<<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : This is what this standard means for filmmaking:

The most important is the inclusion of 720/25p with 19 Mbps stream. Varicam's, stream, when converted to 720/24p, becomes about 40 Mbps. Varicam compression is based on the Sony-developed DV format.


Joseph, the majority holder in the patent rights around the DV format is Matshusita, not Sony. The DV format was a collaboration by 10 companies with Matsusita being the leader. Varicam is based on the DVCPRO format which is an extension of DV onto a professional tape medium, Metal Particle, and consideration for MetaData. I think we have had the discusion before about the data rate of the DVCPROHD at 24P vs the 19Mbs, it is no where near the same thing.

>MPEG2 is a lot more efficient compression. I'd say that the MPEG2 camcorder picture with 720/25p can be about as good as Varicam picture at 720/24p.

You are forgetting that in order to get this HDV format to work the compression is huge and in MPEG2, it is based on a GOP which does not allow for frame to frame editing without having to uncompress and thus recompress again. Also may I point out that there are no professional editing systems that honor this format at this point in time.


>There is another point, and that is that the new HD standard is not meant only for consumer products, but will start replacing pro DV and the 4:2:2 50 Mbps formats soon.

This is pure supposition by you and is absolutely untrue. The HDV format is 4:2:0 in its color sample which is a very long way from 4:2:2 50 Mbs and with the heavy compression scheme makes it a perfect consumer format, but not an HD production format..

>The Varicam will have to come down in price and the new Panasonic SDX900 will soon become obsolete.

Again, I think you are confusing the application of these HDV camcorders with where the Varicam and the SDX900 are used. Two completely different applications, with completely different sets of objectives and quality needs.

>Panasonic is probably planning on Blu-ray based HD DVD camcorder and this new HDV format would mean low cost HD that would compete with Varicam.

There is no way that this format would compete with VariCam.

Best regards,

Jan

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden You are forgetting that in order to get this HDV format to work the compression is huge and in MPEG2, it is based on a GOP which does not allow for frame to frame editing without having to uncompress and thus recompress again.

DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX must all be decompressed in order to be seen on an RGB monitor. So must HDV.

DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX must all be decompressed and then recompressed for distribution on NTSC DVD, Blu-ray HD DVD, or D-VHS. So must HDV.


And, Premiere, Vegas Video, and FCP can be used for HDV editing.

On all your other points I agree fully.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen :

>DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX must all be decompressed and then recompressed for distribution on NTSC DVD, Blu-ray HD DVD, or D-VHS. So must HDV.


But Steve, you missed my point in that uncompress to recompress, and that is all of the production formats that you mention, DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX, are frame based codecs. HDV as well as NTSC DVD, Blu-ray HD DVD, and D-VHS are not, they all have a long GOP codec, and the compression is not a mere 5:1 as is DV, but when referencing the HDV and a couple of the others in this last string, HD signal is 994 Mbps uncompressed, HDV is recording at 19.4Mbps. There is a whole lot of compression going on.

In working with production formats, most production people I know wish to edit on a particular frame, and when working with fomats like HDV, Blu-ray, D-VHS or even the SD DVD, you are not working in frame based codecs. This is not to say that they are not good codecs, they are for their application, its just their application is not production.


>And, Premiere, Vegas Video, and FCP can be used for HDV editing.

Really, which codec is it that they are using to make this happen? Does the codec turn the video into individual frames for frame accurate intercutting?

Curious,

Jan

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden There is a whole lot of compression going on. --->>>

That I'll certainly agree to. But, unless you've looked at the result it's hard to believe you can't SEE many negatives from it. It certainly has LESS compression problems than ATSC 1080i or 720p! Which is not what folks expected!

Also helping is that all 19Mbps is used for only 30fps. We will see more artifacts when 720p60 and 1080i come to market.


>>> In working with production formats, most production people I know wish to edit on a particular frame. <<<

Today's computers are so fast that they can compute a FULL frame from the 6 frame GOP. Basically a small buffer is kept up to date from the disk. Any single frame comes from this cache.

Vegas edits native TS. Premiere uses Aspect HD plug-in. And FCP has an MPEG-2 decoder. Plus JVC has KDD's NLE.

Aspect HD will do up to 6 streams with FX in real-time.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : That I'll certainly agree to. But, unless you've looked at the result it's hard to believe you can't SEE many negatives from it.

From this statement it is obvious to me that you and I have a different set of production values. I see way too many flaws in the picture to address it as real HD.

>It certainly has LESS compression problems than ATSC 1080i or 720p! Which is not what folks expected!

Steve, the ATSC standards do not have compression, they are standards within a table. Manufacturers have formats that record those standards, like HDCAM and DVCPROHD, these foramts have compression. Are you saying that the pictures made on this little camera has fewer artifacts that HDCAM or DVCPROHD? If so, you have got to be kidding. Did you move the camera and follow fast action? Follow a skyline at an angle?

>>> In working with production formats, most production people I know wish to edit on a particular frame. <<<

>Today's computers are so fast that they can compute a FULL frame from the 6 frame GOP. Basically a small buffer is kept up to date from the disk. Any single frame comes from this cache.

So you are saying that the edit is flawless? That it stands up to High End HD editing? Like that on the Quantel or even low end like the CineWave or Boxx Technologies?

Curious,


Jan

Jan - How do you arrive at 994 Mbps? The JVC camera is doing 1280 x 720 x 30 at 4:2:0 which is about 334 Mbps.

From 334 Mbps down to 19.8 Mbps isn't a whole lot of compression.

<<<-- Originally posted by Phil Wright : Jan - How do you arrive at 994 Mbps? The JVC camera is doing 1280 x 720 x 30 at 4:2:0 which is about 334 Mbps.

From 334 Mbps down to 19.8 Mbps isn't a whole lot of compression. -->>>

Phil,

True HD resolution starts at 994Mbs at 60P with color at 4:2:2. And if 16:1 compression isn't a lot what is? The belief that this little camera is comparable to the VariCam or HDCAM is not based on reality. I am not saying that this camera does not serve a purpose, but I feel that if you put it next to the VariCam or an HDCAM you will see exactly what I mean.

FWIW,

Jan

Jan,

I guess I missed the memo that defined "True HD". My bad.

But anyway you made the comparison between 994Mbs of "True HD" and the 19.8Mbs of the JVC camera and then described it as a "whole lot of compression". This is not even remotely a valid comparison.

And 16:1 isn't a lot of compression for MPEG-2. Especially on a larger image size (compared to SD) where there is a lot of redundancy which makes it easier to compress without inducing more artifacting.

Having said all of that I wasn't making any claim one way or the other that a prosumer HDV camera is comparable to a piece of broadcast gear. I just don't see the point in distorting the issue.

Phil

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden

Steve, the ATSC standards do not have compression, they are standards within a table.

Yes, but there are standards for data rates that are used. This is typically 19.4Mbps for 1080i -- only a tiny bit more than the JVC at 19Mbps.

>>> Did you move the camera and follow fast action? Follow a skyline at an angle? <<<

Absolutely perfect -- no compression artifacts at all. No aliasing on diagonals.


>>> So you are saying that the edit is flawless? That it stands up to High End HD editing? Like that on the Quantel or even low end like the CineWave or Boxx Technologies? <<<

By flawless do you mean frame-accurate? Then the answer is YES.

FireWire to disk. Color correction, titles, FX, all work as usual. One decompression to YUV -- just like any DV-based system. All FX in uncompressed YUV domain. One re-encode from YUV at the end before FireWire to D-VHS.

Works exactly like DVCPRO25 or DVCPRO50 going to DVDs from camcorder with FireWire. All that's different is the codec.

<<<-- Originally posted by Phil Wright : Jan,
I just don't see the point in distorting the issue.


But that is where this whole silly thread started which was the distortion that DV and the Varicam were competitive. And that is where I couldn't let that idea stand.

Anyhow this is my last comment on the issue.

Best regards,

Jan

I don't think anyone really believes they are competitive. Some folks get carried away!

I agree with Jan, it's too different cameras. Eventually, everyone will be on HD (I just didn't think an affordable camera would be sitting in my room, even if I have a love/hate relationship with it--just call me Mr. Idiot), but it's true, until then, go for the highest quality DV gear!

heath, aka, Mr. Idiot

ps-that nasty spec commercial at

www.FloatingCar.com

has me excited (no, not that way) about the camera's potential. Am awaiting word on Steve's 4HDV!