New Canon HD camera?

[thisiswells]

Another option, should you choose to go P2, is shooting 1080P, then digitally zooming in by 2x.
Effectively, you'd end up with 720P with the "reach" of a 116mm lens. Just a thought.

[MattC]

If they do this (and can afford to do it, which is the only way I'LL do it) I'll be using at least a Canon 500mm EF lens with the EF adapter giving me effectively a 3,600mm lens.

That's what I mean when I say reach....

116mm is for amateurs....

:beer:

[mikkowilson]

Well any prosessional HD recorder will have and HD-SDI input..so you can record to DVCPRO-HD tape, BETACAM-HD, and hell even to a P2 'deck'!

- Mikko

[videoteque73]

If they do this (and can afford to do it, which is the only way I'LL do it) I'll be using at least a Canon 500mm EF lens with the EF adapter giving me effectively a 3,600mm lens.


I assume you want to shoot the Africa doc from your house... ;-))

[mmm]

Well any prosessional HD recorder will have and HD-SDI input..so you can record to DVCPRO-HD tape, BETACAM-HD, and hell even to a P2 'deck'!

- Mikko

But with the extra expense, you could basically just hire a Varicam, or one of the other higher end HD options about to arrive in the $20,000 range.

MattC,

I am pretty sure that you could capture straight to a G5, but it would need RAID storage for uncompressed capture. You could obviously compress it on capture and save your self the trouble.

Is there a HD-SDI card for a Powerbook, or any laptop? There probably is somewhere, but is $$$$.

[Walter_Graff]

Matt, this camera would be such a better choice over the HVX for what you are doing. If the 20x isn't enough you can also bring longer lenses. In case folks are confused, this camera does REAL 24P. It's called 24F because it captures 24 Frames in the CCD. THIS IS NOT HOW THE SONY CAMERA DOES ITS CINEFRAME. When you switch you actually switch how the CCD captures. And it's 1440x1080 and not 960x1080. With an uncompressed 4:2:2 1.485gbps HD-SDI output, and SD capture and SD-SDI output, along with internal recorder this camera offers, and component output and firewire you couldn't get more options. The options are great because you don't need additional equipment to capture the signals. ANd you can capture camera settings and store them, then use the SD card to transfer the settings to other cameras like more pro cameras do. In my book this camera just knocked the HVX off it's pedestal. I will seriously consider this camera as my next purchase. I'm IMPRESSED!

[mmm]

...along with internal recorder this camera offers, and component output and firewire you couldn't get more options. The options are great because you don't need additional equipment to capture the signals.

I would have like to seen a "middle-ground" capture method. It is either 25Mb/s or 1.4Gb/s!

[Walter_Graff]

This camera is more pro than prosumer so it offers what someone like me wants more than what one might want doing movies at home. I have been doing a few projects with HDV lately and I like it a lot. Having the option to record uncompressed output with this new entry is fantastic.

[Graeme_Nattress]

But 960x1080 was bad enough on the Sony in terms of noise / low light / dynamic range / contrast etc. By Canon using 1440x1080 (trying to "win" in the CCD resolution game) they've got to be compromising the above parameters still further to achieve their resolution goals. Also, any extra sharpness recorded is just going to add that little bit more stress onto the HDV codec.... It's going to be very interesting to get some footage from it and see if the Canon compromise produces a better looking result than the Sony compromise. But at least now we're getting choices!

Graeme

[Walter_Graff]

First off these are not Sony chips. Canon is using pixel shift. Canon if anyone has a great deal of experience in taking CCD info and translating it to digital as they have been doing it in the still world for quite a while. They take advantage of this with their Digic DVII DSP. I think comparing this camera to Sony's in wrong because Canon is using a different method to attain a picture than Sony and has quite of bit of background in doing so. I've always thought the XL2 produced the best picture of the SD cameras and hope to get my hands on this as soon as I can to do some testing.

[Digigenic]

So Canon manufactured their own interlace CCDs for this camera?

[Walter_Graff]

No Canon buys their chips, tey do not make them but these are custom designs.

[Antoine_Fabi]

If these CCDs have a good dynamic range, then Canon has a winner.
...and it seems that Panasonic will have a winner too.

Dont forget, HD-SDI will soon become cheaper and lighter, like everything in the digital world.
P2 will be cheaper also.

We've got two very interesting possibilities now, ...We're very lucky !

[Walter_Graff]

I've got bad news for some of you. If you think P2 prices are going to dive in price anytime soon, you are waiting for something that will not happen. There has to be universal usage of P2 as in the same quantity as VS machines for someone to step in and propose a cheap way of mass producing. P2 is limited because the manufacturing yield is like CCDs, you don't get what you start with and end up with a small yield of usable cards. Ask Panasonic what price they expect these cards to cost in a year or two and watch how fast they change the subject.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Although I do think Sony left HD SDI I/O off the HDV deck purely to cripple it as a "pro" format, and off the camera for similar reasons. It's a brave move by Canon to put HD SDI on camera, but it should get them the studio market straight off!

Be interesting to see how the images from all these affordable HD cameras compare.

Graeme

[Graeme_Nattress]

I don't see P2 as a yield issue. The chips inside the P2 card are cheap, but the card itself is vastly over-engineered, and I think that mass production should allow the card costs to drop. Memory prices themselves drop about half every year to 18 months. But they only make up a small proportion of the P2 card cost.

Graeme

[Antoine_Fabi]

Graeme,

I agree, Canon IS brave, very brave.

If the H1 has the same image quality and low noise as the XL2, then i say to you:

"Go Graeme, and create an algorithm as good as G Nicer (chroma upsampler) that allows us to expand HDV in a better format to work with in post."

(he he...you can do it, i'm sure)

[Graeme_Nattress]

I'm working on bit-depth expansion at the moment........ :-)

Graeme

[Walter_Graff]

"I don't see P2 as a yield issue. The chips inside the P2 card are cheap, but the card itself is vastly over-engineered, and I think that mass production should allow the card costs to drop. Memory prices themselves drop about half every year to 18 months. But they only make up a small proportion of the P2 card cost."

Except They want 100% perfection so hence why I say the 'yield" is low. Panasonic is going to need to sell a heck of a lot of these cameras and find someone they trust for manufacture to make these P2s work. Price wise, I just don't see them dropping hugely in the next year, let alone coming out with anything more than an 8gig version. There is too much competition to Panasonic for them to be anything more than just one of the options of purchases so it limits their reach. Canon has the advantage of offering tape and tape rules today. Folks say they hate HDV but those that do usually have never used it.

[Antoine_Fabi]

Graeme,

Good to know :)

[Graeme_Nattress]

So if 100% perfection costs x now (being the top 5% off the memory pile), it will cost x/2 in 18 months time because they're still taking the top 5% off the pile. However, I think the memory cost is a fraction of the P2 cost, and I have difficulty believing that they're having perfection issues on the magnesium shell and raid LSI itself.

Graeme

[Walter_Graff]

I don't disagree Graeme. Rather I am repeating the crap they spew. For every Sony F900 sold the seller gets a $15k check. Does the camera need to cost as much? No but Sony needs to get folks to sell them and needs to make back the money they spent designing and marketing. It sounds so logical that P2s should drop fast, but I just don't see that happening.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Walter, my impression, from talking to various Panasonic people in the USA and locally here in Canada is that they need a more mass market application of P2 to bring the costs down, and that's what the HVX200 is about. How accurate my impression is, is however debateable.... However it does seem reasonable, as does your comment that margin for dealers is also important. I guess time will tell. Again, what I'm excited about is now we're seeing options for low cost HD, and we're starting to see mid-range HD on the horizon, and that's all got to be good.

Graeme

[Antoine_Fabi]

,,,just dreaming...

someone could manufacture a lightweight hard drive with HD SDI to DVCProHD converter...

[mmm]

This camera is more pro than prosumer so it offers what someone like me wants more than what one might want doing movies at home. I have been doing a few projects with HDV lately and I like it a lot. Having the option to record uncompressed output with this new entry is fantastic.

The thing is, the major market for this camera should be high-end prosumer. By prosumer, I mean anything with 1/3" chips. Giving it HDV and HD-SDI seems a bit like offering a family car with either a 4 cylinder 1.1L or an 8L V12 engine - neither one is what is needed - they both work fine, but can't we have a nice economical 2 litre V6??

There is no doubt it can be done and I thought Sony and JVC were holding back to conserve high-end sales and Pany to conserve P2 sales... but Canon, they had the unique position to give everyone just what they wanted.

As far as the HD-SDI, it does sound great, but I can only think of one situation in the past where HD-SDI would have been helpful on THIS LEVEL of camera, and that was because a hire company didn't supply a viewfinder for one of our 2/3" cameras and we had to use an XL1 for the 3rd "handheld" camera.

HD-SDI is only really helpful in a studio or controlled tehered enviroment. If you are shooting in a studio, you tend to have the budget to afford a 2/3" camera. This is only my experience in the UK though, so is it very different in the US? You certainly have far more channels, so I guess there is more low cost studio work..?

Also, what is the cheapest HD-SDI switcher?

[Antoine_Fabi]

hmmm...

It seems to have new chips and new DSP, so it may behave very differently from any 1/3 CCDs we've seen so far...

...maybe, maybe not...

but having seen some killer images from the XL2, i am confident that it will produce beautifull images.

[MattC]

I think there is just a lot more media production here in general, mmm. As for "studio" work, yes there is tons, but it's not all necessarily for broadcast as you might think of it. Once you leave the "blue states" and venture into the red, you will find that many, many churches and certainly most large churches, have their own production studio - this is a huge market in the US. Also we have cable access stations. Which means that ever cable provider has to allow a channel IN EACH LOCAL for "regular joes" to put on a television show - think Wayne's World. Each small region has it's own cable access studio. Many colleges and universities here have their own small studio. Large corporations have small/portable "studios" for handling large live events and video conferencing. So yes, not all of these folks are able to, or want to, spend the coin to use 2/3 chip cameras. For all of them, this cam would be an incredible solution.

Matt

[Antoine_Fabi]

I agree Matt,

I dont have advanced technical knowledge, but as a small producer, i see the HD SDI output as a "link" for a stand alone portable capture device.
...and if that portable (and lightweight) capture device can "conpress" in real time that info, then just imagine the possibilities and the power...

I could be totally wrong though...

[mmm]

I think there is just a lot more media production here in general, mmm. As for "studio" work, yes there is tons, but it's not all necessarily for broadcast as you might think of it. Once you leave the "blue states" and venture into the red, you will find that many, many churches and certainly most large churches, have their own production studio - this is a huge market in the US. Also we have cable access stations. Which means that ever cable provider has to allow a channel IN EACH LOCAL for "regular joes" to put on a television show - think Wayne's World. Each small region has it's own cable access studio. Many colleges and universities here have their own small studio. Large corporations have small/portable "studios" for handling large live events and video conferencing. So yes, not all of these folks are able to, or want to, spend the coin to use 2/3 chip cameras. For all of them, this cam would be an incredible solution.


Churches! Wow! Churches in England are where you go to get married on be burried. I think some old people go and sing in them on Sundays, but production studios - Good God, American churches are rich.

If it is as you describe, I can really see their plan for this camera, it all makes sense. Maybe they can knock HD-SDI off the UK version and save me a grand or two though.

I wonder if we will see any "Studio" lenses coming out - maybe the 20x is controllable enough for the job already.

[mikkowilson]

MattC.. seems you fully understand my excitment over this camera.. :-)

I think you can get a decent HD-SDI switcher for about $20k
- I know you can get a GREAT SD-SDI switcher for $15k

- Mikko

[Walter_Graff]

Why buy, just rent it cheap if you need it

[thisiswells]

Believe me, Walter, you are the last person on earth I want to ever have a discussion with about cameras because of your tendancy to be dismissive of others' opinions, lifestyles, business practices, and your general assumption that everyone on this board exists to shoot home movies with 24P cameras.

I have never shot an independent film and have no desire to. Independent features just don't pay well enough, frankly. I operate a production company and have national television credits. So, please, don't dismiss me.


With an uncompressed 4:2:2 1.485gbps HD-SDI output, and SD capture and SD-SDI output, along with internal recorder this camera offers, and component output and firewire you couldn't get more options.
To each their own, but I have to ask... Do you currently use SDI for anything besides monitoring and/or capturing from a Digi-Beta deck? Those are the only two instances where I've ever seen that interface used. Perhaps the possibilities abound for uncompressed capture, but it always seems that no-one is actually doing anything with it. Do I live a sheltered life?

For any shoot I've seen that required high-end keying, animation, or motion design, they simply shoot film and transfer to D5-SD.... And, capture into an NLE via SDI. It's hardly ever used to capture uncompressed directly from a camera, in my observation.

Do you see this new camera as opening doors previously unavailable to productions using small-format equipment? ...Such as high-end keying, for example? Will it replace film? Heck, will it even replace SDX900's (I paraphrase your comment from another thread: " no 1/3 HD camera will ever look as good as the SDX900...)


The options are great because you don't need additional equipment to capture the signals.
Elaborate.


ANd you can capture camera settings and store them, then use the SD card to transfer the settings to other cameras like more pro cameras do.
...So does the HVX200. Big whoop.


In my book this camera just knocked the HVX off it's pedestal. I will seriously consider this camera as my next purchase. I'm IMPRESSED!
I don't see why, really. It must be only because of the uncompressed output and ability to use a telescope for a lens? Otherwise, it lacks several key features I like in the HVX200 and could actually use for my business:

1.Mechanically linked manual zoom control. Not a "servo-zoom" ala Canon XL lenses.
2.Remote Iris, Focus, and Zoom control for mounting to a JimmyJib. Beat that.
3.Ability to record 4:2:2 SD or HD in-camera, without additional aparatus.
4.Already fits my existing Vocas 15mm rods support.
5.Don't need a deck to capture my footage. Don't have to put wear on my camera.
6.I don't have to switch camera manufacturers (just because I wanted to give you something to pick on).

See, that's why I like the idea of the HVX200. Canon doesn't really excite my soul.



... Looking forward to your 25th post since this morning, if you choose to respond.

[thisiswells]

@MattC-

Yes, churches will dig this camera. I understand Ikegami and DigiBeta have a strong hold over some of that market, but surely this Canon will cause them to re-think their options in the future.

On another note, the DVX100B will offer TC-sync via Firewire for multicam shoots. This will be helpful for certain church recordings which currently ISO each camera to MiniDV tape. Having TC-sync will be incredibly valuable when post production comes around.

It's nice to see manufacturers increasing capabilities for the studio/venue environment.

Brian

[Digigenic]

Yes, churches will dig this camera. I understand Ikegami and DigiBeta have a strong hold over some of that market, but surely this Canon will cause them to re-think their options in the future.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y228/WICKEDPIXEL/photography/BUDDYCHRISTANDHISHVX.jpg

[mgalvan]

hahahahahahahah

[MattC]

Lmfao!!!!!!!!!!

[Walter_Graff]

"your general assumption that everyone on this board exists to shoot home movies with 24P cameras."

Few tell me they do anything different here. There are a few working pros here like many of the boards I visit, but there are certainly a lot of folks who have contacted me privately for assistance who enjoy shooting movies for their own enjoyment. I have never said it was bad. In fact I encourage it. It's one of the reasons why I make myself available to help.

Today I got four emails from DVX board users who wanted assistance in technique and was glad to help. Now if only some of you folks could stop sending me emails through this board and do it directly. I hate the "pass-through" process of getting emails. There are few resources for many folks who own DV cameras and I have dedicated a lot of time to help those that simply ask. Some friends ask me why I bother with people who as they say, don't know the difference. They may not now, but all they need is someone to show them the way. I am happy to help anyone that asks.

Last week had a location lighting seminar in NY and I believe one day saw at least six members of this board attend who walked away much more knowledgeable of lighting technique. Some of them will never do anything but make home movies. Others are shooting for something bigger. none are less important to me. The reward was some of the nice emails I got that said how much folks got from it.

I can't make everyone happy, nor do I try. A large percentage of the folks who contact me here make it clear they know little about production. Perhaps I assume more than less here do. But all one has to do is tell me they do rather than take it personally.

"I operate a production company and have national television credits. So, please, don't dismiss me."

There you go. Now I know more about you.

>Do you currently use SDI for anything besides monitoring and/or capturing from a Digi-Beta deck? >

It's how I record to my digibeta deck when I output programs for distribution. It's how I record HD on decks in the field when I am using external deck. SDI is great because with one cable I am sending everything including video to audio. Next week I am doing a two camera job. We will send SDI to a pod that has a switcher and a deck. We will record both in-camera and send the signal to the pod to be switched and recorded to a deck.



>Do you see this new camera as opening doors previously unavailable to productions using small-format equipment?

Absolutely! having the ability to connect to the world is important in some situations.

>...Such as high-end keying, for example?

I would never use this format or a 1/3' camera for keying.

>Will it replace film?

Nothing has yet.

>Heck, will it even replace SDX900's (I paraphrase your comment from another thread: " no 1/3 HD camera will ever look as good as the SDX900...)

No. I'll use an analogy to cars. There are lots of cars. Lexus is like HD. It's just another car. Hd is a niche not a norm. It's just another car on the road but there are far more Fords and Chevys. I don't expect to see more Lexus' on the road any time soon, or ever for that matter.

A 1/3 inch chip camera is like a four cylinder. If you haven't used a professional 2/3 inch you may not understand that, but when you see them side by side the evidence is clear. In my seminars I often do just that. I put a SDX next to a DVX and every time, not a single person can say the 1/2 inch is equal to the 2/3 inch camera. In fact recently one person thanked me for opening his eyes as he was about to shoot his first film and realized that a 1/3" chip was never going to give him what he wanted. Every now and then you see one of those four cylinder cars on the road that has a 3 inch exhaust, spoilers, and some engine modifications. It kicks ass, but it's still a 4 cylinder.


>1.Mechanically linked manual zoom control. Not a "servo-zoom" ala Canon XL lenses.

A servo that can be made manual.

>2.Remote Iris, Focus, and Zoom control for mounting to a JimmyJib. Beat that.

The canon does that too. In fact you can use a computer to control many aspects of the XL2 remotely now.

>3.Ability to record 4:2:2 SD or HD in-camera, without additional aparatus.

The Canon records in HDV HD. I have used the Sony camera many times and while it records less color space than 4:2:2 the deference between 4:2:2 and it has not been distinguishable on a 1/3 inch camera. (back to our limiting factor)

>4.Already fits my existing Vocas 15mm rods support.

Can't answer for that.

>5.Don't need a deck to capture my footage. Don't have to put wear on my camera.

I use such cameras now and they work fine. They take a bit getting used to at first. I will have to reserve judgment for the future as to whether P2 makes it. There is lots of competition out there.

6.I don't have to switch camera manufacturers (just because I wanted to give you something to pick on).

I have noticed that when one speaks on a board that is biased towards Panasonic, that some folks take life personally. I can't speak for anyone, only myself. If a thread is started for Canon cameras one should be able to freely speak about it, but as I said some folks take life personally. Others simply watch listen then move on and don't take life personally.

I think this Canon camera is a great entry and it offers everything someone like me wants. I can still give my DV clients DV tape. None of them have indicated that they are interested in anything else as of now. If they change their minds in the future I will respond accordingly. I can also shoot two forms of HD with it, it's internal HDV format for my projects or my external Panasonic 1700 deck for others.

>See, that's why I like the idea of the HVX200. Canon doesn't really excite my soul.

And I never said you where a bad person for liking the HVX. On other boards many folks have said what I said, P2 is great but a bit ahead of its time. I guess we will have to see what happens. My DVX served me well until it was crushed recently. The HDX is a great entry, I am just not a fan of P2. That doesn't make me, you or anyone else wrong. Each of use has a name next to our posts. That tells folks what we say is our opinion. Anyone else's name is theirs. None are wrong, just different.

>... Looking forward to your 25th post since this morning, if you choose to respond.

Well here it is. You can always tell when I am editing because I am around boards like this much more. I am currently editing a series for one of the Scripps networks so my email is close by.

[Nathyn]

Camera is as camera does. :)

[Nathyn]

I think a lot of people are concerned with the "workflow" but it doesn't seem to be the rocket science some people seem to think it is. The things to really be concerned about are image quality, sound and if your NLE is set up to handle all this stuff and storage space is the next concern, but I hear with HDV storage space isn't that big of a problem. The 24f HDV sounds pretty good for my uses.

With the HVX I would certainly need to buy a raid. Something I just can't afford. Now if I were rolling in dough, I'd buy both the XLH1 and the HVX, a bunch of 80 gig F-Stores (think about six) and use them as the need arises. But I'm not rolling in cash sadly.

Something people haven't considered the HVX is the storage space. You're definitely going to have to get a raid system. I can get a one terabyte drive for under $1000 and store all my HDV footage but actual HD footage will eat up a lot more space. In fact I've been looking at something called "The LaCie Bigger Disk" (which I mentioned elsewhere) and it's said that it allows users to store nearly two years of continuous music and up to one month of non-stop MPEG-2 video. Sounds sweet.

[Haakon]

Why on earth would you think you need a raid to handle the footage outputted by the HVX?

[thisiswells]

I think a lot of people are concerned with the "workflow" but it doesn't seem to be the rocket science some people seem to think it is.
Do you speak from experience?


"The LaCie Bigger Disk" (which I mentioned elsewhere) and it's said that it allows users to store nearly two years of continuous music and up to one month of non-stop MPEG-2 video. Sounds sweet.
Oh, nevermind... :beer:

[thisiswells]

Workflow issues with FCP:
Lack of P2 Card Support in MAC OS. The computers can't read the cards!

Workflow issues with Vegas:
No P2 Card integration in software.
No ability to export finished product -over Firewire- to DVCProHD tape.

Workflow issues with Premeire:
Adobe fell asleep at the wheel a couple of years ago...

[mgalvan]

So I was a the ResFest in NYC today and actuall held and played with a working model of the XLH1. I aso got a lot of good info from a very knowledgable Canon rep. I wrote a whole bunch about it in a post in the Latest news section so check it out for info. Sorry, i just can't type all that again here :)

[ChuckS]

Why on earth would you think you need a raid to handle the footage outputted by the HVX?
depending on the drives and the interface, if you want 3 to 5 streams you will need raid.

If your careful how you place the footage on the drives, do regular disk maintenance, and don't allow your NLE to place temp files all over the place you can probably get away without it. I know 1394b is rated @ ~80MB's/sec, I have been playing with HDV (converting to the CineForm intermediate 4:2:2 10bit codec) which makes it slightly less than what DVCProHD would be and with 2 or 3 streams I get some erratic performance.

I realize that there are a lot of factors which could account for this, I have been dissapointed with the overall performance of 1394a/b. Has anyone tried the G-SATA drives from G-Tech?

[Damon Botsford]

I'm also interested in feedback about the G-SATA drives. They claim 5 streams of HDV or 4 streams of DVCPROHD with the 10,000 RPM version. That great if it's true, but what a price tag for only 148 gigs! I wonder why more streams of HDV than DVCPROHD? I was under the assumption HDV was more cumbersome to process.

[mmm]

Why on earth would you think you need a raid to handle the footage outputted by the HVX?

I would certainly recommend mirrored RAID as you will have no backup if you get a disk malfunction. There are BIG dangers of shooting P2. I can't wait to see how many people start deleting the wrong takes because of clicking on the wrong thumpnail, or an AC dropping the laptop with the last week's worth of footage on it... Could be dangerous if not handled carefully!

[mmm]

... I wonder why more streams of HDV than DVCPROHD? I was under the assumption HDV was more cumbersome to process.

HDV is more PROCESSOR intensive, but runs at a lower bitrate than DVCPROHD and so is easier on your hard drive.

When they say 4 streams of DVCPRO HD, they probably mean 720p24 @ 40Mbps. For 1080i/p @ 100Mbps, you are looking at no more than 2 streams I would think.

[Spiff]

but runs at a lower bitrate than DVCPROHD and so is easier on your hard drive.

Depends how you're doing it... I run Cineform's AspectHD, and the file sizes are roughly 3x to 4x the size of the original HDV M2T files - meaning a bitrate of very near 100 Mbps on the files I actually edit. My RAID 0 S-ATA configuration is enough to handle the data... my CPU (2.8 GHz) is probably just a wee bit slow.

-Spiff

[mmm]

Depends how you're doing it... I run Cineform's AspectHD, and the file sizes are roughly 3x to 4x the size of the original HDV M2T files - meaning a bitrate of very near 100 Mbps on the files I actually edit. My RAID 0 S-ATA configuration is enough to handle the data... my CPU (2.8 GHz) is probably just a wee bit slow.

-Spiff

If you start converting it, it is obviously a totally different matter. Some people are converting to uncompressed 10bit HD - they'll certainly need RAID storage!!

How does Cineform perform with HDV Spiff? What are you outputting as?

[Spiff]

How does Cineform perform with HDV Spiff?

Good enough for me that I don't consider it worth the extra effort to store the original M2T files. The workflow Cineform has developed is completely painless on my system.


What are you outputting as?

I haven't exported a lot of large projects yet... but typically what I produce is:
- a 1440x1080 Cineform master, and anamorphic WMV file for web / DVD-ROM
- a 1280x720 Cineform master, which I render to WMV for web / DVD-ROM
- a 720x480 Cineform master which I use to render to DVD.
- smaller web deliverables in Sorenson3 for Quicktime and WMV

Very often I will shoot in one of the CineFrame modes for the added convenience of the progressive data. I'm amused when people put CF modes down claiming better quality from adaptive deinterlacing... the render times for such a workflow are so long it's just not worth it to me.

Also, I am interested in the H.264 codec, and will pursue it in the future. Considering the long rendering times reported though, I'm almost tempted to just make a larger WMV file and soak up the bandwidth.

-Spiff

[mmm]

Good enough for me that I don't consider it worth the extra effort to store the original M2T files.


Everyone moans on about HDV and compression artifacts, but I haven't seen anything which is actually distractingly bad. Have you had anything like that? If so, have you got any grabs that show it?

Thanks!

[esperman]

Depends how you're doing it... I run Cineform's AspectHD, and the file sizes are roughly 3x to 4x the size of the original HDV M2T files - meaning a bitrate of very near 100 Mbps on the files I actually edit. My RAID 0 S-ATA configuration is enough to handle the data... my CPU (2.8 GHz) is probably just a wee bit slow.

-Spiff
Spiff.....why convert hdv using AspectHD? what would be the point of tripling bitrate from 25 to 100Mbs when to edit? It's not as if it adds info that the hdv codec lost, is it?

example...I'll shoot DVCAM and capture uncompressed SD if I need to key or something else where I don't want compression.....is using aspecthd similair to this idea? How long does is take to convert the footage before you can even edit?

Sorry is this like a stupid question??? ...I only shoot on DV25 or DVCPRO50 or 100 or good old BetaSP. But I'm very curious about this converting hdv to something else to edit with. What are the benefits?

thanks!!

[Damon Botsford]

HDV is more PROCESSOR intensive, but runs at a lower bitrate than DVCPROHD and so is easier on your hard drive.

When they say 4 streams of DVCPRO HD, they probably mean 720p24 @ 40Mbps. For 1080i/p @ 100Mbps, you are looking at no more than 2 streams I would think.

bitrate yeah... thanks.
Sorry, I had a brain fart. Everybody's allowed one once in a while.

[Spiff]

Everyone moans on about HDV and compression artifacts, but I haven't seen anything which is actually distractingly bad. Have you had anything like that?

I actively tried to break the codec once. My conclusion was that on an SD down-sample, the footage would always look better or equal to miniDV. This file:
http://s94963366.onlinehome.us/HDRFX1/DieHDVdie.zip (4.34 MB)
Contains the results of one of my tests, and there is a thread at dvinfo here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=50094

In any situation where I'm actually trying to make useful watchable video, I haven't had any problems. I can find the compression artifacts if I freeze frame, zoom in about 400% and go combing for them, but the same can be said for pretty much all compressed images.


why convert hdv using AspectHD? what would be the point of tripling bitrate from 25 to 100Mbs when to edit? It's not as if it adds info that the hdv codec lost, is it?

AspectHD does a few things... it upsamples the chroma to 4:2:2, and it saves the files in a format that can easily be edited. The 15-GOP HDV format is very processor intensive to work with, and it turns out that it is more efficient to load less-compressed files than it is to decompress HDV every time you want to display a frame. The bitrate must be increased to maintain quality.

-Spiff