Flash XDR on HPX300

Jan, I thank you for your replies but must let you know that they very hostile in tone. Pls do let us know more on your wonderfull products but with more friendly approach. half of your marketing is done by that it self.

Chill & Peace.
 
Last edited:
To me. the P2 price reaction seems to be related to how long one typically records.

With the introduction of ACV-I, that time has gone up to two hours.

With the plan just laid out using a computer and P2 portable, one must juggle data during recording or on a break.

To me this is dangerous. Wiping a card on location has some serious human error potential, which I see as a great weakness to this setup.

Also, the sheer cost of the larger P2 cards prohibits one from buying and extra just in case one gets lost, dropped or has whatever happen to it.

Back in the tape days, you would never show up with the exact amount of record time from what the client told you. With P2, as record times increase, you are operating at 100% efficiency as your cards might actually be less than the length of the entire event.

This is where I see the benefit of the CF cards as they are cheap enough to have plenty on set/location and you don't have to wipe any at the shoot.

This lets the shooter focus more on shooting and less on being an IT manager.
 
Panasonic's AVC-Intra has the advantage in that it is 10-bit.

The Flash XDR, at this time, is 8-bit, as is all MPEG-2.

For color correction, we recommend editing the 8-bit MPEG-2 data in a 10-bit timeline (or canvas).


Panasonic has an advantage if one loses power.

The Flash XDR, internally and seamlessly, breaks up lengthly recordings into sub-clips (files). At this time, if the power is lost, the last clip is not closed. It is our intention to improve this in the future by recovering the last clip.

We do expect one to properly manage their battery system.

With the Flash XDR this is relatively easy; as commonly available, industry standard batteries will power the unit continuously for well over 6 hours straight.


I previously made statements that AVC-Intra required a transcode before editing and was not supported in some NLE's. I stand corrected.


The Flash XDR records in I-Frame Only and Long-GOP modes, your choice. The recording bit-rate can also be selected via menu options to tailor the recording quality / recording time to your current requirements.


The small, portable, battery powered temporary storage for CompactFlash media, the Nexto DI, model ND-2700, in 500 GB version is available for $330. A version without the hard disk drive is available for $130 and a great 500 GB hard disk drive is available for $100.

The Transcend 133x write, 300x read 32 GB CompactFlash card is available for $84 each.
These are reliable, inexpensive, high-quality CompactFlash cards with a lifetime warranty.

These work with all of our recording options, except for 160 Mbps I-Frame Only mode, which requires a 300x UDMA card, which is more expensive. The SanDisk Extreme III 32 GB card is a good option at $205.00.

The Flash XDR was released to the public before all promised features were implemented. Our customers asked us to do this.

The Flash XDR is being enhanced to fulfill our promises as well as to respond to customer's requests on a regular basis. We typically add significant new features at least twice a month. We also respond as quickly as possible to any problems reported by our users.


I hope one notices that I have attempted to state facts and have not attacked or been disrespectful.
 
I am very keen on trying out your product on HPX300 (as it gets launched).

i was wondeing Does HPX300 give a option to have the P2 card run in cycle meaning that it restarts recording over the previous recorded footage when the p2 card reaches its end. this way i would love to have the p2 card as a dummy recording device which will be reused again & again ... w/o formatting after it end its storage.

can you pls post few pix of XDR or NanoFlash in use with Full body camcorders ... Being used with Pro batt etc type connection.

Not even Nexto but any stand alone Data CF copier can suit the job for copying XDR/nano Cf recording off the field.it will really be very handy . The cost of High Speed CF cards is almost around 200$ that one can maintain enough number to shoot all thru the day w/o bothering to copy for reuse. One would like t copy to have a safe backup ... If i am using a P2 card then I am sure to backup & free up the EXPENSIVE card to be reused. In this P2 fashion I am mostly engaged in keeping track of when card gets filled , when it gets dumped thru a P2 store/gear & then again concentrate on shoot. in a way i will never feel lazy on field with p2 ... I am gonna be more alert. :)

Dan pls have more worked out Nano to let us remain a shooter then a IT manager on location. Esp on event days when we are working hard to keep track of shots rather then tracking EXPENSIVE media getting copied/filled/formatted etc.

Wish list for XDR/nano
- Composite out of recorded stuff from the device, in a way it should play back what been recorded on the CF card to store confidence on it recording or a small LCD monitor on the unit itself which play whats been recorded (in a way like pre-read what we had in Beta days where the head reads out what been just recorded, hope i remember it properly) this will instill faith on your product

- camcorder hooking device which can be used to power the unit & also keep it hooked to the camera

- Audio output thru Ear phone

- custom file naming or something were we can give identity of the shooter/camera

- instead of rubber cover of CFcards etc we should get plastic cover which can slide up/down this way we wont have to spend time fitting the rubber covers and/or risk it being lost in field.

can you pls post some pix of the connector side of XDR & Nano unit. Also whats the power consumption of Nano & XDR units in Watts.
 
Last edited:
Ok...while 10-bit has more color depth, recording that color depth takes away for other compression information without an algorithmic improvement. Given a fixed data rate and not necessarily having a critical color detail loss, it is most likely a trade off.

Second, the HPX300 (that is the thread, isn't it?) comes with the AVC Intra as part of the camera. It is the same price as an EX3 and only slightly more the XDCAM EX JVC HM700. Net, it is the best ENG/event camera in that price range.

P2s are nice...a little RAID 0 memory card. Their speed was an issue in 2004. Now, CF can match it so it just an ease of handling and reliability issue. Important for ENG. Less important for independent film makers and budget conscious event videographers.

Lacking any comparisons recording on both formats, it is hard to judge the difference between the two formats. Both have more compression than DVCPro50. Which is also 10-bit :)

I calculated 5 compression for the XDR (800Mb/s/160Mb/s)) and 10:1 for AVC Intra 100 (1Gb/s over 100Mb/s or 800Mb/s over 80Mb/s). However, assuming 13Mb/s AVCHD equals double that speed MPEG-2, and applying a log scale for reduction that drops AVC Intra to a 'virtual' MPEG-2 of 6.6...versus 5. Not much of a difference.

The variable block size of H.264 may allow AVC Intra to capture stuff that is otherwise missed in the compression. However, we would need to do tests to determine this.

To really do the tests well, it would be ideal if in addition to a HPX300 or EX3 the compression could be applied to an oversampled image or computer image. That is not from a camera with 1:1 sensor to image sampling. The low pass optical and digital filters would remove a lot of the higher frequency detail. You would want an actual camera image also to show what it is on an image that went through those filters. What is important detail on an image from a Red One may not be important if it comes form an HVX200.
 
Last edited:
I've been using P2 for 4 years, and it has never failed me. Not once. It has proven to me to be reliable in the most demanding situations. They are expensive. Never used professional CF cards and don't know if they fail, but P2 really did give me safety and was a very solid way to go Tapeless.

AVC Intra is a fantastic codec. Sincerely, If this was the codec that came with the camera I wanted next, I wouldn't need an external recorder. But I would also be happy with both 100mbs Mpeg 2 Long GOP 8bit and the 160Mbs Intraframe Mpeg2, if they came with any camera. So I do not see any problem with this. I also don't see what's the need of a Nanoflash for any HPX300 owner. Panasonic is using AVCIntra 100 for their top of the line cameras, cameras that are used in multi million dollar productions. So this is. obviously, a master quality codec.

For non Panasonic AVCintra cameras, however, I can see were the Nanoflash could be a better value. I'm currently on the fence not on the codec, but on the camera I will go with. If I go HPX300, I won't get a Nanoflash. If I get an EX3 or JVC700 , however, the nanoflash will be on my purchase list. Even if there are differences between the Nanoflash top of the line codec and Avcintra, it will be minimal. Avcintra or Nanoflash vs XDCAM EX or DVCPRO HD, however, is Apples and oranges...
 
DavidNJ said:
Ok...while 10-bit has more color depth, recording that color depth takes away for other compression information without an algorithmic improvement. Given a fixed data rate and not necessarily having a critical color detail loss, it is most likely a trade off.

Second, the HPX300 (that is the thread, isn't it?) comes with the AVC Intra as part of the camera. It is the same price as an EX3 and only slightly more the XDCAM EX JVC HM700. Net, it is the best ENG/event camera in that price range.

P2s are nice...a little RAID 0 memory card. Their speed was an issue in 2004. Now, CF can match it so it just an ease of handling and reliability issue. Important for ENG. Less important for independent film makers and budget conscious event videographers.

Lacking any comparisons recording on both formats, it is hard to judge the difference between the two formats. Both have more compression than DVCPro50. Which is also 10-bit :)

I calculated 5 compression for the XDR (800Mb/s/160Mb/s)) and 10:1 for AVC Intra 100 (1Gb/s over 100Mb/s or 800Mb/s over 80Mb/s). However, assuming 13Mb/s AVCHD equals double that speed MPEG-2, and applying a log scale for reduction that drops AVC Intra to a 'virtual' MPEG-2 of 6.6...versus 5. Not much of a difference.

The variable block size of H.264 may allow AVC Intra to capture stuff that is otherwise missed in the compression. However, we would need to do tests to determine this.

To really do the tests well, it would be ideal if in addition to a HPX300 or EX3 the compression could be applied to an oversampled image or computer image. That is not from a camera with 1:1 sensor to image sampling. The low pass optical and digital filters would remove a lot of the higher frequency detail. You would want an actual camera image also to show what it is on an image that went through those filters. What is important detail on an image from a Red One may not be important if it comes form an HVX200.
Click to expand...

Hi David-
A small correction on your math (and Jan please correct me, if needed). First, let's assume 1080psf23.98 format, which is popular in the film industry, where quality is critical. (BTW, this format is curiously missing in the new AG-HPG20 AVC-I recorder specs).

So, AVC-I is 100Mbps for 1080i60 or 1080p30, but scales with the frame rate, so at 23.98p, the bit rate drops to 80 Mbps. When recording 1080psf23.98, the Flash XDR / nanoFlash runs at the full 160 Mbps data-rate (no reduction).

The uncompressed bit-rate for AVC-I compression is 1920x1080x2(luma/chroma)x10(bits)x23.98(frame rate) = 994.49 Mbps. So the compression ratio = 994.49/80 = 12.43:1

The uncompressed bit-rate for MPEG2-I is 1920x1080x2x8x23.98 = 795.59 Mbps. So the compression ratio = 4.97:1

So at this format (1080psf23.98), the MPEG2-I has 2.5 times less compression. This comparison changes depending on the video format, so at 1080i59.94, MPEG2-I has a 2X advantage, while at 720p23.98 the advantage increases to 5.6X.

Hence my poiint that while AVC-I has an advantage of 10-bit (vs 8-bit for MPEG2-I), the lower compression ratio will greatly reduce the difference. Again, we are comparing compressed images and compression always reduces the resolution of the data and introduces round-off errors, especially in the least significant bits (the two extra bits found in 10-bit encoding).

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
 
Mike pls addres these points -
1. Does XDR/nano records in 1080i50 (pal land) so on XDR/Nano
2. whats the power consumption of these units in WATTS.
3. can the wish list be thought for ( i stated above ) incorporation in future variants
4. if i go 422 160mbps in 1080i50 then how much recording time can i expect on a 32GB card at this data rate

Finally i saw on HPX300 user guide that loop recording is very much possible on HXP300. Now only concerning me is how to get confidence that the clips are getting stored on CD prods safely...
 
SPZ said:
I've been using P2 for 4 years, and it has never failed me. Not once. It has proven to me to be reliable in the most demanding situations. They are expensive. Never used professional CF cards and don't know if they fail, but P2 really did give me safety and was a very solid way to go Tapeless.

AVC Intra is a fantastic codec. Sincerely, If this was the codec that came with the camera I wanted next, I wouldn't need an external recorder. But I would also be happy with both 100mbs Mpeg 2 Long GOP 8bit and the 160Mbs Intraframe Mpeg2, if they came with any camera. So I do not see any problem with this. I also don't see what's the need of a Nanoflash for any HPX300 owner. Panasonic is using AVCIntra 100 for their top of the line cameras, cameras that are used in multi million dollar productions. So this is. obviously, a master quality codec.

For non Panasonic AVCintra cameras, however, I can see were the Nanoflash could be a better value. I'm currently on the fence not on the codec, but on the camera I will go with. If I go HPX300, I won't get a Nanoflash. If I get an EX3 or JVC700 , however, the nanoflash will be on my purchase list. Even if there are differences between the Nanoflash top of the line codec and Avcintra, it will be minimal. Avcintra or Nanoflash vs XDCAM EX or DVCPRO HD, however, is Apples and oranges...
Click to expand...

If you already have P2 cards there are few reasons not to chose HPX300 over the EX3 or HM700. The EX3 is just not new technology. And the HPX300 is loaded with it. And nice features...the view finder, the spot zebra (The Sony has a version also), the waveform monitor and vectorscope. The difference in sensor size is about the same as a 4/3rds vs APS-C... would it be really noticeable?

Now, if your customer requires XDCAM EX, it would be different...or maybe adding an XDR?
 
Mike Schell said:
Hi David-
A small correction on your math (and Jan please correct me, if needed). First, let's assume 1080psf23.98 format, which is popular in the film industry, where quality is critical. (BTW, this format is curiously missing in the new AG-HPG20 AVC-I recorder specs).

So, AVC-I is 100Mbps for 1080i60 or 1080p30, but scales with the frame rate, so at 23.98p, the bit rate drops to 80 Mbps. When recording 1080psf23.98, the Flash XDR / nanoFlash runs at the full 160 Mbps data-rate (no reduction).

The uncompressed bit-rate for AVC-I compression is 1920x1080x2(luma/chroma)x10(bits)x23.98(frame rate) = 994.49 Mbps. So the compression ratio = 994.49/80 = 12.43:1

The uncompressed bit-rate for MPEG2-I is 1920x1080x2x8x23.98 = 795.59 Mbps. So the compression ratio = 4.97:1

So at this format (1080psf23.98), the MPEG2-I has 2.5 times less compression. This comparison changes depending on the video format, so at 1080i59.94, MPEG2-I has a 2X advantage, while at 720p23.98 the advantage increases to 5.6X.

Hence my poiint that while AVC-I has an advantage of 10-bit (vs 8-bit for MPEG2-I), the lower compression ratio will greatly reduce the difference. Again, we are comparing compressed images and compression always reduces the resolution of the data and introduces round-off errors, especially in the least significant bits (the two extra bits found in 10-bit encoding).

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
Click to expand...

I made the correction...however, isn't 4:2:2 already a form of chroma compression? Ditto 8 vs 10-bit. There is a small bit of resolution lost. Doesn't going to 10-bits for 8-bits in the same output bit rate reduce the spatial resolution?

If the Flash XDR can do I-frame rates to 160Mb/s, what was the constraint preventing long GOP at 160Mb/s? Does 160Mb/s I-frames have more resolution than 100Mb/s long GOP? I would have thought they would be close. At the same bit rate doesn't it become a trade off of spatial resolution vs. temporal resolution?

For a large part, doesn't the I-frame vs. long GOP depend on whether you have the opportunity to transcode in your workflow?
 
Big Brother said:
Mike pls addres these points -
1. Does XDR/nano records in 1080i50 (pal land) so on XDR/Nano
2. whats the power consumption of these units in WATTS.
3. can the wish list be thought for ( i stated above ) incorporation in future variants
4. if i go 422 160mbps in 1080i50 then how much recording time can i expect on a 32GB card at this data rate

Finally i saw on HPX300 user guide that loop recording is very much possible on HXP300. Now only concerning me is how to get confidence that the clips are getting stored on CD prods safely...
Click to expand...


1. Yes.

2. Flash XDR 14 to 16 watts, nanoFlash around 7 watts.

3. I will answer those questions separately.

4. Approximately 24 minutes. This is a calculated figure for 1080i60. I let the Flash XDR calculate this value for me. I do not have a 1080i50 source with me today.

We recommend that you run your own quality tests to compare 160 Mbps I-Frame to 100 Mbps Long-GOP which gives you longer recording time and great quality.

Typically, one uses an HD-SDI monitor: Camera to Flash XDR to HD-SDI monitor.

Confidience monitoring, which typically involves tape media, involves a read after write function. This is not required with modern solid-state media.

I will answer your other questions shortly.
 
So at this format (1080psf23.98), the MPEG2-I has 2.5 times less compression.
Click to expand...
But you guys are going in circles trying to prove with math, something that can't be proven that way. You can't just say "we're 5 to 1, they're 12 to 1" because a) you're not using the same compression technology, and b) you're not even compressing the same data, you're comparing 10-bit vs. 8-bit.

AVC has an advantage in compression efficiency. Arguing the math is only going to work to influence those who don't know what is going on, and that doesn't really serve anyone.

Just shoot some images. Strap both recorders onto the two SDI outputs of an HPX3000 and shoot some footage and let us see it without the numbers argument, because frankly that's a non-starter.

If someone was going to follow the numbers, they might come to the conclusion that MPEG-2 is better. But that's a just plain silly conclusion, and every standards organization that I know of has concluded that AVC, and especially the AVC-Intra 100 implementation of it, beats MPEG-2. I can't think of anyone mounting a credible argument against it, in fact. Even Sony Broadcast themselves have indicated that when they move to 1080/60p, they're going to abandon MPEG-2 and go with AVC. Sony Consumer, while currently actively selling MPEG-2 HDV, has said that AVC is the "format best suited for the coming High Definition era." So arguments about bits or compression ratio are avoiding the central core issue, which is: does one look substantially better than the other?

Because if they look *identical*, then surely you'd want half the file size (AVC-I 1080/24pN 80mbps vs. MPEG-2 160mbps) and 10-bit color, right?

Wouldn't you have to prove that the XDR is providing a noticeably superior image over AVC-Intra in order to make it a viable or even attractive alternative to the built-in AVC-Intra recording on the HPX300? (seeing as this thread was, and perhaps still is, about using the XDR with an HPX300). If you're asking someone to swallow using twice the storage space and twice the bandwidth, there needs to be a corresponding increase in image quality to justify that. And I don't expect that to happen, when comparing a 10-bit codec to an 8-bit codec. Especially when that particular 10-bit codec has been certified "Gold" by the pickiest nitpickers of all, Discovery HD and the BBC.

So, can we dispense with the numbers and get on with the visuals please? :)
 
Hi Barry-
Agreed, let's move onto the visuals, the whole matter is way too complex to analyze on a forum. Let me try to arrange a shoot-out, that's the most definitive answer.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
 
DavidNJ said:
Ok...while 10-bit has more color depth, recording that color depth takes away for other compression information without an algorithmic improvement. Given a fixed data rate and not necessarily having a critical color detail loss, it is most likely a trade off.

Second, the HPX300 (that is the thread, isn't it?) comes with the AVC Intra as part of the camera. It is the same price as an EX3 and only slightly more the XDCAM EX JVC HM700. Net, it is the best ENG/event camera in that price range.

P2s are nice...a little RAID 0 memory card. Their speed was an issue in 2004. Now, CF can match it so it just an ease of handling and reliability issue. Important for ENG. Less important for independent film makers and budget conscious event videographers.

Lacking any comparisons recording on both formats, it is hard to judge the difference between the two formats. Both have more compression than DVCPro50. Which is also 10-bit :)

I calculated 5 compression for the XDR (800Mb/s/160Mb/s)) and 10:1 for AVC Intra 100 (1Gb/s over 100Mb/s or 800Mb/s over 80Mb/s). However, assuming 13Mb/s AVCHD equals double that speed MPEG-2, and applying a log scale for reduction that drops AVC Intra to a 'virtual' MPEG-2 of 6.6...versus 5. Not much of a difference.

The variable block size of H.264 may allow AVC Intra to capture stuff that is otherwise missed in the compression. However, we would need to do tests to determine this.

To really do the tests well, it would be ideal if in addition to a HPX300 or EX3 the compression could be applied to an oversampled image or computer image. That is not from a camera with 1:1 sensor to image sampling. The low pass optical and digital filters would remove a lot of the higher frequency detail. You would want an actual camera image also to show what it is on an image that went through those filters. What is important detail on an image from a Red One may not be important if it comes form an HVX200.
Click to expand...

Dear Barry,

This post was written while you were creating your post. Please feel free to delete it if you wish.

We have images that show the quality, I will be happy to email them to you, if desired.


Dear DavidNJ,

In general, please remember we are trying to answer specific questions as asked on this forum. The Flash XDR is a general purpose, high-quality HD-SDI recorder. It just happens to be able to record from the HPX-300, as well as any other HD-SDI source.

Whether or not it provides value, or not, to an owner of a HPX-300 is up to the owner. We have never promoted the Flash XDR for use with the HXP-300. However, the two devices will work together and may provide value to some users.


DavidNJ, your observation that after compression, differences between 10-bit vs 8-bit is less than the differences before compression, is very astute. We agree.


The obvious: Not all CompactFlash cards are created equal in quality and performace.

However, high-quality CompactFlash cards that we have qualified for use with the Flash XDR are very reliable and are ideally suited for the task at hand.

In a future firmware release, we will support redundant recording. Thus, one will be able to record to two separate CompactFlash cards simultaneously, thus creating two separate "Masters".

This will reduce the risk of a media failure to near zero and allow one card to be held safely while the other card can be mailed directly from the set location.


We are in complete agreement, the proof of any camera or recording device is in the images.

The Thomson Viper is considered by many to provide the highest quality video images available today.

We have multiple Thomson Viper camera users using the Flash XDR for film-out.

One Emmy Award winner has been testing the Flash XDR for use with his Viper for approximately one month now.

A very skilled and experienced DP tested the Flash XDR yesterday.

All of these experts have found our images to meet their high quality standards after exhaustive testing.

I mention the above in response to your request to record a highly detailed image to our Flash XDR. I did not have to resources available today to generate and record a highly detailed computer image.

I attempted to post an image that shows the quality of a Thomson Viper image, as recorded by the Flash XDR, but the file was too large.

I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
This thread is beginning to get funny. So sample clips, Flash XDR vs AVC Intra off a HPX 300 will answer the thread. However all this little minutia really is off the point and clouding two (three with the nanoFlash, maybe four with the HPX 200) great products.

The Flash XDR and nanoFlash XDR give all camcorders (and hopefully soon some hybrids) with HDMI or HD-SDI output the ability to record a high quality image that make the lens and sensor the image quality issues. I would love a lower price, but then...where is the competition? A great concept and I'm sure a great product.

The HPX300 redefines what can be expected in a around $10k professional camcorder. All the great shooting features (great viewer, waveform, vectorscope, spot zebra), excellent sensor with cute features like chromatic aberration detection, and so far and away the best recording on any camcorder within 5x it price that we have 10 pages of knockdown dragout comparisons with the highest bandwidth recorder otherwise available.

When more footage is out there I can imagine anyone with a prosumer camcorder with the sensor and lens to take advantage of it buying a Flash...or a least considering it.

Meanwhile, the HPX300 stands a good chance of pushing the EX3 and maybe the slightly less expensive EX1 aside simply because it is a much more complete package. Would you seriously compare either to a 35Mb/s long GOP 4:2:0 MPEG-2 configuration? It is like trying compare Tri-X pushed to 800 to Panatomic-X.

Will HPX300 buyers get a Flash or nanoFlash XDR? Some will, even if the tests show an advantage I imagine it will be so small as few will unless it meets their workflow needs. However, if you are considering a Sony or JVC, it could even be considered a requirement to gain an image competitive with the Panasonic.

My 2¢, probably only worth 1.5¢
 
DavidNJ said:
If you already have P2 cards there are few reasons not to chose HPX300 over the EX3 or HM700. The EX3 is just not new technology. And the HPX300 is loaded with it. And nice features...the view finder, the spot zebra (The Sony has a version also), the waveform monitor and vectorscope. The difference in sensor size is about the same as a 4/3rds vs APS-C... would it be really noticeable?

Now, if your customer requires XDCAM EX, it would be different...or maybe adding an XDR?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm simply looking for the best camera. I've already stated my case on another thread. If it was for on camera recording, the HPX300 would be the clear winner. But we all know this is only a part of the equation. We're talking about 10k here. Small money for some, but a big investment for others. It is a big one, for me. An investment that must last for years. So, even tough I invested in P2 and am happy with the workflow, ultimately, I need a big jump in performance from my HVX200.
 
Ok...let me try this...under 10k, it is all about compression. I see you don't believe me...so let me provide evidence...http://vimeo.com/1082016. That link is an HR11 captured via HDMI (uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:2) to Cineform. Now compare that to EX1, HPX170, HXV200, XL H1/A1/G1, etc. The big hammer on quality is the compression.

The HPX170/HVX200/HMC150 all have undersampled sensors, yet are still viewed favorably. They are recording DVCProHD when their competition was HDV. HDV was, to quote Sean Connery in The Untouchables 'taking a knife to a gunfight'. They had nearly 2x more compression and gave away 4:2:2 chroma subsampling.

MTF is the product of the MTF of each component, but good compression is the weak link, IMHO. Given equal capture, the differences between the EX1/3 and HPX300 lens/sensor are probably fairly small. The difference in recording is huge.

Everyone is always saying Scarlet. Sensors start at 2/3" and 3k resolution oversampling. The image is recorded at over 200Mb/s in RAW non-demosaiced format. The only way to address that otherwise is a hybrid digital camera, a technology in its infancy. There are examples of it being used for corporate videos though, and of course indepent film. It is more work, but those using it think it is worth it. But you have prime lenses, an large oversampled sensor (with some issues) and a recoring mecahnism with 20-40% more compression that AVC Intra 100, depending how you value long GOP.

If you have a camera with HD-SDI or HDMI output, trying a better encoding mechanism is a first step.
 
DavidNJ said:
If you have a camera with HD-SDI or HDMI output, trying a better encoding mechanism is a first step.
Click to expand...

Hi David-
We are in complete agreement. The encoder (compressor) is by far the most quality robbing part of most cameras. The quality of almost every camera would be improved with a better recorder, be in on-camera or captured via a laptop and I/O box.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
 
I hope if we can get some same scene shot on HXP300 on P2 10bit 422 thing and parallely on XDR/naon @ 160mbps quality in Iframe mode. I hope we get to see for ourselves visually. It shall be nice if small portion of same footage be uploaded in original format for evaluation.

For me now HPX300 with XDR is a winner , i will need two p2 cards in loop mode so no matter what they record on shall be useless forme. i wil like to go the CF way cost effective/qualityful/safe/ease of being free from dumping on field :Drogar-Smoke(DBG): i shall love to be a shooter than an IT manager !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top