Tony, you just proved DSE's point... you say you are a passionate filmmaker but cameras like these are not aimed at filmmakers... they are CONSUMER cameras and it is a CONSUMER format. As for the 24P license? Last I checked the cheapest cams with true 24P retailed for over $3000.

Unless the license is somewhere near $3K what is the point of $3K, what is the actual license cost, and what is it for, true 24p, or some 24p lookalike? The reality is that until enough HDTV's get sold, there is no real use for 24p for consumers. Until the majority of sets are HD that support 24p modes, then it might not appear outside prosumer equipment.

I consider HDV a consumer format, and as such they offer prosumer models that professionals and serious users use. The same may happen with AVCHD one day, otherwise they might as well stick to 12 and 15mb/s.

Still, I would like to see what Steve Mullen has to say, he has been around and probably knows a bit about what JVC is upto with it's HDD HD camera (that they announced to dealers but didn't release).

Re-edit:

I think also that the Sony rep might have been reflecting an official opinion of where AVCHD is being targeted for the present future. Despite what we may think here, it is not in our hands, but in the manufacturers' hands.

The thing is, it's not up to Sony to decide that. It's up to the MARKET to decide.I agree one million percent. I mean even in the end if they never end up taking AVCHD farther than basic consumer cameras, people would be crazy not to at least admit that that makes no sense.

Anyone that says:
"Prosumer cameras should be HDV and consumer cameras should be AVCHD"
Would be crazy, what would be the reasoning behind that? The format has more technical potential than HDV even if it's never realized.

...just how far these companies have already taken the democratization of filmmaking... just a few short years ago, a camcorder like the DVX for under $4,000 or an HD camera under $10,000 was just a pipe dream. Frankly, speaking in relative terms, I'm amazed at just how *inexpensive* this gear is these days. While you choose to be offended about those prices, as for myself I'm grateful that we can have so much for so little. If these manufacturers could sell these things for $100, don't you think they would? And yet I'll bet there will still be some people complaining about the pricing even then.

In large business this is a common strategy, if you sell yesterdays product forever people stop buying and you go broke (unless it's food etc). They lower cost to keep demand up but this lowers profit. To raise cost and profit up, and start the cycle again, they introduce new products, and hold the cost up as long as it provides the best return. It is as much about what you are prepared to pay as it is about cost/profit. This is the sort of supply and demand modeling that big business had been using most of last century. If you look at the HD prosumer equipment all it did was go into similar price categories to what SD prosumer started out in (except for the HD1/10).

I read an article about small camcorder/still manufacturers eating into the market and forcing the camcorder manufacturers to drop pricing (those sub-$100 solid sate consumer cameras that consumers buy). They must be rubbing their hands together, as they realise they can offer HD level cameras at SD prices.

I have been involved around the consumer electronics area for sometime, and what I am about to say does not include excessive salaries and top heavy infrastructure and waste of some big companies. I am familiar with some of the costing, and consider this. The DVCPRO/HD standard was based off the idea of stringing a number of SD compression units together to make 50-100Mb/s. If these sub $100 camera manufacturers wanted to they could string four 2-6mb/s Mpeg4 SD codec chips together to make a 720p camera, or more for 1080p. The chips would be a fraction of the price of the camera. It is possible, I would not like to see the results, unless it was done very well, but it is possible. Will it happen, maybe not, because the whole industry is aimed towards limiting features to price, so as not to eat into higher profits, but it is possible. Not so much a conspiracy, just business.

I have though about synchronising cheap cameras together to get HD, but the Sanyo HD1's price rather puts water on that in most cases.

People seemed obsessed with acquiring at higher resolutions and not lower compression. For any decent posting, less compression is better, much better. The only I see this highly compressed format even leaking into the pro world will be via a camera that WILL shoot less compression that has the AVCHD compression as an option in emergency or remote field situations, say an HVX-200a that will allow the option to P2 cards as an alternative to DVCproHD.

I agree, I think AVCHD at 24mb/s would be good enough for TV, and at the low end for cinema, but the Pana 100Mb/s 10bit AVC Intra as possibly in the sweet spot, with cineform and lossless above it.

1/Some comparative info that i think might be usefull

HC3 Poids : 500 g
Dimensions : 82 x 78 x 139 mm
CMOS Super HAD 2 103 000 pixels

HC1 Poids : 680 g
Dimensions : 71 x 94 x 188 mm
CMOS Super HAD 2 969 000 pixels

SR1 Poids 720g
Dimensions 78×84×165mm
"number of entire pixels" 2 100 000 pixels

HC1 slimmer, longer, handier ?, somewhat better defined ??
HC3 Lighter but Bulkier, shorter

2/ According to the general page presenting theSR1

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/HDR-SR1/feature01.html

the SR1 has indeed a USB connexion supporting stils and the video stream, as well as the announced HDMI ,Component and S outputs. But the HiRes pic sof the SR1 do not show the usb plug ?? and what about a Firewire ?? No firewire in a sony product ??

I think what Peter meant when he said that filmmaking is an elite club, has more to do with the fact that many try but few succeed. Elite not meaning snobbery but instead being successful in the face of a variety of seemingly insurmountable odds, as opposed to those who try at it and fail for any number of reasons spanning a wide range of circumstances.

Nobody needs a camera or a lot of money to be a filmmaker... all anybody needs in order to become a filmmaker is a business card, a telephone and people skills.


You said it better than I Chris. It's a business.

Once again... why is there even talk of compressed formats? ONLY because of bandwidth and storage issues. How can anyone argue that professional acquisition will head the OTHER direction, meaning towards LESS compression. People keep talking of higher resolution and I say that is but a PART of the issue. I bet anyone, any amount of money that acquisition in the professional world (broadcast/film) will head toward uncompressed. Delivery will always look to compression because of bandwidth limitations and bandwidth cost money.

Need some examples... look at the world of pro audio and pro photography. Almost every professional digital camera has a RAW option and most retail CDs are recorded in 24-bit 96k... these are LESS compresssed than just a few years ago...



ash =o)

Isn't this entire DV Info Net forum built up on people using consumer formats for pro results? Where is the Varicam forum? Where is the F950 forum? I have to agree with Barry Green here. We for the most part are all using something that uses a consumer format. The fact that 24p is in the specs might mean at some point somebody will have it. 24p wasn't in the HDV specs but that didn't stop JVC and Canon. Granted the format is a mess because of the way they did it but now with AVCHD the specs are there. Why put 24p in the specs? Is it only to support a true 24p recording mode for cineframe so a 3-2 pulldown doesn't have to be added? The result would still be jerky but you wouldn't have to worry about pulldown. If a 24p license costs too much then just do what Canon did with 24F. If pros swear by it for HDV it would look even better with AVCHD.

I agree, I think AVCHD at 24mb/s would be good enough for TV, and at the low end for cinema, but the Pana 100Mb/s 10bit AVC Intra as possibly in the sweet spot, with cineform and lossless above it.Though a possibility, a Panasonic-developed 100-Mbps, 10-bit AVC Intra format is not a certainty -- while they haven't officially ruled it out, they haven't confirmed it, either. But if one were developed, why would Cineform be better, given that no one knows this as-yet hypothetical AVC Intra format's specs, let alone seen footage produced in it?

As a side note, if I were Panasonic, I wouldn't stop at 100 Mbps -- I'd go to 200 Mbps.

The reason DV became a prosumer and professional format is solely becaue networks adopted it. Barry says it was aimed at consumers which in general is true but the DV cam really exploded and created the "prosumer" segent. Before that, there was Hi8 and S-VHS but they saw very limited penetration. MTV and others began adopting DV and eventually almost everyone did. I do not see the same happening to a highly compressed format. Several networks are already anti-HDV and even HVX and require XDCAMs to be shot at the highest quality. The word "professional" is completely subjective but I refer to it as broadcast, corporate and film work. I just dont see a big adoption of super compressed acquisition with prices the way they are. DV made sense because it was a FRACTION of the cost of a Betacam. With so many cameras already under $10K, the broadcast world just doesnt care if it goes lower.

As far as evening the playing field or democracy, it has almost nothing to do with cameras and never has. I could could GIVE 99.99% of indie film makers a 35mm camera and all the free film they could use and most would not get their movie distributed. Script, ACTORS, crew and production values is the ticket, not a camera.




ash =o)

Licensing 24p! Can anyone "own" a frame rate? I'l just make mine 23.99999999999p and avoid all that. That's like licensing 60Hz AC power!

Most topics have been well covered, but I question the advantage of ever using uncompressed anything. I can get a very nice 7 megapixel picture compressed to less than 3 MB. That's about what a ONE megapixel UNcompressed image takes. Which way would YOU want your 3MB used? Want 720p60 uncompressed? I'll compress my 2000p60 to the same data rate and get a BETTER picture.

The careful use of limited compression can always help - even in production. Don't kid yourself, there will always be pressures for the most efficient use of transmission and storage capabilities.

...they have confirmed it, either...

I agree with you whole heartedly. In one of the linked interviews it was expressly said that it had DVCPROHD quality at 50mb/s, and double at double that rate (100Mb/s). No other rate is mentioned, but I imagine that the really expensive line of cameras eventually may have 200-600Mb/s.

There is a bottom line in quality, lossless. Lossless tends to peak out on most codecs at around 2:1 on average, the better codecs can go to 3:1 on average (though there are reports on higher rates then this on some codecs). H264 lossless (they have developed this, I posted a link to a table of this in the other thread) would likely be 2:1 to 3:1 as with most codecs. So I can calculate approx lossless and visually lossless from that. H264 is aimed at quality at high compression, so I don't assume it is the best for lossless. Taking DVCPROHD as an indication of minimal broadcast quality, and double that for 100MB/s H264, pretty much puts you in a sweet spot in broadcast acquisition standards, but I do not image it is visually lossless. This gives you an indication of relative quality at the bottom and top ends, from which you can estimate. Wait to see. (I think the normal cineform sample I have seen looks sufficiently soft myself, the cineform bayer looks sharper (though I have to visually confirm) probably because of that way it has to work to ensure bayer accuracy).

David,

Try 25p, run slower, and adjust the pitch through a very good sound process (with a big processing resolution to avoid introducing sound errors).

Everyone has this dream/fantasy/nightmare of killing film but the ONLY way you will ever get CLOSE is uncompressed.

Given that almost nothing is delivered to viewers without being processed digitally these days, it shouldn't be too hard to make a digital video camera which delivers "film-like" results. And considering most consumers are happy with SD DVDs at 720x480 resolution with 4:2:0 color, how much better than that do we need to record to make film irrelevant? I'd guess the coming round of moderately-compressed HD cameras will bring us very close to looking like film at prices mere mortals can afford, so this debate should be about over. Does anyone here shoot film for anything now?

Less than ten years ago many professional photographers told me they'd never take digital photography seriously; today even National Geographic is going digital. Film is on its way out for both photos and video except for the most esoteric purposes. Good riddance, too: film is environmentally unfriendly and difficult to preserve.

Digital all the way Kevin. No more banks of slides, 8x10 polaroids, scans, etc. etc (of course, I miss those dark room chemicals, mmmmm). Just shoot, qualify during capture, edit, and deliver on disk -same day, too.

Licensing 24p! Can anyone "own" a frame rate? I'l just make mine 23.99999999999p and avoid all that. That's like licensing 60Hz AC power!

Most topics have been well covered, but I question the advantage of ever using uncompressed anything. I can get a very nice 7 megapixel picture compressed to less than 3 MB. That's about what a ONE megapixel UNcompressed image takes. Which way would YOU want your 3MB used? Want 720p60 uncompressed? I'll compress my 2000p60 to the same data rate and get a BETTER picture.

The careful use of limited compression can always help - even in production. Don't kid yourself, there will always be pressures for the most efficient use of transmission and storage capabilities.


Do you do any CC or compositing? Sorry but even codecs like DVCproHD start to fall off pretty fast. I bet I could show most people uncompressed SD and it would look better than highly compressed HD. Define "better" picture? Do you mean more resolution because people mistakenly think that means better picture when in many cases, it does not.



ash =o)

Less than ten years ago many professional photographers told me they'd never take digital photography seriously; today even National Geographic is going digital. Film is on its way out for both photos and video except for the most esoteric purposes. Good riddance, too: film is environmentally unfriendly and difficult to preserve.

YOu proved my point... all thes "I will never go digital" guys are shooting RAW, not compressed... with more and more movies going thru extensive CC and post compositing, LESS compression will be the goal for ACQUISITION.



ash =o)

YOu proved my point... all thes "I will never go digital" guys are shooting RAW, not compressed... with more and more movies going thru extensive CC and post compositing, LESS compression will be the goal for ACQUISITION.



ash =o)

There is really no way to compare the two. It makes sense for a still image to be raw because people tend to stare at it for a given length of time. More attention is put on the contents and image quality of that one image. The delivery medium is also different in this case. Many times the photo may go through many changes and end up printed very large in a magazine or a large photograph. Artifacts would show up very fast in this situation. The other major reason to shoot raw still images is because they can. It is something that is no problem at all in terms of current technology. It make take more cards but shooting raw is no problem at all.

Thinking of shooting HD video uncompressed is rather insane. Anybody who thinks this will happen is living in a dream world. Even uncompressed SD is expensive. Since every single frame isn't studied for long periods of time the level of compression isn't as important as it is with still images. The final medium for viewing isn't as high of a standard as with photography. Most consumers will never ever see what uncompressed HD or even SD looks like. Where with photography consumers get to see a perfect version all the time.

Sorry that is a poor argument, are you aware that many post houses are already editing in uncompressed SD? Motion makes artifacting WORSE, it does not mask it. While it may be some time before there is true uncompressed acquisition, I do not think for one second the move will be towards MORE compression and that is what we are talking about with these cameras. I am not sure how you guys work but have you seen A/B footage from a compressed format that has been CCed, had graphics added, etc. etc.? Then squeeze that thru some compression for broadcast and YUCK. There is a reason MOST networks wont take compressed acquisition for anything but b-roll or SOME reality TV. Again, look at the music world. How many albums are being tracked by recording in MP3 format? NONE... the more compressed the delivery of music has become, the LESS compressed the acquisition has become. It only makes sense because compression equals degradation.

To further prove my point, check out the Andromeda project on the DVX. Same camera head, just a different delivery and recording method and VASTLY improved results. How did they get it? By bypassing the compression.

http://www.reel-stream.com/andromeda.php


ash =o)

I took a look at this post to see the discussion on the HDR-UX1 and HDR-SR1 AVCHD camcorders but what I see here seems to be... er... um... well, I can't really tell. :-\

You're right, John, it has gone way off topic and for that I apologize. I'll try to figure out where the split should be and move all this stuff to a separate discussion. Sorry about that,

Thank goodness, I was almost going to post on that myself last night, I haven't seen anything quiet like this either (except in that flash drive thread, but that kept relatively on topic). Important, heated, discussion for another thread.

But to contribute to the other thread, DVD looks a lot less desirable when viewed on a DVD resolution large screen from a closer seating distance. I did some calculations once, and concluded what people thought they were seeing, was equivalent to around 19Mb/s or so (or was that 15mb/s) Mpeg2 SD. Coincidentally the same data rate as the JVC PD1 (SD equivalent of the HD1/10) . These cameras are known for their SD image quality.

I think I'll just change the thread title to reflect the real topic here.

Sorry that is a poor argument, are you aware that many post houses are already editing in uncompressed SD? Motion makes artifacting WORSE, it does not mask it. While it may be some time before there is true uncompressed acquisition, I do not think for one second the move will be towards MORE compression and that is what we are talking about with these cameras. I am not sure how you guys work but have you seen A/B footage from a compressed format that has been CCed, had graphics added, etc. etc.? Then squeeze that thru some compression for broadcast and YUCK. There is a reason MOST networks wont take compressed acquisition for anything but b-roll or SOME reality TV. Again, look at the music world. How many albums are being tracked by recording in MP3 format? NONE... the more compressed the delivery of music has become, the LESS compressed the acquisition has become. It only makes sense because compression equals degradation.

To further prove my point, check out the Andromeda project on the DVX. Same camera head, just a different delivery and recording method and VASTLY improved results. How did they get it? By bypassing the compression.

http://www.reel-stream.com/andromeda.php


ash =o)


First of all HDCAM and DVCPROHD are both still compressed. DVCPRHD is well known to have issues with color correction and multiple effects. My whole point is that the equipment needs for still photography and audio are much much less than what they are for video. We do raw photos because we can with no problem at all. We can do high quality 24 bit audio because we can and it doesn't really hurt anything in terms of equipment. Even HDCAM SR is slightly compressed and that is about as close as we may ever get to uncompressed HD shooting. The Andromeda is a bad example because this needs to be tied to a computer. This may work for a locked down set for a high budget production but it is not very practical for other types of shooting.

You get me wrong. I would love to have less compression. Having studied visual effects in college I would love for everything to be 12 bit RGB but the fact is that I just do not see it coming yet. Shooting uncompressed or even close to uncompressed video on the go is almost impossible right now. Recording uncompressed audio or still images is not hard at all.

While many places are editing uncompressed SD chances are it didn't start out as that. Most high end SD video is either DVCPRO50 or digibeta. This means it is a compressed 50 mbit video and not uncompressed. Even with SD it is very hard to shoot uncompressed video because it has too much bandwidth.

Even though AVCHD has a lower bandwidth meaning higher compression in theory it should look much better than HDV which means hopefully much higher quality.

Again I do agree with you that I wish we could have less compression for a decent price. The only thing I was trying to point out is why it is easier with photos and audio to go uncompressed as a standard.

For the record, as of NAB 2006, 24p is part of the HDV spec. 24p on the HD100, 110, etc.; 24f in the Canon XL H1, and 24p in the XDCAM HD, which is similar to HDV.

heath

ps-Link to the new HDV specifications:

http://www.hdv-info.org/HDVSpecifications.pdf

I should have posted this over in that flash drive thread, but here it is. IBM is planning 100GB SD card (can go bigger, and make an array for higher data rates):

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/443/vettiger.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=1143&tag=nl.e539
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050311_162423.html

As you can see (apart from the 3.2TB holographic disk plans from Toshiba, I think) lossless/higher data rate portable recording is soon to be viable within the coming year or so.

I never said current formats are not compressed, I said future PROFESSIONAL ACQUISITION formats will head towards less compression.



ash =o)

Yes and no.

Obviously professionals prefer less compression, that part would never be in doubt. But uncompressed? That's probably quite a ways away. Even HDCAM-SR uses MPEG-4 compression (at 440 megabits per second, so somewhere around 4:1 compression?)

AVC-HD isn't about being a "professional" format, but I do think it'll be adopted by professionals just like DV was. DV was never "intended" to be a professional format, but it undoubtedly was heavily adopted by professionals at all levels. I expect AVC-HD will garner similar acceptance (depending on the type of product the manufacturers produce!) And yes, compression is absolutely integral to any sort of functional workflow right now. With DVCPRO-HD I could have multiple streams of 1080 high-def, including transitions, running on my G5 in realtime, off the internal hard disk (no RAID necessary.) That simply could not happen with uncompressed at this stage of the game.

Less-compressed is of course better; that's why Sony developed MPEG-IMX (using I-frame-only) and Panasonic is going with AVC-Intra (50 megabits -- and perhaps more -- of I-frame-only) in their higher-end professional gear. And as capacities increase I expect that they will introduce milder and milder forms of compression.

But 50 megabits still represents a compression ratio of somewhere around 30 to one (and that's based on 8-bit, rather than 10-bit, and full-raster obviously).

Someday, yes, when capacity and bandwidth and processor capabilities all allow for it, uncompressed will be the way we trend. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon. To work with this footage in today's environment, and today's workflow, and today's IT capabilities, heavy compression will continue to be the order of the day for the foreseeable future.

It depends on how you define professional... I always say there will be some apps that will prefer convenience over quality. I mean if you are an ENG guy shooting a car accident, fire, football game, etc. I dont think it matters, those guys surely are pros in that they get paid to shoot but I am more talking about stuff that gets broadcast, CCed, run thru a post house, etc. I cant imagine shooting a highly compressed format for a music video, etc.

Barry you are talking about it being adopted because it can help overcome some of the technological limitations but what about when those limitations are overcome? That is my entire point, HDV, DVCproHD, etc. etc. etc. are really there not because they are the best, but because they are the best within the affordable technical specs. I just dont see a big move towards more compression, especially when the big networks are currently shunning such...



ash =o)

When such limitations can be overcome, then there's no need to perpetuate the compressed format.

That's what the EBU decided when they rejected 1080i as the HDTV format for Europe; interlace is basically a form of compression (a way to cram 50 motion samples in half the bandwidth) and since 720/50p works fine, they said "no more interlaced".

So yes, I would agree that professionals would prefer better image quality, and lossy compression doesn't help that any.

But the problem is, it's completely impractical to even start thinking about uncompressed HD. We don't even really do uncompressed SD; at 27 megabytes per second it would strain most hard disks to keep up with even one stream.

And by the time computers can handle the 150-megabyte or 200-megabyte per second data rate (and capacity issues) of uncompressed HD, we'll probably be on to the next, larger format. UHD. 4K. And those will require compression to make 'em workable.

We got there with audio -- 16-bit 48kHz uncompressed, and even 24-bit 96kHz uncompressed, are standard. But with video it's so preposterously more difficult. Which is why compression will probably always be with us, to some degree or other. The defining point is when it's good enough for widespread acceptance, and can be worked with.

I agree that less compression is of course better. I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Highly compressed is going to be with us for the foreseeable future. That's why AVC-HD is so interesting to some of us -- it appears that it may finally cross that threshhold of "good enough". The bandwidth is certainly low enough to be workable, and assuming that nVidia and ATI put hardware AVC decompressor chips on their graphics cards, the processor load may be low enough to make this a workable format. My only real reservation about AVC-HD would be regarding the long-GOP issues, but with twice the efficiency of MPEG-2 I'm expecting that will be less of a worry.

Highly compressed also smooths the inevitable transition to tapeless. I think the P2 cards work just fine for the limited capacities we can get currently (for some type of projects, but not for all.) But with AVC-HD you could store 5x as much footage in its best-quality mode... now that starts to be downright luxurious. 20 minutes in best quality on a 4gb card, 80 minutes in best quality on the 16gb card? And if you're willing to compromise yourself down to 12 megabits, now you're looking at 32 minutes on a 4gb card, and two hours on a 16gb card.

I think the mini-DVD application for AVC-HD is just silly, but I do applaud Sony for bringing out a 30gb hard disk model, pointing towards more capacity and more options. I just hope that when Panasonic brings out their SD-Card models, that they have the foresight to engineer multiple card slots. Having three or four card slots full of cheap off-the-shelf 4GB SD cards will mean that short recording times will never be an issue.

I think it's not so much the compression itself, but that compression technologies have improved (i.e. same visual quality, but smaller file size). There was a time that all compression resulted in a poor image. If you wanted uncompressed, it was very expensive, and required specialized gear, etc. The cheapest for SD, even five years ago, was a video toaster and NT workstation for about $15K base. Then you needed some expensive $35K or more SD camera's to actually realize the benefits of uncompressed.

You were lucky if your array of expensive barracuda drives lasted longer than six-months, and that workstation itself didn't go down every two or three weeks. The uncompressed extracted a huge penalty that frankly, wasn't worth it.

Today, compression is not a bad thing. Especially if you cant tell the difference in the end product as to how it was originally aquired. That is, say BetaSP vs. DV for corporate video. It made more sense for me to go the DV route and have a kit, camera, and PC that cost less then the price of a new $40K betacam, when the end result was the same, and the workflow more efficient.

The bottom line resulted in a wider profit margin as the overhead was substancially less. We're talking about a big difference, about $800 less per finished minute!

Granted, uncompressed may have it's benefits in post and green screen, but it didn't make sense, in fact seemed more like overkill, to have it for the entire project.

Compression doesn't have to be a bad thing. Look at Cineform. This codec is amazing and may come very close to uncompressed in terms of visual quality but at a super small datarate. In the future even if we could shoot and record uncompressed HD I think more people would rather use a codec like Cineform or better to have many times more storage space not to mention many real time streams for editing. Even if 200MB/S gets cheap remember that is for each stream. If you want to do a 4 camera multicam edit in FCP with uncompressed HD your hard drive will need to pump 800 MB/S sustained. That is nuts. I would rather have a codec that had no visual loss such as a wavelet based codec like Cineform at 10bits that would be just as good even for green screen work.

One question about an I frame only AVCHD codec. How much better would it be than DVCPRO HD at the same bitrates? Isn't most of the compression in the GOP length and changes between P and B frames? Wouldn't a AVCHD I frame only at 100 mbits/s be the same as DVCPRO HD at 100 mbits/s? Is there other areas of compression that would make it better even on I frame only? I kind of look at it like how mpeg2 I frame at 50 mbits/s is very similar to DVCPRO50. I never could figure out what the benefit was of mpeg2 I frame 50 mbits/s compared to just using a 50 mbit DV based codec.

That's what the EBU decided when they rejected 1080i as the HDTV format for Europe; .......and since 720/50p works fine, they said "no more interlaced".
I'll go along with nearly all you say in your last posts, Barry, but from a European perspective that above statement just is not true - 1080 is establishing itself as the dominant format over here, at least in broadcasting. The EBU did express a preference towards progressive over interlace, but certainly didn't reject 1080i - though their wish is eventually towards 1080p/50 for top end acquisition at least.

In the meantime, the two HD services we now have in the UK, from Sky satellite, and a trial service from the BBC, are both 1080 only. The BBC service is 1080i/25 for some types of programme (sport etc), but 1080p/25 for such as drama, carried psf.

I'll go along with nearly all you say in your last posts, Barry, but from a European perspective that above statement just is not true - 1080 is establishing itself as the dominant format over here, at least in broadcasting. The EBU did express a preference towards progressive over interlace, but certainly didn't reject 1080i - though their wish is eventually towards 1080p/50 for top end acquisition at least.



I base what I said on the EBU's technical review paper, offered here:
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_301-editorial.html

In that, they specifically said that they favor 720/50p (or 1080/50p) over an interlaced format such as 1080i/25. Now, they can't determine for the broadcasters what the broadcasters will choose, but they stated their preference rather strongly, even going so far as to quote Yves Faroudja saying "I am amazed that anybody would consider launching new services based on interlace. I have spent all of my life working on conversion from interlace to progressive. Now that I have sold my successful company, I can tell you the truth: interlace to progressive does not work!”

Now, they did recognize that "Some suppliers of HDTV equipment have complained that the EBU’s support for progressive scanning is damaging the case for 1080i/25 and for the 1920 x 1080 common image format." And they went on to basically say "hey, we think it's a bad idea to promote interlaced, but we recognize that some of you are going to do it anyway." They said "The EBU has no intention of starting a format war or prohibiting the use of 1080i/25", but they felt that such systems would be more appropriate for acquisition but not for transmission (aka "emission").

So going back to what I said: I said that the EBU rejected 1080i, instead favoring progressive (and, for today, 720/50p) for transmission. And that they said "no more interlaced." As the document I pointed to illustrates, they specifically are "firmly in favour of progressive scanning." They acknowledged that both systems will co-exist, especially for acquisition, but they specifically endorsed only progressive for transmission. They'd prefer 1080/50p, but until that arrives, they endorsed 720/50p.

Whether broadcasters are following that recommendation or not is, of course, another subject.

I don't doubt that these little AVC-HD cameras won't hold up as compared to an FX1. But an AVC-HD FX2 would be substantially better than an HDV FX1, of that I have no doubt.

I think we should reserve some doubt until we see how well the real-time AVC encoding chips in the cameras work, plus see how much recording media will cost and consider how we might work with footage from such cameras. If the footage is only slightly better and other aspects of the cameras are less convenient that might not be so great, especially if no current computer can effectively process the footage without converting it to some intermediate format. So maybe AVC will be a great thing which blows HDV away and maybe it won't; I wouldn't bet either way right now.

YOu proved my point... all thes "I will never go digital" guys are shooting RAW, not compressed... with more and more movies going thru extensive CC and post compositing, LESS compression will be the goal for ACQUISITION.

My point was that some people didn't think digital photography could ever rival film, and most have now realized otherwise. As far as compression is concerned, I think we'd all agree that less of it is generally better. But like I said before, if all video delivery is heavily compressed we don't need to shoot full uncompressed source to get acceptable results for typical delivery, and hence economics will play a significant role for the foreseeable future. Cameras like the SI-1920 point the way to affordable, modestly compressed video acquisition which should look "good enough" for most purposes without breaking the bank shooting uncompressed. Uncompressed editing may make sense, but uncompressed acquisition won't for anything but the best-funded projects.

I base what I said on the EBU's technical review paper, offered here:
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_301-editorial.html
I'm well aware of that document, and there is no doubt that the EBU (sensibly, IMO) favours progressive over interlace in principle. I just feel that saying that they had "rejected" 1080i is taking their position too far, and to quote from the document above:

".......... the EBU has recognised that 1080i/25 services will operate alongside 720p/50 services – and strongly hopes that 1080p/50 systems will eventually become the norm.

The EBU has no intention of starting a format war or prohibiting the use of 1080i/25."

I just didn't want non-European readers to get the impression from what you posted that Europe was becoming a 720p/50 only zone for broadcast, since nothing could be further from the truth. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/delivering_quality/pdf/tv/hd_summary_delivery_formats_v01_01.pdf for the BBCs own guidelines. Note the specific mention of 1080p/25 - they do not simply say 1080i.

Coming back on to topic, I agree with what Barry says in most respects about AVCHD, and it's likely good future, together with AVC-Intra at a higher level. The only exception would be regarding the mini-DVD based camera from Sony, which I feel is far from silly, at least in a consumer camera. I suspect a lot of such cameras are used for recording family events, and most of todays tapes are never edited, but rather put on a shelf for looking at sometime in the future. I doubt Joe Public is likely to be able to change his behaviour, and hence shoot to disc and play back on a future set top player will hold for them big appeal.

Other users may well prefer multiple SD card slots for very good reasons (for them). My own preference would be for a hybrid SD/miniDVD camera, and the ability to use either or both medium as appropriate.

You may be aware that I am, oddly, quiet here, there is just not much to say. I actually prefer to talk about the AVCHD cameras/technologies ;).

In the Digital cinema camera projects we realised a number of things (and if you read my thread you will see that people actually do have uncompressed acquisition running, at a price).

Hard drives can sustain 50GB per second, with sizes like 500+ MB per drive. That is three drives for 1080i/p 8bit 4:4:4, or around one drive for 720/24p uncompressed.

If you look at lossless compression most run out of steam after an average of 2:1, so halve the drives with a good codec. At the moment I am looking into a codec by digital Anarchy (to see if it is credible and capable) that promises lossless at 4:1+ average.

In the Digital Cinema camera projects we quickly realised that Bayer filter actually would give use 1080p24 8bit at under 50MB/s. Bayer has the ability to render a good 4:4:4 approximation, and is used by the major Cinema camera manufacturers (though not Sony) where they can turn on the flood lights ;). From discussions on the group, Cineform developed a bayer version of their codec, that gets, maybe, upto 6:1 on the latest edition. At the moment they are trickling out something like 9 MBytes per second for 1080p footage. This is supposed to be visually lossless, but the way bayer requires preciseness for interpolation, I would not be surprised if it is close to lossless.

I have long ago known that you can fit cineform like codec on pocket cameras, it would be far better to scrap h264 and go with cineform for certain levels of the video camera industry (and render out to a distribution codec). I have had discussions with them, and if anybody would like to do it, and back it up with money of course, it is possible to do it. I would imagine that a fair few of these future h264 cameras could be reprogrammed to do this. On the extreme edge of visually lossless, or adjusted for lossy, cineform could, perhaps, keep up with H264 for a lot less processing cost.

With my own compression codec plans, I estimate I could do a true lossless 720/25p 8bit in about 20mb/s. Cineform could be adjusted for this, or some other lossless codec. This is an extreme in one of the techniques, but I don't think the extremes of what is possible in lossless compression. You can all wipe up the coffee you spat out on the floor now, I am reasonably confident that this can be done, but who by, I don't really wish to.

So maybe AVC will be a great thing which blows HDV away and maybe it won't; I wouldn't bet either way right now.


Smart man.

It's interesting that some folks are willing to bet on the "potential" of the format vs what will be delivered by manufacturers. We all know that MPEG in camera isn't using nearly the total potential. There was a camcorder heavily marketed over the last year that was *marketed* on it's potential and disappointing in actuality. What a format or spec can do and what is delivered in the physical box are usually two very different products.

And how one uses it, too. My DP Jon Fordham made my great use with an HD10 and a decent light kit. Check out the article here (http://hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham4.php). I don't doubt the AVCHD will look great when used right, just like any camera out there.

heath

I think most of us you have messed with it or seen it all agree that the eventual goal is less compressed and that we will eventually get there. Right now, all the semantics are really about when it will happen. While people currently slam HDV for its long GOP, there are plenty of people using it and making a living. Sure in the broadcast world they like to limit its use but there are other ways to use it. My only thing is that it is hard for me to get very excited about introducing another MORE compressed format...



ash =o)

Ash,

Compression means nothing to me when I use HDV. It looks GREAT and edits great, etc. I think the Z1, HD100 and the XL H1 are amazing cameras, despite the compression. I used the HVX200 for a month earlier this year and enjoyed it just as much as the Z1, etc., despite having lower compression.

It's not about how much compression, but how the compression is done. That's what makes or breaks a camera.

heath

I think most of us you have messed with it or seen it all agree that the eventual goal is less compressed and that we will eventually get there. Right now, all the semantics are really about when it will happen. While people currently slam HDV for its long GOP, there are plenty of people using it and making a living. Sure in the broadcast world they like to limit its use but there are other ways to use it. My only thing is that it is hard for me to get very excited about introducing another MORE compressed format...

Ash, read my post above, it can happen now. I am currently getting ready to look for a Component/VGA/RGB/HDMI to GigE Ethernet data cable (not the normal extender but as a data file) and if not, suggest it to some FPGA people I found discussing something like it. Admittedly, you might need a twin Gige cable, but you should be able to fit basic 1080p and 720p through it. With some just minor compression techniques, even 10 bits should fit. If somebody else would like to hunt it down, it will probably get done ten times quicker though. This could be done with usb2/firewire even, but you would be restricted to 720p normally. I would wan tit to be programmed with a cameras specific component data timings, or to auto sync and remember them. Crazy I know, but we are literally a little ADC and FPGA away with GigE conditioned back end, away from such a solution.

HDV, DVCproHD, etc. tend to fall off when editing in those native modes. It becomes much more pronounced when squeezed down for broadcast, projected, etc.

I know that you CAN do uncompressed now but it aint cheap. I think most people are going to wait until it is the same price as current tech.



ash =o)

Low compression, like visually lossless, is what I was suggesting as well as lossless (which achieves 2:1+ less space). At the moment their is $1000 card that will take in uncompressed, tag that onto a$1000 system and buy lots of drives, or transcode to Cineform RAW (more thousands). So the price is dramatically less, and in future even less again.

The doable price of low compassion is a camera, device, like I suggest that transfers to GigE, $100, small computer/laptop with fast drives or compression software $1000. There is compression FPGA going on at Open cores, once through, the price can be $300, maybe cheaper, Ethernet cable connected to Ethernet portable drive caddy, under $500 plus drives and cameras is now possible. The stream would be around 100-200Mb/s, less if it could apply to bayer. When you add the possibilities of 100GB SD cards, as mentioned IBM is planning on releasing within a year or so, if they do, prices drop dramatically (though I suspect they will charge $400 for the first commercialisations, but in reality, I suspect that the price could be effectively $50 or so in the long term).

But on the market today, you have a $1K card and the rest above, or the commercial, approx, $2.5K HDSDI uncompressed recorder project by Keith Wakeham, in the alternative imaging forum. Plans are to try to support component recording on it after HDSDI etc. So $2.5K plus camera. All that stands in the way is everybody saying it is impossible.

Yes, that project combined with the XLH could really open up some crazy doors.


ash =o)

Component to GigE, project request:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72223

I forgot to mention something that I spotted a week or so ago, that may make that 24Mb/s AVCHD advantage evaporate a bit. As this is no longer a AVCHD thread I have posted it here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72226