrong. But there are many areas in the creating and delivering of a quality end product that need improving LONG before any improvement is needed in the quality of the nano's pictures.".........Wait a minute. *I'm not complaining about the image quality of the Nano or the XDR at all*. To the contrary, I consider my XDR to have absolutely stunning image quality, and you can check back in these threads to where I posted my initial impressions upon first use of my XDR to read for yourself if you want. What about the products in this forum ? I don't get what you don't get. (??) I don't understand why anyone would get their nose so out of joint over suggesting there was a valid application for shooting 10 bit uncompressed when there certainly is. Just because I shoot with a 1/3rd inch CCD camera means I shouldn't want to record uncompressed from its HD-SDI uncompressed output ? What the h*** ? - The implication being I wouldn't gain anything from doing so ? Really ? I simply don't believe that. I think there is value in adding the option to record uncompressed for digital cinema applications, just as their is some value in me renting a much better piece of glass to slap onto the front of my XL H1. In any case, I paid 12 Grand Canadian for my XL H1 in Montreal back in December 2007 and I certainly won't be casting it aside anytime soon. My camera isn't a six figure one, but it's a big five figures to me.

You Wrote: "The nano is the bargain of the century in this business. How many of us do you think would be here if the nano started at $30,000 and went up as each feature and cable was added?"

.....Of course it is. Where in this thread have I ever suggested it isn't ?

You Wrote: "The "prosumer" (no insult meant) cameras are bargains in this business too, as is Final Cut Studio."

.....I'm not arguing this point Billy.

You Wrote: "I don't mean to convey any animosity in this message, I just don't understand why you feel that acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed will make any worthwhile difference when you're using a camera chain that's under ten grand. "

........Well, as I stated above it wasn't under 10 K Dollars in my market. I value every piece of image quality improvement I can obtain from my investment. I will squeeze whatever I can squeeze out of it. Sometimes it is cheaper to rent a better lens for a job then to go out and purchase a better camera for a job. I can also possibly rent a better camera, but to my eye I am not unpleased with the image I get from my Canon XL H1.

You Wrote: "I just don't understand why you feel that acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed will make any worthwhile difference when you're using a camera chain that's under ten grand."

...I'm just not sure I even agree with your premise. Just because the camera is "prosumer" as you put it, does not necessarily imply it is pointless to try. You wrote that prosumer cameras were a bargain in this industry did you not ?

....I don't get what you don't get, and I don't see the big deal in this forum for asking for an "option" - read choice to shoot some high end projects in uncompressed HD. Especially digital material which will be output to 35 mm film !!!

First of all, my nose isn't out of joint; my head may be shaking slightly, and there was a definite sigh that escaped from my mouth, but I'm not at all upset.

Note what I quoted in my message that was the impetus for me to re-join the religious discussion going on.

Which was your response to Alister's pointing out:In one breath you say that there's no such thing as an economy lens or camera in your work environment, and at the same time your equipment list is ALL economy stuff... I never said (nor do I think) that the equipment you have is bad or unsuitable, but compared to the equipment I shoot with, and that features are shot with, it certainly is economy. Your equipment also happens to provide a MUCH better value for your money, and is a wise choice, but that's not what I was responding to.

You've managed to (mostly) ignore what I've been trying to say, except for where you just said:Indeed I did; and I certainly don't think trying is pointless. My point (and Alister's point, if I understand him) is that in our experience there is little (if anything) to be gained by acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed, but there is a heavy price to be paid. The time and money spent dealing with 10-bit uncompressed would better be spent on a better camera/lens, or better lighting equipment, or an on-location video engineer :), or a dozen other things. I don't begrudge you the ability to record in 10-bit uncompressed with your XDR, I just don't think it will buy you as much as you hope.

Billy

ps 10 grand isn't peanuts to me either, even when it turns out to be 15 grand Canadian.

Time for a big test !
 

HI Billy:
You Wrote : "First of all, my nose isn't out of joint; my head may be shaking slightly, and there was a definite sigh that escaped from my mouth, but I'm not at all upset."

......I wasn't refering to your nose Billy. Kindly re-read my post.

You Wrote: "In one breath you say that there's no such thing as an economy lens or camera in your work environment, and at the same time your equipment list is ALL economy stuff"

......I didn't state that at all. I was pointing to your earlier post. I statedwhat I paid for my camera, and it was implied there's no point to shooting uncompressed with it because it wasn't designed for it and was somehow too low end because it wasn't an SRW 9000 or whatever other high end camera we can pull out and address. I first disagreed that....

A) The camera was as low end as generally implied, but it is much lower end than others like yours I'm sure :-)
B) It has an uncompressed HD-SDI output which would suggest to many this camera could be a suitable candidate for uncompressed shooting - even though it has 1/3rd inch CCD sensors instead of 1/2 inch. Is it an SRW 9000 ? No. So what ? Let us give it a try and if I see no difference, then I'll move on.

....I would say your point on economy versus the very high end equipment you shoot with is relative but the results you get probably aren't ;-) Whay exactly do you have Billy ?

You Wrote: "Indeed I did; and I certainly don't think trying is pointless. My point (and Alister's point, if I understand him) is that in our experience there is little (if anything) to be gained by acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed, but there is a heavy price to be paid."

.......My apologies to you if I misunderstood what you and Alister were trying to get at. I've got a broken phone here ! ;-) Being the possible Obsessive compulsive that I may be here ;-) Alister may have a degree in psychology as well ;-) He ! He ! Ha ! Ha ! ?

* Now I want to really put what this thread to the test !* What if I went and shot a test (If for no other reason than to satisfy my own morbid curiosity) to make a side by side test. I will shoot the same subject with the Flash XDR @ Long GOP 100 Mbps and take the HD-SDI output of my XDR and plug that into some kind of uncompressed 10 bit recorder. Then edit that in a full uncompressed 10 bit project and output those results. Let's see a real world test to find out if what we've been discussing - debating - arguing over proves true.

....OK. I need recommendations from the readers of this post.

1. Do I keep the stock Canon 20 X Zoom lens for this test or use another lens ?

B) If another lens, then what lens should I rent ?

2. Where do I get an adaptor to mount that other lens to my H1 ?

3. What uncompressed recorder should I rent ?

In terms of lenses for the XL H1 I'd assume that the stock lens is as good as it's gonna get. Anything meant for a larger sensor/film is going to be designed to resolve less than lense aimed at a 1/3", and AFAIK the choice in 1/3" lenses is very limited and likely no better than what you've got. In the realms of 1/3" chips I've always thought that the Canon's 20x lens was pretty decent.
Steve

One vote for me to use the Stock Canon 20 X lens
 

Hi Steve:
OK thanks for the advice. That's one vote to do the test with stock lens.

Mark,

I think the cheapest way to capture uncompressed is tethered to a desktop with a blackmagic card. Probably way cheaper to buy one than an uncompressed recorder rental, you could always do the buy/test/return free method as well. Even tethered, I'm sure you could devise a challenging scene for the XDR's codec.

Blackmagic Design: DeckLink

Also, have you explored using a laptop with a PCI expansion chassis connected to a blackmagic card and a raid card/drives (or a ssd if a single one is fast enough?)?

Magma PCI Express Expansion Systems

I was under the impression that that was a pretty well established semiportable method to capture uncompressed (or to Cineform). If you already have a capable laptop, it would likely be cheaper overall than an XDR as well. That solution would never work for what I purchased the nano for (underwater and POV shooting) and has a lot of compromises with regard to portability, but I don't see why it couldn't be made to work for most of your applications.

Hi Mike:
Hmmmm. Interesting proposition. I will check out your links and get back to you. I was not aware there was such a thing as a PCI Express card chassi for a laptop. Well that's something new to learn.

I was looking into it at one point as a portable Cineform recorder which is definitely viable as long as your laptop has an expresscard slot and enough processor to compress to Cineform (2.66 or higher core duo as I recall), disk speed is not really an issue. For uncompressed you would just have to figure out the added complication of having enough disk speed for uncompressed capture. You might need a laptop with two expresscard slots or internal raid 0 (do such things exist?) or you would have to do a small form factor portable computer instead of a laptop to get a system with adequate i/o speed. Again, nothing as compact and practical as the CD products, but if you really want uncompressed...

Tech Questions To Mike Or Anyone Who Knows
 

Hi Mike:
My laptop is an HP nw9440 workstation class machine. The nw9440 does not have a built in Express Card 34 slot. However, I edit with this laptop plugged into the HP advanced docking station, and the docking station has a built in Express Card 54 slot. It is my understanding that you can plug an Express card 34 into a 54 slot, but not vice versa. I run an external FW 800 Raid 0 drive via a firewire express card plugged into my base stations's express card slot and all is well.

I looked at the Magma industries external PCI E expansion chassis, What I want to know is will this work with the Express card slot in my laptop's docking station ?

Regarding the Blackmagic decklink SDI card, will this card fit in the Magma's external box ? I would think I would need the 2 PCI E card enclosure, since I also need to plant a Sata controller card in their for the hard drives, and the 2 card box has extra room for hard drives.

Regarding the Blackmagic SDI card's ability to record via HD-SDI, does this card have it's own capability to capture uncompressed video, or do you need to use it with final cut pro to make it work ? I couldn't get a clear idea from the website. The cards do come bundled with software, but it also mentioned it's designed to work with Adobe Premiere and FCP.

Mark,

I did not get that far along in figuring such a system out, I am just aware that it is an option (that unfortunately wouldn't have worked for what I want to do with my nano). Also, I was looking at Cineform capture, which results in a compressed stream that can easily be recorded onto the laptop's internal drive.

Back when I was looking at it there were a number of discussion forum threads on the topic that were instructive, you could look for those, the product manufacturers may also be helpful. I do know that the blackmagic card is the most inexpensive HD-SDI capture interface, there are also some other products from manufacturers such as Matrox or AJA, and the Magma PCI boxes were what people were talking about using with the blackmagic cards and a laptop.

Can you really transfer a stream of 10-bit uncompressed over firewire 800? Unless my math is off that doesn't seem possible. I thought 10-bit 1080p24 would be ~995 Mbit/s versus 800 Mbit/s for the firewire, but I could be getting my math confused somewhere.

Hi Mike:
I don't think you can Record using FW 800, but you can copy over to it what was recorded on another device. I can *Play* one uncompressed stream in my Avid on my laptop but that is all. I was asking about the 2 PCI E card enclosure because in order to record 10 bit uncompressed I will need Sata drives striped Raid 0, At least three in the stripe and preferable large chached 10,000 RPM drives. This would do it for recording uncompressed.