DVCPro HD good for Aquisistion, But not Post?

[PappasArts]

The DVCPRO HD codec compresses data using a variant of DCT , also known by many as ( discrete cosine transform) algorithm. While fine for the acquisition stage, it's not in the more complex post production environment.

What choices do we have to get the footage away from DVCproHD once it's acquired? This will be questions many will ask. This is going to be an important element when building your HD workflow for your studio and those of us that are doing more visually complex post production work.

For those that want to go to large screen projection. DCT artifacts start to look bad quite quickly. Worse looking on digital projection systems. Since the industry is going to bank roll the HD projector technology for up to 3,000 projectors in the USA, this is something to consider for those artists that are also concerned about the highest standard of quality possible from their hard work on a large screen system....


PS: Here is a short article I wrote on the JVC GY-HD100u and AG-HVX-200

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/pappasarts_entertainment_


Michael Pappas
PappasArts Entertainment
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS
PappasArts@hotmail.com

[ChuckS]

You are correct, the DVCProHD is not a good solution in post production. Its an 8bit codec that looks good on smaller flat panel displays but doesn't hold up on anything much above a 40 inch display.

Fortunately there is a solution, and a good solution at that, Cineform HD Codecs. They are 10bit and will work with SD, HD and HDV. They are working on many of the workflow issues related to transitioning to HD.

http://www.cineform.com/

[D_and_G]

The DVCPRO HD codec compresses data using a variant of DCT , also known by many as ( discrete cosine transform) algorithm. While fine for the acquisition stage, it's not in the more complex post production environment.

What choices do we have to get the footage away from DVCproHD once it's acquired? This will be questions many will ask. This is going to be an important element when building your HD workflow for your studio and those of us that are doing more visually complex post production work.

For those that want to go to large screen projection. DCT artifacts start to look bad quite quickly. Worse looking on digital projection systems. Since the industry is going to bank roll the HD projector technology for up to 3,000 projectors in the USA, this is something to consider for those artists that are also concerned about the highest standard of quality possible from their hard work on a large screen system....


PS: Here is a short article I wrote on the JVC GY-HD100u and AG-HVX-200

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/pappasarts_entertainment_


Michael Pappas
PappasArts Entertainment
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS
PappasArts@hotmail.com
I'm trying to decipher this new HD workflow.
So what would be your recommendation, in the same price arena, if one were going out to the big screen, film or digital projectors ?

[NoahK]

The DVCPROHD codec is actually quite well suited for post-production as a 100-Mbps format. Especially compared to the far-more compressed, 25-Mbps MPEG-2 based HDV codec. As far as HD formats go- it's a solid compromise between perfomance and quality very similar to how DV works for SD.

If you need more quality- such as for major color correction, compositing or filter work, you'll of course see an improvement by moving into an uncompressed 10-bit or higher bitrate 8-bit codec. The cost is of course there, more hardware like a Kona card and RAID to handle the increased bandwidth and storage. DVCPROHD is a great starting place for HD, not the be all and end all but a solid foundation for cost-effective high quality HD post. You need more, you budget for it.

Noah

[thisiswells]

Every couple years it seems somebody offers a rebranded version of Wavelet.
Anyone remember Play Inc. ?
What about Applied Magic?

They're just not all that common and while I applaud the enterprising folks at Cineform for
recognising an opportunity and taking it, I agree that DVCPRO-HD will be a fine editing codec
and that for serious work uncompressed is the only serious option.

Transcoding from one compressed format to another doesn't make any sense. Even they say
compressing/recompressing multiple times isn't the best idea. Well, that is exactly what you do
when you convert to Cineform Wavelet, do your edit, then convert back to DVCPRO-HD for tape.

The only way to avoid that scenario while working in another format, as Noah mentioned, is
completely uncompressed HD, which has a bandwidth requirement of around 1.5Gbps
which is 15 times that of DVCPRO-HD. So, obviously the system requirements to handle
that are through the roof at that point and forget about editing on a laptop.

My .02

brian wells

[PappasArts]

I was talking about those that are doing HD Post work like blue screen, model photography, roto etc etc. Where your working on material that is blown up on your computer screen 700% in post. I should have stated that. I'm sorry guy's

One area though is big screen work, that should be in an uncompressed environment. If your doing edits and simple one time pass dissolves, not a problem with most DVCproHD work, but with DCT, the more you re-compress the worse it gets very fast. I've worked with and it gets ugly quick, if not handled right with multi pass work. But then you don't do multi pass work in DVCPRO HD. People around me use Kona/Black magic solutions for their work. I know some people that use CineForm too!

Here is a Cineform test I find very interesting in regards to DVCproHD.I should say I don't use Cineform since I use FCP, but their tests were cool.

Be sure to click on the original size blowups of the frame.

Link to test:
http://www.cineform.com/technology/HDQualityAnalysis10bit/HDQualityAnalysis10bit.htm









Every couple years it seems somebody offers a rebranded version of Wavelet.
Anyone remember Play Inc. ?
What about Applied Magic?

They're just not all that common and while I applaud the enterprising folks at Cineform for
recognising an opportunity and taking it, I agree that DVCPRO-HD will be a fine editing codec
and that for serious work uncompressed is the only serious option.

Transcoding from one compressed format to another doesn't make any sense. Even they say
compressing/recompressing multiple times isn't the best idea. Well, that is exactly what you do
when you convert to Cineform Wavelet, do your edit, then convert back to DVCPRO-HD for tape.

The only way to avoid that scenario while working in another format, as Noah mentioned, is
completely uncompressed HD, which has a bandwidth requirement of around 1.5Gbps
which is 15 times that of DVCPRO-HD. So, obviously the system requirements to handle
that are through the roof at that point and forget about editing on a laptop.

My .02

brian wells

[Knock Out Films]

I'm a bit confused. As I understand it, the DVCProHD is the same as shooting with the VariCam and then capturing at the DCVProHD codec using FCP. This is still not a great signal? If you shot with the 200 could you capture at a higher codec, essentially upresing on capture? Does this allow more "work" to be done to the image. Does this upresing at capture affect the original quality. How would you up res? since the data is on a P2 card and not being captured thru FW or Component? This may sound a bit Newbie. I have tonnes of experience with DV & FCP, but am just starting to get around HD & FCP. I understand that the DVCProHD can cut on normal drives, but I thought maybe I would go to a raid and extra card just to be safe.

Thanks,
Chris

[ettubaby]

I was talking about those that are doing HD Post work like blue screen, model photography, roto etc etc. Where your working on material that is blown up on your computer screen 700% in post. I should have stated that. I'm sorry guy's


DV uses DCT, alot video codecs use DCTs. Blowing up anything digital 700% is going to look bad... don't render till its necessary, the alternative are expensive

[Barry_Green]

Here is a Cineform test I find very interesting in regards to DVCproHD.I should say I don't use Cineform since I use FCP, but their tests were cool.

Be sure to click on the original size blowups of the frame.

Link to test:
http://www.cineform.com/technology/HDQualityAnalysis10bit/HDQualityAnalysis10bit.htm
Yes, but with all due respect to CineForm, that test is full of crap.

It's faulty from the very first premise. They're taking extreme advantage of the undersampling premise of the codec. They take the 1280 and stretch it to 1920 and then squash it to 1280 and then stretch it to 1920 and squash it to 1280 and then stretch it to 1920 and then squash it to 1280... who does that? Who, anywhere, under any circumstances, would do that? I'll probably stop short of calling the test dishonest, but I will say that it is a completely un-representative way of how anyone is likely to ever work with the codec.

Now, Michael, I have a question for you -- why is it that whenever you post these multiple-board red-flag posts, they're always somehow negative towards the Panasonic solution? Just noticing. I don't think you've ever gone across multiple boards saying "JVC 60P a useless feature because it can't be recorded" or "HDV isn't 'real' HD" or "JVC can't record 60p, good for studio but not for recording" or "Sony CineFrame 24 a ridiculous fraud" or "HDV no good for chroma keying" or something like that... always it's something that seems designed to cause doubt in a potential Panasonic customer's mind. Is that what you're trying to do?

[Anders Holck]

I'm a bit confused. ... This is still not a great signal?

Well. The confusing part here is the topic.
What it tries to state is that while DVCPRO HD might be good for acquisition, it's not a codec you would use for intermediate renders.

Not that the quality of the media you acquired will not hold out in post, because it will (although HDCAM SR or D5 would be better, but thats a whole other league)

For example if you use after effects to pull a key and get 3d gfx from another artist and composite and do colorcorrection in FCP, you would be better off to do the intermediate renders in a better codec.

If you do all the stuff inside your editing software in one pass and end up on DVCPRO HD tape there is no reason to use another codec.

And of cause if you are doing film out you will be better off to render to an uncompressed codec for the final render to an intermediate file.

If you choose to render to uncompressed, the file will be very big and here the visually lossless codecs have their pace.

But for 99.9% of the potential HVX200 users, they don't need to care about the cineform codec, because they gain nothing from it and will just be slowed by the transcoding...

[Knock Out Films]

My next feature film will be the Varicam or the 200 if the stars align with my production dates.

I see us doing some basic colour work, a few shots with simple compositing. i.e reflection of Helicopter in window, and some heavy fx work in several shots but very short time frames i.e. only a few frames at a pop.

Would I be able to put the various fx stuff on a higher codec timeline? Would this regquire an imediate render of the base clip, or can I "capture" (understanding it may be P2 vs tape from the Varicam) thru a Kona using a higher codec? Other than drive space, what is the main issue? or are we talking exponential increase in needed drive space?

I do hope to "need" a film out, based on positive response of the film. I know even with DV, our shop sometimes does lowres cutting, and then re-connect to original DV res, when the projects are very long form doc stuff with massive shoot ratios. I suppose the same could be done with DVCProHD to Uncompressed.

Thanks for the insight.

Chris

[Anders Holck]

The media you get from a DVCPRO HD camera will never get any better regardless what codec you transform it to. (Not that it's not good enough as it is)
So it would not be wise to transform your raw media.

The deal is that if you render anything you will go through another layer of compression, which you can avoid by rendering to an uncompressed codec.
If you want to output to a DVCPRO HD deck you need to end up in that codec anyways.

For your project it would make sense to keep your source material in the native codec (DVCPRO HD) and make all your renders to an uncompressed codec. If the format is 720/24p you are looking at about 55 MB/s in 10 bit uncompressed.

Be aware that DVCPRO HD is subsampled. So when doing gfx, you should avoid cumulative rescalings when juggling your clips around.

All source material is sub-sampled in the camera from 1280x720 to 930x720 and all source material will be 930x720 and horizontally squashed (like 16:9 DV)
So its important to either stick with this size throughout your workflow or upsample only once in the process.

[NoahK]

Yup- this argument doesn't hold much water in my experience. I've talked to plenty of VariCam/1200A users over the past year who are doing great with the DVCPROHD codec in post. And those who obsess over perfection will go up to higher end codecs/more hardware but most do fine as is.

[PappasArts]

Barry not at all. I have made many very good posts with positive praises about the HVX200.

The truth is I have not seen any Valid white paper or published study with evidence to say HDV is bad. Do you have good evidence to say it is?

I think 60P on JVC is not a good thing because it can't be recorded. But I also believe Panasonic could have had the same Lens on their camera that the HD100 is going to have.

Which is worse Barry! Not being able to record 60P or having a fixed lens. I would gather you will say, much better to have a 1/3 fujinon lens on the HVX200 like the HD100.

I'm sure some people on this board would give up 60P on the HVX200 to have a removable lens or maybe even the one that is going to be on the HD100.

Cineframe 24. Who''s talking about that! Why attack Sony, they don't claim the FX1 is professional. You confuse me on that Barry. I thought we were talking about pro cameras not prosumer here.

Panasonic is saying the HVX200 is professional as well JVC about the HD100 not Sony about the FX1.

Here is a link for you to read Barry.

This was my last post before this one, since it speaks millions in my defense. This was posted across the boards. Tell me that's negative against Panasonic.

Let's just say JVC was so not happy with it, I got an email directly from JVC telling me so.

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/pappasarts_entertainment_


By the way Barry, I have said it before on this board more then once. My favorite of the small minidv cameras I owned was the DVX100. I felt it was the best.

michael




k with the codec.

Now, Michael, I have a question for you -- why is it that whenever you post these multiple-board red-flag posts, they're always somehow negative towards the Panasonic solution? Just noticing. I don't think you've ever gone across multiple boards saying "JVC 60P a useless feature because it can't be recorded" or "HDV isn't 'real' HD" or "JVC can't record 60p, good for studio but not for recording" or "Sony CineFrame 24 a ridiculous fraud" or "HDV no good for chroma keying" or something like that... always it's something that seems designed to cause doubt in a potential Panasonic customer's mind. Is that what you're trying to do?

[shaftbond]

I will bet most everyone on this board would give up 60P on the HVX200 to have the lens that is going to be on the HD100.


My 2 cents: I wouldn't.

[JanBee]

Uhm, I don't want to mess this up, but, I can see Pappas point that it is a VALID question to ask if DVCPRO HD is really better that HDV and where the limitations of DVCPRO-HD are.

Does anyone have any links to resources that have good discussions on that?

I personally doubt that a Wavelet single-frame codec with 100 Mbits is definitely and in-any-way better than a 25 Mbit MPEG-2. For very fast, jerky motion; probably. For "normal" shots: could be... uhm... maybe not!

The only thing I know is that the DVCPRO-HD codec is definitely not as good as SONY's HDCAM. But hold it! :-) Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly HAPPY with Panasonics announcement and the prospect of getting a 10K$ cam (with P2 cards) doing HD and will gladly live with DVCPRO-HD. I'm just curious to compare it with HDV!

[Drew599]

There's no way in hell I would trade 60p for a removable lense. The lense that's going to be on the camera I'm sure will kick ass. The 60p function is a big plus for me. It really puts this camera above the rest.

[Barry_Green]

I have made many very good posts with positive praises about the HVX200.
You have indeed. Which is why it's so puzzling to see these firebombs get launched that seem designed to stir up controversy and confusion. Like I say, I just don't understand it.


The truth is I have not seen any Valid white paper or published study with evidence to say HDV is bad. Do you have good evidence to say it is?
Only my firsthand experience with it, which leads me to believe that the central, defining design idea behind it was to get something that could fit on a miniDV tape, regardless of the sacrifices necessary to get it there.

I think HDV is an absolutely amazing accomplishment, for what it is -- high-def recording on a $4 tape. But then again, I think it's absolutely amazing that circus performers can get dogs in tutus to walk on their hind legs and dance. However, if I wanted to see dancing, I'd go watch the ballet, not dogs in a circus ring. And when I want HD, I want *real* HD, not something that was designed around the limitations of a $4 tape.

HDV is amazing, yes. But I am not at all satisfied with the motion artifacting, the color sampling, the MPEG variable-resolution compression issues, the impact of dropouts, etc. I will give the JVC all the benefit of the doubt in the world. I will try it out, maybe even buy one -- but if I do, it would be in spite of the HDV format, not because of it.

HDV is not a bad thing. It is an amazing accomplishment. But the most important element in its design appears to be: do whatever it takes, compromise whatever you need to, just make it fit on that $4 tape. It involves way too many sacrifices, for my (and many other shooters') satisfaction.



Which is worse Barry! Not being able to record 60P or having a fixed lens. I would gather you will say, much better to have a 1/3 fujinon lens on the HVX200 like the HD100.
That's a matter of preference, and we'll let the marketplace decide. I personally think the lack of 60p is a disaster for the JVC. Yes, I did use the word disaster. For a hobbyist who is only going to play at writing the great american novel (oops, I mean, "making the great american movie"), they may never miss it -- but then again, what's a hobbyist doing spending over $6,000 for a camera? That's a used car, for cryin' out loud!

For someone who gets paid to shoot, i.e. a professional, who's the intended market for a professional camera, the lack of ability to shoot 60p is nothing less than a disastrous mistake. It rules out the ability to make images for the prevailing paying market for shooters: news, reality TV, sports coverage, event coverage... the JVC may find a home shooting commercials or infomercials, but I think it will find a very rough road to adoption among those who are hired to shoot for the day -- specifically because they left out this vital capability.


I'm sure some people on this board would give up 60P on the HVX200 to have a removable lens or maybe even the one that is going to be on the HD100.
I think that you're correct -- some people would. Probably three or four of them. I think the other 5,997 members would say "absolutely not" -- 60p, variable frame rates, 4:2:2, 1080 or 720, frame-discrete compression, P2 workflow, plus manual zoom control and precise manual focus without hard stops, vs. losing all that but gaining a manual lens... no, I don't think you'll find too many takers on that proposition. Some, yes. But not too many.


Cineframe 24. Who''s talking about that! Why attack Sony, they don't claim the FX1 is professional. You confuse me on that Barry.
I wasn't bringing Sony into the discussion or trying to attack them, I was just throwing out some sample titles for postings that would be about as controversial, and at least more grounded in fact. I was just thinking up outrageous subjects for possible postings, ones that don't have Panasonic products as the target.

What I was saying was, you've been going across multiple boards raising four-alarm fires about Panasonic issues, but I don't ever see you doing that with other manufacturers products, and I listed a few theoretical examples that could have represented issues that would seem about as relevant but targeted at other manufacturers. They were not legitimate postings, obviously, they were fictional samples to show the type of fear-mongering these posts are engendering.

I'm not saying you're anti-Panasonic. I'm saying I just don't understand this whole thing. Word-for-word identical posts, posted across multiple forums, and almost always they serve to raise doubt as to the practicality of a Panasonic solution.

If you WERE anti-Panasonic, I'd understand it a lot more. But you're clearly not. Which is why I don't get what it's all about.

So let's re-examine this one, and get a direct answer please: why raise a question about DCT as employed in DVCPRO-HD? DCT is used in MPEG-2, so why wasn't your memo about "HDV may be good for shooting, but bad for post?" DCT is used in Digital Betacam, so why wasn't the memo "Digital Betacam good for shooting but bad for post?" DCT is used in DV. It's used in MPEG-IMX, BetaSX, DigiBeta, DVCPRO50... it's used in every digital camera format. So why, please explain, was the memo focused solely on DVCPRO-HD?

[thisiswells]

I personally doubt that a Wavelet single-frame codec with 100 Mbits is definitely and in-any-way better than a 25 Mbit MPEG-2.

Okay, now I'm even confused. What about wavelet? What camera records 100Mbps Wavelet? I don't know of a single one. What camera records 25Mbps MPEG2? I don't know of a single one either. Please explain. And, please--don't embarress yourself--please make certain you have your facts and figures straight because HDV is not a 25Mbps format and DVCPRO-HD is not a Wavelet based format. For your sake, please know what you're saying before saying it because likely it isn't correct.



The only thing I know is that the DVCPRO-HD codec is definitely not as good as SONY's HDCAM.

Yes, if the point of HDCAM is to record twice the luminence than DVCPRO-HD, then yes
it is absolutely technically a better format. You must know that already, though.
An HDCAM 1080i camera and playback deck are priced about double the price of a
Panasonic 1080i camera and playback deck... and you don't need a specialised card
to capture the tape into FinalCutPro since you can do that over firewire with DVCPRO-HD.

Datarate for DVCPRO-HD (720p60 or 1080i60) is 100Mbps
Datarate for HDCAM (1080p30 or 1080i60) is 140Mbps

Considering the HDCAM is twice the price, it doesn't seem like a good value, but it
definitely records more luma information to tape and has a higher datarate. Whether
that is actually useful depends on application of course.

brian wells

[Knock Out Films]

Uhm, I don't want to mess this up, but, I can see Pappas point that it is a VALID question to ask if DVCPRO HD is really better that HDV and where the limitations of DVCPRO-HD are.

Does anyone have any links to resources that have good discussions on that?



I may be new to HD workflow, but this confuses me. Respectfully, doesn't the VariCam use DVCProHD? Isn't the Varicam at least one of the gold standards in the practical day to day HD production world. Would the possible limitations of DVCProHD be completley clear by now?

Please tell me that this discussion is a bunch of god spitirted devils advacocy. I plan to fight for the VariCam in my next project, and although I understand that there are differences between the VariCam and the 200, as I undertsand it, they use the same codec.

BTW - I have been around here for awhile. I couldn't recover my previous username, Flooded318, so I'm not as green as my posts may indicate.

Cheers,
Chris

[thisiswells]

This discussion is as you say...

[Graeme_Nattress]

Digital Betacam uses a 10bit DCT based coded and can easily drop 100 generations without visible degredation. To say that a DCT will rapidly fail is false.

The Cineform "tests" are true in that the cineform codec is good, but they are designed to show DVCproHD in the worst light possible, in that they repeatedly squash and stretch the image from it's native 960x720 to 1280 x 720 (or the 1080 equivalent figures) over and over again, which is just about one of the worst things you can do to the codec.

In my tests with the Pixlet codec, which is the only wavelet based codec I have on hand, show that it's inferior in every aspect to PhotoJPEG.

The solution is, edit DVCProHD as native, and uncompress to either totally uncompressed, or high rate PhotoJPEG if you need to. Both solutions are free, work well and are field proven.

Graeme

[Graeme_Nattress]

Unfortunately, HDCAM is just as bad as DVCProHD, IMHO. It has higher luma rez, lower chroma rez, more pixels, but more data rate. In the end, to say that one is better than the other is to split hairs. The fact is that they're both very heavily compressed and you need to be very careful with both of them in post.

Graeme

[NoahK]

Michael- have you ever shot on a Varicam and edited from a 1200A deck in DVCPROHD? Have you then compared this output to the same edit off an uncompressed system? It would help to establish your credibility on this subject. If not, why sound alarms over something you don't really know about?

[Daniel Moore]

why sound alarms

I thought the whole idea of a message board was to be critical and try and learn as much about a particular solution as possible? If someone is interested enough to learn about this stuff, they would find out that HDV also uses DCT (as I just learned) and all the other nuances of each camcorder.

I don't think there is any reason to judge the intentions of a post. If you don't agree, say so, now is your time to respond and tell why you feel one way or another. If the intention of this topic was indeed to put down Panasonic in one way or another, I think it failed miserably. In fact, I am more understanding and open to the concepts of DVC Pro HD now.

Personally, from what I know, smart codecs (such as MPEG) can be extremely valuable in compressing lots of information into a usable bitrate. DVD is only what? 8 Mbps or so!?!? I've never dealt with HDV or DVCPRO HD, but I am definately not opposed to any codec that can squeeze lots of data into a small size. I feel that if a viable MPEG (or H.267 or whatever) solution comes out that people are satisfied with in terms of artifacts and color space, editing solutions will arise that handle the issues of GOPs and whatnot effectively. (I know that was somewhat offtopic, but thats my opinion)

[kyle_doris]

I'm sure some people on this board would give up 60P on the HVX200 to have a removable lens or maybe even the one that is going to be on the HD100.



I think that you're correct -- some people would. Probably three or four of them. I think the other 5,997 members would say "absolutely not"

and as barry predicted... interchangable lens and give up 60P?

absolutely not.

[Mediacre]

I thought the whole idea of a message board was to be critical and try and learn as much about a particular solution as possible? If someone is interested enough to learn about this stuff, they would find out that HDV also uses DCT (as I just learned) and all the other nuances of each camcorder.

I don't think there is any reason to judge the intentions of a post. If you don't agree, say so, now is your time to respond and tell why you feel one way or another. If the intention of this topic was indeed to put down Panasonic in one way or another, I think it failed miserably. In fact, I am more understanding and open to the concepts of DVC Pro HD now.

Personally, from what I know, smart codecs (such as MPEG) can be extremely valuable in compressing lots of information into a usable bitrate. DVD is only what? 8 Mbps or so!?!? I've never dealt with HDV or DVCPRO HD, but I am definately not opposed to any codec that can squeeze lots of data into a small size. I feel that if a viable MPEG (or H.267 or whatever) solution comes out that people are satisfied with in terms of artifacts and color space, editing solutions will arise that handle the issues of GOPs and whatnot effectively. (I know that was somewhat offtopic, but thats my opinion)


Just remember, this is basically a Panasonic board. If such message was in the HD100 forum, it most likely wouldn't even make a scratch.

[PappasArts]

<<<<the lack of ability to shoot 60p is nothing less than a disastrous mistake>>>>>



To not record 60P is not disastrous Barry.

60P is a relatively a new feature in the past decade offered to High end EFP level of the market.

At this low cost level ( HVX200 ) the people who are buying, should be grateful they are even getting 60P on a HVX200. That feature on a HVX200 leaped a whole market from high cost gear to low cost and nearly passed the entire middle ground market.

Prior to the announced HVX200, the people this camera is more aimed at never had 60P technology options at all.

So it's not disastrous when put into perspective because it's not a feature that anyone at this low cost level has had already in their toolbox to worry that they won't have it now on a new camera to offer their clients anymore.

Now if a low cost camera like DVX100 etc had a 60P feature already that we used and filmed with for our clients I would understand your statement.

But that's never been the case in all of history when related to 60P acquisition.

So therefore it's not disastrous, if no one has ever had 60P at this low cost gear market.

As I said it's only a disater if it was the norm or a feature previously we had, and then all of sudden they took the feature away from US! Yanked it, snatched it away from us for GOOD!



You want to talk about disastrous Barry.........

Kinda like real lenses. Right.....

Prior to the VX1000 and when the industrial video market was larger all cameras had REAL lenses that were either bayonet or had true barrel functions with markings. Even the consumer ones did for example L2-L1,A1 V-9/c-mount option and on and on.


That Barry, is disastrous..........


My first professional broadcast camera at 16 was a three tub saticon sony M2. Had a Real fujinon lens. I have been around real lenses with real functions since I was born in a family of photographers.

What I fear is this new generation that does not know what SLR's, medium format, 65mm cine format technology and the accompanying tools like real lenses and how they are powerful to the artist are not going to know what they are missing.

Panasonic, Canon, Sony etc are lowering the standard in certain areas that are important, and if we allow them to do it there is no going back. That's why we have to go after them Like Mike Wallace used to do when he was at his peak on 60-minutes.........



NOW THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO LOOK AT BARRY AND AND OTHERS TOO. VERY IMPORTANT IN UNDERSTANDING MY POV.

http://www.tennismenace.com/edc-55a.jpg
http://www.tennismenace.com/edc-55b.jpg
http://www.tennismenace.com/edc-55c.jpg

You see that...


This Sony gear was a prosumer product that you could special order at places like FEDCO ( a membership version of Target ) back in 1990. I own one, it's in my garage. It was based on the ED-Beta 5.5mhz consumer system. Mine has a Fujinon bayonet lens. Yeah....... A real lens for consumers.. What a concept. It cost me about $2,300 back then.

Doesn't look consumer does it. But it was....... Wow, in those days.


What has happen Barry?

I tell you, people become complacent, they start to except less and less. Corporations cut corners and and eventually a new generation doesn't have a clue what they are missing. Look how sony went in less then six years from the EDcam to the VX1000 as well Canon did after the L1-L2 to junk lenses on the XL1 . Fake crap!


That Barry, is disastrous..........


Barry, what's funny, is Canon. Well it's not really funny. It's disgusting. They are the worst at committing disastrous actions.

Why you ask? Well, if anyone should know the importance of real functioning true optical lens systems, it should be one of the biggest lens makers in the world.

Ofcourse Canon use to. Back in the early 90's with the L1 and L2, as I said, they changed too!



What has happen Barry?


What would be disatours in low cost HD, is not offering a 60i live look in HD. That is the one BIG, VERY BIG mistake JVC is making. We are going to be a 60i nation for a long time, and to not offer that live look to tape or hard-drive is going to limit their camera in the market to a certain groups. News and sports to name a few depend on having that live 60I temporal look.

In the early 90's I did work studies at Showscan on temporal interaction with the human brain. Since showsscan is 60fps at 1/125th it takes on amazing temporal connection with the human brain. Actually the research was best at around 72fps for the human brain threshold. At that point it gets liquid / lucid feel. Can't explain it, but the research was amazing.


Barry, to answer your question about why I do what I do if you still don't get it! Pretty simple.... First, I give a dam... Second if I do it any other way, I feel personally that I'm drinking their KoolAid, and i don't want to ever loose sight of what is right and what is wrong in my opinion.

Chris Hurd and I are friends, he will back me up, I am strict about getting it right and I never want to mislead people into something. And i will be the first to admit when I am wrong and i will apologize for it.

I take no allegiance with any company ever. It keeps me objective Barry, so people can trust my views and know that those views are not owned by anyone.


Does that answer it for you Barry?...................................




Michael Pappas
Http://www.PBASE.COM/ARRFILMS

[Neil Rowe]

[QUOTE=PappasArts
Does that answer it for you Barry?...................................[/QUOTE]



...wow, thats alot of dots , thats more than even i use.
..amazing.

[Mediacre]

I agree with you Michael. I also praise a real lens more than anything else. But as you said, people that have never used one will never understand the difference. Not talking about Barry here. But this board is made mainly by DVX100 users(not a bad thing at all, just an observation) and I have the impression the huge majority have never shot with a real manual lens. So they will never know what it means. Now, perspective changes pretty fast as soon as you go up in the chain. If you ask working directors of photography, I bet most will pick the manual lens over the 60p, which one would only need in a film if doing slow motion and etc. But of course, if you ask this question to an user base which probably haven't shot with a manual lens, they will pick 60p. Heck, they might even pick a built in microwave over a manual lens. I have seen people complaining about not having a auto iris. I mean, who uses an auto iris when shooting a film?
Not every film calls for other frame rates besides 24p and when they do it represents only a fraction of the film. You can just rent a camera which does the 60p for the day you need it. But if you pick an auto lensfor your major camera. you will be stuck with the moronic lens for the rest of the production.

Barry, while you don't understand why Michael post his honest opinions,( I do understand and agree with him. Not everybody thinks he has to nod yes to all Panasonic does. He's just voicing his opinion, just doing his part to let the companies know we have needs and we are willing to speak up for them), I don't understand why you make comments like "lack of 60p is a disaster". I don't think you are a beginner shooter, so I really don't understand why would you say such thing. As Michael said, we have survived all those years without it. Many could say that the possibility of recording HD only to a media which costs "$250" per minute is also a disaster. At least going by your logic it would be. Not giving a damn for which lens a camera has as long as it records a high-res image and variable frame rates is the same as not giving a damn what tires a race car has as long as it goes 300 miles per hour. How will you control and get the best performance from that car in high speeds if it's fit with Geo Metro level tires?


As I said, I can see why others would ignore the lens limitations, but I don't understand why would you.

[David Newman]

Yes, but with all due respect to CineForm, that test is full of crap.

It's faulty from the very first premise. They're taking extreme advantage of the undersampling premise of the codec. They take the 1280 and stretch it to 1920 and then squash it to 1280 and then stretch it to 1920 and squash it to 1280 and then stretch it to 1920 and then squash it to 1280... who does that? Who, anywhere, under any circumstances, would do that? I'll probably stop short of calling the test dishonest, but I will say that it is a completely un-representative way of how anyone is likely to ever work with the codec.

We clearly state our testing methodology. In fact what we did actually showed DVCPRO-HD is the best light for a practical workflow. One River Media, a respected site for codec comparison, does a DVCPRO-HD multi-generation test that shows generation errors far worse than we show. (http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/) This is because they are highlighting the Apple implementation of the codec. Are you dismissing their analysis also? We wanted to focus on the Panasonic implementation (which is pretty good), and that uses HD-SDI which is only 1920x1080 (where is no other way to test it.) We did not do any scaling, the Pansonic deck did. If I was just testing the codec as a standalone item, compressing to 1280x1080 and back again would remove scaling issues, yet that is not the real-world where HD-SDI dominates. Multi-generation errors comes about when sharing data between editors and compositors, from one system to another, where pixel aspect ratios tend not to be 1.5:1. HDCAM users don't expect to edit in their native 1440x1080 (PAR 1.33:1), editing and compositing is done at 1920x1080 (PAR 1:1). Although 15 generation of scaled DVCPRO-HD is just as unlikely as 15 generation of CineForm compression, is gives the reader some insight into the nature of compressed work-flows.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

[Graeme_Nattress]

Marco's test is done in After Effects, and as you can see he's scaling the image also (or quicktime is, but either way it's getting scaled) and AE is RGB, and DVCProHD is a Y'CbCr codec, so you're also seeing artifacts from that conversion also.

I certainly see the value of an intermediate codec for sharing files around and such like so that you don't run into these kind of issues, however....

That does not mean you'd edit in anything other than DVCproHD, and just convert to an intermediate those bits that you have to send to other applications or people, and there are two very good intermediate compressed codecs that I use that are cross platform and free - PhotoJPEG75% (for 4:2:2 Y'CbCr work) and PhotoJPEG100% (for 4:4:4 RGB work), or I tend to just use "uncompressed" if I feel it needs it.

Graeme

[David Newman]

Graeme,

I total agree, and assume there are reasons that required AE to scale the DVCPRO-HD for the One River Media tests. These things happen and can hard to avoid in many work-flows. There are plently of good reasons to leave the camera native format -- and you mention a couple of good intermediate compression solutions. CineForm just takes the conversion step to a compressed intermediate on ingest as it generally benefits most work-flows (well PC work-flows until we port to the Mac.)

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

[PappasArts]

David thank you for coming here! Can I ask when maybe a mac port might be?

Thank you

Michael Pappas




Graeme,
s (well PC work-flows until we port to the Mac.)

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

[Neil Rowe]

david,

sorry to get off topic but i'll catch you when i can here. :) i really like your products. but why on earth isnt there a way to buy the cineform prospect HD plugin without the adobe suite? what about all of us who already have the suite, and just want to add prospect HD? please tell me its going to be available. on another note, as far as i can tell from the info available, those of us who will be buying the HVX and do not want to work with uncompressed still cannot use prospect HD in PPRO because PPRO does not support importing DVCPRO HD or MXF files.. so unless they start supporting it, or you make it possible to import them when the prospect Hd plugin is installed in PPRO.. the only way i see to get DVCPRO HD ito PPRO would be to come in uncompressed straight into the cineform codec. also .. what about firewire out preview? if it had these things.. or does .. or they will be added.. please let me know. there are ALOT of people interested in your product to continue working with PPRO in HD with the HVX , but these questions need to be answered. otherwise there much tlak about AVID city. .. ughhh.. its a nice edit suite sure.. but most of us do not want to switch. anyway .. sorry for all the badgering, but ive been looking for answers to these ?s for quite a while now.

any hlep is appreciated.

Neil

[kyle_doris]

i use SLR lenses with my DVX100! and guess what i can go interchangable as well!

http://www.downeffect.com/jim/gallery/albums/jim/2004-11-14%20-%20Shoot/normal_IMG_8796.JPG

http://www.downeffect.com/jim/gallery/albums/userpics/10006/normal_version3.jpg

i'm really kidding :) but still. with a little know how you can get SLRs working on your camera, and get the DOF out of them which is really nice. but it depends on what you plan on doing with them. o well.

[David Newman]

Neil,

Buying Prospect HD without the Adobe suite wouldn't save you much money as we get OEM prices from Adobe. If you contact our sales team directly they could discuss this, but again don't expect a big price drop.

Support for DVCPRO-HD input into Prospect HD is will likely happen in the future, all we need is a Direct Show decoder. Hopefully Main Concept or a similar company will do this work, and we can license it, otherwise we will have to. :)

David

[Neil Rowe]

..excellent news. thank you for the reply.

[Barry_Green]

To not record 60P is not disastrous Barry.
Yes it is, and as you'll see, we agree later on.


So it's not disastrous when put into perspective because it's not a feature that anyone at this low cost level has had already in their toolbox to worry that they won't have it now on a new camera to offer their clients anymore.
This is where we disagree, but I'll keep intermixing quotes to paint the full picture. I think it's just a difference of understanding what 60p means, when applied specifically in a 720p environment.


Now if a low cost camera like DVX100 etc had a 60P feature already that we used and filmed with for our clients I would understand your statement.
But we have, we always have, and that's what's missing, but I'll keep painting... in the DVX it's 60i, on a 720p camera it's 60p...


As I said it's only a disater if it was the norm or a feature previously we had, and then all of sudden they took the feature away from US! Yanked it, snatched it away from us for GOOD!
That is what they've done. That's exactly what they've done. And that's what I'm concerned about.


What would be disatours in low cost HD, is not offering a 60i live look in HD. That is the one BIG, VERY BIG mistake JVC is making. We are going to be a 60i nation for a long time, and to not offer that live look to tape or hard-drive is going to limit their camera in the market to a certain groups. News and sports to name a few depend on having that live 60I temporal look.
EXACTLY! E X A C T L Y !!!!!!

That's exactly what I'm saying. I think people are getting hung up on 60p thinking it's some sort of "slow mo effect" or something. You have to understand that 60i is the "live" look for interlaced video, but 60p is the "live" look for 720p. Watch "American Idol" on Fox HD, it's shot on 60P HD. It looks like 60i. It's the reality look. It's the "live" look. It is the only way to get the "live" look when shooting 720p. And that is what JVC is *not* offering. And I say that's disastrous.

And that's exactly what you just said too.

I believe we are in agreement. I'm not talking about not getting 60p for some slow-mo thing, I'm talking specifically about not having the ability to generate the "live" look. THAT is what I contend is a disastrous mistake on their part.


What I fear is this new generation that does not know what SLR's, medium format, 65mm cine format technology and the accompanying tools like real lenses and how they are powerful to the artist are not going to know what they are missing.
AGREED! Absolutely, completely agreed. It drives me nuts that new shooters will chant "die, film, die" because THEY'VE never used it, and they're "scared" of it, they don't understand it, but they trust video because they can see it in their monitor. These are people who will never learn what it's like to only have 60 seconds as a full load of film (as in an Eyemo), and when film costs $50 per minute just for raw stock, just what it takes to get three or four takes out of that. And make sure they're GOOD takes, before they pull the trigger.


what's funny, is Canon. Well it's not really funny. It's disgusting. They are the worst at committing disastrous actions. Why you ask? Well, if anyone should know the importance of real functioning true optical lens systems, it should be one of the biggest lens makers in the world. Ofcourse Canon use to. Back in the early 90's with the L1 and L2, as I said, they changed too!
You're preaching to the choir on that one. I've frequently said that the biggest problem I have with the XL2 is the way they've designed the lenses, so that you can't get one lens that does what you need.



Barry, to answer your question about why I do what I do if you still don't get it! Pretty simple.... First, I give a dam... Second if I do it any other way, I feel personally that I'm drinking their KoolAid, and i don't want to ever loose sight of what is right and what is wrong in my opinion.
And that is appreciated. The only question I raised was, why did it always seem anti-Panasonic, that's all.

[Barry_Green]

Barry, while you don't understand why Michael post his honest opinions
Thanks for that characterization, I appreciate you painting me in the worst possible light.


I don't understand why you make comments like "lack of 60p is a disaster". I don't think you are a beginner shooter, so I really don't understand why would you say such thing.
I think I've adequately explained it, not just in this memo, but probably 15 times in other places as well. The world does not revolve around 24p. 24P is suitable for some shooting circumstances, but not for all. For many circumstances you NEED the ability to produce the "live", "reality" look -- and in 720p HD, that's what 60p is for. And that's something this camera cannot do.


As Michael said, we have survived all those years without it.
Disagree. We have NEVER had a video camera that could *not* record the reality look. Except for the JVC HD1, of course.


Not giving a damn for which lens a camera has as long as it records a high-res image and variable frame rates is the same as not giving a damn what tires a race car has as long as it goes 300 miles per hour. How will you control and get the best performance from that car in high speeds if it's fit with Geo Metro level tires?
Mediacre, I enjoy a friendly debate on the merits, but -- please. That's an outrageous characterization. I mean, outrageous. To imply that I, or other shooters, who find the DVX lens acceptable could be lumped into "not giving a damn" about the lens... or, further, to lump the forthcoming lens into the level of Geo Metro level tires -- I'm afraid you lost some credibility on that one. That's a complete mischaracterization of everything that's happening here.

To put the lens in perspective: I expect the HVX lens to provide every bit of zoom control that the HD100 lens does. And I expect it to offer 95% of the focus control that the HD100 does, lacking only hard stops at each end (which, with the addition of a Century Optics focus ring, you could achieve as well). And I do not believe that would qualify it as "Geo Metro" tires on a race car.



As I said, I can see why others would ignore the lens limitations, but I don't understand why would you.
Because the lens is nowhere near as limited as you say! I mean, on a scale of 1 to 100, with you valuing the JVC HD100's lens at 100, I gather that you're saying the HVX lens will clock in at somewhere around a 4. I'm saying it'll be a 95. And in exchange for those 5 points, the HVX will also deliver variable frame rates, 1080 shooting res, twice the color, no MPEG artifacts, a P2 workflow, discrete frame compression, DVCPRO50, the "reality" look, and all sorts of other features.

Now, I'll go on record with this: if the lens really does turn out to be what you say, I will be the *first* to throw the HVX straight in the trash. I would not settle for an unusable, Geo Metro-caliber lens, and I can't imagine anyone else doing so either. I cannot stand using the PD150 or VX2000 series camera lenses, they're infuriating to work with. If the HVX lens is down at those levels, I will abandon the HVX bandwagon in a heartbeat.

[Barry_Green]

In fact what we did actually showed DVCPRO-HD is the best light for a practical workflow.
David, I *very* much appreciate the tone of your response, as you would have been completely justified in shredding me for using such harsh language. I apologize for the unprofessional tone I used, it was out of line.

However, I don't agree that your test showed the codec in the best light. Maybe in some high-end studios, but certainly not in the desktop NLE environment. In desktop editing, one will set their project to the native size of the codec. There will never be shrinking and expanding, just like there isn't in HDV. In HDV editing, we set the project size to 1440 and a pixel aspect ratio of 1.3333. And furthermore, even if we were working in a 1920 project, unless you're doing repetitive pre-renders and compositing, you're only going to ever stretch/shrink once: during final render.

If one was involved in a project that required repeated rendering out and re-importing, then yes, you can certainly do better than using any lossy codec, or a resizing codec such as DVCPRO-HD. I'd expect to be using uncompressed, or a CineForm style codec, for things such as that. But to call that a practical workflow doesn't necessarily represent the actualities of desktop production, does it?

[braw]

At least going by your logic it would be. Not giving a damn for which lens a camera has as long as it records a high-res image and variable frame rates is the same as not giving a damn what tires a race car has as long as it goes 300 miles per hour. How will you control and get the best performance from that car in high speeds if it's fit with Geo Metro level tires?

Barry summed it up already, but I think staying in this poor analogy we should say it's more like a Geo Metro with Pirelli racing tires. Looks cool, but the engine will never get it up to speed to justify the cost of the tires.

The HVX will have a good lens...it has to. It won't be removable, but why bother if the core technology is the main comprimise.

[thisiswells]

Or a diesal VW rabbit with an Edelbrock sticker on the side window. I actually saw that once!!
Okay, it was funny looking to me, at least. Just a silly joke, that's all.. : )

[araujofh]

AGREED! Absolutely, completely agreed. It drives me nuts that new shooters will chant "die, film, die" because THEY'VE never used it, and they're "scared" of it, they don't understand it, but they trust video because they can see it in their monitor. These are people who will never learn what it's like to only have 60 seconds as a full load of film (as in an Eyemo), and when film costs $50 per minute just for raw stock, just what it takes to get three or four takes out of that. And make sure they're GOOD takes, before they pull the trigger.


Barry and Michael, I do agree with you guys regarding interchangeable lenses, but I don't agree that people are scared of using film. The role of technology is to make our lives easier, why would I want to use something that takes me almost twice as much as it does with a digital camera? Okay, it has better quality, but we are getting cameras with acceptable quality. Technology is advancing and there will be a time when celuloid is going to die. What manufacturers are doing is improve the digital format. And we have to admit there was a huge progress since the first electronic cameras came out.

Celuloid may result in better quality, but it doesn't have the advantage of the digital format. You can get the exact same copy of your original digital file, the copy of the copy, the copy of the copy of the copy, etc.... That is what we want. With celuloid you start noticing image degradation, which is, correct me if I am wrong, unacceptable.

If we go back in time, the early computers were huge and didn't have the capacity of a laptop computer of today. Those days are gone. I bet when the first transistor based computer came out, they were all making comparisons and criticizing, because they were used to the old way.

It is the same for you guys, you guys are used to the old methods of filmmaking. We are used to the new ways, which are faster, cheaper and easier to handle in post. And to be honest, what we want is intelligent machines that do the work for us. I know it isn't possible today, but it will in a couple of years time. We want something that speeds up our workflow. If everyone kept thinking this way, then we wouldn't have had the DVX in our hands today.

Okay, with the P2 technology we are sort of getting back, because we have to keep changing them, but in a few years time prices will drop and we will have P2 cards which can hold a huge amount of information.

You know, when I started doing computer programming, I used to program in DOS. Everyone who has used DOS knows how it was those days. You had control over what you were actually getting. Nowadays, you have IDE (Integrated Development environment) for you that do all the work for you in the background. I used to complain in the beginning, and to be honest, I have to admit that it is much, much faster, even though I somtimes use the old method. But that is just because I was used to it. I like to have control over what I am doing, and that doesn't make me a better programmer.

It is just technology. We have to accept it.

Anyway, I hope you guys understand why we won't go celuloid. It's not that we don't like it, it's just the process. And to be honest, I don't think that that makes me a better or worse filmmaker, just as I don't think that doing the compilation of a computer program yourself and letting the machine do it for you, makes you a better or worse programmer.

All the best

Fidel.

[Mediacre]

Disagree. We have NEVER had a video camera that could *not* record the reality look. Except for the JVC HD1, of course.

Are we talking about 60i or 60P here?





Mediacre, I enjoy a friendly debate on the merits, but -- please. That's an outrageous characterization. I mean, outrageous.

Worse than that silly dancing dogs one? :grin:




To put the lens in perspective: I expect the HVX lens to provide every bit of zoom control that the HD100 lens does. And I expect it to offer 95% of the focus control that the HD100 does, lacking only hard stops at each end (which, with the addition of a Century Optics focus ring, you could achieve as well). And I do not believe that would qualify it as "Geo Metro" tires on a race car.

Well, if it's like the DVX100 lens, it won't be 95%. Not according to my standards. About the zoom, if you noticed, I never complain about zoom. I couldn't care less if it's manual or not. I only use it for framing. Another thing that nobody talks about is the moronic iris dial. Please don't tell me the iris dial will be 95% as well. That ,would be outrageous.




Because the lens is nowhere near as limited as you say!

Are you basing this whole lot of conviction on the DVX lens? Since the HVX doesn't even exist.

For me it is. Ask most DPs and they will tell you the same.


Now, I'll go on record with this: if the lens really does turn out to be what you say, I will be the *first* to throw the HVX straight in the trash. I would not settle for an unusable, Geo Metro-caliber lens, and I can't imagine anyone else doing so either. I cannot stand using the PD150 or VX2000 series camera lenses, they're infuriating to work with. If the HVX lens is down at those levels, I will abandon the HVX bandwagon in a heartbeat.

Haha, I'm quoting you on that. :thumbsup:

But if you think the DVX lens is a 95%, well, you won't throw the HVX in the trash. I guess it's just different standards. For me, not being stuck with one lens, not being stuck with a forever spinning focus ring and not being stuck without a physical iris doesn't account for 5 points only.

[Neil Rowe]

Thanks for that characterization, I appreciate you painting me in the worst possible light.

..thats the funniest thing ive read all morning. ..not making light of the debate, but that made me laugh. ..what a world.. what a world.

and for the record i would fit in barrys pocket on this one. there is no 60i in the high def 720p world. only 60p. because 720p is not interlaced.. its all progressive. so 60p is the same thing in 720p as 60i is in 480i. once that is understood it becomes clearer that JVC did not give us a "60i" mode/look in the new cam.. its a 720P ...P.. emphasis on the "P" camera with no 60p.. meaning no such method of recording that samples the image 60x per second.. therefore leaving out that particular look which is important for many reasons on many types of shoots. so basically its the high def equivilent of a DVX without 60i.

..yada yada.. now someone will say that you can go uncompressed and ingest to 60p. but that doesnt mean the CCDs are scanning and outputting at 60p. so if i understand the math correctly here, your basically doubling 30p frames at best.
someone please correct me if im wrong.. im a little tired yet this morning so i might not be thinking straight yet.

[PappasArts]

Barry you and I agree and are pretty much saying the same thing. Well this was the long road to agree in the end.

When you mention 60P, I was thinking 60i. I mentioned this to JVC, they seem to think that news and events like sports and even american idol are going to want temporal rate of 30p or 24p. One of my friends shoots a show for the outdoor channel and they want to try some HD out for next season. He must have the 60i feel. But he wants the JVC for the lens. JVC's path on this one matter relating to 60P or even 60i is not a good move and I don't get it either. Maybe they are aiming this camera mainly at 24P/30P productions. Which is fine if that's what they want to do. I think it will make them loose a section of the pie though. I told them that they should do 60P out to HDD, if it's a tape issue.

Now as a 24p camera all the feed back I'm getting is this 6 GOP HDV approach is coming out quite well. Strictly as an acquisition camera, I believe it can do well. Then convert to a better codec after. I am doing HDV research and have been sent papers on 2,4 and 10 Mpeg GOP technologies as to try to unwrap it to understand it better.

I love 60P video, why? Well cause it takes me back to when I was involved with Showscan at 60FPS. On a true 60P displays it feels so dam good to watch 60P 720. Interlace 60i can't touch the look and feel of 60P material. So I want that bad.

The problem is the lens. I hate fixed lenses unless it's a point and shoot camera.

My broadcast Fujinon lens has so much more optics and corrective elements with a finely engineered mechanical mechanisms bringing it all together. When you look at any fixed lens broken down it just isn't made anywhere near the same. Even how the optics are adjusted are very different.

Barry I think I'm hard on Panasonic because I want them to do so well and bring out this camera that is just amazing and take it to great heights. I know how good Panasonic is, and it bothers me that I might have to give up on many great things the HVX200 offers, because they might not do the one thing right I always care so much about. The glass in from of my camera.

P2 doesn't bug me. Yeah I'm not singing P2 camp fire songs. I believe recording to memory is the future whether P2 or ?. P2 works for short run material. If I need longer I know I have the HDD option to hook up.

Did you see the italian guys who removed the lens form the FX1. The FX1 has a good lens for a fixed lens. But take a look at how the fujinon lens outperforms the FX1 fixed lens. This same thing with the Canon quick release lens to counter the Optex 14x by taking one of the production lenses and retrofitting it for the XL1. Like the Optex it was way better then the 16x. Though this XL1 16x standard lens was not a fixed lens, it was built the same inside to many degrees. A spinner!

I remember the purple fringe issues with my DVX100. DVX100 is the best of the small minidv cameras I ever owned, but the lens had the chromatic aberration issues. That is the same problem with the FX1/Z1u lens. It's the Fixed lenses that suffer the most from Irregular lens performance and the design of the optics, dye manufacture process, and even CCD physics interaction to the optics. Better lenses reduce or even eliminate it.

Take a look at the Italian guys test, I suggest other people take a look too if you haven't seen this:

Links:

First picture the camera: http://www.eidomedia.com/hdve/

Second the Fujinon test: http://www.eidomedia.com/hdve/ziess_fuji.htm

Remember this is a basic Fujinon lens and a non HD lens as well.


I been a member of DP-review for some time. Purple fringe testing is a big deal there. It's also a sign of a poorly engineered optical system.


The one great thing about the HD100 is the removable bayonet lens.

The great thing about the HVX200 is , it's the swiss army knife production camera.

I only need 24P. But it's going to be a tough one because Panasonic makes good cameras.

Barry we agree, and from now on we are friends here, and when we meet one day we will get along just the same because we don't have one reason not to get along! :-)

Michael Pappas

[Knock Out Films]

I love my DVX although I know the lens has some short comings. In my opinion it has a very narrow sweet spot, but once we understood that we can get some great images.

However I always thought it was a bit ironic that Canon marketed their XL1 with interchangable lenses but rarely did anyone take advantage of it. I bet if we were honest about it, we all have had or know lots of people with XL1s that never saw a different lens. That was the reality of it. I'm sure there are people who did take advantage of it, maybe lots of people on this board, but I would hazard a guess that out of all XL1 owners, I bet less than10% bought extra lenses.

I suspect it will be similar with the JVC. I think that Panasonic is bold in taking a tact that may go against a marketing strategy. They may be betting on the reality, and instead giving us a camera that is affordable.

In a way I see it that they are saying

"look we can give you a full HD camera, but it may be a bit of a pain in the short term (p2 cards), we ccould give you a tape drive, but then we have to add 25K to the price, we could use HDV for aquisition, but we think that the only thing holding back full HD is the shoot medium, and we think that will quickly work itself out, better to go to P2 cards in the short term instead of heavy compression in the camera, Removable lens was a 50/50, it then became an issue of price point, plus we think that as much as you may think you will use it, our studies show you won't, so we are siding on the side of reality instead of having a marketing angle but a higher price point"

Just my thoughts. I want to shoot full HD, I can't afford to shoot VariCam everryday. It will be tough to budget the Varicam on the big projects. I can live with the lens on the DVX. I think the new Pany is a great comprimise. I bet in 24 months, (remember time flys) that we will all wonder how we ever doubted shooting on solid state media or HDDs.

Again, just my thoughts.

Chris

p.s. - more on the XL1 train of thought - Just for fun!
-I want a new Ti-Book so I can cut on vacation
(never happens, too busy drinking)
-I want a new palm pilot to be organized
(too much work to figure that thing out,)
-I want a new Mazda cause it's great on gas
(costs 25K more than the POS I'm driving, 25k buys a lot of gas)
-I want a new lawnmower so I don't have to rake the clippings
(like I ever raked them ever, too busy drinking)
-I wanna marry a super model
(and you think P2 cards are expensive)

[ChuckS]

Ok that was way more than I wanted to read, sometimes I think this forum gets way out of hand and people take and make things way too personal…

Anyway back to the original question, coming from the film side this is very reminiscent of Quantel trying to convince everyone that 8bit was good enough, it wasn’t then and it won’t be enough for Panasonic either. You need to get out of 8bit and into 10bits as soon as practicable – period!


Transcoding from one compressed format to another doesn't make any sense. Even they say compressing/recompressing multiple times isn't the best idea. Well, that is exactly what you do when you convert to Cineform Wavelet, do your edit, then convert back to DVCPRO-HD for tape. brian wells

Why would you go back to DVCProHD? Output to an uncompressed 10bit format – film, D5 etc..

[Graeme_Nattress]

8bit is good enough for delivery, properly dithered down from a higher bit master. It's also ok for acquisition as long as the DSP is good and all your colour correction and stuff works in >8bit, preferably 32bit float. Yes, starting with >8bit is better, but if you're compressing the hell out of it to get it onto tape, I'd prefer less compression rather than using the extra data to give 10bit. Ofcourse, I like the Digital Betacam solution which is 10bit and very low compression :-)

Graeme

[ChuckS]

I agree, with the amount of compression that has to happen to get the image to tape 8bits is fine for acquisition, but as an intermediate format it is much better to work in 10bits and then output uncompressed from there. This isn’t simply an issue of compressing and re-compressing, there just isn’t enough headroom with 8bits for post, people do not manage their image pathway very carefully and step on the image in various ways reducing quality.

I have yet to see a “real” project edited in FCPHD then output to DVCProHD that looks good. I’m sure the fine folks who use FCP will tell me all day long how wonderful the quality of that product is (and I believe them), and Panasonic will stand behind the quality of their DVCProHD codec and the HD1200A tape deck (I believe them too) so why doesn’t it look as good as it should?

[speedbump]

This camera has really set us all on fire. Wow.

I haven't exceeded the usefulness of my DVX100 yet, so all this talk about the problems with DVCPro HD as a post format seems silly to me. I know I've ragged eloquently about the lack of a removable lens on the HVX and I'm still firmly in the 'I don't think so' camp regarding current P2 economics, but for all that, I'm anticipating the ability to capture breath-taking imagery with the HVX.

How good will it look on an Imax screen? I dunno... how good is my crew? Because the limiting factor is going to be the DP, the cam operator, the story, the weather, the cast, and how well I've been getting along with my mistresses lately, not the camera.

A couple weeks ago, I went to SoundTrack again and took a music DVD I shot on the DVX100 last year, and showed it on their 56-inch projection screen in their home theater cubbie, using a progressive player in ideal conditions. I am not boasting when I say the imagery was stunning. This is normal 720x480x24P footage, edited on Vegas, and authored with Adobe Encore 1.0.

I just don't worry that footage from the HVX will be sub-par. That's three years down the road before we start thinking the HVX is dated!

[Graeme_Nattress]

I think that's because most processing in FCP is 8bit. That's why I'm moving to Final Touch HD from www.siliconcolor.com for my image processing - 32bit float on the GPU -lovely.

Graeme

[braw]

But if you think the DVX lens is a 95%, well, you won't throw the HVX in the trash. I guess it's just different standards. For me, not being stuck with one lens, not being stuck with a forever spinning focus ring and not being stuck without a physical iris doesn't account for 5 points only.

It seems so simple then, get a camera that has a removeable lens...and stop trolling. If that issue alone is a huge one for you, what's the point of trying to get those that are interested in the camera for whatever purpose to jump ship, or convince Panasonic to restructure their company to suit your needs.

Jan asked us several times what we wanted, and we got alot of them and even more. Panasonic chose not to go with a removable lens because they thought it wasn't as important as some think it is for a camera at this price point.

Again, you are not being forced to buy this camera. You must know that you get what you pay for, this won't be a Varicam or a Cinealta, so it's less money to purchase or rent. With that there are comprimises.

[Gary_McClurg]

Graeme, Final Touch looks very interesting. The stills from Chasing Ghosts look fantastic. How much does it cost?

Never mind just found it. $4,995. For a DI that would be cheap.

[Graeme_Nattress]

I'm just getting to grips with it now - methinks I need a better graphics card though.

Graeme

[ChuckS]

HD production is a lot more like film than it is like video. Whether FCP is 8bits or the version of Photoshop you’re working with is 8bits, or the Codec you use in post is 8bits – 8bits is 8bits and it will never give you the latitude that 10bits can.

You might also want to check out http://www.synthetic-ap.com/, I have been checking them out for a while and they have a very nice product. Also, I’m guessing that you are a Mac person (not that there’s anything wrong with that), I just don’t know if this is possible on a Mac, but on the PC the Nvidea SLI (Scalable Link Interface) takes advantage of the increased bandwidth of the PCI Express bus architecture that allows two GPUs to efficiently work together to deliver nearly 2X performance for lees than $800USD! That’s probably more GPU than you’d get on an SGI Octane II…

Also, Gary, be careful evaluating the cost of a product in comparison to a “DI.” People who network two computers together are calling that a DI. There’s a lot more to a digital intermediate than color correcting or editing, but we can leave that for a different discussion. :beer:

[Shaw]

Color Finess absolutely rocks! You've never experienced color correction (and/or grading) if you haven't tried color finess (or higher product of course)!

[jonahlee]

Color Finess absolutely rocks! You've never experienced color correction (and/or grading) if you haven't tried color finess (or higher product of course)!
And awesome that it is included with After Effects Pro, though not nearly Final Touch HD, though I hear that is quite a different mindset to use, and takes quite a bit of getting used to. To bad it doesn't look like the new G5's support PCI EXPRESS yet either.

[thisiswells]

Why would you go back to DVCProHD?

First of all, I am a primarily recreational MiniDV operator and I'm a college student. On a strictly theoretical level, output to either is not a realistic option for me.


Output to an uncompressed 10bit format – film, D5 etc..

D5-HD is compressed 4:1 with 8bit4:2:2YUV or 5:1 with 10bit4:2:2YUV. D5-SD is of course 4:4:4RGB uncompressed. All versions record on the same kind of tape at 235Mbps, difference being SD is uncompressed and HD is not uncompressed.

Neither tape or film would be an option for me if I were paying for it. I would probably output to HDD in a format acceptable to a digital cinema and only if I knew for certain that a theatre could load it onto their server for projection..

brian wells

[Barry_Green]

Are we talking about 60i or 60P here?
Both. In 1080 or 480, we're talking about 60i. In 720, it's accomplished with 60p. There is, of course, no 60i in 720. The reality look is gotten with 60p.


Worse than that silly dancing dogs one? :grin:
Yes, you're right. I was in a mood that day. I apologize for going off the deep end, to you and to everyone else. And yes, the silly dancing dogs was an extreme exaggeration. Guilty...



Well, if it's like the DVX100 lens, it won't be 95%. Not according to my standards.
The DVX100 lens is also not 95% by my standards either. The DVX100A was a good improvement, but it's not there. It's far superior to the other cameras with their servo rings, and I find it usable, but it could be better. The HVX should deliver the missing components -- even better focus feel, and true ft and inches distance markings (just in the VF, not on the barrel). That's where I'm getting the guess of 95%, based on the progress that's been promised from the already-very-good DVX lens.


But if you think the DVX lens is a 95%, well, you won't throw the HVX in the trash. I guess it's just different standards. For me, not being stuck with one lens, not being stuck with a forever spinning focus ring and not being stuck without a physical iris doesn't account for 5 points only.
The DVX is not to that degree, no. In my opinion it crosses the line from "infuriating" to "completely usable". That doesn't put it up in the "exquisite" category, no... but it's usable. The DVX100A upgrades pushed it up to "nice". I expect the HVX changes to get it to the 95% mark. But, as always, it is a matter of personal preference.

[Barry_Green]

but that doesnt mean the CCDs are scanning and outputting at 60p. so if i understand the math correctly here, your basically doubling 30p frames at best.
someone please correct me if im wrong.. im a little tired yet this morning so i might not be thinking straight yet.
From what I saw on the live monitors, it looks like it definitely outputs genuine 60p on the analog outputs. Also, the description of the "motion smoothing" filter seems to say that it samples at 60p, then blends frames together for recording at 30p.

So it seems to be that the chips are definitely 60p chips. The limiting factor appears to be the MPEG encoder; apparently the MPEG encoder cannot handle a data rate faster than 30p. So to tape, and to firewire, and to hard disk, you get 30p. But on the analog outputs, prior to MPEG compression, you do get the full 60p "reality" look.

[Barry_Green]

Barry you and I agree and are pretty much saying the same thing. Well this was the long road to agree in the end.

<snip>

Barry we agree, and from now on we are friends here, and when we meet one day we will get along just the same because we don't have one reason not to get along! :-)

Michael Pappas
Michael, THANK YOU for being so gracious! I have apologized to others, you were next on my list to apologize to. I have been battling a cold for a couple of days, and it decidedly made me cranky -- I can see, looking back on my posts the last couple of days, I was definitely "testier" than I've ever been on these forums. You have demonstrated class in letting that slide, and I very much appreciate it. Thank you!

[PappasArts]

Hi Barry! Sorry to read you have been sick.

Barry can I make a suggestion:

Drink green tea. It will help. I was born into a health family, vitamins etc, before I was born. The things I had to take as a kid, eehhh! My dad was involved in the earlery Jacklalane* days. So I kinda got thrown into it.

Ask Chris Hurd or even Bob Jones of Skycrane. I'm always giving them suggestions to help them when there under the weather. What you need is green tea, honey and lemon juice. I am lucky that I never get sick, but friends around me do, so they always ask for suggestions.

We drink green tea daily here, so the strong taste is not noticeable. But the recipe here is for when your sick or if you believe that your coming down with something.

Green tea is a remarkable substance, it's therapeutic role is very powerful Barry. The Polyphenols and flavonoids to name two elements in green tea will dramatically increase antioxidant levels to aid your white blood cell count in keeping your immune system strong. Especially Polyphenols, this substance can help increase the white blood cell count which is responsible for fighting infection in our bodies.

---
Recipe:
Almost any green will do Barry. Good Earth brand or Yogi, I recommend for off the shelf. Trader Joe's or even grocery stores will have this. But any brand will do.

It's important that you steep the green tea for a minuim of 6 minutes in water that's boiled or is at-least is piping hot. One bag is fine, but I recommend two if your stomach can take it.

Add the natural honey after that, no sooner then six minutes. Longer is better here. The reason is, the honey will clog the fine netting of the tea bag and impede the steeping process and nearly stop the flava-noids and Polyphenols volumes releasing from the green tea leaves into the water.

Then add a teaspoon of lemon juice after that. Both lemon and honey have properties that are good for immune as well gastrol processing etc. Estenial aiding in our bodies attempt to get rid of toxins that slow down the healing process.

Also drink a minimum of 20 ounces. 12 ounces is fine, but the more your body gets aided in toxicity removal the better your immune system can reach it's optimal functional foundation.



A caffeine note:
Green tea does contains caffeine, but the amounts are about 5 to 45mg. Not much, unless you suffer from extreme things like hypertension, heart palpitations, tinitus. But these levels, i believe are still to low. The levels do depend on the steep time, water temperature and the leafs used too. Still, that's only about 1/3 of a cup of coffee. Good news is, decaffeinated green tea offers the same polyphenols, flavonoids etc needed.

I do believe caffeine can play a positive role in other areas as increasing blood flow and forcing urine production which along with green tea cleanses the body of harmful toxins faster from your body. But again decafe if needed is just as good.



Sorry for all this, I can get a little carried away. Science/health is just one of my hobies and I get a little into it sometimes.

Back to our original programming everyone.



Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS
www.PappasArts.com

[PappasArts]

Hi Noah! Sorry I missed your post, it was buried in all the posts. I have worked with Varicam more then a few times. Sony HD the most and started since the late eighties in one degree or another. I didn't mean for it to ring the alarm bell. Varicam will do well; I just wanted to get a conversation going on postproduction workflows where masters of the final work are at the highest level.

Of course this problem is easy to solve if you throw enough capital at it. I have had a two-year major slowdown because of my farther, who's my main priority in life right now since his brain Aneurysm and my mom’s death, his wife after his Aneurysm . Anyway, just wanted to discuss other ways to preserve DVCproHD in very complex post work.

Noah, do you have any process to share that works for you or even ideas?


Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS
PappasArts.com



Michael- have you ever shot on a Varicam and edited from a 1200A deck in DVCPROHD? Have you then compared this output to the same edit off an uncompressed system? It would help to establish your credibility on this subject. If not, why sound alarms over something you don't really know about?

[thisiswells]

I just wanted to get a conversation going on postproduction workflows where masters of the final work are at the highest level.
I enjoy productive conversations, too.

In 2003, I edited two VariCam-originated projects. (Pre-1200A, SD downconvert, edit FCP3, release DVD)
I think most people working now would prefer the HD-over-Firewire approach and would cut in camera-original codec in FCP4/5 because of simplicity and because really it looks good enough.


Of course this problem is easy to solve if you throw enough capital at it.
As true in many things, you pay a lot for "an extra 10%"

brian wells

[ChuckS]

I enjoy productive conversations, too.

I think most people working now would prefer the HD-over-Firewire approach and would cut in camera-original codec in FCP4/5 because of simplicity and because really it looks good enough. brian wells
I guess that depends on what you think good enough is and what's the deliverable. I have not been impressed with the images from the FCP and DVCProHD workflow. With the release of FCP5 at NAB and Motion 2 now being 16bit it will be interesting to see if Apple stays with the DVCProHD codec in post or converts to a 10bit workflow after capture.

[ArkhamFilms]

I have not been impressed with the images from the FCP and DVCProHD workflow.

Hmmm, I thought the 3D presentation of Varicam footage, cut on FCP that was presented at NAB was very impressive.

-CJ

[thisiswells]

As did I.

[araujofh]

Man, I love this forum.

We finally came to a conclusion. It's good to see you guys in peace again.

All the best

Fidel.

[PappasArts]

Here are some people that shot varicam and and used Tiff to maintain the higest level but at a low cost.

article: http://millimeter.com/e-newsletters/HD_Focus_4_26_05/

From article:
<<<<Bigelow says the reason for this approach was to avoid the need to offline and the need for an HD conform, while keeping the media at the highest possible resolution in an affordable way. >>>>

[Graeme_Nattress]

Or they could have used an uncompressed codec that their DI facility understands, or DPX Cineon or whatever.

I'm now researching the Silicon Color Final Touch HD solution for mac, which integrates nicely with FCP, and will do 32bit colour correction to a very professional level at an affordable price. I'm working on writing some cool plugins for it as well and I might even get to the point of doing DV (DVCpro50, DVCProHD) artifact removal which would help even further, and I've got a great idea on getting 11bit performance from 8bit video that I can't wait to try out.....

Graeme

[Antoine_Fabi]

hey Graeme !

no limits !
It would look like "first generation analog HD without noise" he he...

seriously, that would be fantastic !
Do you think the render time would be reasonable with a G5 dual 2.5 ?

[Graeme_Nattress]

Render? Should be very close to real time as it's all done on the GPU. Just learning GPU programming now and it's fun. I should be able to do similar stuff for Motion 2, as soon as I can get the SDK for that.

Graeme

[Anders Holck]

Graeme, regarding the Sillicon Color solution. I have the demo version, but currently waiting for my X800 so I can try it out. Can you elaborate on thee Q's:

- Regarding XML interchange, how does it translate and effects and compositing done inside FCP. Does it keep all of it (Even the things that can't be seen inside FinalTouch) when reimported in FCP. Can you comment on the procedure?

- How fast is the Final Render Pass. I guess it cant be realtime as the memory transfer over the bus, combined with the disk writes. How does it compare?

Thanks.

[Graeme_Nattress]

I've not used it enough yet to answer, and I'm also waiting on a x800....

From what I'm told, the program extracts all the info it needs from the XML, and basically remembers all the stuff it doesn't need, so that when the XML goes back out, it puts back all the stuff it didn't need, so that everything gets preserved. That's the theory, but I've not tried it in practise.

Render times are pretty fast, and you're right that they're mostly limited by the AGP buss. They did some 2k renders at NAB and you could see it fly along at a few frames per second, like slow playback, a little under half speed. You can make it run slower or faster depending on the complexity of the effects you add.

I'll be in a position to tell you more when I've had a proper chance to play, but really, I've just been learning their SDK for the plugins so far.

Graeme

[bilgami]

BiLGaMi Video Productions :beer:

On one of the postings somewhere in here someone posted a site that showed a possible hard drive that may work with 200. The site pictured a Sony cam with the hard drive mounted on the handle shoe mount if this rings a bell for any could you plz repost the link plz. thank you


bilgami@hotmail.com
http://www.bilgamivideo.com (http://www.bilgamivideo.com/)