I'm curious.

According to Apple, the new ProRes 422 codec "offers uncompressed HD quality at SD file sizes" that stands up to near 8 generations without noticing signal degradation....ON A BIG SCREEN.

Then we have...

The Sony V1U supposedly does uncompressed out 1080p at 4:2:2 via HDMI. I'm assuming then, If one had either a power mac G5 with Decklink Studio card or a Mac Pro with Intensity card (both of which suppost Final Cut Pro)....

One could capture directly from the camera to the computer via HDMI and record with the new Apple ProRes 422 codec inside FCP at 24P (and I believe connected firewire for timecode as I heard it) and end up with an image that is....

True 1920 X 1080 @ 24p with 4:2:2 color HD quality that might as well be uncompressed (all the way to your finished product if you're careful about your generations.)

Am I correct on this?


If so, I'm assuming that this blown up to a big theatrical screen wouldn't be half bad. In other words, if you only have about 10K to buy equipment with, the final big screen image would be accecptable enough so that the typical movie-going audience would probably not notice?

Or how much do you think they'd notice? Seems the only real limitations might be the lens and the 1/4 inch chip sizes in the V1U.


Thoughts / Input on this as a setup that would make a VERY HOLLYWOOD ACCEPTABLE alternative for an indie filmmaker, please.


As many details as possible please!

Thanks,

Candace

I'm curious.

According to Apple, the new ProRes 422 codec "offers uncompressed HD quality at SD file sizes" that stands up to near 8 generations without noticing signal degradation.

Then we have...

The Sony V1U supposedly does uncompressed out 1080p at 4:2:2 via HDMI. If one had either a power mac G5 with Decklink Studio card or a Mac Pro with Intensity card (both of which suppost Final Cut Pro)....I'm assuming that....

One could capture directly from the camera to the computer via HDMI and record with the new Apple ProRes 422 codec inside FCP at 24P (and I believe connected firewire for timecode as I heard it) and end up with an image that is....

True 1920 X 1080 @ 24p with 4:2:2 color HD quality that might as well be uncompressed (all the way to your finished product if you're careful about your generations.)

Am I correct on this?

Thanks,

Candace

First and foremost, you are not getting 1080p out of HDMI from the V1. The V1 has progressive chips, so it scans at full HD 1920 x 1080p 4:2:2 through pixel shifting. It is then converted to 1440 x 1080i 4:2:2 before any output to HDMI or Component. The thought is that through HDMI the signal is then upconverted to 1920 x 1080i.

Next, since the V1's HDV conversion takes place before firewire and record to tape. The recorded signal will be HDV (1440 x 1080i @ 4:2:0 colorspace). Therefore, the only way to record the uncompressed HD signal is Live from the HDMI or some sort of a recording device that accepts a HDMI signal. Currently, there isn't any portable solution on the market.

As far as Apple's new HD codec is concerned, I don't have enough information to tell you whether it would work or not.

I do think, however, that for a general audience HDV would be fine for a big screen. I've seen it output to a 60 inch DLP, and it looked very good. Not as good as the live output, but viewers would have a hard time discovering the differences, especially when they are not looking for it... Unless your movie totally sucks...lol

Thre is no "pixel-shifting" in the V1. It samples pixels surrounding a specific pixel (in other words, pixels are doing double duty) and generates 1920 x 1080 from the sensor block using four pixel samples averaged between the initial information and secondary information.

As far as the Apple codec, get ready to record HDV/AVCHD in a new compression on your iPod or similar device. ;-)

Thre is no "pixel-shifting" in the V1. It samples pixels surrounding a specific pixel (in other words, pixels are doing double duty) and generates 1920 x 1080 from the sensor block using four pixel samples averaged between the initial information and secondary information.

As far as the Apple codec, get ready to record HDV/AVCHD in a new compression on your iPod or similar device. ;-)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

getting a direct capture from the camera will only increase marginally the picture quality. While this increase can be good, it is not significant enough to believe it will make you jump from the medium quality HDV category, to a passable Hollywood quality.
Just because the picture quality depend a lot more from the way you shoot, the light, the lens used, the sensor size, than just getting 4:2:2 instead 4:2:0. especially if the HDMI delivered is 8 bit as most camera do today (instead 10 bit as HDMI allows).
Working with a codec that has higher specification than the HDV allows you to heavily edit the picture (special effects, color correction) with almost no degradation.
This is common sens, so if you allow that for your workflow, you will get no bad surprise. From this point of view, there are already codecs allowing this on Apple (like the DVCPro HD).
From another point of view, many movies have been shot with DV and HDV and presented on big screens, so there is no need for a proof that a carefully produced movie shot with a consumer camera can do the trick.

I'm curious.

According to Apple, the new ProRes 422 codec "offers uncompressed HD quality at SD file sizes" that stands up to near 8 generations without noticing signal degradation.

Then we have...

The Sony V1U supposedly does uncompressed out 1080p at 4:2:2 via HDMI. If one had either a power mac G5 with Decklink Studio card or a Mac Pro with Intensity card (both of which suppost Final Cut Pro)....I'm assuming that....

One could capture directly from the camera to the computer via HDMI and record with the new Apple ProRes 422 codec inside FCP at 24P (and I believe connected firewire for timecode as I heard it) and end up with an image that is....

True 1920 X 1080 @ 24p with 4:2:2 color HD quality that might as well be uncompressed (all the way to your finished product if you're careful about your generations.)

Am I correct on this?


If so, I'm assuming that this blown up to a big theatrical screen wouldn't be half bad. In other words, if you only have about 10K to buy equipment with, the final big screen image would be accecptable enough so that the typical movie-going audience would probably not notice?

Or how much do you think they'd notice? Seems the only real limitations might be the lens on the V1U and the chip 1/4 inch chip sizes.


Thoughts / Input on this as a setup that would make a VERY HOLLYWOOD ACCEPTABLE alternative for an indie filmmaker, please.


As many details as possible please!

Thanks,

Candace

Candace, your logic seems very correct to me. The big advantages of capture at the HDMI port, are the initial quality of the material being preserved to the output end. As Douglas Spotted Eagle pointed out, the output signal is there, so let's use it to best advantage!

We are in the process of preparing a very portable solution to do exactly that, by using the excellent Cineform codec for very light compression, then for outputting at various different resolutions and for long term storage of the whole project.

First indications are that we are going to succeed nicely, but we still have a piece to go in field testing something truly practical and good enough for the tough use demands of field production. We we get a little further down the road, we'll share our results. If it's as good and useful as it seems to be, we'll certainly try to make it available to others.

HDMI allows for 10bit, but the last two bits are set to null in all cases, AFAIK.
There is a significant difference in the quality of the image, but I'd have to agree that the overall difference is negligible, unless you're planning on pushing the color very, very hard in post. However, using an HDI of some sort does help not only preserve image quality in compositing and color correction, it also offers some chroma smoothing in some cases, that may or may not be pleasing to your eye.
Far too many people are hung up on 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0, when in reality, it means very little in these smaller camcorders.

Spot do you use the intensity card with your V1? I can’t get the 10 Bit capture to work. The 8 bit works fine and the motion jpeg works fine. Is it true that the Motion jpeg and the dvcpro format are the same thing? By the way I really enjoyed the DVD for the HC1 and I am going to get the DVD for the V1.
Thanks.

I have an Intensity card, and use it on occasion, mostly for testing. I'm unaware of any problems via 10bit, but you're probably already aware that the 10bit of HDMI is really only 8 bit, yes? The last two bits are set to null.
No, MJPEG and DVCPRO HD aren't the same thing, but both are indeed intraframe versus interframe compression technologies, so MJPEG is closer to DVCPro than it is to HDV, if that's what you might be referring to?

As far as the Apple codec, get ready to record HDV/AVCHD in a new compression on your iPod or similar device. ;-)

Douglas, is the new apple codec that good?

Lonnie

I honestly don't know. I'm parroting what was said at an Apple event. It's hard to know what is really what at a trade event like NAB. Lotsa hype, but sometimes you find a nugget or two. What I saw looked good, but manufacturers have been known to roll out very tightly tweaked products that end up being different when they ship.

I too was at NAB, and was very impressed with FCP Studio 2... But, I thought that just maybe a guru like yourself may have had the opportunity to play with it before us mortals...

I guess we'll have to wait a few weeks and see...

Lonnie