FYI: ProHD uncompressed clip (NEW)

[Sergio Barbosa]

Looks very good!
Thank you Stephen for showing us the potential of this camera.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Toenis Liivamaegi

I feel so stupid when asking this but what do you mean with uncompressed sequence? Straight out of component or just pure data from tape/firewire?
Sorry I got a bit confused here.

T

Halo,

Uncompressed sequence means the uncompressed sequence of frames captured from component or in other words, without sending the signal through the camera's mpeg encoder. If you downloaded the ZIP file I've linked and then unzipped it, you'd find a sequence of 350 (or more) uncompressed Targa frames. You would import this sequence as an "animation" into your NLE. I did this because not everyone's NLE can accept a file sequence thats in a "wrapper". An example of a wrapper would be a quicktime file that's been encoded TGA. The wrapper is what keeps the file sequence tidy and in one package (ie file). Otherwise you're dealing with the individual frames (like in an animation).

Regards,

S.Noe

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Sergio Barbosa

Looks very good!
Thank you Stephen for showing us the potential of this camera.

You are welcome, Sergio. I plan on giving you a greenscreen uncompressed as well (when I get a minute).

[Stephen L. Noe]

ALL,

I don't know why 2vuy wouldn't work or your systems. The 2vuy files I produce out of Liquid on my system open right up in Quicktime 7 (windows).

All I do is open up QT (Pro) and then go to File>Open and point to the 2vuy file. It plays fine every time. The only caveate may be that I have the Blackmagic codecs loaded on my system.

Smet, Try for yourself. I think you are confusing the YUV (DV uncompressed) files with the 2vuy (uncompressed HD sequence) files. The 2vuy files are standard files.

Regards,

Stephen

BTW: I've posted another 2vuy file for you to try Click Here for 78MB 2vuy file

[Thomas Smet]

Stephen there are special quicktime codecs installed with Liquid which is why the file plays fine for us with quicktime. A .2vuy file is not a standard file in any way shape or form. As a wrapper that means it is different. AVI and quicktime are also wrappers but a program that can only read AVI wrappers will not be able to read a quicktime wrapper.

On our Liquid systems we will always be able to open the 2vuy files because Liquid installs a quicktime codec on our system. The Blackmagic codecs have nothing to do with it at all but the AVID codecs do.

When we install Liquid we get a YUV, 2VUY, 2VUY HD, M2V and DVCPRO50 codec installed for normal quicktime applications.

Most of the software I have been working on for Liquid can load these files but only if you have the codecs installed on your system. I have also limited support to write these file formats from my software. The AVID codecs are very buggy for creating files so it is very limited but it does work. On systems that do not have Liquid and that have never had Liquid installed the files will not load at all. I have been messing around with these codecs for the last few years trying really hard to figure out a better way for non Liquid systems to be able to write these files. For as good of quality that the codecs are they are one of the most unorthodox formats I have ever seen in my life. Why oh why Avid doesn't just switch to a AVI format with a 2VUY codec I will never know. It really would make things a lot easier. Of course people would still have to have that codec in order for it to open. There is no standard windows based 2vuy avi codec so AVID would either have to use their own codec or piggy back off of the Blackmagic codecs which has my vote.

This is the same concept as FCP users who can create a DVCPROHD quicktime file but PC users cannot read them because we do not have the codec for DVCPROHD. The only way to have the codec is to install FCP on a mac.


Try to open the 2vuy file on a system that has never had Liquid installed and you will not be able to open it.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Why oh why Avid doesn't just switch to a AVI format with a 2VUY codec I will never know. It really would make things a lot easier. Of course people would still have to have that codec in order for it to open. There is no standard windows based 2vuy avi codec so AVID would either have to use their own codec or piggy back off of the Blackmagic codecs which has my vote.

I agree. This totally sums up what is really my only point.

[Antony Michael Wilson]

Yes, Stephen, Thomas is right about this. We can force QT to open the .2vuy files on our workstations because we have Liquid installed. This is why a lot of the guys out there can't do anything with native Liquid files. The legacy Pinnacle .2vuy files are virtually identical to the legacy 8-bit Apple QT and the equivalent Blackmagic files, though. So, if you have Liquid installed, you can save fused files out as legacy BM 8-bit and you are effectively adding a QT wrapper to your original .2vuy file and creating a file that can be ready by everyone who has the BM codec set installed, which is free to download, of course.

However, let us not confuse the Pinnacle/Fast Liquid codecs with the true Avid codecs that come with AXPro/MC/Symph or the Avid codec installer (also free to download from the Avid website). The true Avid codecs WILL work with all other applications that can read/write .mov files. They are Avid MXF/OMF files re-designated with a .mov wrapper and will fast import into Avid systems (not Liquid, of course) and are usually the most efficient method to create graphics/animations or whatever for use in Avid systems (not Liquid). Liquid's proprietary codec AND file format are big stumbling blocks, of course, because most of us want to be able to bring material in and out of the app with minimum fuss, time and image degradation.

As a footnote, if you have Liquid and AXPro/MC/Symph installed on the same crate as Liquid, you can directly import .2vuy files into the Avid app because the traditional Avid line-up uses QT architecture. AXPro/MC/Symph onwers can therefore use Liquid to ingest HDV1 at 24 or 25 fps (not supported in the other Avid apps) and then fuse native Liquid uncompressed files that can be imported directly (and quickly) into Avid. This is a way to get around the QT batch export bugs in Liquid that come into play if you try to batch export a Liquid rack as true Avid QT for fast import. This is a better method than using something like MPEG Streamclip for conforming an Avid offline because Liquid can actually import decomposed offline clips for batch digitising as ALE. If anyone out there is confused by this and wants to know the details for using Liquid as a capture/conform utility for traditional Avid apps like Xpress Pro, just PM me and I'll explain.

[Stephen L. Noe]

I don't have Liquid installed and the files still play in QTPro. Are you guys sure that you can't install Blackmagic codecs and get 2vuy files to play in QT?

@Smet, you know you can export RGB-AVI from any timeline.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I don't have Liquid installed and the files still play in QTPro. Are you guys sure that you can't install Blackmagic codecs and get 2vuy files to play in QT?

@Smet, you know you can export RGB-AVI from any timeline.

Did that system at one point have Liquid installed? If it did the codecs will stay on your system even if you remove Liquid.

I do use a RGB-AVI fuse many times and is in fact one of my favorite formats to work with but it is huge in size for HD. YUV based HD is bad enough but RGB is even larger. It needs over 179MB/S compared to 125MB/S so it is not exactly a great format to work with. Most of the time 4:2:2 video will not be captured or used as RGB-AVI so therefore it isn't very universal.

I will try cleaning out a system and see if the Blackmagic codecs will read the files on their own but I doubt it. It isn't just the codec we are talking about here but the 2vuy file extension. Most applications look to the file extension and will not read or open a file that has a file extension that it has never heard of before. It may be just a wrapper but all wrappers are different and an application needs to know how to read that wrapper.

[Daniel Patton]

Stephen,

Next time you get a chance try running one more test, I think it would be good for HD100 owners to know this before investing too quickly in an component/uncompressed solution ... capture uncompressed and at the same time go to tape. Compare the uncompressed component image to that same image from tape as HDV.

For us, when doing this same test the HDV frame looked better, even with it's MPEG compression, than the component uncompressed simply because the component (result of DAC?) degrades the image and goes soft. This in turn sort of defeats the purpose IMO. It's a bit of a catch 22 in that you bypass MPEG compression noise only to lose image detail to the component signal. This was our findings anyway, I would love to see if someone else can get better results with their camera.

As you mentioned the HD250 with SDI is far better, miles in fact, and is the only method I would use if uncompressed ProHD is what someone is after. I have not tried the HD200 component/uncompressed route yet but would be interested in giving it a shot, more so if our rep thinks it's worth looking at.

Peace!

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Daniel Patton

Stephen,

Next time you get a chance try running one more test, I think it would be good for HD100 owners to know this before investing too quickly in an component/uncompressed solution ... capture uncompressed and at the same time go to tape. Compare the uncompressed component image to that same image from tape as HDV.

For us, when doing this same test the HDV frame looked better, even with it's MPEG compression, than the component uncompressed simply because the component (result of DAC?) degrades the image and goes soft. This in turn sort of defeats the purpose IMO. It's a bit of a catch 22 in that you bypass MPEG compression noise only to lose image detail to the component signal. This was our findings anyway, I would love to see if someone else can get better results with their camera.

As you mentioned the HD250 with SDI is far better, miles in fact, and is the only method I would use if uncompressed ProHD is what someone is after. I have not tried the HD200 component/uncompressed route yet but would be interested in giving it a shot, more so if our rep thinks it's worth looking at.

Peace!

The process you mention is one of the first things I tried (ie comparing images between uncompressed and mpeg). The image is different without question. Both mpeg and uncompressed would have gone through the DAC's process so there would be no difference there. The difference is no post DAC processing on uncompressed like in mpeg2. It's what happens before/during the mpeg compression that changes the image, I believe (enhancement).

The thing I'm most impressed about, in the uncompressed signal, is how much you can adjust color and still have a viable image. This is where I think the uncompressed component trumps the mpeg every time. I'm an advocate of "getting it right" in the camera (color wise) but uncompressed allows you to get it wrong and still be able to salvage color without creating macroblock when the image is pressed too far in the secondary color corrector.

On another side though Dan, I've found Magic Bullet II handles the mpeg-2 with aplomb. You can get away with murder on mpeg2 using Magic Bullet. The image holds up. This leads me to think/believe Magic Bullet is a better investement than an uncompressed workflow.

your thoughts?

[Warren Shultz]

Stephen,
Looking forward to that green screen uncompressed you mentioned. I'm not sure what the last clip you posted was but it won't play on my Mac quicktime and I even have blackmagic codecs installed although I don't have the card anymore. The targa sequence looks great.

Warren

[Daniel Patton]

Agreed, you have more to work with in regard to pushing around color when working with uncompressed and avoiding the MPEG route. For us uncompressed was the solution for anything requiring post work, keying being the main reason and for the Multibridge Pro investment.

Also agreed, Magic Bullet does a great job at working with HDV's limitations. We have been very happy with all of the Red Giant products in fact. It's all good stuff and in my book rates high in ROI.

The only thing I'm unclear on is why you might say "Both mpeg and uncompressed would have gone through the DAC's process so there would be no difference there". Maybe so but something more is in fact happening during output via component that's doing some additional damage, more than the MPEG encoded route. I'm speaking strictly image/pixel detail here, not so much in the color depth. Either there is an additional conversion on the side of the component outputs, or JVC has some damn good voodoo with the MPEG encoder thats enhancing the image. ;)

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Daniel Patton

The only thing I'm unclear on is why you might say "Both mpeg and uncompressed would have gone through the DAC's process so there would be no difference there". Maybe so but something more is in fact happening during output via component that's doing some additional damage, more than the MPEG encoded route. I'm speaking strictly image/pixel detail here, not so much in the color depth. Either there is an additional conversion on the side of the component outputs, or JVC has some damn good voodoo with the MPEG encoder thats enhancing the image. ;)

Now that I think about it, maybe it doesn't go through the same DAC since the component is not changed to Digital. I wonder what the true route of the signal is through the camera when using component out. Does it come straight off the CCD's? How can that be if the signal is YUV? or is it RGB?

we need some engineering whitepaper describing the signal flow.

[Daniel Patton]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

we need some engineering whitepaper describing the signal flow.

That we do.

Maybe JVC's Carl or Ken Freed could step in and help us out here?