Just MPEG-2 at DVinfo.net

Dan Keaton · October 26th, 2009, 04:05 PM

There seems to be considerable confusion in the marketplace surrounding MPEG-2.

Some camps are claiming that their proprietary CODECs offer significant advantages over MPEG-2.

Well, we would like to set the record straight and point out some of the many advantages of MPEG-2 found in the nanoFlash and Flash XDR.

MPEG-2 offers many advantages:

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide a highly efficient codec; our XDCAM HD 422 files are typically 1/2 to 1/3 the size of I-Frame-Only files of the same quality.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide files that can be easily played/edited in Avid, FCP, Vegas, Edius and (soon) Premiere, directly off the CF card, at full frame rates, without transcode.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide compact size files of stunning video quality that are easy to archive.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to significantly reduce the weight, size, and power requirements of our recorder.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide compatibility with XDCAM HD Optical Media.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” XDCAM 422 at 50/100/140/160 Mbps to create footage that is acceptable to all major networks.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to give our users the flexibility of choosing “I-Frame Only” or “Long-GOP”, regardless of which camera they use.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” which can be stored in QuickTime, MXF, or MPG for greater compatibility (most recorders are limited to only one file format).

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide Full-Raster 4:2:2, 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720 recordings, without loss of resolution.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide for a real-time creation of SD DVD or Blu-ray MPG files.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2”, employing Sony’s latest sixth generation CODEC; used in the PDW-700 / PDW-F800 and which, according to Sony, is superior to HDCAM.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to give our users the option of recording SD from 5 to 9 Mbps and 50 Mbps IMX, and HD from 18 to 220 Mbps.

· Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to deliver video which almost everyone considers to be visually indistinguishable from uncompressed.

To say that we are “Just MPEG-2” is to say that we are using a highly sophisticated, mature, efficient, low power, well accepted, widely supported, and professional CODEC!

Mark Job · October 26th, 2009, 04:45 PM

Hi Dan:
Half of what we are now seeing on Television is shot in one form of MPEG or another. MPEG is perfectly acceptable for broadcast. I appreciate MPEG for what it is, which is a ton of compression that allows me to record a long time on an expensive CF card at amazing image quality. Long recording time or not, I would very much appreciate having the option to record without any MPEG compression in 10 bit colorspace. I work in digital cinema as well as stardard TV and I'm shooting a Tv series with visual effects, so I would like to have choices. JUst MPEG isn't just MPEG anymore.

Aaron Newsome · October 26th, 2009, 06:01 PM

All of the consumer digitals are moving to AVCHD. A fine delivery codec in my opinion, nothing better bit for bit. Now,... trying to edit AVCHD,.. what a NIGHTMARE. Trying to work with it at all on a slower computer, forget about it.

I know that editors and computer hardware are being made to made AVCHD smooth as silk but it seems like the camera people were ahead of the computer people by a long shot.

I like my MPEG-2 files on the XDR though. So easy ...

Lance Librandi · October 26th, 2009, 06:05 PM

I agree with you Dan the file size vs quality is the best I have seen and in such a small footprint device to boot.

October 26th, 2009, 04:05 PM	#1
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Just MPEG-2 There seems to be considerable confusion in the marketplace surrounding MPEG-2. Some camps are claiming that their proprietary CODECs offer significant advantages over MPEG-2. Well, we would like to set the record straight and point out some of the many advantages of MPEG-2 found in the nanoFlash and Flash XDR. MPEG-2 offers many advantages: · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide a highly efficient codec; our XDCAM HD 422 files are typically 1/2 to 1/3 the size of I-Frame-Only files of the same quality. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide files that can be easily played/edited in Avid, FCP, Vegas, Edius and (soon) Premiere, directly off the CF card, at full frame rates, without transcode. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide compact size files of stunning video quality that are easy to archive. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to significantly reduce the weight, size, and power requirements of our recorder. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide compatibility with XDCAM HD Optical Media. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” XDCAM 422 at 50/100/140/160 Mbps to create footage that is acceptable to all major networks. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to give our users the flexibility of choosing “I-Frame Only” or “Long-GOP”, regardless of which camera they use. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” which can be stored in QuickTime, MXF, or MPG for greater compatibility (most recorders are limited to only one file format). · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide Full-Raster 4:2:2, 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720 recordings, without loss of resolution. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to provide for a real-time creation of SD DVD or Blu-ray MPG files. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2”, employing Sony’s latest sixth generation CODEC; used in the PDW-700 / PDW-F800 and which, according to Sony, is superior to HDCAM. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to give our users the option of recording SD from 5 to 9 Mbps and 50 Mbps IMX, and HD from 18 to 220 Mbps. · Yes, we use “MPEG-2” to deliver video which almost everyone considers to be visually indistinguishable from uncompressed. To say that we are “Just MPEG-2” is to say that we are using a highly sophisticated, mature, efficient, low power, well accepted, widely supported, and professional CODEC! __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

October 26th, 2009, 04:45 PM	#2
Mark Job Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Posts: 1,138	Wonderful MPEG :-) Hi Dan: Half of what we are now seeing on Television is shot in one form of MPEG or another. MPEG is perfectly acceptable for broadcast. I appreciate MPEG for what it is, which is a ton of compression that allows me to record a long time on an expensive CF card at amazing image quality. Long recording time or not, I would very much appreciate having the option to record without any MPEG compression in 10 bit colorspace. I work in digital cinema as well as stardard TV and I'm shooting a Tv series with visual effects, so I would like to have choices. JUst MPEG isn't just MPEG anymore.

October 26th, 2009, 06:01 PM	#3
Aaron Newsome Major Player Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Rancho Santa Margarita Posts: 590	All of the consumer digitals are moving to AVCHD. A fine delivery codec in my opinion, nothing better bit for bit. Now,... trying to edit AVCHD,.. what a NIGHTMARE. Trying to work with it at all on a slower computer, forget about it. I know that editors and computer hardware are being made to made AVCHD smooth as silk but it seems like the camera people were ahead of the computer people by a long shot. I like my MPEG-2 files on the XDR though. So easy ...

October 26th, 2009, 06:05 PM	#4
Lance Librandi Major Player Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: South Australia Posts: 374	I agree with you Dan the file size vs quality is the best I have seen and in such a small footprint device to boot.