FORUMS: list search recent posts

UDF Vs Fat

COW Forums : Sony XDCAM - EX & Related

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Richard Rollins
UDF Vs Fat
on Sep 25, 2014 at 1:35:39 pm

I have a PMW-200 and the default format is UDF. When i first started shooting with the camera i notice there was an aliasing effect to the film. I tried changing several settings and it always seemed to be there, especially worse during movement. I changed the format to FAT and noticed a huge improvement and the footage seems to be clearer and more crisp. From everything i am reading, it would seem UDF is supposed to be a better format.

What is the benefit of UDF over FAT?


Return to posts index

Don Greening
Re: UDF Vs Fat
on Sep 28, 2014 at 7:53:27 pm

[Richard Rollins] "What is the benefit of UDF over FAT?"

UDF and FAT are different formatting structures for the memory cards and are not the camera's recording formats. The recording format for both structures is still MPEG2 with the following differences:

  • 1. MPEG2 for FAT (at the highest setting) is recorded at 35Mbits per sec. in the 4:2:0 colour space.
  • 2. MPEG2 for UDF is recorded at 50Mbits per sec. in the 4:2:2 colour space.

There are advantages of 50Mbits@4:2:2 over 35Mbits@4:2:0

  • 1. fewer visible compression and motion artifacts in the picture because of the increased bit rate.
  • 2. the increased colour space is better able to withstand generational losses during the editing process.
  • 3. better colour correction results.
  • 4. is an acceptable broadcast format whereas 35Mbits@4:2:0 is not.


Unfortunately I have no idea why your picture at 50Mbits is worse than one recorded at 35Mbits but the former is supposed to be better than the latter.

- Don

Don Greening
A Vancouver Video Production Company
Reeltime Videoworks
http://www.reeltimevideoworks.com


Return to posts index

Marek Bilski
Re: UDF Vs Fat
on Sep 28, 2014 at 8:22:11 pm

Hi there,
Regarding point 4 below: -

"•4. is an acceptable broadcast format whereas 35Mbits@4:2:0 is not."

4.2.0 format has been used in broadcasting for a long time and is still a broadcast format. The electronic TV signal is still transmitted in 4.2.0 format and will continue to. Just because some producers in TV stations made the choice that they want their footage only in 4.2.2 is NOT because this is the only broadcast format. The majority of the ENG footage is still shot in 4.2.0 format so it's not entirely true what you state in relation to point 4. Also, TV stations' policies do not state the 4.2.2 sampling is the ONLY broadcast format acceptable.

Regards,

MxM Express


Return to posts index


Don Greening
Re: UDF Vs Fat
on Sep 28, 2014 at 9:31:43 pm

I never said 4:2:2 was the only accepted broadcast format but that it is an accepted one. Please don't put words in my mouth. What formats local TV stations accept and what they don't is their business. It's the networks that don't like 4:2:0. All you have to do is read the broadcast standards and practices pages for each of them to see it. This Is one of the reasons companies like Sony and Canon have started offering 50Mbits per sec. 4:2:2 recording on their lower priced cameras in the first place. They even state the broadcast reason in their ads.

- D

Don Greening
A Vancouver Video Production Company
Reeltime Videoworks
http://www.reeltimevideoworks.com


Return to posts index

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