HPX250: AVC-I 100 and 50 discernment, opt for AVC-I 50 for most scenes

L

lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com

Well-known member
I'm shooting long-form doc and averages 512-640 Gb/day for a period of several months on multiple HPX250s and other 2/3" sources. It's getting expensive on storage, especially 2 copies of each for redundancy peace of mind.

Has anyone here been able to discern AVC-I 100 and 50 in regular, non high-detailed, scenic type of shoot? So far test shoots revealed no dramatic improvement for most scenes. What I see is the limit of the camera class itself (1/3" type). It's extremely hard to tell the difference between 50 and 100. Same scene with some red and skin tone to reference. Virtually no improvement in the red and skintone rendition whatsoever fr 50-100 modes. Recording time is a bit more than doubled (142 min for 1080/30pN on a 64 Gb P2). Subjectively, AVC-I 100 is a overkill for this cam when shooting non-green screen type of shot.
 
Last edited:
The only thing you don't get is full frame 1920X1080, you get 1440X1080 in AVC-I50, so you lose a little sharpness. Also it's 4:2:0, so you may get some color banding in sunset/sunrise scenes. But I agree, it saves a lot of space on P2 cards. But all in all, it looks pretty good.
 
4:2:0 wouldn't cause color banding, 8-bit quantizing causes color banding. 4:2:0 leads to rougher chroma keys.

AVCI-50 is lower-res 1440 vs. 1920 (or, in 720p, 960 vs. 1280). And it's 4:2:0 instead of 4:2:2. But they're both 10-bit. And AVCI-50 will be quite a bit more compressed.
 
Surely the AVC Intra 100 gives you complete peace of mind that your material is the best it can be for any future application. The cost of terrabites of storage is nothing compared to not having the quality that the camera will produce. Gathering pictures with a 250 compared to using a traditional broadcast shoulder mount P2 camera is peanuts costwise. Libraries certainly show more interest when material is shot full 1080p 100 mbits.
 
The reduced 1440 pixel is not what I have in mind. If it was 1920 w/ reduced color sampling & bit reduction, then maybe. But 1440 is just too much of a reduction.

I will opt to shoot at AVC-100 and transcode to Apple Pro Res LT as editing (full time code data transferred of course), or even better use Proxy option in FCP X. This will have the best of both worlds but at the additional expense of additional transcoding time. IF there's ever the need for additional quality, can always use the master AVC-I 100 over the transcoded file.

I concur that it's always best to acquire the image at highest possible quality even though it may cost more at the present moment. With storage capacity literally double every 2-3 years and cost relatively the same, I don't see any reason not taking advantage of Moore's law.
 
Last edited:
I started using the USB device feature and have small 2.5" drives to which I can copy directly in the field. For me the best solution so far. Unfortunately the backups create a new image for every P2 card copied but still, I am happy with the feature. So many times I dont have a laptop in the field to copy the material, but a small HD fits anywhere. Of course the camera is blocked during transfer which is as fast as other copy solutions IMO.

I think going full AVCI 100 is the best for future use...
Really appreciated your comparisons with the 2/3" models! Shows how higher prices directly relate to quality (still:)
 
Will keep this in mind in situation where laptop of p2 card reader are not available.

I notice many of my clients appreciate the attention to quality and detail in the shot, and that translate to repeat business and gradual increase in profits. Quality still counts regardless of how bad the current economy is. The 2/3" cam delivers that in the least amount of time. This enable producers to have more pristine picture quality content shot in the shortest time vs. having to workaround w/ the 1/3" cam limitations to get similar quality. In my business, time is money. The high initial cost for 2/3" cam & lenses will eventually pay itself off.

QUOTE=timbook2;1986155577]I started using the USB device feature and have small 2.5" drives to which I can copy directly in the field. For me the best solution so far. Unfortunately the backups create a new image for every P2 card copied but still, I am happy with the feature. So many times I dont have a laptop in the field to copy the material, but a small HD fits anywhere. Of course the camera is blocked during transfer which is as fast as other copy solutions IMO.

I think going full AVCI 100 is the best for future use...
Really appreciated your comparisons with the 2/3" models! Shows how higher prices directly relate to quality (still:)[/QUOTE]



 
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com said:
I'm shooting long-form doc and averages 512-640 Gb/day for a period of several months .
Click to expand...

1/2 a terrabyte a day then backing it day so 1 terrabyte a day is alot of footage and alot of space. So over several months that 30 terrabytes a month of just video. So how many different NAS devices or servers and what size do you have for all this? Cost is avarage 1 Terrabyte mabye $100 per drive (on the less expense side) thats $3,000 in drives for 1 month, or am I miss understanding how you are shooting and storing?
 
timbook2 said:
I started using the USB device feature and have small 2.5" drives to which I can copy directly in the field.
Click to expand...

I dint even think of this, great idea. :beer: I am going to try it and see the speed of transfer with a quad 8 channel usb stick. I thought I would need a SSD drive, usb thumb drive never crossed my mind (thats not saying allot not much cross's my mind at time lol).
 
I average about 40-50 Tb/month. To keep costs down, 10 Gigabit Ethernet used over Apple Fibre Channel. Off the shelve 3 Tb HDs x 16 drives per Mac Pro. All 3rd party controllers and enclosures. Apple charges an absurd amount of $ for their 2 Tb hd (x2.5-3 normal cost) RAID 5/0. About 50 Tb per Mac Pro edit station x 5. Typically I perform the conversion fr. the P2 dailies and always keep 2 copies on the 3 Tb Hitachi bare sata hds. 4 Tb is out, but finding a compatible dock enclosure is a challenge now. It costs too much. Best value now is 3 Tb hd. It's manageable and not too overwhelming. $170/3 Tb WD drives are used. Sadly, Seagate dropped their 3-yr warranty to 1 on their 3 Tb hd line. At least WD offers 2-yr. Monthly hd expense is ~ $5.9K-$6.5K. It's cheaper than DVCPRO tapes in the past. No decks to maintain, dust, or time code breaks. When production all complete, I only keep one hd copy vs 2 as cold storage. No enclosure. All bare bone drives in esd wrapper. When need to access, simply put it in the dock bays and let it copy. Shot Put Pro Enterprise is used heavily for MD-5 verification vs. Chronos Sync when archiving to ext. sata hds via the USB3 dock bays. ChronoSync is too slow for huge data. It's extremely important to have verification when archiving as I found out that regular OSX Finder copy is unreliable numerous times.
 
Wow, you have a small IT dept you have to maintain. I agree Apple charges amounts that are too costly, plus they can stop support when ever they feel like it.
 
I have background in IT years before doing video. It is a smooth and easy transition.

Was very concerned when they stopped XServe and Final Cut Pro Server. Jolted my workflow when they introduced FCP X last year. Somehow I'm still w/ the Macs til today. It works for me.
 
knocking on wood here for copy errors. never had it happen. I am curious what to use to make safer copies than OSX finder, can you give me a tip?
I also keep 3 copies here for safety and 1 or 2 when the job is finished.
No raid needed yet since I do simple broadcast docs with slim timelines and no sfx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top