HVX200 vs. XD CAM HD

eLeventy said:
And slower still: This is the SD version, where the NLE transcoding is very slight and easy( MXF flavour to MXF). The HDV variant of XDCam is A LOT harder to transcode. And if you up the bitstream ( to 35Mbps) you lower the realworld ingestspeed yet again. Probably ( guessing here...) below realtime.
Click to expand...
You bring up some very important points here. The ingest/transcode issues with XDCAM is its biggest Achilles' heel, in my opinion as well. And to many users, the proxy video concept is totally useless. P2 is clearly superior in this regard.
 
Spiff_2 said:
You could also write: At a fixed bitrate the very worst compression you can acheive is with DCT-based intraframe codec when compared to properly impelmented DCT-based interframe codec.
Click to expand...
Really? How is that true? Why then do high fidelity formats such as Digital Betacam, Digital-S, etc. use intraframe DCT-based compression?
 
NBCshooter said:
Well, it's a very interesting product for Sony. No real information here in this post . . . just thinking out loud. According to Sony's own press release, the PDW-F330 is positioned BETWEEN their HDV and HDCAM product lines. And it looks like it. It has an "in-between" datarate. An "in-between" imager size. And hopefully, an "in-between" price. Isn't it odd that they chose to make it a 1/2" camera (does Sony even make 1/2" cameras anymore?). Plus, it's rumored to have an auto-focus lens? An auto-focus lens on a pro-body, 1/2" camera? Weird. Never seen that before. Also, the product mock-ups have that weird prosumerish half-silvered, two-tone color scheme. Again, very weird for Sony.
Click to expand...

My guess:
Panasonic brings out a low end tapeless HD( HVX200), and soon a high end HD( P2 version of varicam). Why? Because they can. You can build a cheap HD camera for the 'lower-end' market, because the tapeless recording mechanism is dirt cheap( remember, a P2 connector is really cheap, the actual cards aren't). For the high end version, you can also use P2, because the quality of the recorded material is high enough( DVCproHD), and the P2 format supports the speed.

Sony has a problem in tapeless: their only tapeless format ( the XDcam disk) is fast enough for SD, and for 'low-end' HD ( ie, HDV). However, in its current form, it will never support high end datarates( HDCAM and HDCAM SR). If they were to position the XDCam HD as high end( ie, 2/3" CCD's, etc), they would be the laughing stock of the big budget production companies.

So why midrange? Because they have to.
 
NBCshooter said:
Really? How is that true? Why then do high fidelity formats such as Digital Betacam, Digital-S, etc. use intraframe DCT-based compression?
Click to expand...

I think the primary reason these (older) high-qualtiy formats use intraframe compression techniques is that they require less in-camera computing power to implement.
 
I suspect the computational cost argument is correct. One of the other reasons acquisition is i-frame only is that it is inherently simpler and more intuitive. Compression algorithms have improved substantially over the years.

Ultimately, if we get to uncompressed it makes no difference whatsoever... but as soon as you start to compress something, if you treat each frame as if it has the same bandwidth, regardless of the bandwidth of the image, you're wasting space.

The idea behind interframe compression is that the images don't change too much... and if this is true, there's a great amount of redundant information. By cutting out the redundant information you end up with more bandwidth for the NEW information, and hence improved quality.

If, in the worst case scenario, each image was entirely different but has the same bandwidth, the codec just divides up the data in the GOP evenly - compressing each frame independently... just like i-frame compression. In other words, you can't possibly do worse than this.

Now the long-GOP MPEG-2 isn't necessarily a "perfect" interframe codec as I describe above, but it's pretty close. I made some real efforts to actually shoot stuff whereby each frame was entirely different, and the result was that the images were never worse than DV... and usually better.

-Spiff
 
NBCshooter said:
Plus, it's rumored to have an auto-focus lens? An auto-focus lens on a pro-body, 1/2" camera?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard that. If it's true, then maybe the camera will be a DSR250 type of camera, with a fixed auto focus lens.
Then it would naturally come with a lens. :grin:
 
Mediacre has a point. I wonder. Although the picture on camcorderinfo did look somewhat like an interchangeable lens.

Regarding the processing power argument -- I think that's probably true. Consider that the newest highest-end deck, HDCAM-SR, uses MPEG-4 compression (but at an astoundingly high bitrate of 440mbps).

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Panasonic's VariCam II offered H.264 encoding, especially for P2 storage. And if it was at a high data rate, like 100 megabits, that could be incredibly high quality.

Long-GOP MPEG-2 can be very good, but I think you'd need much higher bitrates -- 100 megabits of Long-GOP MPEG-2 would probably be great and easily a rival for, and probably better than, DVCPRO-HD -- especially if they made it 4:2:2. I think the only real problem I have with today's MPEG-2 solutions is the bit-starved nature; 19 megabits isn't enough to pump a 1080i broadcast signal through, and 25 isn't enough for my tastes for storing 1080i video. But at 100 megabits it'd probably be stellar. It'll be interesting to see what JVC comes up with on their GY-HD7000U, with the custom 1920x1080x4:2:2 mpeg-2 encoding they're talking about. If it's 100 megabits it could be fantastic.
 
Barry, what kind of processing power from a CPU/Hardware standpoint would you need to pump that 1920x1080x4:2:2 mpeg-2 image through an NLE? part of me wants to say more, but mpeg-2 is mpeg-2 is mpeg-2... it's still resolving the same size image...

hmmm, any thoughts? i guess if they bring it to market it has to be able to run on existing hardware.
 
I don't know what it'll take -- but, keep in mind, the shorter the GOP, the less processor power it needs. 1920x1080 is 33% more pixels than 1440x1080 (what HDV already is). Doesn't seem all that far-fetched, but no details have been formally announced; 1920x1080x4:2:2 is just something that Tim Tokita mentioned at the JVC booth at WEVA, I don't think that can be taken as a firm committment of what they will deliver.
 
Barry_Green said:
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Panasonic's VariCam II offered H.264 encoding, especially for P2 storage. And if it was at a high data rate, like 100 megabits, that could be incredibly high quality.
Click to expand...


hmmm, that could be very interesting. i know this is far fetched thinking but i wonder if there could be any link between a panny H.264 and the slew of AVC HD encoders coming to the broadcast market.

i'm not suggesting any partnerships really but just pondering the idea of a camera that shot in native H.264 could be used in some way to create a broadcast link with less format conversions resulting in some sort of quality or efficiency boost.

i admit my thinking is a bit out there but i'm just thinking out loud.
 
As great as H.264 is, all of the motion estimation (forward and backward) may place so many computational costs on a device that it becomes too much of a power hog.

Just to keep thought processes moving here... there are compression algorithms other than DCT (note all MPEG variants are DCT-based, and were set as a standard mainly because DCT is easy to implement on a chip).

For those keeping track, the Cineform format has a lot to offer... it's wavelet compression produces no discernable DCT artifacts (macro-blocks, mosquito noise) and it's 2-GOP architecture increases the efficiency significantly. It also supports 8-bit and 10-bit acquisition, square pixel HD resolutions, and 4:2:2 colour sampling. You can also compress it nearly realtime on a current generation PC, and it typically has a lower data rate than 100 Mbps DVCPRO-HD, yet superior image quality.

Yeah. I'm a Cineform fanboy... but someone's got to be - they deserve it.

-Spiff
 
Spiff_2 said:
For those keeping track, the Cineform format has a lot to offer... it's wavelet compression produces no discernable DCT artifacts . . .
Click to expand...
I also think that the wavelet-based compression option offered in Grass Valley's new Infinity product is also very interesting.
 
NBCshooter said:
I also think that the wavelet-based compression option offered in Grass Valley's new Infinity product is also very interesting.
Click to expand...

No doubt! JPEG2000 footage from an Infinity should intercut quite nicely with DVCProHD footage.

Motion JPEG2000 has some interesting properties:

10 bit, 4:2:2, frame independent, multiple compression options (mathematically lossless, visually lossless, lossy), artifact-free even at low bitrates, high error resilience through a packatized codestream, scalability in resolution and quality, and its an international digital cinema standard.

Wireless video seems to be a solid performance area for JPEG2000:

“Indeed, recent studies have shown that Motion JPEG2000 is very well suited for video transmission over wireless channels. Specifically, it has been shown that Motion JPEG2000 outperforms the state-of-the-art MPEG-4 in terms of coding efficiency, error resilience, complexity, scalability and coding delay.”

http://www.jpeg.org/apps/wireless.html


Motion JPEG2000 (Part 3), is based on the MP4/QuickTime format. JPEG2000 is currently supported by Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and many other software applications. Updates would have to be made for wrapper support and direct camera support of the Infinity. Other NLE applications will undoubtedly provide for JPEG2000/Infinity support quickly (Avid, PPro, etc.).

The Infinity has no 24p capability, but it's successor probably will. Graham Nattress' excellent plugins should easily convert the various JPEG2000 1080i or 720p resolutions/framerates to 24p. I do a lot of televised sports, reality, etc, so not having 24p is not a problem for me. If I need 24p, I'll shoot with the HVX, or simply use the Nattress filters to convert to 24p in post.

I'm on the EVS list to buy an HVX200. My whole HVX package, including accessories (P2 cards, FS100, wide angle, 1.6x) will eventually be around $13k. I'm looking forward to getting it. My next level in-house camera beyond that may very well be a GV Infinity. Footage should cut nicely between the HVX and the Infinity. The Infinity body will be below $20k ($19k?), and I've seen used 2/3" HD lenses for around $8500. That's under $30k for the entire camera package.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Barry_Green said:
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Panasonic's VariCam II offered H.264 encoding, especially for P2 storage. And if it was at a high data rate, like 100 megabits, that could be incredibly high quality.
Click to expand...

H.264 is MPEG4, Part10. H.264 is mandatory in HD-DVD and Blu-ray specs. JPEG claims that motion JPEG2000 outperforms state-of-the-art MPEG4-based compression:

"...Motion JPEG2000 outperforms the state-of-the-art MPEG-4 in terms of coding efficiency, error resilience, complexity, scalability and coding delay.”

http://www.jpeg.org/apps/wireless.html

If that's true, I wonder if JPEG2000 will also be included in the HD-DVD and Blu-ray final specs? Panasonic releasing a Varicam II offering H.264 encoding, or conceivable a "between Varicam and HVX" camera to compete with the sub-$20k JPEG2000 GV Infinity, would be a real good move on Panasonic's part.

Your thoughts?

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
I know JPEG2000 is used in the infinity, and Graeme's a big fan of it as well. Plus, if I remember correctly, the 2/3" camera teased at NAB had an "HD-D5" badge on it.

I don't know exactly where Panasonic's headed with this; perhaps there are two different cameras; an in-between and a VariCam II. But it certainly seems like the move to IT-based acquisition is a high priority with them, and that may very well mean graduating above DVCPRO-HD and other tape-based compression systems. I wouldn't be surprised if they offer multiple recording methods -- since the P2 card is format-agnostic, and the HVX already sort of sets the tone for it (record SD in either DV, DVCPRO25, or DVCPRO50) then how hard is it to imagine that the big camera could allow recording high-def in D-5, H.264, DVCPRO-HD or JPEG2000, and you get to choose which to use? D-5 would take up a lot of space on the card, H.264 would be long-GOP and directly broadcastable over satellite, DVCPRO-HD would be firewire editable, you could choose which format based on what the client wants for that particular job. Tapeless gives us so many more options...
 
No doubt that solid state recording medium cameras that allow for multiple formats and frame rates are the future of motion media production. Interesting observations on the characteristics of a possible "tweener" camera between a Varicam II and the HVX. You mention the HVX recording SD in DV, DVCPro, and DVCPro50. The Infinity records SD in DV, DVCPro, and DVCAM, and hi-def in MPEG2 and JPEG2000. GV Thomson is a member of the P2 Alliance. Could it be that the followup camera to the Infinity, or even the not-yet-finalized Infinity could also add DVCProHD to its collection of hi-def formats it can shoot? Perhaps Pansonic and GV will find cooperation to be more fiscally advantageous than competition...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Barry_Green said:
. . . perhaps there are two different cameras; an in-between and a VariCam II.
Click to expand...
My guess is that is true. From what Jan said at RESfest, that's how I understood it. She said the shoulder-mount version (of the HVX200) would definitely be 2/3" and I inferred from her statement that, "[The Panasonic's shoulder-mount version] would most directly compete with Sony's XDCAM-HD, [the PDW-F330]," which is substantially less money than a Varicam. To me, that all fits. A mid-line 2/3" HVX-type, shoulder-mount camera, and a top-of-the-line, Varicam II-class product with all the bells and whistles. I'm just afraid that by the time you add a decent piece of glass to this yet-unnamed, mid-line camera, you may be spending upwards of $30K. Of course, if its price point is within a reasonable range of the PDW-F330, I'd much prefer the Panasonic product. I just have a feeling, that the Panasonic shoulder-mount may be a bit more than a few thousand dollars more than the upcoming Sony PDW-F330.
 
eLeventy said:
Sony has a problem in tapeless: their only tapeless format ( the XDcam disk) is fast enough for SD, and for 'low-end' HD ( ie, HDV). However, in its current form, it will never support high end datarates( HDCAM and HDCAM SR). If they were to position the XDCam HD as high end( ie, 2/3" CCD's, etc), they would be the laughing stock of the big budget production companies.
Click to expand...
Well, this is a product format that Sony is still defining. Sony's planned "higher-end" XDCAM-HD products (NOT the PDW-F330) are destined for all of its broadcast clients as a future upgrade platform (some kind of "trade-in" program for all broadcast clients who are purchasing PDW530, standard-def XDCAMs now). This is the deal they discussed with NBC.

When discussing XDCAM-HD datarates with Sony engineers at NAB2005, they had mentioned that the datarate is as yet undetermined, and they mentioned datarates (if I remember correctly) something above 50Mbps, but definitely below 100Mbps. I could be mistaken about this--I have to find my NAB notes and check these facts. I understand that optical disc technology is a bandwidth-limited technology, but the engineer was also discussing the possibility of multiple-headed optical drives to get around that. Sony engineers made one thing clear--they said that the XDCAM-HD optical drives would be of a COMPLETELY different design than current XDCAM-SD drives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top