Blackmagic Intensity Pro capture 4:2:2 (1080x1920) over component?

Rolf Seitz · September 22nd, 2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvise Tedesco

Hi Rolf (and all of you).
I just bought an XH-A1 (for an upcoming job I'll shoot in SD). Later I'll shoot hdv and I'm completely new to that.
Advantages with BM Intensity only relates to DIRECT capture (no hdv taping)?

Yes, it relates to direct capture. If you go to Tape first you get maximum HDV quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvise Tedesco

I'd like to shoot hdv on tape BUT then move to a better intermediate codec for editing. I'm on FCP, so Cineform doesn't seem the better solution (recently implemented for Mac users, but looks quite complicated). Neither Prores 422 cause I need a compromise in system/disks requirements.

Suggestions appreciated!
Dankeschoen

Can´t really help you there... I convert my HDV footage to BMD MJPEG codec for editing (after Firewire capture->quality is better than component capture from tape). But the MJPEG files take a lot more space than the mpeg2 files so it doesn´t help you. I think in FCP Prores is the solution to go (even if it takes HD space).

Robert Ducon · September 22nd, 2007, 11:55 AM

A few months ago I did a three camera shoot - over 2 hours - using the Sony counterpart to the XH-A1 camera, the Z1U and FX1 (and one more). Shot in HDV, imported and edited in HDV, and for the final render, I moved the 1440x1080 HDV timeline to a higher-end codec - in this case, Motion JPEG.

While it was shot and mostly edited in HDV, I did move the project to a better codec but only at the last step - all filters, effects and titling were applied in this new MJPEG sequence. Because 2 hours of footage from three cameras led to a LOT of footage, only HDV made sense in terms of storing RAW footage. And it was just fine.

The final product of all this work went to a regaular standard def DVD, but was also future proofed since I had done it all in HD.

So shooting, editing and exporting HDV is fine, especially since you don't have the HD space to do anymore than that. A final set could be like I suggested. If I were to do this workflow again, I'd use Prores 422 as the final codec.

Daniel Browning · September 23rd, 2007, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolf Seitz

the hdv clip captured from tape via firewire is online.
I recorded it just a few moments after the composite capture, the camera settings weren´t changed... iris on auto. I uploaded YUV 422 capture, [...] I just uploaded a single tiff file. I didn´t change anything at the camera but just closed the iris a little bit more than auto put it. Nothing done in Post. Some interlace lines are visible...

Thanks again, Rolf. I indulged my inner pixel peeper. Here are three 100% crops; one each of HDV, MJPEG, and YUV 422; for comparison:

http://thebrownings.name/video/misc/...comparison.png

The change in lighting and exposure reduce the value of the test a little compared to one done with manual exposure, manual focus, constant lighting, 0db gain, zoomed in to a sharp focal length, and stopped down to a sharp aperture (f/4.0).

If the difference in resolution of the images is not due to one of those factors, then it's pretty clear that MPEG-over-component edges out HDV-over-firewire, and YUV-over-component beats them both by a nice margin.

Daymon Hoffman · September 24th, 2007, 04:09 AM

Thanks for the responses to my Q's. Just one more, i am a PC user and with vegas. Will it be able to capture using the BM?

Steven Thomas · September 29th, 2007, 06:41 PM

I'm not sure if this info resides in this thread, but how does the component capture look on the Intensity Pro verse capturing with the Intensity's HDMI input?

It was stated early on - that the component in on the Studio card does not look good.

By the way, here's the response I got back from BM regarding the question of Intensity component quality verses the Studio card:

"Actually there will be a large difference. First and formost the Intensity
Pro is using a newer A->D converter. Secondly the HD Studio has this
problem as a matter of a driver bug and not a hardware issue. It hasn't
gotten fixed as of yet because the product is on a discontinued status and
updates are going towards the active products.

Perhaps you can set up a demo with your local dealer of the product. I am
sure you will be quite happy with the quality."

This response is good and bad news. The good news is that the Intensity Pro should have decent component input quality. The bad news is they knew there was a driver bug with the Studio card and never addressed it.

Jim Andrada · September 29th, 2007, 07:01 PM

Steve,

It would sure be nice if they had given some idea of the improvement due to hardware upgrades vs the driver issue.

Also more than a little troubling that they never fixed the bug in the driver. Makes me wonder how good they'll be at fixing the (inevitable) bugs in the drivers for the newer cards.

However, since I'm still in the "should I get it" phase, it sounds like more good than bad for me. Sorry about the studio card owners, though.

Oh well, welcome to technology obsolescence, where you can't fix product problems before the product is replaced by a new one.

And sincere thanks for posting this. Wonder why they never gave the same response to me on the same issue. You must have gotten to them on a good day!

Steven Thomas · September 29th, 2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Andrada

Wonder why they never gave the same response to me on the same issue.

I hear you. I saw your message and wondered the same thing. It makes me wonder which response was correct.

I'm trying to decide if I want to give the Intensity Pro a try.
It'a benefits may be great in the studio, but a pain to lug around a large frame computer.

Also, I would not be surprised if a "reasonably priced" future component/HDMI to FLASH drive capture is available in the near future.

I'm looking forward to shooting at least 4:2:2. I'm getting tired of blocky REDS using 4:2:0.

Jim Andrada · September 29th, 2007, 09:14 PM

I think I saw that Cineform (and maybe others) takes 4,2,0 to 4,2,2. Also It's my understanding that playback from tape is up-converted to 4,2,2 in camera (over SDI?)

Anyhow, just wondered if you had tried something like Cineform and whether it made an improvement over 4,2,0. I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled over how you can get 4,2,2 out of 4,2,0 material. Probably just my ignorance!

I guess I'll soon get a chance to find out - I just ordered an HD110 so I'll soon be "enjoying" all the "benefits" of HDV. Like worying about codecs and best capture methodology and workflow, etc.

But I sure think I'll like the images.

By the way, I was just thinking it would be interesting to do a capture over firewire and one over component via a card, then do the same captures of a playback from tape and compare the results to see if capturing the video stream directly really does look better than capturing a playback.

After I get the camera I'll run the experiments over firewire, and if I decide to get the card I'll re-run the same experiments.

Glenn Chan · September 29th, 2007, 09:45 PM

There are different ways of upconverting 4:2:0 to 4:2:2.

MPEG-2 calls for interstitial chroma vertically. Cineform decodes it incorrectly, which causes the chroma center to get shifted 0.5 pixels; and it arguably looks better (than box reconstruction) since it sort of blurs the chroma up/down.

I believe the majority of NLEs use box reconstruction... on upsampling it's the same thing as nearest neighbour resizing in Photoshop.

Steven Thomas · September 29th, 2007, 10:13 PM

Yes, I have Cineform NEO HDV. NEO HDV converts MPEG's 4:2:0 chroma to the 4:2:2 chroma space. Although you can not get what's not there in the first place, the compressed CineForm Intermediate and its 4:2:2 color space allows for higher quality when working in post, especially with multiple renderings.

Capturing from firewire via tape verses capturing directly from the camera in realtime will yield the exact same results. Firewire out of the HD110 will always be HDV 4:2:0. For that matter this stands true with all HDV cameras.

Component out of the HD100 is 10bit 4:2:2.
Ideally, when shooting with the HD110 component out into the Intensity Pro should work great. Of course you're tethered to your computer during your shoot.

So I'm not only wondering on the Intensity Pro's component quality, but also if the component in on the Intensity Pro offers 10 bit?

Glenn Chan · September 30th, 2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Capturing from firewire via tape verses capturing directly from the camera in realtime will yield the exact same results.

???

That may not be the case since the signal will likely go down a different image processing path.

If the image has already gone down to tape and you're playing it back, then you might see very subtle differences. There are different ways of converting 4:2:0-->4:2:2.

If you are comparing against live capture via HD-SDI out (or analog component), then I'd expect a much bigger difference.

Jim Andrada · September 30th, 2007, 12:49 AM

Steve

I may be wrong on this as on so many things, but anlog is analog - the bits come later.

Or in the case of coming from the camera, the bits come before and after.

I know on the Blackmagic web page they talk about 10 bit a lot with respect to the Decklink but I didn't see anything re the Intensity.

Bill Ravens · September 30th, 2007, 08:14 AM

I've tried to find info re: the A-D sampling depth for the Intensity Pro Card. Nowhere, on any of the BMD sites, do they say what it is. I've written to BMD tech support for the answer and the responded with a very weasly response, basically providing no info. This makes me suspect that the Intensity (Pro) card is less than 10 bit.

Steven Thomas · September 30th, 2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

???

That may not be the case since the signal will likely go down a different image processing path.

If the image has already gone down to tape and you're playing it back, then you might see very subtle differences. There are different ways of converting 4:2:0-->4:2:2.

If you are comparing against live capture via HD-SDI out (or analog component), then I'd expect a much bigger difference.

Glenn,
I was not aware the HD100 gives you anything but HDV via firewire.
I thought the same data being saved internally to the HD100's tape is the same data available during live capture via firewire.

Steven Thomas · September 30th, 2007, 09:07 AM

Jim,
You are correct, the camera's CCD is an anlog device. The A/D Converter turns each pixel's value into a digital value by measuring the amount of charge at each photosite and converting that measurement to binary form.

I also looked for the bit depth for component (and HDMI) on BM's web site with no luck.

September 22nd, 2007, 11:55 AM	#47
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	A few months ago I did a three camera shoot - over 2 hours - using the Sony counterpart to the XH-A1 camera, the Z1U and FX1 (and one more). Shot in HDV, imported and edited in HDV, and for the final render, I moved the 1440x1080 HDV timeline to a higher-end codec - in this case, Motion JPEG. While it was shot and mostly edited in HDV, I did move the project to a better codec but only at the last step - all filters, effects and titling were applied in this new MJPEG sequence. Because 2 hours of footage from three cameras led to a LOT of footage, only HDV made sense in terms of storing RAW footage. And it was just fine. The final product of all this work went to a regaular standard def DVD, but was also future proofed since I had done it all in HD. So shooting, editing and exporting HDV is fine, especially since you don't have the HD space to do anymore than that. A final set could be like I suggested. If I were to do this workflow again, I'd use Prores 422 as the final codec. __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

September 24th, 2007, 04:09 AM	#49
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	Thanks for the responses to my Q's. Just one more, i am a PC user and with vegas. Will it be able to capture using the BM? __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

September 29th, 2007, 06:41 PM	#50
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	I'm not sure if this info resides in this thread, but how does the component capture look on the Intensity Pro verse capturing with the Intensity's HDMI input? It was stated early on - that the component in on the Studio card does not look good. By the way, here's the response I got back from BM regarding the question of Intensity component quality verses the Studio card: "Actually there will be a large difference. First and formost the Intensity Pro is using a newer A->D converter. Secondly the HD Studio has this problem as a matter of a driver bug and not a hardware issue. It hasn't gotten fixed as of yet because the product is on a discontinued status and updates are going towards the active products. Perhaps you can set up a demo with your local dealer of the product. I am sure you will be quite happy with the quality." This response is good and bad news. The good news is that the Intensity Pro should have decent component input quality. The bad news is they knew there was a driver bug with the Studio card and never addressed it.

September 29th, 2007, 07:01 PM	#51
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	Steve, It would sure be nice if they had given some idea of the improvement due to hardware upgrades vs the driver issue. Also more than a little troubling that they never fixed the bug in the driver. Makes me wonder how good they'll be at fixing the (inevitable) bugs in the drivers for the newer cards. However, since I'm still in the "should I get it" phase, it sounds like more good than bad for me. Sorry about the studio card owners, though. Oh well, welcome to technology obsolescence, where you can't fix product problems before the product is replaced by a new one. And sincere thanks for posting this. Wonder why they never gave the same response to me on the same issue. You must have gotten to them on a good day!

September 29th, 2007, 09:14 PM	#53
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	I think I saw that Cineform (and maybe others) takes 4,2,0 to 4,2,2. Also It's my understanding that playback from tape is up-converted to 4,2,2 in camera (over SDI?) Anyhow, just wondered if you had tried something like Cineform and whether it made an improvement over 4,2,0. I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled over how you can get 4,2,2 out of 4,2,0 material. Probably just my ignorance! I guess I'll soon get a chance to find out - I just ordered an HD110 so I'll soon be "enjoying" all the "benefits" of HDV. Like worying about codecs and best capture methodology and workflow, etc. But I sure think I'll like the images. By the way, I was just thinking it would be interesting to do a capture over firewire and one over component via a card, then do the same captures of a playback from tape and compare the results to see if capturing the video stream directly really does look better than capturing a playback. After I get the camera I'll run the experiments over firewire, and if I decide to get the card I'll re-run the same experiments.

September 29th, 2007, 09:45 PM	#54
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	There are different ways of upconverting 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. MPEG-2 calls for interstitial chroma vertically. Cineform decodes it incorrectly, which causes the chroma center to get shifted 0.5 pixels; and it arguably looks better (than box reconstruction) since it sort of blurs the chroma up/down. I believe the majority of NLEs use box reconstruction... on upsampling it's the same thing as nearest neighbour resizing in Photoshop.

September 29th, 2007, 10:13 PM	#55
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Yes, I have Cineform NEO HDV. NEO HDV converts MPEG's 4:2:0 chroma to the 4:2:2 chroma space. Although you can not get what's not there in the first place, the compressed CineForm Intermediate and its 4:2:2 color space allows for higher quality when working in post, especially with multiple renderings. Capturing from firewire via tape verses capturing directly from the camera in realtime will yield the exact same results. Firewire out of the HD110 will always be HDV 4:2:0. For that matter this stands true with all HDV cameras. Component out of the HD100 is 10bit 4:2:2. Ideally, when shooting with the HD110 component out into the Intensity Pro should work great. Of course you're tethered to your computer during your shoot. So I'm not only wondering on the Intensity Pro's component quality, but also if the component in on the Intensity Pro offers 10 bit?

September 30th, 2007, 12:49 AM	#57
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	Steve I may be wrong on this as on so many things, but anlog is analog - the bits come later. Or in the case of coming from the camera, the bits come before and after. I know on the Blackmagic web page they talk about 10 bit a lot with respect to the Decklink but I didn't see anything re the Intensity.

September 30th, 2007, 08:14 AM	#58
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I've tried to find info re: the A-D sampling depth for the Intensity Pro Card. Nowhere, on any of the BMD sites, do they say what it is. I've written to BMD tech support for the answer and the responded with a very weasly response, basically providing no info. This makes me suspect that the Intensity (Pro) card is less than 10 bit.

September 30th, 2007, 09:07 AM	#60
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Jim, You are correct, the camera's CCD is an anlog device. The A/D Converter turns each pixel's value into a digital value by measuring the amount of charge at each photosite and converting that measurement to binary form. I also looked for the bit depth for component (and HDMI) on BM's web site with no luck.