HDCAM-SR versus Cineform codec

N

Nik Manning

Well-known member
Updated: Hdcam sr is not a codec for editing.
Assuming that cineform makes a mac version which they say is coming soon, I have a couple questons.

Do you need a deck to view or capture hdcam sr? I am under the impression that it is a straight to hard drive capture skipping tape.

What would be the benefits of working with hdcam sr over cineform?

If you were starting a everything but film video production company what hd editing format(dvcprohd,hdv,hdcam,etc.) would you invest in?

Any info on avids new hd codec?

I heard somewhere that star wars and other movies that where shoot digitally were shot to the hdcam sr format and not uncompressed. Any info about that? If so the datarate difference between hdcams sr and uncompressed is HUGE and shooting a movie that way doesn't seem so impossible. http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/hdedit/

Is the canon XL H1 shot straight out to the cineform codec really better than hdcam capture on a f900?http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43573

thanks
 
Last edited:
Clarification: HDCAM SR is a TAPE format, I'm not aware of it being available as a CODEC on ANY platform, let alone one where both codecs would be available. HDCAM SR involves compression, so does Cineform.

There are huge, massive differences in the optics, the chips, the lenses, etc. between the $9000 XL H1 and the $80,000-$105,000 F900/3 or F900/R. Don't even pretend that they are the same. A Kia has 2 doors, four wheels, steering wheel and a shifter and runs on gasoline. So does a 911. Which would you rather use? Just because they both take gasoline doesn't make them equal. No, XL H1 recorded to uncompressed (or anything) isn't going to look as good as F900 recorded even to DVCPRO HD. There are many other issues above and beyond the data path that determine image quality.
 
Re: Thanks for the feedback Not pretending

Re: Thanks for the feedback Not pretending

MikeCurtis said:
Clarification: HDCAM SR is a TAPE format, I'm not aware of it being available as a CODEC on ANY platform, let alone one where both codecs would be available. HDCAM SR involves compression, so does Cineform.

There are huge, massive differences in the optics, the chips, the lenses, etc. between the $9000 XL H1 and the $80,000-$105,000 F900/3 or F900/R. Don't even pretend that they are the same. A Kia has 2 doors, four wheels, steering wheel and a shifter and runs on gasoline. So does a 911. Which would you rather use? Just because they both take gasoline doesn't make them equal. No, XL H1 recorded to uncompressed (or anything) isn't going to look as good as F900 recorded even to DVCPRO HD. There are many other issues above and beyond the data path that determine image quality.
Click to expand...

Oh, hdcam sr is a tape format. Well the reason I thought that maybe the XL H1 could be the same if not better is it would record straight to cineform codec bypassing additional compression where as the f900 would go to hdcam tape adding compression from sampling down to 1440x1080 then back up tp 1980x1080.
I didn't just make this up. These cams are only as good as their weakest link. http://cineform.blogspot.com/2006/02/canon-xl-h1-filmout-results-awesome.html
"After our first day of shooting (described below) we did a second day of shooting. In addition to the XL H1, the second day of shooting also included a Sony F900 that was recorded to HDCam tape in 24p mode. Unfortunately we did not have an HD-SDI module for the F900, and we acknowledge that recording to tape reduces its visual fidelity somewhat. When recording HDCam to tape the spatial resolution is 1440 x 1080 (same as HDV) with 3:1:1 chroma (versus 4:2:0) and 8 bits of precision (same). The filmout included the F900 material after it was ingested from HDCam tape. Comparatively, the CineForm Intermediate files are always 1920 x 1080 with 4:2:2 chroma and 10 bits of precision.

Of course viewing 35mm material on-screen is mainly a visual experience, and is inherently subjective. Perhaps the most consistent comment by all 20-ish of us who had the privilege of viewing the material was “Awesome!”. It can be stated emphatically that the XL H1 when printed to 35 mm film really looks excellent – colors, shadows, highlights, range, low noise, etc. It held up very well to the F900. I’m not sure why, and it was a surprise to us, but the F900 had a noisier appearance than the XL H1."
and also here.
http://cineform.blogspot.com/2006/01/canon-xl-h1-test-shoot.html
"BTW, this footage keys much better than F900 (HDCAM) using both Keylight and Primatte. Once I get back (from Sundance), I'd like to pump some Viper, F950, F900 and XL H1 into the box (Wafian HR-1) and set up a real side-by-side (Digital / Film projection at ETC) for ASC, DGA, 600 and SMPTE. I can get all the cameras so the only question is, how many boxes can we get for the test."

These good folks have tested and retested the 9k canon and the 80k sony. they seem to agree if it isn't better it is atleast better in some aspects.
I read your blog everyday mike, but what is a 911?:dankk2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top