8 bit or 10 bit. My thoughts.

Mark Job · November 1st, 2009, 08:38 PM

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.

Rafael Amador · November 1st, 2009, 10:35 PM

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

Mark Job · November 1st, 2009, 11:09 PM

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.

Rafael Amador · November 2nd, 2009, 12:08 AM

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

Alister Chapman · November 2nd, 2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Job

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?

Rafael Amador · November 2nd, 2009, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Job

..
.....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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Job

..
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

Mark Job · November 2nd, 2009, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

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.

Aaron Newsome · November 2nd, 2009, 10:33 AM

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.

Alan Emery · November 2nd, 2009, 01:19 PM

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

Aaron Newsome · November 2nd, 2009, 01:56 PM

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.

Alister Chapman · November 2nd, 2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Job

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.

Deke Kincaid · November 3rd, 2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafael Amador

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.

Mark Job · November 5th, 2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

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 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

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.

Alister Chapman · November 6th, 2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Job

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.

Mark Job · November 6th, 2009, 03:17 PM

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.

November 1st, 2009, 08:38 PM	#61
Mark Job Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Posts: 1,138	The Mega Cine Recorder has Great Potential but Not So Hot ! 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.

November 1st, 2009, 11:09 PM	#63
Mark Job Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Posts: 1,138	Ballance or Unballanced Camera 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.

November 6th, 2009, 03:17 PM	#75
Mark Job Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Posts: 1,138	Apples & Oranges 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.

November 1st, 2009, 10:35 PM	#62
Rafael Amador Major Player Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Vientiane (Lao PDR) Posts: 349	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

November 2nd, 2009, 12:08 AM	#64
Rafael Amador Major Player Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Vientiane (Lao PDR) Posts: 349	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

November 2nd, 2009, 10:33 AM	#68
Aaron Newsome Major Player Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Rancho Santa Margarita Posts: 590	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.

November 2nd, 2009, 01:19 PM	#69
Alan Emery Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Janetville Ontario Canada Posts: 210	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

November 2nd, 2009, 01:56 PM	#70
Aaron Newsome Major Player Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Rancho Santa Margarita Posts: 590	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.