First look at Sony XDCAM HD

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Michael Devlin

1. Codec: My impression is that the 2/3" XDCAM HD announced for availability in June 2007 will have a double density disc with dual heads. That will give about the same recording time with about a 2x increase in data rate. This was a somewhat vague discussion, but my guess is that the final data rate will be somewhere in the 50-100Mbs range. With the improved codec that should give quality equivalent to HDCAM. I have less confidence in the specifics here than the other things they told me.

Hooray, that would be great, maybe we can also expect prosumer XDCAM HD eventually.

[Steven White]

Originally Posted by Scott Aston

Doesn't the HVX give a real 4:2:2 offering and doesn't the Canon H1 give a 4:2:2 HD-SDI offering?

Ah - but the HVX can't resolve true 4:2:2 due to its vertical pixel shift... Which leaves only the Canon as producing actual 4:2:2 sampling out its HD-SDI. The XL-H1 is looking like a better deal all the time.

-Steve

[Graeme Nattress]

It's very difficult to assess chroma resolution on the HVX. In 720p I'd think, looking at the figures, it would have more than 4:2:0, probably close to 4:2:2. In 1080p, it is probably very close to 4:2:0.

But, the Canon only does 1080i (or what looks like half rez 1080p) and due to the interlace filtering you're not going to get full vertical detail either, but it should be higher than 4:2:0, closer to 4:2:2.

The resolution of the Canon does look very nice and sharp in interlace modes though.

Really, there's lots of pretty good, pretty cheap HD cameras now, all different, all with some features better or worse than others. You can just pretty much pick on the features you like.

Graeme

[Steven White]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

In 1080p, it is probably very close to 4:2:0.

Considering all the cameras being compared to here are pretending to be 1080(i/p) camcorders, it's reasonable to ignore the "4:2:2 in 720p" argument, and simply state the HVX is best described as 1080p 4:2:0 off the CCD block? Not to harp on Panasonic, one could state the XL-H1 is 4:2:2 interlaced and some weird approximation between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 in frame mode.

That's how I see it anyway... we're very rapidly approaching the era of the 1080p TV, and a time when most of the new camcorders will record some 1080(i/p) format - regardless of sensor and lens resolution (as sad as that may be).

-Steve

[Graeme Nattress]

Sure, the HVX is 4:2:0 1080p, but with about the same vertical resolution as 720p, or 1080i.

The canon in 1080i is about the same vertical resolution as 720p as well. Neither are real full resolution 1080p cameras - there are very few of them and they're very expensive, and practically none go up to the 60p needed.

Yes, we're moving towards a 1080p world, and interlace is dead.

Graeme

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Steven White

That's how I see it anyway... we're very rapidly approaching the era of the 1080p TV, and a time when most of the new camcorders will record some 1080(i/p) format - regardless of sensor and lens resolution (as sad as that may be).

-Steve

I think it is already here, I can buy a 37inch 1080 LCD for equivalent to close to $1500US in he local shop. Manufactures are starting to show off 8Mp models, and there is some talk about Mpeg4 AVC in Europe (though I can't decide what the translation is meaning). Europe might well beat the US again with better TV standards, by delaying a few years. HDV seems to look better (not a concrete assessment) than most of the local transmissions I have seen here, but if they introduce Mpeg4 transmissions (h264 or ordinary Mpeg4) the XDCAM HD footage will come is very handy in comparison.

It is funny to note, we have been testing and knocking, the Sanyo HD1 Mpeg4 camera (9Mb/s) pocket camera based on it's codec performance (and definitely most other picture qualities), but at the end of the day it too is getting better picture than HDTV transmissions most if the time (as long as you set it up right, eliminate noise with lighting and don't move it too much). This makes sense, as Mpeg2 TV goes upto 1080 at 19Mb/s here, and is around double the Mpeg4 9 Mb/s data rate at 720p which is a lot closer to the 720p rate being used. They would have been better off here matching the TV transmission to the HDV, or XDCAM HD, data width (our channels are wider here and there are lots of free channels because our market can only support a quiet limited amount of broadcasters (unlike the US)).

If we shot a scene on both (Sanyo and HDV/XDCAM HD)cameras, with the camera setup, and the scene lit for each, to maximise performance, and properly transcoded it to a HDTV codec to maximise quality performance, at the rates used here, it would be interesting to see wherever the average audience member could tell which is better than which, even us at a, "left" or "right", glance.

I am not saying that Little Sanyo is anywhere near as good as the XDCAM HD, but that TV transmission is so poor as to reduce the difference. For future codecs, for HD DVD/Blueray, for indie film, and just plane better optical qualities from lens and sensor, the XDCAM is obviously much better.

I also noticed something else, certain ads on HDTV transmission come out a lot lot cleaner (in codec noise) compared to even major live broadcasts and prerecorded (filmed) content. The quality of some of the transmission codecs must be low. People are not up taking HDTV transmission so fast here, and they are talking of delaying switchover another 5 years, because they already get the same thing on analogue, if you have a look at he "noisy" HDTV pictures you can see why they could think that.

[Michael Devlin]

There is a big difference between the technology for capture in a camera versus the technology for transmission (HDTV). The demands for capture are much higher if you are going to do any kind of post processing and leverage the rapidly advancing technology in modern NLE's. If you are going to do any kind of multi-generational post processing (say a slow motion effect, a stabilization effect, a slight zoom effect, some dissolves and color correction -- and that is not even getting into chroma keying, wire removal, and really fancy FX) then you need much better image capture than the low performance cameras you reference. My limited experience has been that you need every bit of performance out of the camera you can get (4K (4:4:4) 60P 16 bit would be wonderful, but not likely available soon).

[Wayne Morellini]

I am more talking about the quality of HDTV transmission being so bad that it is crawling with every sort of codec noise, that most of the audience won't notice much of a difference if the XDCAM HD shot 9Mb/s Mpeg4 instead, properly transcoded to HDTV. Of course we will notice a stack of difference if we play both directly to monitors, or through a better transmission model, like on HD disk. The silly irony is, that I was pointing out, that with the state of the HD transmissions, even a cheap codec might keep up, which means the industry should look at improving transmissions.

Over here, we could quiet easily do 36Mb/s, even maybe 50Mb/s channels, that should produce a reasonably clean image. In matter of fact, that is he sot of thing Bluray needs to do so their disks look sufficiently better than transmissions for the rental/purchase markets. I hope they have enough clarity to go to h264 eventually at 50Mb/s, that should produce a descent 200inch large screen difference, and 100Mb/s for their SHD ambitions. The PS3 has enough power to do this sot of thing, and before too long so will new PC's (see my other posts on GPU improvements and clearspeed).

Once again this is not having a go at XDCAM HD, I believe it is every good progressive format for the industry to have, over HDV, and well worth a professionals attention. But the irony is, we may yet see a few people running around with Mpeg4 9Mb/s codec quality cameras doing their own little documentaries for HDTV. I personally think that some people examining the Sanyo are getting too worked up over it's potential, and over it's failings. I am, personally, waiting to see what the 15Mb/s+ H264 cameras will do compared to HDV instead (I haven't gone completely mad ;) .

Have a good night.

[Daniel Epstein]

I think I have heard this point from every format introduced since 1/2 B+W Portapack days on up. The quality of the cameras is almost always specced higher than the the transmission received at the home. Do you really believe that shows shot on 35MM film look like shows shot on PD-150's? Not everything you see at home is based on the specs most people use as measures. Take a look at a VHS tape of a hollywood film compared to some ones home video? If you can't see the difference then the monitor may not be to blame.
I do agree that transmission of HD on my local cable system looks like it has some horrible artifacts which I can't look at without cringing. However that doesn't mean I want to shoot with a format which has those artifacts to begin with. Nor does it mean I can't tell the difference between production choices on the programs I like to watch.
I am pretty sure XDCAM HD at the 35 data rate will have its uses the same way current HDV cameras have their uses at 25 data rate.

[Simon Wyndham]

Everything has a use. The problems only arise when people try to get a piece of equipment do what it was never meant to do.

I think these days one of the biggest issues is that everyone expects perfection, but cannot understand why manufacturers cannot give it to us. There is of course the practise of built in obscelescence. But this isn't an evil plan on behalf of the manufacturers. It is how they stay in business and keep making a living. If they gave everything all at once they wouldn't be able to keep innovating.

Certainly it IS frustrating that we cannot have a 60p 4:4:4 camera at 4k res right away. However such a camera even at 2k has problems. Real problems. Keeping the thing cool for a start. There really isn't the technology at the moment to do this properly in a decently sized camera.

Make the most of what you all have. My opinion on high def at the moment is that it just isn't ready for the level that some cameras are being aimed at. If it was we wouldn't have so much concession of quality.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Daniel Epstein

Do you really believe that shows shot on 35MM film look like shows shot on PD-150's?

No way (normally). I agree. I am not silly enough to suggest that I think that the footage from a HD1 or PD150 respectively matches an XDCAM or 35mm in any other fashion except the level of noise produced by putting them through HDTV filters masks the increased detail advantage.

But that is why I specified, given that both cameras have similar optical performance same optical quality, and it was properly trancoded as to minimise quality loss.

An analogue channel is a good match for 35mm film, apart from optical performance, compared to the PD150, as the PD150 is very lossily compressed, and the channel is uncompressed and can reveal better detail from the 35mm. But an uncompressed camera that perfectly matches the low analogue resolution, and the optical performance and dynamics of the 35mm camera, will look very comparable even though it has a fraction of the resolution, because it maxes out the channel.

I am pretty sure XDCAM HD at the 35 data rate will have its uses the same way current HDV cameras have their uses at 25 data rate.

Exactly, for indie, for custom production, for better HD disk formats, and for better HDTV standards. Given the opportunity and money, there is only one choice for pro quality across the delivery formats, and it's not 9Mb/s Mpeg4, even if it came off of a 35mm sensor. As I would prefer a XDCAM HD, over a, theoretically, similar HDV camera, because it will deliver better on better delivery formats.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Everything has a use. The problems only arise when people try to get a piece of equipment do what it was never meant to do.

Yes, Sanyo is not in any way a replacement for a XDCAM HD but because of the HDTV standards problems, a 9Mb/s Mpeg4 XDCAM HD could possibly suit HDTV work only.

It is how they stay in business and keep making a living. If they gave everything all at once they wouldn't be able to keep innovating.

They wouldn't need to innovate anymore, we just keep coming back when the camera dies, thats how they will keep in business.

Certainly it IS frustrating that we cannot have a 60p 4:4:4 camera at 4k res right away. However such a camera even at 2k has problems. Real problems. Keeping the thing cool for a start. There really isn't the technology at the moment to do this properly in a decently sized camera.

www.red.com (11Mp)
There was a JVC 8Mp one, that is still on the market from another company, for a few years now, based on Mpeg4, I think $10K-$40K (I forget latest pricing) size doesn't look very big. We did a lot of investigation into this stuff in the Digital Cinema camera threads, and we found that this sort of thing is very possible and doable (well at least those of use with engineering knowledge in private back channel correspondence). It required experience, much effort, and significant cash reserves (but nothing compared to major manufacturers). Unfortunately other people had different plans. The few projects that are panning out are, a cheap uncompressed HDSDi recorder, and a professional 720p uncompressed RAW bayer digital cinema camera system (bigger resolutions in development). The XDCAM HD is a toy compared to these, they were aiming more at the top of the line uncompressed HDCAM systems.

But, as a finale word on the subject, I will restate the opinion of somebody I met at the Sony related trade show examining the sample footage, who does local shooting for the international market, probably shoots commercials that go to cinemas as well as TV, XDCAM HD, was not good enough ;).

[Simon Wyndham]

we just keep coming back when the camera dies, thats how they will keep in business.

It wouldn't work quite as easily as that. There will always need to be innovation. But there are also so many other aspects to consider when making a camera. RED will still be out of the price league of the majority on these forums for example. It may be cheapER than the likes of an F900, but it won't be CHEAP. :)

So cameras of certain performance characteristics will always be needed to reach a certain price point. Compromises will always have to be made. I would doubt the abilities of anyone that told me that the format and picture type of these new cameras is holding them back from making anything good.

[Ken Johnes]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

It is how they stay in business and keep making a living. If they gave everything all at once they wouldn't be able to keep innovating..

That's not true at all. Innovation is not like a reservoir that gets empty. If there is innovation it's always there -full if you prefer. Innovation+research=new technology. To give "everything" the customer wants, requires *a lot* of innovation in combination with an excellent marketing policy. They don't give us the "best", because a) their policy is not good enough and b) they don't have enough innovation or they don't appreciate or invest enough on innovation.

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

There really isn't the technology at the moment to do this properly in a decently sized camera.

I disagree, (and I've been designing electronics) but that's what they want us to believe...

For example there could be a company that would target exclusively the "prosumer" market and give them higher level camcorders with a lower cost by selling direct to the customer.

[Simon Wyndham]

Yes, and that research costs money.

I disagree, (and I've been designing electronics) but that's what they want us to believe...

Have you ever looked inside the average 2/3" camera? It isnt a huge empty space in there. The electronics is literally shoe horned into them. On top of this there are the lenses. The lenses, if designed to perform optimally would be much BIGGER than they are at the moment, not smaller. All lenses are a compromise in some way or another. Its the laws of physics and the way things work.

Manufacturers like Sony don't have a policy to give ENG crews back problems. They try everything they can to bring the weight down in each successive camera because they know the issues that heavy equipment brings.

Also, larger ENG style cameras, and film cameras, are designed to last. That means heavier construction, more expensive materials and all the rest of it. They aren't designed for mass market. You can have a light cheaply built camera that won't stand up to the punishment. Or you can have a much better constructed camera with stronger materials and more complex design. That costs more to implement.

I think people tend to take a very narrow minded view when it comes to making things. Because it isn't just the manufacturing costs that have to be taken into account. The teams of people that make these things have to be paid, and we're not just talking about a group of 3 or 4 people here. There are hundreds of people involved from the design, through to R&D, construction, and a whole lot of other stuff.

Lets take Steadicam as another example. These products are low yield. Have you ever tried machining even a simple component for use in such a device? You might say "oh but Cody built his own Steadicam for much less than the real thing". Actually no he didn't. Factor in the cost of all his machining equipment, his machining and construction time, design time, research and development time along with the test models and mockups he would have made etc and you would find the price wouldn't be far off the real Steadicam device. Perhaps even more!

Electronics manufacturers are not miracle workers.