mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
yes.
- Mikko
- Mikko
Press Release: HMC150, "the new DVX"
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
CCD is always global shutter.
filmguy123
Veteran
So for editing AVC-Intra, this is when it would be good to have an 8-core Mac Pro?
As for AVC-Intra, is it a "lossless" codec like DV and DVCPRO-HD, just utilizing better/smarter compression (and thus needing more processing power?)
If you transcode AVC-Intra100 to, say, ProRes 422, will this require a lot more HDD space, BUT, make CPU requirements go back down? Would any quality loss occur here?
As for AVC-Intra, is it a "lossless" codec like DV and DVCPRO-HD, just utilizing better/smarter compression (and thus needing more processing power?)
If you transcode AVC-Intra100 to, say, ProRes 422, will this require a lot more HDD space, BUT, make CPU requirements go back down? Would any quality loss occur here?
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
I wouldn't recommend anyone go to a Mac for editing, but that's just me. I can edit a stream of AVC-Intra on my laptop right now; EDIUS 4.6 supports AVC-Intra in realtime off a P2 card on a dual-core 2.4GHz laptop.
If you want ultimate mega performance and multiple streams then yes, something like an 8-core system would help. But a Mac won't do anything for you there; the Mac doesn't support native editing, it requires you to transcode to ProRes.
If you want ultimate mega performance and multiple streams then yes, something like an 8-core system would help. But a Mac won't do anything for you there; the Mac doesn't support native editing, it requires you to transcode to ProRes.
filmguy123
Veteran
Sorry I didn't mean if I should go back, I just meant 8-core. I'm a Mac guy and I use Mac's, that's why I said Mac. Anyway...
... still wondering about those.
... still wondering about those.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No HD codec is "lossless". AVC is much more efficient compression than the others, but there's loss in every camcorder codec out there.
I don't know the bitrate of ProRes, but I'd certainly bet that ProRes files are going to have to be larger than AVC-Intra files, or will lose quality as compared to the originals. Isn't ProRes around 140bmps? If so, that would mean transcoding would cause about a 40% increase in required disk space.
I don't know the bitrate of ProRes, but I'd certainly bet that ProRes files are going to have to be larger than AVC-Intra files, or will lose quality as compared to the originals. Isn't ProRes around 140bmps? If so, that would mean transcoding would cause about a 40% increase in required disk space.
Alex.Mitchell
Well-known member
1080 60i/30p & 720 60p = 220Mbps HQ, 147Mbps SQ
1080 24p = 176, 117
720 50P = 184, 122
720 30p = 110, 73
720 24p = 88, 58
486 60i/30p = 63, 42
576 50i/25p = 61, 41
Keep in mind that ProRes is full raster 10-bit 422 in both HQ and SQ modes, if you want it to be. 1440/1280/960 modes are also available in addition to the 1920/1280 modes. While the filesizes may be larger than AVC-Intra, the computational requirements are smaller, so more streams can be edited at once.
Last edited:
filmguy123
Veteran
AH, so - if you transcode to ProRes, the space requirements go up, but the computational requirements go way down? That is a nice option to have.
With those ProRes specs, would you really lose that much quality?
Barry - no HD codec is lossless? I might be confused. Wasn't the standard-def DV codec lossless? Why isn't there a lossless equivalent for HD? Is it just because bandwidth requirements are still too great? I was under the impression that DVCPRO-HD was lossless like DV.
With those ProRes specs, would you really lose that much quality?
Barry - no HD codec is lossless? I might be confused. Wasn't the standard-def DV codec lossless? Why isn't there a lossless equivalent for HD? Is it just because bandwidth requirements are still too great? I was under the impression that DVCPRO-HD was lossless like DV.
I haven't seen any hard, credible data as to how much more a global-shutter CMOS chip would cost than a comparable rolling-shutter one. As to light sensitivity, one solution is a larger chip. But I would agree that until CMOS sensors have global shutters and light sensitivity and dynamic range comparable (or superior) to those of CCDs, CCDs will be, on balance, more desirable.
seejay1031
Well-known member
No. DV is not lossless.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
DVCproHD would be the equivalent for HD compression like DV was for SD. Same with HDcam from sony.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Most definitely not. What DV provided was lossless transfers from the tpae to the computer, but the actual DV compression is quite lossy. The actual DCT portion is 5:1, but you also have to factor in the quantizing from 10 bits down to 8, and the chroma decimation from 4:4:4 down to 4:1:1, and the total overall compression is more like 8:1.
whats DVCpro's Ratio? 15:1?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Haven't calculated it... it's the same 10 to 8, but less chroma decimation (4:2:2 instead of 4:1:1), but prefiltering... slightly more on the DCT, 6.7:1 vs. 5:1. So, probably a net of around 10:1.
BobDiaz
The Professor
Wow, there were a lot of interesting points made in this thread.
Given that Panasonic has shown aggressive and clever moves in the market, like the HVX-200, the AG-HMC150 appears to be the "little brother" to the HVX-200, so while I can't say for sure, it seems likely that...
The higher bit rate should be a step higher than the 16 Mbps of Sony's HDR-SR12.
To go higher than 16 Mbps would prevent the user from using the Class 2 SDHC (Secure Digital High Capacity) cards, but Class 4 and Class 6 will still work OK for bit rates > 16 Mbps.
Going to the maximum of 24 Mbps (with MPEG-4 AVC H264) would really be the killer shot to HDV (MPEG-2, 25 Mbps). If my calculations are correct, a 16 GB card at 24 Mbps would hold almost 1.5 hours of material; well maybe only 1.2 hours (CORRECTION: 1.4 hours) when I take into account overhead. Still, this is more than enough time for most users.
Given that AVCHD allows for up to 18 Mbps for DVDs, it would seem logical to be better than that specification in the event another company comes up with a DVD AVCHD camera. (It would be a dumb idea to use a DVD, given that Flash memory would be so much more cost effective and allows longer record times.)
SEE: http://www.avchd-info.org/format/index.html
The point is that the files can go direct to a low cost DVD (SL or DL) and play in a Blu-ray player. A simple PC or MAC program could generate a menu system for the disk. OK, the SL and DL DVDs won't hold a lot of time at the maximum 24 Mbps data rate, but at least you could play the raw files on your Blu-ray player without an expensive Blu-ray burner.
Another thought on the higher data rate is look at the data rates for the AG-HMC70, 6 Mbps, 9 Mbps, and 13 Mbps. It seems that the rates step from low to high by an increase by about a factor of 1.5 times. Thus, 6 x 1.5 = 9 and 9 x 1.5 = 13.5; or round down to 13 Mbps. If we consider the next step to be 1.5x higher, then 13 x 1.5 = 19.5 Mbps. That could either round down to 19 Mbps or up to 20 Mbps. However, the next setp up does not have to be an increase of 1.5 times; Panasonic can do what they want to with that selection. Going from 13 Mbps to 16 Mbps is only an increase of 1.23 times, not that big a jump.
I think that everyone saying the price has to be under $4,000 is correct. IF it were more, why buy the AG-HVC150, when you could get an HVX-200 for just a bit more. AT the other end, the AG-HMC70 is $2,495; so the price has to be well above that point or Panasonic won't sell any AG-HMC70 cameras.
The final judgment of the camera will have to wait until it comes out and has been field tested, but for now, it sure looks interesting....
Bob Diaz
Given that Panasonic has shown aggressive and clever moves in the market, like the HVX-200, the AG-HMC150 appears to be the "little brother" to the HVX-200, so while I can't say for sure, it seems likely that...
The higher bit rate should be a step higher than the 16 Mbps of Sony's HDR-SR12.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
To go higher than 16 Mbps would prevent the user from using the Class 2 SDHC (Secure Digital High Capacity) cards, but Class 4 and Class 6 will still work OK for bit rates > 16 Mbps.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
Going to the maximum of 24 Mbps (with MPEG-4 AVC H264) would really be the killer shot to HDV (MPEG-2, 25 Mbps). If my calculations are correct, a 16 GB card at 24 Mbps would hold almost 1.5 hours of material; well maybe only 1.2 hours (CORRECTION: 1.4 hours) when I take into account overhead. Still, this is more than enough time for most users.
Given that AVCHD allows for up to 18 Mbps for DVDs, it would seem logical to be better than that specification in the event another company comes up with a DVD AVCHD camera. (It would be a dumb idea to use a DVD, given that Flash memory would be so much more cost effective and allows longer record times.)
SEE: http://www.avchd-info.org/format/index.html
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#BD9_.2F_BD5_Blu-ray_Disc
The point is that the files can go direct to a low cost DVD (SL or DL) and play in a Blu-ray player. A simple PC or MAC program could generate a menu system for the disk. OK, the SL and DL DVDs won't hold a lot of time at the maximum 24 Mbps data rate, but at least you could play the raw files on your Blu-ray player without an expensive Blu-ray burner.
Another thought on the higher data rate is look at the data rates for the AG-HMC70, 6 Mbps, 9 Mbps, and 13 Mbps. It seems that the rates step from low to high by an increase by about a factor of 1.5 times. Thus, 6 x 1.5 = 9 and 9 x 1.5 = 13.5; or round down to 13 Mbps. If we consider the next step to be 1.5x higher, then 13 x 1.5 = 19.5 Mbps. That could either round down to 19 Mbps or up to 20 Mbps. However, the next setp up does not have to be an increase of 1.5 times; Panasonic can do what they want to with that selection. Going from 13 Mbps to 16 Mbps is only an increase of 1.23 times, not that big a jump.
I think that everyone saying the price has to be under $4,000 is correct. IF it were more, why buy the AG-HVC150, when you could get an HVX-200 for just a bit more. AT the other end, the AG-HMC70 is $2,495; so the price has to be well above that point or Panasonic won't sell any AG-HMC70 cameras.
The final judgment of the camera will have to wait until it comes out and has been field tested, but for now, it sure looks interesting....
Bob Diaz
Last edited:
John Trent
Well-known member
I'm going to follow Bob Diaz's great post with what is probably a very stupid question. I was reading about someone importing a 30 sec. AVCHD clip into a 2.4 ghz iMac and it taking 90 sec. - 3X's longer than the time "recorded". Now, if I've got 1.4 hrs on a card how long will it take me to import it to a (comparable Ghz) laptop, so I can wipe the card clean and and continue shooting - surely not 4 1/2 hrs. 
I'm unfamiliar with memory cards, laptops, Macs and very used to DV so bear with me. Thanks.
I'm unfamiliar with memory cards, laptops, Macs and very used to DV so bear with me. Thanks.
BobDiaz
The Professor
As a teacher at a local Junior Collage, I can say that there are no stupid questions.
My guess is that the import is trans-coding at the same time, thus it takes processor power and time to convert from one format to another. (To me it almost sounds like it's going from one form of MPEG-4 to another form of MPEG-4, if it takes that long!)
Now if we are just talking about copying the file, no conversion, I can copy 16 GB reasonably fast on my iMac or my PC. So, to copy and then clean off the card would be quick, BUT to copy while trans-coding, will take a bit of time.
If I copy the file to the MAC or PC, I can always trans-code later on when I have time.
Right now as far as the AG-HMC150, we don't know a whole lot, so almost everything we can say is guessing. There is reason to believe that come the NAB Trade Show, April 14 - 17, Panasonic will tell us a lot more about the camera. Maybe not everything, but at least enough to better understand what it should be able to do...
Bob Diaz
My guess is that the import is trans-coding at the same time, thus it takes processor power and time to convert from one format to another. (To me it almost sounds like it's going from one form of MPEG-4 to another form of MPEG-4, if it takes that long!)
Now if we are just talking about copying the file, no conversion, I can copy 16 GB reasonably fast on my iMac or my PC. So, to copy and then clean off the card would be quick, BUT to copy while trans-coding, will take a bit of time.
If I copy the file to the MAC or PC, I can always trans-code later on when I have time.
Right now as far as the AG-HMC150, we don't know a whole lot, so almost everything we can say is guessing. There is reason to believe that come the NAB Trade Show, April 14 - 17, Panasonic will tell us a lot more about the camera. Maybe not everything, but at least enough to better understand what it should be able to do...
Bob Diaz
manglerBMX
Veteran
on panny's website they have a little promo video showing the AG-HMC70 and it shows the card slot, and its only a single slot. does anyone have an intellegent guess as to if the 150 will have more than one slot? i'm really hoping for 2 or more slots, that would be amaaazing.