New HDV standard (consumer HDTV capture)

Phil Wright · August 27th, 2003, 09:07 AM

Jan - How do you arrive at 994 Mbps? The JVC camera is doing 1280 x 720 x 30 at 4:2:0 which is about 334 Mbps.

From 334 Mbps down to 19.8 Mbps isn't a whole lot of compression.

Jan Crittenden Livingston · August 27th, 2003, 09:33 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Phil Wright : Jan - How do you arrive at 994 Mbps? The JVC camera is doing 1280 x 720 x 30 at 4:2:0 which is about 334 Mbps.

From 334 Mbps down to 19.8 Mbps isn't a whole lot of compression. -->>>

Phil,

True HD resolution starts at 994Mbs at 60P with color at 4:2:2. And if 16:1 compression isn't a lot what is? The belief that this little camera is comparable to the VariCam or HDCAM is not based on reality. I am not saying that this camera does not serve a purpose, but I feel that if you put it next to the VariCam or an HDCAM you will see exactly what I mean.

FWIW,

Jan

Phil Wright · August 27th, 2003, 10:25 AM

Jan,

I guess I missed the memo that defined "True HD". My bad.

But anyway you made the comparison between 994Mbs of "True HD" and the 19.8Mbs of the JVC camera and then described it as a "whole lot of compression". This is not even remotely a valid comparison.

And 16:1 isn't a lot of compression for MPEG-2. Especially on a larger image size (compared to SD) where there is a lot of redundancy which makes it easier to compress without inducing more artifacting.

Having said all of that I wasn't making any claim one way or the other that a prosumer HDV camera is comparable to a piece of broadcast gear. I just don't see the point in distorting the issue.

Phil

Steve Mullen · August 27th, 2003, 11:26 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden

Steve, the ATSC standards do not have compression, they are standards within a table.

Yes, but there are standards for data rates that are used. This is typically 19.4Mbps for 1080i -- only a tiny bit more than the JVC at 19Mbps.

>>> Did you move the camera and follow fast action? Follow a skyline at an angle? <<<

Absolutely perfect -- no compression artifacts at all. No aliasing on diagonals.

>>> 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? <<<

By flawless do you mean frame-accurate? Then the answer is YES.

FireWire to disk. Color correction, titles, FX, all work as usual. One decompression to YUV -- just like any DV-based system. All FX in uncompressed YUV domain. One re-encode from YUV at the end before FireWire to D-VHS.

Works exactly like DVCPRO25 or DVCPRO50 going to DVDs from camcorder with FireWire. All that's different is the codec.

Jan Crittenden Livingston · August 27th, 2003, 11:26 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Phil Wright : Jan,
I just don't see the point in distorting the issue.

But that is where this whole silly thread started which was the distortion that DV and the Varicam were competitive. And that is where I couldn't let that idea stand.

Anyhow this is my last comment on the issue.

Best regards,

Jan

Steve Mullen · August 27th, 2003, 11:33 AM

I don't think anyone really believes they are competitive. Some folks get carried away!

Heath McKnight · August 28th, 2003, 12:54 AM

I agree with Jan, it's too different cameras. Eventually, everyone will be on HD (I just didn't think an affordable camera would be sitting in my room, even if I have a love/hate relationship with it--just call me Mr. Idiot), but it's true, until then, go for the highest quality DV gear!

heath, aka, Mr. Idiot

ps-that nasty spec commercial at

www.FloatingCar.com

has me excited (no, not that way) about the camera's potential. Am awaiting word on Steve's 4HDV!

August 27th, 2003, 11:26 AM	#49
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden Steve, the ATSC standards do not have compression, they are standards within a table. Yes, but there are standards for data rates that are used. This is typically 19.4Mbps for 1080i -- only a tiny bit more than the JVC at 19Mbps. >>> Did you move the camera and follow fast action? Follow a skyline at an angle? <<< Absolutely perfect -- no compression artifacts at all. No aliasing on diagonals. >>> 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? <<< By flawless do you mean frame-accurate? Then the answer is YES. FireWire to disk. Color correction, titles, FX, all work as usual. One decompression to YUV -- just like any DV-based system. All FX in uncompressed YUV domain. One re-encode from YUV at the end before FireWire to D-VHS. Works exactly like DVCPRO25 or DVCPRO50 going to DVDs from camcorder with FireWire. All that's different is the codec. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

August 27th, 2003, 11:33 AM	#51
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	I don't think anyone really believes they are competitive. Some folks get carried away! __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

August 28th, 2003, 12:54 AM	#52
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I agree with Jan, it's too different cameras. Eventually, everyone will be on HD (I just didn't think an affordable camera would be sitting in my room, even if I have a love/hate relationship with it--just call me Mr. Idiot), but it's true, until then, go for the highest quality DV gear! heath, aka, Mr. Idiot ps-that nasty spec commercial at www.FloatingCar.com has me excited (no, not that way) about the camera's potential. Am awaiting word on Steve's 4HDV! __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 27th, 2003, 09:07 AM	#46
Phil Wright CineForm (Aspect HD) Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Oceanside, CA Posts: 57	Jan - How do you arrive at 994 Mbps? The JVC camera is doing 1280 x 720 x 30 at 4:2:0 which is about 334 Mbps. From 334 Mbps down to 19.8 Mbps isn't a whole lot of compression.

August 27th, 2003, 09:33 AM	#47
Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Broadcast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Secaucus, NJ 07094 Posts: 271	<<<-- Originally posted by Phil Wright : Jan - How do you arrive at 994 Mbps? The JVC camera is doing 1280 x 720 x 30 at 4:2:0 which is about 334 Mbps. From 334 Mbps down to 19.8 Mbps isn't a whole lot of compression. -->>> Phil, True HD resolution starts at 994Mbs at 60P with color at 4:2:2. And if 16:1 compression isn't a lot what is? The belief that this little camera is comparable to the VariCam or HDCAM is not based on reality. I am not saying that this camera does not serve a purpose, but I feel that if you put it next to the VariCam or an HDCAM you will see exactly what I mean. FWIW, Jan

August 27th, 2003, 10:25 AM	#48
Phil Wright CineForm (Aspect HD) Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Oceanside, CA Posts: 57	Jan, I guess I missed the memo that defined "True HD". My bad. But anyway you made the comparison between 994Mbs of "True HD" and the 19.8Mbs of the JVC camera and then described it as a "whole lot of compression". This is not even remotely a valid comparison. And 16:1 isn't a lot of compression for MPEG-2. Especially on a larger image size (compared to SD) where there is a lot of redundancy which makes it easier to compress without inducing more artifacting. Having said all of that I wasn't making any claim one way or the other that a prosumer HDV camera is comparable to a piece of broadcast gear. I just don't see the point in distorting the issue. Phil