Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200
by Emery
on
Apr 21, 2005 at 9:23:27 pm
The new info i got out of it is that it will indeed record any frame rate between 4 and 60, and that it uses the same pull down as the DVX for 24p when recording to P2 (not sure why they dont record just the frames needed)
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Luis Caffesse on Apr 21, 2005 at 10:42:24 pm
[Emery]"The new info i got out of it is that it will indeed record any frame rate between 4 and 60, and that it uses the same pull down as the DVX for 24p when recording to P2 (not sure why they dont record just the frames needed) "
Damn, I missed it.
I was under the impression that the frame rates for 720 weren't set in stone yet, though I know Jan was pushing for the same variable frame rates as the varicam (everything from 4 to 60).
As far as the pulldown on the 24P, everything up until now said that it will indeed perform a pulldown when shooting 24P in 1080P mode, but that in 720P it would only record the frames needed.
Are you certain she wasn't specifically discussing the 1080P mode?
Luis Caffesse
Studio 3 Productions, Inc.
Austin, Texas
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Barry Green on Apr 22, 2005 at 5:53:26 am
I tried to extort an answer from her today at NAB about that as well. All she will commit to is that there's 4, there's 60, there's 24, there's 30, but she won't specify what frame rates there are between 4 and 60. Other than to say that yes, there are frame rates besides 4, 24, 30, and 60. I asked "are there 'many' frame rates besides those?" No answer.
So, more info will be forthcoming, I expect that there will be lots of frame rates, but probably not every frame rate from the VariCam.
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Rodrigo Lizana on Apr 23, 2005 at 9:04:39 pm
I really like to know (a good technical reason) why this camera is going to add the pulldown to the 1080p24 mode instead of using all the 100 mb/s bandwidth on the 24 frames per second.
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Luis Caffesse on Apr 23, 2005 at 9:34:00 pm
[Rodrigo Lizana]"I really like to know (a good technical reason) why this camera is going to add the pulldown to the 1080p24 mode instead of using all the 100 mb/s bandwidth on the 24 frames per second."
There is no provision in the DVCProHD spec for 1080P.
As an analogy, there is no provision in the DV spec for 24P.
So, in the same way that Panasonic added a pulldown to the DVX and carries the 24p footage in a 60i stream, they will add a pulldown to the 1080P24 footage on the HVX and carry it in a 1080i stream to be able to record it as DVCProHD on the HVX.
It is a limitation of the codec.
To be able to record 24 frame 1080P without the pulldown would have meant a new codec. Part of the advantage of the HVX200 is it's use of an established coded with an established workflow and editing support.
The disadvantage of this, as you pointed out, is that 20% of storage space is used up to store pulldown frames that will eventually be removed.
I think that's a small price to pay for 1080P24 footage.
Luis Caffesse
Studio 3 Productions, Inc.
Austin, Texas
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by toke lahti on Apr 23, 2005 at 10:12:01 pm
I think that by introducing a new media (p2), it would have been logical time to extend the old codec at the same time. Pull-down frames could added at the export from p2 to legacy tape deck.
But this would need new codec chips to camera...
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by jeremiah black on Apr 24, 2005 at 2:34:34 am
I, too, was also hoping that Panasonic would take the opportunity of the new camera to intoduce a new codec that made use of the entire 100 mb/sec for 24p. It made sense for tape to have to have one codec that recorded 60p and below, but with P2 it seems that there's an increased flexibility. And the codecs that the HVX-200 are shooting to are upgraded versions of their existing codecs. That's why they wouldn't be "edit ready" without FCP5.
But I'm content with the upgrades that P2 and the new camera will bring us. You can't have everything at once, I guess- certainly not for $6000. And we should keep in mind how low the cost of this camera is while we list its shortcomings. I'm sure new codecs will be on the table the next time around.
To be honest, I'm more upset that Sony won't realease its HD codec to Avid or FCP for native editing. At least Panasonic did that.
jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Luis Caffesse on Apr 24, 2005 at 6:44:01 am
I think that changing the DVCProHD codec would bring other issues with it, and I for one am glad to see that Panasonic is using the established codec on the new camera. The HVX200 will shoot footage that will work seamlessly with established edit systems, and that can be mastered to (heaven forbid!) established tape formats on existing decks.
This wouldn't be possible if the format were changed.
It's the established post path that I find so appealing from the HVX200.
If they were to start fiddling with the codec, then essentially we'd be dealing with a new format. Then you're in HDV territory, without a clear and established post workflow and equipment support.
Luis Caffesse
Studio 3 Productions, Inc.
Austin, Texas
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by jeremiah black on Apr 24, 2005 at 7:02:21 am
"The HVX200 will shoot footage that will work seamlessly with established edit systems, and that can be mastered to (heaven forbid!) established tape formats on existing decks."
But, I believe, the HVX200 won't work with established NLEs as it is now. That's why FCP 5 is coming out. Of course, if the codec were changed in a big way, instead of just tweaked a bit, it might've been more difficult to work out with FCP, and entailed changes that Apple wasn't willing to make, but those are issues outside the scope of my knowledge.
Also, using existing tape decks doesn't really apply to my workflow, since I render all my footage out with a BlackMagic codec, 10 bit 4:4:4 uncompressed. Dumping it back to DVCPRO HD at that point just recompresses it. So for me, a new codec would be great, since I don't ever see a DVCPRO HD deck, Except for capture, but P2 will take care of that problem nicely!
Maybe it's different for movies, but I never master back onto the format the material was shot on. I guess for tv and stuff, it's probably the norm. So, I'll admit I'm probably in a minority here on this one.
jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Luis Caffesse on Apr 24, 2005 at 7:23:34 am
[jeremiah black]"But, I believe, the HVX200 won't work with established NLEs as it is now.
It's getting the NLE to recognize the P2 files that was the issue, not the codec itself, as far as I understand it. Avid, FCP, Canopus, and many others already support every variation of DVCPro. Let's remember DVCProHD has been around for years. So, support was added now for these systems to recognize the P2 files as DVCPro encoded files. But the majority have already been able to handle the codec itself.
but those are issues outside the scope of my knowledge.
And mine too.
Also, using existing tape decks doesn't really apply to my workflow, since I render all my footage out with a BlackMagic codec, 10 bit 4:4:4 uncompressed. Dumping it back to DVCPRO HD at that point just recompresses it. So for me, a new codec would be great, since I don't ever see a DVCPRO HD deck, Except for capture, but P2 will take care of that problem nicely!
You may not use a tape deck in your workflow, but someone is mastering your work to tape at some point (unless they are going directly to a filmprint from you hard drive master). As much as most of us want to get rid of tape, it will still be around for quite a while. P2 is a step in the right direction for getting tape out of the aquisition stage, but the vast majority of projects will still be mastered onto tape for years.
I think (or hope) the HVX is giving us what could be the perfect solution for a transitional period as we go not only from SD to HD, but from tape to solid state recording. And the best way to make that transition is to do it through the use of an established codec, as opposed to trying to establish a new one (or a new variation). Just look at how many confusing issues are coming up over the use of HDV (granted, that's a whole other discussion).
Maybe it's different for movies, but I never master back onto the format the material was shot on. I guess for tv and stuff, it's probably the norm. So, I'll admit I'm probably in a minority here on this one."
While it may not be the best idea, I think a lot of people do in fact master back to the same format.
Luis Caffesse
Studio 3 Productions, Inc.
Austin, Texas
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by jeremiah black on Apr 24, 2005 at 7:44:16 am
(LUIS) "You may not use a tape deck in your workflow, but someone is mastering your work to tape at some point (unless they are going directly to a filmprint from you hard drive master). As much as most of us want to get rid of tape, it will still be around for quite a while. P2 is a step in the right direction for getting tape out of the aquisition stage, but the vast majority of projects will still be mastered onto tape for years."
Sure, but if you have to master out to tape, it would be mastered out to D5 or HD SR HQ. Not back to such a compressed format, unless money was tight. And, as far as movies go, either one of three things happens (a) they go to film (in which case you print it from the hard drive) ; (b) they go straight to DVD (in which case you encode it from the hard drive) ; or (c) it goes straight to TV- which usually doesn't happen, but then it gets dumped to digibeta or D1 from your NLE timeline. So, odd as it may seem, going back to DVCPRO HD, really never comes up at all.
I certianly agree that tape will be around as a delivery format for a while, but I'm not so sure it will be as long as we think. I know for spots I've done for MTV, that all their stuff gets digitzied and put on a server and broadcast from there. Sure, I'll still turn in a digibeta tape to them, they'll nod and accept it, and we'll all go through the same old routine, but it would save us both time and money if I just handed them a hard drive and they gave me the digitizing specs beforehand. The work I've done on digital cable is the same. I've seen MPEG2 encoded spots get handed off, only to be decoded, then dumped to beta SP, then handed off, then captured again to be re-encoded into MPEG2 for digital cable broadcast. Aaaarggghh! What waste! I wanted to scream, "just hand the hard drive and go, buddy! What are you guys doing?"
(LUIS) "While it may not be the best idea, I think a lot of people do in fact master back to the same format."
That's very true, but I'd just like to suggest that everyone do a side by side test. After heavy color correction, render you footage out (1) to the same codec it was shot in, and (2) to a 10 bit, uncomressed 4:4:4 (or 4:2:2 for SD) codec, and then just marvel at the difference. After seeing that, you'll never want to dump it back to highly compressed tape again. (Unless you're on a budget. Money trumps purity, of course.)
jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by toke lahti on Apr 24, 2005 at 10:21:58 am
[jeremiah black]"render you footage out (1) to the same codec it was shot in, and (2) to a 10 bit, uncomressed 4:4:4 (or 4:2:2 for SD) codec,"
I'm just wondering what's your typical camera original format?
1920x1080 4:4:4 output seems a bit overkill if your original is hdcam(chroma 480x1080) or varicam(chroma 480x720).
More color depth is of course always beneficial when you change the colors.
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by jeremiah black on Apr 24, 2005 at 7:46:39 pm
[toke lahti]"I'm just wondering what's your typical camera original format?
1920x1080 4:4:4 output seems a bit overkill if your original is hdcam(chroma 480x1080) or varicam(chroma 480x720).
toke,
Camera formats vary wildly. If it's DV, i take to 4:2:2 10 bit uncompressed. HDV gets taken to 4:2:2, 10 bit unconpressed, 1080i. HDCAM and film scans get taken to 4:4:4, 10 bit, uncompressed.
If it seems like an overkill, all I can say is that I notice a differnce, and better to err on the side of more, rather than less. You are right that it's the lack of compression that's more important than the increased color space.
Also, I do alot of heavey, heavy color correction and effects, so I'm sure it makes more of a differnce, than if someone was just doing straight cuts.
jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by toke lahti on Apr 25, 2005 at 2:58:01 am
Well, if you notice the difference with your own eyes, then you should go for it.
In the end we are all making products to be seen, not to be calculated by some machine!
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by jeremiah black on Apr 25, 2005 at 3:01:54 am
[toke lahti]"In the end we are all making products to be seen, not to be calculated by some machine! "
Very, very true. All the tech stuff is helpful, but you can't argue that something looks better by pointing to a calculator any more than than you can argue someone into laughing at a joke.
jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Graeme Nattress on Apr 24, 2005 at 2:29:49 pm
I'm sure that there will be new codecs in the future, but now is not the time. We have all the places of the DVCProHD workflow in place, and it would be daft to change that for this camera. I know it would make the quality better to distribute the bits better, but it would also then make this camera an island. Look at all the bother we've had with the introduction of the new HDV codec, and now JVC threw a spanner in the works with their 24p mode that nobody is supporting yet (save 3rd party vendors like LumiereHD) because they, the NLE people, have only just got normal HDV "working".
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Luis Caffesse on Apr 24, 2005 at 4:13:24 pm
[Graeme Nattress]"I'm sure that there will be new codecs in the future, but now is not the time. We have all the places of the DVCProHD workflow in place, and it would be daft to change that for this camera. I know it would make the quality better to distribute the bits better, but it would also then make this camera an islan"
Exactly my point Graeme, I couldn't agree more.
Too bad I wasn't as concise as you in expressing it.
:)
Luis Caffesse
Studio 3 Productions, Inc.
Austin, Texas
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Barry Green on Apr 24, 2005 at 11:47:43 pm
[Graeme Nattress]"Look at all the bother we've had with the introduction of the new HDV codec, and now JVC threw a spanner in the works with their 24p mode that nobody is supporting yet (save 3rd party vendors like LumiereHD) because they, the NLE people, have only just got normal HDV "working". "
Well, "working" is also a relative term. Because when you're talking about ProHD/HDV, you're actually talking about three relatively incompatible formats.
It turns out that the JVC implementation of HDV, and the Sony implementation of HDV, are excluding support for the other at the firewire level. What this means is, if you're a JVC shooter, and someone hires you to shoot some HDV for them, and you deliver them a tape, and they happen to have Sony gear -- the tape you hand them is useless. They will not be able to digitize it.
Sony offers HDV cameras and decks that say HDV on them, but if you put a JVC HDV tape in there, you will not be able to play the data through the firewire nor capture it. You have no access to the footage (other than to play it on a television and watch what you cannot digitize).
And, JVC offers cameras and decks that feature the same HDV logo -- but if a Sony shooter gives you a tape, you will not be able to play that on your JVC equipment and digitize it.
If you like the Sony HDV, but prefer the JVC HDV deck because it can take large cassette sizes... um, don't do it. That deck will never be able to play back your camera's tapes so that you can digitize them.
The formats are mutually exclusive, when it comes to digitizing. The editing programs can support both formats, yes; but the playback equipment cannot.
A JVC HDV deck can play back JVC HDV to firewire, but cannot play back Sony HDV or ProHD tapes to firewire. A JVC ProHD deck can play back JVC HDV or ProHD to firewire, but cannot play back Sony HDV to firewire. A Sony HDV deck can play back Sony HDV, but cannot play back ProHD or JVC HDV to firewire.
I guess what I'm saying is -- don't necessarily go assuming that HDV is a standard, it's actually currently about three fairly incompatible, mutually-exclusive standards. If you're planning on getting an HDV camera so you can shoot for HDV post houses, you better check with them as to what gear they support, because the Sony and JVC implementations are mutually exclusive when it comes time to digitize. Either that, or every post house is going to have to buy at least two decks so they can support both flavors.
For customer confusion purposes, it probably would have been better if they hadn't lumped both formats under the HDV banner.
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by jeremiah black on Apr 25, 2005 at 12:02:22 am
[Barry Green]"For customer confusion purposes, it probably would have been better if they hadn't lumped both formats under the HDV banner. "
Barry,
Isn't JCV's format called "Pro HD"? I always found this to be a bad choice since it might confuse consumers into thinking that it's somehow not HDV or worse, another flavor of HD superior to even HDCAM. I know the guys and gals on this board will laugh at this, but I'm sure we'll all find ourselves over the next year debating with people who insist that "ProHD" is miles and miles above HDV- just like I spent the last two years debating with people who INSISTED that DVCAM has more resolution than mini-dv. Some even thought DVCAM had a 4:2:2 color space!
Oh, and one more thing I'd like to add, is that JVC previous one chip HDV camera isn't compatible with the new JVC decks, and also JVC is going to be releasing a 50 mb HDV camera that will also not be compatible with any gear from its other two HDV cameras. So that'll make 3 flavors of incompatible HDV from just JVC alone. Yow!
jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by toke lahti on Apr 25, 2005 at 1:29:15 pm
Btw, jvc is advertizing hd-sdi option to it's 100.
Does anybody have a clue will that mean really 10bit uncompressed or just some lame fw-sdi converter?
If it really is 10bit colors out of $6k camera, then I think Panny should follow the fashion.
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Graeme Nattress on Apr 25, 2005 at 1:31:34 pm
Sure it'll be 10bit if they employ 10bit A to D converters, although it will be noise limited by the D to A converter and other circuitry, so although it may well carry 10bits, there could be 2 or more bits of noise in there.....
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Barry Green on Apr 26, 2005 at 9:01:23 pm
[toke lahti]"Btw, jvc is advertizing hd-sdi option to it's 100.
Does anybody have a clue will that mean really 10bit uncompressed or just some lame fw-sdi converter? " There is no access to the uncompressed digital signal. So the only way to get HD-SDI is to use either some sort of converter from the firewire, or to convert from the analog outputs. At NAB they were demonstrating HD-SDI, I asked 'em about it and asked if there was an option board, and the guy said "well, no, we're using this AJA converter hooked to the analog component outputs."
That doesn't mean it won't look good, that just means it's not going to be an HD-SDI signal direct from the camera head, it's going to be a digitized version of the analog outputs.
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Graeme Nattress on Apr 25, 2005 at 12:08:45 am
Does the box that converts firewire HDV to HD SDI only work with one format, all or some?? I think what you are saying Barry, is that HDV has more than one nail in it's coffin. For that degree of incompatibility under the "same" video format name to be allowed is ludicrous! How is any consumer going to navigate that minefield??
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by toke lahti on Apr 25, 2005 at 3:30:54 am
This hdv soup is beginning to look a farce and I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole. Reminds me about new revolutionary DV which broke very fast to dv, dvcam & dvcpro and 1st gen decks couldn't play each other. So hdv50 will be the fourth incompatible member of a happy family!
Btw, I see this 1080 pull-down thing as a very minor problem.
But anyway, some day Panny will have to make new dsp's and then the codec might get better.
And that can't take many years any more...
About that time that NLE vendors can add new support to new codecs; it's been only half a year that hdv cameras have been available and already almost all support it. So I won't believe they would have any problems to support a little bit improved dvcproHD codec.
Sidenote: it was quite funny, after I proposed in the "elephant" thread for HQ recording straight to DLT tape, to listen to this DVguys radioshow where Jan talked about DLT being a good choise for back up!
How about Varicam2 with internal DLT deck and dvcpro288 codec? :-
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Barry Green on Apr 24, 2005 at 7:32:35 am
[Rodrigo Lizana]"I really like to know (a good technical reason) why this camera is going to add the pulldown to the 1080p24 mode instead of using all the 100 mb/s bandwidth on the 24 frames per second. "
Because DVCPRO-HD uses a fixed data rate per frame. It's not variable-bitrate, it allocates exactly the same bitrate to every frame. It's not 100 megabits per second, it's more like 3.34 megabits per frame 1080 frame.
That's why 720/24p takes up 40 megabits, rather than being spread across 100. It's the very nature of the fixed-bitrate, constant-bitrate, intraframe-only compression that lets DVCPRO-HD work as well as it does (no GOP, instant edit, edit-ready, preview through firewire, no variable-resolution issues on panning, etc).
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Jan Crittenden Livingston on Apr 24, 2005 at 12:16:09 pm
[Rodrigo Lizana]"I really like to know (a good technical reason) why this camera is going to add the pulldown to the 1080p24 mode instead of using all the 100 mb/s bandwidth on the 24 frames per second. "
Rodrigo,
The reason is very simple. Only the A frame is flagged in the 2:3:3:2 and to make the camera record just the 24 frames, each frame would need to carry a flag. This is what is in the VariCam codec. This is why it is simple to record just the 24 frames in 720P. That work is done. People, I believe, based on comments on this board, think this is easy stuff to do. Consider this, that if they implement the full variable frame rate, there are 72 formats to test and support on this little camcorder. This is not insignificant engineering. To deliver real I frame only HD recording at a price point below $10,000, is innovative.
Hope this helps,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Graeme Nattress on Apr 24, 2005 at 2:27:30 pm
Basically, I think Panasonic are trying to give us as many features as possible without making everything unique and custom for this particular camera. They already have the vari-frame 720p stuff from the Varicam - the 24p embedded in interlaced video from the DVX etc. Perhaps they're just joining all these technologies together as best they can without spending silly budgets re-inventing everything, so that we get a camera we can afford, rather than another Varicam, which, although nice, is quite unaffordable for most of us?? Am I on the right track here Jan?? I know that if I was developing a new cost effective camera I'd try to re-use rather than re-invent as much as possible,
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by jeremiah black on Apr 24, 2005 at 7:36:31 pm
I think Graeme is right on, and we would all do well to remember that we're talking about a camera that's going to cost $6,000. I tried to mention this in my earlier post, but I guess I didn't do too good a job.
Suddenly it's like we've all (myself included) become greedy madmen, and are upset that the camera won't also unfold into a four-door luxury sedan.
jeremiah black
dual 2 gig G5
2.5 gigs of RAM
Decklink Extreme capture card
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Jan Crittenden Livingston on Apr 25, 2005 at 11:49:19 am
[Graeme Nattress]"Am I on the right track here Jan?? I know that if I was developing a new cost effective camera I'd try to re-use rather than re-invent as much as possible, "
Hi Graeme,
You are right on the money. Oddly enough though once past the compresion engine, it stil has to be proven at every frame rate, so while the engineers have their work finished on the front end, they have to make it all work on the back end.
Best,
jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems
Re: Just heard Jan speak on DV guys abot the HVX-200 by Graeme Nattress on Apr 25, 2005 at 12:31:39 pm
Glad to know I'm on the right track and not going gaga.
I really appreciated your comments that you're going to go for good dynamic range, resolution and low noise on the sensors. Normally people just pick one. I am looking forwards to learning how you've managed to optimize all three.
