Uncompressed HD for HVX?

[Emanuel]

Today, I just saw Bergman's Saraband (CineAlta F900 shooted) digitally projected from a HDCAM tape and I can tell you that it was the worst CineAlta experience that I had, maybe because it wasn't Digital Cinema but only video. However, from the best Barco video projector that it was possible to get three years ago.

With noise and pixelization, very noticeable, except in the case of close-ups [in that case less for the noise but not as so good for close shots in terms of pixelization, sometimes, also there: it's the case of the Martha's glasses (Liv Ullmann's daughter)]. But depth, definitely, it wasn't the case! Concerning highlights blowing-out, my goodness! [I know that my basis is the film but the truth is that I have seen a lot of CineAlta stuff - even SD!...considering the interlaced videoish look (the film cleans!) - 35mm blowing-up with other results very different.]

That's why I am a 35mm film-out believer...

Well, I know, as Barry said:

analog won't be exactly the same as HD-SDI of course. HD-SDI can take the direct digital stream right off the DSP, whereas with analog you have to convert that to analog, then capture and digitize that back to digital. HD-SDI will of course be cleaner.

However, the two signals won't be the same no matter what you do anyway. The Canon looks to have a couple of stops less latitude, the HVX has CineGamma, etc. I think the actual form of uncompressed will have less final impact on your image than the chips and DSP will have. HD-SDI is superior to analog output, but whether it's superior enough to make much of a difference is a question for side-by-side testing to determine. One thing we know is that the Canon outputs its HD-SDI as 8-bit quantizing carried within a 10-bit stream, so it's not like you're getting full 10-bit quality from it.

As always, wise and smart words.

1) But I ask: And what about an uncompressed HD workflow since the the shooting (mostly for who goes to uncompress@post production) through the analogue output comparatively DVCPRO-HD@P2? For better 35mm film-out purpose!

When you, Barry, are saying that «HD-SDI can take the direct digital stream right off the DSP» [2) first of all, what's this: DSP?...what is it its real importance?]

2B) Does it mean that with the uncompressed HD analogue output it will not be possible to have all the progressive and other advantages stuff like settings, Cinegamma, etc.?

That is: with uncompressed HD we will have less than DVCPRO-HD, in terms of quality, maybe not(?) but regarding film-look/cinematic properties?

3) «HD-SDI is superior to analog output» How far (is it)? Theoretically by guestimate? Because I prefer a progressive CCD rather an interlaced one.

It's open other threads in the technical & hardware sub-forums where the idea is the development of a solution for achieve this better level from a HVX for all that need it!
LINK to HD Converter (Encoder), Analog Component HD to HD-SDI
LINK to HD-SDI Flash-RAM Recorder

 

[Barry_Green]

1) But I ask: And what about an uncompressed HD workflow since the the shooting (mostly for who goes to uncompress@post production) through the analogue output comparatively DVCPRO-HD@P2? For better 35mm film-out purpose!

Well, obviously, if all other things are equal, uncompressed will be better. But at what cost? If you're going to record uncompressed HD, you're talking about six seconds per GIGABYTE. You'd need a SATA RAID of four to six hard disks just to handle the data stream. It will be far more cumbersome to work with. And then when it comes time to edit -- the editing requirements to handle uncompressed HD are going to be enormous.

It is not a trivial undertaking.

When you, Barry, are saying that «HD-SDI can take the direct digital stream right off the DSP» [2) first of all, what's this: DSP?...what is it its real importance?]

DSP = digital signal processor. The CCDs are analog devices, and they get digitized and processed within the DSP. Then the output goes to the analog outputs, or to the compression engine.

Does it mean that with the uncompressed HD analogue output it will not be possible to have all the progressive and other advantages stuff like settings, Cinegamma, etc.?

No, as long as you're talking about the camera as configured from the factory. With the reel-stream Andromeda, that is true. But with the XLH1 or HVX or HD100 or Z1, that is not true. With the Andromeda the output is taken from the CCDs before the DSP. With the analog (or HD-SDI outputs) of the HD/HDV cameras, the analog output is taken after the output of the DSP, so all the processing (cinegamma, etc) will remain.

That is: with uncompressed HD we will have less than DVCPRO-HD, in terms of quality, maybe not(?) but regarding film-look/cinematic properties?

Uncompressed will have everything that the DVCPRO-HD will have, except for actual compression.

«HD-SDI is superior to analog output» How far (is it)? Theoretically by guestimate? Because I prefer a progressive CCD rather an interlaced one.

Well it's only comparable insofar as all other things being equal. An XLH1 is not directly comparable to an HVX in many ways -- it has an interlace-only chip, its 24F is noticeably lower resolution, and it has substantially less dynamic range -- but, on the other hand, it has direct HD-SDI output and its 60i picture may prove to be a little sharper (testing needs to be done), although there's no way its 24F picture will be sharper than the HVX's 1080/24P.

So the only way you could compare it is apples to apples: i.e., the HD-SDI output of the Canon would be superior to the analog output of the Canon. Or, if the HVX had HD-SDI, the HVX's HD-SDI would be better than the HVX's analog output. But you cannot easily directly compare Canon HD-SDI against HVX analog, because there are many variables at work.

 

[Emanuel]

Thanks Barry again for your help!

Well, obviously, if all other things are equal, uncompressed will be better. But at what cost? If you're going to record uncompressed HD, you're talking about six seconds per GIGABYTE. You'd need a SATA RAID of four to six hard disks just to handle the data stream. It will be far more cumbersome to work with.

A) So, there isn't HD-SDI Flash-RAM Recorder solution?

LINK

And then when it comes time to edit -- the editing requirements to handle uncompressed HD are going to be enormous.

B) Well...I would think about a uncompressed solution @post production, even for DVCProHD footage specially after Cineform analysis, BB) I have David Newman's product as unique alternative (always in order to 35mm film-out...). What do you think?

No, as long as you're talking about the camera as configured from the factory. With the reel-stream Andromeda, that is true. But with the XLH1 or HVX or HD100 or Z1, that is not true. With the Andromeda the output is taken from the CCDs before the DSP. With the analog (or HD-SDI outputs) of the HD/HDV cameras, the analog output is taken after the output of the DSP, so all the processing (cinegamma, etc) will remain.

Thanks for the answer as requested. You well know our doubts and your answers are clear.

Uncompressed will have everything that the DVCPRO-HD will have, except for actual compression.

C) Concerning to that I have a doubt:
when we speak about "analogue", it reminds me always the VHS noise... I know that even the human body belongs to the "analogue world" like the film. If you are saying that «it would be surprising if the HVX's analog was resolved at deeper depth than the XLH1, especially because the limiting factor in "bit depth" on an analog signal is the noise floor, and converting digital to analog is likely to show a bit more noise than keeping digital in a digital domain would.», it means that uncompressed HD@HVX will have more noise than DVCProHD@P2?

you cannot easily directly compare Canon HD-SDI against HVX analog, because there are many variables at work.

D) OK...but in terms of film look/cinematic properties I can say that maybe a sharp image cannot be an ideal set-up to my purpose. One friend of mine was saying - Bergman's Saraband btw - that the "star system" of Hollywood is not interested in such close-up detail. For sure it's only a euphemism but makes sense regarding the "film look" that we need to (some) narrative projects vs. one real where to have a sharper image can be an asset more than a liability. That's why I'm always saying until the exhaustion what's the purpose of that use. There isn't the same case than the TV producer, news reporter, events cameraman, etc. Interlaced CCD is not the same than progressive CCD, isn't it? Or 60i vs. 24/25p, right?


That's why «it's not a trivial undertaking», of course, not!...and we need your help! Thanks in advance!

 

[Barry_Green]

A) So, there isn't HD-SDI Flash-RAM Recorder solution?

I already answered this elsewhere -- yes that could work, but at 20 gigabytes you're only going to get two minutes of footage on that thing. And while they say that it goes up to 160 gigabytes, what does that do to the price? $40,000? If you've got that kind of money, why shoot on a 1/3" camera -- why not rent a VariCam or CineAlta?

I think the flash-ram recorder could maybe be useful for a special-effects shot or something, but I don't see it as being practical for feature-length production.

B

) Well...I would think about a uncompressed solution @post production, even for DVCProHD footage specially after Cineform analysis

Cineform's comparison to DVCPRO-HD is grossly unfair and represents a workflow that no reasonable person would undertake, and is designed to exploit the subsampling of the codec specifically to elevate Cineform's product. I do not think it's a reasonable test at all. I'm not saying the Cineform product isn't good, I just wish they'd come up with a more legitimate way to demonstrate it rather than continually and perpetually squashing/unsquashing the footage, which is simply not how someone would work with DVCPRO-HD in a post environment.

I have David Newman's product as unique alternative (always in order to 35mm film-out...). What do you think?

Don't know. Haven't tried it. But it's $15,000, isn't it? Again, once you get in that price bracket you could be looking at Super16 or Varicam origination, and either of those will do more for you than just the difference between DV100 and uncompressed -- and Cineform isn't uncompressed either, it's just a different codec. May even be better. But if I was a betting type of guy, I would bet you'd get a lot more improvement to your image by shooting on a rented VariCam than you would by recording from a 1/3" camera to the Wafian.

it means that uncompressed HD@HVX will have more noise than DVCProHD@P2?

Remember we're speculating here -- I don't know for sure. But yes, that is what I would guess.

Interlaced CCD is not the same than progressive CCD, isn't it? Or 60i vs. 24/25p, right?

They're different technologies. An interlaced CCD will never deliver the kind of resolution that a progressive CCD can, and we're starting to see that with res charts from the XL H1. Pete Bauer on DVInfo got about 600 lines out of the interlaced XL H1 in 24F mode, and David Newman got about 650. In both cases it's about 100 to 150 lines less than they were getting in interlaced mode. Progressive-scan delivers *more* resolution than interlaced, not less, so the fact that 24F offers less resolution is just proof that it isn't progressive-scan.

If you're worried about too much resolution, you can always put a softening filter on the lens. But the reverse isn't true -- if your camera's resolution is too soft, there's no "sharpening" filter you can put on the lens!

 

[Drew599]

Emanuel, just to let you know there's nothing wrong with using tape for digital screenings. D5 is a great format as far as look goes. HDCAM does have its problems but it sounds like it was something with how the footage was treated in post. I see plenty of stuff played back from both tape and a digital media box like the one dolby has or a QuBit. You can't tell the differance. One is random access and the other you have to rewind or fast forward.

 

[xray]

I have some D1 tapes with filmscan material, I made in 1993, uncompressed component video. The only problem is the size of this tape and I don't have a D1 player to run the reel or see the stuff again...


Hé, 150 posts without ´me too`!

 

[Emanuel]

I already answered this elsewhere -- yes that could work, but at 20 gigabytes you're only going to get two minutes of footage on that thing.

I sent an e-mail to Alexander Kitaev and I received a nice answer that updates and confirms the great compatibility of this device, that is, it works as PORTABLE HD recorder. But even more: JPEG2000 compression codec in a real one portable device. (!) If you can to participate @ this JPEG2000 codec discussion, please do it there.

And they are planning to show in 2006 their HD products (also uncompressed HD) on NAB and CineGear.

They also updates their website page as you can follow here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?p=375119#post375119

 

[Barry_Green]

Well now... with JPEG2000 in there, you can probably get substantially more than two minutes out of it. Interesting.