Some Raw files from the camera ?

A

artgug

Member
When these cameras start to ship, will anyone be so kind as to post a few files native out of the camera, so we can ingest these into or NLE systems and see how well we can work with them ?
 
My computer can't even handle the videos that have already been posted; can someone post some low quality, highly-compressed footage from the camera, for poor sods like me?
 
Actually from what I figure, you need more processing power to play a compressed clip than an uncompressed hence the wmv's play better (On windows machines) than quicktime (probably a better codec), only issues on uncompressed must be disk size and speed, am I right?
 
artgug said:
When these cameras start to ship, will anyone be so kind as to post a few files native out of the camera, so we can ingest these into or NLE systems and see how well we can work with them ?
Click to expand...
Untill you get RAW in about two-three weeks watch this:

3 low budget HD camera test footage**

This footage consists three short clips
approximately 3 seconds of each from the following
low cost HD camcoders:

1. Sony FX1E (€/$ 3 000),
2. Panasonic HVX200 (€/$ 8 000) and
3. Canon XL H1 (€/$ 11 000)
** JVC 3-CCD PROHD CAMCORDER GY-HD100 is not included in this footage because a lack of 1080i recording format.

Footage format: H.264
Size: 1920x1080 pixel
FPS: 24
Data Size: 65.61 MB
Data Rate: 53.55 mbits/sec
Duration 10.28 sec

To get download visit
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_3Cams_1080p.html

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
It's the trade off triangle of compression: size <-> quality <-> speed.

If you have a decent hard drive (7200) playing uncompressed HD should be a simple task.

Personally, I think the WMV codec looks better and is definitely faster, but it is larger. In my mind, balance those three things makes a good codec, not some technowhiz standard that leaves a large number of people out in the cold. The strength of the quicktime codec used to be its universal bullet proof compatibility.

I remember Sony touting the PS3 and bragging that it could play 100 streams of uncompressed HD simultaneously. Which really from a CPU standpoint isn't that difficult as long as you have the RAM to back it up. So maybe 100 1MB HD clips.
 
im.thatoneguy said:
If you have a decent hard drive (7200) playing uncompressed HD should be a simple task.
Click to expand...
native DVCPRO HD and uncompressed HD are not the same thing.. DVCPRO is compressed as well, just not as much and not as complex as a wmv or h264.

720P 4:2:2 10bit uncompressed at 24fps is 56MB/sec and wont play from a single disk. DVCPRO HD is 60mbit/sec (like 8MB/sec) and will.

I remember Sony touting the PS3 and bragging that it could play 100 streams of uncompressed HD simultaneously. Which really from a CPU standpoint isn't that difficult as long as you have the RAM to back it up. So maybe 100 1MB HD clips.
Click to expand...
100 streams of uncompressed 720P footage would take up 5.5 GB per second! i don't think that any processor can handle this, even directly from RAM (and that's a lot of ram you need there ;)

zem
 
A modern CPU like the Pentium Prescott can handle something like 50-100 GB/sec. But that's a total irrelevant number because you have to get the data from somewhere. Memory is always the bottleneck.
 
High compression needs fast CPU's

Low compression needs fast Hard Drives and throughput.

Working in uncompressed REQUIRES SCSI raid in order to handle the datarate. Working in HDV 1080i multistream RT REQUIRES multiprocessors. It's the nature of the animal. The wildcard is HDV720p. With that format you can get away with a fast HT processor and regular SATA drives and still produce HD content. Here's the kicker, if you work in HD(V) and render uncompressed you'll need both (fast SCSI and multiprocessor).

I learned that in '04 when HDV came along and I ended up spending $$$$$ on hardware upgrades (3 suites) to work in HD efficiently.

best,
 
Or SATA raid
Click to expand...

I agree, SCSI is very soon going to be a thing of the past for workstation machines at least.

You see SCSI drives are a lot a better, faster and more data-reliable, but SATA gives better value for money + good peerformance and if you have i.e. a WD Raptor raid 0 set of 2 or more disks you're pretty close to U320 SCSI. I've tested my own SATA raid set which is not a Raptor (Seagate NCQ'S 7200) and it gives about 95 mb/s of constant write and read speed. which is quite nice I should say.


The other bottleneck as others said is the processor, right now anyone who buys Intel for Video Editing (especially HD) in my view is simply losing their money. AMD has taken serious steps into making what I believe is the best processor around (AMD Opteron Dual Core and AMD Athlon X2)It has an Integrated memory controller (So Higher Cpu<->memory speed) The dual core implementation is WAY more advanced and faster than Intel + it hosts a Hypertransport bus ready to accept any bandwidth hungry card we may need to use. I really think AMD has grown to be the DVX (Or should I say HVX) of Processors!


Just my 2c.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top