A new HVX200 with AVC Intra, possible?
 

Hello,

Relatively new to this site and I did a search which came up with nothing. I saw the wish list thread but I guess my question is couldn't Panasonic update the HVX200 to use the AVC Intra codec? I mean if they did nothing else to the camera but that I would buy that over the new Sony (I don't like MPEG). Of course HD chips along with better low light would be great but I don't see where they can't just make the camera compatible with the intra codec at relatively no cost? Is there any reason to suspect that the next generation of the HVX200 wouldn't use the AVC-Intra codec?

Mike

Maybe they get rid of the tape transport then they have the space but the problem would be the price.

Now we can guess that the new consumer SD9 has AVCHD with 24p, so they probably will have prosumer model with AVCHD 24p and the cam is going to look like HVX ( I saw the mockup at InterBEE). If that cam is going to be around, say less than 3K, covering prosumer with that cam, then Panasonic could come out with new HVX with the price range of EX1 with AVC Intra and better CCD, also maybe make some kind of retrofit for HPX (hopefully).

That will be so great.

Confirmed. It's 1080p24 with a 17 mbps AVCHD datarate from a 960x540 1/6-inch 3CCD sensor.

List price is $799.95. At CES, I heard release dates of March as well as May/June in the US. There's a $1,099.95 HS9 with a 60 GB hard drive as well.

It has some nice features, including zebras (not sure what levels) and a focus ring, as well as OIS.

HDMI out is included, but it's behind the battery. Mic input is included (not behind the battery!) USB-2 is the computer interface.

I asked the Panasonic people about AVC Intra and the HVX at last year's NAB. They said it was doubtful that the HVX would get AVC Intra, because the digital processor runs "hot" (their words) due to the tremendous computational demands of AVC Intra. Remember that AVC Intra is an entirely different beast from AVCHD. Even if the HVX could put out AVC Intra, editing the resulting files would be very demanding using current computer technology. Possible, but very demanding.

As far as the workflow right now, Pana is going with ProRes422 for Mac and converting to DVCPROHD for Windows from AVCIntra.

I found out the AVCIntra board for HPX2100 is approx. $3000.
If they put the board in the future HVX, it would be so expensive.
They probably have to get to say 700 horizontal line resolution with the CCD, too to justify the recording resolution.

Kaku,

700 lines seems realistic nowadays, seeing how the EX, Canon Gl and even the JVC200 resolve it, don't you think?

Panasonic have a hit and a market leader incertain markets in the form of the HVX. The Sony EX is currently chalenging this market. The new HVX should be coming by keeping its strong points and improving in its defects.
HVX's CCD technology is its saving grace from most Cmos related issues, the DVCPRO HD codec is solid, but only resolves 1280x1080 resolution for NTSC.

With better resolution chips (i dream for 1280x720 2/3 pixel shifted ccd's for fantastic 1080p and low light performance) a stronger codec (avc-intra) and the possibility of recording in dvcprohd, with variable frame rates, a better Manual fixed lens, not unlike the Sony's Fujinon, and of course the fantastic P2 workflow, and we have the market leader for the next 3 years- Scarlett included.

If Panasonic make the new HVX more expensive, the price comparable to EX1, then they can play around little more can't they? Then they could also come out with a cheaper AVCHD based little brother for the prosumer market.

If they did that would they ditch the current hvx all together?

it seems to make sense having 2 models.. but ditching the current one almost seems like a shame.

I'm not on the inside track anymore with Panasonic, but at last year's NAB we all (the consultants) discussed the possibility and implications of AVC-I on the 200; from what the engineers told us it wasn't feasible to incorporate the technology into the 200 because of lack of space and the need for better cooling, which is why it's a natural fit for the larger ENG bodies.

However, Panasonic is first an engineering company so whatever they finally produce is the end result of tons of scientific testing before they release a product. That's a huge philosophical change from other manufacturers who often use what's called, "feature-revision" design.

My point being, that AVC-I will most likely find it's way into a camera similar to the 200 in form factor but it will be a new animal all-together, because Panny will most likely re-think it's design from the inside out rather than feature-tweak.

i wish they had made the HPX500 to take the upgrade board.

You're probably right, Robert.

If they remove the tape drive, there will be more room for heat management, but that's not a tweak. That's a ground-up design.

May I ask - what is exactly wrong with DVCPRO HD codec, as it stands today? Other than the smaller files of AVC-INTRA, are there any great / compelling advantages of AVC-I over DVCPRO HD?

There's nothing "wrong" with DVCProHD, but like most things, that's not to say it is perfect, and can't be improved upon.

Most obvious potential advantages of AVC-I are the ability to support full raster recording at 10 bit (so 1920x1080 instead of 1280x1080) and still at 100Mbs. Alternatively, a slight increase to 1440x1080 and stick to 8 bit and you halve the file size cf DVCProHD. (50Mbs)

Thanks for the education.

Close, but not quite. When you go to 50mbps it's still 10-bit, but it drops to 4:2:0.

Whoops, my apologies. Though I'd happily trade 422 for 420, if I gained 10 bit in exchange. That 50Mbs AVC-Intra also gives a resolution improvement (1440v1280) over DVCProHD AND half the data rate does seem to me like the compelling advantages that TingSern Wong was inquiring about. And that's before the option of the 100Mbs version is even considered.

That brings forth another question ....

Which one is better? 422 at 8 bits or 420 at 10 bits?

I understand the bit depth in terms of digital camera ... the more bits we have, the greater the dynamic range. But all digital cameras effectively captures at 444 at whatever bit depth the AD converter can cope with (12, 14, or 16 bits).

In terms of video, only few cameras (RED, etc) captures at 444. So, my question will be - in terms of manipulating the digital capture by a video application (After Effects, NLE, etc) - which one is better ... 422 at 8 bits or 420 at 10 bits? And lastly, can AVC-I capture 444 at 10 bits (as a codec) - not the camera?

Thanks,
TS

Ha, a good question, and I doubt the answers simple. I suspect a lot depends on what you're thinking of doing - 422 would be most relevant for keying work etc, whereas 10 bit resolution would have more importance if you wanted to post adjust colour, gamma etc etc. If I had to choose between them, my vote would go in favour of a 10bit system, especially for a progressive system.
"Capturing at 444" I take to mean capturing with equal resolution of luminance and chrominance, and I don't believe that to be the case with all digital camera front ends. Two exceptions would be such as Bayer sensors and 3 chip designs with pixel shift, both of which inherently have higher luminance resolution than chrominance.

As I understand digital still cameras (DSLR for example), they all capture RGB at 444 level using a Bayer sensor.

Only video cameras can incorporate 3 sensors (and do away with Bayer) - because they have a prism inside. There is no way a prism can be incorporated into a digital still camera - too bulky.

In theory, video camera can indeed capture all 3 primary colours (RGB) at the sensor level. In digital still camera, the only one (so far) capable of capturing RGB at a given pixel will be the Sigma Foveon sensor.

If I understand video - outputing 444 is a waste of bandwidth because no TV is going to show that. Hence, 422 or even 420 is acceptable.

I don't think that's quite accurate. The chip output goes into a de-moisaicing algorithm, which calculates an R,G,B signal for each pixel site, but the algorithm is having to make approximations, a form of interpolation. ALL the pixel sites are capable of contributing to luminance resolution, but that's not true for chrominance.

In an extreme case, think of a scene lit with a deep red light, such that only the red pixels (1/4 of the total) are giving a meaningful output. The resolution will be only 1/2 (H & V) what it would be for a white light.
For display, the reasoning behind sub sampling is that the human eye is less sensitive to chrominance detail than luminance, so it's more the eye won't perceive it than the TV won't show it. The big advantage to 444 comes when effects work is to be done on the material before display. In such case, chrominance detail on the original can translate in to luminance detail in the finished product.

Agreed ... using a normal digital SLR with a standard Bayer's pattern - that is.

However, if I use a Sigma Foveon sensor, then there is no Bayer ... and the sensor really captures all the RGB info at a given pixel.

I sincerely do not like the compromise for 4:2:0.

And a gut feeling inside makes me think this will be what we'll get on the next HVX- no avcintra100, but 50. And, if that's the case ( speculative rant here!), it will still be inferior to capturing to a cineform or a convergent designs box capture, for example...

50 would be fine for me - as long as they include an HDMI output.

Recording uncompressed to a RAID is really attractive when chroma keying or doing other critical fixed location shots. I can probably live with 50 mbps for remote shots.

HD-SDI is the other option for uncompressed, but it would likely be much more expensive than HDMI - both in the camera as the capture card.

Well, compromises are inevitable, and my own feeling is that 420 (for a progressive system) is not too bad, certainly not if it means 10 bit, and coupled with the increase in resolution and recording time, compared to DVCProHD.

And apart from doubling record times per Gigabyte, 50Mbs would also allow SDHC memory to be used instead of P2 - that could allow it to snatch the cost advantage away from Sonys EX.

I agree with Jon - "50 would be fine for me - as long as they include an HDMI output."

I'm just curious: What cost advantage? The EX1 costs much more than the 200 does and the SxS cards are the same price as P2 for the same GB size.

Sorry - I could have been clearer. The reference was intended to refer to memory costs, and whilst P2 and SxS cards are similar in cost per GB, the higher bitrate of the HVX means it's effectively 3x the cost *per minute*. A move from 100 to 50Mbs would cut that to only 1.5x, but the use of SDHC would make memory costs of such a camera far CHEAPER per minute than the EX - possibly only half as much, whilst retaining an I-frame only system.

The latest prices I've got for 16GB cards are £490 for P2 and £440 for SxS, which translates to about £30.60/min for P2 and £9.20/min for SxS. Two SDHC 8GB cards should be about £160, and with 50Mbs AVC-Intra, the cost now works out to something of the order of £5/min.

Why SDHC? Why not CF - which is more rugged? The present SD slot in HVX202 is not for recording ... it is used to keep configuration data. If you remove that SD card, you will loose the configuration that you have set (F1 -- F6).

If I was designing the camera, CF would be exactly what I would choose. But Panasonic are currently only backing P2 and SD memory, and if we restrict the choice to one of those, 50Mbs is possible with SD, 100Mbs probably realistically isn't.

But for a long time Sony meant Memory Stick. They seem to have had a big change of heart and adopted both SD and CF for various products - maybe Panasonic will follow suit? My own feeling is that for a next-gen camera, two P2 and two CF slots would be most desirable.