FORUMS: list search recent posts

4:2:2 codec

COW Forums : Sony XDCAM - EX & Related

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Antony Christie
4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 3:36:36 pm

Hi all,

I have recently been messing around do some green screen stuff, but the results leave a little to be desired. I read a good article on best practices (sorry can't remember where now) in which it was suggested that you need to shoot 4.2.2 codec for best results.

I've a Z5 (and have access to a ex1 if need be). If I use the HDMI out can I record 4.2.2 to a laptop or do you need something like the NanoFlash?


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcow
Rafael Amador
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 3:49:44 pm

Hi Anthony,
The Nano is the lighter option in the market to record 422 from your SDI.
In studio you can capture with the appropriate IO box (AJA, BM, Matrox,..).
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcow
Noah Kadner
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:02:10 pm

Also the AJA Ki Pro- not cheap but excellent quality and portability:

http://www.aja.com/products/ki-pro/

Noah

Check out my book: RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera! Unlock the secrets of 24p, HD and Final Cut Studio.
Call Box Training now featuring the Sony EX1 Guidebook, Panasonic HVX200, Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon 7D,
Apple Tablet Blog.


Return to posts index


cowcowcowcow
Michael Palmer
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:25:11 pm

Ki-Pro?, Great idea, but a terrible design, and certainly unnecessary for anything other than projects for the big screen. The Ki-Pro has a poor design using plastic than holds heat and has a terrible removable hard drive design. IMO the Ki-Pro is really not ready for prime time. I would bet AJA is franticly redesigning a much smaller unit that offers solid state memory cards. I know CD is working on the next Nano.

Michael Palmer


Return to posts index

Antony Christie
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:39:40 pm

Hi guys,

Thanks 4 your posts, however, they r all out of my price range; I'm only playing around with chroma key @ the mo.

I couldn't find anything on the web so thought I'd post here, I guess I was hoping I could go straight from camera to PC.

Thanks anyway,
Toeknee

Sony HVR-Z5, Avid Media Composer v3


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcowcow
Rafael Amador
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:53:59 pm

Hi Anthony,
You said that you have access to an EX-1.
Use it, and light decently.
You won't need 422 to pull a good CK.
Use the search in this page.
There are few posts from people very happy with the EX green screen.
Rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


Antony Christie
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:57:23 pm

Thanks Rafael,

I'll give it a go and let u know ;o)

Sony HVR-Z5, Avid Media Composer v3


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcowcow
Craig Seeman
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:57:47 pm

I have no problem keying 4:2:0 from EX1 1080p30. The high pixel density/proximity can certainly make up for the 4:2:0. That would not be the case with the Z5 though, I suspect.

If you can go HDMI out (or SDI out) then that's your answer. Just make sure whatever box you use can handle the high data rate. Matrox MXO2 to Apple ProRes on a fast MacBookPro would work. Nano would be portable.

Ultimately you're going to have to buy something unless you already own something capable of handling the data rate.

Again, I need nothing else to get a good key from EX1 shooting progressive to its native EX codec ust as Rafael notes.



Return to posts index

Antony Christie
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 5:10:25 pm

You Creative Cow guys r great (NB: So r all the Creative Cow DVD's I've bought!)

Whenever I post my subjects r always a little under researched (& that's the reason I post in the first place) - However, I alway get great advice & I'm always glad I posted!

Thanks again

Sony HVR-Z5, Avid Media Composer v3


Return to posts index


Noah Kadner
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 6:21:02 pm

[Michael Palmer] "Ki-Pro?, Great idea, but a terrible design, and certainly unnecessary for anything other than projects for the big screen. The Ki-Pro has a poor design using plastic than holds heat and has a terrible removable hard drive design. IMO the Ki-Pro is really not ready for prime time. I would bet AJA is franticly redesigning a much smaller unit that offers solid state memory cards. I know CD is working on the next Nano."


Huh- have you actually used one? They work like a charm and there's already a solid-state hard drive option. How many 16GB CF cards are you going to need to record ProRes HQ at HD resolution at about 10 minutes per card? FUUUUN.


Check out my book: RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera! Unlock the secrets of 24p, HD and Final Cut Studio.
Call Box Training now featuring the Sony EX1 Guidebook, Panasonic HVX200, Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon 7D,
Apple Tablet Blog.


Return to posts index

cowcowcowcowcow
Tim Kolb
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 25, 2010 at 11:53:01 pm


Both the KiPro and the nanoFlash have their sweet spots...

The KiPro really isn't designed for that "attach to the back of the camera like another wireless mic receiver" portability, but it has a frame for tripod operation and it can of course be cabled to the camcorder.

The Nano does very high quality, high bitrate MPEG long GOP or I-frame

The KiPro does very high quality ProRes I-frame.

Both run in FCP real time on a timeline designated to do that (yes, I've run them both in FCP).

As odd as it may seem, ProRes is actually supported as a source file (you can't export to it) in Adobe Premiere Pro PC whereas in versions CS3 and CS4, MPEG bitrates over 35 Mbit (EX XDcam HQ) are not supported without Main Concept's plug in. In FCP, bitrates over 35 Mbits can be handled with the 50 Mbit preset, but you can't export any MPEG format over 50 Mbit at it's native bitrate...exports to Color, etc., are all exported at 50 Mbits as far as I can tell...

The Nano hangs on the back/top of the camera, or anywhere else you can attach it, is very light and doesn't consume a lot of juice.

The KiPro needs a bit more mounting, and the below-the-camera cage has one disadvantage in that a video camera is moved even farther from the pivot point for the tilt, and therefore the nodal point in the camera moves quite a bit when tilting. I prefer to have the KiPro off to the side if I'm using that unit.

The Nano can be a tad inconvenient when you want to use it as a master record "VTR" as it is heavily menu driven and the display faces up when it sits on a table vs. the KiPro front face with tape transport reminiscent controls...Convergent Design makes the full size Flash XDR, which is a bit more surface button driven if that's what you're looking for, but it still lays 'face up'.

For Greenscreen work...10 bit available on ProRes means advantage KiPro (I've had 100 Mbit footage from a Nano keyed and it works very well...hell, I've keyed HDV before and it can be made to work, but there is no question that 10 bit is helpful for compositing and color correction purposes.)

For more portable production (Michael P. and I have spent some time out on racetracks shooting performance automotive footage), the Nano is simply easier for a single operator to carry and operate.

The KiPro has a fairly wide selection of connection choices, where the Nano is designed specifically for HDSDI and HDMI.

The Nano will record 4:2:2 MPEG files wrapped as QT, MPG or MXF at a variety of datarates...The KiPro is specifically ProRes at a variety of datarates.

The KiPro uses a spinning harddrive*** which gains capacity over the Nano's dual Flash slots, but harddrives aren't as robust as solid state in abusive field conditions (heavy vibration, jarring, etc.)

***AJA has a solid state drive option, and the KiPro will also record to Express34 cards as well, which makes the media more robust, but of course these options bring the capacity down somewhat.

The KiPro has AJA's up/down/cross conversion built in. Feed the thing SD/720/1080 via analog or SDI and record to any of those resolutions in ProRes while converting on the fly.



...this list could go on and on, but I've worked with both of these products and they are both excellent devices in their own right. They aren't optimized for the same situations, but neither are any two camcorders, NLE software packages, automobiles or athletic shoes you'd care to compare.

The key is to do some research and figure out what equipment and software works best for your application.





TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,


Return to posts index

Rich Rubasch
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 26, 2010 at 2:20:25 am

Tim's post totally rocks.

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production and Post
Owner/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index


Pat McGowan
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 28, 2010 at 5:20:35 pm

Tim are you saying the Nano only records 8-bit?


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 28, 2010 at 5:37:02 pm

The NANO records 8 glorious bits.
At a good data rate is virtually 8b Uncompress.
Sheer 8b Uncompress is 290 Mbps, while the NANO records 280Mbps. Is more "optimization" than compression.
Cheers,
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Pat McGowan
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 28, 2010 at 6:55:33 pm

So the KiPro is the best option for 10 bit in the field using EX-3 and PMW350? Anything else on the horizon?


Return to posts index


Don Greening
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 28, 2010 at 8:01:16 pm

I would suspect AJA is working on a smaller version of the Ki Pro to compete with the Nano. Folks are buying the current Ki Pro for use in studio settings and the Nano for field work.

- Don


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 29, 2010 at 1:00:14 am

Hi Pat,
The Ki-Pro records Prores (10b), but is not a portable device.
I guess, as Don, that AJA will try to do something really mobile.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 29, 2010 at 10:20:27 pm

[Pat McGowan] "Tim are you saying the Nano only records 8-bit?"

It's a MPEG device that records 8 bit, yes. However, keep in mind that most all acquisition formats are 8 bit. AVC Intra and HDcamSR are the only two camera formats that are 10 bit.

There is nothing wrong with 8 bit...10 bit can be helpful for compositing work.

When it comes to general acquisition however, portability and filesize count as well.





TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,


Return to posts index

Ben Perez
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 30, 2010 at 9:13:45 pm

I guess a question on many peoples mind would be, do you get a better looking picture with the AJA because it IS 10 bit, or do they look the same?


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 30, 2010 at 9:38:30 pm

[Ben Perez] "I guess a question on many peoples mind would be, do you get a better looking picture with the AJA because it IS 10 bit, or do they look the same?"

It's actually pretty subjective. The 10 bit image has more flexibility and will endure more color correction manipulation, so it's technically better.

If you did nothing to the images and put them side-by-side on a VERY high end display...you may well notice it.

It's a matter of perception and anyone who's been at this a while will remember the comparisons between DV and BetacamSP and/or Type C...if the entire show you were watching was a doco that was competently shot on professional DV...unless someone inserted a DigiBeta shot in the middle of the program, nobody really found it distracting.

The bottom line is that the Nano/KiPro comparison isn't really a very easy one as they each have some hit-it-out-of-the-park traits, but they're strong in different areas (see my first post in the thread). My major point was- saying that one is the answer to every question and that the other is somehow inferior in a general sense is just simply not meaningful information.

As I said, I've used them both, I like them both, there are any number of applications where I could see one being a far better fit than the other...but that answer changes with the situation.




TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Jan 31, 2010 at 2:41:51 am

As Tim points, 10b gives "more definition". Its gives an extra quality that our eyes may not appreciate and that most of the actual screens (8b RGB) can not display.
However that extra quality is over there and will show up in postproduction. So depending of your workflow and delivery format, 10b shooting may be an advantage, or just a waist of resources.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Pat McGowan
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 4, 2010 at 10:06:26 pm

We'll be waiting for a 10 bit field recorder for our PMW350 cam. We do a fair bit of greenscreen work so it is imperative that we record 10 bit.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 5, 2010 at 1:10:03 am

[Pat McGowan] ". We do a fair bit of greenscreen work so it is imperative that we record 10 bit."
I guess you shoot to print to 35mm or so, otherwise 10b for CK, is just a waist of 2b.
10b was set like the digital postproduction standard when digitizing Analog signals.
In an all digital workflow where you start with a solid 8b signal, you don't need the same bit depth.
Graphics still been exported all around the world as 8b.
There is a rush about 10b as if this was the standard when, for example, Apple have a 10b Alpha Channel available since just few months (Prores 444).
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Pat McGowan
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 5, 2010 at 1:34:35 am

agreed however there is no harm in futureproofing our field data especially since it would seem that AJA is on the verge of releasing a 10 bit field recorder (aren't they?)


Return to posts index

Tim Kolb
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 6, 2010 at 7:50:24 am

[Pat McGowan] "it would seem that AJA is on the verge of releasing a 10 bit field recorder (aren't they?)"

they have...it's called the KiPro



TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,


Return to posts index

Pat McGowan
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 6, 2010 at 3:06:20 pm

I meant something smaller than a breadbox Tim.....maybe more in the pack of smokes size range?


Return to posts index


Pat McGowan
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 9, 2010 at 11:13:44 pm

Are any of them smaller than a pack of smokes?


Return to posts index


Tim Kolb
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 6, 2010 at 6:40:04 pm

[Pat McGowan] "I meant something smaller than a breadbox Tim.....maybe more in the pack of smokes size range?"

Oh, I see...

I have no knowledge of what AJA has planned in a TeenieKiPro sense...





TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,


Return to posts index

Pat McGowan
Re: 4:2:2 codec
on Feb 9, 2010 at 1:25:41 am

one can only hope.....


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]