AVC-Intra 50 - How Good or Bad is it?

B

Bassman2003

Veteran
Hello,

I am looking over different camera options and I was wondering about the quality of AVC-Intra50.

Often I shoot long events and to be honest, 100mbps just is a lot to backup with 50mbps being a nicer size. But, I do not hear very much about the 50mbps variant which leads me to believe it is so so in folks eyes.

So does anybody use this on a regular basis? How does it compare to Mpeg-2 4:2:2 50mbps? I know AVC-Intra50 is 4:2:0 but does the Mpeg-4 codec make up any difference?

My editor is Edius so 10bit is not as big of a factor sad to say...

Thanks for your input.
 
If you look at the top of the page im linking it shows the differances between intra 100 vs 50.. http://www.panasonic-broadcast.com/en/technology/AVC-Intra/avc_2_new_intra_100_50_codec.php
I use Edius as well (ver 5.5), if i keep it to simple cuts it retains the 10bit quality but even when i do add effects the output is fine. looks like 50 loses full raster resolution and colourspace but
the lower end Sony Xdcams have had great success using similar resolutions.
 
It looks great. It's the size of the DVCPROHD Codec but cleaner, better. You won't see a quality drop really.
 
when you bring in the avc intra 50 clips into a fcp timeline the sequence is 1440 x 1080
 
DvcproHD is 100 megabits of 2001-era technology. Today they can deliver comparable results in less bandwidth by using more advanced compression technology.

That said, I have limited experience with avci-50 but I'm not convinced that it really is comparable to the venerable dvcpro-hd.
 
The color (4:2:0) is notiecably rougher in AVC-I50 than in DVCPRO HD (4:2:2). I'd use AVC-I50 if I needed more record time, but given the other choices on the camera, that's the only reason I'd use it.

But, it's also better than AVCHD and far easier to work with in post.
 
Thanks again for your input. As I see it, AVC-Intra 100 is the gold standard but for long event shooting it is quite a large sword to yield so to speak. I have been using Nanoflashes at the 50mbps rate and find this a fine bitrate and quality. Now, I looking at different camera options and would like to consider Panasonic cameras with an internal recording option, but if AVC-Intra 50 is marginal then that basically takes an internal recording solution from Panasonic out of this mix.

But the alternaltive would be a Sony internal recording setup with 35mbps Mpeg-2. Would the AVC-Intra 50 be considered better or equal to the Sony codec?

It would be interesting to see a comparison shot with a P2 camera and a Nanoflash to see how they compare. If anybody has this combo I would be happy to mail you a Blu-ray with return postage to put the source files on.
 
I'd say it's better than the Sony. Higher bitrate, intraframe. There are other intangible factors which may play a part, but that's up to you.
 
I mainly shoot AVC Intra 100 and if I need to get more capacity on the cards I tend to shoot 720p rather than go down to AVC Intra 50.
 
Bassman2003 said:
So you do not think AVC-Intra50 is worth using?
Click to expand...

I just shot an entire project using the AVC-Intra50 codec. The finished piece looks great! I honestly can't tell a visual difference when comparing it to past DVCProHD projects I have worked on. I wouldn't hesitate to use it again for jobs where I needed more recording time on my P2 cards. Especially since most of my projects end up online, and not for broadcast.
 
if my final delivery method is SD DVD and BluRay do you think there is a noticeable quality difference between AVC-Intra100 & AVC-Intra50?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top