50mbit/s for ex1/3 - like panasonics new cam?
 

a lot of broadcasting stations want at least 50mbit/s (no matter what codec is used) and panasonics new camera AG-HPX301E even does 100mbit/s (4:2:2, 10bit) for a similar price as the ex3.
tempting. inspite of only 1/3inch chips. isn't it?
when will we see an update? nab?

Have these stations properly evaluated the existing codecs and taken a close look at the quality of the images?

In the hundreds of hours I've shot, I haven't seen anything wrong with XDCam EX codec. Not just my opinion. The Discovery Channel thinks so, too and gave the format silver status.

I shoot green screen at 1080p30 with an EX1 on a routine basis and the composites are outstanding. Many who have seen them never realized it was a composite at all because it keys cleanly.

The 4:2:0 sampling also grades nicely. So anyone concerned over this codec failing when it comes to color sampling needs to see this format for themselves before passing judgement.

The codec holds up detail under very trying conditions, never falling apart even when there's a massive amount of changing detail.

I don't know how it works but it does. And the results are nothing short of remarkable.

So the people who are insisting on the higher bitrates are probably making assumptions and have not carefully evaluated what's out there.

so do you think convergent designs flash xdr does not make sense?
Convergent Design, experts in HDMI, SD, HD, and HDV

however, arte (german-french cultural channel) for example, clearly states 50mbit/s is required.
i can not force them to just look at the quality of the image ...

discovery HD
 

So your local station doesn't think the EX cameras are good enough? Discovery HD will accept the EX cameras on par with the HDX900, Varicam & Sony F900.

First of all "a lot of broadcasting want at least 50mbit/s" implies that there are a lot of people who are engineers who have little technical understanding.

Data rate, independent of codec, is near meaningless.

A lot of broadcasters accept XDCAM 35mbit/s and many use it for news. Others, like Discovery, which tends to have major rigorous standards, accepts the EX for programing.

Sorry, but a statement requiring a given data rate not attached to a specific codec is just plan stupid from a technical perspective. Any "body" making such requirement shouldn't be working in this industry in my not so humble opinion.

only a firmware matter
 

Hi everyone,

From what I understand, Sony can do an update of our EX1 and 3 anytime. It only depends of competition and us, users, asking them to. The EX cam video heads are in 4.2.2. The SxS cards could easily handle a 50 mbits/s rate (which would be an argument to go for SxS instead of SDHC).
Our EX cams are just a big computer with excellent lenses and sensors. If we ask Sony they can bring very interesting changes. It is important to send them feedback. They do take them into account, at least the XD CAM EX responsible in Europe do.

Cheers

Video heads? What video heads?
It's an encoder chip and I've heard that it would require the chip to be replaced. Not firmware upgradable.

I don't think a firmware upgrade would give you computer a new CPU or GPU. New chip, new motherboard, new graphics card = new computer.

But wait, doesn't the nano flash record 422 out of the EX1? It's got to have 422 somewhere inside if it's recording that amount of color to flash.

Not a video head though. Before the codec gets to it you have 10 bit 4:2:2 Uncompressed and that's sent out the HD-SDI to the Nano Flash.

The encoder chip in the camera though can't be changed by a firmware upgrade so I've heard by those who know the camera hardware.

In other words you either pick off the video pre encoder (as HD-SDI to Nano Flash does) or you replace the hardware encoder chip which probably isn't cost effective and may be an engineering issue.

Certainly Sony can bring 50mbit/s to EX (as they've done with HD on the 700) but it would likely be in a new camera.

The EX1 can output 4:2:2 from the HD SDI port and the image is uncompressed at that point.

As everyone mentioned, the EX1 and EX3 provides a terrific image regardless of its data rate and 10-frame GOP compression. That's the first thing I tested when I rented the camera prior to purchasing one. I filled the frame with turbulent water falling into a pond and didn't see any sign of the codec breaking.

Thomas -- unless the broadcaster does an equipment inspection, how would it know what you shot your program on or what the original data rate might have been? Let's say you were editing with Final Cut Pro and then using Color for grading. The end result would be in ProRes format which is roughly 220 megabits/second.

As mentioned elsewhere on this board, if the content of the material is compelling enough, the technical requirements would most likely be waived. I'm certain that if you were the only one to get a shot of a tsunami wiping out New York and got it with a Flip Video camera, your station wouldn't decline the opportunity to use it.

You won't get 4:2:2 from the EX1 or EX3 to SxS card in camera.

From my understanding, this is because there is only 1 'encoder' chip in the EX1/3's.

Convergent Design's 'encoder' uses 2 chips which gives you the 4:2:2 while just one chip gives you 4:2:0.

According to Convergent Design, I-Frame encoding at 100 Mbps is roughly equivalent to 35Mbps Long-GOP in overall quality.

BTW getting back to the original post.
You can't compare data rates with different codecs by looking at the data rate itself.

XDCAM is a very efficient long GOP codec. That's why it'll look as good as some intra (non GOP) codecs at much higher data rates (DVCProHD for example).

AVCHD (also long GOP) is even more efficient than XDCAM but it takes a lot more computer power to decode.

XDCAM and AVCHD can look as good or better than DVCProHD and 1/3 to 1/4 the data rate.

AVC Intra (not long GOP) is less efficient than long GOP codecs but the codec is a very good. An AVC Intra file at the same data rate as DVCProHD file can be significantly better.

It's a bit more complex than what I'm stating but the short of it is it's technically absurd to claim a data rate alone as a specs sans taking the codec into account.

That's like saying a codec alone makes the picture better without taking into account the camera it's attached too.

Maybe AVCHD at 24mbps/s can look better than XDCAM EX at 35mbps/s BUT if the AVCHD is attached to a $500 consumer camera it ain't going to be near an EX3.

Certainly an EX 35mbps/s can be as good as or better than DVCProHD 100mbps/s and that can be the case with AVCHD 24mbps if the camera has a good "front end."

Again one can argue the finer points but for any broadcast facility to flatly say 50mbps/s as a base is technical ignorance in my opinion (I've been known to be strongly opinionated).

It can be as simple as comparing an EX1 to an HVX200 (and both are good cameras with reasons to like either) but in MANY WAYS the EX at 35mbps far exceeds the HVX200 at 100mbps in various chart tech tests (and live situations).

DV50 is probably their minimum, but it's an intraframe codec. There is no way a 50 mbit codec, even for SD video, will compete with 35 mbps intraframe EX1 codec.

Has anybody been able to compare Flash XDR and/or avcintra-footage (AG-HPX301E?) with xdcam-ex footage side by side?

Most of the broadcasters that are specifying a minimum of 50Mbps 4:2:2 are also specifying a minimum of 1/2 inch, full raster 1920x1080 sensors.

There is a very good reason for this and it's called diffraction. Cameras with small sensors suffer from diffraction issues at apertures less than f6. The severely limits the way lenses can be used.

DV50 it a data rate tied to a codec rather than simply a data rate. BIG difference.

Is there a thread here that talks about this issue?

Yes. See these threads for starters:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/open-dv-d...d-filters.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xh-...re-values.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xh-...unprecise.html

and http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/623697-post131.html

Some of those are written for Canon XH but these matters apply to all 1/3rd-inch (and smaller) sensors no matter what the camera model is... use our Search function to bring up many more threads which discuss diffraction to an even greater degree. Hope this helps,

Indeed, and the EBU have tried to set a baseline with a series of highly involved tests - an attempt to set a reasonable "to be worked towards" standard than set any hard and fast "less than this should never be used, regardless of content" laws.

In brief, they've given full approval for general use to 50Mbs XDCAM422 and 100Mbs AVC-Intra as a minimum for the future, and the expectation is that formats such as HDCAM, DVCProHD and 35Mbs XDCAM-HD should be phased out in future. That's nowhere near the same as saying "should never be used". But hopefully it also gives manufacturers some clarity as to what to work towards.

Equally, even higher end formats such as HDCAM SR may be sensible for top end productions such as expensive broadcast drama.

The issue is not what the pictures look like straight after recording, but how they stand up to a broadcast chain, including post work and compression for transmission. Errors, insignificant in themselves, can build up down the chain.

Very good contribution, David! I think, that is exactly what it is all about. That is also why I think, the new Panasonic AG-HPX301E camera is one important step into the right direction. (even though I still prefer 1/2inch chips and find P2 way too expensive and too slow). Canon might come up with something quite interessting next year, i heard ... combining the best of both "worlds". we'll see ..

Yes, I agree. It ticks a lot of right boxes (fully approved codec being just one), but I find it frustratingly leaves a lot unticked. For that sort of money, I'd really want 1/2" sensors as you get with the (much cheaper) EX - nothing to do with "quality" in a technical sense, far more issues such as diffraction and dof as Alistair says. And now people have got used to the wide use of SDHC in this sector of the market, P2 just seems less and less attractive.

What I'd like to see is something similar to the 301 - but with (at least) 1/2" chips, and able to use SDHC. My suspicion is that's most likely to come from Sony, in which case I can only hope they go for the other EBU approved codec - 50Mbs XDCAM-HD422 - instead of 35Mbs. It shouldn't add much onto the price, and (unlike 100Mbs codecs) still be recordable to SDHC.

Brings us back around to the EX plus a nano flash, or maybe even Sony will bring out a SxS recorder with HDSDi in at 50Mbps. Not sure how the unit for the PDW-700 will get it's input yet, wether it will somehow take the Mpeg stream from the camera (not sure where this would come out) or take the cameras HDSDi output and record that. My suspicion is HDSDi as I've heard rumors that the box will also work with HDCAM cameras.

Maybe, but something like a nano-Flash won't help the EX handheld ergonomics. It's also quite a bit of extra money.

Yet shouldermount styling and a 50Mbs bitrate option needn't add much onto the camera cost at all, which is why there's so much hope for an "EX5" at NAB. If such a thing should come about, it's conceivable it could cost less to upgrade an EX3 to an "EX5" than buy such as a nano-Flash. Get the increased data rate and (hopefully) better ergonomics as well.

I think we are in for a few interesting years in cam development.

Consumers love to not think about focus 1/4" chips are great at that, maybe we will see even smaller chips with greater DOF.

Storytelling is great with selective focus, but a lot more work. Pros love it. Canon 5dmkII is a great cheap example of generation 1 of full 35mm chips, RED is coming out with lots of different size chips.

I think in the future pros will have a great variety of chips and lenses, you will have modular cams a la RED. Pick your chip and your lens to fit what you want to conway.

I also think we will soon see an end to HD's, everything will be solid state. We still deliver a lot of SD 4:3 BetaSP, but that is about the only tape we use much any more. We now deliver a lot of comercials etc by FTP MPG streams.

There will be lots of new codecs and compression schemes.

Enjoy the ride.