FCP = No 16 bit Internal Processing Capability
 

...Hi Joe:
I don't see anything in those listed specs which would indicate FCP can do internal 16 bit processing of files and effects, or color correction. It's the internal processing (and Non-transcoding) of your clips which will get you the most out of your Nano video. AMC does all of what is listed in FCP anyway, although I would have to say FCS is a better finishing system, and Avid is a better cutting application.

FCP and Nano
 

Thanks for the info, I guess I don't understand INTERNAL processing , I'll have to look it up. Also I thought all Nano files are 8 bit. I really want to figure this out. I'm having trouble accepting that FCP can't retain the original quality of the Nano's clips. Thanks for any help.

FCP Avid Media Composer & Nano/XDR
 

.....FCP must *Transcode* (Read Re-Compress) the Nano 8 bit codec to use it. Avid Media Composer will not Re-compress (Transcode) your Nano 8 bit clips even if you tell it to, it will automatically import them "as is," in their *Native format. This is a real biggy. Also, AMC has an option to perform all rendering, effects, & color correction rendering using 16 bit image processing. What I do is import my XDR clips (Same technology as the Nano Clips) into AMC. perform all editing,transition effects, titling, nested effects, including multi-layer digital compositing in the native format, then transcode to Avid's DNxHD 175 X (The X stands for 10 bit color precision), then do all my color correction of my 8 bit clips in 10 bit. Then I perform a little trick which makes your 8 bit stuff look like 4:4:4 12 bit ! No I'm not exaggerating here ;-) Although I acknowledge my claim sounds ridiculous ! I mark an IN point at the beginning of my edited sequence (Timeline), then an OUT point at the end of my sequence. After this I right click on the timeline and select unrender In/Out. Next I make sure I've turned on 16 bit render processing and I right click again on my timeline and select render In/Out, then Voila ! Wow ! Everything outputs so incredibly superior to anything I've ever seen before ! Try it-It's really incredible !

1. Edit in native 8 bits.
2. Color correct in 10 bits.
3. Render and process for output in 16 bit !

WOW !!




I'm having trouble accepting that FCP can't retain the original quality of the Nano's clips. Thanks for any help.[/QUOTE]

I'm wondering about a few items regarding workflow in FCP Studio and this discussion of the best image quality:

1. Working with a FCP Uncompressed Timeline and round trip to Color for color correction - or working in a Pro-Res 10bit 4:4:4 timeline

2. Color can be set to work in 32 floating point which basically further divides the 8,10,12, or 16 bit down into more units yet for grading

3. In mid-September, FCP put out an update that added better support of XDCAM HD422 - I haven't had time to figure out what the upgrade has done to benefit our CD files yet though. Maybe someone else can chime in.

But I think this level of workflow is probably limited to the lucky folks who are working with filmout or high end broadcast.

Mark, wow. Great informative post on the practical distinctions between mpeg 2 and 4 and on the avoidance of 8 bit rendering.

I can reassert Mark's observation about Final Cut. It is setup to do 8 bit conversions and rendering in several places within a given project and many filters are 8 bit as well.

I would recommend that anyone regardless of whether you are using high bitrate footage from a nanoFlash or otherwise turn on 10bit or high precision rendering in FCP if you want transitions and titles to look good. Anyone will see the difference, not just people in the biz.

Final Cut renders in 32b Floating point when needed.
Just set "Render all YUV in High Precision".
Rafael

[/QUOTE]
Absolutely wrong.
As long as you do not render, you can edit and export the FULL original NANO footage.
If you render, of course, your only option is 50Mbps 422. The official SONY format supported by FC.
rafael

Piotr and Mark,

I found peace with this exercise : 220-280 Mbps I-frame MPEG2 for HD is a scaled-up DV25. 1080i60 has an image size that is 6x that of 480i60. 25 Mbps * 6 = 150 Mbps. Let's disregard the NTSC pixel shape and assume 720x480 square pixels. Moving from 4:1:1 to 4:2:2 is a scale factor of 1.3333, bringing us to 200 Mbps. This disregards the differences in frame coding, but ...

John,
The NANO footage workflow should be the same than for any other 8b footage.
- Edit native and render/export with the higher possible quality.
No advantage on transcoding before editing.
rafael

The only difference DV25/50, with MPEG-2, is that MPEG-2 is scalar, and supports GOPs.
DV are Intraframe with fix data-rate.
Both use DCT compression.
rafael

...but 220 Mbps I-Fo is our new, true "sweet point" of nanoFlash recording.

Is this what you mean, Gints? If so, I'm with you on this.

Especially now, when the new Vegas Pro 10 has been improved sooo much in the high bitrate nanoFlash file decoding-playback (even the 280 Mbps clips play full fps, with the full quality - something impossible in the previous version, where 100 Mbps L-GoP was the highest bitrate format that played back without stuttering).

Piotr

"but 220 Mbps I-Fo is our new, true "sweet point" of nanoFlash recording."

I used DV25 to show that 220 Mbps I-Frame is not that crazy for HD and that we shouldn't expect great compression quality from I-Frame at lower bitrates. If anything, 280 Mbps does not look as crazy as before.

The Many Tricks & Practices in Working With MPEG 2
 

Hi Gints, Piotr, and Andrew:
The bad news, is 8 bits isn't quite enough, but the good news, is it certainly can be "finessed" and manipulated into looking much better than it would normally. I find in many NLE post workflows, if you fail to dig deep down into your project settings to make sure you have set the highest processing pixel precision possible, then you wind up "coloring" your video image quality in a degrading way. If you don't set the audio project bit depth to at least 24 bits (Regardless of source audio bit depth ), then you also degrade the overall audio as soon as you add filters and begin mixing and rendering the work down. What Piotr and Gints have seen, is not so much the deficiencies of the Nano, rather, it is the overall deficiencies of the MPEG 2 Long GOP specification, which will repeatedly reveal its limits on large screen TV's if the source footage is not processed adequately in the post workflow.
Now with these new super resolution camcorders coming down the pipe, these subtle differences will only become even more apparent visually. The subtle detail, which an ill adjusted NLE will lose for you, is what makes the picture when its on a 52 inch plus size screen. The big screen TV's are so good these days they are very capable of reproducing all noise and coding inefficiencies of 8 bit MPEG - 2, unless you finesse the heck out of it.
Ask yourself the basic question - How do you use your SSDR ? In 98 % of the cases I work on, I use my Flash XDR as a simple black box recorder, this is to say, I only use the box to capture and playout the recorded clips from the XDR itself, or I import the clips directly off of the CF Card media to edit. I do not use, nor do I need any of the other features - except the odd time-lapse sequence, but now even this has been done to death in television. I am of the minority opinion on this forum when it comes to how I view the role of the Solid State Digital Recorder to be.

** I see the role of the SSDR to be able to capture what the camera **sensor** can actually see, and put this data onto solid state recordable media in the best possible quality, with little or no compression in as high a color space and pixel precision as possible. I consider *Compression* to be the role of the NLE - NOT the SSDR ! You should compress your data at the NLE stage, if any, and leave the field recorder to treat the source image data as "digital film." I'm designing my long and painful SSDR project to do just that. These new Panasonic & Sony Cameras are pretty exciting, and I believe the option of uncompressed capture will eventually make its way down to the lower end consumer recorders due to the ever improving media density vs price point in removable storage, plus the superior signal to noise ratio of the video response signals coming out of these new digital cinema like camcorders.

Agreed - at anything lower than 180 Mbps (an absolute minimum), I-Fo looks like crap. Much worse than L-GoP at corresponding bitrates.

Piotr

Dear Piotr,

We do not recommend shooting at 100 Mbps I-Frame Only.

I mention this to our customers all of the time. This is not a recommended option.