Press Release: HMC150, "the new DVX"

HDC-SD9 1080/60i issue with Mac
2008/02/16

David Chan and I confirmed that trying to bring 1080/60i clips to Mac from HDC-SD9 wether it is in iMovie or FCP would crash application.

I’ve been bringing in clips via MOTU V3HD (via component) or...

Read more... No Comments
Click to expand...
Panasonic HDC-SD9 sample file
2008/02/16

Quick comparison of 1080/60i, 1080/24p and 1080/24p with Brevis.
I don’t know if this works for Windows users, but it is the whole copy of the SD card (onyl has three clips so it’s about 200MB).

Click...

Read more... No Comments
Click to expand...
Source: http://web.mac.com/kakuito/KakugyoBlog/VideoBlog/VideoBlog.html

In searching for clips, I ran across this (see above). Anything Apple & crash just don't seem to go together; however right now there is a reported problem with the clips with both iMovie and FC (Final Cut).

I would expect that before the HMC150 comes out this issue will be fixed.

By the way, does "HMC" in the name "HMC150" equal to the words "High [capacity] Memory Card"? Good question to ask Jan at NAB.

My iMovie is now screwed up, because I found the posting AFTER I tried to read the files into iMovie. Not a big issue for me, because I never use use it... Oh well, the next big update will fix it.


Bob Diaz
 
Thanks for the sample file Bob. I'm downloading it now. I'm going to see what I can figure out about Panasonic's AVC implementation. You also probably saved me a trip to Circuit City, to try out the SD9. I am sort of interested in the SD9, as a possible alternative to my HV20, with better manual control, for when I visit my grandkids and such.
 
I couldn't even get the MTS files to open with VLC. Doesn't look real promising...

Anyone know how to get at one of these on a PC?

EDIT: I probably worded that badly. I did get an MTS file to open in VLC, but only got some audio (ok) with horked video (unviewable), then it crashed VLC pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:
Zander said:
Is there way to play those AVCHD clips on a Mac?

Running 10.5.2
Click to expand...

I see you have a powermac. I have one of the new tiny panny's with AVCHD and it won't play on my powermac. It plays and imports only into my laptop which is intel based. I'm only running it in iMovie. Have yet to try final cut.

j.
 
insanityfw said:
I see you have a powermac. I have one of the new tiny panny's with AVCHD and it won't play on my powermac. It plays and imports only into my laptop which is intel based. I'm only running it in iMovie. Have yet to try final cut.

j.
Click to expand...

The PowerMac is my editing rig. I use a Mac Book for most of my web browsing and chatting.
 
I downloaded the latest trial version of NERO, and did get the MTS files to play properly with Nero Showtime. It was a little odd, because NERO told me I needed to upgrade with an optional plugin to play H.264, then proceeded to play the files anyway (presumably using the H.264 codec already installed on my machine). Since downloading and installing that trial version of NERO, this computer has behaved a little erratically. I'm not sure what is causing problems though (just built it a few weeks ago - Phenom 9500 with a cheap ECS motherboard).
 
Are we looking at a camera that shoots the same quality as the HVX200, with a smaller bit rate, due to a different compression? Or will the HVX be a king of cameras for the next few years to come?
 
PaPa said:
Are we looking at a camera that shoots the same quality as the HVX200, with a smaller bit rate, due to a different compression? Or will the HVX be a king of cameras for the next few years to come?
Click to expand...

Potentially, the quality of the footage (in an overall sense) could be as good as the HVX, or even better in some circumstances. It really depends on a number of things, like the quality of the lens, how well the imagers work, how well the codec is implemented, how tweakable the camera is, etc. What you are shooting will make a difference too. Interframe compression works well for shooting low motion scenes, while intra-frame only compression is more ideally suited for shooting scenes with a lot of motion.
 
i guess it's just curious as speculation is that it will be less expensive than the current HVX, yet if it shoots similar to same quality, and is new... just confusing thts all. I wish i knew more about these codecs andcompression, all these terms.
 
PaPa said:
Are we looking at a camera that shoots the same quality as the HVX200, with a smaller bit rate, due to a different compression? Or will the HVX be a king of cameras for the next few years to come?
Click to expand...

Many of us are GUESSING that the image will be about the same quality as the HVX-200, but until we can run side by side tests, this is only a guess. For now assume that the image quality is the same with HVX-200...

With the HVX-200, each frame of video is compressed as a separate frame and has no impact on the other frames of video. This is known as intra frame compression. The key advantages are that movement, video noise, and interlaced video do NOT pose additional problems for intra frame compression. The catch is that we must use a higher data rate than the other system to avoid compression artifacts.

With the HMC150, inter frame compression is used. With inter frame compression, a GOP (Group Of Pictures) it used and common things between the frames are used to compress the data size down. While we are able to generate a smaller data rate, there is a degree of risk here. Very complex movement and rapid random changes between the frames are hard for the system to deal with.

The higher the data rate, the easier it is for the system to deal with all the messy stuff. This is why you see so many messages of users wanting to see 24Mbps as the maximum data rate for AVCHD. I use the term "headroom" to convey the concept of having the extra bits (higher data rate), just in case the changes start to become very complex.

Now if we are shooting an outdoor wedding (no wind) with both systems from the same camera at 720/60p. As we look at the video, a whole lot does not change from frame to frame; so the inter frame compression of the HMC150 really takes advantage of the similarity between the frames. The images should look about the same with both systems.

Next we go inside to the reception where it's very dark, the camera is set to +18dB of gain, everyone is on the dance floor (fast dance), flashes are all going off from all directions, you are shaking the camera like crazy, and you are shooting their reflection from a pool of water with LOTS of ripples moving in every direction!!! There are so many changes from frame to frame, it's next to impossible for the AVCHD CODEC (the device that compresses the data) to keep up. The chances of macro blocking (little blocks that appear in the image) showing up is very high. The intra frame compression found on the HVX-200 would not have any problem with all the random junk in the image; however the inter frame compression of the HMC150 might have a problem.


Because we don't have an HMC150 to test with, we can't say how far we can push the camera before there's a macro block problem. My person belief is that it will be very likely to take a lot to overload the CODEC to generate this problem.

Here's an article about compression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression


While the HMC150 is a step down from the HVX-200 (over crank & under crank are NOT offered on the HMC150), it is also going to be a lower priced video camera. Many of us believe that overall, the images should be about the same as the HVX-200. So, the lower cost of the HMC150 is of interest to many. In two weeks, some of us will get a first look at NAB and some questions will be answered.... More to updates to come... stay tuned.


Bob Diaz
 
Last edited:
so then it's also safe to say that upon video capture, the footage will take up much less space on the hardrive?

thank you very much for that bob, cleared up a lot of my questions!
 
On the HMC150, 1 hour of source video should take up about 9GB to 11GB of storage at the maximum data rate. (Assuming 20Mbps to 24 Mbps.)

On the HVX-200, 1 hour of source video should take up about 45GB of storage at the maximum data rate.


Bob Diaz
 
wows, big difference.
I would also assume one would need more computer power to edit P2 as well. There may be some nice advantages to this HMC, but the potential artifacts in busy moving frames does worry me. Wonder how long it will be till we see some tests.
 
@ 24mbps it should do better than your A1, Papa, as far as image quality goes. That's before the imaging head, etc. Speaking on the Codec alone.

Also, it'll take more processor power to cut AVCHD than it does DVCProHD.
 
so you're saying its more difficult to edit the HMC stuff than the P2 stuff even though it has a higher data rate?
 
I'm probably wrong, but I always thought DVCproHD footage was much more post friendly than anything LongGOP where timelines and editing in general were concerned.
 
so if i understand correctly, the DVCproHD can be edited by CS3, but AVCHD needs to be converted to edit? This would add a lot of time to editing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top