Cheap HD cams as early as Q2?
http://news.com.com/Upstart+aims+to+...l?tag=nefd.top
I hope this isn't a repost of a known news item. I haven't heard this yet myself, will be interesting to see if something comes of it. |
Hmm, that's cool, but glass is still the biggest obstacle to making an inexpensive HD camera.
|
Dang, that was a lot of marketing rubbish to have to read right before breakfast...hold on while I wipe the manure off my feet. If you read this carefully they're saying that for ~$799 you could get what amounts to a digital still camera with a "TV quality" video mode, and for some additional amount can record H.264 video at an unspecified resolution. This may be interesting to photographers who want to start shooting an occasional video clip, but I doubt it will change much for videographers.
|
"The A1 platform is based on the H.264/AVC video compression standard, which is the next generation of video compression technology. Ambarella’s patent-pending platform delivers a 2.5x compression gain over current MPEG-2/4 solutions, providing the efficiency required to store HD video content in convenient flash-based memory." - http://www.ambarella.com/news/press_...r_12052005.htm
i hope that it signals the end of that hdv mpeg2 garbage. |
Quote:
By the way, HDV looks great when properly used and is (for now) the format Sony is going to use for HD movie distribution, so you might as well learn to live with it. Beats that SD MPEG2 garbage we've all been using to distribute our videos lately... |
Ya, I saw that story, too. Didn't get me as excited as it got the cnet reporter. But maybe I'm missing something...
Quote:
And then I'd want to see how easily I can edit the stuff. So basically, I agree with Kevin...at least as far as in-camera compression is concerned...for now... But check back with me in a couple of years, Jim |
Quote:
|
Quote:
until you have some experience encoding with things like h.264, it's difficult to appreciate how good these new codecs are. now compare for us the gop sizes between dvd mpeg2 and hdv mpeg2, and tell us which one is worse... dvd is typically what, 15-frame gop max? what is the hdv gop? and don't even get me started on the tiny hdv audio bitrate, it totally sucks compared to dvd audio standards. i would dare say that hdv is step down from what we are delivering on dvd today. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for H.264, it may be an efficient video delivery codec but that doesn't make it a good solution for HD video cameras. The biggest criticism of HDV is that it's too compressed to be fully effective as an HD recording solution, and H.264 simply carries that trend even further. People who want the best possible recording quality are looking for ways to capture more bits, not compress more heavily in-camera to save storage space. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not an HDV cheerleader, but I'm using it a little and will be using it more in 2006...but it's not my only HD format... Best, Jim |
Quote:
hdv records audio in a lossy format, while dvd can deliver audio in lossless pcm format, if necessary... and dvd dolby audio is a more efficient recording format than the hdv mp2 audio format. you claim that "H.264... may be an efficient video delivery codec but that doesn't make it a good solution for HD video cameras"... directly contradicts the fact that mpeg2 was designed in 1994 as strictly a delivery codec, but yet it's good enuf for your hdv camera? thanks to both of you for pointing out that hdv and dvd gop's are similar, tho... i dismissed hdv the minute that i first saw the specs; that kind of garbage data isn't worth retaining in my memory banks :-) the key to this discussion is codec efficiency... i would refer you both to the wikipeda h.264 faq: "These techniques, along with several others, help H.264 to perform significantly better than any prior standard can, under a wide variety of circumstances in a wide variety of application environments. H.264 can often perform radically better than MPEG-2 video—typically obtaining the same quality at half of the bit rate or less." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC jim, i'm not sure that i've seen h.264 being particularly slow to compress... perhaps you are trying to do it on a mac, or with quicktime? i feel sorry for you if that is the case, have you worked with the nero h.264 encoder yet? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
so now that we have established that hdv has worse video and audio quality than dvd, the real question is, why would someone want to shoot with such a lousy format? Quote:
|
Myself I'm really a bit unsure in the HDV format, because to me it looks like a middle-format which isn't the real HD, but although very similar and in many ways better than SD. However, I'm afraid that the HDV format is going to be changing a lot from the current one, because new codec techniques are being developed all the time and maybe in the next 2 years we will have a similar Sony HDV camera which delivers much better quality video on the same tape.
I'm not sure if this example is now completely correct, but I heard it from a TV operator. In the professional broadcast many are currently buying the Sony XDCAMs which are basically recording to a DVD-like disc and also compressing to MPEG, but the "cassette" is actually some kind of magazine where the disc is located in. That is a format which is currently widely used for professional production and in its class of professionality is comparable to the real HD format. At the same time there are consumer camcorders which are recording to DVD, but because of the smaller size of the media, the video is a lot more compressed and of worse quality. As we can see, those cameras did not win the market (although probably a lot easier to operate) and the good old MiniDV is still the king. This example might be a bit too far away from the topic (and feel free to add your words if you think I'm wrong) if comparing HD and HDV, but for some reason I'm thinking that the old SD is not so dead yet. Not trying to make down the FX-1 and Z1 cameras which are really neat, but those who are currently using them as SDs and not moved over to HD in post-production yet, should maybe continue doing it at the moment, because when they will really need the HDV footage some time in the future, there could be something rather different "invented". :) Just my 2 cents. |
Dan,
You're impressively derisive toward HDV. Your profile indicates you shoot with an XL1s; since your last profile update, have you started shooting with HDV and been unhappy with the results? |
Quote:
Quote:
P.S. No, I haven't done any H.264 encoding but I have seen some good examples -- some of it produced from HDV source footage. Have you shot any HDV footage? |
Real-time hardware based h.264 encoding is already here...at least at the high end: http://modulusvideo.com/main.php?Page=20
This unit "wraps" h.264 encodes in the MPEG2 stream. There is no question that h.264 is much more efficient than MPEG2, and of course requires more horsepower to process. If you read the spec at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/h264, it is rapidly evident why this standard does a much better job of higher quality encodes, at much lower data rates, than MPEG2. Hardware decoding of h.264 is already implemented by the major players in the video card business. Hardware based encoding at the consumer level is obviously Ambrella's niche, and will be followed no doubt by many. I'd expect HDV to be replaced quickly by the MPEG4 variant. A lot of folks tend to assume that more compression is a bad thing...it's not, if the compression algorithm is more sophisticated. Just based on DV -> wmv encodes, vs. DV -> max bitrate MPEG2 encodes, I like h.264 better already. |
Neros' recode, encodes h.264/mp4 with excellent results. You can download the trial (have to get the suite) and check it out yourselves.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
pete, perhaps you'd care to explain why anyone would want to acquire at less bandwidth than we currently deliver dvd product at? compare that lousy hdv bandwidth to xdcam: "MPEG IMX can record at a bitrate of 30, 40 or 50 mbits per second". Quote:
|
Unfortunately this thread has turned into a platform war, which is something that we don't allow at DVinfo. I'm closing it for now so the other moderators can decide what to do about this.
Dan, we understand that you don't like HDV, but you certainly haven't "proved that it's a bogus format." If it doesn't suit your needs then don't use it. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:25 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network