We have some very exciting news for Flash XDR and nanoFlash customers: the next firmware release of the Flash XDR and the initial shipments of the nanoFlash will now include 220 Mbps I-Frame Only recording and playback!

We have confirmed playback in Avid Media Composer and FCP. We plan to post test files for Edius users. Vegas and Premiere support is still pending, but we will send test files to the developers.

220 Mbps I-Frame-Only 4:2:2 should alleviate any concerns regarding motion artifacts as well as compression artifacts. It looks absolutely stunning!

We should qualify the 16GB Sandisk Extreme IV and the 16GB Lexar 300X Compact Flash cards this week. Record time is approximately 9 minutes per card.

Best-

Dear Friends,

Please note that only cards qualified for use with 220 Mbps I-Frame Only, should be used for this mode.

Please do not rely on "x" speed ratings, or manufacturer's "Megabyte per Second" ratings.

We will qualify the cards to ensure that they will work for you.

Vegas and Premiere support is still pending, but we will send test files to the developers.


Please let us know when you hear from the Vegas folk!

Dear John,

We are working with Sony.

We will keep you informed of our progress.

Our 220 Mbps I-Frame Only works very well in Final Cut Pro, and others at this time, but not Vegas.

Outstanding. Loving 100 mbps Long GOP. Can't wait to try 220mbps I-frame.

So far, no problems with my Transcend eight 16gb 300x UDMA cards on my 09 MBP (10.5.7) and 09 Nehalem MP (10.5.6). Hoping they'll still suffice.
JB.

Dear Justin,

For a while, we did not see any Leopard related problems with the Transcend 16 GB 300x cards.

Now we have.

So we are not recommending the Transcend cards.

But, they may work for you if you follow our advice and not Eject the cards, or drag and drop the icon to the Trash Bin. But, this is not a guaranty.

I am glad that they are working for you.

Mike and Dan,

This is a really thrilling news indeed!

As a Vegas user, may I ask you whether you have a hint from SCS that Vegas will support I-frame at all in a foreseeable future?

I've tested your 100 Mbps long-GOP samples with both VP 8 and 9, and they are handled excellently :)

Regards

Piotr

Dear Piotr,

We do not know what Vegas does not accept our I-Frame Only.

We are working with Sony on this.

Sony is very cooperative.

Sony is very cooperative.

This is what I hoped to hear - thanks Dan!

Piotr

Is there or will there be 10 bit recording?

Dan,
We had chatted back in April with regards to testing the XDR Flash with Sony /PDW-700 Ex1/3 for an upcoming new CBS Network series. Well, we now have the go ahead, and my desire would be to test the Nano due to its smaller footprint. As I can see from the posts above the Nano is moving along very well. The 220 I Frame capability should rock. Please drop me a line when ever possible.
xdhd@mac.com

Dan

In an older reply of yours regarding a threat I've started about quality you have stated that the 100Mbit GOP fares better than 160Mbit I-Frame. I guess the 220Mbit setting will be your new quality champ, outperfoming the 100Mbit GOP. Can you tell us the quality ratio between GOP and I Frame in Mpeg2 compression?

Is there or will there be 10 bit recording?

Hi Mike-
The nanoFlash is an 8-bit recorder. However, unless your camera produces an (effective) 10-bit HD-SDI output, then there is nothing to be gained from 10-bit recording.

I'll have a separate thread on the issues of 8-bit vs 10-bit recording shortly.

Best-

Dan

In an older reply of yours regarding a threat I've started about quality you have stated that the 100Mbit GOP fares better than 160Mbit I-Frame. I guess the 220Mbit setting will be your new quality champ, outperfoming the 100Mbit GOP. Can you tell us the quality ratio between GOP and I Frame in Mpeg2 compression?

Hi Emmanuel-
Long-GOP recording is about 2X to 3X more efficient that I-Frame only. 99% of all the video on planet earth is Long-GOP as it is used in all Television broadcast and DVD/Blu-Ray disks.

Long-GOP can theoretically break down in high-motion conditions, but in all honesty, we have seen any issues from any 100 Mbps Long-GOP footage, even in very high motions situations, including rotating the camera while panning. That said, we added the 220 Mbps I-Frame to alleviate any concerns regarding motion or compression artifacts. The 220 Mbps footage does look spectacular and plays back perfect in FCP and Avid.

220 Mbps does require that faster CF cards (Sandisk Extreme IV or Lexar 300X, which caost about $150 for a 16GB card). Also 220 Mbps cuts the record time in half compared the 100Mbps Long-GOP.

Best-

Long-GOP recording is about 2X to 3X more efficient than I-Frame only.


So 100 Mbps long GOP would have (slightly) less compression that 220 Mbps I-frame?
(As well as allowing longer recording time per card.)

Dear John,

The exact performance of the 220 Mbps I-Frame Only is still to be determined.

In other words, we do not know which will be better in terms of absolute image quality, ignoring the size of the files.

We feel that they will be close, but it is too early to tell.

The "Holy Grail" is a codec that produces an image that is visually indistinguishable from uncompressed, and produces the smallest file sizes.

Our 100 Mbps Long-GOP mode, in our tests, and in tests performed by others, meets this standard.

But, some want an I-Frame Only (Intra-Frame) option, so we offer both.

The 100 Mbps option is what I recommend, as this has been proven in many tests, and it produces very compact file sizes (for high quality HD images). The 220 Mbps I-Frame Only file sizes are larger, thus recording time is reduced.

Hi Dan...

I think we've been down this road before. But, at the risk of being redundant, I'd much rather see 10-bit encoding than 220mbps I frame.

Hi Dan...

I think we've been down this road before. But, at the risk of being redundant, I'd much rather see 10-bit encoding than 220mbps I frame.

Dan and Mike,

I'd like to strongly express my opinion Bill is 100% right... If only it's in the realm of the NanoFlash basic design, the addition of (even chargeable) upgrade to the long GOP (or uncompressed, as MPEG2 theoretically doesn't provide for this) 10 bit 4:2:2 is MUCH more appealing that even the highest Mbps I-frame encoding!

Dear Bill and Piotr,

We fully understand, we would love to do what you want.



All MPEG-2 is 8-Bit. All HD Television is 8-Bit.

Even if we made a custom version of MPEG-2, the NLE systems would have to support it for it to be really useful.

Our Flash XDR will, in the future, with an extra cost upgrade support 10-Bit full uncompressed. This is possible since the Flash XDR has four CompactFlash card slots.

We calculate, that using today's CompactFlash card technology, it takes writing to four CompactFlash cards simultaneously to support full uncompressed. The nanoFlash has two CompactFlash card slots.

Bill and Piotr, I understand that you know the next point, but some don't:

For us to effectively record 10-Bit, a 10-Bit camera needs to be used. There are some 10-Bit cameras at the ultra high-end, and some low cost cameras have 10-bit, but most are only 8-Bit.



Just as soon as we are able to provide a 10-Bit solution, we will do so.

Richard Welnowski has performed the following test:

1. Record using a great 10-Bit camera, the Thomson Viper, in full 10-Bit 4:4:4.

2, Record simultaneously to our Flash XDR at 100 Mbps Long GOP.

3. Compare each image, frame by frame. The best way I know of to do this is a "Difference Mask" in Photoshop.

The results were that the differences were very minor.


Some are concerned about banding. We have not seen an instance of banding when using our 100 Mbps Long GOP mode. Most attribute banding to 8-Bit, but it can also be created when using a lower performance codec.

No one who has ever tested the Flash XDR or the nanoFlash has ever complained about the image quality or reported banding.

I hope this helps.

Dan and Mike,

I'd like to strongly express my opinion Bill is 100% right... If only it's in the realm of the NanoFlash basic design, the addition of (even chargeable) upgrade to the long GOP (or uncompressed, as MPEG2 theoretically doesn't provide for this) 10 bit 4:2:2 is MUCH more appealing that even the highest Mbps I-frame encoding!

Hi Piotr-
Understand, 10-bit recording is possible if you don's mind a much larger size unit (not camcorder mountable) and much greater power (which means a much larger battery). In time there may be hardware options that will allow to to create a small low-power 10-bit recorder, but it's not possible with the technolgy we have access to today.

Also recall that 10-bit recording buys you nothing unless your camera outputs 10-bit. Yes, the Sony EX1/3 gives full 10-bit as well as the new Panasonic HPX-300, but nothing else in the sub $10K range is 10-bit. All HDV, AVCHD and (I suspect) DVCProHD based cameras are only 8-bit. Even many of the higher cost cameras are 8-bit as well as every HDMI camera we have tested.

10-bit recording does help, but according to a our high-end Viper users (who are shooting several movies with the Flash XDR), you simply have to know how to shoot the scene to allow for 8-bit recording.

I would agree that 10-bit recording is advantageous for output to film, but I doubt you'll gain very much (if anything) if your final output is TV or DVD/Blu-ray. (Yes, you gain some if the final editing /color correction work is done in a 10-bit CODEC). But, remember that all TV and DVD/Blu-ray is 8-bit Long-GOP format. That said, I can understand the need to always capture at the highest possible quality.

I'll have much more to say about this topic in the coming weeks. It's not quite as simple as 8-bit vs 10-bit as many other factors come into play.

Best-

Understood, Mike and Dan -

I wrote:

Dan and Mike,
... If only it's in the realm of the NanoFlash basic design

- didn't I :)

Dear Piotr,

Yes, you did.

We were just trying to be a clear and informative as possible.

At this time, a very small, low cost, low power, very high quality, 10-bit HD recorder is hard to do.

At this time, a very small, low cost, low power, very high quality, 10-bit HD recorder is hard to do.

Fair enough.

But when it is possible, please can you make one....?

Dear Mike,

We will be happy to oblige.

For the time being, I'm content to capture to 8-bit. Provided that I can immediately transcode to 10-bit and edit in 10-bit. Since this is a kinda slow day, here, I'll mention that I'm holding my breath for Cineform to get it together enough to fix NeoHD. I really want a 10-bit pipeline. I've been using Bitjazz's Sheer codec, but, it's not really made for Windows, just yet. Lots of hiccups and playback is stuttery.

Oh well, thanx for the feedback Mike and Dan. You guys are great.

Hi Bill-
Thanks! I'll give the Cineform folks a call and try to accelerate the process. We do get plenty of calls asking for Cineform compatibility.

Best-

Dear Piotr,

We do not know what Vegas does not accept our I-Frame Only.

We are working with Sony on this.

Sony is very cooperative.

Hey, Dan:

Any new word from Sony on this?

Dear John,

Sorry, but I personally do not have an update on this at this time.

why can't 220 bs Long Gop be acheived? and i am now seeing that 140 Long GOP has been added. whan can we expect coments on visual differance of 140 vs 100 Long GOP?

Dear Nolan,

That is a hard question.

We do not feel that we can reliably create 220 Mbps Long GOP footage, so we do not offer it.

But, there are other considerations.

1. Long GOP is typically 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than I-Frame Only.

2. All that is needed is a compression scheme that gives a recording that is visually indistinguishable from the original and handles motion, and very high detail in the image without any artifacts.

Our 100 Mbps Long GOP does this. And for extra insurance we are offering 140 Mbps. We may add higher bit rates later.

We hope that our users will test these new options and pick whicherver is best for them.

We feel very confidient that 100 Mbps Long GOP is the sweet spot. But, of course, some like to use Intraframe compression, so we offer that also.

Hello Dan,
While testing my Sandisk Extreme 60MBs 32GB cards I have noticed that my max record time while recording 100 Mbps I-Frame was 1hour 18 minutes and 100Mbps Long GOP was 1hour 20 minutes. From what I have read here that "1. Long GOP is typically 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than I-Frame Only".

Given that Long Gop is 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than I-Frame Only then is not reflected in record duration?

Hello Dan,
While testing my Sandisk Extreme 60MBs 32GB cards I have noticed that my max record time while recording 100 Mbps I-Frame was 1hour 18 minutes and 100Mbps Long GOP was 1hour 20 minutes. From what I have read here that "1. Long GOP is typically 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than I-Frame Only".

Given that Long Gop is 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than I-Frame Only then is not reflected in record duration?

Hi Lance-
You need to compare 50 Mbps Long-GOP to 100 Mbps I-Frame. Both will provide the same level of video quality, but the 50 Mbps rate will give you twice the record time.

Best-

Lance -

What format/speed were you shooting at for the 1:18 @ I-frame?

Hello Dan,
While testing my Sandisk Extreme 60MBs 32GB cards I have noticed that my max record time while recording 100 Mbps I-Frame was 1hour 18 minutes and 100Mbps Long GOP was 1hour 20 minutes. From what I have read here that "1. Long GOP is typically 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than I-Frame Only".

Given that Long Gop is 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than I-Frame Only then is not reflected in record duration?

Lance - 100Mbs refers to the data rate, not the quality - get it? At the same data rate both codecs will take up the same amount of space on a card. 100Mbs Long GOP should be higher quality than I frame (but not twice as good :)

Thanks to everyone I am still trying to get my head arround this HD world.

Mike - I now understand that You need to compare 50 Mbps Long-GOP to 100 Mbps I-Frame I will record Both and see if the video quality between 50 Mbps Long-GOP to 100 Mbps I-Frame is noticeable. I have read that if you edit with FCP and use multilayer's on your timeline that it is best to record in I-Frame and not Long-Gop. Would you give me your view. I frequently edit with up to four video layers on my timeline.

Lance -

What format/speed were you shooting at for the 1:18 @ I-frame?

Daniel - I am still trying to find the best solution for my work, I have now settled on 1080/50i and now tweaking the profiles to get the best results.

Lance -

Thanks. Just trying to get a handle on capacity.

I shoot 23.976 so our figures won't jive.

Arguing with myself (who else?) about the value of I-frame, which it SEEMS makes editorial happier. Leaning toward 1080 23.98 I-frame.

As for the rate, I'll see what they come up with in the 64GB cards and 100+ Mbps. Not looking for uncompressed (yet), but my Hollywood clients aren't compression fans (film out, efx work, etc.).

I have read that if you edit with FCP and use multilayer's on your timeline that it is best to record in I-Frame and not Long-Gop....Correct. Do you know why ? We all need to take a deep breath when it comes to Long-GOP. Yes, Long GOP is more efficient, but you can't edit it in post properly *because it is a Delivery Format* and not an editing format. Long-GOP was never designed for post production manipulation. I Frame was. The difficulty with I-Frame is you have to roughly double the data rate at encode to equal the quality of Long-GOP. The argument has already been made for high I-Frame data rate settings to be made available on the XDR/Nano, because as good as Long-GOP is (And it's fantastic !) who cares if you can't edit it properly on post and deliver it to the TV screen. (??)

* However, one could set up for capture via HD-SDI and simply play that beatiful 100 Mbps Long-GOP codec into your NLE either uncompressed in your editing project and post and deliver in this manner, or use a lossless compression like Avid's DNxHD 220 X (10 Bit codec). The extra two bits in the color space really comes into play in the color correction stages ;-)

**Play out the Long-GOP via HD-SDI into FCP and use the Pro Res HD 4:2:2 HQ or uncompressed, or use XDCAM HD 4:2:2 (The codec of the XDR and Nano)

One has to try to avoid playing the numbers game.

I did a 3D feature film in '05 (first DIGITAL, LIVE ACTION) shot with Sony Z1's.

We shot a test with F900 and Z1 side by side. Low light, high contrast, movement, etc.

Technicolor did a FILM OUT, split screen. We looked at the result, and even the technical types there would go "Ummmm, I think...ummmm, the one on the left is the Z1."

Since then, I've very much espoused the "if the audience can't tell" philosophy.

For most of my "Hollywood" clients, I go uncompressed for post. I'm covered up to 2K.

But I'm finding producers are FINALLY starting to get it that compression CAN work.

What bugs me is the PC/MAC divide. I dislike the warfare angle. Simply, I use PC since there's more choice (and usually lower cost). But the MAC world likes to exclude PC standards, so we're still running in circles.

Long GOP isn't my friend YET. When I have equipment in hand, I'll make that decision.

For now, the cost of cards is coming down, and shooting 160/I-frame is possible and likely even my most strict client SHOULD warm to it with comparison.

True enough I do NOT like the formats of the nanoFLASH. Neither is PC. As they say, "What's up with THAT?"

Recording to QT in a "platform independent" format would be the BEST for all. I do ALL my PC work as QT (or DPX sequences). I exchange QT with MAC systems all the time (as long as you watch out for the gamma flag).

Special flavors of QT/MXF aren't the solution.

Hi Daniel:
You wrote: "Special flavors of QT/MXF aren't the solution."

....Yeah, for now they are :-) BTW. Avid runs on the PC or *MAC* and is MXF for both platforms. FCP is QT, because Apple invented QT, FCP and the MAC. MXF is not used by Avid because MXF is PC standard specific. Avid determined the MXF file format to be the best way to arrive at a file format that was resolution independent and could work across the PC/MAC devide.

Mark wrote:
"Yes, Long GOP is more efficient, but you can't edit it in post properly *because it is a Delivery Format* and not an editing format. Long-GOP was never designed for post production manipulation. I Frame was".
MPEG-2 have been widely used for delivery, but this doesn't means that was designed as a Delivery Format.
GOPs is a new and only digital concept. Intraframe is nothing but the natural way to digitize an analog video signal (made out frames). Nothing related with being or not editable.
NLEs developers haven't update their software fast enough. They have no idea of the lands slide of GOPs that was coming.
Remember just few years ago. You couldn't get the mouse close to an MPEG file in a Mac. The ball would spin for half hour. Software, processors, video cards were no ready to handle this kind of files.
Things have changed and half of the world is acquiring MPEG-2 Long GOPs.

We are in a time were recording 10b Unc is easier than never before. However you heard to talk about 10b Unc less than never before. People simply don't care so much about 10b Unc. Definitively there are other options.

I've been having a look to what is available to record in a field with a quality close or better to the CD machines.
I found those two portable 10b Uncompress recorders:
This first one can even records 4.4.4. pairing two machines.

KG UDR-D100 Portable Uncompressed HD Recorder :: Equipment Sales :: Abel Cine Tech (http://www.abelcine.com/store/product.php?productid=1001410&cat=327&page=1)

http://www.mikrom.de/download/MVR100/MVR100_Flyer_Web.pdf

Then apart of the Ki Pro, I found this device:
Fast Forward Video (http://www.ffv.com/page/videoproducts.htm)
It could be better than the MPEG-2 Long GOPs if the JPEG2000 its records was 10b (supported in JPEG2000) but the info doesn't say so. I guess is only 8b at 100Mbps.
I'm sure that soon will be more recorders to choose from. The trend is that: A lens with a captor and an SDI/HDMI recorder.
Best,
rafael