Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Default
    Black Magic has proven that if you have a device that doesn't do any work at all, it can sell for much less than those that do work. Same with the Red One -- they pulled all the processing out of the body, and were able to offer it for less than those that had all sorts of processing. You still have to do all that processing, it just moves it to a different point in the chain.

    If you wanted a raw 10-bit output, that could potentially be done even cheaper than a 10-bit 1080p output. You could probably make a raw sensor dump to an external drive, dirt cheap. But it wouldn't work with any existing video infrastructure. So don't count on a video company doing that. If anyone were to try to do something like that I'd expect it from Red or Silicon Imaging or someone like that. Video companies make products that work in a video environment, and that means processing, and in that world 10-bits isn't cheap. No Canon does 10-bit at any price, no JVC does 10-bit at any price, and you have to get above a certain level before getting 10-bit out of a Panasonic or Sony.

    So, something like a "AF100B" with live 10-bit HDMI/HD-SDI outputs for <$5K seems completely doable. Today.
    May seem that way to you, but to the folks who actually manufacture the gear, it's not possible. Look at the FS100 -- the F3 is 10-bit, at >$13,000, the FS100 is <$6,000 but it's 8-bit.

    These companies hire the best engineers in the world from the top schools. They're not dumb. They know what they're doing, and they do what they can. And they're in competition with each other, and all of them know that the one who does it the best, cheapest, wins. They know that. And given that, they do the best they can. If it's not happening already, it's because they can't do it. Not because they don't "get it", not because they're "protecting" higher-end models, but because it can't be done.

    Look at the BlackMagic box -- does it offer codecs too? No? Why not? Ah, because the reason it's so cheap is because they *didn't* put all the processing and hardware and RAM and buffering and everything that a codec would require. So where's the unit that can store totally uncompressed, and also has codecs? Hmmm, that's the Gemini, and that's 20x more expensive. Why? 'Cause that's what it takes. You want a cheap unit with high quality, you can get it with the BM, but you'll pay for it on the other end in storage costs. External recording is probably the most cutthroat business out there right now, the most crowded and savagely competitive. And even there, you don't get everything for nothing. Why? Because they're "meanies" who are "holding back"? Of course not -- such a strategy would be absolute market suicide, because if someone's holding back, they'll be bulldozed by someone else who wants to win.

    So if it doesn't exist, it's more likely because it can't exist yet.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member Peter J. DeCrescenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Portland, Oregon USA
    Posts
    1,335
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    "... Look at the BlackMagic box -- does it offer codecs too? No? Why not? Ah, because the reason it's so cheap is because they *didn't* put all the processing and hardware and RAM and buffering and everything that a codec would require. ...So if it doesn't exist, it's more likely because it can't exist yet.
    Hi Barry: Thanks for your detailed comments.

    I'm well-aware of the issues you raise. You may misunderstand my point; if so, my apology for not making myself clear.

    It's OK with me if Panasonic, Sony, Canon, etc. want to include codecs & media writing & playback capabilities in their cameras. That's cool, and I often have use for this capability, too.

    But intuitively it seems to me to be easier/faster/cheaper for a camera to convert its sensor's high bandwidth output to a "medium" level (such as 10-bit 4:2:2 HDMI/HD-SDI) than it is to compress it further down to 8-bit 4:2:2 HDMI/HD-SDI. That's how I understand how all digital processing works: The less you process the data, the easier/faster/cheaper it is.

    My understanding may be faulty. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and if so, I will go out and edit all the places on the web I've recently posted about this 10-bit vs. 8-bit issue).

    I don't think there's a conspiracy. I just think that live 10-bit 4:2:2 1080p HDMI/HD-SDI is _now_ easier/cheaper to do compared to doing the 8-bit version, say 6-12 months ago.

    That's why I'm looking forward to the "AF100B" model or whatever. Meanwhile, the AF100 is an excellent value as-is, for tech which is (in reality) several months old at least.

    But if I'm way off base about the above, please advise.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Peter J. DeCrescenzo; 04-16-2011 at 11:19 AM. Reason: Changed "a good value" to "an excellent value". :-)


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •