Can live with 8-bit output

[trez]

There's been some buzz about AF100 output bit-depth. This seems to be one of the (very few) flaws of this excellent camera. Nothing is perfect. I don't really think it would be much more expensive to support 10-bit output... The 10-bit signal is already there - all the processing prior to encoding (debayering, gamma etc) is performed with wordlength greater than 8-bit). Anyway - we have to live with 8-bit and I accept this. Maybe it's the limitation of the i/o microcontroller functions, maybe just Panasonic strategy. Even if the latter is true, I still appreciate what they do by giving us AF100.

However, one feature that comes to my mind that could be helpful sometimes is dithering of the output signal. I realize that adding dither noise puts too much stress on the codec. But adding proper dither to the HD-SDI signal only (prior to truncation) would be nice. It could help those ugly single-color gradient artifacts (blue sky) that are hard to fix in post.

 

[paulcurtis]

8 bits doesn't matter so much if they are the right 8 bits, so hopefully with all the gamma and curve options you can optimise the output in camera first.

As for dithering, isn't that usually best added at the end of the pipeline?

cheers
paul

 

[trez]

8 bits doesn't matter so much if they are the right 8 bits, so hopefully with all the gamma and curve options you can optimise the output in camera first.

True. Being able to adjust the camera to make proper use of those 8 bits is of great importance. However, no matter what gamma you set, the single-channel (color) gradients can only consist of up to 256 shades, which is not sufficient for very smooth transitions.

As for dithering, isn't that usually best added at the end of the pipeline?

Yes and no. It should be the last step before truncation (bit-depth reduction). Once the truncation has been performed, there's no way to dither anymore. If the camera was outputting 10 bit (assuming the NLE is using long wordlength internally and there's no reencoding to 8-bit file somewhere within the path) then the best place to add dither would be just before authoring for 8-bit media. However, because the truncation is performed in camera and it outputs 8 bits, the only place to add dither noise is in-camera.

 

[AD Tom]

8 bit is definitly not state of the art.

Cheers
Thomas.

 

[James Bridges]

There has been quite a bit of talk about 8 vs 10 bit.
I have been shooting with my HDX900 for about 3 years...that is 8 bit. I have had a Nanoflash for about a year, the HDSDI output of the HDX900 is 8 bit. The picture looks amazing. I record the Nano at around 140 Mbps - 180 Mbps for broadcast, Blu-ray, Internet and digital projection.
What/who are you guys shooting for? I am working with high-end agencies and producers and they have had no problems with 8bit, they do not know the difference
anyway. My colorist here in Atlanta has never experienced an issue with 8bit vs. 10bit. They would rather have more Mbps to work with and great exposure.
When it gets to the point that 8bit goes away and I loose work because of that I will adapt and adapt quickly.
Do not get bogged down with the numbers game. If you are working, making money with your rig, you will have this paid off in a few months, then it is off to the next camera.
Just my 2 cents.
James Bridges

 

[trez]

I agree bitrate and color space are more important than bitdepth. However, now that we have uncompressed 4:2:2 output, the only thing we can complain about is bitdepth I thought we would complain about lack of 1080p60 recording, moire and rolling shutter, but all those things seem to have been addressed... Hard times for us, grumblers.

 

[BowiesInSpace]

Sorry guys, I'm still confused on one major topic.

With the 8bit, 4:2:2 hd-sdi output, or hdmi output, if I'm recording to a ninja or ki-pro, am I still recording true 100mbps footage over the AF's 24mbps? Or does the 8bit output prevent me from recording to a truly higher bitrate?

Just trying to differentiate what's real and what's not. It's like the matrix without super powers...

...Nevermind. I forgot Jan and Barry were here.

p.s. what are the bit depth, bit rate, and color space coming out of the 5D/7D through the HDMI output?

 

[TheReverend]

Sorry guys, I'm still confused on one major topic.

With the 8bit, 4:2:2 hd-sdi output, or hdmi output, if I'm recording to a ninja or ki-pro, am I still recording true 100mbps footage over the AF's 24mbps? Or does the 8bit output prevent me from recording to a truly higher bitrate?

Just trying to differentiate what's real and what's not. It's like the matrix without super powers...

...Nevermind. I forgot Jan and Barry were here.

p.s. what are the bit depth, bit rate, and color space coming out of the 5D/7D through the HDMI output?

The bit rate (mbps) is NOT affected nor affects the HDSDI output. HDSDI is an uncompressed digital full resolution YUV 4:2:2 8bit signal. You can record to any HDSDI recording device to any codec/bitrate/uncompressed that the device is capable of. So HDSDI out is almost like pulling image straight off the sensor.

The 5D and 7D don't have full resolution output from their HDMI ports. Nuff said.

 

[Barry_Green]

8 bit is definitly not state of the art.

At this price point, it certainly is. Can you name any camera at this price point that offers anything higher than 8-bit?

Of course we'd all love 10-bit, but sometimes you have to recognize pricing reality too. All JVCs are 8-bit. All Canons are 8-bit. The least-expensive Panasonic that's 10-bit is the $8500-ish HPX370. The EX1R is the cheapest Sony that's 10-bit, and it's $6300, which is a third more expensive, and has a chip that's 1/6th the size of the AF100.

So 8-bit is definitely not the highest technology in existence, but it is the standard at this price point.

 

[Barry_Green]

With the 8bit, 4:2:2 hd-sdi output, or hdmi output, if I'm recording to a ninja or ki-pro, am I still recording true 100mbps footage over the AF's 24mbps?

Yes.

Or does the 8bit output prevent me from recording to a truly higher bitrate?

No, it doesn't limit anything, it just doesn't take full advantage of what the codec could potentially deliver. But it still lets you take advantage of 4:2:2 and the higher bitrates that those external recorders deliver.

p.s. what are the bit depth, bit rate, and color space coming out of the 5D/7D through the HDMI output?

8-bit, don't know if it's 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, but it doesn't really matter because it's not recordable as a practical matter.

 

[toke lahti]

Can you name any camera at this price point that offers anything higher than 8-bit?
...
The EX1R is the cheapest Sony that's 10-bit, and it's $6300, which is a third more expensive, and has a chip that's 1/6th the size of the AF100.

EX1 has 14x zoom. How much AF100 will be with 14x zoom?
Also EX1 is now 3 years old model. Should there be any advancements in 3 years?
How frustrating; it took 3 years for Panny to introduce a model in this price range with bigger than 1/3" sensors to answer Sony.


For me, Panny seems to be able to flush down the wow-effect on their new models.
How much more would AF100 cost to make if it would offer real 10-bit sdi?
Nothing?
Just to protect higher models?
Why not offer avc-intra in AF100?
Just to protect what?
1/3" + avc-intra or 4/3" + too compressed 4:2:0?
Why not best of both?

If Scarlet would be out, I wouldn't even think about AF100.
But since it's not...

Anyway, the success of AF100 depends on lenses, like with every pro camera...

 

[Yves Simard]

Yes.


No, it doesn't limit anything, it just doesn't take full advantage of what the codec could potentially deliver. But it still lets you take advantage of 4:2:2 and the higher bitrates that those external recorders deliver.


8-bit, don't know if it's 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, but it doesn't really matter because it's not recordable as a practical matter.

We were told it was 4:2:0 on board and 4:2:2 out the HDSDI pipe.

 

[Barry_Green]

EX1 has 14x zoom. How much AF100 will be with 14x zoom?

With a 10x zoom, it'll be about 5600. There isn't a 14x zoom.

Also EX1 is now 3 years old model. Should there be any advancements in 3 years?

You tell me. The EX1R is their newest model, and ... I don't see massive advancements in it. It's hardly 3 years old, the EX1R is less than a year old.

How frustrating; it took 3 years for Panny to introduce a model in this price range with bigger than 1/3" sensors to answer Sony.

Well, to be fair, it's in a price bracket of about $1700 less than the Sony, which could be considered a complete price bracket below the Sony. And, hey, Sony still hasn't countered Panasonic's intraframe codec that was released five years ago, so...

How much more would AF100 cost to make if it would offer real 10-bit sdi?
Nothing?

Well, actually, according to Panasonic themselves, it would involve a substantial retooling and would probably add $2,000 to $4,000 to the cost.

Just to protect higher models?

What higher model do you think they're protecting?

Why not offer avc-intra in AF100?
Just to protect what?

I don't know, you tell me -- what else is there, that they charge more for, that has a large chip and AVC-Intra?

Why look for conspiracy theories, instead of just listening to what the manufacturer says. They said they wanted to deliver this at the lowest price they could, and that if they'd made it P2/AVC-Intra it would have added substantially to the cost. And while there are those of us (like me) who would pay it, I would bet that 90% of the customer base won't. Sure, they'll whine about it, they'll demand it, etc, but when the wallet hits the road, they won't actually pay for it. Look at the furor that was caused over the HPX170 not being NTSC/PAL switchable... Panasonic implemented a factory upgrade program to allow it. Do you know how many people actually spent the $500 to get switchability? I would say very, very, very few. DVXUser is far and away the largest community of HPX users, and I think in the last three years that the HPX170 has been on the market, we've heard of ONE person who did it.

1/3" + avc-intra or 4/3" + too compressed 4:2:0?
Why not best of both?

Price tag. That's why.

 

[Homunculus]

man I love reading Barry's ownages. lol

 

[Yves Simard]

Good points Barry thanks

In our internal discussions we wondered if they would consider issuing a pro-version with P2 Cards and higher codecs. I think you are right, pros would pay more for higher end options but I guess it would only matter once that sensor is fully tested and we see some more real world footage. Better yet they might want to see what the demand is after the release.

 

[Barry_Green]

I think they've heard the clamor for the P2/AVC-Intra version so much their ears have to be bleeding. Clearly they have to be considering it. It just remains to be seen if people will actually buy it, or if they'll consider the additional cost to be worth it. When you see people asking "why should I pay more for an AF100 than I should for a consumer stills camera", then you start to understand their point. What is the real market? Where are people really, really at? The AF100 ostensibly hits both the low-price and the higher-quality guy, by having that SDI and HDMI port on there and an option of something like a $180 Intensity Shuttle, $795 Ninja, $2,000 Ki Pro Mini, or $2895 NanoFlash. If someone would truly pay $3,000 more for a P2/AVC-Intra version, would they consider getting an AF100 and just adding a Nano or Ki Pro Mini?

Also, the AF100 isn't exactly the last camera they'll ever produce. If the demand is there, they can make other versions. Shoulder-mount? P2? Full-size Varicam II with large sensor? Who knows where it will go?

Only thing we know for sure is that the AF100 is what it is, it's the path they've chosen to take at this time, and for those of us who demand more, there are options out there to get it for us.

 

[Michael Olsen]

If someone would truly pay $3,000 more for a P2/AVC-Intra version, would they consider getting an AF100 and just adding a Nano or Ki Pro Mini?

The only thing that makes me wonder about this is whether or not people who have heavily invested in the relatively expensive P2 system would buy into another storage system so readily. I feel like if Panasonic were to announce a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 version of this camera at $8-10K close to the release of the AF-100, they'd really have their bases covered.

 

[Steve Kahn]

I feel like if Panasonic were to announce a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 version of this camera at $8-10K close to the release of the AF-100.

I would buy one of these.

If I knew the model you have suggested will be released six months from now I would probably wait for it (and do work on rented gear until the 10bit P2 camera comes to market).

It really would be useful knowledge to know if and when a 10-bit AVC-I 4:2:2 P2 AF100 is coming to market or even on the drawing board.

 

[Jesse Brauning]

You can always buy the AF100 now, and then upgrade later.

 

[Justyn]

And to some like me, I'd simply HATE to have to lug around the most ergonomically horrible camera like the EX1, and frankly, most of sony's camcorders. There's so much more to having a camera that you like, and functionality means a lot. Shooting handheld with the EX1 was a nightmare and the layout of it's controls and fucntionality leaves so much to be desire.... not to mention, still doesn't have the Panny mojo.

Personally I wouldn't take the EX1 over the 150 that I bought regardless of it's price. I think it's been built by engineers and not filmmakers cause its just not a good all around camera. If it lives on sticks or a dolly then maybe, but for what I do sometimes, it's abysmal.