benhuddleston
Well-known member
The option of having the AVC intra board seems to be a major selling point of the -2000. Is the only advantage to this compression over DVCproHD that it uses less memory? Or am I missing something else?
HPX-2000: what's the big deal about AVC-Intra?
- Thread starter benhuddleston
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
AVC-Intra is a 10-bit codec, with 1,024 shades of color per pixel. All other HD formats are 8-bit, with 256 shades.
AVC-Intra is also full-raster 1920x1080 (or 1280x720) in its 100-megabit modes. And it uses AVC, one of the most advanced and most efficient compression technologies in existence.
Panasonic's own statements are that AVC-Intra produces footage visually indistinguishable from HD-D5, which is the Hollywood standard mastering format.
AVC-Intra is also full-raster 1920x1080 (or 1280x720) in its 100-megabit modes. And it uses AVC, one of the most advanced and most efficient compression technologies in existence.
Panasonic's own statements are that AVC-Intra produces footage visually indistinguishable from HD-D5, which is the Hollywood standard mastering format.
k2director
Well-known member
AVC-Intra uses a more efficient compression scheme, which means for the same 100 Mbps data that DVCPRO HD uses, you get a higher quality image. Benefits include:
* 10 bit color depth instead of 8 bits of DVCPRO HD
* Full raster image in 1080 mode (full 1920 x 1080 pixels, whereas DVCPRO HD uses a fewer number of pixels, I can't remember what exactly the number is...maybe 1280x1080?). I believe the full-raster benefit applies in 720 mode (1280x720 vs DVCPRO HD's 960x720?) I'm sure somebody here could correct me, or fill in more details.
* Same 4:2:2 color sampling as DVCPRO HD, and same intra-frame approach (no long-gop mess)
AVC-Intra also supports a lower bit-rate mode of 50 Mbps. For this, you get roughly the same quality as 100 Mbps DVCPRO HD, but at half the storage space (although the color sampling may drop to 4:2:0...you might look that up).
One drawback is that many video editors can't work with AVC-Intra out of the box, it has to be converted to another format first. For instance, Final Cut requires converting AVC-Intra to a codec like ProRes, which takes a while on my Mac Pro (about 1.3x realtime).
* 10 bit color depth instead of 8 bits of DVCPRO HD
* Full raster image in 1080 mode (full 1920 x 1080 pixels, whereas DVCPRO HD uses a fewer number of pixels, I can't remember what exactly the number is...maybe 1280x1080?). I believe the full-raster benefit applies in 720 mode (1280x720 vs DVCPRO HD's 960x720?) I'm sure somebody here could correct me, or fill in more details.
* Same 4:2:2 color sampling as DVCPRO HD, and same intra-frame approach (no long-gop mess)
AVC-Intra also supports a lower bit-rate mode of 50 Mbps. For this, you get roughly the same quality as 100 Mbps DVCPRO HD, but at half the storage space (although the color sampling may drop to 4:2:0...you might look that up).
One drawback is that many video editors can't work with AVC-Intra out of the box, it has to be converted to another format first. For instance, Final Cut requires converting AVC-Intra to a codec like ProRes, which takes a while on my Mac Pro (about 1.3x realtime).
k2director
Well-known member
Woops, Barry beat me to it.
benhuddleston
Well-known member
Thanks for some clarity. I'm not entirely sure about the "full-raster" thing though. I've heard that phrase thrown around a lot, and I don't think I quite understand it. Is it that it records the information from each pixel individually, rather than lumping some together? Would that make the HPX-2000 1080p?
That begs another question: how significant is the visible difference between the two (DVCPRO HD and AVC Intra) in the real world? Is it worth the premium and time lost in post converting? The cost difference between the HPX-500 and the -2000 is fairly significant. I know you get other benefits, but some losses (less frame rates). Justifying the extra $13K seems a bit difficult to do from a cost/benefit standpoint, unless I'm missing something.
I know this subject has been touched on briefly in other threads, but I'm still a tad unsure.
That begs another question: how significant is the visible difference between the two (DVCPRO HD and AVC Intra) in the real world? Is it worth the premium and time lost in post converting? The cost difference between the HPX-500 and the -2000 is fairly significant. I know you get other benefits, but some losses (less frame rates). Justifying the extra $13K seems a bit difficult to do from a cost/benefit standpoint, unless I'm missing something.
I know this subject has been touched on briefly in other threads, but I'm still a tad unsure.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Most HD codecs "pre-filter" the highest frequencies out, resulting in a recorded frame size that's smaller than you might expect. With DVCPRO-HD, HDCAM, and HDV and most AVC-HD flavors, that means your 1920x1080 recording gets actually recorded at 1440x1080 (or, in 60Hz DVCPRO-HD, actually 1280x1080).
AVC-Intra does no pre-filtering, it records the entire raster, the full 1920x1080.
Simply put, AVC-Intra is the highest-quality recording format ever put into a camcorder. Discovery HD has certified AVC-Intra at its highest certification. It's D5 quality in a one-piece camera.
Will it make THAT much difference to you? That's up to you and your price tag. An HPX500 doesn't generate enough detail to truly take advantage of AVC-Intra. An HPX2000 is close, but you kind of need the HPX3000 to get the full maximum benefit, and a 3000 running AVC-Intra is unparalleled at anywhere up to 5x its price.
The 2000 is a full-fledged news camera that can also do digital cinematography (albeit without VFR). It's sharper than the 500, and twice the price of the 500. In some ways, you do get what you pay for. But the 500 does an excellent job, an amazing job at its price point ($8,000 for the body? Crazy.)
AVC-Intra does no pre-filtering, it records the entire raster, the full 1920x1080.
Simply put, AVC-Intra is the highest-quality recording format ever put into a camcorder. Discovery HD has certified AVC-Intra at its highest certification. It's D5 quality in a one-piece camera.
Will it make THAT much difference to you? That's up to you and your price tag. An HPX500 doesn't generate enough detail to truly take advantage of AVC-Intra. An HPX2000 is close, but you kind of need the HPX3000 to get the full maximum benefit, and a 3000 running AVC-Intra is unparalleled at anywhere up to 5x its price.
The 2000 is a full-fledged news camera that can also do digital cinematography (albeit without VFR). It's sharper than the 500, and twice the price of the 500. In some ways, you do get what you pay for. But the 500 does an excellent job, an amazing job at its price point ($8,000 for the body? Crazy.)
benhuddleston
Well-known member
Very clear and concise, thank you very much.
dantewaters
Well-known member
wow sounds delicious that's a serous camera...
Scott Auerbach
New member
I'm an owner/operator, so I thought I'd chime in. I own both the 2000 with the AVC-I option and a 200, and frequently shoot with the 500 as well.
All three are great cameras for the price, and Barry's right (as always...hey Barry!): you get what you pay for. I'm a bit disappointed that there doesn't appear to be an HVX upgrade in the near-term pipeline to compete against the Sony EX series, as the HVX's pixel-shifting mojo is now long in the tooth. The 500 is just "stupid good" for the money, but it's still a pixel-shifted SD camera. The 2000 is the most affordable full-HD camera Panasonic makes, and there's an optional AVC-Intra board for it.
(Slightly off-topic: in the continuing wonderment that is Panasonic's market segmentation, you get off-frame-rate capability on the 200 and 500, but not the 2000 or 3000. You get chromatic abberation compensation on the 500 and 3000, but not the 2000. You get image flip capability on the 3000 but not the 2000. You get multi-format capability on everything except the 3000. Then there's the upcoming 2700 and 3700....)
Back to topic: I've done extensive split-screen comparisons of DVCProHD and AVC-Intra on the 2000. Would the average viewer see the difference? Highly doubtful. Would the average shooter/editor see the difference on a small monitor? It's subtle. REALLY subtle. Would the average shooter/editor see the difference on a 50" plasma? Absolutely. Will AVC-Intra 100 key more cleanly than DVCProHD? Without a doubt. Edge sharpness and contrast is significantly improved. Is AVC-Intra 50 as good as DVCProHD? Despite Panasonic's marketing hype, no. Plain ol' NO. No, no, no!! But it looks sharper than the 500 shooting DVCProHD. Is the optional board worth the $3000 price tag? Weeeeelllllllll.... it kinda depends. I'm an image purist, having come out of a 35mm still photography background. So all HD looks fairly crude to me. That extra little bit helps, for sure. In fact, the edge sharpness is improved to the point where you really begin to see the effects of the detail circuit very clearly. If you paint the camera carelessly, you'll see it. (And the deep painting capabilities of the 2000, like the Varicams, is one of the great strengths of the camera over the 200 and 500.)
The subtlety of the difference points out just how GOOD a codec DVCProHD is. Think about it... it's been around for years, and the newest codec is only a small improvement. Personally, I think the only vast improvements left to be made probably involve wavelet or other (vector/fractal) schemes quite different than current Panasonic technology.
It's worth noting that being in 10-bit color space --while not as noticeable as you'd expect when you're lit and exposed well-- becomes a major asset if you have to do color correction. If you're a documentary shooter working in odd lighting situations or someone who likes to apply a lot of filtration and image effects in post, those extra bits are valuable.
As for the time involved in transcoding AVC-Intra to ProRes422 on the ingest to Final Cut: it's not that big a deal. It doesn't take much longer than simply doing the DVCProHD rewrap to Quicktime. Unless you're loading hours and hours of footage at a time, the difference is insignificant. ProRes file sizes are larger than the native AVC-Intra, but comparable to Avid's DNxHD codecs for digitizing HD from tape. Drives are cheap. Buy another terabyte. You deserve it. It's annoying when you're running close to capacity, but I understand Apple's need to develop a standard HD file type to transcode everything to. The HD file-type universe is only going to get more and more cluttered, and there's only so many file types you can handle natively before it becomes a mess for the software developers.
Scott Auerbach
www.sputnikpictures.tv
All three are great cameras for the price, and Barry's right (as always...hey Barry!): you get what you pay for. I'm a bit disappointed that there doesn't appear to be an HVX upgrade in the near-term pipeline to compete against the Sony EX series, as the HVX's pixel-shifting mojo is now long in the tooth. The 500 is just "stupid good" for the money, but it's still a pixel-shifted SD camera. The 2000 is the most affordable full-HD camera Panasonic makes, and there's an optional AVC-Intra board for it.
(Slightly off-topic: in the continuing wonderment that is Panasonic's market segmentation, you get off-frame-rate capability on the 200 and 500, but not the 2000 or 3000. You get chromatic abberation compensation on the 500 and 3000, but not the 2000. You get image flip capability on the 3000 but not the 2000. You get multi-format capability on everything except the 3000. Then there's the upcoming 2700 and 3700....)
Back to topic: I've done extensive split-screen comparisons of DVCProHD and AVC-Intra on the 2000. Would the average viewer see the difference? Highly doubtful. Would the average shooter/editor see the difference on a small monitor? It's subtle. REALLY subtle. Would the average shooter/editor see the difference on a 50" plasma? Absolutely. Will AVC-Intra 100 key more cleanly than DVCProHD? Without a doubt. Edge sharpness and contrast is significantly improved. Is AVC-Intra 50 as good as DVCProHD? Despite Panasonic's marketing hype, no. Plain ol' NO. No, no, no!! But it looks sharper than the 500 shooting DVCProHD. Is the optional board worth the $3000 price tag? Weeeeelllllllll.... it kinda depends. I'm an image purist, having come out of a 35mm still photography background. So all HD looks fairly crude to me. That extra little bit helps, for sure. In fact, the edge sharpness is improved to the point where you really begin to see the effects of the detail circuit very clearly. If you paint the camera carelessly, you'll see it. (And the deep painting capabilities of the 2000, like the Varicams, is one of the great strengths of the camera over the 200 and 500.)
The subtlety of the difference points out just how GOOD a codec DVCProHD is. Think about it... it's been around for years, and the newest codec is only a small improvement. Personally, I think the only vast improvements left to be made probably involve wavelet or other (vector/fractal) schemes quite different than current Panasonic technology.
It's worth noting that being in 10-bit color space --while not as noticeable as you'd expect when you're lit and exposed well-- becomes a major asset if you have to do color correction. If you're a documentary shooter working in odd lighting situations or someone who likes to apply a lot of filtration and image effects in post, those extra bits are valuable.
As for the time involved in transcoding AVC-Intra to ProRes422 on the ingest to Final Cut: it's not that big a deal. It doesn't take much longer than simply doing the DVCProHD rewrap to Quicktime. Unless you're loading hours and hours of footage at a time, the difference is insignificant. ProRes file sizes are larger than the native AVC-Intra, but comparable to Avid's DNxHD codecs for digitizing HD from tape. Drives are cheap. Buy another terabyte. You deserve it. It's annoying when you're running close to capacity, but I understand Apple's need to develop a standard HD file type to transcode everything to. The HD file-type universe is only going to get more and more cluttered, and there's only so many file types you can handle natively before it becomes a mess for the software developers.
Scott Auerbach
www.sputnikpictures.tv
Last edited:
Scott Auerbach
New member
AVC-Intra is currently implemented only for HD in the 2000. DVCPro50 is already as good as Digibeta, IMO. I don't think you'd see any gains in SD by going to AVC-I. I deliver footage on the client's portable hard drive. It's an extra step at the end of the day, but the client more than makes back that lost time in editing, where the ingest is much faster than from tape. And portable FW/USB drives are smaller than tape (and as cheap). Some clients get it...some don't. I rent a clunker Beta camera for those who don't.
Spartacus
Veteran
So are we talking news stations/regular broadcasters here?
A lot I work for still edit linear when speed is demanded and rather take a crappy old BetaSP tape than a HDD...
I guess other formats with longer postpro circles would take a HDD.
earmarkcreative
Active member
Hi Barry,
I've heard that statement before about the HPX2000 being a news camera but I also heard directly from Panasonic and others, that the 2000 is the exact same as the HDX900 only without tape. I've never heard the HDX900 being referred to as a news camera, actually there are some guys that swear by it for creative content creation (read: NON-NEWS). Just wondering why you call it a news camera?
If we want to get technical, shouldn't the HPX3000, Varicam, F900 etc be called news cameras too, afterall they are all "modelled" in whats known as ENG-Style (Electronic News Gathering)
cheers
Evangelos Achillopoulos
Well-known member
AVC-Intra... wow!!!
AVC-Intra... wow!!!
Just to add my personal experience...
At the end of July I was just finished shooting a feature with my Varicam F... that movie its going to be projected on the biggest Greek film Festival against REDs S16 and 35mm movies... The format used was DVCPRO-HD tape and FilmREC...
1st of August I received my newly purchased AJ-HPM110 with AVC-Intra.
from 10th of August I started shooting another big feature this time on AVC-Intra and FilmREC...
The difference between the two is monumental ! Its like I have another camera... the 10bits are making a big difference, the full raster is giving to Varicam what it was missing, now it can easily outperform an F900... colors are so vivid and so flexible in grading... shadows are gained a stop...
AVC-Intra combined with FilmREC mode of Varicam and the new exporter to DPX from AVC-Intra in the new P2 manager 1,3... is a killer!
When I grade the images (in my Apple Color film calibrated monitor for film out with my film recorder) the behavior is equivalent to film scans... to fog the blacks with extreme black lift is almost impossible... RED footage doesn't come even close to that...
The only problem is the lack of EDL handling from P2 manager so everything has to be done by hand... But I thing they will fix it soon.
But the image... WOWWW !!! AVC-Intra and FilmREC is unbelievable... And I have an old Varicam F just imagine 3000 and 3700... If they only had a 35mm sensor block...
The P2 manager DPX exporter is delivering accurate LOG DPX files using ALL the range. After same experimenting the FCP is legalizing the blacks (it is chopping the blacks below 64...) that is not happening with the DPX exporter so the blacks are richer by one stop!
The DPX exporter is perfect... it needs an EDL I/O and an optional upscaling to 2K with Lanczos algorithm for 720 footage and its super...
AVC-Intra... wow!!!
Just to add my personal experience...
At the end of July I was just finished shooting a feature with my Varicam F... that movie its going to be projected on the biggest Greek film Festival against REDs S16 and 35mm movies... The format used was DVCPRO-HD tape and FilmREC...
1st of August I received my newly purchased AJ-HPM110 with AVC-Intra.
from 10th of August I started shooting another big feature this time on AVC-Intra and FilmREC...
The difference between the two is monumental ! Its like I have another camera... the 10bits are making a big difference, the full raster is giving to Varicam what it was missing, now it can easily outperform an F900... colors are so vivid and so flexible in grading... shadows are gained a stop...
AVC-Intra combined with FilmREC mode of Varicam and the new exporter to DPX from AVC-Intra in the new P2 manager 1,3... is a killer!
When I grade the images (in my Apple Color film calibrated monitor for film out with my film recorder) the behavior is equivalent to film scans... to fog the blacks with extreme black lift is almost impossible... RED footage doesn't come even close to that...
The only problem is the lack of EDL handling from P2 manager so everything has to be done by hand... But I thing they will fix it soon.
But the image... WOWWW !!! AVC-Intra and FilmREC is unbelievable... And I have an old Varicam F just imagine 3000 and 3700... If they only had a 35mm sensor block...
The P2 manager DPX exporter is delivering accurate LOG DPX files using ALL the range. After same experimenting the FCP is legalizing the blacks (it is chopping the blacks below 64...) that is not happening with the DPX exporter so the blacks are richer by one stop!
The DPX exporter is perfect... it needs an EDL I/O and an optional upscaling to 2K with Lanczos algorithm for 720 footage and its super...
LuckyStudio 13
The Tapeless One
Hpx2000 dont have the varicam film rec and no VFR, Hpx3000 has film rec but no VFR. Hpx 3700 at 60k no lens + no batt + no evf is nothing but a dream. And you also need a 30k cine lens to do it justice. But yeah, the F900 should be very afraid now.