True or False: the EX-1 is true 1920x1080 HD?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Michael Javorka

As I read these responses to my initial question, I find people answering both "yes" and others "no". This seems to me a very straightforward question and I'm receiving confusing replies.

The camera is either producing 1920x1080 native 1080p content or it isn't. I had one person say a resounding yes and the rest are saying..."well... no...because .............

The definitive answer to your question as posed has to be a resounding "yes", since it has 3 1920x1080 chips AND records full raster 1920x1080 24p.

But I think Rob Collins hits the nail on the head when he says "I think what she's saying is technically correct but not meaningful." because resolution is only one facet of "quality" (whatever that is). "Full HD" or "True HD" I believe were originally coined to apply to displays, where the definition has a straightforward meaning - they have to have 3x1920x1080 pixels and be capable of handling a progressive source.

I do have sympathy with the lady you're dealing with - there's an obvious reason for trying to categorise the quality of clips within such a library. But doing it solely on the basis of the recording codec, or even worse on the RESOLUTION of the recording codec is not the way to do it. (That said, what is the answer?!)

Heck, on that basis, any consumer HDV camera (at 1440x1080) would score better than a 2/3" DVCProHD camera (1280x1080) with an expensive HD lens! Yet which do think would look the best to the eye? (Should for the money.)

[Michael Javorka]

I appreciate all the comments here and I will absolutely be cutting and pasting several as quotes into an email to forward to this individual.

Chris (Hurd), I notice you're in San Marcos... just down the highway from me. Please let me know if I can contact you outside the forum. I'd really benefit from bringing these clips and letting you view them and weigh in on what I'm seeing and the results I'm getting.

Thanks to all.

[Michael Totten]

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

Weird...
Where is it written that intraframe makes true HD.

Some people learn just enough to make themselves worse off.

That is the perfect way to describe what I'm constantly up against.
Well put man.

[Mike Marriage]

You may be best to agree with the lady and just move on.

Then next time you work for them, simply supply the clips uncompressed and let them pass judgment by eye.

Just tell them they are full 1080p clips captured by a Cinealta.

[Steve Mullen]

The question you asked "is it 1920x1080" isn't really the issue she is worrying about. She said, " "This format is compressed and is an HDV format, not true 1920 x1080 HD as is all our other HD content.""

What she is saying is that "I don't care if the sensors are 1920x1080 and thus the same resolution as from HDCAM/CineAlta."

She is saying she has two categories of recording: intra-frame 4:2:2 and inter-frame 4:2:0. She correctly says you did not give her intra-frame 4:2:2 video even if your camera has 1920x1080 chips

Your goal should not to debate 1920x1080 since that's not her issue. You need to convince her that XDCAM EX is the same codec as XDCAM HD --- plus --- unlike other XDCAM HD cameras the chips are "Full HD" just like CineAlta/HDCAM. In other words, "better" than XDCAM HD with their only 1440x1080 chips.

And, better than XDCAM HD and HDCAM/CineAlta because the recording is "Full HD" not just the chips.

Try avoid the 4:2:0 verses 4:2:2 issue.

If she insists HDV and XDCAM HD are the SAME -- you are screwed. Of course they are since they are both 4:2:0 MPEG-2. But, that's like saying a dog and cat are the same because they are both mammals. If she doesn't get it by logic, I doubt you'll get very far if you bring up Profiles&Levels, VBR/CBR, and bit rates.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

If she insists HDV and XDCAM HD are the SAME -- you are screwed. Of course they are since they are both 4:2:0 MPEG-2.

Same basic underlying codec maybe, but not the same thing.

If a stock house (or anyone else) wants to distinguish between different types of HD footage, why don't they just specify the recording format, resolution and bit rate for each clip? Using the term 'true HD' to say one type of footage meets some unspecified criteria while others don't is a practice which should stop because it's inaccurate.

[Giroud Francois]

intraframe and interframe has no link with 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
you can have interframe at 4:2:0 (like mpeg2) and intraframe at 4:2:0 (like PAL DV) but all combinations are possible.
simply give them the video in the format that will set it in the right category wherever it comes from.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

intraframe and interframe has no link with 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.
you can have interframe at 4:2:0 (like mpeg2) and intraframe at 4:2:0 (like PAL DV) but all combinations are possible.
simply give them the video in the format that will set it in the right category wherever it comes from.

I think you are missing the point -- big time. She is classifying video based upon the ORIGINAL recording codec. As long as she does this, HDV and XDCAM HD and XDCAM EX are the "same."

You can talk all you want about higher bit-rates the recording by VBR vs CBR -- but she likely is not going to be convinced. Briningg PAL DV in is a red herring.

She seems to be using a different category system: intra-frame 4:2:2 vs inter-frame 4:2:0. It's her library -- she gets to make the rules.

Is she right to do this? No. But she's the buyer.

But, there is a network that only wants camera's with 2/3-inch CCDs. Why do you think Pana pushes chip size and not resolution?

[Giroud Francois]

quote: "She is classifying video based upon the ORIGINAL recording codec"
but if you encode the way you want and tell her that it is the native codec, how would she guess what is your real native codec ?
Admittedly you have to lie but it is for the right cause...

[Alister Chapman]

The lack of understanding about codecs and formats from so called professionals is quite worrying. I hear the same all the time... "we only accept 4:2:2" is a common one, but the very same people happily take HDCAM which is 4:1:1 (some would argue it's actually 3:1:1).

All the common acquisition codecs and formats have strengths and weaknesses. DVCPRO HD throws away a third of the resolution but provides a robust codec at the expense of disk space.
HDCAM heavily sub samples the chroma and has no direct workflow that dosn't involved transcoding into another format or uncompressing/re-compressing for editing, each pass adding artifacts especially as each time you go from 1440 to 1920 and back. However it is reasonably robust.
XDCAM HD is currently only 4:2:0 and quite highly compressed but it does offer a good workflow that dosn't have to involve transcoding. The 4:2:0 colour space is around the same resolution as HDCAM's. 1920 XDCAM EX avoids the issue of 1440-1920 conversion.

You need to go to HDCAM SR or hard disk recording to get 4:2:2 full resolution recording, or wait another couple of months for 50mb XDCAM HD.

If they are worried about the high compression ratio you could shoot at 720P/35mb/s which is much less compressed than 1920.

[Rob Collins]

I may reveal myself as more on the "so-called" side of things with this question, but could an argument be made that any interframe compression results in less than "true 1080p" (or 720 or 480 for that matter) footage since not every frame is actually being recorded by the sensors?

Again, I think it's a meaningless point since no one seems to be able to "break the codec" to differentiate between actual and estimated frames. And I think my EX1 is the greatest thing since my children--often better.

Perhaps an enlightened stock footage house would simply name the camera with which the footage was shot (along with format, of course), and let the buyer decide.

[Michael Maier]

Dub your material to HDCAM and give it to her in HDCAM tapes. She will never be able to tell the difference because she clearly knows nothing about the subject and that will solve your problem. Actually few people would be able to tell the difference anyways. We are talking 1920x1080 4:2:0 versus 1440x1080 3:1:1 .
Yes, it's 35 Mbit/s versus 144 Mbit/s but still way less difference than SD to HD.
Give her what she wants. Better than trying to educate somebody who should know her business better to begin with.

[Mark Kenfield]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's fair for her to classify XDCAM EX footage as XDCAM footage. As good as EX footage is, it's not quite HDCAM quality, at the same time she's not calling it HDV either.

And personally I think that's reasonable. If people are purchasing stock footage they should know exactly what quality and codec that footage is. Defining EX footage as "XDCAM" footage as apposed to "HDCAM" and "HDV" sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[Craig Seeman]

Mark, I'm quoting Michael's original message. Cataloging it as XDCAM is not really the problem. That's accurate.

Calling it HDV is WRONG. 35mbps VBR is not 25mbps CBR (HDV). Saying the format is "compressed" implies others, such as DVCProHD and HDCAM are not compressed. That is WRONG too. There are inter and intra frame codecs but BOTH are compressed. It is TRUE 1920x1080p. Many other "1080 HD" codecs (including XDCAM HD) are actually 1440x1080 at some point. She states "all our other HD content" is 1920x1080. I'll bet she is VERY WRONG about that. If she is stating things as she has below she is MISREPRESENTING her library to buyers.

Someone needs to tell her that. It would be good to come from a customer or potential customer though.

I do think someone selling footage to stock houses has a right to have their material represented ACCURATELY rather than have someone potentially undervalue their work through misidentification.

Originally Posted by Michael Javorka

I'm locked in a debate with my stock footage library. I shot footage recently in HQ mode, 1080 24p. I transferred the clips via the USB provided, didn't touch the original folder, burned it to DVD and sent it off.

The people at the library logged it on their website as "XDCam digital files"
when all of their other clips are labeled, "HD 1080p". When I quizzed her why, her reply was..... "This format is compressed and is an HDV format, not true 1920 x1080 HD as is all our other HD content."

Every spec from Sony about my camera, as well as all the reviews from people like Simon Wyndham, state clearly that not only am I delivering "true 1920x1080 HD, but that if extraordinary steps are taken, it can be delivered in full 4.2.2 color space (which I'm not at the moment).

If they re-wrapped the files via FCP, why couldn't they remain 1920x1080 HD? Did I blow it by simply burning the folder to a DVD? I didn't purchase the camera for anything other than true 1920x1080 HD output. If she's wrong, then it makes a difference in several ways. Please advise me...Thanks!

[Mark Kenfield]

Craig, obviously she is wrong in her assessment of the footage - but so long as the actual footage is listed as "XDCAM digital files" on their website (Michael didn't suggest that it was labelled "HDV" or "less than 1080p" on the website) then I don't think it should be a problem in terms of potential clients being put off by the website's categorization of the footage.

My point is that the woman from the stock agency can be as ignorant as she likes so long as the footage is listed correctly (which it appears to be).