Coming from a film (yes that plastic stuff) background (EFX), I do not have to be sold on 10B, uncompressed (or unsold as some might want).

Yet, a feature I did in '05 was shot not only 8B (HDV), but totally messed up when the client brought it into (then not-ready-for-prime time) FCP and deinterlaced and...well, it was ugly.

Yet, it was "acceptable" in theaters, on film. Lesson learned.

All this is not unlike the 2K/4K numbers game. I have 2K in-house, and YES, if you blow the comparisons up, say, 400%, you WILL see the differences (been there done that a lot). Whether that matters on the final screen is the call.

I prefer my camera original to be as good in ALL ways as is affordable/practical. It's a tough balance sometimes, but things are getting SO much better.

Long GOP has improved dramatically recently and while I will likely remain U/10 for output to film and efx work, I will be doing a feature 100% on nanoFLASH in January.

Now, I've already overstayed my welcome on this one.

I now return you to where we started...only later.

Dear Daniel,

No, you have not overstayed your welcome.

We appreciate your insight and opinions.

Hi Daniel:
For me it's just the fact that you need to make the argument - that somehow 10 bit 4:2:2 is outlandish. This has been a standard in high end TV broadcast and digital cinema for several years now as far as image acquisition goes. If you have to shoot for effects and/or film out then you do 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 uncompressed. If you shoot doc for cable channel, then 8 bit HDV is just fine even and *Several* discovery shows have been shot this way. The XDR and Nano are a way big freakin improvement to say *the least !*

Thanks Dan.

I'm just getting out of this thread.

I earlier suggested a "sticky" for the 8/10 condition just to avoid taking up space going back and forth like this.

Hey. Aren't you supposed to be hard at work on the 1,238 improvements we have demanded?????

SLACKER!

How about 12 bit!! The MegaCine recorder offers support for any format in either single link or dual link uncompressed in 4:4:4 color space, 10 and 12 bit, has genlock in and out, TC in and out, Mark it has RS232/422 for your edit system needs. Offers 90minutes of record time in 4:4:4, battery operated and best of all has Fibre Channel running at 2Gbps to transfer your files.
This recorder would probably work well with the Viper also!

Thanks
David Rogers

I think the MegaCine is just big enough to fall outside of the realm of a camera mounted recorder. Heck, the XDR is too big according to some folks (I'm fine with XDR). The MegaCine is monstrous by comparison though. Plus I've never heard of anyone who actually uses one or has seen it in the wild. Looks nice on the PDF though. Naturally, having a dual link 4:4:4 camera, I lust for boxes like that.

How about 12 bit!! The MegaCine recorder offers support for any format in either single link or dual link uncompressed in 4:4:4 color space, 10 and 12 bit, has genlock in and out, TC in and out, Mark it has RS232/422 for your edit system needs. Offers 90minutes of record time in 4:4:4, battery operated and best of all has Fibre Channel running at 2Gbps to transfer your files.
This recorder would probably work well with the Viper also!

Thanks
David Rogers.....Hi David: I'm googling it ! I'm googling it now ! :-)

I think the MegaCine is just big enough to fall outside of the realm of a camera mounted recorder. Heck, the XDR is too big according to some folks (I'm fine with XDR). The MegaCine is monstrous by comparison though. Plus I've never heard of anyone who actually uses one or has seen it in the wild. Looks nice on the PDF though. Naturally, having a dual link 4:4:4 camera, I lust for boxes like that....The XDR should still beat the panys off of it at the uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 level, which is perfectly fine for film out. - Man ! 12 bit 4:4:4 hmmmmmmmm, let's plug this into a Sony SRW 9000 with the 9003 board stuffed in it ! :-)

Yes at about 18lbs, its portable, though not something to mount on your camera. Definitely something to be used with a bigger crew. I haven't seen one either, though its been around for about a year now. The same folks that developed the Cunima and Easylook cameras came up with this, plus they have a product similar to the NanoFlash. The downside is about an $8K purchase price. Makes the Flash XDR/Nano look very good.

David

12 bit would be interesting but my camera design already conformed to the HD-SDI standard which is 10 bit. I believe my camera takes 12 bits of linear sensor data and fits it to 10 bit log. 10 bit log can fit a lot of data, more than 16 bits linear if I recall correctly.

I wouldn't have a whole lot of use for 12 bit, since my camera outputs 10 bit log. Unless of course I'm entirely ignorant of how or why MegaCine would use 12 bits. It could be that this doesn't refer to the capability of the input signal at all.

Hi David:
OK. Read the PDF. @ $40,000.00 ! Nope ! The XDR is smaller and Dan's XDR mount for the XL H1 works great ! I don't need 4:4:4 recording capability, but it would be nice to have this choice. I'll wait for the XDR's uncompressed mode and save my sheckles.

Mark,
If I would be in your position, to get a better picture, instead of trying to record 10b Uncompress, I would try to get a better camera.
It makes the same sense to record 25Mbps Long GOPs from a Viper, Phantom, RED or so than recording 10b Uncompress from a Canon or from any SONY HDV camera.
The system are not balanced: Very good image badly recorded, or poor noisy picture perfectly recorded.
I've gave my "vote of confidence" to the MPEG-2 LGOP long ago (when I bought my EX-1) but only after reading a lot of serious literature related with MPEG-2.
I've been more than one year waiting for the NANO because I was sure about what it would add to my EX-1 picture:
If only the 10 Mbps that separates the HDV from the EX-1 footage (both 420) makes such HUGE difference, think what you can get when you multiply your data rate x4 or x6 and with a 422 sampling.
The camera have his limitations, the NANO have his limitations, but together gives a quality that to be beaten would cost you a lot, a lot of money.
Tomorrow I start a shooting for a short that will be printed in 35mm.
Rafael

HI Rafael:
Huh ? So if I understood your post correctly, then you are advancing the idea I have a mis-matched camera to use with uncompressed ? Well, if this is what you are stating, then I will humbly agree to disagree with you. First, the Canon HDV camcorders are well known for their quality optics, and the Xl H1 is well accepted for its overall image quality - even in HDV 4:2:0 tape mode.

I'm assuming you are well aware of the Xl H1's uncompressed HD-SDI output ? My experience since I purchased the Flash XDR, and used it instead of HDV tape, created a boost in overall performance of about 2 X. The results were like purchasing another camera. The XDR aforded me an instant upgrade from 1440 x 1080 thick raster HD to Full Rater HD @ 1920 x 1080. The XDR also afforded me a color space boost of 2 bits per channel from HDV's 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Once the XDR goes uncompressed, then I think the combination will be another step up. I would say right now the H1 & XDR are a perfect match for other.

I look forward to seeing some video posts of your new digital HD to film out in 35 MM. What compression and codec settings are you planning to use Rafael ? EDIT: My audio went from 16 bit to 24 bit as well.

Hi Mark,
please don't take me wrong.
My english is very short, and I know that my statement quite often sounds very hard.
You wrote:
"My experience since I purchased the Flash XDR, and used it instead of HDV tape, created a boost in overall performance of about 2 X. The results were like purchasing another camera".
That's the point Mark.
You have improved a lot thanks to the NANO.
If you want to have another leap in quality, this won't come by recording 10b Uncompress.
Will come from a better camera.
10b over 8b have BIG advantages, but more advantages will give you to change your 1/3" CCDs by a1/2" CCD or CMOS.
The post of Allister about the noise is quite revealing.
In short Mark, I'm sure that is possible to get MUCH, MUCH better picture with the EX-1 at 100Mbps, that with the Canon at 10b Uncompress.
As I've commented, tomorrow (5 AM, my God) I start to shoot a short for the Lao national Film Archive (Don't you know them:-).
My intention is to shoot 1080p24. Edit native and send to Color. From Color, out in 10b Unc or Prores.
Is possible that I pass the picture by "Video Purifier" before CC.
I go to try the "Low Noise PP" of Allister. yesterday I tried first time (I was using the one of Bill Ravens), I think looks great. I will try to test it tonight in low light conditions.
Cheers,
rafael

It doesn't really matter if your system isn't quite fast enough to playback uncompressed HD or SD anyway. You put up with the studdering for editing purposes and then copy out your completed sequence to another CF card and put that into your XDR or Nano and then play it out in realtime. No problem..... ...... Frankly, I don't see where there's a problem Alister. (??)

Well we have to agree to disagree there. I couldn't edit stuttering video, how do you judge pace, how do you work with sound or music when it's skipping and jumping?

..
.....A G-Raid 2 TB is enough. I will switch from FW 800 to an express 54 speed eSata interface card. No problem.

(??)

I'm unable to play 10b Unc 1080p25 from my CalDigit eSATA RAID 0.
Not even stuttering.
No problem with 720p25.
To move a single HD 10b stream you need at least the G-Speed eSPro

..
am willing to accept certain considerations.

* It doesn't really matter if your system isn't quite fast enough to playback uncompressed HD or SD anyway. .....render out to Blu-ray DVD .ISO and burn baby burn. Frankly, I don't see where there's a problem Alister. (??)
The average GPU won't cope with 1080 at 10b.
Will ask you to reduce the size or the bit depth.
This will happens even with compressed codecs (Prores).
10b Uncompress is a very expensive workflow.
I can not afford it.
Rafael

Well we have to agree to disagree there. I couldn't edit stuttering video, how do you judge pace, how do you work with sound or music when it's skipping and jumping?...Hi Alister: I keep forgetting that not everyone edits on Avid :-) In Media Composer, you have this little resolution button in your lower Left below the timeline, which was created precisely for this problem. If the video stream you are trying to play is simply too much for your system to keep up, then you have three possible settings to select from this little button, which takes the heat off of your playback needs by dropping the playback resolution of your preview and record windows. This works well especially with uncompressed resolutions. Green/Green = top (Full) playback resolution, Yellow/Green = Half (50 % reduction) resolution, and Yellow/Yellow = Lowest resolution (75 % reduction) resolution. This works really well for video stuttering or jumping.

Alt+P will force playback in FCP to playback at fastest speed possible, allowing FCP to drop frames in order to keep up. This is best used when your system can't keep up with what you're editing.

And yes, the MegaCine seems very expensive since for that much you could get an S.two recorder which seems like a much more compact system and is proven with a number of feature films being shot on it.

And Mark, I really appreciate the fact that you're trying to get an uncompressed recorder to the market (trust me, you don't know how much), but I'd have to agree that your personal quality revelation will come from a better camera and not from 10 bit uncompressed recording.

Optics are a big deal but the overall package and what comes out of the SDI port in the end is what's most important. I'm not saying the XDR is as good a picture as you can get but you'll notice a huge difference with a better camera.

Hi Aaron,

In another post, Daniel Browning seemed to indicate that the noise and brightness difference between a 1/3" Canon and a 1/2" Sony would be about 2 f stops in favour of the Sony and whatever difference one prefers between the CMOS and CCD cameras. He also said he did not think there was any noise difference due to the sensor technology. So unless the two cameras are different in optic quality, I presume the signal from the SDI would be similar (except for the brightness factor). If the 1/3" is set to 2 f stops brighter (4 times the ISO number), the two cameras should be the same unless the optics are indeed different.

A good test of the real world results might be to set the 1/3" camera with an ISO equivalent of 4x the 1/2" camera and get a "real" 10 bit signal from each sensor size and compare it to a "real" 8 bit signal from each sensor size. That would yield 2 results from each camera to tell the tale and make the comparisons.

If Daniel is correct, then in practical terms and using the signal directly from the sensor, the 1/2" camera has the advantage in low light with equal optics. With lots of light, there is no real advantage based on the sensor size.

Alan

I'll blow your mind even further with this one. In order for a 1/3" camera to produce a picture as sharp as a 1/2" sensor camera, the lens on the 1/3" system would need to have more than twice the resolving power since it's creating an image onto a much smaller area.

Yup, that's right I said it. Smaller sensors require MUCH better optics to produce a picture as sharp as a larger sensor.

Oh, and there's much more to camera processing than optics too. Assuming the SDI signal on two different cameras is anything near the same is a huge leap. There is a LOT going on between the sensor and SDI port on any given camera system.

If the video stream you are trying to play is simply too much for your system to keep up, then you have three possible settings to select from this little button, which takes the heat off of your playback needs by dropping the playback resolution of your preview and record windows. This works well especially with uncompressed resolutions. Green/Green = top (Full) playback resolution, Yellow/Green = Half (50 % reduction) resolution, and Yellow/Yellow = Lowest resolution (75 % reduction) resolution. This works really well for video stuttering or jumping.

I have Media Composer as well as FCP, premiere and vegas, all of which handle issues with decompressing differently. No matter what preview mode you use, if the system can't get the data off the disks fast enough it will skip and jump. This isn't about preview decompression or CPU performance, this is about disc performance. Simply previewing at lower resolution won't help. I really do think you are underestimating the kind of hard drive performance required for a pleasant uncompressed 10 bit edit experience. I do also agree with everyone else that quality always starts at the optics, then sensor etc. While I loved my H1, the EX is in a different class and all the uncompressed in the world won't give you the benefits of bigger sensors and better optics. The laws of physics come in to play big time on small sensors. Especially diffraction limiting on 1/3" sensors past f5.6.

The average GPU won't cope with 1080 at 10b.
Will ask you to reduce the size or the bit depth.
This will happens even with compressed codecs (Prores).Nvidia cards do 16 bpc half float just fine. Autodesk Flint/Flame/Inferno, Nuke, Digital Fusion and flipbook apps like framecycler, Rv, etc.. work with 16 bpc half images just fine in Hardware on most Nvidia cards out there. The current output is limited to 10 bpc simply because the display devices are limited to that depth but the internal processing is still at a much higher depth.

I really do think you are underestimating the kind of hard drive performance required for a pleasant uncompressed 10 bit edit experience.Hi Alister: I'm so sorry, but I just can't accept the premise that uncompressed is outlandish. If you have two 10,000 RPM A/V rated HDD's running in a hardware Raid 0 configuration and are output via eSata, then are you suggesting these are going to studder ?
I do also agree with everyone else that quality always starts at the optics, then sensor etc. While I loved my H1, the EX is in a different class and all the uncompressed in the world won't give you the benefits of bigger sensors and better optics. The laws of physics come in to play big time on small sensors. Especially diffraction limiting on 1/3" sensors past f5.6.....I never suggested that going uncompressed would suddenly make my Canon 20 X stock optical zoom lens on my XL H1 any sharper than it already is. The increase in quality (And I should never have expressed it in this manner originally) is really more of a *less loss of quality* proposition. 10 Bit uncompressed gives you a sort of image degredation insurance and a greater flexibility in digital compositing, as well as a better look in transfers to 35 mm film and digital projection. Unless big screen TV's get a whole lot better than they already are, and a means of satellite and cable delivery system can be designed which provides much less video and audio compression, then shooting 10 bit uncompressed for TV broadcast is overkill. However, 10 bit uncompressed shooting as digital cinema origination is not only reasonable but absolutely justifiable. This is not to say one can't originate material for cinema film out which was shot on HDV, as movies like *The Signal* and *Crank 2:High Voltage* clearly demonstrate. Uncompressed is very demanding on a system for sure, but it's possible. I'm already playing back and editing single stream uncompressed HD on my laptop with an external FW 800 Raid 0 HDD now, and my CPU is only a Core 2 Duo 2.16 Ghz with an L 2 cache of 4 MB. This CPU is relatively slow by today's standards, but the nVidia GPU takes up the slack and off loads some of the playback demand from the CPU so it works well.

Hi Alister: I'm so sorry, but I just can't accept the premise that uncompressed is outlandish. If you have two 10,000 RPM A/V rated HDD's running in a hardware Raid 0 configuration and are output via eSata, then are you suggesting these are going to studder ?


2 streams of 10 bit Uncompressed HD... YES, probably stutter with a single stream too.

How on earth you manage to edit uncompressed over firewire 800 is beyond me. Given that firewire 800's theoretical max is less than 80 MB/s and a single stream of 8 bit uncompressed is 98 MB/s even if everything was perfect there would not be sufficient bandwidth to transfer every frame in real time.

I've been working with uncompressed 10 bit HD for 4 years. I can assure you that being realistic you need at least a 4 drive setup, if not more. On paper 2 of the very best drives might just be able to sustain a single stream, but once you start filling up your array the performance will fall off very quickly. If your already working with uncompressed then you know how quickly drives fill up.

All I'm trying to say is that you seem obsessed with uncompressed, IMHO you will gain very little, if any advantage by using 10 bit uncompressed over 8 bit at 100 Mb/s or higher with your current setup. All it will do is cost a lot of money in expensive raid arrays, bigger hard drives and extra flash cards. You would be better off spending the money on improving your front end as those improvements would make a much more significant improvement to your finished productions.

Hi Alister:

"All I'm trying to say is that you seem obsessed with uncompressed, IMHO you will gain very little, if any advantage by using 10 bit uncompressed over 8 bit at 100 Mb/s or higher with your current setup. All it will do is cost a lot of money in expensive raid arrays, bigger hard drives and extra flash cards. You would be better off spending the money on improving your front end as those improvements would make a much more significant improvement to your finished productions."

..............You're kidding right ? Alister, I'm not obsessed with anything. IMHO I don't think you understand what I'm trying to tell you. ** I'm not suggesting uncompressed 10 bit for anything other than digital Cinema origination, and as a prestine source for deep compression web video !**

..............Once again I'm not using it to so much to ***Improve visual quality, as I am to secure less loss of quality.*** If you want to use Long Gop 100 Mbps to do a cinema film out, then by all means be my guest, but why would I do that when I can have full uncompressed 10 bit available to me from the same device ? I will wait for Convergent Design to release the uncompressed option firmware, and I will gladly pay to add this ****CHOICE**** to my XDR menu. Heck, I might get a client who chooses to shoot HDV for cinema film out, and I'll happily oblige him. After all, this has been done before to great success.

...............I really don't see the big deal here. (??) For anything Tv, I would never shoot above MXF 50 Mbps Long GOP (Until Avid makes Long GOP 100 Mbps + fully compatible, then I will shoot at 160 Long GOP).

...............As for my NLE Setup for Avid, I have an external FW 800 Raid 0 array consisting of 2 x 7,200 RPM drives (Not 10K RPM), and I can play back one stream (Not two !) of uncompressed HD without difficulty. The reason I can is because I use a FireWire 800 interface card which is interfaced with my laptop base station using ExpressCard 54 (Not 34) bus. My nVidia card also plays a special roll in playback. In Avid I usually don't use more than one or two streams max anyway. I prefer to perform video mixdowns of effects, titling, and color correction. If you don't believe me, then fine, there's nothing I can do about that, so I won't try to debate the issue with you any further. My setup works just fine for SD & HD uncompressed 10 bit. If you are not using Intel Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad CPU's in your system, then I highly advise you to start. These CPU's really can handle more overloading than a single Pentium 4 grade.

Have a nice day Alister :-)

P.S. 10 bit uncompressed is not outlandish and is in fact a viable option depending on your application.

C'mon Mark. It's all good fun. You know we're just gonna keep poking you until either get a new camera or make your own recorder.

I for one am poking until the new recorder is finished!

:-)

Hi Aaron:

Yeah. Well poking I don't mind that :-) I need the pokes sometimes. More like you need to hit me with a baseball bat to get the SD card recorder out ! ;-) I'm trying to arrive at a freakin budget for this Winter's expenditure. We have to make the now three circuit boards and snap them (Bend them to fit) into our little box. The box is minimalist and is almost all screen (Kinda Apple-ish). When you record the screen becomes an HD @ full raster confidence monitor. The prototype will be first plastic, then once it all fits it gets disassembled and an aluminium box is custom machined to replace it. BTW, the first version of this recorder is 10 bit uncompressed due to financial considerations. We have to decide on how much and how I will raise the big cash if we go into codec territory to offer compressed resolutions. Right now this is a big "IF" for the project. Folks like Alister will expect some sort of reliable compressed format. I originally wanted my own version of mp4, but right now I'm too cheap to pay anything extra to any consortiums unless we have to.

Sounds good Mark. If you lived closer, I'd probably be trying to help build this thing. Oh yeah, and probably be going broke doing it. Working the day job(s) in order to finance such a beast :-)

Post a motto up in your work lab: "Beholden to no one"

Gotta love self financing,... the ups and the downs.

Hi Aaron:
I wished you lived closer so we could use your amazing Viper camera ! I want to test our 4:4:4 10 bit and we will probably throw in 12 bit because the chip can do it as well with your camera.

In that case then, I'll make a promise. You get a box working and me and the Viper will fly up there to shoot it.

Hi Aaron:
OK. Cool. I will let you know. Please be patient, as we are very far from having an assembled and functional prototype to test with at this time.

Hi friends:
In an article on post production 8 vs 10 bits and uncompressed versus compression by well known and very well respected videographer and post production expert, Mr. Ron Shook states the following.....

"You might wonder, “If my post chain starts at 8bit on the tape and ends with an edit master 8bit tape, what’s the big deal?” Well, in the first place, it's not a huge deal and in many cases we will see very little practical difference. But we are far more likely to have no difference whatsoever, if the middle of the chain is **processed at a higher bit depth.** This fact points to some rules that I consider to be truisms. Once you take quality away at any point in the postproduction chain you'll never get it back. Stacking quality compromises on top of quality compromises can result in even more than simple additive quality loss. **And…, the best defense against losing quality is a bit of what on the surface might seem like overkill.**" (** Emphasis mine)

,,,,,This is the idea I've been trying to get across from the very beginning. The whole 10 bit thingy (like uncompressed) is not to increase quality, rather, it's to avoid cumulative overall reduction in quality from the post process.

I've never said 8bit start to end. I do acquisition in an affordable format but instantly convert those to higher quality files to work with. My post workflow is VERY high quality.

Hi Aaron:
Yup. In Ron Shook's article he discusses exactly at what point in the production workflow quality is taken away, and it's at the NLE stage in the journey. Ron states that if you captured your footage at a 3 to 1 compression ratio, then the only way to avoid recompression and possible concantanation is to output as uncompressed only. In fact I have seen a great deal of finished projects on cable specialty channels which show the tell tale signs of quality loss due to too much compression, and originating in 4:2:0.

1. Anemic colors

2. A perceptable granular affect across the overall image. (Looks like slight snow)

3. Slightly anemic blacks.

Ron states in his article that Discovery Channel US demands uncompressed post ! I think you can get highly excellent results using HDV origination, but you have to really pay very close attention in post and bump up to uncompressed output, as well as color correct in 10 bit. Also, Primary color correction is by no means close to enough to finesse HDV into looking right for broadcast. CC is where Avid Media Composer coloapses dramatically. FCS comes into play big time with Color. This is primary & secondary CC at its best to me. Discovery Canada is using Flash XDR's for acquisitions with Long GOP 50 Mbps. XDR's Long GOP is full raster and 4:2:2 color space, but I don't know how they are posting their show for broadcast. (??) I would like to know what their post situation is for that show.

Concantanation is an interesting subject and what causes it. This seems to be something networks fear the most.

Hey Alister or Someone who lives in Great Britain and works for BBC:

Can you tell us what the broadcast specification is for video productions shot for broadcst on the BBC ?

Hi mark,
I think that you can find them in the website of Alister.
rafael

Hi Mark,

Most of the folks, including my self, are working like that. Acquire as you can and make the rest of the way in Uncompress to avoid re-compressions. This is very feasible. Acquiring directly in 10b not so much.

rafael

Hi Rafael:
Yes, even with FCP 7.0, if you capture your 8 bit Nano or XDR Long GOP compressed as an uncompressed 10 bit project (If your computer can play HD Uncompressed that is) and you edit normally with transitions, lower thirds, CC, etc, then output as uncompressed, your program should not attain any additional compression. It may not look *higher in Quality,* but it also *won't loose quality.* I am assuming this kind of approach is what is ment by Discovery Channel's stipulation for uncompressed post. - Not necessatily uncompressed image acquisition.

That article is 4 years old and things have moved on. Discovery no longer stipulate uncompressed editing. You can use DNxHD or ProRes.

Mark, I really question your understanding of codecs and compression. 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 sampling will not in itself lead to "Anemic" colours. The sampling effects the chroma resolution not the colour depth. Colours will be just as vibrant.

Over compression will not lead to a "snow" like look. What you will see is macro blocking. Take a noisy picture and over compress it and the noise is softened or even reduced by the compressor as it softens the picture to reduce the amount of data to be recorded. In bad cases or multiple compression passes the image will degrade due to concatenation of the macro blocks.

There is no reason why black should not be black in even the most highly compressed codec, even a 2 bit codec would show black as black. This is more likely down to sloppy setup somewhere in the production chain and is likely not a "fault" with the codec.

No one here is debating the advantages of using uncompressed or 10bit in post. It's the practicalities and cost implications of acquiring 10 bit uncompressed that's in question.

The BBC's official minimum standard for HD broadcast is 50 Mb/s minimum bit rate with 1/2" or larger sensors. There is much confusion at the moment as to whether you can get dispensations to use the XDCAM EX cameras at 35Mb/s. The BBC won't allow cameras with sensors smaller than 1/2" due to sensor noise and diffraction issues.

Hi Rafael:
Yes, even with FCP 7.0, if you capture your 8 bit Nano or XDR Long GOP compressed as an uncompressed 10 bit project (If your computer can play HD Uncompressed that is) and you edit normally with transitions, lower thirds, CC, etc, then output as uncompressed, your program should not attain any additional compression. It may not look *higher in Quality,* but it also *won't loose quality.* I am assuming this kind of approach is what is ment by Discovery Channel's stipulation for uncompressed post. - Not necessatily uncompressed image acquisition.
Hi Mark,
I prefer to work native in FC, whatever the stuff I work with. I need RT.
From Color some times I export in 10b (when not in Prores).
Then I send back to FC or AE.
As intermediate codec is for sure the only way to ensure no loses, but I can not dream in doing the whole way in 10b Unc. For me is OK when I'm working with a reduced amount of footage, and I don't need RT anymore.
Mark, by definition 10b can hold more of the original picture but the headaches and investment to get that theoretical better quality, do not worth the effort, from my point of view.
rafael

That article is 4 years old and things have moved on......Yes I know. The reason I cited it was because it gives a good explanation of the basic points we have been discussing.
Mark, I really question your understanding of codecs and compression......Ouch ! I suppose I'm having a little difficulty in understanding your reaction to uncompressed image acquisition and my reasons for wanting to have that "option" in my XDR menu. I think your point was well made about the required robustness of a system required to handle the throughput needs of uncompressed video. Since my workstation class laptop *can* already play a single stream of uncompressed, and my laptop is not that powerful, I have concluded the external HDD technology and the FW 800 & eSata interfaces must be fast enough for at least single stream work. Since I'm used to performing video mix downs on single streams of video, I can get away with uncompressed. I believe my graphics card has allot to do with this. Perhaps your setup requires a much superior interface for multiple streams of uncompressed video, which is a far more expensive post proposition.
4:2:0 or 4:1:1 sampling will not in itself lead to "Anemic" colours. The sampling effects the chroma resolution not the colour depth. Colours will be just as vibrant....Yes. Of course they will be. Perhaps I should have been more clearer in my earlier posting. I wasn't saying the use of these codecs will automatically lead to crappy looking video at broadcast. I was trying to make the point that one must pay much more closer attention to how they are treated in post production so they do not suffer from the effects of broadcast concatenation.
Over compression will not lead to a "snow" like look.....No but concatenation will.
No one here is debating the advantages of using uncompressed or 10bit in post. It's the practicalities and cost implications of acquiring 10 bit uncompressed that's in question....Then get over it ! If you want to play, then you must pay ! There never was an industry were this old addage applied more. There's no such thing as an economy lens or camera or NLE or post setup in the broadcast or film industries in which I work.

The BBC's official minimum standard for HD broadcast is 50 Mb/s minimum bit rate with 1/2" or larger sensors. There is much confusion at the moment as to whether you can get dispensations to use the XDCAM EX cameras at 35Mb/s. The BBC won't allow cameras with sensors smaller than 1/2" due to sensor noise and diffraction issues....Thanks for posting this info. The BBC is known for its high specifications for broadcast.

It's the practicalities and cost implications of acquiring 10 bit uncompressed that's in question.
.

Actually I think that if you add to the end of that sentence "...compared to the amount you actually gain" then that would sum it up nicely.
I think that for many, myself included, if the results were going to so much better then we'd shoot uncompressed and deal with the consequences, but if you're only getting 1% gain then why bother?

Steve

No one here is debating the advantages of using uncompressed or 10bit in post. It's the practicalities and cost implications of acquiring 10 bit uncompressed that's in question....Then get over it ! If you want to play, then you must pay ! There never was an industry were this old addage applied more. There's no such thing as an economy lens or camera or NLE or post setup in the broadcast or film industries in which I work.

Umm, how about the products that this forum is all about? And most of the cameras and lenses that are discussed here? And the budget that most forum users have available. I just don't get where you're coming from. I want the nano to do as much as possible too; don't get me wrong. But there are many areas in the creating and delivering of a quality end product that need improving LONG before any improvement is needed in the quality of the nano's pictures. The least expensive lens on the cameras I use costs more than your camera, your XDR, and your whole editing system put together. (I take a little liberty here, perhaps, but you should get the idea).


The nano is the bargain of the century in this business. How many of us do you think would be here if the nano started at $30,000 and went up as each feature and cable was added?


The "prosumer" (no insult meant) cameras are bargains in this business too, as is Final Cut Studio. When was the last time you priced current state of the art broadcast equipment? Broadcast cameras with lenses are well into six figures. Specialty cameras and specialty lenses are EACH into six figures. There is a reason for this; their quality is better and their sales are lower. Have you priced a Sony state of the art tape machine lately?

I don't mean to convey any animosity in this message, I just don't understand why you feel that acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed will make any worthwhile difference when you're using a camera chain that's under ten grand. (And as I said in a previous message, pages ago in this thread, once you get your footage into an editor, and are messing with the bits, it's a different story. Multiple lossy compression-decompression stages can really ruin a picture in short order, and editing in 10-bit allows you to preserve all 8 bits you acquired even if you're not subjecting the footage to multiple compress-decompress steps).

Billy

ps I've noticed a tendency here on the forum to lump 10-bit, uncompressed, and 4:4:4 into a single "entity". Each is a separate change though, and each has its particular benefit, along with its particular price to pay...

Hi Billy:
You wrote: "Umm, how about the products that this forum is all about? And most of the cameras and lenses that are discussed here? And the budget that most forum users have available. I just don't get where you're coming from. I want the nano to do as much as possible too; don't get me wrong. But there are many areas in the creating and delivering of a quality end product that need improving LONG before any improvement is needed in the quality of the nano's pictures.".........Wait a minute. *I'm not complaining about the image quality of the Nano or the XDR at all*. To the contrary, I consider my XDR to have absolutely stunning image quality, and you can check back in these threads to where I posted my initial impressions upon first use of my XDR to read for yourself if you want. What about the products in this forum ? I don't get what you don't get. (??) I don't understand why anyone would get their nose so out of joint over suggesting there was a valid application for shooting 10 bit uncompressed when there certainly is. Just because I shoot with a 1/3rd inch CCD camera means I shouldn't want to record uncompressed from its HD-SDI uncompressed output ? What the h*** ? - The implication being I wouldn't gain anything from doing so ? Really ? I simply don't believe that. I think there is value in adding the option to record uncompressed for digital cinema applications, just as their is some value in me renting a much better piece of glass to slap onto the front of my XL H1. In any case, I paid 12 Grand Canadian for my XL H1 in Montreal back in December 2007 and I certainly won't be casting it aside anytime soon. My camera isn't a six figure one, but it's a big five figures to me.

You Wrote: "The nano is the bargain of the century in this business. How many of us do you think would be here if the nano started at $30,000 and went up as each feature and cable was added?"

.....Of course it is. Where in this thread have I ever suggested it isn't ?

You Wrote: "The "prosumer" (no insult meant) cameras are bargains in this business too, as is Final Cut Studio."

.....I'm not arguing this point Billy.

You Wrote: "I don't mean to convey any animosity in this message, I just don't understand why you feel that acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed will make any worthwhile difference when you're using a camera chain that's under ten grand. "

........Well, as I stated above it wasn't under 10 K Dollars in my market. I value every piece of image quality improvement I can obtain from my investment. I will squeeze whatever I can squeeze out of it. Sometimes it is cheaper to rent a better lens for a job then to go out and purchase a better camera for a job. I can also possibly rent a better camera, but to my eye I am not unpleased with the image I get from my Canon XL H1.

You Wrote: "I just don't understand why you feel that acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed will make any worthwhile difference when you're using a camera chain that's under ten grand."

...I'm just not sure I even agree with your premise. Just because the camera is "prosumer" as you put it, does not necessarily imply it is pointless to try. You wrote that prosumer cameras were a bargain in this industry did you not ?

....I don't get what you don't get, and I don't see the big deal in this forum for asking for an "option" - read choice to shoot some high end projects in uncompressed HD. Especially digital material which will be output to 35 mm film !!!

First of all, my nose isn't out of joint; my head may be shaking slightly, and there was a definite sigh that escaped from my mouth, but I'm not at all upset.

Note what I quoted in my message that was the impetus for me to re-join the religious discussion going on.

...Then get over it ! If you want to play, then you must pay ! There never was an industry were this old addage applied more. There's no such thing as an economy lens or camera or NLE or post setup in the broadcast or film industries in which I work.

Which was your response to Alister's pointing out:No one here is debating the advantages of using uncompressed or 10bit in post. It's the practicalities and cost implications of acquiring 10 bit uncompressed that's in question.

In one breath you say that there's no such thing as an economy lens or camera in your work environment, and at the same time your equipment list is ALL economy stuff... I never said (nor do I think) that the equipment you have is bad or unsuitable, but compared to the equipment I shoot with, and that features are shot with, it certainly is economy. Your equipment also happens to provide a MUCH better value for your money, and is a wise choice, but that's not what I was responding to.

You've managed to (mostly) ignore what I've been trying to say, except for where you just said:...I'm just not sure I even agree with your premise. Just because the camera is "prosumer" as you put it, does not necessarily imply it is pointless to try. You wrote that prosumer cameras were a bargain in this industry did you not ?Indeed I did; and I certainly don't think trying is pointless. My point (and Alister's point, if I understand him) is that in our experience there is little (if anything) to be gained by acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed, but there is a heavy price to be paid. The time and money spent dealing with 10-bit uncompressed would better be spent on a better camera/lens, or better lighting equipment, or an on-location video engineer :), or a dozen other things. I don't begrudge you the ability to record in 10-bit uncompressed with your XDR, I just don't think it will buy you as much as you hope.

Billy

ps 10 grand isn't peanuts to me either, even when it turns out to be 15 grand Canadian.

HI Billy:
You Wrote : "First of all, my nose isn't out of joint; my head may be shaking slightly, and there was a definite sigh that escaped from my mouth, but I'm not at all upset."

......I wasn't refering to your nose Billy. Kindly re-read my post.

You Wrote: "In one breath you say that there's no such thing as an economy lens or camera in your work environment, and at the same time your equipment list is ALL economy stuff"

......I didn't state that at all. I was pointing to your earlier post. I statedwhat I paid for my camera, and it was implied there's no point to shooting uncompressed with it because it wasn't designed for it and was somehow too low end because it wasn't an SRW 9000 or whatever other high end camera we can pull out and address. I first disagreed that....

A) The camera was as low end as generally implied, but it is much lower end than others like yours I'm sure :-)
B) It has an uncompressed HD-SDI output which would suggest to many this camera could be a suitable candidate for uncompressed shooting - even though it has 1/3rd inch CCD sensors instead of 1/2 inch. Is it an SRW 9000 ? No. So what ? Let us give it a try and if I see no difference, then I'll move on.

....I would say your point on economy versus the very high end equipment you shoot with is relative but the results you get probably aren't ;-) Whay exactly do you have Billy ?

You Wrote: "Indeed I did; and I certainly don't think trying is pointless. My point (and Alister's point, if I understand him) is that in our experience there is little (if anything) to be gained by acquiring in 10-bit uncompressed, but there is a heavy price to be paid."

.......My apologies to you if I misunderstood what you and Alister were trying to get at. I've got a broken phone here ! ;-) Being the possible Obsessive compulsive that I may be here ;-) Alister may have a degree in psychology as well ;-) He ! He ! Ha ! Ha ! ?

* Now I want to really put what this thread to the test !* What if I went and shot a test (If for no other reason than to satisfy my own morbid curiosity) to make a side by side test. I will shoot the same subject with the Flash XDR @ Long GOP 100 Mbps and take the HD-SDI output of my XDR and plug that into some kind of uncompressed 10 bit recorder. Then edit that in a full uncompressed 10 bit project and output those results. Let's see a real world test to find out if what we've been discussing - debating - arguing over proves true.

....OK. I need recommendations from the readers of this post.

1. Do I keep the stock Canon 20 X Zoom lens for this test or use another lens ?

B) If another lens, then what lens should I rent ?

2. Where do I get an adaptor to mount that other lens to my H1 ?

3. What uncompressed recorder should I rent ?

In terms of lenses for the XL H1 I'd assume that the stock lens is as good as it's gonna get. Anything meant for a larger sensor/film is going to be designed to resolve less than lense aimed at a 1/3", and AFAIK the choice in 1/3" lenses is very limited and likely no better than what you've got. In the realms of 1/3" chips I've always thought that the Canon's 20x lens was pretty decent.
Steve

Hi Steve:
OK thanks for the advice. That's one vote to do the test with stock lens.

Mark,

I think the cheapest way to capture uncompressed is tethered to a desktop with a blackmagic card. Probably way cheaper to buy one than an uncompressed recorder rental, you could always do the buy/test/return free method as well. Even tethered, I'm sure you could devise a challenging scene for the XDR's codec.

Blackmagic Design: DeckLink (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklink/)

Also, have you explored using a laptop with a PCI expansion chassis connected to a blackmagic card and a raid card/drives (or a ssd if a single one is fast enough?)?

Magma PCI Express Expansion Systems (http://www.magma.com/products/pciexpress/index.html)

I was under the impression that that was a pretty well established semiportable method to capture uncompressed (or to Cineform). If you already have a capable laptop, it would likely be cheaper overall than an XDR as well. That solution would never work for what I purchased the nano for (underwater and POV shooting) and has a lot of compromises with regard to portability, but I don't see why it couldn't be made to work for most of your applications.

Hi Mike:
Hmmmm. Interesting proposition. I will check out your links and get back to you. I was not aware there was such a thing as a PCI Express card chassi for a laptop. Well that's something new to learn.