Question about the Nano Flash and my EX1

Bill Ravens · October 23rd, 2008, 07:48 AM

Tim...yes, thanx for the clarification.

Buck Forester · October 23rd, 2008, 09:18 AM

Gracias for your patience in explaining this, ha! Like I said, I'm new to this video stuff so I don't know what "normal" is. Some people are telling me it should remain sharp with s-l-o-w pans, and some are saying it's normal. Some people keep asking for "motion" tests with the XDR/NanoFlash because they imply motion is the weakness of Long GOP. So I don't know what normal is due to lack of experience, or if intra-frame doesn't have this issue, or if Long GOP wouldn't have this issue if the bit rate was much higher, etc. If I-frame will solve the issue, as was just suggested (if I read it correctly) then that would suggest it's a Long GOP compression issue. I guess. Maybe. I think. ha!

I guess I'll just hang out and be patient and wait for some motion testing with the XDR and/or NanoFlash to see if there's a difference. Thank you!

Bill Ravens · October 23rd, 2008, 09:36 AM

yeah....kinda what I'm doing....

When I first saw this "blurring" on pans with my EX1, I assumed it was because I was panning too fast, as others have suggested. I practiced with excrutiatingly slow pans, in my attempt to minimize the motion blur, to no effect. Those who suggest this is an artifact of panning too fast have no experience with the 35mbps Sony encoder. What I've seen is that anytime the entire frame translates horizontally (not necessarily vertically), this faux motion blur happens. It's really not motion blur, but, compression artifacting due to motion.

Paul Cronin · October 23rd, 2008, 09:39 AM

Buck and Bill I hope I can answer both of your questions when I receive my XDR Flash in a month. Most of what I shoot is fast motion and hoping this will improve picture quality at 1080p 30p 100Mbps 422.

Buck Forester · October 24th, 2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Letch

has much to do with what your referring to here, sure you get codec breakup etc, but any pan will smooth things out so I'm not sure why your looking for sharp detail under these circumstances? you can up the shutter speed quite high to improve this.
Or maybe I'm just missing the whole jist of what's being discussed here? Which as Perrone said the bit rate won't help change this fact.

Sorry if I've missed it??

Adam

Hi Adam! What I'm referring to are very slow pans. I watch nature HD flicks a lot and they are magically sharp even with slow panning movements. I'm not seeing this with my EX1... it's razor sharp until the slightest movement. When I shoot 108060i this is minimized, or 720 60p, so I'm wondering why I can't shoot 1080 30p and keep it sharp with slow pans? What's causing it to lose sharpness when I don't see it on HD programs, or nearly as much with 1080 60i. I'm still learning all this stuff. I have no idea why.

Paul Cronin · October 24th, 2008, 05:51 PM

Buck after a long conversation with Mike and reading everything I could on the subject in a week I am convinced the faster bit rate will help. How much I do not know. And like you I do not know the details but being an engineer it all makes sense to me. Still this does not mean I fully understand it so only one way to find out.

Barlow Elton · October 24th, 2008, 06:01 PM

It will definitely help if it isn't an EX1 image processing issue. I know that I get much sharper rendition of motion when I've recorded to higher bit rate codecs via SDI from the XL-H1. (shutter speed notwithstanding...obviously how sharp a pan looks does depend somewhat on pan speed and shutter speed)

I've just had a sneak peek at a 100mbs XDR-processed version of a ProRes HQ raw SDI clip I submitted to C-D.

The result is stunning. The visual fidelity of the 100mb MPEG2 422 mode is basically the same as ProRes.

There's no doubt it would be a signifigant improvement over XDCAM EX HQ compression. The added color resolution alone is worth the price of admission to me.

Paul Cronin · October 24th, 2008, 06:06 PM

Thanks Barlow

Jim Arthurs · October 25th, 2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Forester

I guess I'll just hang out and be patient and wait for some motion testing with the XDR and/or NanoFlash to see if there's a difference. Thank you!

Ask and ye shall receive.

Here is a comparision between a frame shot with the EX1, 24fps at 1/2000th second shutter, recorded on both the camera's 35Mb/sec codec and the FlashXDR at 100Mb/sec.

Why the super high shutter speed? I want to remove any trace of motion blur from this test. The two ways you can stress a codec are to have high detail in the picture and fast temporal changes between those images. So I shot a whip pan with razor sharp images that change significantly from frame to frame...

Here is the source sequence for reference..

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/o...astshutter.mov

And here is a 200% enlargement of one of those whip frames, with heavy levels applied to pop out the compression blocking...

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/o...ighShutter.png

Pretty clear that the FlashXDR's 100Mb/sec provides the more robust picture under "codec buster" situations. Just look at the macroblocking in the tree, the ragged edge of the tree trunk and the chroma blur of the trailer's red lights in the 35Mb/sec image.

And here are are the 35Mb/sec and 100Mb/sec frames as a Photoshop layered file for any who wish to do their own image manipulation tests... of course you'll need Photoshop and understand how to work with a layered file...

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/o...ighShutter.zip

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

Mike Schell · October 26th, 2008, 12:05 PM

Hi Jim-
Thanks! I studied the layered Photoshop file in great detail. There is a very clear reduction (essentially eliminination) in the compression artifact level in the 100 Mbps 4:2:2 over the 35 Mbps 4:2:0. Admittedly, this a real torture test of a fast panning shot, but it really shows how well the long-GOP format holds up to high-motion content, especially as you go to the 100 Mbps level.

I am now convinced that there is little or no gain going to the 160 Mbps I-Frame only mode. While we will offer this mode, I think the video quality will be inferior to the 100 Mbps Long-GOP, even in the most demanding scenes. The Sony engineers did a brilliant job with this long-GOP CODEC design, all you really need to do is crank up the bit-rate to get visually lossless video, IMO.

It is very clear that 100 Mbps Long-GOP Quality >> 100 Mbps I-Frame, especially DVCProHD, which subsamples the video to 1280x1080 before compression. Comparison reports from German testers have indicated that I-Frame Only 100 Mbps JPEG2K is below the 35 Mbps HQ mode (in the EX1/EX3) in overall quality. Again, the ability to compress redundancies within a Frame (I-Frame) and from frame to frame (P,B) can produce superior video quality over the simpler I-Frame only CODECs.

This is really no big surprise, but it's great to see real-world evidence.

Bill Ravens · October 26th, 2008, 12:13 PM

Hey Mike...

I know you probably get harassed all the time about schedules. Guess I'm no different. Really wondering what the latest projection is for release of nano-flash to early adopters.

Also, since I'm mainly a PC type user, will Avid be able to handle the 100mbps sony codec. It does quite well with RED and DNX185. Is anything in the works for Avid and nano-flash?

TIA

Barlow Elton · October 26th, 2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Schell

I am now convinced that there is little or no gain going to the 160 Mbps I-Frame only mode. While we will offer this mode, I think the video quality will be inferior to the 100 Mbps Long-GOP, even in the most demanding scenes. The Sony engineers did a brilliant job with this long-GOP CODEC design, all you really need to do is crank up the bit-rate to get visually lossless video, IMO.

I think the 100mbs Long GOP is actually superior to standard ProRes, and maybe even equal or better than ProRes HQ, given an 8-bit quantized image.

Mike Schell · October 26th, 2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Hey Mike...

I know you probably get harassed all the time about schedules. Guess I'm no different. Really wondering what the latest projection is for release of nano-flash to early adopters.

Also, since I'm mainly a PC type user, will Avid be able to handle the 100mbps sony codec. It does quite well with RED and DNX185. Is anything in the works for Avid and nano-flash?

TIA

Hi Bill-
No problem asking about the progress. We're in PCB (Printed Circuit Board) layout and cabinet design. In all honesty, progress on nanoFlash is behind schedule, primarily due to debug / development of the Flash XDR. The good news is that 95% of the code will transfer from XDR to nano, so once we can transfer our engineers off XDR, we should be able to finish nanoFlash in very short order.

We should start debug of nanoFlash in November and hopefully have some initial units in December. I'll keep you posted on the progress. I apologize for the delays.

Mike Schell · October 26th, 2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Hey Mike...

Also, since I'm mainly a PC type user, will Avid be able to handle the 100mbps sony codec. It does quite well with RED and DNX185. Is anything in the works for Avid and nano-flash?

TIA

Hi Bill-
I forgot to answer the second part of your question..

We are hopeful that Avid, Edius and Vegas will be support the 100 Mbps data-rate. Based on our experience with FCP, I think this is very likely. We should know in about 2-3 weeks.

Bill Ravens · October 26th, 2008, 07:33 PM

Great news, thanx.
I follow the updates on Flash XDR. Good stuff, especially since I know that Flash->nano is a small step. The hardware is another thing, which you filled me in on. That's what I was asking about. Thanx for the update. I am patient, no hurry.

October 23rd, 2008, 09:39 AM	#19
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	Buck and Bill I hope I can answer both of your questions when I receive my XDR Flash in a month. Most of what I shoot is fast motion and hoping this will improve picture quality at 1080p 30p 100Mbps 422. __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

October 24th, 2008, 05:51 PM	#21
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	Buck after a long conversation with Mike and reading everything I could on the subject in a week I am convinced the faster bit rate will help. How much I do not know. And like you I do not know the details but being an engineer it all makes sense to me. Still this does not mean I fully understand it so only one way to find out. __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

October 24th, 2008, 06:06 PM	#23
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	Thanks Barlow __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

October 26th, 2008, 12:05 PM	#25
Mike Schell Convergent Design Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 869	Hi Jim- Thanks! I studied the layered Photoshop file in great detail. There is a very clear reduction (essentially eliminination) in the compression artifact level in the 100 Mbps 4:2:2 over the 35 Mbps 4:2:0. Admittedly, this a real torture test of a fast panning shot, but it really shows how well the long-GOP format holds up to high-motion content, especially as you go to the 100 Mbps level. I am now convinced that there is little or no gain going to the 160 Mbps I-Frame only mode. While we will offer this mode, I think the video quality will be inferior to the 100 Mbps Long-GOP, even in the most demanding scenes. The Sony engineers did a brilliant job with this long-GOP CODEC design, all you really need to do is crank up the bit-rate to get visually lossless video, IMO. It is very clear that 100 Mbps Long-GOP Quality >> 100 Mbps I-Frame, especially DVCProHD, which subsamples the video to 1280x1080 before compression. Comparison reports from German testers have indicated that I-Frame Only 100 Mbps JPEG2K is below the 35 Mbps HQ mode (in the EX1/EX3) in overall quality. Again, the ability to compress redundancies within a Frame (I-Frame) and from frame to frame (P,B) can produce superior video quality over the simpler I-Frame only CODECs. This is really no big surprise, but it's great to see real-world evidence. __________________ Mike Schell Convergent Design

October 23rd, 2008, 07:48 AM	#16
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Tim...yes, thanx for the clarification.

October 23rd, 2008, 09:18 AM	#17
Buck Forester Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: California Posts: 230	Gracias for your patience in explaining this, ha! Like I said, I'm new to this video stuff so I don't know what "normal" is. Some people are telling me it should remain sharp with s-l-o-w pans, and some are saying it's normal. Some people keep asking for "motion" tests with the XDR/NanoFlash because they imply motion is the weakness of Long GOP. So I don't know what normal is due to lack of experience, or if intra-frame doesn't have this issue, or if Long GOP wouldn't have this issue if the bit rate was much higher, etc. If I-frame will solve the issue, as was just suggested (if I read it correctly) then that would suggest it's a Long GOP compression issue. I guess. Maybe. I think. ha! I guess I'll just hang out and be patient and wait for some motion testing with the XDR and/or NanoFlash to see if there's a difference. Thank you!

October 23rd, 2008, 09:36 AM	#18
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	yeah....kinda what I'm doing.... When I first saw this "blurring" on pans with my EX1, I assumed it was because I was panning too fast, as others have suggested. I practiced with excrutiatingly slow pans, in my attempt to minimize the motion blur, to no effect. Those who suggest this is an artifact of panning too fast have no experience with the 35mbps Sony encoder. What I've seen is that anytime the entire frame translates horizontally (not necessarily vertically), this faux motion blur happens. It's really not motion blur, but, compression artifacting due to motion.

October 24th, 2008, 06:01 PM	#22
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	It will definitely help if it isn't an EX1 image processing issue. I know that I get much sharper rendition of motion when I've recorded to higher bit rate codecs via SDI from the XL-H1. (shutter speed notwithstanding...obviously how sharp a pan looks does depend somewhat on pan speed and shutter speed) I've just had a sneak peek at a 100mbs XDR-processed version of a ProRes HQ raw SDI clip I submitted to C-D. The result is stunning. The visual fidelity of the 100mb MPEG2 422 mode is basically the same as ProRes. There's no doubt it would be a signifigant improvement over XDCAM EX HQ compression. The added color resolution alone is worth the price of admission to me.

October 26th, 2008, 12:13 PM	#26
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Hey Mike... I know you probably get harassed all the time about schedules. Guess I'm no different. Really wondering what the latest projection is for release of nano-flash to early adopters. Also, since I'm mainly a PC type user, will Avid be able to handle the 100mbps sony codec. It does quite well with RED and DNX185. Is anything in the works for Avid and nano-flash? TIA

October 26th, 2008, 07:33 PM	#30
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Great news, thanx. I follow the updates on Flash XDR. Good stuff, especially since I know that Flash->nano is a small step. The hardware is another thing, which you filled me in on. That's what I was asking about. Thanx for the update. I am patient, no hurry.