New HDV standard (consumer HDTV capture)

[Heath McKnight]

One last bit on Chuckmeister, I told him to forget it as we found the translated-to-English-from-Japanese site detailing the so-called Panasonic "HD" camera. I mentioned it's NOT HD and I have no interest.

heath

[Frank Granovski]

After the MX5000 came out in Japan (MX500 PAL, PV-DV953 North American version), Panasonic released the GS70. Charles Littman (Supervideo) decided to call it the MX5000 upgrade, the MX6000. Then in Japan, 2 weeks back, the GS100K was released, so Charles decided to call this one the MX7000. Note: the GS100K IS NOT a HD cam. It has frame mode and it has the better 16:9 mode like the MX5000/MX500/PV-DV953 and PDX10.

[Heath McKnight]

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : After the MX5000 came out in Japan (MX500 PAL, PV-DV953 North American version), Panasonic released the GS70. Charles Littman (Supervideo) decided to call it the MX5000 upgrade, the MX6000. Then in Japan, 2 weeks back, the GS100K was released, so Charles decided to call this one the MX7000. Note: the GS100K IS NOT a HD cam. It has frame mode and it has the better 16:9 mode like the MX5000/MX500/PV-DV953 and PDX10. -->>>

So he's naming these cameras himself? Maybe we should email Panasonic...

heath

[Frank Granovski]

Yes.

Since the GS70 was newer than the MX5000, even though it's really low-end, he decided to call it the MX6000 (since it came out after the MX5000); and since the GS100K came out next, he put the MX7000 stamp on it. Regarding the HD confusion, when you translate Japanese to English via babblefish, the term higher resolution, or something like that, is translated as High Definition. For the exact details about this, because I don't have the exact details, go to that long GS100K thread on our MX forum. Allan, who lives in Japan, and speaks both languages, explains what's written on the Japanese site and how it SHOULD translate.

I hate reading misinformation!

PS: he's been in trouble with Pana before, or so he told me.

[Heath McKnight]

If this guy was in trouble before with Panasonic, why is he doing this? I guess he could hide behind the translation...high definition instead of high resolution....

heath

[Craig Jones]

...but how about the "limited edition" black mamba? How stupid is that?

If he has a relationship with Pana I don't see why they'd maintain it. If not, I can't see that they have any leverage. It's amazing that he makes up product names.

[Heath McKnight]

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : ...but how about the "limited edition" black mamba? How stupid is that?

If he has a relationship with Pana I don't see why they'd maintain it. If not, I can't see that they have any leverage. It's amazing that he makes up product names. -->>>

Well, it is bizarre. He told me he was in chicago, I think, showing off the black mamba. Lives literally two miles west of me, I think in the richest (and one of the smallest) city in America, Village of Golf.

heath

[Frank Granovski]

He calls the black version of the GS100K "the black mamba?" (stupid_look.gif)

I can't comment about his relationship with Pana. I was told all sorts of stories. I don't really think he cares what people think. He just does what he does. Some of his info is good, some of his info is---. What I do know is that he has a lot of influence in the market. That's perhaps why Pana has a love/hate relationship with him.

Regarding this new consumer HD format. It seems to me these came makers want to widen the gap even further between consumer and pro.

[Heath McKnight]

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : He calls the black version of the GS100K "the black mamba?" (stupid_look.gif)

I can't comment about his relationship with Pana. I was told all sorts of stories. I don't really think he cares what people think. He just does what he does. Some of his info is good, some of his info is---. What I do know is that he has a lot of influence in the market. That's perhaps why Pana has a love/hate relationship with him.

Regarding this new consumer HD format. It seems to me these came makers want to widen the gap even further between consumer and pro. -->>>

Well, you're right, considering the fact that the next HD camera we can buy is the Varicam for $55,000 +.

heath

[Yi Fong Yu]

depending on market the problem isn't in the recording standard. the problem is in the storage standard.

if you were in professional arena sorta like indie movies level. then HD is a godsend! someone like robert rodriguez'd probably snatch all of those cams up! =). i mean this standard may have been geared towards this crowd.

but if you were only 'prosumer' (like me) or someone shooting a wedding,etc. even if that new DV recording standard comes out we're still left with where to store it? on the computer? as compressed mpg4?divx?xvid?wmv?etc.? you get what i'm saying? as long as the HD-DVD standard hasn't been hammered out yet it's hard to say how the HD-quality market will play out

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : This is what this standard means for filmmaking:

The most important is the inclusion of 720/25p with 19 Mbps stream. Varicam's, stream, when converted to 720/24p, becomes about 40 Mbps. Varicam compression is based on the Sony-developed DV format.


Joseph, the majority holder in the patent rights around the DV format is Matshusita, not Sony. The DV format was a collaboration by 10 companies with Matsusita being the leader. Varicam is based on the DVCPRO format which is an extension of DV onto a professional tape medium, Metal Particle, and consideration for MetaData. I think we have had the discusion before about the data rate of the DVCPROHD at 24P vs the 19Mbs, it is no where near the same thing.

>MPEG2 is a lot more efficient compression. I'd say that the MPEG2 camcorder picture with 720/25p can be about as good as Varicam picture at 720/24p.

You are forgetting that in order to get this HDV format to work the compression is huge and in MPEG2, it is based on a GOP which does not allow for frame to frame editing without having to uncompress and thus recompress again. Also may I point out that there are no professional editing systems that honor this format at this point in time.


>There is another point, and that is that the new HD standard is not meant only for consumer products, but will start replacing pro DV and the 4:2:2 50 Mbps formats soon.

This is pure supposition by you and is absolutely untrue. The HDV format is 4:2:0 in its color sample which is a very long way from 4:2:2 50 Mbs and with the heavy compression scheme makes it a perfect consumer format, but not an HD production format..

>The Varicam will have to come down in price and the new Panasonic SDX900 will soon become obsolete.

Again, I think you are confusing the application of these HDV camcorders with where the Varicam and the SDX900 are used. Two completely different applications, with completely different sets of objectives and quality needs.

>Panasonic is probably planning on Blu-ray based HD DVD camcorder and this new HDV format would mean low cost HD that would compete with Varicam.

There is no way that this format would compete with VariCam.

Best regards,

Jan

[Steve Mullen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden You are forgetting that in order to get this HDV format to work the compression is huge and in MPEG2, it is based on a GOP which does not allow for frame to frame editing without having to uncompress and thus recompress again.

DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX must all be decompressed in order to be seen on an RGB monitor. So must HDV.

DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX must all be decompressed and then recompressed for distribution on NTSC DVD, Blu-ray HD DVD, or D-VHS. So must HDV.


And, Premiere, Vegas Video, and FCP can be used for HDV editing.

On all your other points I agree fully.

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen :

>DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX must all be decompressed and then recompressed for distribution on NTSC DVD, Blu-ray HD DVD, or D-VHS. So must HDV.


But Steve, you missed my point in that uncompress to recompress, and that is all of the production formats that you mention, DV, DVCPRO25, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO100, HDCAM, and IMX, are frame based codecs. HDV as well as NTSC DVD, Blu-ray HD DVD, and D-VHS are not, they all have a long GOP codec, and the compression is not a mere 5:1 as is DV, but when referencing the HDV and a couple of the others in this last string, HD signal is 994 Mbps uncompressed, HDV is recording at 19.4Mbps. There is a whole lot of compression going on.

In working with production formats, most production people I know wish to edit on a particular frame, and when working with fomats like HDV, Blu-ray, D-VHS or even the SD DVD, you are not working in frame based codecs. This is not to say that they are not good codecs, they are for their application, its just their application is not production.


>And, Premiere, Vegas Video, and FCP can be used for HDV editing.

Really, which codec is it that they are using to make this happen? Does the codec turn the video into individual frames for frame accurate intercutting?

Curious,

Jan

[Steve Mullen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden There is a whole lot of compression going on. --->>>

That I'll certainly agree to. But, unless you've looked at the result it's hard to believe you can't SEE many negatives from it. It certainly has LESS compression problems than ATSC 1080i or 720p! Which is not what folks expected!

Also helping is that all 19Mbps is used for only 30fps. We will see more artifacts when 720p60 and 1080i come to market.


>>> In working with production formats, most production people I know wish to edit on a particular frame. <<<

Today's computers are so fast that they can compute a FULL frame from the 6 frame GOP. Basically a small buffer is kept up to date from the disk. Any single frame comes from this cache.

Vegas edits native TS. Premiere uses Aspect HD plug-in. And FCP has an MPEG-2 decoder. Plus JVC has KDD's NLE.

Aspect HD will do up to 6 streams with FX in real-time.

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : That I'll certainly agree to. But, unless you've looked at the result it's hard to believe you can't SEE many negatives from it.

From this statement it is obvious to me that you and I have a different set of production values. I see way too many flaws in the picture to address it as real HD.

>It certainly has LESS compression problems than ATSC 1080i or 720p! Which is not what folks expected!

Steve, the ATSC standards do not have compression, they are standards within a table. Manufacturers have formats that record those standards, like HDCAM and DVCPROHD, these foramts have compression. Are you saying that the pictures made on this little camera has fewer artifacts that HDCAM or DVCPROHD? If so, you have got to be kidding. Did you move the camera and follow fast action? Follow a skyline at an angle?

>>> In working with production formats, most production people I know wish to edit on a particular frame. <<<

>Today's computers are so fast that they can compute a FULL frame from the 6 frame GOP. Basically a small buffer is kept up to date from the disk. Any single frame comes from this cache.

So you are saying that the edit is flawless? That it stands up to High End HD editing? Like that on the Quantel or even low end like the CineWave or Boxx Technologies?

Curious,


Jan