New DVCPro HD / P2

[Dan Euritt]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : 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. -->>>

didn't panasonic develop dvcpro hd, and put it out there for the public to use? nothing too revolutionary there, tho, when compared to the phenomenal advances in internet codecs.

i was a compressionist at intervu back in the late 90's, before they were bought out by akamai, so my viewpoint is different than most out here... i do agree with your point wrt the problems with long gop for professional acquisition, but i also have a ton of first-hand experience encoding with the very latest codecs... which is why i can see how horrible the hdv mpeg2 concept is.

hdv is basically the same codec that panasonic is using on their dvd players, yuk!... i would suggest that you go out to www.wmvhd.com and play some of those clips back on your hdtv to see where codec technology is today... take a hard look at the bitrate vs. quality, and how it could be applied to a prosumer format like hdv.

wavelet codec development is alive and well, http://www.wavelet.org/index.php... and i think that the people at cineform have things to say about the viability of their codec :-) but wavelets aren't the only compression technology out there.

thanks for discussing these issues with us! i shoot with an xl1s, but i also own a panasonic av100 that records mpeg2 to sd cards, so i am sold on solid state recording... i want to see it become the standard, but i think that it's going to take codec development to make it really happen... to put it another way: in the computer business, we say that software sells hardware.

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden : 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. -->>>

Then posted by Dan Euritt :
>didn't panasonic develop dvcpro hd, and put it out there for the >public to use? nothing too revolutionary there, tho, when >compared to the phenomenal advances in internet codecs.

First when I say DV Codec, the DVCPROHD is a DV based codec. Secondly an internet codec is a delivery codec. Different objectives than production.

>hdv is basically the same codec that panasonic is using on their dvd players, yuk!...

Actually this is not true, as there is no HD on a DVD at this time, soon, but not yet. The commonality is MPEG2 with a longer GOP, but it is not at 25Mbs, the current DVDs are more like 9Mbs. HDV is more similar to the transport stream that the broadcaster uses to to get HDTV to your home HDTV set over the airwaves.

>i would suggest that you go out to www.wmvhd.com and play some of those clips back on your hdtv to see where codec technology is today... take a hard look at the bitrate vs. quality, and how it could be applied to a prosumer format like hdv.

Again, the discussion here is irrelevant to the production domain. Delivery is absolutely different that production.

>wavelet codec development is alive and well, http://www.wavelet.org/index.php... and i think that the people at cineform have things to say about the viability of their codec :-) but wavelets aren't the only compression technology out there.

Find a camera that can handle the load. Find an NLE that can deal with the vairable frame rate, Find the NLE that can deal with on the fly ramping of speed, find a codec with any of those that can do it on the fly with the switch of a menu item and and NLE or two that can accomodate the rest of the handshake. The cineform is a platform codec, and the wavelet is not in the consideration either. Different applications, not acquisition. Might work in the Desktop as long as the concatenation doesn't get in the way but I wouldn't put my money on it till I saw it.

>thanks for discussing these issues with us! i shoot with an xl1s, but i also own a panasonic av100 that records mpeg2 to sd cards, so i am sold on solid state recording... i want to see it become the standard, but i think that it's going to take codec development to make it really happen...

Frankly the Solid State is happening at the professional level on a I frame only on the codecs that are designed for production. The little Panssonic camera you have there is not a production codec. Nice for home movies but not for serious production.

You cannot introduce a new codec today and then expect all sorts of NLE guys to fall all over the idea, fawning to just hold your hand. Getting the NLE guys to deal with the stringent principles that we set into DVCPRO and its deriviatives took several years. DV was being pushed over firewire for at least three years before the NLE guys realized that if they want the News market they needed the DVCPro codec, and then a whole bunch of other things started to happen. DVCPRO50 over Firewire, DVCPROHD over firewire. These sorts of advances take time, energy and money. Codec du jour does not work.

The HDV camera from Sony has had the benefit of the JVC camera being out there for 2 years before its delivery. It takes money and the promise of return on investment to get the NLE guys to dive in and spend the money to make the system work. And this solution still challenged.

There is a whole business of getting folks to buy in to the codec and put together the entire production plan and then continue the work on it so those cool ideas can come to reality; like 24P, variable frame rate, scalable codecs that go from SD at 4:1:1 to 4:2:2 to 4:2:2 HD and all over firewire in native codecs. This is not all something that happens in one year, this happens over years.

To sum up, production codecs have different objectives than delivery codecs. There are some codecs that work well as a platform codec, that allows for special things to happen, like HDV to edited with better efficiency, like the cineform codec. But these do not have acquisition. And then there are delivery codecs, which the HDV codec could be, or the DVD codecs or the internet codecs. The consumer codecs for consumer cameras generally are slanted at the delivery end of the curve as many people are not nearly as fussy as production people.

I hope this helps you understand that 1. the DVCPRO codecs are here to stay, and therefore are a safe bet for building future ideas on. 2. that there are delery codes and the efficiency and low data rate are the goal. and 3, it has take a lot of time out of my day to write this, and for you to say that we should just drop DVCPROHD and go with CODEC du Jour is something that I feel needs to have attention and education aimed at it, because CODEC du jour does not always serve the production community well.

I hope that helps,

Jan

[Anders Holck Petersen]

<<First when I say DV Codec, the DVCPROHD is a DV based codec. Secondly an internet codec is a delivery codec. Different objectives than production....

....1. the DVCPRO codecs are here to stay, and therefore are a safe bet for building future ideas on. >>

Jan, thank you for taking the time to post in this forum, it's really nice to have some info from a person with the knowladge!

I do a lot of color corection and finishing from a range of formats: Digibeta, DVCPRO 50 /HD and HDCAM.
Besides the the limited color resolution and aliasing of saturated colors of the 4:2:2/3:1:1 formats I am finding it odd that only the old Digibeta format supports 10 bit sampling.

As you talk a lot about the difference between acquisition and delivery codecs, I am wondering why all current acquisition codecs are 8 bit only?
Especially for film out, banding occurs VERY easily with both DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO HD and it's VERY obvious in all smooth graduations on noiseless material.

Also using the cinegamma and other DSP functions on the DVX100, the SDX900 and the Varicam makes this worse because to retain the highlights, even fever than 256 levels will be used.

Can you comment on this? Is there a future possibility of finer quantizing in your codecs? or is it locked at 8 bit by being based on the old (but very funtional ) DV technology

I like the very functional workflow we have today, especially using Apple / Panasonic equiptment, but it's too bad we are limited in this regard. (even though it's much better than 4:1:1/4:2:0 DV/HDV)

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> You cannot introduce a new codec today and then
> expect all sorts of NLE guys to fall all over the idea,
> fawning to just hold your hand. Getting the NLE guys
> to deal with the stringent principles that we set into
> DVCPRO and its deriviatives took several years.

I tend to disagree. Although there is something to be said about DV and the way it works transparently in an NLE, it is perfectly feasible to use a different codec for aquisition. This has been demonstrated with Sony's IMX. It's MPEG2 based, high quality and is treated by the NLE as uncompressed.

If you give me a camera with an efficient new codec that delivers better than DV, which could be something based on the the MPEG4 AVC, I will gladly spend time transcoding that to DC30 or some other low-loss codec. Granted the workflow won't be the best for ENG, but this camera can be aimed at the indie and documentary markets, as it can be --because of the cost savings in storage-- much less expensive.

I like the logic behind HDV's MPEG2 trick, except that they have ruined it by commiting to tape and thus limiting the data rate. So there is potential to do much better. Sure, less compression is an option, a good one. But *better* compression, coupled with disk-based storage, can also do the job for many of us. The ideal: both! Options, that's what we want. A camera with as many options as a computer.

[Young Lee]

Well, I'm really curious about the low light performance of the DVCPRO-HD camcorder. If it's just as good as that of the FX1/Z1, then I'll definitely buy it as a replacement for my little cam. (MX5000)

[Dan Euritt]

>>>You cannot introduce a new codec today and then expect all sorts of NLE guys to fall all over the idea, fawning to just hold your hand.<<<

actually, that is exactly what has happened with hdv, it's a delivery codec being used for acquisition... all of the major software editors on the market immediately tweaked their systems to accept it... if panasonic suddenly started selling a prosumer hd camera based on wm9 or h.264, the software editors would integrate it asap.

in fact, the software editing systems that use cineform as an intermediary codec should be able to accept it immediately... all panasonic has to do is to create the in-camera silicon for it, no minor detail.

are you aware of the role that the cineform codec played in the making of that new bruce brown baja 1000 movie? i know people who saw the sneak preview onscreen, no complaints about the quality... but based on my encoding experience, hdv/cineform is not a work flow that i want to use for the type of content that i shoot.

so i'll pass on hdv, i know that panasonic will come up with a superior quality solution... and if it'll integrate the solid state work flow i've seen with the av100, it's going to rock! btw, i use the av100 for recording an external camera video feed inside of race cars, because tape-based recorders won't stand up to the vibration.

thanks again for your time out here, i can't wait to see the new panasonic camera!

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

Anders asked:
Besides the the limited color resolution and aliasing of saturated colors of the 4:2:2/3:1:1 formats I am finding it odd that only the old Digibeta format supports 10 bit sampling. As you talk a lot about the difference between acquisition and delivery codecs, I am wondering why all current acquisition codecs are 8 bit only?

The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. Additionaly there is always the added cost for those last two bits. The DigiBeta entry camera is $45,000, the DVCPRO50 which makes a comparable picture is $27,000, Add the deck cost and you are looking a a bigger chunk of change. If you ingest over SDI, the stuff on time line is very similar. So in some ways it is economics, some ways it is the facility to achieve the same net result for less money. These two questions basically get the same result.

All of what this is built upon is generated out of a much more exhaustive piece of work done by people vastly more learned than I will ever be. See http://www.smpte.org/engineering_committees/pdf/tfrpt2w6.pdf

Staring in the Annex C, you can see all of the stnadard definition digital formats compared, even DVCPRO50/DigitalS, Digital Betacam, IMX-referred to as MPEG50/I Frame, DVCPRO. It is pretty heavy but interesting.

>Especially for film out, banding occurs VERY easily with both DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO HD and it's VERY obvious in all smooth graduations on noiseless material.

I have not seen this as much as you have I suppose and I guess neither did the SMPTE/EBU. Perhaps it may be the rest of the signal path? I don't know. The footage that I see up on the big screens at NAB, 70 feet, don't seem to show what you are saying and those programs are done with the DVCPROHD material. So can't explain your experience.

I can't say that I have never seen it, but then I have backed up and captured the material differently.

>Also using the cinegamma and other DSP functions on the DVX100, the SDX900 and the Varicam makes this worse because to retain the highlights, even fever than 256 levels will be used.

Here I could not disagree more. Noah Kadner has a shot in his film Formosa that is at least 8-9 stops of latitude, inside the car to the bright blue skies of sunny New Mexico, shot with the SDX, and there is detail in the shadow and blue sky. I can point to and endless number of pictures that have huge amounts of detail in the wite areas, where on other cameras they have been blown out. Perhaps you experience could be based on video you have seen shot by people that may not understand how to use the controls provided to them with these cameras. But there is no way I could begin to agree with you assessment of the cine-gamma.

When we move to the first generation of the DVX100, the cine-look there was much easier to blow out the highlights and unfortunately folks didn't know how to shoot with that for the proper handling. As the DVX100 moved to the DVX100A, the Cinelooks expanding to include some that have a more rounded shoulder. Again, what shows up in the edit suite is often predicated by the strength of the person using the tool.

>Can you comment on this? Is there a future possibility of finer quantizing in your codecs? or is it locked at 8 bit by being based on the old (but very funtional ) DV technology

I feel that life is full of little trade offs. When you look at the potential of what is possible versus what are people going to pay, I believe that there is a balance point. DV is younger than DigiBeta, why didn't Sony take DigiBeta and make DigiBeta Lite? the 4:1:1 version with 10 bit? Because that would be silly, no advatange and the machine would still be stunningly expensive. So what a manufacturer has to do is find the price point, and the performance that is pleasing to enough peole that it will sell and then figure out how to make it so that it holds up and is reliable. I mean really, if the 8 bit formats were so awful as you imply, why would any body buy them. Shouldn't they all be lined up at Sony's door with fists full of dollars.

The question is not so simple, and covers more ground than that which can be covered here. I suggest you read Annex C of the SMPTE study above. It might enlighten your perpective. Life is full of compromises.

>I like the very functional workflow we have today, especially using Apple / Panasonic equiptment, but it's too bad we are limited in this regard. (even though it's much better than 4:1:1/4:2:0 DV/HDV)

But arguably, a 4:1:1 2/3" camera can look stunning in the hands of the right operator as can the DVX100A. I really believe that much of the dreck I have seen is based on the fact that the operator is not taking the time to optimize the tool.

Video in and of itself is so immediate that it almost works against the learning curve. They shoot, they have a picture, they break, and move on. Not until they get back in the edt suite do they see the problems in what they shot, because they only had a little $500 dollar LCD panel that you could juge anything on, if your life depended on it. But then the format takes the hit.

When I was learning to expose film, 35mm still, I cannot begin to count the number of rolls of film I went through before I was able to come out with more properly exposed shots out of a roll of 36 that badly exposed. But I took the time to analyze v=because I knew the variable was not me, not this 100 year old medium. I mean jeez if all of these other photogs can get good shots, with the same film and same equipment what am I doing that makes the difference.

Anyhow I hope you can see where I am going. Lif is full of little trade-offs. Many things influence which way you go, and then it is up to you to make the best of your choices. For me I see the trade of of 4:20, a long GOP, and compressed audio, huge in comparison to simple little 4:1:1 DV with progressive imaging, uncompressed audio. I know what the algorithm is going to do when I look into the viewfinder.

Anyhow, good questions.

Best regards,

Jan

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

Ignacio said:
>This has been demonstrated with Sony's IMX. It's MPEG2 based, high quality and is treated by the NLE as uncompressed.

However, we are talking about a system, that is 4:2:2 and has a starting price point at $34,000. Show me something in the $4-6000 range here. In fact, you cannot.

>If you give me a camera with an efficient new codec that delivers better than DV, which could be something based on the the MPEG4 AVC, I will gladly spend time transcoding that to DC30 or some other low-loss codec. Granted the workflow won't be the best for ENG, but this camera can be aimed at the indie and documentary markets, as it can be --because of the cost savings in storage-- much less expensive.

But in the delivery of MPEG4 or whatever, you cannot invent what you gave away.

>I like the logic behind HDV's MPEG2 trick, except that they have ruined it by commiting to tape and thus limiting the data rate. So there is potential to do much better. Sure, less compression is an option, a good one. But *better* compression, coupled with disk-based storage, can also do the job for many of us.

I would agree that HDV is bit starved, but can't say that any form of GOP is a great idea for production work. I am afraid that what is going to have to happen here is that I will have to stop responding as frankly we will never agree as to what the perfect sets of trade-offs are. What everybody here is saying that we should be able to get full uncompressed quality at low bit rates and have no penalty for making those choices. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

Best,

Jan

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Euritt :

actually, that is exactly what has happened with hdv, it's a delivery codec being used for acquisition... all of the major software editors on the market immediately tweaked their systems to accept it... if panasonic suddenly started selling a prosumer hd camera based on wm9 or h.264, the software editors would integrate it asap.

Obviously you missed the point in my previous post that said, the reason that the NLEs are where they are is because of the leadership role that JVC took 2-3 years ago, and frankly it still doesn't make the HDV codec less problematic. As far as developing a small consumer camera that does what you suggest, that may happen but I think there needs to be higher adoption in the consumer industry for HDTV.

>in fact, the software editing systems that use cineform as an intermediary codec should be able to accept it immediately... all panasonic has to do is to create the in-camera silicon for it, no minor detail.

IMHO, the cineform codec is a platform codec. I dont think it would lend itself to a camera/price performance payload.

>thanks again for your time out here, i can't wait to see the new panasonic camera!

Thanks, I really think you guys will see it and think it rocks!

Best regards,

Jan

[Toke Lahti]

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez: ...it is perfectly feasible to use a different codec for aquisition. This has been demonstrated with Sony's IMX. It's MPEG2 based, high quality and is treated by the NLE as uncompressed. -->>>

IMX as is a I-frame only, so it's as far from delivery codec as you can be with mpeg. Practically same as mjpeg.

[Toke Lahti]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. -->>>

Can you give us any reason why 10bit colors can't be implemented to firewire transferred stream?

I think the reason for not going to greater colordepths is just because industry has been thinking that 8bits is "good enough for television".
After digital video and especially HD has became widerly used, people are starting to noticing the quality more.

Having more than 8bits is not a price point in still cameras, so same way it shouldn't be with video cameras.

<<<-- Noah Kadner has a shot in his film Formosa that is at least 8-9 stops of latitude... -->>>

Question with greater color depths is not just about how many stops. It's about how many tones you get in one stop.
And having more colorspace gives you more room in production, so you can work faster and still get higher quality in color correction in post production than with 8bit.
Very similiar thing like with acqusition and delivery codecs. They shouldn't be the same.

Digital displays are also late with quality aspects. In DVI specs there is a possibility with dual link to carry MSB with first link and rest in second link. However there is no display or graphics adapters in the market that supports this.

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : <<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. -->>>

Can you give us any reason why 10bit colors can't be implemented to firewire transferred stream?

I think this is a question best answered with"life is full of little tradeoffs.

>I think the reason for not going to greater colordepths is just because industry has been thinking that 8bits is "good enough for television".

I think it is based on what people are willing to pay for technology.

>After digital video and especially HD has became widerly used, people are starting to noticing the quality more.

Only the people that produce it are noticing. Average consumer does not.

>Having more than 8bits is not a price point in still cameras, so same way it shouldn't be with video cameras.

It is a question of Pay Load. I know at the highest resolution I get fewer pictures and they are slower to open and slow down my system. I opt for the more lighter load based on my application.

<<<-- Noah Kadner has a shot in his film Formosa that is at least 8-9 stops of latitude... -->>>

>Question with greater color depths is not just about how many stops. It's about how many tones you get in one stop.
And having more colorspace gives you more room in production, so you can work faster and still get higher quality in color correction in post production than with 8bit.

There is no argument here, but if you read the question to which I am responding it was about the Gamma curve, which is about the latitude and the CineGamma and not about the color depth only the tonal range. When you look at the camera front end it is a 12 bit camera, it is much easier to deliver this picture in 8 bit without the banding that the Anders was referencing. It can be delivered with the economy of 8 bit but it dependent on where it starts. The detail is preserved in the highlingt and I have detail in the shadow area, and this is what Anders was say ing that you could not get with the cinegamma curves that we have implemented.

>Very similiar thing like with acqusition and delivery codecs. They shouldn't be the same.

They aren't!

Hope that clarifies,

Jan

[Toke Lahti]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden: I think this is a question best answered with"life is full of little tradeoffs. -->>>

I think you can answer with that to every question on the earth, but it isn't very productive.

<<<-- I think it is based on what people are willing to pay for technology. -->>>

People are willing to pay for 8bits when they don't know any better.
Manufacurers primary goal is to make money for share holders, so they will give cheapest solution with quality level that is just slightly above the general acceptance. Nothing new here other than new technology would allow better quality with reasonable costs and when one competitor raises its quality, others have to follow to answer the competition and then we are heading to the right direction.
Now people are building their own 4:4:4 10bit hd-cameras out of industrial cameras for less than $10k, when same commercial "movie"camera costs over ten times more. Maybe next year we will have same kind of commercial cameras on shops shelves...

So we definetly are in a big turning point for moving pictures.
Hacking dvx100 for getting uncompressed stream out is one example. This is what some people wants and maybe manufacturers will have to answer to it.

<<<-- Only the people that produce it are noticing. Average consumer does not. -->>>

I belive that average consumer can notice a diffrence of a cheapest gonzo-tv shot with smallest miniDVs compared to biggest hollywood movies, even if they both are seen from dvd with same datarate.
Noticing migt be in the subconscious level and surely they can't analyze why there is difference.

So consumers dont' notice the need for more than 8 bits, because they don't need it. The need is in the production, not the delivery. Color correction is done before consumers sees the program, so consumers don't have a slightest idea how many bits were used during film scanning or other post production stages.

Every cinematographer who has worked with film knows the need for more color depth than 8bits. Go ahead and ask them!

And I think it's very sad if the industry is changing to new technology only to save money, but quality is decreasing, instead of improving like it should be with technology advancements.

<<<-- They aren't! -->>>

They do have same colorspace!

[Anders Holck Petersen]

Thank you for the very good and through reply. I hope you didn't read my post as another format bashing comment, I was just wondering about if it was possible to implement 10 bit in the DVCPRO format.

By the way I really like my DVX100A, and compared to sonys offerings at the time of purchase, it was almost the perfect DV camera. Alright real 16x9 sensors Is still on my wishlist but as you also rightfully stated life is full of tradeoffs and all in all this is a great package at a great price.

Also from the reports on these boards, hdv editing is really not working efficiently yet, at least not as good as DVCPRO/HD is currently

Regarding codecs do you think that constant quality VBR codecs will be a viable option compared to CBR, in the future as we are moving to randam access storage like solid state technology?

<<- Originally posted by Jan Crittenden :
The reason is that those last two bits can be added to any of the 8 bit formats buy going out SDI. These two questions basically get the same result. >>

Yes, I have captured from both varicam and 750p and 900 thru HDSDI into uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 HD, bypassing the data truncation/compression of the tape decks. Ofcause this does not only awards me with 10 bit quantizing but also bypasses the 6.7:1 compression so actually what a 10 bit 4:2:2 6.7:1 format would look like I really don't know....


> See http://www.smpte.org/engineering_committees/pdf/tfrpt2w6.pdf
Staring in the Annex C, you can see all of the stnadard definition digital formats compared....The footage that I see up on the big screens at NAB, 70 feet, don't seem to show what you are saying and those programs are done with the DVCPROHD material....I can't say that I have never seen it, but then I have backed up and captured the material differently.

Yes the report is a very interesting read (I did read it back in 2000) but it is also written from the perspective of broadcast TV and not filmmaking which is what I do.
Some of the conclutions are still interesting, and of cause Panasonic is still a broadcast company not a film company like Arri or Panavision and still the tools that you supply will be aimed at both groups of people.


> Here I could not disagree more.... there is no way I could begin to agree with you assessment of the cine-gamma.

I think you misunderstood my statement. What I ment was that when you expose for the highlights and is using a workflow where you will shift the levels later in the gradesession, you will see a huge difference in the finer grauations going from 8 bit to 10 bit in quantizing.
When you aim for that 8-9 stops with cinegamma very few levels sre the for subtle thigs like skintones etc. I firmly believe going 10 bit would make quite a bit of difference.
I am impressed at the imagequality of the varicam/sdx900 and the dynamic range that it will capture, especially using the excellent gamma settings. We are used to 10 bit log in digital film for a reason, and with the gamma settings we are closer to that.

> Again, what shows up in the edit suite is often predicated by the strength of the person using the tool.

> I mean really, if the 8 bit formats were so awful as you imply, why would any body buy them. Shouldn't they all be lined up at Sony's door with fists full of dollars.....I suggest you read Annex C of the SMPTE study above. It might enlighten your perpective. Life is full of compromises.

I not implying that theese formats are awfull, these formats a now proven technology that is used every day professionally. I just find it's a limiting factor that it's 8 bit only. Will I


> But arguably, a 4:1:1 2/3" camera can look stunning in the hands of the right operator as can the DVX100A.

It can indeed!


> Anyhow I hope you can see where I am going. Lif is full of little trade-offs. Many things influence which way you go, and then it is up to you to make the best of your choices. For me I see the trade of of 4:20, a long GOP, and compressed audio, huge in comparison to simple little 4:1:1 DV with progressive imaging, uncompressed audio.

Yes, it sounds scary to me to. And therefore I am not buying the Sony offerings but waiting for the new panny...

> Anyhow, good questions.

Thank you, good anwsers as well...

[Michael Struthers]

Jan, have you personally seen the picture (output) from the upcoming 1/3 lil DVCProCam?

Interested in your take on it.