SanDisk intros 8GB, 16GB ExpressCards for camcorders (xdcam EX)

[harddrive]

Motion is just one of the many things that can cause issues. Smoke, fire, fog, lightning, flashbulbs, strobelights, confetti, rippling water, splashing water, all sorts of things that cause changes in the frame beyond the codec's ability to cope.

Yes, all true in principle, but what really needs bringing to this discussion is the point that you can't just talk about "interframe", period. You really need to talk about bitrate for a given set of parameters to get a sense of performance. Even the least technically minded person will easily see artifacts (without knowing what they are!) on (say) mobile phone footage, but move up to something like broadcast digital TV and MOST people will be reasonably happy MOST of the time. Move up to something like HDV and problems become smaller still, and move even higher still (XDCAM-HD or satellite broadcast contribution circuits) and even trained engineers can't see any problems the vast majority of the time.

It was brought home to me a while back when I filmed a press conference - flashbulbs going off repeatedly. I saw the material sent over the satellite (the downlink was being monitored) and it generally looked fine with MPEG2 coding of about 6-7Mbs according to the engineer. Much later on I saw the same material transmitted on a digital network and it was appalling - huge breakup during the flashes. Yes, that was caused by interframe coding, but more specifically *interframe coding at too low a bitrate*. There's a big difference.

No doubt purists will argue that no matter how high you go, some material will always break the codec. Maybe in principle, maybe if you analyse it frame by frame, but in practice it gets to a point when played normally the blurring of the image far outweighs any artifacting perceptually.

Beta SX was a dismal failure, barely a blip on the radar. Certainly nowhere near the impact, within its respective price bracket, of HDCAM or HDCAM-SR or Digital Betacam or even MPEG-IMX or DVCAM.

Slightly more than a blip on the radar, surely? It was format of choice for CNN until they went to XD-CAM, I believe, and I think ABC (US) as well. In the UK it is currently used by Sky News, and I think the BBC use it to some extent as well. I've certainly seen it used quite a bit in Europe, at least for news. I'll agree it may not have caught on to the extent of Digibeta or DVCAM, but there are a fair number of units about.

.............that doesn't change that even when one could cope with it, intraframe is still a superior reliable way to encode.

..........And really, what's with these tiny bandwidths on the cards anyway? Why do they feel they have to squeeze HD video into just 35 megabits?............But these bandwidth restrictions are due solely to the tape or optical disc they're using. That card is capable of 800 megabits! Why not just open up the throttle and let us record 100 megabits?

I can answer that very simply - because then you only get a third as much material on a card! I strongly suspect Sony would argue that trebling the record time of a card is well, well worth any issues due to interframe coding, and from what I've seen, I think they've got that right. At least at this point in the market.

But what though? See, that's what's so very curious about this whole SxS thing -- Sony insists on touting how great it is that they use long-GOP compression... so what do they need an 800-megabit storage card for..........I dunno, it seems to me that they could easily have stored the data stream on a cheap nonproprietary media...

This is where I start to agree with you. Why didn't they use Compact Flash for the EX? Or at least a slower ExpressCard (20MBs, say) with Compact Flash pricing. Fast downloading, of course, but my gut feeling is that it is a proving ground for the memory technology which will really only be of need for future products.

And they don't just say "long-GOP from Sony, take it or leave it". For people with very deep wallets to whom quality is everything, there is the HDCAM(SR) range.

In principle, you may be right that if sheer quality is absolutely paramount, an intraframe system may be preferable, but in that case do you really want 1/3", even 1/2" chips, a fixed servo lens, small form factor etc etc? Isn't that a bit like putting a tiny engine in a luxurious limousine? To me, the Sony approach is just more pragmatic - at this market point the advantages of this codec (longer run time) far outweigh any disadvantages. If I really wanted ultimate quality, I just wouldn't get a 1/3" camera!

Canon's doing AVC-HD. .........I look to them to develop 24-megabit AVC-HD (which should be toe-to-toe competitive with 35-megabit XDCAM-EX).

JVC, though -- that's an odd one.

Regardless of codec, it's what they record it to that I find interesting, and there is no reason that they couldn't use CF or even SD maybe. I just doubt they will go for SxS, and certainly not P2.

Which brings up the question of what the successor to the HVX will use. SD or Compact Flash were out of the question for technical reasons when it was being developed, but that's no longer true now. Will Panasonic stick with P2 to give support to their higher range (as I believe Sony are doing with SxS and the EX)? Or will they move to something now more suitable at this price range, at the risk of upsetting the high end sales.

I wait with interest.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes, all true in principle, but what really needs bringing to this discussion is the point that you can't just talk about "interframe", period. You really need to talk about bitrate for a given set of parameters to get a sense of performance.

Agreed -- that's why I said, earlier, that I think 100bmps would probably be enough.

But no way is 25 megabits enough for many circumstances (and yes, it's enough for some circumstances). And 35 megabits isn't enough either -- hence why Sony's going to 50.

Look, if it's enough for you to be pleased with it, then fine -- but that does not empirically make 35-megabit interframe MPEG-2 the equivalent of intraframe encoding!

I hear this all the time from people on many things -- "works fine for me", "I never had a problem", blah blah. It has been said about keying with 4:1:1 ("DV keys great, I don't know what you're talking about.") Or using a rolling shutter camera ("you're crazy, the HV20 is perfect, yadda yadda"). Or using long-GOP MPEG-2 ("HDV is great, XDCAM is brilliant, there are no problems"). But: there are. Those compromises all work great right up until the point where they don't work great, and then you're screwed. I, and I would dare say a great percentage of professional shooters, want to know what the damage is, and how to avoid it, and how far someone can push one of these products.

Saying "it's fine, don't worry about it" is about as useful and helpful as telling someone that it's okay to play Russian Roulette -- "I've played it dozens of times, and I'm still alive." Yeah. Right up to the point where you're not.

Back on point -- the concept behind interframe is indeed brilliant. With adequate bandwidth, and adequate compression optimization, it performs fantastically. With inadequate bandwidth (25 megabits and 35 megabits) and one-pass real-time compression, it is susceptible to failure on some types of shots.

At 100 megabits and a short GOP (maybe 2 frames, maybe 3) it'd probably be brilliant. At 35 megabits and 15 frames? No thanks.

No doubt purists will argue that no matter how high you go, some material will always break the codec. Maybe in principle, maybe if you analyse it frame by frame, but in practice it gets to a point when played normally the blurring of the image far outweighs any artifacting perceptually.

Agreed. But we're talking about your source footage here too -- which is why the standard should be very high. It shouldn't succeed "most of the time", it should perform perfectly "all of the time." In all circumstances.

I can answer that very simply - because then you only get a third as much material on a card! I strongly suspect Sony would argue that trebling the record time of a card is well, well worth any issues due to interframe coding, and from what I've seen, I think they've got that right. At least at this point in the market.

To each their own. I say it's a bad compromise. And you will too, once you shoot something which taxes the codec and you get screwed over by bit starvation.

Sony's on the right track -- they've got multiple profiles, 25 megabits and 35 megabits. If they'd extend that up to 100 megabits they'd be able to pacify both of us. As it is, I'd much rather have to offload a card once in a shoot day, than put up with low-bandwidth long-GOP footage.

And they don't just say "long-GOP from Sony, take it or leave it". For people with very deep wallets to whom quality is everything, there is the HDCAM(SR) range.

Yes, and there's also the HDCAM range too. And if Panasonic can put DVCPRO-HD in a $5995 camcorder, why can't Sony put HDCAM (which is, after all, only 140 megabits) in a $8,000 camcorder?

They could have, certainly. They didn't. So with the EX or, well, with anything under, say, the HDW700, they DO say "long-GOP from Sony, take it or leave it."

Which is, again, curious -- they didn't start out this way. On standard-def XDCAM they gave you a choice of DVCAM or MPEG-IMX. How hard would it be, really, for them to give you the choice of XDCAM or HDCAM?

The point is, they could have, surely. If Panasonic can do it with a directly-competitive format, Sony could too. But instead, they do force you to choose long-GOP (unless you're looking for an HDW730 or F900).

In principle, you may be right that if sheer quality is absolutely paramount, an intraframe system may be preferable, but in that case do you really want 1/3", even 1/2" chips, a fixed servo lens, small form factor etc etc?

Oh, come on -- that's really getting silly. The point is: you can have a 1/3" camcorder using intraframe, or you can have a 1/3" camcorder using long-GOP. To me the choice is obvious.

You want the best you can get, at whatever price point you're at, surely? There is no reason to have to settle for long-GOP just because you're in a lower price bracket. Heck, Sony put DVCAM in a little $2,000 camcorder -- you didn't have to go to straight DV just because you couldn't afford a 2/3" camcorder... you certainly shouldn't have to (and don't have to) settle for long-GOP just because you don't have $50,000 for HDCAM.

And yes, intraframe does make a huge difference even at this lower price point.

Regardless of codec, it's what they record it to that I find interesting, and there is no reason that they couldn't use CF or even SD maybe. I just doubt they will go for SxS, and certainly not P2.

JVC, I don't know, but Canon will go AVC-HD, which opens up SD cards.

Which brings up the question of what the successor to the HVX will use. SD or Compact Flash were out of the question for technical reasons when it was being developed, but that's no longer true now. Will Panasonic stick with P2 to give support to their higher range (as I believe Sony are doing with SxS and the EX)? Or will they move to something now more suitable at this price range, at the risk of upsetting the high end sales.

An HVX successor will undoubtedly use P2. They've got well over 300 broadcast organizations using P2 now.

I don't doubt there will sooner or later be a DVX successor that uses AVC-HD to SD cards, that's obviously Panasonic's preferred type of recording media (being analogous to P2 in all ways except cost).

 

[harddrive]

Look, if it's enough for you to be pleased with it, then fine -- but that does not empirically make 35-megabit interframe MPEG-2 the equivalent of intraframe encoding!

I hear this all the time from people on many things -- "works fine for me", "I never had a problem", blah blah.

Yes, but it's not just me, is it? A lot of broadcasters have adopted XDCAM and seem perfectly happy. And not just XDCAM, but contribution satellite links use MPEG2 at similar bitrates. Do you really think that would be happening if the real life problems were as bad as you imply?

That Sony market HD-XDCAM alongside HDCAM etc implies that they don't see it as the be all and end all - I've heard it described as the natural successor to DVCAM for HD. Fair analogy - and I've recently witnessed a number of people switching from Digibeta to DVCAM for such as documentary work. Nobodys saying it's better quality per se - rather that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Sony's on the right track -- they've got multiple profiles, 25 megabits and 35 megabits. If they'd extend that up to 100 megabits they'd be able to pacify both of us. .......... there's also the HDCAM range too. And if Panasonic can put DVCPRO-HD in a $5995 camcorder, why can't Sony put HDCAM (which is, after all, only 140 megabits) in a $8,000 camcorder?

If Panasonic can do it with a directly-competitive format, Sony could too. But instead, they do force you to choose long-GOP (unless you're looking for an HDW730 or F900).

I've no disagreement whatsoever with anything in the first paragraph above, if we are talking about that in addition to what is there.

As for the second, then why didn't Panasonic put HDV *as an OPTION* in the HVX? Why force you to use a format that gobbles up card space more quickly? Why force you not to be able to record HD to the tape drive?

Sometimes absolute quality is the most important, sometimes practicality takes over. From decades ago we used to have 1/4" tape machines with differing speeds, 1 7/8ips up to 15ips (even 30?), and it's the same principle here

Oh, come on -- that's really getting silly. The point is: you can have a 1/3" camcorder using intraframe, or you can have a 1/3" camcorder using long-GOP. To me the choice is obvious.

You want the best you can get, at whatever price point you're at, surely?

All else equal, then that would obviously be true. But all else is far from equal, and it's recording time per GB that is the most obvious. Many people have looked at P2, liked many things in principle, but been put off by cost. It depends what type of work you do. Now, a camera comes along with economics that allow them to have tapeless and solid state benefits, and even offers the benefit of higher download speeds. (Partly due to more min/GB, partly due to the cards accessing a modern laptop bus directly, as P2 does with older computers.)

And in quality terms, I suspect very strongly that long-GOP with 1/2" chips and a true manual lens would be a better overall compromise over DVCProHD with 1/3" chips and a servo lens anyway, if that has to be the choice.

An HVX successor will undoubtedly use P2. They've got well over 300 broadcast organizations using P2 now.

Undoubtedly? A lot more than 300 broadcast organizations used BetaSP in it's heyday, and that was undoubtedly a big reason why Sony went for BetaSX as their intended newsgathering format in the late 90s.

But they were forced into bringing out pro DVCAM models by the number of organisations who decided they wanted small tapes, Firewire compatibility, etc etc, and the choice became either do that, or lose sales to DVCPro or even DV. XDCAM and SxS start to see even further migration away from the Beta cassette. Panasonic is likely to have to face up to similar tough decisions very soon.

The argument for P2 may be stronger for high end models, but for a next gen HVX200 the balance to be made is whether past ties are worth losing competiveness with other manufacturers product.

Just imagine if JVC, Canon or whoever brought a product to market using a 50/100Mbs codec and Compact Flash. That's "slow" enough to mean the use of ranges such as Extreme III being more than adequate, and a quick check tells me I could get a 12GB card for a little over £100.

I find the use of P2 in a next gen HVX200 far, far from "undoubtable", and if I was a Panasonic employee I'd be arguing very strongly against it. Whilst playing down any such rumours publicly.

 

[robroysyd]

I think you'd find you'd need a fearsomely fast CF card to keep up with 100Mb/sec!
The Extreme IV cards might make it to 50Mb/sec and they're not cheap. Keep in mind that has to be a sustained data rate and this is part of the reason the P2 and SxS cards are so expensive. I believe the problem comes from remapping defective cells. Doing that increases the yield but you cannot afford the delays remapping causes with video.

There's another option though with the EX1, thanks to it's HD SDI port one can hang a little box from Convergent Design off that and record 1920x1080 4:2:2 @ 50Mb/sec to CF cards. Now OK, that box is around $5K and the cards will fill quick and COST but for studio shoots / green screen work it's a very nice option to have.

And yes, the EX1 outputs that signal before compression. What's recorded is apparently the same as what Sony are using in their top line XDCAM camera. So editing it should be easy as most editing systems will support the high profile streaam.

I note also that Sony have changed the XDCAM wrapper on the EX1 to make it easier to work with.

 

[harddrive]

I think you'd find you'd need a fearsomely fast CF card to keep up with 100Mb/sec!
The Extreme IV cards might make it to 50Mb/sec and they're not cheap.

I think you are confusing M-BITS-s with M-BYTES-s. (And you're far from alone.) Extreme IV cards are rated up to around 40MBs (that's MegaBYTESs) which translates to 40x8 = 320Mbs!! Three times faster than DVCProHD.

By the same token, the Extreme III range have a min read/write speed of 20 MBs (M-BYTES-s), so 160 Mbs, (the spec is at http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Catalog(1027)-SanDisk_Extreme_III_CompactFlash.aspx ) - so 1.6x the DVCProHD datarate. Even if you did want Extreme IV, that is currently available for £110 (inc tax) for 8GB - far cheaper than P2 or SxS.

There's another option though with the EX1, thanks to it's HD SDI port one can hang a little box from Convergent Design off that and record 1920x1080 4:2:2 @ 50Mb/sec to CF cards.

Not just that. Their web site is at http://www.convergent-design.com/downloads/Flash XDR.pdf and (bottom page) other modes are listed, including an I-frame only 4:2:2 160Mbs mode! That will need Extreme IV though!

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes, but it's not just me, is it? A lot of broadcasters have adopted XDCAM and seem perfectly happy.

Really? Who? And don't just list off those that Sony claims are using it, tell me who actually is using XDCAM-HD.

The BBC took one look at it and said "hell no." In America we have 176 individual stations that have converted to tapeless; 170 went P2, six went XDCAM-HD.

Sony had *much* better penetration numbers with standard-def XDCAM; XDCAM-HD has been a dog.

And of those units that they've managed to place -- do you know how they actually got them in the door? Have you talked to the broadcasters? I have. Nobody -- and I can say nobody -- wanted a 1/2" system. Sony couldn't give that stuff away. At least, without a promise -- so here's what they did, and I've heard this from *multiple* sources -- they said "here, take the 1/2" system now, and we'll build a 2/3" system that meets your requirements. And when the 2/3" comes out, we'll take back all those 1/2" cameras and give you new 2/3" cameras *for free*.

Desperation, perhaps? Yes, I'd say that sounds pretty desperate.

But they got a few to bite. CNN, most notably -- but then again, CNN has never bought a non-Sony solution, and as you pointed out CNN is one of the few that bought BetaSX.

Good for the customer, you say? Ask all those who *didn't* get that promise. All the individual owner-operators. How happy do you think they're going to be? And, especially, how happy do you think they're going to be when all those used F330s and F350s start flooding the market at dirt-cheap prices?

Sorry, I don't buy into the "XDCAM-HD is such a big success" hype. 'Cause it ain't. It's a flop and a dog. Just ask any dealer, I've asked dozens.

(Of course, as NCJE pointed out in another thread, there are certain countries where Sony's got a stranglehold, so I imagine that in Australian and Japan XDCAM-HD enjoys a higher percentage of adoption than it does in most countries.) But even then, curiously, the Australian Broadcasting Corp, which had never bought anything *but* Sony, looked at XDCAM-HD and said "er, no thanks, we'll buy this P2 stuff."

(and yes, you can bet your life that Sony told every one of those broadcasters that they were coming out with alternatives to optical disc too).

And not just XDCAM, but contribution satellite links use MPEG2 at similar bitrates. Do you really think that would be happening if the real life problems were as bad as you imply?

Wasn't it you who just said that your footage was destroyed on broadcast by low-bandwidth MPEG-2? Yet every satellite broadcast and ATSC broadcast uses low-bandwidth MPEG-2. So yeah, I certainly would say that the real-life issues are exactly as I describe them, and people have made their decision based on cost and bandwidth requirements (and, furthermore, cramming three or four channels into the same bandwidth!)

Of course, you could also ask why the EBU, DirecTV, DISH, and others are either recommending, or using, AVC/H.264 instead of MPEG-2 now. Even the ATSC is looking at adding h.264 broadcast to their standards. Because it meets the broadcasters' needs of tinier bandwidth and ssqueezing more channels, but is more resilient and artifact-proof than MPEG-2, being about 2.5 times more efficient.

That Sony market HD-XDCAM alongside HDCAM etc implies that they don't see it as the be all and end all - I've heard it described as the natural successor to DVCAM for HD.

Sony's marketing is based on one strategy and one strategy only: proprietariness. They want to control the media, they want to be unique. Hence they push a proprietary optical disc, as hard as they can. It has nothing to do with quality, or with adequateness for purpose -- it has to do with them owning and controlling the media. Again, I guarantee you the bandwidth for XDCAM-HD was not set by having to meet any threshhold for quality -- it was set because that was the maximum that they could fit on Sony's proprietary media.

And much (if not most) of the buzz and hope for the EX1 was by a lot of people thinking (or being misled into believing) that the EX1 would use off-the-shelf, non-proprietary ExpressCard technology. Thus it would bring prices way down. I feel sorry for how disappointed they are, but I am not in any way surprised. I never, for one second, thought that they'd produce a non-proprietary solution. And guess what -- the EX1 comes out and it uses proprietary memory cards. Surprise, surprise.

As for the second, then why didn't Panasonic put HDV *as an OPTION* in the HVX?

Their answer? Because HDV sucks, and they wouldn't put the Panasonic name on that technology. Their second answer? Because they knew AVC-HD was coming, and that it's superior, and they decided to wait.

I'm with you on this one -- I asked them to put it in. They wouldn't do it -- they wouldn't put their name on that format.

So my new angle is to hassle them mercilessly to put AVC-HD on the HVX200 successor -- so you can have both. Highly compressed space-efficient footage for when you need cheaply distributable media (AVC-HD to off-the-shelf SD cards) or full quality to the P2 cards.

Sometimes absolute quality is the most important, sometimes practicality takes over. From decades ago we used to have 1/4" tape machines with differing speeds, 1 7/8ips up to 15ips (even 30?), and it's the same principle here

Perfect agreement. That's why multiple products exist on the market.

Many people have looked at P2, liked many things in principle, but been put off by cost. It depends what type of work you do.

Yes, and for personal/small usage, P2 is a tough sell to a lot of guys like wedding/event shooters and doc shooters. It's a system that was designed and engineered for broadcasters and for a film replacement technology, IMO.

And in quality terms, I suspect very strongly that long-GOP with 1/2" chips and a true manual lens would be a better overall compromise over DVCProHD with 1/3" chips and a servo lens anyway, if that has to be the choice.

Well, it had better be, since it costs about 45% more. You'd hope that you'd get something of benefit for that much of a cost premium, right?

But I still say that there are those who will be screwed over by a double-whammy -- "rolling shutter, meet long-GOP." The two technologies that bother me most in the current age, the two that can lead to unpredictable results that can destroy footage, come together under one roof. No thanks.

Undoubtedly? A lot more than 300 broadcast organizations used BetaSP in it's heyday, and that was undoubtedly a big reason why Sony went for BetaSX as their intended newsgathering format in the late 90s.

Undoubtedly, yes. Because you cannot extend the Sony model to Panasonic. Sony lives and dies on forcing someone to change their format, Panasonic tries their hardest to keep the formats compatible.

Sony has thrown so many formats at the wall, hoping that one will "stick." Panasonic, on the other hand, has made their decks fully backwards and forwards compatible for the last dozen years. And now they're perpetuating the same formats into the tapeless arena.

Okay, simple example: The Sony Method. "Hello, Mr. Customer, please buy our XDCAM system, you will like it." Then on to stage 2: "Mr. Customer, please upgrade to XDCAM-HD. It uses the same discs. But, of course, the decks are incompatible so you will need a massively profitable $17,000 deck." Customer: "Can't I just use my old deck?" Sony: "No, of course it's not compatible." Customer: "Well, I'll have to sell my old deck on ebay to afford the new deck." Sony: "Ah, so sad, but you cannot do that -- the new deck will not play the old discs." Customer: "So I need to have both?" Sony: "Yes. We're funny that way." So, the customer bites the bullet and upgrades to the 1/2" system. Then Sony comes calling: "Customer, wouldn't you like to get rid of that 1/2" system and buy our new 2/3" system? Nobody uses 1/2", why should you? Plus we finally offer 4:2:2, which is the definition of professional video, surely you'd want that instead of the 4:2:0 you're currently using? And we've upped the bandwidth to 50 megabits, because we recognize that 35 isn't enough." Customer: "Can I at least use my two existing decks?" Sony: "Well, see, we're funny that way. Of course you have to buy an entirely new deck."

Okay, now let's contrast that with the Panasonic method: Customer buys a deck back in 1986. Every Panasonic deck made for the next 20 years plays that format. New formats come along, all backwards-compatible. Now we jump into P2, solid-state tapeless. Every format that the customer's been using for the last 5 to 20 years is supported exactly as before. All firewire streaming protocols have stayed the same, the only substantive change is the recording media. Then they introduce HD on P2, and guess what? Your cards, readers, everything automatically support it. Then they introduce a new form of HD, AVC-Intra, and guess what: all your existing infrastructure supports it. Nothing new to buy. Nothing needs replacing.

A little bit of a philosophical difference, and probably one reason why Panasonic's enjoying enormous adoption and Sony's scrambling desperately. Panasonic's banked on P2, and they're going to stick with it.

The argument for P2 may be stronger for high end models, but for a next gen HVX200 the balance to be made is whether past ties are worth losing competiveness with other manufacturers product.

Not at all. The next-gen HVX200 will be P2, there's no reason in the universe for them to want to change that. What will happen, I believe, is that the next-gen DVX will be AVC-HD to SD cards. That's the camera that the HDV-buying group will look to upgrade to. Those who can't fathom the reasoning behind P2 are obviously not P2 customers, inherently. But P2 is not the only thing they've got; they've also got AVC-HD. And 24 megabits of AVC-HD should be very competitive with 35 megabits of MPEG-2.

I predict they'll have both models side-by-side. Those who want and need frame-discrete compression and a model to integrate into their P2 workflow will go with the next-gen HVX. Those looking for an inexpensive tapeless model, who are willing to accept the compromises of long-GOP and 4:2:0 in exchange for lots of footage on a cheap memory card, will go with the AVC-HD model. Panasonic will offer both. Wish Sony would.

Just imagine if JVC, Canon or whoever brought a product to market using a 50/100Mbs codec and Compact Flash. That's "slow" enough to mean the use of ranges such as Extreme III being more than adequate, and a quick check tells me I could get a 12GB card for a little over £100.

And JVC just might. But Canon won't. Canon doesn't run their business like the other companies. Canon never innovates new formats, they've never produced a deck, they just don't "do" things like that. They license what the other two have done. And they've already signed onto, and started producing, AVC-HD products.

JVC is going their own way, and JVC has specifically chosen not to join AVC-HD; they're the one sole manufacturer who isn't on board. So yes, if you're looking for innovation and deviation from AVC-HD, it's most likely to come from JVC.

I find the use of P2 in a next gen HVX200 far, far from "undoubtable", and if I was a Panasonic employee I'd be arguing very strongly against it. Whilst playing down any such rumours publicly.

Well, with all due respect, you must not have seen the success they're having with placing P2 product in the market. There is no valid reason in the universe for them to deviate from that. I believe they will supplement it, long before they'd change away from it.

 

[harddrive]

Really? Who? And don't just list off those that Sony claims are using it, tell me who actually is using XDCAM-HD.

Apart from CNN, Al-Jazeera English is one that springs to mind, and quite a lot of Europeans. Can't give a full list of names but will say that on the road the vast majority of cameras I see are tape - DVCAM being by far the most common. Of the non-tape pro cameras I've only ever seen XDCAM - no P2 - though I couldn't offhand say which were HD and which SD. Fundamentally most organisations seem to be playing a waiting game, and HD has been far less of an issue (until very recently) in Europe than it may have been in the US. Hence as an upgrade from Betacam, SD XDCAM was all many were interested in. The only big UK name I can think of that has committed to P2 so far is Sky News.

I do agree that it is odd that Sony have taken o long to bring out a 2/3" HD-XDCAM though.

The BBC took one look at it and said "hell no."............

From what I've read that was largely due to a preference for solid state over optical disc, at least for acquisition. That was a couple of years ago, and I find it quite interesting that I've not heard any word from them about adopting ANY tapeless format wholesale yet. The only word I've read is that the camera of choice currently for documentaries in HD is the HDX900 - so Panasonic, yes, DVCProHD, yes, P2, no.

A lot of the industry here is waiting with interest to see how they eventually jump, there's a lot of DigiBeta and DVCAM to be replaced.

Wasn't it you who just said that your footage was destroyed on broadcast by low-bandwidth MPEG-2? Yet every satellite broadcast and ATSC broadcast uses low-bandwidth MPEG-2.

It was me indeed, and was also me who said how well it stood up via the original contribution link. Same MPEG2, but a bitrate about 50% higher. Broadcasts to home from satellite may be a lower than desired bitrate, but I'm referring to CONTRIBUTION circuits from OB to studio etc. For HD, similar bitrates to HD-XDCAM.

It's why I believe the mantra of "interframe bad, intraframe good" is nonsense in itself. At least without defining what bitrates you're talking of.

Sony's marketing is based on one strategy and one strategy only: proprietariness. They want to control the media, they want to be unique. Hence they push a proprietary optical disc, as hard as they can.............

I really don't want to be an apologist for Sony, but can you really say with a straight face that XDCAM discs (also made by Maxwell, TDK et al) are proprietary, and P2 is not!!!

Otherwise I have a lot of agreement with much of what you write about format history, though can you explain "........the Panasonic method: Customer buys a deck back in 1986. Every Panasonic deck made for the next 20 years plays that format. New formats come along, all backwards-compatible." I assume the 1986 deck refers to MII? When DVCPro came along (95?,96?), surely they weren't able to play an MII tape? And let's not forget D3 (digital composite) - I don't think that was compatible with MII before it, or DVCPro after it, was it?

So my new angle is to hassle them mercilessly to put AVC-HD on the HVX200 successor -- so you can have both. Highly compressed space-efficient footage for when you need cheaply distributable media (AVC-HD to off-the-shelf SD cards) or full quality to the P2 cards.

I predict they'll have both models side-by-side. Those who want and need frame-discrete compression and a model to integrate into their P2 workflow will go with the next-gen HVX. Those looking for an inexpensive tapeless model, who are willing to accept the compromises of long-GOP and 4:2:0 in exchange for lots of footage on a cheap memory card, will go with the AVC-HD model. Panasonic will offer both. Wish Sony would.

Well, I wish you luck with your hassling. The trouble with the two model philosophy is that it assumes a buyer will always either want one compromise or the other. In practice, it is far more likely to be a sometimes one, sometimes the other choice. To have to buy two cameras when one with two codecs will do just as would be stupid.

A bit like a past offering of two 1/4" tape decks - a 15ips model and a 3 3/4ips model. Far better to build in the ability to change speed as appropiate.

 

[Nik Manning]

Let me step in here with a simplistic addition to this discussion.
Mini-DV,hdv,35Mb hdv,50Mb hdv,dvcprohd,hdcam are all compromises. Compression equals compromise in general. That is the nature of the beast. interframe compression can give a similar picture as an intraframe codec at arguable 40% of the datarate. the down side is it is harder to edit. In this case however being mpeg 2 compression it is also more effecient and could lead to it being up to 100% more efficient than an intraframe codec.

This only applies to non primetime shows but "Breaking Bonaduce" was shot with DVX100 cameras. I believe the vast majority of reality based shows can be shot on a XL H1 hdv camera. If that is true then why not a Canon A1.

Reality TV has the vast majority of ratings right now on tv so HDV is good enough for most tv shows. Bottom line is image quality is not paramount in all situations there are alot of other factors.
This was just for the common folks to read that couldn't understand what you Professionals were talking about.
HDV is major sweetness on a budget. Certainly not crap. Folks said mini-dv was crap also but the dvx is a mini-dv camera. Funny thing is I think reading this discussion I am thinking about getting a Sony [SIZE=-1]HVR-HD1000U for some TV productions. You made me realized how much I didn't need. Thanks
[/SIZE]

 

[David Jimerson]

P2 is open for licensing if a vendor can meet the manufacturing standards -- Panasonic said so from the beginning.

And it's just a memory card -- you can use it for anything, if you wanted to, not just recording from Panasonic cameras. If you wanted to keep a bunch of Word files on it, you could. Not sure why you would, but hey, the option's there.

So no, it's not the same as a XDCAM disc.

 

[mikkowilson]

If you wanted to keep a bunch of Word files on it, you could. Not sure why you would, but hey, the option's there.

That would be so awesome.

I totally want to deliver my Bachelor's Thesis on a P2 card now. .. Anyone got an old 2gigger laying around they want to sell cheap? :cheesy: (Seriously!)




Regarding the BBC issue; They have committed to P2 in the sense that they commissioned Adobe to provide for full P2 integration in it's video products. In a matter of days Adobe will release an update that will allow full native support of P2 in Premiere and shortly thereafter After Effects. All because the BBC commissioned them to. .. Seems like a mighty big project for the BBC is they aren't committed to the format.

- Mikko

 

[Barry_Green]

From what I've read that was largely due to a preference for solid state over optical disc, at least for acquisition.

The BBC did say that they wanted nothing to do with optical disc, yes. And you can bet that Sony told 'em they had memory coming too, yet the BBC still ruled 'em out.

My understanding is that the "word on the street" is that it's a done deal for P2, but we'll see. I haven't seen any formal announcement from them either, but transitioning Factual Studios to all-DVCPRO-HD certainly telegraphs the direction they will likely head.

It's why I believe the mantra of "interframe bad, intraframe good" is nonsense in itself. At least without defining what bitrates you're talking of.

And as you'll read from my earlier posts, I agree with you on that. We just seem to set the bar at different points. I think 25 megabits is woefully inadequate, 35 megabits is just inadequate, 50 is getting close, and 100 is probably good enough. Even so, I think a shorter GOP is preferable so if you do get "hit", it's gone in a flash, versus long-GOP where any degradation persists for an entire half of a second.

I really don't want to be an apologist for Sony, but can you really say with a straight face that XDCAM discs (also made by Maxwell, TDK et al) are proprietary, and P2 is not!!!

Ah, yes, well played. But my reference was to the last 7 months where Sony reps have repeatedly said that XDCAM-EX would be a non-proprietary solution, when in fact the goal and the plan and the engineering was to make it an entirely proprietary solution all along.

And P2 is just as open to licensing as XDCAM HD; it's just that nobody's stepped up to license and produce the tech yet AFAIK. Panasonic's licensed DVCPRO technology before to guys like Fuji & Maxell, and they will again.

though can you explain "........the Panasonic method: Customer buys a deck back in 1986.

Yes, I can explain that. TYPO. I meant 1996 (if that's even accurate as to when DVCPRO first came out).

Well, I wish you luck with your hassling. The trouble with the two model philosophy is that it assumes a buyer will always either want one compromise or the other. In practice, it is far more likely to be a sometimes one, sometimes the other choice. To have to buy two cameras when one with two codecs will do just as would be stupid.

A bit like a past offering of two 1/4" tape decks - a 15ips model and a 3 3/4ips model. Far better to build in the ability to change speed as appropiate.

I do agree with you -- as you'll remember, I said that long before the HVX200 was released I pestered and hassled them to include HDV in the same unit. They wouldn't, but I did try. And I am currently trying to get AVC-HD added to any future HVX200A or HVX300, so the customer would have both options.

And if Sony would listen to me, I'd equally hassle them to put HDCAM on the EX1, for all the same reasons.

 

[Barry_Green]

Regarding the BBC issue; They have committed to P2 in the sense that they commissioned Adobe to provide for full P2 integration in it's video products. In a matter of days Adobe will release an update that will allow full native support of P2 in Premiere and shortly thereafter After Effects. All because the BBC commissioned them to. .. Seems like a mighty big project for the BBC is they aren't committed to the format.

- Mikko

Oooh, excellent! I love how business gets done at that level -- we consumers clamor and beg and whine, and they totally ignore us. One big company says "do it" and it gets done.

We all still benefit, but still -- it's fascinating to peel back the layers of the onion to see exactly how it all works... :thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

Let me step in here with a simplistic addition to this discussion.
Mini-DV,hdv,35Mb hdv,50Mb hdv,dvcprohd,hdcam are all compromises. Compression equals compromise in general.

Absolutely true.

interframe compression can give a similar picture as an intraframe codec at arguable 40% of the datarate.

Only under ideal circumstances. There are many circumstances where interframe will fail on that footage entirely, and the only solution is to up-up-up the bandwidth. Which I guess illustrates the entirety of the disagreement that Harddrive and I are having -- at what point is it "enough"? Obviously some people are happy with 25mbps. For those that aren't, Sony brought out 35mbps. Now they're going to 50mbps. Is 50 enough? I still doubt it, but it might be. I'd probably be comfortable at 100 though.

Bottom line is image quality is not paramount in all situations there are alot of other factors.

Absolutely true.

HDV is major sweetness on a budget.

HDV produces amazing pictures for the bandwidth. I still enjoy Adam Wilt's comment: "HDV looks better than it has any right to." When you consider it's handling over 4x as much data, at the same bandwidth, it's amazing that it works at all, much less that it looks as good as it usually does. My beef with it is in those circumstances where it doesn't work, but there are obviously many circumstances where it does fine.

 

[harddrive]

The BBC did say that they wanted nothing to do with optical disc, yes. And you can bet that Sony told 'em they had memory coming too, yet the BBC still ruled 'em out.

The best, most complete, and most authoritative public write up I've seen on all this is at: http://tvbeurope.com/pdfs/TVBE_download/2006/08/TVBE_P40-45_August_BusinessCase.pdf (just in case anybodys still interested ) . It's now over a year old, but AFAIK nothing more up to date has so far been publicly said - the only relevant news has been the preferred use of the HDX900 for HD documentary work for what HAS to be shot HD now, before the big migration to tapeless.

It's worth reading closely. Three sentences are very relevant:

"We settled down on working more closely over the year [2006] with Panasonic and Grass Valley. The obvious exclusion is Sony"

"Panasonics strength is in it's solid state products. The BBC acknowledges that solid-state is the way forward........."

Starwinder might involve Sony further down, but not now with optical disc."

Remember that this was written over 6 months before NAB and the announcement of SxS. What comes over to me is that whilst then they WERE excluding Sony on the basis of optical disc, the XDCAM-HD codec wasn't the issue.

My understanding is that the "word on the street" is that it's a done deal for P2, but we'll see. I haven't seen any formal announcement from them either, but transitioning Factual Studios to all-DVCPRO-HD certainly telegraphs the direction they will likely head.

I thought a done deal with P2 this time last year, but the more time goes by and no announcements, the more uncertain I become. And the longer the waiting goes on, the more likely we are to see a full size SxS camera and hence more competition for P2. Sky News recently announced their intention to go P2, but I understand that was because they wanted to move to solid state soon, and at the moment that has to mean P2. A potential advantage for a news operation such as them is that as newsrooms move to server based systems, material arriving back on a memory card could simply be plugged into a slot and be instantly available across the server.

But the BBC is far broader than news and for them this could even end up a rather messy draw - an edict specifying solid state, but different BBC departments preferring different flavours.

Yes, I can explain that. TYPO. I meant 1996 (if that's even accurate as to when DVCPRO first came out).

As good a source as any is wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTR and dates there lead to a very different interpretation to yours as to the backwards compatability of Panasonic and Sony media. After the 1986 typo, you talked of turning the clock back 5 to 20 years - let's go even further, 25 years, to 1982.

That year saw the introduction of two revolutionary new formats (I believe IBC was at Brighton then, and remember a colleague going) - a new thing called Betacam from Sony, and 'M' from Panasonic. The former evolved into firstly BetaSP, then DigiBeta, and finally SX, IMX, and the HD variants, but modern decks should still be able to play the original tapes.

M format? Sank without trace. An improved version (MII) came out four years later, but I can only think of two (fairly small regional) UK broadcasters who ever adopted it, and believe they both moved over to BetaSP after only a few years.

DVCPro is certainly a far better bet than either of those (and dates from 1995 according to Wikipedia) but as far as compatability goes has suffered by being 4:1:1 against 4:2:0 for DV (in 50Hz countries). DVCAM came out the following year with 4:2:0 compatability with DV and may be one reason it is better regarded here than in NTSC countries – it keeps the full colour space when going to DVD, digital television etc, whilst DVCPro ends up as effectively 4:1:0!

Sorry Barry, Sony has a far better historical record for backwards compatability than Panasonic – at least for pro equipment.

I am currently trying to get AVC-HD added to any future HVX200A or HVX300, so the customer would have both options.

And if Sony would listen to me, I'd equally hassle them to put HDCAM on the EX1, for all the same reasons.

Well, on that note, we'll end on total agreement!