Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate

Jan, have you ever filmed and complete a production of any kind with ANY camera, or do you spend your life reading tec specs?

Fact is, MPEG Long GoP has one uncompressed frame to relate to, DVCPROHD compresses EVERY frame in a similar way to how JPEG works with photos. Swings and roundabouts.

I'm not going to be drawn into a stupid technical argument with you, I'm sure you have every Panny white paper committed to memory and can quote me all sorts of technical crap that just doesn't concern me in the least.

I know what I see on a decent HD monitor; that is pretty much the only thing that counts; period.

EVERY I-Frame is compressed. Both Intraframe, Interframe and Long GoP are all compressed, they just do it differently; personally I don't care about the scientifics unless I can see it in the picture and with pixel-shifting I can most definitely see it on a HD monitor; soft, soft, soft.

AVC-Intra can't hold up to being compressed/de-compressed 3 times in post. I know people who have done it and it can't handle being shredded like XDCAM's MPEG can.

"you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2" over the 2/3"."

So the above quote would mean a HVX200 is pretty much useless for independent low budget filmmakers then?

"It is a spatial offset that gains resolution by picking up the areas that are between the pixels of the green CCD in the Horizontal and Vertical Domains. This added resolution is combined with that green channel for the addition of lumininace resolution. CCDs ar analog devices, the image that comes off of them is an analog signal. That is then captured by the camera at a 1080 X1920P image capture, it is handled this way throught the camera processing and then put out to the DVCPROHD algorithm."

Hmmm, nice and technical again. Doesn't mean jack to me Jan, I'm concerned with what the picture 'Looks' like on a HD monitor and don't really go by manufactures inaccurate quotes and technical babble; not even Sony's.

"In general I would bet on the $10,000 lens over the $5,000 any day, same make or different maker. Just been my experience that the more expensive the glass the better."

Just goes to prove that you have never completed a production. This is rubbish, the Fujinon XS17x5.5BRM is virtually indistinguishable against Canon half-inchers costing twice the price. I've compared all Canon and all Fujinon half-inchers for XDCAM HD.

Anyway, just to Clarify. I must reiterate that I frankly don't care about brands or what it says on the side of the camcorder. Over the past 24 months I've owned HVX200, 2 x JVC GY-HD111's, 2 x Sony Z1's, Sony DSR570. I've hired Digibeta and used XDCAM HD in abundance.

I basically use whatever an individual job calls for. There is not one camera that can do it all.

Corporate video calls for Canon XLH1 or Z1, Weddings call for DSR450, Doco's could call for Varicam, TV commercials HDCAM SR, feature films a 35mm film Panavision...

I owned the cheap HVX200 consumer camera for just 1 month before ditching it for reasons of image quality and expensive and destructive P2 workflow. I found the JVC GY-HD111 sharper (with the better lens of course) for my personal needs at the time.

I looked long and hard at Panny tape-based cameras before going for XDCAM HD. PDW-F350 suits most of my personal needs at this moment in time. This camera covers a wide spectrum from corporate, informercials, weddings, TV work and much more. And it is relatively cheap too with a workflow that, just works perfectly.

The bane of Panny products is still the dated, obsolete and expensive P2 workflow that simply won't be around come 2009. Even Panasonic Japan know darn well that they will be announcing the replacement for P2 at NAB 2009.

Old serial/slow/unreliable P2 technology simply can't survive in today's world. How Panasonic call it the 'IT' workflow is a joke and ironic considering the IT industry has left PC-Card technology behind and moved onto the faster, more reliable, cheaper, more future proof ExpressCard technology.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Panasonic the only company on the planet that use PC-Card technology now?

And I see the CinePorter got canned due to lack of interest. Personally I think it is because they know they would probably only sell a few hundred.

And aren't Panasonic the only company on the planet making P2 cards?

There is a good reason Kodak, Lexar, Sandis, Fuji etc etc won't EVER make P2 cards. Because they won't sell many, just one to each end user. They won't spend millions of dollars setting up production lines just to sell a few hundred thousand dollars worth of P2 cards. If P2 cards stick around that long anyway.

Panasonic committed to P2 for just 6 years, 4 of them are up, just 2 to go.

Bye Bye P2, you're days are numbered and anyone who thinks otherwise, well check back in 2009 and I'll accept your apologies.

Convince yourself all you like Jan and enjoy the pay whilst it is there.