PDA

View Full Version : Can live with 8-bit output



trez
10-14-2010, 01:51 AM
There's been some buzz about AF100 output bit-depth. This seems to be one of the (very few) flaws of this excellent camera. Nothing is perfect. I don't really think it would be much more expensive to support 10-bit output... The 10-bit signal is already there - all the processing prior to encoding (debayering, gamma etc) is performed with wordlength greater than 8-bit). Anyway - we have to live with 8-bit and I accept this. Maybe it's the limitation of the i/o microcontroller functions, maybe just Panasonic strategy. Even if the latter is true, I still appreciate what they do by giving us AF100.

However, one feature that comes to my mind that could be helpful sometimes is dithering of the output signal. I realize that adding dither noise puts too much stress on the codec. But adding proper dither to the HD-SDI signal only (prior to truncation) would be nice. It could help those ugly single-color gradient artifacts (blue sky) that are hard to fix in post.

paulcurtis
10-14-2010, 05:01 AM
8 bits doesn't matter so much if they are the right 8 bits, so hopefully with all the gamma and curve options you can optimise the output in camera first.

As for dithering, isn't that usually best added at the end of the pipeline?

cheers
paul

trez
10-14-2010, 05:26 AM
8 bits doesn't matter so much if they are the right 8 bits, so hopefully with all the gamma and curve options you can optimise the output in camera first.

True. Being able to adjust the camera to make proper use of those 8 bits is of great importance. However, no matter what gamma you set, the single-channel (color) gradients can only consist of up to 256 shades, which is not sufficient for very smooth transitions.


As for dithering, isn't that usually best added at the end of the pipeline?

Yes and no. It should be the last step before truncation (bit-depth reduction). Once the truncation has been performed, there's no way to dither anymore. If the camera was outputting 10 bit (assuming the NLE is using long wordlength internally and there's no reencoding to 8-bit file somewhere within the path) then the best place to add dither would be just before authoring for 8-bit media. However, because the truncation is performed in camera and it outputs 8 bits, the only place to add dither noise is in-camera.

AD Tom
10-14-2010, 06:00 AM
8 bit is definitly not state of the art.

Cheers
Thomas.

James Bridges
10-14-2010, 06:25 AM
There has been quite a bit of talk about 8 vs 10 bit.
I have been shooting with my HDX900 for about 3 years...that is 8 bit. I have had a Nanoflash for about a year, the HDSDI output of the HDX900 is 8 bit. The picture looks amazing. I record the Nano at around 140 Mbps - 180 Mbps for broadcast, Blu-ray, Internet and digital projection.
What/who are you guys shooting for? I am working with high-end agencies and producers and they have had no problems with 8bit, they do not know the difference
anyway. My colorist here in Atlanta has never experienced an issue with 8bit vs. 10bit. They would rather have more Mbps to work with and great exposure.
When it gets to the point that 8bit goes away and I loose work because of that I will adapt and adapt quickly.
Do not get bogged down with the numbers game. If you are working, making money with your rig, you will have this paid off in a few months, then it is off to the next camera.
Just my 2 cents.
James Bridges

trez
10-14-2010, 07:22 AM
I agree bitrate and color space are more important than bitdepth. However, now that we have uncompressed 4:2:2 output, the only thing we can complain about is bitdepth :) I thought we would complain about lack of 1080p60 recording, moire and rolling shutter, but all those things seem to have been addressed... Hard times for us, grumblers.

BowiesInSpace
10-14-2010, 09:50 AM
Sorry guys, I'm still confused on one major topic.

With the 8bit, 4:2:2 hd-sdi output, or hdmi output, if I'm recording to a ninja or ki-pro, am I still recording true 100mbps footage over the AF's 24mbps? Or does the 8bit output prevent me from recording to a truly higher bitrate?

Just trying to differentiate what's real and what's not. It's like the matrix without super powers...

...Nevermind. I forgot Jan and Barry were here.

p.s. what are the bit depth, bit rate, and color space coming out of the 5D/7D through the HDMI output?

TheReverend
10-14-2010, 09:57 AM
Sorry guys, I'm still confused on one major topic.

With the 8bit, 4:2:2 hd-sdi output, or hdmi output, if I'm recording to a ninja or ki-pro, am I still recording true 100mbps footage over the AF's 24mbps? Or does the 8bit output prevent me from recording to a truly higher bitrate?

Just trying to differentiate what's real and what's not. It's like the matrix without super powers...

...Nevermind. I forgot Jan and Barry were here.

p.s. what are the bit depth, bit rate, and color space coming out of the 5D/7D through the HDMI output?
The bit rate (mbps) is NOT affected nor affects the HDSDI output. HDSDI is an uncompressed digital full resolution YUV 4:2:2 8bit signal. You can record to any HDSDI recording device to any codec/bitrate/uncompressed that the device is capable of. So HDSDI out is almost like pulling image straight off the sensor.

The 5D and 7D don't have full resolution output from their HDMI ports. Nuff said.

Barry_Green
10-14-2010, 10:12 AM
8 bit is definitly not state of the art.
At this price point, it certainly is. Can you name any camera at this price point that offers anything higher than 8-bit?

Of course we'd all love 10-bit, but sometimes you have to recognize pricing reality too. All JVCs are 8-bit. All Canons are 8-bit. The least-expensive Panasonic that's 10-bit is the $8500-ish HPX370. The EX1R is the cheapest Sony that's 10-bit, and it's $6300, which is a third more expensive, and has a chip that's 1/6th the size of the AF100.

So 8-bit is definitely not the highest technology in existence, but it is the standard at this price point.

Barry_Green
10-14-2010, 10:15 AM
With the 8bit, 4:2:2 hd-sdi output, or hdmi output, if I'm recording to a ninja or ki-pro, am I still recording true 100mbps footage over the AF's 24mbps?
Yes.


Or does the 8bit output prevent me from recording to a truly higher bitrate?
No, it doesn't limit anything, it just doesn't take full advantage of what the codec could potentially deliver. But it still lets you take advantage of 4:2:2 and the higher bitrates that those external recorders deliver.


p.s. what are the bit depth, bit rate, and color space coming out of the 5D/7D through the HDMI output?
8-bit, don't know if it's 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, but it doesn't really matter because it's not recordable as a practical matter.

toke lahti
10-18-2010, 04:35 PM
Can you name any camera at this price point that offers anything higher than 8-bit?
...
The EX1R is the cheapest Sony that's 10-bit, and it's $6300, which is a third more expensive, and has a chip that's 1/6th the size of the AF100.
EX1 has 14x zoom. How much AF100 will be with 14x zoom?
Also EX1 is now 3 years old model. Should there be any advancements in 3 years?
How frustrating; it took 3 years for Panny to introduce a model in this price range with bigger than 1/3" sensors to answer Sony.


For me, Panny seems to be able to flush down the wow-effect on their new models.
How much more would AF100 cost to make if it would offer real 10-bit sdi?
Nothing?
Just to protect higher models?
Why not offer avc-intra in AF100?
Just to protect what?
1/3" + avc-intra or 4/3" + too compressed 4:2:0?
Why not best of both?

If Scarlet would be out, I wouldn't even think about AF100.
But since it's not...

Anyway, the success of AF100 depends on lenses, like with every pro camera...

Yves Simard
10-18-2010, 04:52 PM
Yes.


No, it doesn't limit anything, it just doesn't take full advantage of what the codec could potentially deliver. But it still lets you take advantage of 4:2:2 and the higher bitrates that those external recorders deliver.


8-bit, don't know if it's 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, but it doesn't really matter because it's not recordable as a practical matter.


We were told it was 4:2:0 on board and 4:2:2 out the HDSDI pipe.

Barry_Green
10-18-2010, 05:11 PM
EX1 has 14x zoom. How much AF100 will be with 14x zoom?
With a 10x zoom, it'll be about 5600. There isn't a 14x zoom.


Also EX1 is now 3 years old model. Should there be any advancements in 3 years?
You tell me. The EX1R is their newest model, and ... I don't see massive advancements in it. It's hardly 3 years old, the EX1R is less than a year old.


How frustrating; it took 3 years for Panny to introduce a model in this price range with bigger than 1/3" sensors to answer Sony.
Well, to be fair, it's in a price bracket of about $1700 less than the Sony, which could be considered a complete price bracket below the Sony. And, hey, Sony still hasn't countered Panasonic's intraframe codec that was released five years ago, so...



How much more would AF100 cost to make if it would offer real 10-bit sdi?
Nothing?
Well, actually, according to Panasonic themselves, it would involve a substantial retooling and would probably add $2,000 to $4,000 to the cost.


Just to protect higher models?
What higher model do you think they're protecting?


Why not offer avc-intra in AF100?
Just to protect what?
I don't know, you tell me -- what else is there, that they charge more for, that has a large chip and AVC-Intra?

Why look for conspiracy theories, instead of just listening to what the manufacturer says. They said they wanted to deliver this at the lowest price they could, and that if they'd made it P2/AVC-Intra it would have added substantially to the cost. And while there are those of us (like me) who would pay it, I would bet that 90% of the customer base won't. Sure, they'll whine about it, they'll demand it, etc, but when the wallet hits the road, they won't actually pay for it. Look at the furor that was caused over the HPX170 not being NTSC/PAL switchable... Panasonic implemented a factory upgrade program to allow it. Do you know how many people actually spent the $500 to get switchability? I would say very, very, very few. DVXUser is far and away the largest community of HPX users, and I think in the last three years that the HPX170 has been on the market, we've heard of ONE person who did it.


1/3" + avc-intra or 4/3" + too compressed 4:2:0?
Why not best of both?
Price tag. That's why.

Homunculus
10-18-2010, 05:18 PM
man I love reading Barry's ownages. lol

Yves Simard
10-18-2010, 05:19 PM
Good points Barry thanks

In our internal discussions we wondered if they would consider issuing a pro-version with P2 Cards and higher codecs. I think you are right, pros would pay more for higher end options but I guess it would only matter once that sensor is fully tested and we see some more real world footage. Better yet they might want to see what the demand is after the release.

Barry_Green
10-18-2010, 05:33 PM
I think they've heard the clamor for the P2/AVC-Intra version so much their ears have to be bleeding. Clearly they have to be considering it. It just remains to be seen if people will actually buy it, or if they'll consider the additional cost to be worth it. When you see people asking "why should I pay more for an AF100 than I should for a consumer stills camera", then you start to understand their point. What is the real market? Where are people really, really at? The AF100 ostensibly hits both the low-price and the higher-quality guy, by having that SDI and HDMI port on there and an option of something like a $180 Intensity Shuttle, $795 Ninja, $2,000 Ki Pro Mini, or $2895 NanoFlash. If someone would truly pay $3,000 more for a P2/AVC-Intra version, would they consider getting an AF100 and just adding a Nano or Ki Pro Mini?

Also, the AF100 isn't exactly the last camera they'll ever produce. If the demand is there, they can make other versions. Shoulder-mount? P2? Full-size Varicam II with large sensor? Who knows where it will go?

Only thing we know for sure is that the AF100 is what it is, it's the path they've chosen to take at this time, and for those of us who demand more, there are options out there to get it for us.

Michael Olsen
10-18-2010, 08:03 PM
If someone would truly pay $3,000 more for a P2/AVC-Intra version, would they consider getting an AF100 and just adding a Nano or Ki Pro Mini?

The only thing that makes me wonder about this is whether or not people who have heavily invested in the relatively expensive P2 system would buy into another storage system so readily. I feel like if Panasonic were to announce a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 version of this camera at $8-10K close to the release of the AF-100, they'd really have their bases covered.

Steve Kahn
10-18-2010, 08:11 PM
I feel like if Panasonic were to announce a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 version of this camera at $8-10K close to the release of the AF-100.
I would buy one of these.

If I knew the model you have suggested will be released six months from now I would probably wait for it (and do work on rented gear until the 10bit P2 camera comes to market).

It really would be useful knowledge to know if and when a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 AF100 is coming to market or even on the drawing board.

Jesse Brauning
10-18-2010, 08:53 PM
You can always buy the AF100 now, and then upgrade later.

Justyn
10-18-2010, 08:54 PM
And to some like me, I'd simply HATE to have to lug around the most ergonomically horrible camera like the EX1, and frankly, most of sony's camcorders. There's so much more to having a camera that you like, and functionality means a lot. Shooting handheld with the EX1 was a nightmare and the layout of it's controls and fucntionality leaves so much to be desire.... not to mention, still doesn't have the Panny mojo.

Personally I wouldn't take the EX1 over the 150 that I bought regardless of it's price. I think it's been built by engineers and not filmmakers cause its just not a good all around camera. If it lives on sticks or a dolly then maybe, but for what I do sometimes, it's abysmal.

Justyn
10-18-2010, 08:57 PM
I also don't know of the moaning that people want to have on this camera or any other. As Barry has said, buy what's best at the time you need it, learn how to use it and love it. Don't have buyers remorse when something better comes out... just do with what you got. Conjecture over the Scarlet is also kind of masterbatory cause it's been given no indication that it'll ship this year or anytime soon. Frankly, I think they have some big issues even securing the right developer.. Sure, I'd love to get one if it's a reality but till then let's just wait and see otherwise it will be like that cineporter that didn't come out and how many people waited for that thing when they could have gotten a P2store like I did and made it through a couple of years of limited P2 cards...

Steve Kahn
10-18-2010, 09:01 PM
You can always buy the AF100 now, and then upgrade later.

True, but it would be nice to know what's coming down the pipeline and when if only to better budget things.

Yves Simard
10-18-2010, 09:27 PM
You really hit the nail on the head Barry, this is really just the tip of the iceberg. I know Pana doesn't want us to call it a DSLR but in fact that is what the look is emulating. I appreciate the technology is different but if this is what the market is really after, this is in my opinion is the turning of the tides in that sort of technology. Peter Parnham said it was just a weather forecast but if the market responds well in the pro end of the market it really could rain on the DSLR picnic. So its great to see a product on the market that does respond to the needs of the professional. Canon are still churning them out so I doubt we will see an AF-100 equivalent, if ever.

I agree with you about the codecs which is why we absolutely wanted to test that HDSDI output. To my mind, this unit is cost effective enough to service multiple markets. Doing a corporate? AVCHD is fine.. still get that look and no fuss. Doing a commercial or short film? No stress, get better lenses and an the off-board of your choice. We just used the Panasonic as it was on offer and was pivotal in our assessment. You are right.. you can use anything you want. So I think people are getting a bit up at arms over nothing, this is good value for money compared to what I have spent over the years for cameras and glass.

Also, just to note. The DSLRs are bound to always have their place, they have a look and a style all their own and if codecs aren't an issue.. or audio inputs.. or video outputs.. or a viewfinder.. or a filter wheel.. or a built in waveform.. which what can I say, is a lot of people.. especially enthusiasts then the AF is not for them. To us, the AF solves a lot of problems and slots in perfectly with work-flows and accessories already in place in our day to day work.

Jim Brennan
10-18-2010, 09:43 PM
:) I thought we would complain about lack of 1080p60 recording, moire and rolling shutter, but all those things seem to have been addressed... Hard times for us, grumblers.

Very true, and happily so. :beer:


The only thing that makes me wonder about this is whether or not people who have heavily invested in the relatively expensive P2 system would buy into another storage system so readily. I feel like if Panasonic were to announce a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 version of this camera at $8-10K close to the release of the AF-100, they'd really have their bases covered.

This is the only thing that I am struggling with. With the money I have spent recently on P2 workflow hardware, I would love to be able to apply that to the AF100. 8 Bit, 4:2:0 doesn't scare me based on the reports I have heard here. But investing in new workflow assets (cards and reader) is something I would prefer not to do, especially since I will continue to use my P2 cameras.

Barry_Green
10-18-2010, 09:49 PM
The HPG20 could be used to turn the AF100 into a P2 camera.

The nice thing about the investment in cards and readers for AVCCAM is ... it doesn't cost anything (to speak of). Many new computers have SDHC card slots built in, and you can buy an SDHC USB reader for $10. And the SDHC cards are comparatively very inexpensive, so even if you do need to buy new stuff, it's really not a big investment.

Sumfun
10-18-2010, 11:36 PM
The EX1R is the cheapest Sony that's 10-bit, and it's $6300, which is a third more expensive, and has a chip that's 1/6th the size of the AF100.

So 8-bit is definitely not the highest technology in existence, but it is the standard at this price point.

To be fair, the EX1R does include an f/1.9 14x zoom lens with autofocus and servo zoom. To get lenses for the AF100 that cover the same range (even without autofocus or servo zoom) would run the price well over $6300. And although the EX1R's sensor is 1/6 the size, there are 3 of them.

But to get back to the 8-bit issue: I think it would be difficult to tell the difference between 8-bits and 10-bits. If anybody feels they need 10-bits, then just wait for the AVC-Intra version and pay $5k more.


The nice thing about the investment in cards and readers for AVCCAM is ... it doesn't cost anything (to speak of). Many new computers have SDHC card slots built in, and you can buy an SDHC USB reader for $10. And the SDHC cards are comparatively very inexpensive, so even if you do need to buy new stuff, it's really not a big investment.

And wouldn't it be nice if Panasonic would let us record AVC-Intra to SDXC cards instead of their cash cow P2 cards? :beer:

Wilbur Eddings
10-18-2010, 11:53 PM
A Dumb question:

Could someone give me the crayon on paper version of 8bit vs 10bit? What are the advantages of that 2 Bit difference?

The only real question I ask about any camera I use is: "Will it look cool on Digital big Screen (Blown up I mean) and Blu Ray DVD?"

Thanks in advance.

jdv
10-19-2010, 01:19 AM
I have one test, and one test only: Does it look good enough to sell to a distributor/TV network?

If the answer is yes, many other technical flaws or limitations will be forgiven. Only natural, as there is no perfect camera, or perfect format. All remain tools for the artist (us) to use as they best can.

The footage of that model sitting in front of a window was stunning. Absolutely stunning. Simply put, I was shocked. The ease of use/pro features only add to my interest in this camera.

That said, I've seen stunning footage from the Canon and Nikon and Panny DSLRs. I bought the Mark II and the T2 based on footage I saw and the fact that it was the best bang for the buck. All are potential tools for us.

I will likely buy at least one AF-100 camera for the same reason - it can produce amazing footage for a price that is more than reasonable. I literally could give 2 F*@#s about anything else.

Do I need it? No. Do I want it, more as I see more footage? Heck yes.

It may just the most exciting pure video camera to come along since the original DVX1000 (which made me give up shooting on film once and for all, based only on seeing the movie THE LAST BROADCAST one time - the DVX was that special). It may actually be what many hoped that the RED line promised it would (and could still) be - an affordable, totally professionally imaging device.

Which is sweet.

Barry_Green
10-19-2010, 10:34 AM
And wouldn't it be nice if Panasonic would let us record AVC-Intra to SDXC cards instead of their cash cow P2 cards? :beer:
Yes, that would be nice. But it's not gonna happen, because that "cash cow" is there for ultimate reliability, ejection-proof, indestructible recording. It's not about capacity or speed, it's about bulletproof indestructible reliability.

But I'm with you, I've lobbied repeatedly to have them record AVC-Intra on SDXC, and AVCCAM onto P2.

Barry_Green
10-19-2010, 10:37 AM
Could someone give me the crayon on paper version of 8bit vs 10bit? What are the advantages of that 2 Bit difference?
8-bit provides for 256 shades of gray between black and white. 10-bit provides for 1024 shades. It means finer gradients, finer gradations. Where it comes into play is when you do serious pushing/pulling of the footage in post, and you can also occasionally see some "banding" on a monotone blue sky, or a light blaring onto a flat wall. 10-bit is quite a bit nicer, but the world standard right now is 8-bit, basically all HD video formats out there (other than AVC-Intra) are 8-bit.


The only real question I ask about any camera I use is: "Will it look cool on Digital big Screen (Blown up I mean) and Blu Ray DVD?"
Blu Ray is 8-bit, so yeah, you're not going to have any problem with that. And if you've seen any footage from DVCPRO-HD, HDCAM, HDV, AVCHD, XDCAM-HD, XDCAM-EX, or XDCAM-MPEG422 on a digital big screen and liked it, then you have your answer.

Barry_Green
10-19-2010, 10:39 AM
I have one test, and one test only: Does it look good enough to sell to a distributor/TV network?
If you're talking about 8-bit? The answer is obviously yes. DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM are both accepted for unlimited acquisition, editing, and mastering by the BBC and Discovery HD, and they're both 8-bit formats. And Sony's new top-end XDCAM format, 50mbps MPEG422, is 8-bit.


It may just the most exciting pure video camera to come along since the original DVX1000 (which made me give up shooting on film once and for all, based only on seeing the movie THE LAST BROADCAST one time - the DVX was that special). It may actually be what many hoped that the RED line promised it would (and could still) be - an affordable, totally professionally imaging device.
I totally agree. The AF100, to me, feels like the buzz of the original DVX100 all over again. It fills in (for many people) the last missing piece.

gustavo_viral
10-19-2010, 12:08 PM
Phillip Bloom just posted on twitter that the only thing that let him down so far was the 24mb thing...

Personally, i dont think this a big deal.

Sorry about my english. Its not my mother language.

Petros Kolyvas
10-19-2010, 12:18 PM
We were shooting some B-roll with an HVX-200 last year; we were in the bush and it was a close up of some very detailed tall grass blowing in the wind. DVCProHD let me down there and it's somewhere in the ballpark of 70mbs (as far as I know) in 720p24N. Bitrate doesn't mean as much as we'd like it to sometimes. Though I'm sure if anyone can find a way to stress it, Mr. Bloom can.

In fact, I'm looking forward to 24Mbps since it will be nice to need much less space to archive "raw" footage - especially since I do a ton of talking-heads work and there's no way I'll be stressing the codec in those cases.

toke lahti
10-25-2010, 03:04 AM
10-bit is quite a bit nicer, but the world standard right now is 8-bit, basically all HD video formats out there (other than AVC-Intra) are 8-bit.
Excluding hdcamSR, D5HD, all raw-format cameras and all cameras that have 10-bit hdsdi-output...



Blu Ray is 8-bit, so yeah, you're not going to have any problem with that. And if you've seen any footage from DVCPRO-HD, HDCAM, HDV, AVCHD, XDCAM-HD, XDCAM-EX, or XDCAM-MPEG422 on a digital big screen and liked it, then you have your answer.
When I started in video business (1995), miniDV(Cam) was new and everybody was talking about that the next step would be go up to digibeta quality which means 10-bits.
We are still waiting for that step.
Color Grading is technically usually just dropping tones or bits away.
Last millenium when I first saw how good grader tweaked digibeta in daVinci and then did same for dv, the difference was clear.
If you drop 3 bits from 10-bit and output it to bd, picture looks pretty good.
If you output only 5 bits to bd, it does not look good.

toke lahti
10-25-2010, 03:12 AM
I feel like if Panasonic were to announce a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 version of this camera at $8-10K close to the release of the AF-100, they'd really have their bases covered.
I thought my base was covered when I bought original HVX.
Next year when new model with better sensors was released, the value of my camera dropped like a bomb.
Now I'm watching AF100 much more catiously.
If there would be AF101/AF200 next year with avc-i with only little price bumb, then it's same thing again...

toke lahti
10-25-2010, 03:19 AM
The EX1R is their newest model, and ... I don't see massive advancements in it. It's hardly 3 years old, the EX1R is less than a year old.
I was comparing to original EX1.
How is it possible that Sony made this camera over 3 years ago with its price range and it still had 10-bit hsdsi-out?

toke lahti
10-25-2010, 03:37 AM
Yes, that would be nice. But it's not gonna happen, because that "cash cow" is there for ultimate reliability, ejection-proof, indestructible recording. It's not about capacity or speed, it's about bulletproof indestructible reliability.
User should be able to choose how much of this "reliability" is needed.
How do they survive with Reds and Alexas without P2? Or Leica S2?
Why SxS seems to be "reliable" enough?

I think Panny shouldn't lock people out of P2 with price, it would be better business idea to bring P2 also to cheap cameras and offer adaptors to sdxc or cf.
That way more people could try P2 and eventually sales would improve and prices go down because of mass adoption.
People would of course choose P2's reliability over price if they would have the option, right?

hjulenissen
10-25-2010, 06:11 AM
8-bit provides for 256 shades of gray between black and white. 10-bit provides for 1024 shades. It means finer gradients, finer gradations. Where it comes into play is when you do serious pushing/pulling of the footage in post, and you can also occasionally see some "banding" on a monotone blue sky, or a light blaring onto a flat wall. 10-bit is quite a bit nicer, but the world standard right now is 8-bit, basically all HD video formats out there (other than AVC-Intra) are 8-bit.

Blu Ray is 8-bit, so yeah, you're not going to have any problem with that. And if you've seen any footage from DVCPRO-HD, HDCAM, HDV, AVCHD, XDCAM-HD, XDCAM-EX, or XDCAM-MPEG422 on a digital big screen and liked it, then you have your answer.
For DSLR, you have 14-bit raw files, but those are 14 bit linear. Most DSLR sensors have problems filling those 14 bits with true information. According to Poynton, 14-bit linear is enough for banding-free rendition of the contrast that humans can perceive "at a given level of adaptation" (100:1). Using gamma, this number can be decreased without perceptual loss to 9 bits. 8 bits is the broadcast standard where a compromise 50:1 contrast is assumed.
http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/GammaFAQ.pdf

I have little pro video knowledge, but I find it difficult to understand this focus on 4:4:4/4:2:2, 10bit, Intra-coding and high bitrates. Is this because you commonly do very heavy image editing? Green-screen? Do you know for a fact that the sensor/image-pipeline is even capable of producing this information? In any cost-limited design (i.e. any design), one would scale sensor quality to dsp precision to encoding... in such a way that good quality is achieved without wasting any $ or quality anywhere. Simply increasing the storage specs may not give the quality increase one would hope for, at least not in a well-balanced design.

-h