Better quality with AJA Ki Pro
- Thread starter drt
- Start date
Shane Ross
Veteran
In that you can record 10-bit ProRes...full raster. Still have the limitations of the lens and sensors. But 10-bit full raster is better than 8-bit anamorphic.
Shane Ross
Veteran
yup, same thing.
Shane Ross
Veteran
The HVX-200 is not 16:9 native. It is anamorphic. The sensors are 960x540.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Shane,
The HVX200 has a 16 X 9 chip set. And frankly if you already have P2 cards, there would be little difference than just transcoding the DVCPRO HD to ProRes upon ingest. That would be my bet.
Best,
Jan
The HVX200 has a 16 X 9 chip set. And frankly if you already have P2 cards, there would be little difference than just transcoding the DVCPRO HD to ProRes upon ingest. That would be my bet.
Best,
Jan
Shane Ross
Veteran
GAH...now you see why I am not a mathmatician. 960x540 is 16x9.
The DVCPRO HD codec is what is anamorphic, to make the data rate lower.
The DVCPRO HD codec is what is anamorphic, to make the data rate lower.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Hi,
The biggest challenge that many have in understanding compression is the prefilter with allows the compression engine the opportunity to filter off certain frequencies (generally high frequencies) but this allows the initial size of the image to be made smaller eliminating those problematic frequencis that just make more artifacts. So in making the signal smaller the initial signal in 8 bit HD is 994 mbs. The DVCPRO HD is 100mbs, so you would say there is a 10:1 ratio. But with the pre-filter it is a 6.7:1 ratio. This is why the pixel numbers are different from a full footprint. Is that bad? No. The signal would be much worse if the DVCPRO HD compression engine had to compress the entire signal. Actually the only compression engine that does a full footprint without artifacts that I have seen is the AVC-Intra codec.
Bottom line, if DVCPRO HD is good enough for Planet Earth, its good enough for a lot of other productions.
Best,
Jan
The biggest challenge that many have in understanding compression is the prefilter with allows the compression engine the opportunity to filter off certain frequencies (generally high frequencies) but this allows the initial size of the image to be made smaller eliminating those problematic frequencis that just make more artifacts. So in making the signal smaller the initial signal in 8 bit HD is 994 mbs. The DVCPRO HD is 100mbs, so you would say there is a 10:1 ratio. But with the pre-filter it is a 6.7:1 ratio. This is why the pixel numbers are different from a full footprint. Is that bad? No. The signal would be much worse if the DVCPRO HD compression engine had to compress the entire signal. Actually the only compression engine that does a full footprint without artifacts that I have seen is the AVC-Intra codec.
Bottom line, if DVCPRO HD is good enough for Planet Earth, its good enough for a lot of other productions.
Best,
Jan
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Did you understand why it isn't?, I did just try to explain it. Perhaps not clear enough? It certainly does not make it an useable codec. Certainly it is a very viable codec and in the form of P2 there is an entire body of file based workflow that goes with it.
Best,
jan
Last edited:
adkimery
Veteran
Jan,
We were both writing at the same time so I didn't see your previous response. I'm not sure where you get than anyone is saying DVCPro HD is an unusable codec. All other things being equal I think it's a plausible assumption that a full raster, 10-bit, VBR, 145Mbps codec like ProRes will deliver a better looking image than an anamorphic, 8-bit, CBR, 100Mbps codec like DVCPro HD. But like I said in my previous post whether or not it's a difference that makes a difference is up in the air until someone gets their hands on a Ki Pro and does some tests. I understand why it's better for DVCPro HD to be anamorphic and not full raster but that doesn't mean that anamorphic is better than full raster across the board.
Where I work we literally have hundreds of hours of DVCPro HD living on our xSan so we definitely don't think it is an unusable codec.
-A
We were both writing at the same time so I didn't see your previous response. I'm not sure where you get than anyone is saying DVCPro HD is an unusable codec. All other things being equal I think it's a plausible assumption that a full raster, 10-bit, VBR, 145Mbps codec like ProRes will deliver a better looking image than an anamorphic, 8-bit, CBR, 100Mbps codec like DVCPro HD. But like I said in my previous post whether or not it's a difference that makes a difference is up in the air until someone gets their hands on a Ki Pro and does some tests. I understand why it's better for DVCPro HD to be anamorphic and not full raster but that doesn't mean that anamorphic is better than full raster across the board.
Where I work we literally have hundreds of hours of DVCPro HD living on our xSan so we definitely don't think it is an unusable codec.
-A
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
What I am trying to say is that it is pretty unlikely seeing that the output of the Component Analog is not 10 Bit HD-SDI, that you would find any significant difference between having recorded onto P2 cards and convert to the 10 bit ProRes than taking the component analog out and recording to ProRes. Although now that I think of it the P2 conversion migh be better as it never hit the analog domain as that is a little noisier than strictly the digitial one.
Best,
Jan
Best,
Jan
Jan:
How would you view the footage out HDSDI from a 170 to pro res versus DVCProHD to p2 cards?
Wouldn't that be full raster 10-bit at 145 mbps?
How would you view the footage out HDSDI from a 170 to pro res versus DVCProHD to p2 cards?
Wouldn't that be full raster 10-bit at 145 mbps?
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
I would say that it would be little difference.
adkimery
Veteran
Yeah, the extra A/D conversion to get it out of the camera and into the Ki Pro could negate any real world benefits from going that direction. Still hope someone tests it out though so we get a definitive answer.
Even if there is a difference will it be a difference worth $3500?
-A