Why 4:2:0 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's not ;) We all agree GOP is around due to maximizing bandwidth with limited space. Ironically, many who absolutely dislike GOP turn around and marvel their Bluray or HD-DVD player hooked to their new 1080P set.
But, I do agree we need to capture the footage with the best quality possible.

Which brings to point....
The GOP issue with the EX1 (if you really have one ;) ) SDI out will be moot in a year with Cineform and Convergent Design both offering portable solutions. I'm really interested with furture Cineform solutions. Having said that, I'm looking forward to future Sony improvements along with Red mini, and Panasonics offerings. Things just keep getting better!
 
Stevet said:
Ironically, many who absolutely dislike GOP turn around and marvel their Bluray or HD-DVD player hooked to their new 1080P set.
Click to expand...

That's because long-GOP is just fine for a delivery medium, especially where you have fine control over the compression. It's when it's used as an acquisition or editing format that those of us who object to it start raising our hands.

I don't think too many people (except consumers) would use MPEG-2 as an acquisition format in SD when DV is available, even though you could get more into the same storage space . . . don't see why any of those reasons don't carry over into the HD world. (Yes, I know what the EX1 records; same idea.)

But hey, we all make the compromises which suit us best.
 
harddrive said:
Because some people have said to me, comparing the two examples above, that "oh, it's 4:2:2 v 4:2:0, no contest" and been genuinely surprised to have the subtleties pointed out.
Click to expand...
But you do realize you're bringing in an argument that had nothing to do with the original question, right?

As an absolute answer: 4:2:2 is better than 4:2:0. Unquestionably.

The relativism shouldn't even involve Panasonic's codec, which wasn't even part of the discussion. The relativism that you're concerned about (IINM) is the idea of 4:2:2 at 35 megabits -- as in, should that limited bandwidth be used to encode more color resolution, or could those bits be spent better somewhere else? And the answer has to be: that's an invalid argument because -- why stop at 35 megabits? When you make a recording medium that can handle 800 megabits (or so they advertise), why stop at 35? Why not just have better?

That's the question, and that's the question we don't have an answer to.

And as for DVCProHD 720 to XDCAM 1080, then that reflects the camera front ends.
Click to expand...
Look, your opinion, fine. Completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. Nobody brought up the HVX, nobody brought up DVCPRO-HD, nobody brought up anything like this. And I reject the classification anyway because the HVX is undoubtedly sharper in 1080 mode than it is in 720, so trying to characterize it as less really just has no place in this discussion.

So back to the topic at hand: why did Sony go with only 4:2:0 if 4:2:2 is better? And 4:2:2 is unquestionably better. So why limit it to 4:2:0? It should only be a question of bandwidth. Yet they have comparatively limitless bandwidth, higher bandwidth than HDCAM SR tape, so... there is no good answer. They could have gone 4:2:2, they should have, and they just didn't.
 
Stevet said:
Ironically, many who absolutely dislike GOP turn around and marvel their Bluray or HD-DVD player hooked to their new 1080P set.
Click to expand...
Dude -- did you really just say this? Come on...

Long-GOP was invented as a delivery medium. Not an acquisition medium. Long-GOP is designed around the idea that the encoder can take *forever* to optimize and render out an image that is the most efficient possible, so long as the decoding happens in realtime. Multiple passes, optimizations, all sorts of things go into the front end to make the best possible output.

NONE of which happen in a camcorder, which has to process in realtime.

(and besides, those who are "marvelling" at their blu-ray or HD-DVD aren't marveling at lame ancient MPEG-2 anyway, they're probably marveling at AVC/h.264 or VC1...)

SDI out will be moot in a year with Cineform and Convergent Design both offering portable solutions.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean here -- did you mean long-GOP would be moot? Because don't the Convergent and Cineform products connect through SDI?

Yes the Convergent at least (don't know about CineForm) can get you completely past the GOP issue because Convergent offers an intraframe 160mbps mode. But that box alone costs another $5,000 and the only Cineform portable recorder I know of, the Wafian, costs something like $15,000, last I checked. Are these what you're talking about or is there something else?
 
I meant to write:
The GOP issue with the EX1 will be moot using the EX1 camera's SDI out with the near future Cineform and Convergent Design both offering portable solutions.


Actually, Cineform is working on a 4:2:2 portable HDMI recorder sub $2K.
http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm
Using my HDLINK SDI>HDMI, this would work.
Also, they have also talked about making an SDI version later.
Even if they upped the SDI price $1K, I'd buy in.
 
Barry_Green said:
The answer is: they lamed out. They could have, they just didn't. They had the opportunity since they were changing the codec anyway, and they have the technology, and they have the bandwidth. They just didn't do it.
Click to expand...

That's sad. Particularly if it was a marketing ploy to charge more for a higher-end cam that does do 4:2:2.

HVX200a where are you?
 
Wow, lots of hair splitting here left to interpretation. Allow me to comment (from conjecture, yes, but just as an example):

It's twice as much color info
Click to expand...

Wow, so the color on a camera with 4:2:2 will be twice as good as a camera with 4:2:0. Got it. Should be amazing to see how much superior it looks.

Long-GOP was invented as a delivery medium. Not an acquisition medium... NONE of which happen in a camcorder, which has to process in realtime.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's awful. I can imagine the myriad of problems in the picture of the long GOP cameras as a result of that.

Hold tight. I'm willing to bet Panasonic is going to offer something to bounce back at the EX1.
Click to expand...

Why should they? Their camera has color that's twice as good, and doesn't use the flawed long GOP.

Now, no one in their right mind should interpret this in such a way, but with the seemingly infinitesimal pontificating regarding this issue over mind numbing specifications, it's baffling that we delve into this in such a competitive manner instead of doing something like, oh, checking the gear out and seeing how you like it. Then going out and shooting something of quality with it.
 
snowleopard said:
Wow, so the color on a camera with 4:2:2 will be twice as good as a camera with 4:2:0. Got it. Should be amazing to see how much superior it looks.
Click to expand...
It's easy to do -- look at DVCPRO50 vs. DV. Read some of the reports, terms like "amazing" do get used.


Wow, that's awful. I can imagine the myriad of problems in the picture of the long GOP cameras as a result of that.
Click to expand...
You don't have to imagine, you can see the results. Normally it works fine, sometimes it's awful.


Why should they? Their camera has color that's twice as good, and doesn't use the flawed long GOP.
Click to expand...
Agreed! :thumbsup: If they offered comparable sharpness and grain performance, it'd be an open-and-shut case.

Now, no one in their right mind should interpret this in such a way
Click to expand...
Actually there is truth in all the statements you made, but what nobody should be doing is dragging any other manufacturer even into the discussion. Why can't a simple discussion be about what it's about, instead of trying to make it be about something else?

The question was: is 4:2:2 better? Yes. Why didn't Sony use it? No good answer. It has nothing to do with Panasonic or GOP or DVD or blu-ray or DVCPRO-HD or 720p or native camera front ends. It's a simple question: is 4:2:2 better than 4:2:0? Yes. Could Sony have done it? obviously. Why didn't they? We don't know. Should you be happy about it and try to convince yourself that there's a good reason for it? No. But if you want an EX1, it's what's offered.

instead of doing something like, oh, checking the gear out and seeing how you like it. Then going out and shooting something of quality with it.
Click to expand...
I've tried saying that. People don't like to hear that. They want to argue numbers.

I'm at least trying to keep the numbers at a usable scientific level, instead of going into the same pointless pixel arguments that have been happening for the last three years.
 
Barry_Green said:
Now THAT looks interesting! That kind of product could shake things up for sure.
Click to expand...

Man, if they whacked an SDI In on that Id almost be tempted. Just go straight to cheap CF while I wait for p2 to fall from its dizzying heights :P
 
Well, as everyone knows. 4:2:2 is possible from the EX1 via SDI and then using a compression format of your choice.

This is only ONE aspect of producing a decent image. Rez, image latitude, NOISE, sensitivity all add up to REAL image quality.

Barry has made this point himself. I amazed on how many jump on the 4:2:2 bandwagon without thinking about anything else.
With SDI solutions soon to be released, it's not much of a stance.

There's a lot more that must be considered. It's almost like fitting expensive RIMs on a 75' Ford Pinto and expecting highend performance.
 
Last edited:
ncje said:
Man, if they whacked an SDI In on that Id almost be tempted. Just go straight to cheap CF while I wait for p2 to fall from its dizzying heights :P
Click to expand...


Read my post again. According to what I've been reading at the "other forum", Cineform plans on rolling out the HDMI, THEN the SDI later on.
 
I Think Its Time For Me To Dust Off My Old Kodak Brownie And Load It With Some 620 Bw Film, This Digital Thing Is Getting Very Complex, What Happened To The Simple Life????????????
 
I've tried saying that. People don't like to hear that. They want to argue numbers...I'm at least trying to keep the numbers at a usable scientific level, instead of going into the same pointless pixel arguments that have been happening for the last three years.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain. It's gotten so whacked it's as if DVXuser needs it's own specific forum where people can compare/argue/bicker and anything else about tech talk on cameras ad infinitum, and leave the rest of the site to more meaningful discussion.
 
Stevet said:
Read my post again. According to what I've been reading at the "other forum", Cineform plans on rolling out the HDMI, THEN the SDI later on.
Click to expand...

Yes well, Ill certainly keep an eye out. Direct to disk recording in SDI??????? YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I'm a real fan of the Cineform codec.
The ability to capture 4:2:2 to Cineform on a portable device has been a dream of mine for quite a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top