|
I think getting on Jan for a decision made by a higher up is pointless. If the tape drive is there, then it is there. Just like the Sony, there is an option to downconvert to SD (for the tape) and pop it into your existing vtr/workflow situation.
geez folks. For those who don't already own a dvx100a, this is a good deal. While there are good points about not having a tape drive at all, I'm sure someone would complain if there wasn't. (like those of us who are looking for a general purpose camera for all sorts of work which defines most prosumer/independent types.) Maybe I want the camera and will have to wait as i save up for the P2 cards. Maybe the downconvert to SD will look awesome. maybe.... Can't please everyone, even before the camera isn't 'officially' anounced. I'll make up my mind about the Sony Z1 and the new Pany after soemone gets there hands on it in the real world. Lots of things to consider, tape drive being the least fo them for me. Picture quality above all else. At least with the Sony I won't have to reinvest in all new equipment/software. Something I have to consider. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : Remember that movie industry has lived mainly with 400ft magazines (less than 4 minits) for over a century...
I think this would be optimal solution for next couple of years, if you could shoot normal fps (24/25/30) to tape and cranked overspeed (up to 60fps(100Mbps)) to p2.-->>> it's always mildly irritating for me to read posts from people who think that a video camera should be designed with film as the distribution format... film is ugly and expensive! the framerates are way too slow to allow for fast movement, and it's a dying format. while i love the depth and contrast you get with film, the numbers don't add up as a distribution format... these days hollywood makes more money off of dvd's than they do film, 55% of the internet-connected people in america have broadband, and hdtv will be the norm here in the states in just a few years... btw, anybody ever hear of digital projection? people who want to put video on film tend to be a very vocal minority that has way too much influence on the design of video cameras... engineering in things like those bastard film framerates unnecessarily increases the cost of the camera for the majority of customers, who want to distribute video, not film. beyond that, the problem with this thread isn't in the cost of p2 cards... it's the abysmal lack of silicone(aka codec) development by panasonic, sony, jvc, etc. for example, in the world of compression and codecs, if dvcpro hd was develped 4 years ago(?), it's ancient history... to give you a real-world comparison, no compressionist worth his salt would ever make an internet video clip with a codec that old... why should video pros have to compromise? what should be happening right now is the implementation of modern i-frame codecs for video acquisition... if you look at windows media, h.264, even cineform, the technology has been around plenty long enuf to put it on silicone... in fact, dvd players using some of those chipsets(codecs) already exist, although probably not in a true i-frame format. mpeg2-based hdv is incredibly disappointing... for that bitrate, you could have better than dvcprohd quality, if you were using a real codec. anyway, that's my 2 cents :-) |
<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : Jan, My point was that there is no big difference its size with miniDV and dvcpro ENG cameras. So there don't have to be big difference in smaller cameras either. >>
Actually there is a difference. The JVC is oversized in its body so that it can be shoulder mounted. The transport chassis is a much different size. But the AJ-D410 is also the large cassette. The AJSDX900's casset is larger than the JVC by at least half again, if not a little more. << Surely we don't think that dvcpro transport mechanism has somehow reached its final state and perfect design considering the size, even that there hasn't even been any attempt to make smaller sized dvcpro camera than ENG. >> Actually I think it is a wonderful piece of engineering. Works fine, lasts a long time. If it isn't broken whyt fix it. The smaller DVCPRO camera can easily be accomodated with P2. << So, I'd like to see smaller camera with 40Mbps recording mechanism to miniDV sized tape for 20 minutes. That's just my opinion and maybe developing that kind of vcr part is just too expensive. >> The problem is that would be hugely expensive, when I can do 16 minutes of DVCPRO to one 4GB card. << Whenever I buy a new camera, I'd like it to be a long time investment also ecologically and not just disposable camera that one replaces every year. This tape+p2 solution sounds really nice, if it would be possible to record HD to tape some three years and after that when p2's have become main stream continue with same camera using them. >> I think you are worrying too much, wait till you see what it is. If it works for you then buy it, if not then there are other solutions. My feeling is that this is a very workable solution. << Adding tape mechanism just for SD seems a little bit backwards, because that needs smaller storage space, so need for using tape for that might cease even next year. Also need for SD anyway is decreasing when one has option for HD (and better than HDV) in the same camera. >> We haven't said whether we are even adding tape to this camera. This entire discussion is about whether DVCPRO and its higher forms could be recorded on a minDV cassette. Frankly I think that SD production will be here for a good number of years, but this camera will be flexible. Don't be premature in saying one way or the other. P2 is a very cool workflow, but it requires that you move away from Tape acquisition. << How much cheaper the new camera would be without tape mechanism after all? Not price of a one p2 card? >> If I answered that question I would be in serious trouble. Somethings I can talk about, some things I cannot. Best regards, Jan |
<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt: mpeg2-based hdv is incredibly disappointing... for that bitrate, you could have better than dvcprohd quality, if you were using a real codec. -->>>
Acquisition and distribution codecs are whole diffrent ballgame. Compression should be done only to final product after all effecting and color correcting. Otherwise you just loose quality with any lossy compression. And using interframe compression as a native codec in editing is extremely hard. Every time you move in a timeline, computer has to calculate eg 15 hd frames. That's about 60 times more pixels than with intraframe sd codec. And calculating that compression on top of that. No wonder all newest edit systems use somekind of intermedia codec with hdv. And all better video formats are i-frame only. To this perspective it is sad and surprising that after a decade of 25Mbps dv, we're given a new "super" format that is still using the same bitrate(hdv). It's like telling your 486 is good enough, you don't need any better. We should be heading to bigger bitrates and greater color depths, but it seems, that quality does not sell in consumer/prosumer class anymore. So it's all about cheapest possible way with quality that is barely acceptable for majority of consumers. This leads to that consumer products get cheaper and less quality and high end professional products that gets all the time more expensive, because their volume gets smaller as consumer products get more popular. And then there is nothing in between. You can't get s-vhs vcr in price range between 300 and 3000. Only cheaper or more expensive. You can't get hd-camera between 5000 and 50000. Can't get real hd monitor with 1080 lines between 2000 and 10000. So I hope Panasonic changes things a little bit with this new camera. Maybe some day every cinematographer can own the tool of his/her craft, like writer can own a pen, without having to rent it, everytime he/she wishes to write. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: Actually I think it is a wonderful piece of engineering. Works fine, lasts a long time. If it isn't broken whyt fix it. -->>>
Speaking of broken, you know why Finnish Broadcasting Company abandoned dvcpro? Because those vcr's were always in repair :-( <<<-- I think you are worrying too much, wait till you see what it is. If it works for you then buy it, if not then there are other solutions. My feeling is that this is a very workable solution. -->>> I'm not worrying. I'm speculating and chatting because I'm so exited. My biggest problem is how can I wait to get this new Panny. If I need real 16:9 camera before that I'll have to take z1... |
>I looked at some specs and they seem *really*
> slow... something like 36Mbps transfer rate I think 40 Mbps is enough for 24 fps DVCPROHD, and I also think two striped IBM microdrives can fin in a the PC-card form factor (a single one fits into a CompactFlash card which is roughly half the size). I must say that, like Toke, I am also very excited by the possibilties of going tapeless. And I want to clearly state my wish of P2 being open so we can pop in hard drives, wireless network cards or whatever else the market may offer. Please please please Jan don't dumb-down these new cameras just to try get us all to buy Panasonic P2 cards, because then many of us will just have to prefer offerings from other companies. If P2 is really as inexpensive as it should be, don't worry, we will buy the cards from you after all, but give us the choice. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :
Speaking of broken, you know why Finnish Broadcasting Company abandoned dvcpro? Because those vcr's were always in repair :-( That I find to be probably less than the entire story. The reason I say that is due to the number of machines in the US market and the fact that they have been some of the most durable and reliable machines brought into the broadcast ndustry. So when someone says something like this, these is a larger story behind it. Someone had another agenda, and yet what was said was this. Tell you what, email me the name of your contact at Finnish Broadcasting and I wil have my Panasonic person in Europe talk to him. You can send me that information off list so that names can be held discreetly. >If I need real 16:9 camera before that I'll have to take z1... You can always rent. Best regards, Jan |
<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : > Please please please Jan don't dumb-down these new cameras just to try get us all to buy Panasonic P2 cards, -->>>
Hi Ignacio, The objective is to get you to buy the camera so that you use it to make a living. The fact that you all are thinking we would dumb down the camera to sell P2 Cards, PUHLease! The only thing that I know is that pictures sell cameras, that is, the pictures that the cameras make sell cameras. The DVX sold cameras, continues to sell cameras. The SDX900 sells cameras. The Varicam sells cameras. If these cameras made ugly pictures I would expect you all not to buy them or rent them. When this new camera hits, you will see. Best regards, Jan |
>The DVX sold cameras, continues to sell cameras.
> The SDX900 sells cameras. The Varicam sells cameras. > If these cameras made ugly pictures I would expect you > all not to buy them or rent them. Right. I agree totally. The imager portion of the camera, it's optics and sensors, it's ADC, NR and compression, and to some degree it's controls and ergonomics, are the most important part of the package. It's expensive to design, build and market, so we expect to pay for that. It's Panasonic so we know the CCDs are just great, have awesome lattitude, no vertical smear, can do real proscan... so we pay for that. Settled. My concern is with the other part, that handles storage. It is just as important in terms of it's neccesity, but is not the decisive factor that marks the main difference from one product to the next. The camera's data storage hardware can be made from off-the-shelf components that are mass-produced, the educated consumer knows this and expects --as I expect-- that this part of the camera should not be expensive and should give us options. The rumors of these two new models having both a DV25 tape transport and a PC-card make sense. The camera shots DV out-of-the-box and can also grow to do HD --real HD with the DV codec, not MPEG2-- cool! But, since it's a camera with the professional user in mind, why not drop the tape transport alltogether and let us choose whether we want hard drives , solid state, or networking: 1: connect P2 cards if we are willing to spend the money on them for the added reliability, lifespan and low power consumption. This is for the pro guy who is taking the camera on a trip to everest or isdoing mission-critical stuff and cannot afford to drop a frame or lose a take. 2: connect PC-card hard disks that are almost as convenient as solid state but much less expensive (these can be Panasonic-branded too, but we want options). This is for the people that do non-fiction, weddings, students... people that can live with better-than-tape reliability but would have to buy a tape-based camera like the Sony because they can't afford the P2 cards just yet. 3: connect a computer or deck directly in a studio setting where portability is not an issue. This is a great option of studio work. Why buy tape, solid state memory or hard disks when we can write straight to the NLE in real time? This could also be done through a wireless network card inserted in the slot, would be awesome for news coverage. One guy get's out of the car with the camera, the other guy captures to a laptop in real time and starts editing as soon as the action ends. By the time they are back at the statin the story is ready to air. It is my opinion that giving us this kind of flexibility and focusing on the real "camera" part of the product (no pun intended) will be the best deal for you, because you will be making money off the part that has the highest added value. Let the market take care of the part that has the less value. We all buy your great cameras and add storage from whichever vendor we choose. You are happy, we are happy. You have low cost solid state P2? Great, then we buy into that too. And we are all happier still, see? Of course Jan I do not expect you can discuss Panasonic's strategy in detail. Don't worry about that. I find it great that you hang out with us on this board so Panasonic can know a little more about what we need and you can educate us more about what Panasonic has to offer. Other vendors should be taking note! So a big Thank You and please accept my opinion as honest and constructive, which is what I am trying it to be. I never meant to imply that you actually are dumbing down the cameras, allthough I have been known to say that aout other manufacterers. I am just asking you not to. If you are not, all the better then! I'll get my PC-card hard disks ready! ;-) |
Quote:
|
Wow, Jan, you sure are a devoted Panasonic employee. Sony needs someone like you too. :)
|
They *all* need someone like her!
;-) |
<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : They *all* need someone like her!
;-) -->>> If the product wasn't so cool, it wouldn't be nearly so much fun! Thanks guys! Jan |
sergio,
this is exellent!!!! Quote:
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :Acquisition and distribution codecs are whole diffrent ballgame. Compression should be done only to final product after all effecting and color correcting. Otherwise you just loose quality with any lossy compression.-->>>
compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. there are things like wavelet compression, that offer far greater advantages than the standard dct-based compression that we have been forced to live with all these years. the reason that these video camera companies keep using vastly inferior codecs is so that they can get away with charging obscene amounts of money for the hardware that it takes to handle the huge bitrates that these lousy codecs generate. i've seen jan around the 'net for many years, and i'm not slamming her personally for the decisions that her company makes... all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? >>
There are very few cameras that record. In fact all cameras are uncompress. It is the recorders that do the compression. Life is full of little trade offs and frankly with each trade off comes a price. So uncompressed, will cost you vastly more than compressed. << so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. >> I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec. << there are things like wavelet compression, that offer far greater advantages than the standard dct-based compression that we have been forced to live with all these years. >> Wavelet is in fact older than DV. It was used in the IMX edit system, which was purchased and remade into the Stratosphere. It is/was no more efficient and its payload is heavy for the benefit. It still had compression artifacts. << the reason that these video camera companies keep using vastly inferior codecs is so that they can get away with charging obscene amounts of money for the hardware that it takes to handle the huge bitrates that these lousy codecs generate. >> What you may not understand is that there is a difference between a delivery codec and an acquistion codec, which is what Toke was alluding to. In an acqusition codec it is more desireable to have each frame stand on its own, than to have them all mushed together in a large GOP like what happens in MPEG. For delivery, sure there are some really awesome codecs, for production, don't see it. Not only do you have to make machines that record but there has to be enough of a promise that the NLE guys will produce an edit system that will handle it. << all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies. >> Like what, HDV? MPEG2? MPEG4? take a look at our consumer line up of cameras. We may have something in the very high end that will look at the huge payload that a 2K or 4K signal would need, and that is only an R & D, we're taking a look maybe; but why would should we want to walk away from DVCPROHD. It can do 24P, variable frame rate, with edit systems that support that notion today, in fact yesterday and even last year. Why would we walk away from that? It is still one of the most efficient algorithms on the planet for production. If you want to take it back to an uncompressed domain you can, but the data rate is in the native codec very viable. Granted is isn't 25Mbs, but it isn't cramped by a 15 frame GOP, compressed audio, and a color sample of 4:2:0. That is more appropriate for distribution than it is for production. How about our DVD players, we use incredible codecs there, but they are inappropriate for production. Frankly there is little you could say that would convince me to produce an important documentary on a long GOP format. Just wouldn't do it. Distribute on it. You bet. Better to look at the compression algorithms in the light of what they for which they are designed to be used before you make a judgement about what is and isn't the right thing to do. My .02, Jan |
Maybe I've missed it in my skim over this thread but is this new camera everyone is talking about one to compete with the likes of the "prosumer" HDV cams. (i.e in the same ballpark range) with p2 storage?
I was disappointed with Canon's offering ala the Xl2, and I just shudder at the idea of HDV and have yet to be convinced it's a worth while format (For me, for me). For the last several months I've been thinking to myself "Panasonic must come out with something. I mean they blew us away with the DVX, they're sure to do it again" Aaron |
<<<-- Originally posted by Filip Kovcin : sergio,
this is exellent!!!! filip -->>> Thanks, Filip! But, back to topic, I'm really awaiting with antecipation for this new Panasonic camera!...wOoops... :) |
Panasonic is going to sink the rest of them when this comes out. Think about it. They played it smart getting in bed with Macintosh and FCP HD. They've got an easy affordable workflow setup from shooting to a finished product.
Face the music. Panasonic did it right. We are in debt to them as fimmakers, guys. June will show it. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : <<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? >>
They are making these uncompressed cameras right here! http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=25808 (Only 166 pages for now!) <<< so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. >> I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec. << all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies. >> Like what, HDV? MPEG2? MPEG4?> Dan, of course it's a matter of both bitrate and codec. Speaking of reduced color space, I don't understand why we are not getting more depth than 8bits... Mjpeg2000 might be a good acquistion codec. Jan, if you are interested, there is Florin Popescu discussing in the thread above, who works at Fraunhofer, which has been developing mjpeg2000. If I remember correctly Arri's D20 uses it. There might also be something more advanced than dv codec in mpeg4's studio profiles? You can't claim that there has been no progress at all in acquistion codecs for last decade, can you? <How about our DVD players, we use incredible codecs there...> I wouldn't call dvd's mpeg2 incredible. Maybe it was a big improvement a decade ago, but it always hurts my eyes after seeing a digibeta or dv master of a program and then looking the same on dvd. ps. Jan, about YLE (FinnishBC) replacing their vcr's, I don't know who's in charge over there. It's a huge place, I've been working there only as a freelancer and heard about it as a rumour. If you want to contact them, maybe you should do it through your official channels. Salespeople at PannyEurope knows who they are selling to. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec. -->>>
didn't panasonic develop dvcpro hd, and put it out there for the public to use? nothing too revolutionary there, tho, when compared to the phenomenal advances in internet codecs. i was a compressionist at intervu back in the late 90's, before they were bought out by akamai, so my viewpoint is different than most out here... i do agree with your point wrt the problems with long gop for professional acquisition, but i also have a ton of first-hand experience encoding with the very latest codecs... which is why i can see how horrible the hdv mpeg2 concept is. hdv is basically the same codec that panasonic is using on their dvd players, yuk!... i would suggest that you go out to www.wmvhd.com and play some of those clips back on your hdtv to see where codec technology is today... take a hard look at the bitrate vs. quality, and how it could be applied to a prosumer format like hdv. wavelet codec development is alive and well, http://www.wavelet.org/index.php... and i think that the people at cineform have things to say about the viability of their codec :-) but wavelets aren't the only compression technology out there. thanks for discussing these issues with us! i shoot with an xl1s, but i also own a panasonic av100 that records mpeg2 to sd cards, so i am sold on solid state recording... i want to see it become the standard, but i think that it's going to take codec development to make it really happen... to put it another way: in the computer business, we say that software sells hardware. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec. -->>>
Then posted by Dan Euritt : >didn't panasonic develop dvcpro hd, and put it out there for the >public to use? nothing too revolutionary there, tho, when >compared to the phenomenal advances in internet codecs. First when I say DV Codec, the DVCPROHD is a DV based codec. Secondly an internet codec is a delivery codec. Different objectives than production. >hdv is basically the same codec that panasonic is using on their dvd players, yuk!... Actually this is not true, as there is no HD on a DVD at this time, soon, but not yet. The commonality is MPEG2 with a longer GOP, but it is not at 25Mbs, the current DVDs are more like 9Mbs. HDV is more similar to the transport stream that the broadcaster uses to to get HDTV to your home HDTV set over the airwaves. >i would suggest that you go out to www.wmvhd.com and play some of those clips back on your hdtv to see where codec technology is today... take a hard look at the bitrate vs. quality, and how it could be applied to a prosumer format like hdv. Again, the discussion here is irrelevant to the production domain. Delivery is absolutely different that production. >wavelet codec development is alive and well, http://www.wavelet.org/index.php... and i think that the people at cineform have things to say about the viability of their codec :-) but wavelets aren't the only compression technology out there. Find a camera that can handle the load. Find an NLE that can deal with the vairable frame rate, Find the NLE that can deal with on the fly ramping of speed, find a codec with any of those that can do it on the fly with the switch of a menu item and and NLE or two that can accomodate the rest of the handshake. The cineform is a platform codec, and the wavelet is not in the consideration either. Different applications, not acquisition. Might work in the Desktop as long as the concatenation doesn't get in the way but I wouldn't put my money on it till I saw it. >thanks for discussing these issues with us! i shoot with an xl1s, but i also own a panasonic av100 that records mpeg2 to sd cards, so i am sold on solid state recording... i want to see it become the standard, but i think that it's going to take codec development to make it really happen... Frankly the Solid State is happening at the professional level on a I frame only on the codecs that are designed for production. The little Panssonic camera you have there is not a production codec. Nice for home movies but not for serious production. You cannot introduce a new codec today and then expect all sorts of NLE guys to fall all over the idea, fawning to just hold your hand. Getting the NLE guys to deal with the stringent principles that we set into DVCPRO and its deriviatives took several years. DV was being pushed over firewire for at least three years before the NLE guys realized that if they want the News market they needed the DVCPro codec, and then a whole bunch of other things started to happen. DVCPRO50 over Firewire, DVCPROHD over firewire. These sorts of advances take time, energy and money. Codec du jour does not work. The HDV camera from Sony has had the benefit of the JVC camera being out there for 2 years before its delivery. It takes money and the promise of return on investment to get the NLE guys to dive in and spend the money to make the system work. And this solution still challenged. There is a whole business of getting folks to buy in to the codec and put together the entire production plan and then continue the work on it so those cool ideas can come to reality; like 24P, variable frame rate, scalable codecs that go from SD at 4:1:1 to 4:2:2 to 4:2:2 HD and all over firewire in native codecs. This is not all something that happens in one year, this happens over years. To sum up, production codecs have different objectives than delivery codecs. There are some codecs that work well as a platform codec, that allows for special things to happen, like HDV to edited with better efficiency, like the cineform codec. But these do not have acquisition. And then there are delivery codecs, which the HDV codec could be, or the DVD codecs or the internet codecs. The consumer codecs for consumer cameras generally are slanted at the delivery end of the curve as many people are not nearly as fussy as production people. I hope this helps you understand that 1. the DVCPRO codecs are here to stay, and therefore are a safe bet for building future ideas on. 2. that there are delery codes and the efficiency and low data rate are the goal. and 3, it has take a lot of time out of my day to write this, and for you to say that we should just drop DVCPROHD and go with CODEC du Jour is something that I feel needs to have attention and education aimed at it, because CODEC du jour does not always serve the production community well. I hope that helps, Jan |
<<First when I say DV Codec, the DVCPROHD is a DV based codec. Secondly an internet codec is a delivery codec. Different objectives than production....
....1. the DVCPRO codecs are here to stay, and therefore are a safe bet for building future ideas on. >> Jan, thank you for taking the time to post in this forum, it's really nice to have some info from a person with the knowladge! I do a lot of color corection and finishing from a range of formats: Digibeta, DVCPRO 50 /HD and HDCAM. Besides the the limited color resolution and aliasing of saturated colors of the 4:2:2/3:1:1 formats I am finding it odd that only the old Digibeta format supports 10 bit sampling. As you talk a lot about the difference between acquisition and delivery codecs, I am wondering why all current acquisition codecs are 8 bit only? Especially for film out, banding occurs VERY easily with both DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO HD and it's VERY obvious in all smooth graduations on noiseless material. Also using the cinegamma and other DSP functions on the DVX100, the SDX900 and the Varicam makes this worse because to retain the highlights, even fever than 256 levels will be used. Can you comment on this? Is there a future possibility of finer quantizing in your codecs? or is it locked at 8 bit by being based on the old (but very funtional ) DV technology I like the very functional workflow we have today, especially using Apple / Panasonic equiptment, but it's too bad we are limited in this regard. (even though it's much better than 4:1:1/4:2:0 DV/HDV) |
> You cannot introduce a new codec today and then
> expect all sorts of NLE guys to fall all over the idea, > fawning to just hold your hand. Getting the NLE guys > to deal with the stringent principles that we set into > DVCPRO and its deriviatives took several years. I tend to disagree. Although there is something to be said about DV and the way it works transparently in an NLE, it is perfectly feasible to use a different codec for aquisition. This has been demonstrated with Sony's IMX. It's MPEG2 based, high quality and is treated by the NLE as uncompressed. If you give me a camera with an efficient new codec that delivers better than DV, which could be something based on the the MPEG4 AVC, I will gladly spend time transcoding that to DC30 or some other low-loss codec. Granted the workflow won't be the best for ENG, but this camera can be aimed at the indie and documentary markets, as it can be --because of the cost savings in storage-- much less expensive. I like the logic behind HDV's MPEG2 trick, except that they have ruined it by commiting to tape and thus limiting the data rate. So there is potential to do much better. Sure, less compression is an option, a good one. But *better* compression, coupled with disk-based storage, can also do the job for many of us. The ideal: both! Options, that's what we want. A camera with as many options as a computer. |
Well, I'm really curious about the low light performance of the DVCPRO-HD camcorder. If it's just as good as that of the FX1/Z1, then I'll definitely buy it as a replacement for my little cam. (MX5000)
|
>>>You cannot introduce a new codec today and then expect all sorts of NLE guys to fall all over the idea, fawning to just hold your hand.<<<
actually, that is exactly what has happened with hdv, it's a delivery codec being used for acquisition... all of the major software editors on the market immediately tweaked their systems to accept it... if panasonic suddenly started selling a prosumer hd camera based on wm9 or h.264, the software editors would integrate it asap. in fact, the software editing systems that use cineform as an intermediary codec should be able to accept it immediately... all panasonic has to do is to create the in-camera silicon for it, no minor detail. are you aware of the role that the cineform codec played in the making of that new bruce brown baja 1000 movie? i know people who saw the sneak preview onscreen, no complaints about the quality... but based on my encoding experience, hdv/cineform is not a work flow that i want to use for the type of content that i shoot. so i'll pass on hdv, i know that panasonic will come up with a superior quality solution... and if it'll integrate the solid state work flow i've seen with the av100, it's going to rock! btw, i use the av100 for recording an external camera video feed inside of race cars, because tape-based recorders won't stand up to the vibration. thanks again for your time out here, i can't wait to see the new panasonic camera! |
Anders asked:
Besides the the limited color resolution and aliasing of saturated colors of the 4:2:2/3:1:1 formats I am finding it odd that only the old Digibeta format supports 10 bit sampling. As you talk a lot about the difference between acquisition and delivery codecs, I am wondering why all current acquisition codecs are 8 bit only? The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. Additionaly there is always the added cost for those last two bits. The DigiBeta entry camera is $45,000, the DVCPRO50 which makes a comparable picture is $27,000, Add the deck cost and you are looking a a bigger chunk of change. If you ingest over SDI, the stuff on time line is very similar. So in some ways it is economics, some ways it is the facility to achieve the same net result for less money. These two questions basically get the same result. All of what this is built upon is generated out of a much more exhaustive piece of work done by people vastly more learned than I will ever be. See http://www.smpte.org/engineering_committees/pdf/tfrpt2w6.pdf Staring in the Annex C, you can see all of the stnadard definition digital formats compared, even DVCPRO50/DigitalS, Digital Betacam, IMX-referred to as MPEG50/I Frame, DVCPRO. It is pretty heavy but interesting. >Especially for film out, banding occurs VERY easily with both DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO HD and it's VERY obvious in all smooth graduations on noiseless material. I have not seen this as much as you have I suppose and I guess neither did the SMPTE/EBU. Perhaps it may be the rest of the signal path? I don't know. The footage that I see up on the big screens at NAB, 70 feet, don't seem to show what you are saying and those programs are done with the DVCPROHD material. So can't explain your experience. I can't say that I have never seen it, but then I have backed up and captured the material differently. >Also using the cinegamma and other DSP functions on the DVX100, the SDX900 and the Varicam makes this worse because to retain the highlights, even fever than 256 levels will be used. Here I could not disagree more. Noah Kadner has a shot in his film Formosa that is at least 8-9 stops of latitude, inside the car to the bright blue skies of sunny New Mexico, shot with the SDX, and there is detail in the shadow and blue sky. I can point to and endless number of pictures that have huge amounts of detail in the wite areas, where on other cameras they have been blown out. Perhaps you experience could be based on video you have seen shot by people that may not understand how to use the controls provided to them with these cameras. But there is no way I could begin to agree with you assessment of the cine-gamma. When we move to the first generation of the DVX100, the cine-look there was much easier to blow out the highlights and unfortunately folks didn't know how to shoot with that for the proper handling. As the DVX100 moved to the DVX100A, the Cinelooks expanding to include some that have a more rounded shoulder. Again, what shows up in the edit suite is often predicated by the strength of the person using the tool. >Can you comment on this? Is there a future possibility of finer quantizing in your codecs? or is it locked at 8 bit by being based on the old (but very funtional ) DV technology I feel that life is full of little trade offs. When you look at the potential of what is possible versus what are people going to pay, I believe that there is a balance point. DV is younger than DigiBeta, why didn't Sony take DigiBeta and make DigiBeta Lite? the 4:1:1 version with 10 bit? Because that would be silly, no advatange and the machine would still be stunningly expensive. So what a manufacturer has to do is find the price point, and the performance that is pleasing to enough peole that it will sell and then figure out how to make it so that it holds up and is reliable. I mean really, if the 8 bit formats were so awful as you imply, why would any body buy them. Shouldn't they all be lined up at Sony's door with fists full of dollars. The question is not so simple, and covers more ground than that which can be covered here. I suggest you read Annex C of the SMPTE study above. It might enlighten your perpective. Life is full of compromises. >I like the very functional workflow we have today, especially using Apple / Panasonic equiptment, but it's too bad we are limited in this regard. (even though it's much better than 4:1:1/4:2:0 DV/HDV) But arguably, a 4:1:1 2/3" camera can look stunning in the hands of the right operator as can the DVX100A. I really believe that much of the dreck I have seen is based on the fact that the operator is not taking the time to optimize the tool. Video in and of itself is so immediate that it almost works against the learning curve. They shoot, they have a picture, they break, and move on. Not until they get back in the edt suite do they see the problems in what they shot, because they only had a little $500 dollar LCD panel that you could juge anything on, if your life depended on it. But then the format takes the hit. When I was learning to expose film, 35mm still, I cannot begin to count the number of rolls of film I went through before I was able to come out with more properly exposed shots out of a roll of 36 that badly exposed. But I took the time to analyze v=because I knew the variable was not me, not this 100 year old medium. I mean jeez if all of these other photogs can get good shots, with the same film and same equipment what am I doing that makes the difference. Anyhow I hope you can see where I am going. Lif is full of little trade-offs. Many things influence which way you go, and then it is up to you to make the best of your choices. For me I see the trade of of 4:20, a long GOP, and compressed audio, huge in comparison to simple little 4:1:1 DV with progressive imaging, uncompressed audio. I know what the algorithm is going to do when I look into the viewfinder. Anyhow, good questions. Best regards, Jan |
Ignacio said:
>This has been demonstrated with Sony's IMX. It's MPEG2 based, high quality and is treated by the NLE as uncompressed. However, we are talking about a system, that is 4:2:2 and has a starting price point at $34,000. Show me something in the $4-6000 range here. In fact, you cannot. >If you give me a camera with an efficient new codec that delivers better than DV, which could be something based on the the MPEG4 AVC, I will gladly spend time transcoding that to DC30 or some other low-loss codec. Granted the workflow won't be the best for ENG, but this camera can be aimed at the indie and documentary markets, as it can be --because of the cost savings in storage-- much less expensive. But in the delivery of MPEG4 or whatever, you cannot invent what you gave away. >I like the logic behind HDV's MPEG2 trick, except that they have ruined it by commiting to tape and thus limiting the data rate. So there is potential to do much better. Sure, less compression is an option, a good one. But *better* compression, coupled with disk-based storage, can also do the job for many of us. I would agree that HDV is bit starved, but can't say that any form of GOP is a great idea for production work. I am afraid that what is going to have to happen here is that I will have to stop responding as frankly we will never agree as to what the perfect sets of trade-offs are. What everybody here is saying that we should be able to get full uncompressed quality at low bit rates and have no penalty for making those choices. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Best, Jan |
<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt :
actually, that is exactly what has happened with hdv, it's a delivery codec being used for acquisition... all of the major software editors on the market immediately tweaked their systems to accept it... if panasonic suddenly started selling a prosumer hd camera based on wm9 or h.264, the software editors would integrate it asap. Obviously you missed the point in my previous post that said, the reason that the NLEs are where they are is because of the leadership role that JVC took 2-3 years ago, and frankly it still doesn't make the HDV codec less problematic. As far as developing a small consumer camera that does what you suggest, that may happen but I think there needs to be higher adoption in the consumer industry for HDTV. >in fact, the software editing systems that use cineform as an intermediary codec should be able to accept it immediately... all panasonic has to do is to create the in-camera silicon for it, no minor detail. IMHO, the cineform codec is a platform codec. I dont think it would lend itself to a camera/price performance payload. >thanks again for your time out here, i can't wait to see the new panasonic camera! Thanks, I really think you guys will see it and think it rocks! Best regards, Jan |
<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez: ...it is perfectly feasible to use a different codec for aquisition. This has been demonstrated with Sony's IMX. It's MPEG2 based, high quality and is treated by the NLE as uncompressed. -->>>
IMX as is a I-frame only, so it's as far from delivery codec as you can be with mpeg. Practically same as mjpeg. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. -->>>
Can you give us any reason why 10bit colors can't be implemented to firewire transferred stream? I think the reason for not going to greater colordepths is just because industry has been thinking that 8bits is "good enough for television". After digital video and especially HD has became widerly used, people are starting to noticing the quality more. Having more than 8bits is not a price point in still cameras, so same way it shouldn't be with video cameras. <<<-- Noah Kadner has a shot in his film Formosa that is at least 8-9 stops of latitude... -->>> Question with greater color depths is not just about how many stops. It's about how many tones you get in one stop. And having more colorspace gives you more room in production, so you can work faster and still get higher quality in color correction in post production than with 8bit. Very similiar thing like with acqusition and delivery codecs. They shouldn't be the same. Digital displays are also late with quality aspects. In DVI specs there is a possibility with dual link to carry MSB with first link and rest in second link. However there is no display or graphics adapters in the market that supports this. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : <<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. -->>>
Can you give us any reason why 10bit colors can't be implemented to firewire transferred stream? I think this is a question best answered with"life is full of little tradeoffs. >I think the reason for not going to greater colordepths is just because industry has been thinking that 8bits is "good enough for television". I think it is based on what people are willing to pay for technology. >After digital video and especially HD has became widerly used, people are starting to noticing the quality more. Only the people that produce it are noticing. Average consumer does not. >Having more than 8bits is not a price point in still cameras, so same way it shouldn't be with video cameras. It is a question of Pay Load. I know at the highest resolution I get fewer pictures and they are slower to open and slow down my system. I opt for the more lighter load based on my application. <<<-- Noah Kadner has a shot in his film Formosa that is at least 8-9 stops of latitude... -->>> >Question with greater color depths is not just about how many stops. It's about how many tones you get in one stop. And having more colorspace gives you more room in production, so you can work faster and still get higher quality in color correction in post production than with 8bit. There is no argument here, but if you read the question to which I am responding it was about the Gamma curve, which is about the latitude and the CineGamma and not about the color depth only the tonal range. When you look at the camera front end it is a 12 bit camera, it is much easier to deliver this picture in 8 bit without the banding that the Anders was referencing. It can be delivered with the economy of 8 bit but it dependent on where it starts. The detail is preserved in the highlingt and I have detail in the shadow area, and this is what Anders was say ing that you could not get with the cinegamma curves that we have implemented. >Very similiar thing like with acqusition and delivery codecs. They shouldn't be the same. They aren't! Hope that clarifies, Jan |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: I think this is a question best answered with"life is full of little tradeoffs. -->>>
I think you can answer with that to every question on the earth, but it isn't very productive. <<<-- I think it is based on what people are willing to pay for technology. -->>> People are willing to pay for 8bits when they don't know any better. Manufacurers primary goal is to make money for share holders, so they will give cheapest solution with quality level that is just slightly above the general acceptance. Nothing new here other than new technology would allow better quality with reasonable costs and when one competitor raises its quality, others have to follow to answer the competition and then we are heading to the right direction. Now people are building their own 4:4:4 10bit hd-cameras out of industrial cameras for less than $10k, when same commercial "movie"camera costs over ten times more. Maybe next year we will have same kind of commercial cameras on shops shelves... So we definetly are in a big turning point for moving pictures. Hacking dvx100 for getting uncompressed stream out is one example. This is what some people wants and maybe manufacturers will have to answer to it. <<<-- Only the people that produce it are noticing. Average consumer does not. -->>> I belive that average consumer can notice a diffrence of a cheapest gonzo-tv shot with smallest miniDVs compared to biggest hollywood movies, even if they both are seen from dvd with same datarate. Noticing migt be in the subconscious level and surely they can't analyze why there is difference. So consumers dont' notice the need for more than 8 bits, because they don't need it. The need is in the production, not the delivery. Color correction is done before consumers sees the program, so consumers don't have a slightest idea how many bits were used during film scanning or other post production stages. Every cinematographer who has worked with film knows the need for more color depth than 8bits. Go ahead and ask them! And I think it's very sad if the industry is changing to new technology only to save money, but quality is decreasing, instead of improving like it should be with technology advancements. <<<-- They aren't! -->>> They do have same colorspace! |
Thank you for the very good and through reply. I hope you didn't read my post as another format bashing comment, I was just wondering about if it was possible to implement 10 bit in the DVCPRO format.
By the way I really like my DVX100A, and compared to sonys offerings at the time of purchase, it was almost the perfect DV camera. Alright real 16x9 sensors Is still on my wishlist but as you also rightfully stated life is full of tradeoffs and all in all this is a great package at a great price. Also from the reports on these boards, hdv editing is really not working efficiently yet, at least not as good as DVCPRO/HD is currently Regarding codecs do you think that constant quality VBR codecs will be a viable option compared to CBR, in the future as we are moving to randam access storage like solid state technology? <<- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. These two questions basically get the same result. >> Yes, I have captured from both varicam and 750p and 900 thru HDSDI into uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 HD, bypassing the data truncation/compression of the tape decks. Ofcause this does not only awards me with 10 bit quantizing but also bypasses the 6.7:1 compression so actually what a 10 bit 4:2:2 6.7:1 format would look like I really don't know.... > See http://www.smpte.org/engineering_committees/pdf/tfrpt2w6.pdf Staring in the Annex C, you can see all of the stnadard definition digital formats compared....The footage that I see up on the big screens at NAB, 70 feet, don't seem to show what you are saying and those programs are done with the DVCPROHD material....I can't say that I have never seen it, but then I have backed up and captured the material differently. Yes the report is a very interesting read (I did read it back in 2000) but it is also written from the perspective of broadcast TV and not filmmaking which is what I do. Some of the conclutions are still interesting, and of cause Panasonic is still a broadcast company not a film company like Arri or Panavision and still the tools that you supply will be aimed at both groups of people. > Here I could not disagree more.... there is no way I could begin to agree with you assessment of the cine-gamma. I think you misunderstood my statement. What I ment was that when you expose for the highlights and is using a workflow where you will shift the levels later in the gradesession, you will see a huge difference in the finer grauations going from 8 bit to 10 bit in quantizing. When you aim for that 8-9 stops with cinegamma very few levels sre the for subtle thigs like skintones etc. I firmly believe going 10 bit would make quite a bit of difference. I am impressed at the imagequality of the varicam/sdx900 and the dynamic range that it will capture, especially using the excellent gamma settings. We are used to 10 bit log in digital film for a reason, and with the gamma settings we are closer to that. > Again, what shows up in the edit suite is often predicated by the strength of the person using the tool. > I mean really, if the 8 bit formats were so awful as you imply, why would any body buy them. Shouldn't they all be lined up at Sony's door with fists full of dollars.....I suggest you read Annex C of the SMPTE study above. It might enlighten your perpective. Life is full of compromises. I not implying that theese formats are awfull, these formats a now proven technology that is used every day professionally. I just find it's a limiting factor that it's 8 bit only. Will I > But arguably, a 4:1:1 2/3" camera can look stunning in the hands of the right operator as can the DVX100A. It can indeed! > Anyhow I hope you can see where I am going. Lif is full of little trade-offs. Many things influence which way you go, and then it is up to you to make the best of your choices. For me I see the trade of of 4:20, a long GOP, and compressed audio, huge in comparison to simple little 4:1:1 DV with progressive imaging, uncompressed audio. Yes, it sounds scary to me to. And therefore I am not buying the Sony offerings but waiting for the new panny... > Anyhow, good questions. Thank you, good anwsers as well... |
Jan, have you personally seen the picture (output) from the upcoming 1/3 lil DVCProCam?
Interested in your take on it. |
Toke, there are several issues with 10bit color with todays systems.
1. Most video cards only support 8bit per channel. Matrox has one that supports 10bit on your screen, but you give up most of your alpha channel to get it. 2. 10bit codecs put a lot of strain on most desktop computers, both cpu and IO. If you want a real world test, go to Blackmagic designs' web site and download their free codecs for Quicktime (both Apple and Windows). They will show up for any nle that supports Quicktime. Both Premier and Vegas on Windows can use them. Try editing and rendering and everything you usually do. The do not require BlackMagic hardware to run. 3. Maybe this will all change once we get 64bit windows, but who knows. I too would like 10bit or better yet 12 or 16bit, but those systems are out of my price range. 10bit uncompressed HD(1080p) single stream requires minimum 1.2gigabit throughput. (over 150Mbytes per stream). thats something that can even put lots of strain on Ultra320 Scsi drives. Most HD is edited offline in some form of SD. If you want 10bit, scream at MS and Apple and the video card manufacturers (Apple has repeatedly refused to offer 10 or 16bit). Until they support and deploy it, it's unlikely the camera makers will make affordable 10bit cameras. No market outside of very high end systems. (btw, don't mistake the 10bit ramdac outputs the video card makers talk about. Thats strictly for video/dvd playback, not for cg or editing). Your frustration is felt by many of us, but it's not the camera makers at fault on this one. really. |
<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : <<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: I think this is a question best answered with"life is full of little tradeoffs. -->>>
>I think you can answer with that to every question on the earth, but it isn't very productive. But it is reality. <<<-- I think it is based on what people are willing to pay for technology. -->>> People are willing to pay for 8bits when they don't know any better. Unfortunately this is not held up with evidence. If everyone had refused to use DV, the course of compression would have been much different. If everyone was willing to pay for the 10 bits, then they would have made DigiBeta the most popular format and not DV based products. So it is fairly obvious from here, that no, people are not willing to pay. DigiBeta was in the market for almost 2 years prior to any DV based format! And all new products, even HDCAM, IMX, HDV and XDCAM are 8 bit. So it is a matter of what people are willing to pay balanced against a percieved quality performace. Can you pay for better, can you renegade something like Juan's product. Sure, but there is a much smaller market. And if there is something huge there, then Juan will make a lot of money. Best, Jan |
Excellent question, Michael!
I was thinking the same thing myself. Hope you don't mind me adding to your question... Jan, have you seen footage from the camera? If so, what size screen(s) and what was your initial reaction? I remember mine when I first downloaded a M2T file from the FX1 and holy @#!@$. Anything like that? |
<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: If everyone had refused to use DV, the course of compression would have been much different. If everyone was willing to pay for the 10 bits, then they would have made DigiBeta the most popular format and not DV based products. -->>>
Quality was not the reason why everybody didn't buy digibeta. It was price. My frustration of this slow technical development in digital video might become in working in different fields. When I bought vx1000 in -95 it seemed that development will be rapid. Before that people were using u-matic with inferior quality and analog beta with over ten times higher prices. After that almost nothing has happened. Maybe prices in higher quality digital video has halved in last decade (not digibeta of course), but that's really nothing when you compare advancement in computers or digital still photography. There one zero has dropped from prices and quality is ten times better than decade ago. I also bought 16:9 televison in -95. Still before now you couldn't buy 16:9 camera with at least 1/3" sensor less than $20k. I think that reason for this slow development is mainly lack of competition. There is sony with everything very expensive and panny with something less expensive. If you compare situation in still cameras there is about a dozen of top grade manufacturers. And there is lot of choises in the "middle class". Another thing might be that better than consumer class quality is instantly thought to be needed only in big money television productions in top economical areas where one hour of program can easily cost eg. $500k. How about areas where hour of program can cost only one tenth of it or less? Well, just use the same cameras than home hobbyist... Technically it would have been very easy to offer 10bit upgrade to dv-formats for years. That would make 25Mbps to 32Mbps that could be easily handled with existing tape and transfer technics. Camera heads already have higher than 10bit dsp's, so there would be no expenses over there either. Every $1k computer today could handle 10bit even if converted to 16bits. I hope that this new Panny's camera will strike to this non-existing $2k-20k range with good quality for smaller economic areas and non-commercial productions! |
First you say that people are willing to pay for 10 bit, and when I show you that they aren't; you say that it is because it it is too expensive. Hey, you said that people were willing to pay for it. Apparently not.
You make asumptions, you think are correct. In reality, you don't know because you are not in the manufacturing end of things, you are not in the R & D Department, you don't know how long it takes to make things happen and or even make a new product. I have tried to explain. You don't care for what I have said and do not want to beleive it. You think it is based on the lack of competition and that isnt it at all. Please, this part of the thread is going nowhere. You know it, I know it, all that are reading it know it. I will not respond to this part of the thread again. Best regards, Jan |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:45 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network