Crazy discussions at dv.com

[xray]

Your gonna have a hard time wining the argument that Sony hasn't had more failed formats than every other manufacture put together (well, maybe not more than Iomega.. but i secretly think Sony owns them).

I worked with the first composite Betacam and it was awful, MII was better but then -during the time- Panasonic with MII lost its ground in the Netherlands completely, Sony with Betacam SP took over. Now DigiBeta is the standard, and it is hard to find DVCpro50. During the examination to create and make a choice for a MXF based tapeless- and archiving system, the Duch broadcasters choose the dataformat D10-30 an D10-50 (IMX). That means that all the video is compressed with it and stored on HD and distributed with fiber channels.

This decision is based on the fact that Sony is widely accepted and the Sony IMX machines are backwards compatible with the Beta formats. While the DVCpro50 format was in a direct comparison on many points even with the D-50, the lack of market acceptance costs it his points.

Sometimes losing 1 (one) failed format is enough to lose it all.

 

[Jarred Land]

Sometimes losing 1 (one) failed format is enough to lose it all.

not sure what you mean.. are you refering to BetaMax? or Micro-Mv? or Mini-Disc? or DAT?

Anyways... i guess it doesnt matter all the old formats.. it should really be just DVCproHD vs HDcam right now.. and DVCproHD kicks the HDcam format to the curb.

 

[xray]

I´m sure you do.

Philips invented the DCC recorder, something between a cassette recorder and dital. That is going nowhere. But DAT I liked it, its uncompressed digital. Like the NAGRA-D open reel digital recorder...

 

[Jarred Land]

Dat was good.. ended up in the pro world, but it failed misserably at what it was meant for.. the consumer market.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

That's a great point a page or so back regarding Digital Camera for still photography. People did say it a bad idea (Same arguments between todays Film/Digital) now it seems everyone shoots digital

One point I keep trying to hammer into the noggins are:

Why not embrace it ? Why not become a part of postive side of the technology ? With all of these great like minded folks banding together ?

Some seem so against it (Which is fine of course) but if you are so agasinst it them turn over to th Sony forums and talk about the new and upcoiming MICROMV Tape and stop poisoning other more prodcutive forums with such banter ?

 

[wabbit]

Simon's discussion points are the exact kind of level headed debate that is complete welcome (IMHO). They are fair and reasonable concerns and comparisons. While I don't agree with some of his points overall the point is that P2 is not perfect and will be just one of the many fine choices available to us in the future. Where it gets ugly is when people say P2 is trash and should never even be considered. I imagine these people are driven out a desire for there to be just one true "religion."

The lack of a needed deck is one of the sweetest parts of the P2 technology. Many people make the argument that Panasonic is trying to drain their customer's pocketbooks with expensive P2. I look at the fact they easily could have created a proprietary reader akin to a tape deck and bleed it's customers for more cash. I commend them for going with versatility over proprietary.

One point I 100% agree with and think Panasonic dropped the ball is the viewfinder. I really hope they improve this in future versions; it is truely the weakest point of the HVX, again IMHO.
One thing I have come to notice is Panasonic is the only company that seems to listen and address to concerns like this.

Cheers

 

[Rextilleon]

Walter is knowledgable but definately a great tall tale teller--just makes stuff up, then isn't aware of it when he contraidicts himself several posts later. If we are discussing any camera in DV.com , he has it in front of him---fact is he claimed to have an HVX200 (that was after telling everyone that he had learned about the camera on the web) but of course, for some reason didn't test it! He has a bug up his arse about Panasonic---maybe they didn't cow-tow to him and he is just being spiteful. What I love about Walter is that he backtracks real fast when he is called on anything. Remember this is the same Walter that said that AdamWilt was owned by the magazine he wrote for-----pretty nasty stuff. Anyway, I dont own the camera (I'm a Sony) guy but did have a chance to work with it last week----I am tempted--but as I said before, that since I shoot documentary, I need to wait for a storage solution that will work for me. I compliment Panasonic for raising the bar---for blazing the trail per se. Walter can kiss my---------whatever, he is probably busy doing another one of his vaunted local car dealer shoots for his local cable company.

 

[limo991]

I think you are outstandingly misinformed and need to go back to the article as we posted it. The pixel offset chart is what the effective pixels are when the DSP captures the image at 1080P, doesn't matter how you slice it, that is the fact. It is not captured at 540. Anyone that keeps pointing to the 540, does not understand the impact of the offset, and thus are just spreading misinformation.

Jan, lets discuss pixel shifting.

On the article I see three overlayed 1920x1080 RGB blocks on the pixel shifted output. With lines drawn between pixels. This is misinforming the customer. The container is 1920x1080. But the pixel shifted output is something like this:



The only thing that needs 1920x1080 is luma. In the process, a maximum possible of 1440x810 is the limit, which you accept I believe. 1920x1080 is only a container. It does not represent chroma. I have worked with pixel shifted 3xccd blocks and although you can say whatever you want to convince a customer, you cannot convince an engineer about how pixel shifting works. All manufacturers accept that pixel shifting does not improve chroma and they do not make such claims. Even the Andromeda guys accepted that when somebody asked about chroma resolution.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I agree Wabbit; Simon has mastered the art of being personable and great forum ettiquette !

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Frankly Luma, that is the way that whoever drew your example chose to do the pixel shift . The way that we chose to do it is the way that it is shown in our article. And yes, what comes off the CCDs is analog and are captured at 1080 X1980.

DVCPRO HD is 4:2:2, as is DVCPRO50.

There it is,

Jan

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Simon,

Jan, the colour sampling thing wasn't just Walter. The exact technical explanations, while still differering from Walter, were explained by Graeme Nattress. About as impartial as you can get.But he is a realist.

Actually haven't seen what Graeme wrote. I am only responding in like to the title of this crazy thread. And you know I don't have patience to wind myself all the way through that thread on DV.com

No offense intended Jan, but Panny as a company can be very, very overreactive when it comes to public comments about their equipment. Even a very slight negative in an overall positive magazine review can bring about the Panny wrath.

Here I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea what magazine review you are even talking about. In the last year on DV.com Panasonic was trashed virtually daily, I think I posted there three times, maybe 4 I lost count. On CML while certain parties have enjoyed trashing Panasonic. I have barely answered. In general, I tend to react and respond to dicussions and questions where I feel that I can help. If I do get involved with a discussion on a product it is about clarifying or that is what is in my heart of hearts. I think the difference is that you really cannot point to someone from the other companies that actually show up and try to explain.

Best regards,

Jan

 

[Simon Wyndham]

I wish this would stop boiling down to the word 'argument'. I'm not here to argue, I'm here to add points to a discussion.

With regard to failed formats it depends what you term 'failed'. As I mentioned nearly all of the formats Barry mentioned are widely supported and are in widespread use. In fact given the diversity of formats Sony have produced it is amazing just how many of them are around and have become a defacto standard.

The difference bwteeen DVCproHD and HDCAM are not very pronounced. Boith formats have their limitations. Similarly both produce amazing pictures too. My choice between the two would depend on convenience for the project at hand. Not manufacturer loyalty.

I thought Grass Valley owned Iomega now?

As for Walter, well, Walter will be Walter and I'm amazed at how wound up people become. I know people here like to mock him, but nobody can, no matter how much they try to spin it, make out that his work is limited to used car dealership ads. His resume speaks for itself. If he annoys you then ignore him. He shouldn't be ridiculed however because what he says a lot of the time makes sense, even if people don't like to admit it. Hell I've had my own run ins with him in the past. But at the end of the day I know who he is and what he has done. And its a lot more than most people here, on DV.com, and on any other message board members. A lot of the time people just take what he says far too seriously and personally when it shouldn't be taken that way. Take the HVX as an example. Walter doesn't have an HVX200 vendetta at all. He things all the cameras in the same price range make similar pictures. As even the DVX tests showed, no one camera was head and shoulders above the others. Which camera was preferred was subjective. What, from the impression I get, gets Walters goat is the hype of some of these cameras, the false promises made by the manufacturers, and the propoganda.

I see nothing wrong with this. The big manufacturers should be called upon to let the people who are paying them good money know exactly whether the product lives up to the hype, and if they feel they have been duped. Many people who have the HVX are very happy, and I'm glad for them, really I am. But this is a camera forum after all, and if these discussions get the manufacturers to take note, not only about the camera specs, but also their marketing strategies, then it is a good thing.

 

[Simon Wyndham]

Here I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea what magazine review you are even talking about. In the last year on DV.com Panasonic was

Sorry I should be more specific. However, and I know I may be flamed for this so I'll keep my mouth quiet on this from now on, there have been magazine reviews in the past (not on DV.com or the online ones, but printed magazines) where Panny has taken a hard line response to any negative points.

I know you have been very forthcoming Jan, and my comment was not directed at you personally. Perhaps it is a Panasonic Europe thing.

 

[limo991]

Frankly Luma, that is the way that whoever drew your example chose to do the pixel shift . The way that we chose to do it is the way that it is shown in our article. And yes, what comes off the CCDs is analog and are captured at 1080 X1980.

DVCPRO HD is 4:2:2, as is DVCPRO50.

There it is,

Jan

Jan, I did the drawing. And the pixel shifting implementation represents EXACTLY the drawing from your article. I pasted your drawing next to mine. What is different or wrong?

Sampling something at higher frequency does not increase its bandwidth. You are sampling 540 chroma lines at a rate good enough for 1080. But you don't have 1080 pixels there and half of the bandwidth contains nothing. You still get 540lines. Half the rate (4:2:0) would have the same result.

Btw, It is easy to measure chroma resolution. You can easily prove you have 1080lines in chroma. Or I can prove it when I get a PAL HVX.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

The word argument comes into play because of accusations that are not substantially backed up:

No offense intended Jan, but Panny as a company can be very, very overreactive when it comes to public comments about their equipment. Even a very slight negative in an overall positive magazine review can bring about the Panny wrath.

This cannot even be elaborated upon. Even Jan say's 'What are you talking about?' and there is zero response other than 'I'll just chill on it'

--

Walter get's mocked due to his lack of personable skills and tact. He think's he is the lighting god and is the all knowing guru and everyone is is 100% wrong and he is 100% right; remember he can do a better light ing set-up with a single lightbulb than most people can with a $2000.00 Arri kit (his words).

Walter get's far too much credit for what I don't know. Perhaps it is best to not even discuss him or his views if he is not here to defend or expand on them ?

Good.

--

And I do not get the point of all this ? Panasonic says this is 'X' and someone comes along and says 'No it is not' as if they are some engineer.

Does the camera produce solid imagery ? Is it right for you ? It's not ? Then move on.

And Hype ? Hype ? I think Panasonic delivered a killer product at a specific price. Like a DVX100 on roids.

 

[Jarred Land]

I
The difference bwteeen DVCproHD and HDCAM are not very pronounced. Boith formats have their limitations. Similarly both produce amazing pictures too. My choice between the two would depend on convenience for the project at hand. Not manufacturer loyalty.

really? wow.. so you dont mind taking a compressed format on tape.. being FORCED to ingest the footage UNCOMPRESSED over a HD-SDI link, then compressing it again? how convenient is that?

all this talk about bad P2 workflow.. HDCAM has had the most retarded workflow for the last decade... and they just figured out it needs to be changed.. so get ready everyone cause HDCAM is coming out with yet another new format.

Im not picking on Sony.. Hell they make my favorite NLE period.. and I have alot of sony products.. just when it comes to them and their format non-agnostic decisions it makes my skin crawl.

 

[limo991]

We will eventually go uncompressed for some uses. But the better compressed formats ara good enough for broadcast. The broadcast professionals don't need to handle the storage and the editing problems of uncompressed. I doubt the formats will change soon. They are ancient already but they cover broadcast aquisition just fine. As in everything, you only need an aquisition quality better than the delivery. You don't need a perfectly lossless one

 

[wabbit]

As for Walter, well, Walter will be Walter and I'm amazed at how wound up people become. I know people here like to mock him, but nobody can, no matter how much they try to spin it, make out that his work is limited to used car dealership ads. His resume speaks for itself. If he annoys you then ignore him. He shouldn't be ridiculed however because what he says a lot of the time makes sense, even if people don't like to admit it. Hell I've had my own run ins with him in the past. But at the end of the day I know who he is and what he has done. And its a lot more than most people here, on DV.com, and on any other message board members. A lot of the time people just take what he says far too seriously and personally when it shouldn't be taken that way. Take the HVX as an example. Walter doesn't have an HVX200 vendetta at all. He things all the cameras in the same price range make similar pictures. As even the DVX tests showed, no one camera was head and shoulders above the others. Which camera was preferred was subjective. What, from the impression I get, gets Walters goat is the hype of some of these cameras, the false promises made by the manufacturers, and the propoganda.

I certainly do not intend to mock him or his skills. But to say he doesn't have it in the HVX is, well, it does not blend with his postings. I have been reading his posts (and yours, which are fair and reasonable) on HVX for as long as it has been discussed over there. Three negative HVX threads started by him in just the last few days.

He proclaims to be looking out for the naive buyer being swayed by marketing and he is a reality check but you don't see him starting anything negative on HDV and getting him to admit anything good about the HVX, although not impossible, is rare. One does not have to like the P2 workflow, but to be continually bagging on it starts to show his viewpoint is one-sided. No one can judge what is in his heart but his one-sided take on the P2 (ie, constant proclaiming "P2 is professional dead") leads to only one perception on his opinion.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with not liking P2 but Walter tends to use his resume as proof that his opinion is fact. And a lot the same naive people he claims to be a champion of, end up believing that opinion as fact. That is a shame since P2 will work great for some and other solutions will work best for others. There is not one answer here.

If he would just put a disclaimer on his HVX postings, "I don't like P2 for me but other professionals think it's just fine," then maybe maybe people wouldn't read him as such a zealot. Notice that this is what Barry Green says anytime he comments in a negative fashion on other formats and cameras.

Cheers

 

[Simon Wyndham]

Jarred, we aren't talking about HDCAM. This isn't about P2 compared to other equally retarded workflows. This is about P2 compared to the sales pitch of Panasonic. If you want to discuss the workflows of all manufactuers formats I'd only be too happy to complain about them too if they are silly. But then HDCAM is not designed as a speedy workflow. HDCAM has the same workflow as Digibeta. Neither format is being sold on fast workflow, or revolutionary workflow abilities.

The workflow for those formats would usually be an ingest at offline resolution, and then a final conforming of the edit at full resolution. I'm not a fan of that style of workflow myself. Which is why I went for XD.

Something else to consider here is that manufacturers do not take the release of new formats lightly. A great deal of R&D money goes into it, so I think we need to stop this assumption that they do this just to annoy us. HDCAM's development for the most part comes about from feedback from its users, specifically big players like the BBC and other international broadcasters. HDCAM SR for example was a direct response to feedback about HDCAM. Remember also that the latest HDCAM SR decks play all flavours of HDCAM. The same situation that exists with DVCpro. You might be able to record all the different variations using the same tape. But you still need a deck that can play them all.

Each company is in existence to make money. Panasonic, Sony, JVC, all of them. As such they have a right to make it in the way that they choose. Customers can always vote with their feet. Now I know some will state that these companies will sometimes have a monopoly through bullying the marketplace. Thats true. But that is the business of making money. They aren't there to be nice to their competitors. But Panasonic and Sony are as ruthless as each other. What this means is that we get choice. There can never be a whole range of different manufacturers all equal in the market place. Consumers like simple choices and things will usually always boil down to one or two main manufacturers of choice simply by the way things work with any others acting as the balance. Much like politics. Its the way of the world.

If they made their format and sold it out to other companies to use for free it wouldn't work. First of all the other manufacturers don't want their competitors format in their equipment. Second of all why would a company want to risk a competitor making a better piece of equipment that uses their recording format?

But then, there are exceptions. Ikegami cameras can record a multitude of formats including IMX. So can Infinity.

The real confusion lie at consumer level equipment. The pro system is pretty stable really with formats being decided for big projects on an individual basis. The multitude of different formats really isn't an issue because at the high level equipment is always hired in.

 

[Jarred Land]

If they made their format and sold it out to other companies to use for free it wouldn't work. First of all the other manufacturers don't want their competitors format in their equipment. Second of all why would a company want to risk a competitor making a better piece of equipment that uses their recording format?

Your talking Sony. Panasonic, with a little format they call SD, is used by almost every major manufacture except Sony. Panasonic does play nice.

The real confusion lie at consumer level equipment. The pro system is pretty stable really with formats being decided for big projects on an individual basis. The multitude of different formats really isn't an issue because at the high level equipment is always hired in

This is actually a very good point., you are correct. But, as the industry shifts to professional operations being done outside of post houses and in indi enviroments, it is obviously an advantage to not go and rent that J3 deck or the 1200 deck for $500 a day.