Hopefully this wasn't already posted on the other threads, I looked but didn't see it.

A fellow camera person just notified me that he just bought a brand new 2700 for $19,500.00!?! I checked the Panasonic site and lo and behold, it is true! Holy smokes, Panasonic is tempting me like nothing ever has before. The offer is good through December 31, 2009. Perhaps Jan can jump in here and expand on details? It is the same as the 3700 offer was, you need to trade in a certain type of camera, but that is a no brainer, you can buy Betacams on Ebay for $300.00 that are eligible.

Half price on new a 2700. Wow, Hell has definitely frozen over. Not sure if a lot of you who only use lower end cameras realize how incredible this camera is. I would personally prefer this camera over the 3700 as it has VFR, which is important to my work.

Go forth and purchase. If this isn't an economic stimulus package, I don't know what would be.

Dan

I would be tempted but I need 1080p off the chip. Also does this make you think they are going to stop making the 2700 and replace it with a 1080p camera?

Well obviously this is a move to sell more cameras during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Considering the 2700 was introduced less than a year ago, I somehow doubt that it will be replaced anytime soon.

Just out of curiosity, do you want or really need 1080p off of the chip? I know two DPs who felt the same way, then had a chance to shoot a show with the 2700, fell in love and bought it. Native resolution is nice but the 1080 that comes out of the 2700 is absolutely beautiful, even though the sensors are not native resolution. I believe that this camera is certified Gold for Discovery Networks, their highest rating.

There is always the 3700 but the special offer on it has ended. For me, the VFR and affordable price are much more significant that native resolution. I have shot with the HPX300, which is an amazing camera for the money and has 1080 native CMOS imagers, but the 2700 makes much better pictures even though it is not 1080 native.

Dan

Dan not knocking the 2700 and I am sure it creates great pictures. And at $19,500 for a base camera that would be a nice deal. But yes I want native 1080p and higher pixel count on the chip.

Rumors will say that there is a model 1000 on its way with 1080-50P.
A lot of other cameras can downconvert 1080P to 720P very beautifuly so maybe there is not a market for 720 CCD's much longer.

Paul:

Have you considered the HPX300? Not in the same league as the 2700 but about 1/3 the cost and it is full raster. Your work looks mostly like outdoor stuff, the AVC INTRA100 codec would look superb with your aerials and landscapes. A lot of the benefits of the 2700. Perhaps a 300 with a better quality lens and a few P2 cards?

Just something to consider. I love the 300, it is an amazing value for the money.

Dan

Dan,

Thanks for the recommendation but I shoot with the EX series and the Convergent Designs Nano flash. Excellent combination. I could not go back down to a 1/3" chip. My next step is to 2/3 HD with minimum 2.2 MP on each CCD chip not CMOS. That keeps me watching the Panasonic and Sony threads.

I shoot with the EX1 quite a bit and frankly, other than the imager size, the 300 is a better camera. The lens is better. The LCD is equal. Then handling is leagues better. While I like the EX1 and it is capable of very good images, the EX1 is prosumer with terrible ergonomics and the 300 is pro with the best ergonomics of any camera I have shot with in the past five years. I just wish that it had 2/3" imagers instead of 1/3". Sony and Panasonic keep coming close and ALMOST getting right, but never right on the money.

The new F800 is really nice hardware and features, about $40k though for the body and it is only 50 MBPS with that wonky Sony codec. How could I go from a $5,000.00 SSM camera with a 100 MBPS codec to a $40,000 one with a 50 MBPS codec that shoots to mechanical media? After living with P2 since 2005, and more recently SxS with the EX1 and CF with the 5D MKII, I could never go back to disc based media, it is a step backwards.

I just did a review of the NanoFlash for HD Video Pro Magazine, it is in the next issue along with the AG-HPG20, the Aja Ki-Pro, the Focus Enhancements 200 and the S.two OB1. It's a nice unit.

Ah well, we continue on with the tools we have.

Dan

Interesting that the larger cameras are being sacrificed in the economic driven climate, I'd like to see some cost cutting/discounts on the smaller 1/3" cams also.
Bang for Buck the 2/3" is sensational value, much better in my opinion than the smaller cams, but for portability, the smaller 1/3" cams win hands down.

Cheers
Tom K

Dan you bring up some good points. Sony and Panasonic get close but have not yet nailed the best camera for my business.

The EX/1&3 have shoulder braces that solve the problem of ergonomics. And with the EX3 you lens options are endless.

I agree 2/3" is the way to go but with only 1.1MP compared to 2.2MP there is a long way to to catch up there.

Don't cut 100Mbps Long GOP out.

Do you have a reference to the 2700 being "I believe that this camera is certified Gold for Discovery Networks, their highest rating."

Dan I guess the best way to learn the 2700 camera is rent it for a shoot which I might do.

You can't deny the pixel count it's true, but I know of at least production teams that have looked at the HPX2700 and PDW700 side by side and preferred the 2700 image.
Dan, surprised to hear you think the 301 lens is better than the EX1, I found the EX lens in my bried use of it to be outstanding. Are you talking about the stock lens on the Panny? I heard that was dreadful.
Steve

Thanks Steve,

Again I am down the road of looking at a 2/3" camera. Time to rent and find out on a few flights.

Hi Paul:

Unfortunately the Producers Portal for Discovery Networks does not list their rating scale on cameras, that information is only provided to commissioned producers and I have not been lucky enough to sell a show to a Discovery network outlet.

But I have read posts and spoken with other producers who have. From what I have been told lately...

HVX200/HPX170, EX1, EX3 and all other 1/3" or 1/2" cameras - Bronze (these 1/3" and 1/2" cameras may not be used for more than 25% of total show content and only w permission from Discovery contact
HPX500 - Silver
HPX2000/3000 w AVCINTRA board, 2700/3700/AJ-HD27 Varicam - Gold along with F900, etc. These cameras may be used on Planet Earth level programming where image really counts.

I don't have the document. Perhaps someone else on their board does? Keep in mind that these specs only apply to commissioned programming, not spec or independently produced content. Also, I have seen three shows that were shot entirely on the HVX200 on a Discovery Network channel in prime time. The most well known was the Iditarod special that aired last year. There was one from the year before that was a mixture of cameras, but there was one last year that was ALL HVX200 and it delivered to Discovery on a hard drive, not on tape. So these rules are more like guidelines anyway.

Dan

Steve:

I shoot with the EX1 all of the time and it is a decent lens. But the 300 lens has a very effective CAC function and is better built. I was much more impressed with the images I shot with the 300 than with the EX1 on a recent project, but that was, at least partly due to the massive superiority of the AVCINTRA 100 codec over the XDCAM EX codec as well.

The only thing that didn't impress me with the 300 lens is the breathing, it is terrible for rack focusing. But for a lens that is essentially free, it is very impressive to me. Sure, there are much better lenses available for the camera but they cost a lot more than the camera. I wish that the 300 lens was wider too on the wide angle end of things, my 170 lens and the EX1 lens were much wider. But for image quality, the 300 lens is decent.

Dan

I read something last year on here where Steve and Alister were talking about Discovery and BBC saying they will go 1080 and not 720. The 2700 is 720 native maybe that is why the great deal. A 1080 version might be on the way.

In what way did you notice the codec difference? Was this on transmission, or did you see codec breakdown from the EX just on viewing rushes?
With my HPX2700 the CAC seems to make virtually 0 difference! I have a Fujinon HA18x7.6, and I can only assume that as this is a quality lens that has fairly low CA anyway it doesn't change much with the CAC. This is what I believe is the general feeling; if you have a decent lens it'll make little difference, if you have a cheap lens it'll make quite a bit of difference.
Steve

......partly due to the massive superiority of the AVCINTRA 100 codec over the XDCAM EX codec
"Massive"? I think that's overstating it. Some very involved EBU tests gave both AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM 422HD (50Mbs) a full seal of approval as future general purpose acquisition codecs, and rated both of them higher than HDCAM or DVCProHD.

The EX (35Mbs) version of XDCAM didn't make it on to the list because one of the criteria is 4:2:2 capability, otherwise it is similar to to the 50Mbs version in terms of compression efficiency and overall quality. By and large, a difference is only really noted if there's a lot of FX or grading etc to be done - the end product is likely to be 4:2:0 anyway, be it broadcast or Blu-Ray.

And how do you make the comparison? The EBU did it scientifically, making sure that the same test material from the same source was coded with both codecs to perform a like for like test. If two cameras are simply compared, how can anyone tell what is down to a camera front end, and what to a codec?

As far as broadcast acceptance goes, then I don't think the list given earlier is quite right. AFAIK, *NO* 1/3" camera has got unqualified acceptance for broadcast HD use, and that lumps the HVX200, 171, in with the likes of the Z7 and other HDV cameras. They are subject to the same restrictions as upconverted SD, or require case by case authorisation. (The HPX300 may now be an exception to that rule.) Last I heard the EX was the only camera in it's class (sub £5,000) to be fully broadcast approved.
I read something last year on here where Steve and Alister were talking about Discovery and BBC saying they will go 1080 and not 720.
The BBC HD channel has been 1080 since day 1. A mixture of 1080i/25 and 1080p/25 (transmitted 1080psf/25) depending on material. The EBU have also recommended that in future, as far as possible, it's preferred *production* format will be 1080p/50, 1080p/25 when the look is actively preferred - transmission is more complicated, though the eventual hope is 1080p/50 as well.

Hence yes, a general desire for 1080 native resolution cameras and codecs, but they are not hard and fast rules. The BBC Natural History Unit, for example, currently uses 2700s as replacements for Varicams because the off speed abilities are more important than absolute resolution. If a 1080 camera had been available with the same facilities, I'm sure that would have been seen as preferable.

For other programmes, such as drama, different priorities may apply and a 2700 may not then be seen as good enough.

As far as this thread goes, I suspect a big reason for the price drop is that now the 300 is on the shelves there is far more of a general expectation that sensors will be 1920x1080 native. There's a limit that can then be asked for one with 1280x720 resolution.

Well said David,

Then add the Nano to the EX and kick up the bit rate to 100Mbps at 422 and you have a great package.

"
For other programmes, such as drama, different priorities may apply and a 2700 may not then be seen as good enough.
.

I'm not even sure if that is true. AFAIK there is absolutely no limit on use of the 2700 anywhere, and as I've said, many people would subjectively prefer the 2700 image to that of an F900 or PDW700 when viewed on a decent size TV or monitor. I've yet to hear anyone comment that the 2700 looks nice but appears to lack resolution.
Steve

Steve I think it is not always the station as it is the producer. I had a shoot where the EX would not be accepted and they said I could use F900, PDW700, or Varicam 3700 but not the 2700. This is a very high end TV production company. So I rented the F900.

That is a surprise I must say. Unless it's destined for cinema release that seems crazy. Even the old Varicam was always on the top rung of the ladder with BBC/Disco etc, and was the mainstay for Planet Earth.
Steve

Yes it is destine for cinema release.

I'm not even sure if that is true. AFAIK there is absolutely no limit on use of the 2700 anywhere, .........
The point was intended in a very generalistic way. Trying to say that the 2700 had features that currently may make it best choice in one situation, but not in another. There may be no specific edict to say it can't be used for drama for a broadcaster, but practically another camera may be better.
Even the old Varicam was always on the top rung of the ladder with BBC/Disco etc, and was the mainstay for Planet Earth.
But wasn't Planet Earth shot with a mixture of Varicams and HDCAMs? I'm sure I've heard it said that the money people wanted to use one camera throughout for cost reasons, but the battle was won to try to use whatever was more appropiate to subject. So Varicams where off speed was most important, HDCAM in other cases.

And time moves on. No doubt they were the best choices at the time, but I suspect the makers would agree that there is better around now.

Regarding codecs, the EBU recommendations do apply to "general broadcast acquisition", they don't make out they are the best available. Hence I suspect Sonys line would be that there is HDV for low end work, 35 and 50Mbs XDCAM for general HD broadcast etc, and HDCAM-SR for the very top end.

A colleague has expressed the opinion to me that he considers the XDCAM codecs to have a massive advantage over AVC-Intra - a third or half the bitrate, with the 50Mbs version being equally broadcast acceptable. That makes the use of solid state viable to him in a way that would be less possible if 2-3x as much memory was needed.

Planet Earth was Varicam, HDCam, Super 16, 35mm, all sorts of stuff! But for the general wildlife behaviour it was mostly Varicam, with HDCam for under water and aerials AFAIK.
Times do change but Varicam is still the current choice (ie Frozen Planet, billed as Planet Earth 2), including the Natural World strand and the new Life series, plus all other current NHU series like Great Rift, Madagascar etc.
Steve

A lot of broadcasters in Europe, and EBU, recomend and will problaly broadcast HD in 720p50. Luckily NRK here in Norway didn't only count pixles when they choose the Hpx2100 a few years ago as camera for one of their top drama series "Himmelblå".

On Discovery HD Survivorman looks pretty good in HD and thats shot with the old varicam and hvx200. Earlier seaons of American Chopper also where shot with varicam. XdcamHD(not 422) and HDX900 also se a lot of use on the top rated Discovery series, none of them 1080p native cameras. Even BBC's HD "test" with Topgear going to the North Pole was shot on HDX900. Ofcourse 1080p looks good, but ain't always needed for broadcast.

A colleague has expressed the opinion to me that he considers the XDCAM codecs to have a massive advantage over AVC-Intra - a third or half the bitrate, with the 50Mbs version being equally broadcast acceptable. That makes the use of solid state viable to him in a way that would be less possible if 2-3x as much memory was needed.

Most AVC Intra modes are Native, so for example, 720/24PN require only around 40Mbps, not 100Mpbs. Native modes are also available in 1080/24Pand 30P with AVC Intra 100, unlike DVCPRO HD, where Native modes were 720P 24 and 30P only.

It's important to know that AVC codecs are typically twice as efficient as MPEG 2 and DCT based codecs. XDCAM is MPEG 2 based, DVCPRO is DCT based. The I-Frame aspect of AVC Intra 100 is also nice vs. Long GOP.

In my opinion, the biggest advantage of AVC Intra 100 over most of the competition is the 10-bit part--that's huge!

BTW, I'm a new HPX2700 owner. To me a camera that can't shoot above 30 fps shouldn't be called a Varicam. The 3700 is an awesome camera, but nowhere near the flexibility of the 2700.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Native modes are also available in 1080/24Pand 30P with AVC Intra 100, unlike DVCPRO HD, where Native modes were 720P 24 and 30P only.
I don't see how that can be the case. Using Region50 figures, the raw rates for 720p/50 are about 50megapixels/second (approx 1 megapixel, 50 times a second), and for both 1080i/25 and 1080p/25 it's roughly the same - though now 2 megapixels, 25 times a second. Hence 100 Mbs needed in both cases for comparable compression. Go to 720p/25 and it's now approx 25 megapixels per second, hence yes, drop the data rate to 50Mbs.

The same must apply in Region60 countries, though OK, 1080p/24 is only 5/6 the raw rate of 1080p/30 or 720p/60, so it could drop to about 85Mbs for equivalent compression.
It's important to know that AVC codecs are typically twice as efficient as MPEG 2 and DCT based codecs. XDCAM is MPEG 2 based, DVCPRO is DCT based.
All of the codecs above are fundamentally based on DCT techniques. MPEG2 is DCT with the possibility of using extra tools to aid efficiency, AVC is MPEG2 with the possibility of using further tools still to aid efficiency even more.

But how efficient AVC codecs are relative to MPEG2 depends on a number of factors, not least being the number of tools used. AVC-I also uses CAVLC, compared to CABAC for AVC-HD. I think that's the right choice - but does mean lesser coding efficiency, the gain being less complicated coding and decoding.

The comparison also means comparing like with like - so AVC-I with MPEG2-I frame. Practically, XDCAM-HD422 obviously is long-GOP, so will be expected to be more efficient than MPEG2 I-frame itself. Hence two different approaches - Panasonic use AVC techniques to improve compression efficiency, Sony use long-GOP.

Which is best? Frankly it's irrelevant. BOTH of them have been given a big seal of approval by the EBU - go to EBU Technical Review (http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_home.html) , click on "Digital Compression", and then "HDTV production codec tests" if you want full details. BOTH of them have, in the words of the EBU:
.....shown quasi-transparent quality up to at least 4-5 multi generations, but have also shown few impairments such as noise or loss of resolution with critical images at the 7th generation.
That's in spite of the tests using positional shifts between generations (to avoid recoding in the same manner) and additionally frame shifts for XDCAM (so that I-frames in one generation were coded as difference frames in the next.

Read the full report. A user doesn't need to worry about using either XDCAM422 or AVC-Intra 100 on quality grounds for general acquisition, end of story.
The I-Frame aspect of AVC Intra 100 is also nice vs. Long GOP.
If you mean because it causes less processing work during editing, then maybe yes. But the AVC nature causes an overhead of it's own - it's swings and roundabouts.

It's important to know that AVC codecs are typically twice as efficient as MPEG 2 and DCT based codecs.

That is a bit of a generalisation. At low bitrates this is certainly true. But as the bitrate increases the advantages of AVC etc diminish quite considerably.

As David says, it is swings and roundabouts with regard to which codec is best. Either is acceptable, and really the choice of camera should be down to which suits the production best.

A generalisation that's not necessarily true even at low bitrates Simon - it depends on the complexity of the coder, and how many AVC features it uses. A coder in a cheap camera is very, very unlikely to use anything like the full AVC feature set, and very unlikely to therefore achieve anything like that 2x advantage over MPEG2. Look at a broadcast MPEG4 encoder at the end of a studio chain and it's a very different story.

Don't go by the numbers is what I'm trying to say. It's far too complex, which is why the EBU restricted themselves to saying "both these codecs are very good, use either of them with assurance", or words to that effect.

I agree with Simon. Don't choose a camera by a codec. If varispeed is of prime importance, get a 2700. If resolution is more important, there is likely to be a better choice.

I don't see how that can be the case. Using Region50 figures, the raw rates for 720p/50 are about 50megapixels/second (approx 1 megapixel, 50 times a second), and for both 1080i/25 and 1080p/25 it's roughly the same - though now 2 megapixels, 25 times a second. Hence 100 Mbs needed in both cases for comparable compression. Go to 720p/25 and it's now approx 25 megapixels per second, hence yes, drop the data rate to 50Mbs.

The same must apply in Region60 countries, though OK, 1080p/24 is only 5/6 the raw rate of 1080p/30 or 720p/60, so it could drop to about 85Mbs for equivalent compression.

edit

Which is best? Frankly it's irrelevant. BOTH of them have been given a big seal of approval by the EBU - go to EBU Technical Review (http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_home.html) , click on "Digital Compression", and then "HDTV production codec tests" if you want full details. BOTH of them have, in the words of the EBU:

edit

A user doesn't need to worry about using either XDCAM422 or AVC-Intra 100 on quality grounds for general acquisition, end of story.

If you mean because it causes less processing work during editing, then maybe yes. But the AVC nature causes an overhead of it's own - it's swings and roundabouts.

David, thank you for the information/clarification/correction. I didn't mean to imply that Native rates for 1080 will require only 40Mbps. 1080/24p yields about 1.3 minutes per Gb, so your 85Mbps sounds correct.

I was under the impression that AVC-Intra 100 was h.264 based, therefore MPEG-4, DV, and DVCPRO HD are DCT-based and HDV and XDCAM HD MPEG-2.

XDCAM 422 is a very good codec, good color space, full sample, however it's an 8-bit codec not 10-bit color depth like AVC-Intra 100. I believe that's an important difference.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com

I was under the impression that AVC-Intra 100 was h.264 based, therefore MPEG-4, DV, and DVCPRO HD are DCT-based and HDV and XDCAM HD MPEG-2.
At heart, they are all based on DCT. But MPEG2 allows extra facilities to be used ADDITIONALLY. Same with H264, at heart it is MPEG2, but allows extra tools additionally. The more tools you use, the greater the efficiency, but the greater the complexity - use none of them and it's MPEG2! The way your post reads it implies DCT, MPEG2, and H264 are completely separate technologies - they're not, one builds upon the other. Excuse me if that's not what you intended.
..........however it's an 8-bit codec not 10-bit color depth like AVC-Intra 100. I believe that's an important difference.
It may be, but again I'm afraid it may not be that simple. I'm assuming you desire 10bit such that contour banding on graded footage etc will be minimised.

What's important is that there are two ways to get banding - insufficient bitdepth, and too heavy compression. Just try compressing a gradient in Photoshop with JPEG quality set to min, and watch it turn in to a step chart. Hence it's conceivable that a 10 bit system may involve heavier basic compression unless the bitrate is correpondingly increased - and that compression may negate the effects of greater bitdepth! Is that the case here? I don't know, but that's why I keep saying don't worry about the numbers, the subject is so complicated - the EBU have given both codecs a high rating, they are both good.

Yes, 10 bit is desirable in isolation, but only if the bitrate is up to it. It may be argued that if 10 bit is really important to you, you should be using HDCAM-SR anyway. A bit like going into a car showroom and the salesman saying how important built in satnav is in car A. Maybe, but what if he's not telling you that it means they can't afford ABS braking? You MAY decide that if the cost of the car forces a choice, you'd rather have ABS than satnav, and buy car B. More you look into it, more complicated the subject is.

David, interesting info, however, this is what Wikipedia has for AVC-Intra:

"fully compliant with the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard", "permitting full resolution, 10-bit field capture of high quality HD imagery in one piece camera-recorders." "It defines 10-bit intra-frame only compression, which is easy for editing and preserves maximum video quality. The new standard significantly outperforms the older HDV(MPEG2 based) and DVCPRO HD(DV based) formats, allowing the codec to maintain better quality in 2x less storage."

I assume the last part is about AVC-Intra 50. I don't see AVC-Intra as being MPEG-2 based, just H.264/MPEG-4. So, DCT is used in JPEG and MPEG and DV, but MPEG-2 is different from MPEG-4/H.264, is it not?

Wikipedia for XDCAM 422:

"Third generation XDCAM uses the 4:2:2 profile MPEG-2 codec, which has double the chroma-resolution of the previous generations. To accommodate the chroma-detail, the maximum video bit-rate has been increased to 50 Mbit/s."

Obviously, all these compression schemes are scalable and "adding tools" adds to computational complexity, requiring more powerful processors. I think the key is that AVC-Intra 100 is higher quality at the same bit rate as DVCPRO HD and XDCAM 422 is higher quality than HDCAM, the latter requiring a much higher bit rate than the former.

I like the idea of 10-bit and I-Frame, and believe that AVC-Intra 100 is a very high quality codec, that can be graded and color corrected more severely than other 4:2:2 codecs.
So far my editor is very happy with AVC-Intra vs. DVCPRO HD.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

I assume the last part is about AVC-Intra 50.
It could be either, though it's fairly sloppily written. What I think they are intending to make out is that you can get comparable quality with an AVC-I codec compared to MPEG2 at half the bitrate. Of course, they miss out that the comparison is actually with I-frame only MPEG2.
I don't see AVC-Intra as being MPEG-2 based, just H.264/MPEG-4. So, DCT is used in JPEG and MPEG and DV, but MPEG-2 is different from MPEG-4/H.264, is it not?
No, that's not true. Not if you think H264 is based on completely different principles to DCT. (As indeed, JPEG2000 and Dirac are.)

As I said before, MPEG2 is based on DCT, and H264/MPEG4 is based on MPEG2. (And AVC-Intra is a subset of H264.) ALL of them are based on DCT, though H264 codecs allow the block size to be varied, and a lot more variations. See H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) and "Features" - that shows the extra tools that are available to enhance the efficiency. (Though not all are likely to be implemented in any one coder, and note that many are only applicable to long-GOP H264. Because of that, you can't expect the improvement over MPEG2 to be as great with I-frame only as with long-GOP, which I why I'm dubious about the 2x figure given for AVC-I v I-frame MPEG2. There's a big oversimplification to just say 2x as a catch all figure, it will vary widely depending on many factors.)
Obviously, all these compression schemes are scalable and "adding tools" adds to computational complexity, requiring more powerful processors.
Yes, exactly so. If we start with I-frame only MPEG2, both Sony and Panasonic have decided they want a more efficient solution. Sony approach has been to say keep it MPEG2, but go long-GOP. Panasonics has been to say keep it I-frame only, but use H264 tools. Both solutions are more efficient than I-frame MPEG2, but both require more processing power. It's two ways to skin the same cat, and I wouldn't like to say either of them is better than the other.
I like the idea of 10-bit and I-Frame, and believe that AVC-Intra 100 is a very high quality codec, that can be graded and color corrected more severely than other 4:2:2 codecs.
Well, if we're talking about DVCProHD, then undoubtably yes. If we're talking about HDCAM-SR, then undoubtably no. If we're talking about XDCAM422 50Mbs, the EBU trials don't seem to point up much difference.

Look, nothing I've said is anything other than praise for AVC-Intra, all I've said is intended to give evidence that XDCAM 422 is also extremely good. That was earlier called a "wonky" codec, and nothing could be further from the truth as the EBU trials prove.

Simon sums it up nicely a few pages back when he says that ".....it is swings and roundabouts with regard to which codec is best. Either is acceptable, and really the choice of camera should be down to which suits the production best."

Thanks for the good information David. I think that Panasonic is smart to make AVC-Intra available in a low priced camera, the HPX300, as well as the P2 Portable deck. Sony has yet to allow XDCAM 422 to migrate down to affordable cameras, probably will try to keep product separation.

I saw on the Wiki link you provided for h.264/MPEG4 that it's conceivable that a codec could have up to 14-bits and 4:4:4 color space. Maybe Panasonic will be able to upgrade P2 cards again for higher throughput than the E series for "AVC-Ultra" in the future?

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Maybe Panasonic will be able to upgrade P2 cards again for higher throughput than the E series for "AVC-Ultra" in the future?

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)
From what I've read that's not necessary to utilize an upcoming Avc-ultra, you can use all the previous cards except the first ones. Correct me if I'm wrong though...

Maybe Panasonic will be able to upgrade P2 cards again for higher throughput than the E series for "AVC-Ultra" in the future?

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)
Not necessary to upgrade them; they've already announced AVC-Ultra as being a 200mbps codec, which will work with all existing P2 cards. They haven't specified exactly what they'll do with AVC-Ultra, other than to say it'll be used for things beyond normal ATSC video, such as 3-D, or 4:4:4 12-bit 1080p, or 1080/60p, or 2K.

But whatever it is, it'll work on today's cards. And yesterday's cards.

The EBU approvals of XDCAM422 and AVC-Intra 100 do say for "general broadcast HD acquisition", they don't say that better than either of them wouldn't be a good thing for top end work such as high end drama. Or that XDCAM 35Mbs or AVC-Intra 50 may not be a more suitable choice for such as news. Sony would no doubt say that they fill the first requirement with HDCAM-SR, AVC-Intra 200 would be Panasonics direct competitor.

And yes, SxS and P2 should each respectively be capable of handling those data rates. I'm sure both manufacturers will be keen in the future to promote them to encourage the purchasing of ever bigger capacity cards. (Even a 32GB P2 card will only last about 15 minutes at 200Mbs.)

Thanks for the clarification on data rate for P2 cards. I see that they can handle up to 640Mbps, so 4:4:4 would be no problem--as long as memory capacity is increased every year.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)