New DVCPro HD / P2

Ignacio Rodriguez · February 21st, 2005, 09:16 PM

>I looked at some specs and they seem *really*
> slow... something like 36Mbps transfer rate

I think 40 Mbps is enough for 24 fps DVCPROHD, and I also think two striped IBM microdrives can fin in a the PC-card form factor (a single one fits into a CompactFlash card which is roughly half the size).

I must say that, like Toke, I am also very excited by the possibilties of going tapeless. And I want to clearly state my wish of P2 being open so we can pop in hard drives, wireless network cards or whatever else the market may offer. Please please please Jan don't dumb-down these new cameras just to try get us all to buy Panasonic P2 cards, because then many of us will just have to prefer offerings from other companies. If P2 is really as inexpensive as it should be, don't worry, we will buy the cards from you after all, but give us the choice.

Jan Crittenden Livingston · February 21st, 2005, 09:19 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :
Speaking of broken, you know why Finnish Broadcasting Company abandoned dvcpro? Because those vcr's were always in repair :-(

That I find to be probably less than the entire story. The reason I say that is due to the number of machines in the US market and the fact that they have been some of the most durable and reliable machines brought into the broadcast ndustry. So when someone says something like this, these is a larger story behind it. Someone had another agenda, and yet what was said was this. Tell you what, email me the name of your contact at Finnish Broadcasting and I wil have my Panasonic person in Europe talk to him. You can send me that information off list so that names can be held discreetly.

>If I need real 16:9 camera before that I'll have to take z1...

You can always rent.

Best regards,

Jan

Jan Crittenden Livingston · February 21st, 2005, 09:26 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : > Please please please Jan don't dumb-down these new cameras just to try get us all to buy Panasonic P2 cards, -->>>

Hi Ignacio,

The objective is to get you to buy the camera so that you use it to make a living. The fact that you all are thinking we would dumb down the camera to sell P2 Cards, PUHLease! The only thing that I know is that pictures sell cameras, that is, the pictures that the cameras make sell cameras. The DVX sold cameras, continues to sell cameras. The SDX900 sells cameras. The Varicam sells cameras. If these cameras made ugly pictures I would expect you all not to buy them or rent them.

When this new camera hits, you will see.

Best regards,

Jan

Ignacio Rodriguez · February 21st, 2005, 11:03 PM

>The DVX sold cameras, continues to sell cameras.
> The SDX900 sells cameras. The Varicam sells cameras.
> If these cameras made ugly pictures I would expect you
> all not to buy them or rent them.

Right. I agree totally. The imager portion of the camera, it's optics and sensors, it's ADC, NR and compression, and to some degree it's controls and ergonomics, are the most important part of the package. It's expensive to design, build and market, so we expect to pay for that. It's Panasonic so we know the CCDs are just great, have awesome lattitude, no vertical smear, can do real proscan... so we pay for that. Settled.

My concern is with the other part, that handles storage. It is just as important in terms of it's neccesity, but is not the decisive factor that marks the main difference from one product to the next. The camera's data storage hardware can be made from off-the-shelf components that are mass-produced, the educated consumer knows this and expects --as I expect-- that this part of the camera should not be expensive and should give us options. The rumors of these two new models having both a DV25 tape transport and a PC-card make sense. The camera shots DV out-of-the-box and can also grow to do HD --real HD with the DV codec, not MPEG2-- cool! But, since it's a camera with the professional user in mind, why not drop the tape transport alltogether and let us choose whether we want hard drives , solid state, or networking:

1: connect P2 cards if we are willing to spend the money on them for the added reliability, lifespan and low power consumption. This is for the pro guy who is taking the camera on a trip to everest or isdoing mission-critical stuff and cannot afford to drop a frame or lose a take.

2: connect PC-card hard disks that are almost as convenient as solid state but much less expensive (these can be Panasonic-branded too, but we want options). This is for the people that do non-fiction, weddings, students... people that can live with better-than-tape reliability but would have to buy a tape-based camera like the Sony because they can't afford the P2 cards just yet.

3: connect a computer or deck directly in a studio setting where portability is not an issue. This is a great option of studio work. Why buy tape, solid state memory or hard disks when we can write straight to the NLE in real time? This could also be done through a wireless network card inserted in the slot, would be awesome for news coverage. One guy get's out of the car with the camera, the other guy captures to a laptop in real time and starts editing as soon as the action ends. By the time they are back at the statin the story is ready to air.

It is my opinion that giving us this kind of flexibility and focusing on the real "camera" part of the product (no pun intended) will be the best deal for you, because you will be making money off the part that has the highest added value. Let the market take care of the part that has the less value. We all buy your great cameras and add storage from whichever vendor we choose. You are happy, we are happy. You have low cost solid state P2? Great, then we buy into that too. And we are all happier still, see?

Of course Jan I do not expect you can discuss Panasonic's strategy in detail. Don't worry about that. I find it great that you hang out with us on this board so Panasonic can know a little more about what we need and you can educate us more about what Panasonic has to offer. Other vendors should be taking note! So a big Thank You and please accept my opinion as honest and constructive, which is what I am trying it to be. I never meant to imply that you actually are dumbing down the cameras, allthough I have been known to say that aout other manufacterers. I am just asking you not to. If you are not, all the better then! I'll get my PC-card hard disks ready! ;-)

Barry Green · February 22nd, 2005, 12:48 AM

Quote:

I also think two striped IBM microdrives can fit in the PC-card form factor (a single one fits into a CompactFlash card which is roughly half the size).

Okay, now that would be just fascinating. A two-drive RAID on a PC-card? I'd buy it just for the "cool" factor! :)

Young Lee · February 22nd, 2005, 02:00 AM

Wow, Jan, you sure are a devoted Panasonic employee. Sony needs someone like you too. :)

Chris Hurd · February 22nd, 2005, 08:19 AM

They *all* need someone like her!

;-)

Jan Crittenden Livingston · February 22nd, 2005, 08:48 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : They *all* need someone like her!

;-) -->>>

If the product wasn't so cool, it wouldn't be nearly so much fun!

Thanks guys!

Jan

Filip Kovcin · February 22nd, 2005, 09:27 AM

sergio,

this is exellent!!!!

Quote:

the more I await and long for a new piece of equipment, the more I realize the time I'm wasting by not filming with what I have!

filip

Dan Euritt · February 22nd, 2005, 04:41 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :Acquisition and distribution codecs are whole diffrent ballgame. Compression should be done only to final product after all effecting and color correcting. Otherwise you just loose quality with any lossy compression.-->>>

compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video??

so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts.

there are things like wavelet compression, that offer far greater advantages than the standard dct-based compression that we have been forced to live with all these years.

the reason that these video camera companies keep using vastly inferior codecs is so that they can get away with charging obscene amounts of money for the hardware that it takes to handle the huge bitrates that these lousy codecs generate.

i've seen jan around the 'net for many years, and i'm not slamming her personally for the decisions that her company makes... all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies.

Jan Crittenden Livingston · February 22nd, 2005, 05:52 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? >>

There are very few cameras that record. In fact all cameras are uncompress. It is the recorders that do the compression. Life is full of little trade offs and frankly with each trade off comes a price. So uncompressed, will cost you vastly more than compressed.

<< so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. >>

I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec.

<< there are things like wavelet compression, that offer far greater advantages than the standard dct-based compression that we have been forced to live with all these years. >>

Wavelet is in fact older than DV. It was used in the IMX edit system, which was purchased and remade into the Stratosphere. It is/was no more efficient and its payload is heavy for the benefit. It still had compression artifacts.

<< the reason that these video camera companies keep using vastly inferior codecs is so that they can get away with charging obscene amounts of money for the hardware that it takes to handle the huge bitrates that these lousy codecs generate. >>

What you may not understand is that there is a difference between a delivery codec and an acquistion codec, which is what Toke was alluding to. In an acqusition codec it is more desireable to have each frame stand on its own, than to have them all mushed together in a large GOP like what happens in MPEG. For delivery, sure there are some really awesome codecs, for production, don't see it. Not only do you have to make machines that record but there has to be enough of a promise that the NLE guys will produce an edit system that will handle it.

<< all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies. >>

Like what, HDV? MPEG2? MPEG4? take a look at our consumer line up of cameras. We may have something in the very high end that will look at the huge payload that a 2K or 4K signal would need, and that is only an R & D, we're taking a look maybe; but why would should we want to walk away from DVCPROHD. It can do 24P, variable frame rate, with edit systems that support that notion today, in fact yesterday and even last year. Why would we walk away from that? It is still one of the most efficient algorithms on the planet for production. If you want to take it back to an uncompressed domain you can, but the data rate is in the native codec very viable. Granted is isn't 25Mbs, but it isn't cramped by a 15 frame GOP, compressed audio, and a color sample of 4:2:0. That is more appropriate for distribution than it is for production.

How about our DVD players, we use incredible codecs there, but they are inappropriate for production. Frankly there is little you could say that would convince me to produce an important documentary on a long GOP format. Just wouldn't do it. Distribute on it. You bet.

Better to look at the compression algorithms in the light of what they for which they are designed to be used before you make a judgement about what is and isn't the right thing to do.

My .02,

Jan

Aaron Koolen · February 22nd, 2005, 09:07 PM

Maybe I've missed it in my skim over this thread but is this new camera everyone is talking about one to compete with the likes of the "prosumer" HDV cams. (i.e in the same ballpark range) with p2 storage?

I was disappointed with Canon's offering ala the Xl2, and I just shudder at the idea of HDV and have yet to be convinced it's a worth while format (For me, for me). For the last several months I've been thinking to myself "Panasonic must come out with something. I mean they blew us away with the DVX, they're sure to do it again"

Aaron

Sergio Perez · February 22nd, 2005, 09:20 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Filip Kovcin : sergio,

this is exellent!!!!

filip -->>>

Thanks, Filip! But, back to topic, I'm really awaiting with antecipation for this new Panasonic camera!...wOoops... :)

Laurence Maher · February 23rd, 2005, 09:17 AM

Panasonic is going to sink the rest of them when this comes out. Think about it. They played it smart getting in bed with Macintosh and FCP HD. They've got an easy affordable workflow setup from shooting to a finished product.

Face the music. Panasonic did it right. We are in debt to them as fimmakers, guys. June will show it.

Toke Lahti · February 23rd, 2005, 11:42 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : <<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? >>

They are making these uncompressed cameras right here!
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=25808
(Only 166 pages for now!)
<<< so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. >>
I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec.
<< all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies. >>
Like what, HDV? MPEG2? MPEG4?>

Dan, of course it's a matter of both bitrate and codec.
Speaking of reduced color space, I don't understand why we are not getting more depth than 8bits...

Mjpeg2000 might be a good acquistion codec.
Jan, if you are interested, there is Florin Popescu discussing in the thread above, who works at Fraunhofer, which has been developing mjpeg2000.
If I remember correctly Arri's D20 uses it.
There might also be something more advanced than dv codec in mpeg4's studio profiles?
You can't claim that there has been no progress at all in acquistion codecs for last decade, can you?

<How about our DVD players, we use incredible codecs there...>

I wouldn't call dvd's mpeg2 incredible. Maybe it was a big improvement a decade ago, but it always hurts my eyes after seeing a digibeta or dv master of a program and then looking the same on dvd.

ps. Jan, about YLE (FinnishBC) replacing their vcr's, I don't know who's in charge over there. It's a huge place, I've been working there only as a freelancer and heard about it as a rumour. If you want to contact them, maybe you should do it through your official channels. Salespeople at PannyEurope knows who they are selling to.

February 21st, 2005, 09:16 PM	#46
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	>I looked at some specs and they seem really > slow... something like 36Mbps transfer rate I think 40 Mbps is enough for 24 fps DVCPROHD, and I also think two striped IBM microdrives can fin in a the PC-card form factor (a single one fits into a CompactFlash card which is roughly half the size). I must say that, like Toke, I am also very excited by the possibilties of going tapeless. And I want to clearly state my wish of P2 being open so we can pop in hard drives, wireless network cards or whatever else the market may offer. Please please please Jan don't dumb-down these new cameras just to try get us all to buy Panasonic P2 cards, because then many of us will just have to prefer offerings from other companies. If P2 is really as inexpensive as it should be, don't worry, we will buy the cards from you after all, but give us the choice. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

February 21st, 2005, 11:03 PM	#49
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	>The DVX sold cameras, continues to sell cameras. > The SDX900 sells cameras. The Varicam sells cameras. > If these cameras made ugly pictures I would expect you > all not to buy them or rent them. Right. I agree totally. The imager portion of the camera, it's optics and sensors, it's ADC, NR and compression, and to some degree it's controls and ergonomics, are the most important part of the package. It's expensive to design, build and market, so we expect to pay for that. It's Panasonic so we know the CCDs are just great, have awesome lattitude, no vertical smear, can do real proscan... so we pay for that. Settled. My concern is with the other part, that handles storage. It is just as important in terms of it's neccesity, but is not the decisive factor that marks the main difference from one product to the next. The camera's data storage hardware can be made from off-the-shelf components that are mass-produced, the educated consumer knows this and expects --as I expect-- that this part of the camera should not be expensive and should give us options. The rumors of these two new models having both a DV25 tape transport and a PC-card make sense. The camera shots DV out-of-the-box and can also grow to do HD --real HD with the DV codec, not MPEG2-- cool! But, since it's a camera with the professional user in mind, why not drop the tape transport alltogether and let us choose whether we want hard drives , solid state, or networking: 1: connect P2 cards if we are willing to spend the money on them for the added reliability, lifespan and low power consumption. This is for the pro guy who is taking the camera on a trip to everest or isdoing mission-critical stuff and cannot afford to drop a frame or lose a take. 2: connect PC-card hard disks that are almost as convenient as solid state but much less expensive (these can be Panasonic-branded too, but we want options). This is for the people that do non-fiction, weddings, students... people that can live with better-than-tape reliability but would have to buy a tape-based camera like the Sony because they can't afford the P2 cards just yet. 3: connect a computer or deck directly in a studio setting where portability is not an issue. This is a great option of studio work. Why buy tape, solid state memory or hard disks when we can write straight to the NLE in real time? This could also be done through a wireless network card inserted in the slot, would be awesome for news coverage. One guy get's out of the car with the camera, the other guy captures to a laptop in real time and starts editing as soon as the action ends. By the time they are back at the statin the story is ready to air. It is my opinion that giving us this kind of flexibility and focusing on the real "camera" part of the product (no pun intended) will be the best deal for you, because you will be making money off the part that has the highest added value. Let the market take care of the part that has the less value. We all buy your great cameras and add storage from whichever vendor we choose. You are happy, we are happy. You have low cost solid state P2? Great, then we buy into that too. And we are all happier still, see? Of course Jan I do not expect you can discuss Panasonic's strategy in detail. Don't worry about that. I find it great that you hang out with us on this board so Panasonic can know a little more about what we need and you can educate us more about what Panasonic has to offer. Other vendors should be taking note! So a big Thank You and please accept my opinion as honest and constructive, which is what I am trying it to be. I never meant to imply that you actually are dumbing down the cameras, allthough I have been known to say that aout other manufacterers. I am just asking you not to. If you are not, all the better then! I'll get my PC-card hard disks ready! ;-) __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

February 22nd, 2005, 08:19 AM	#52
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	They all need someone like her! ;-) __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

February 22nd, 2005, 09:07 PM	#57
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Maybe I've missed it in my skim over this thread but is this new camera everyone is talking about one to compete with the likes of the "prosumer" HDV cams. (i.e in the same ballpark range) with p2 storage? I was disappointed with Canon's offering ala the Xl2, and I just shudder at the idea of HDV and have yet to be convinced it's a worth while format (For me, for me). For the last several months I've been thinking to myself "Panasonic must come out with something. I mean they blew us away with the DVX, they're sure to do it again" Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

February 22nd, 2005, 09:20 PM	#58
Sergio Perez Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Macau Posts: 331	<<<-- Originally posted by Filip Kovcin : sergio, this is exellent!!!! filip -->>> Thanks, Filip! But, back to topic, I'm really awaiting with antecipation for this new Panasonic camera!...wOoops... :) __________________ If you don't believe in your film, no one else will.

February 21st, 2005, 09:19 PM	#47
Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Broadcast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Secaucus, NJ 07094 Posts: 271	<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : Speaking of broken, you know why Finnish Broadcasting Company abandoned dvcpro? Because those vcr's were always in repair :-( That I find to be probably less than the entire story. The reason I say that is due to the number of machines in the US market and the fact that they have been some of the most durable and reliable machines brought into the broadcast ndustry. So when someone says something like this, these is a larger story behind it. Someone had another agenda, and yet what was said was this. Tell you what, email me the name of your contact at Finnish Broadcasting and I wil have my Panasonic person in Europe talk to him. You can send me that information off list so that names can be held discreetly. >If I need real 16:9 camera before that I'll have to take z1... You can always rent. Best regards, Jan

February 21st, 2005, 09:26 PM	#48
Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Broadcast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Secaucus, NJ 07094 Posts: 271	<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : > Please please please Jan don't dumb-down these new cameras just to try get us all to buy Panasonic P2 cards, -->>> Hi Ignacio, The objective is to get you to buy the camera so that you use it to make a living. The fact that you all are thinking we would dumb down the camera to sell P2 Cards, PUHLease! The only thing that I know is that pictures sell cameras, that is, the pictures that the cameras make sell cameras. The DVX sold cameras, continues to sell cameras. The SDX900 sells cameras. The Varicam sells cameras. If these cameras made ugly pictures I would expect you all not to buy them or rent them. When this new camera hits, you will see. Best regards, Jan

February 22nd, 2005, 02:00 AM	#51
Young Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 268	Wow, Jan, you sure are a devoted Panasonic employee. Sony needs someone like you too. :)

February 22nd, 2005, 08:48 AM	#53
Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Broadcast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Secaucus, NJ 07094 Posts: 271	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : They all need someone like her! ;-) -->>> If the product wasn't so cool, it wouldn't be nearly so much fun! Thanks guys! Jan

February 22nd, 2005, 04:41 PM	#55
Dan Euritt Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Carlsbad CA Posts: 1,132	<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :Acquisition and distribution codecs are whole diffrent ballgame. Compression should be done only to final product after all effecting and color correcting. Otherwise you just loose quality with any lossy compression.-->>> compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. there are things like wavelet compression, that offer far greater advantages than the standard dct-based compression that we have been forced to live with all these years. the reason that these video camera companies keep using vastly inferior codecs is so that they can get away with charging obscene amounts of money for the hardware that it takes to handle the huge bitrates that these lousy codecs generate. i've seen jan around the 'net for many years, and i'm not slamming her personally for the decisions that her company makes... all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies.

February 22nd, 2005, 05:52 PM	#56
Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Broadcast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Secaucus, NJ 07094 Posts: 271	<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? >> There are very few cameras that record. In fact all cameras are uncompress. It is the recorders that do the compression. Life is full of little trade offs and frankly with each trade off comes a price. So uncompressed, will cost you vastly more than compressed. << so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. >> I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec. << there are things like wavelet compression, that offer far greater advantages than the standard dct-based compression that we have been forced to live with all these years. >> Wavelet is in fact older than DV. It was used in the IMX edit system, which was purchased and remade into the Stratosphere. It is/was no more efficient and its payload is heavy for the benefit. It still had compression artifacts. << the reason that these video camera companies keep using vastly inferior codecs is so that they can get away with charging obscene amounts of money for the hardware that it takes to handle the huge bitrates that these lousy codecs generate. >> What you may not understand is that there is a difference between a delivery codec and an acquistion codec, which is what Toke was alluding to. In an acqusition codec it is more desireable to have each frame stand on its own, than to have them all mushed together in a large GOP like what happens in MPEG. For delivery, sure there are some really awesome codecs, for production, don't see it. Not only do you have to make machines that record but there has to be enough of a promise that the NLE guys will produce an edit system that will handle it. << all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies. >> Like what, HDV? MPEG2? MPEG4? take a look at our consumer line up of cameras. We may have something in the very high end that will look at the huge payload that a 2K or 4K signal would need, and that is only an R & D, we're taking a look maybe; but why would should we want to walk away from DVCPROHD. It can do 24P, variable frame rate, with edit systems that support that notion today, in fact yesterday and even last year. Why would we walk away from that? It is still one of the most efficient algorithms on the planet for production. If you want to take it back to an uncompressed domain you can, but the data rate is in the native codec very viable. Granted is isn't 25Mbs, but it isn't cramped by a 15 frame GOP, compressed audio, and a color sample of 4:2:0. That is more appropriate for distribution than it is for production. How about our DVD players, we use incredible codecs there, but they are inappropriate for production. Frankly there is little you could say that would convince me to produce an important documentary on a long GOP format. Just wouldn't do it. Distribute on it. You bet. Better to look at the compression algorithms in the light of what they for which they are designed to be used before you make a judgement about what is and isn't the right thing to do. My .02, Jan

February 23rd, 2005, 09:17 AM	#59
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	Panasonic is going to sink the rest of them when this comes out. Think about it. They played it smart getting in bed with Macintosh and FCP HD. They've got an easy affordable workflow setup from shooting to a finished product. Face the music. Panasonic did it right. We are in debt to them as fimmakers, guys. June will show it.

February 23rd, 2005, 11:42 AM	#60
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : <<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt : compression is always done during acquisition... dv is 5:1 compression with a severely reduced color space, for instance... how many video cameras have you seen that record uncompressed video?? >> They are making these uncompressed cameras right here! http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=25808 (Only 166 pages for now!) <<< so the issue here isn't the bitrate, it's the efficiency of the codec that counts. >> I don't think you can show me a codec that can be a non-proprietary, meaning anyone can access it and make it happen that is more effiecient that the DV Codec. << all i'm trying to do is to get people to ask companies like panasonic why they refuse to embrace new codec technologies. >> Like what, HDV? MPEG2? MPEG4?> Dan, of course it's a matter of both bitrate and codec. Speaking of reduced color space, I don't understand why we are not getting more depth than 8bits... Mjpeg2000 might be a good acquistion codec. Jan, if you are interested, there is Florin Popescu discussing in the thread above, who works at Fraunhofer, which has been developing mjpeg2000. If I remember correctly Arri's D20 uses it. There might also be something more advanced than dv codec in mpeg4's studio profiles? You can't claim that there has been no progress at all in acquistion codecs for last decade, can you? <How about our DVD players, we use incredible codecs there...> I wouldn't call dvd's mpeg2 incredible. Maybe it was a big improvement a decade ago, but it always hurts my eyes after seeing a digibeta or dv master of a program and then looking the same on dvd. ps. Jan, about YLE (FinnishBC) replacing their vcr's, I don't know who's in charge over there. It's a huge place, I've been working there only as a freelancer and heard about it as a rumour. If you want to contact them, maybe you should do it through your official channels. Salespeople at PannyEurope knows who they are selling to.