|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Panasonic unveils world's first integrated full HD 3D camcorder at CES 2010
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-11-2010 12:05 AM
I think you might be forgetting about Canon's HDV camcorders. The XLH1 and the model below it I believe can both output uncompressed HD and SD SDI. It can't record to that format since it can only record to a videotape, but it can output it live to an external recorder.
You also might be forgetting that transcoding takes a lot of extra time. Time is money. It must be converted to Uncompressed or Apple Pro Res 4444. Either format takes up a FUCK TON of space, more than a nice high bit rate intraframe codec would. No biggie, though. Now you can edit. BUT WAIT! Uncompressed video or even Apple Pro Res both require insanely hefty CPUs to play back in real time compared to a nice, high bit rate intraframe codec, especially when you start to add effects and anything more complicated than a straight cut. You'll need to render before you can see the result. Your work flow will be slower even if you have a screaming CPU. And yes, I edit directly in DVCPro HD. I deliver to whatever format I deliver to, but the point is that it goes straight from DCVPro HD to that format. It doesn't go somewhere else first. This is why I chose DVCPro HD over the super wimpy HDV. I had to edit using an HDV source before and I hated it. I do this kind of shit for a living. If the camera allows intraframe recording then that is great, so long as each eye records higher than 100mbps like DVCPro HD. It had better offer that option, being $21,000 and all. You never answered my question about Extreme 3 and how it doesn't mean anything if there are different speeds of Extreme 3.
Why are we even talking about this, anyway? Why the comparison to DCI? DCI is 2048 pixels wide, by the way. Watch the file that is currently being offered on Film-Tech's front page... 2048x1080, 24-bit 7.1 channel audio. Thems the shit!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-11-2010 10:35 AM
quote: Joe Redifer
think you might be forgetting about Canon's HDV camcorders. The XLH1 and the model below it I believe can both output uncompressed HD and SD SDI
No. I never said there aren't cameras that can output full HD uncompressed. On the contrary, there are lots and lots of all price ranges. But "NOBODY" (well, I said 99.9% of the time), uses it for adquisition since, well, it basically can't be recorded on anything portable efficiently and cheaply.
Now, that doesn't mean that it can't be recorded at all or that it must be too expensive. It just means, as I said, that 99.9% of the people would NEVER use uncompressed HD-SDI for adquisition except in the cases I mentioned (hacks, special fx work, live studio).
quote: Joe Redifer
Either format takes up a FUCK TON of space, more than a nice high bit rate intraframe codec would
So why are we even mentioning uncompressed? Oh, yeah, it was Bobby who mentioned it ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: Joe Redifer
You also might be forgetting that transcoding takes a lot of extra time. Time is money. It must be converted to Uncompressed or Apple Pro Res 4444.
I'm not forgetting anything. This is the way most professional people editing in a Mac would deal with HD formats that don't originated in Xdcam or DVCPro. So I'll say that's being done 40% of the time by PROFESSIONALS out there. You've probably have had to transcode to DVCPro or Prores a number of times yourself.
I said it wasn't a DESIRABLE choice, but that it IS a choice and that quality is preserved since the delivery format is almost never DVCPro and transcoding has to happen anyway. You could just save the edit list and the original material and re-produce the edit if you need it later w/o saving the edit native or uncompressed.
quote: Joe Redifer
Uncompressed video or even Apple Pro Res both require insanely hefty CPUs to play back in real time compared to a nice, high bit rate intraframe codec, especially when you start to add effects and anything more complicated than a straight cut.
Ah, uhhhh, even if we consider "Apple" to be like the pinnacle of "professionals", using uncompressed video doesn't take that much CPU usage (obviously, there is no decompression going on at all), only high bandwidth. I did say that few people use uncompressed when they could use lossless compression or editing-friendly visually lossless compression, right?
quote: Joe Redifer
And yes, I edit directly in DVCPro HD
There you go. As I said, "real pros" don't use stuff that starts with DV anymore
quote: Joe Redifer
This is why I chose DVCPro HD over the super wimpy HDV. I had to edit using an HDV source before and I hated it.
Good for ya, although few pros using DVCPro anymore ![[Wink]](wink.gif) , and even fewer (or none) using the domestic HDV, which sucks for just about anything and no professional has ever/will ever use it if there is an option.
quote: Joe Redifer
You never answered my question about Extreme 3 and how it doesn't mean anything if there are different speeds of Extreme 3.
I didn't see that question. Extreme 3 is not a speed or anything. Just a marketing term by a particular manufacturer, I guess. When it comes to memory cards, whether the "professional" CF or the now-becoming-professional SD, unfortunately, speed ratings don't mean (almost) squat.
You can find a Class 6 SD card that can WRITE at peak anywhere from 5.5MBps to +45MBps (360Mbps). The only requirement to get the Class 6 name is that it can write at a minimun of 6MBps based on "the best fragmented state where no memory unit is occupied":
http://www.sdcard.org/developers/tech/speed_class/
Even the new Class 10 name doesn't mean sh*t. Same with the speed rating (66x, 133x, 233x, 300x etc). Some class 4 are faster writers than some class 6. Some class 6 should be called "class 20" if such a thing existed and are superior in sustained writing speed to many class 10.
Just a mess. You just have to buy one and test it, I'm afraid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital
quote:
Why the comparison to DCI? DCI is 2048 pixels wide, by the way. Watch the file that is currently being offered on Film-Tech's front page... 2048x1080, 24-bit 7.1 channel audio. Thems the shit!
DCI is 1996x1080 for 1.85 content and 2048x858 for Scope ratio 2.35. Audio can be anything up to 16 channels 24bits 96khz ...
The comparison is because, considering DCI is the "top quality digital format you can see video" (outside the labs and editing suites), and in spite of the "higher resolution" 1996x1080 vs 1920x1080 in HD, the higher bit depth 12 bits vs 8 bits in HD, the inneficient (but universal) color space at full resolution XYZ 4:4:4 vs YCC 4:2:2, it only uses 31MBps for the image maximun (often much less in the films sent to the theatres) AND it uses an intraframe-only codec like the ones you like ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The truth is I just mentioned DCI to be a bit on-topic and avoid being kicked out by the moderators.
BTW, I'm joking about DVCpro. It's was great format for adquisition AND editing while it lasted. Now, if your CPU is up to it, AVC-ultra (intra) at 100Mbps is better than DVCPro HD at 100Mbps. So AVC-ultra can be about the same quality and editing convenience of intra-only compression at ~80Mbps, requiring less space and slower memory (cards). The only downside: more CPU. Start saving for a new Mac
But it's not sh*t or "unprofessional" or "destroys quality" at all. It's just the future, so we better get used to it and embrace it ...
quote: Joe Redifer
Why are we even talking about this, anyway?
I don't know. I think it started when you said that Panasonic's (the makers of DVCPro you like so much) new ~$21.000 3D video camera was not professional and was going to be sh*t quality because it recorded AVC-ultra onto SD cards and I said that not necessarily, as SD cards can be fast enough and AVC-ultra is da bomb and the way to the future ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-20-2010 08:41 AM
Thought this could be relevant to the thread:¨
PANASONIC INTRODUCES NEW 64 GB* AND 48 GB* SDXC MEMORY CARDS, AVAILABLE GLOBALLY IN FEBRUARY 2010
quote:
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 6, 2010) – Panasonic today announced the availability of the company’s first 64 GB* and 48 GB* SDXC Memory Cards. The new SDXC Memory Cards, the RP-SDW64GE1K (64 GB) and RP-SDW48GE1K (48 GB) are Panasonic’s largest-sized GOLD cards with Class 10 speed specification. Featuring new advanced Super Intelligent Controller helps to improve the reliability of the card and extend its lifetime. The new 64 GB and 48 GB SDXC Memory Cards will be globally introduced in February 2010 with suggested retail prices of $599.95 and $449.95, respectively.
SDXC is the next generation SD Memory Card, a new standard for storing data more than 32 GB and up to 2 terabytes. The Panasonic 64 GB SDXC Memory Card features a massive 64 GB of capacity, making it ideal for recording AVCHD High Definition video, high-resolution, or even RAW still photos. When used with Panasonic’s newly-released camcorders, such as the Panasonic HDC-TM55, the 64 GB SDXC Memory Card can record up to 8 hours and 30 minutes of video, while recording in the highest video quality in HA mode. Or when recording in 1920 x 1080i in HE mode, the SDXC Memory Card can hold approximately 27 hours and 30 minutes of video. The 48 GB SDXC Memory Card will have nearly the same capacity as a dual-layer Blu-ray Disc, and can hold 6 hours and 20 minutes of HD video content recorded in HA mode and 20 hours and 20 minutes when recorded in HE mode.
With the Class 10 speed specification and maximum data transfer speed of up to 22MB/s (176Mb/s), the new Panasonic SDXC Memory Cards allows users to enjoy superb performance when using with an HD camcorder or a digital interchangeable lens camera, such as the Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GF1, for high-speed burst shooting when taking still photos.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-20-2010 09:01 AM
quote:
RED one, the camera most used for digital adquisition for TV shows and movies today, i.e., until recently used ONLY 28MBS and it recorded RAW 4K 4:4:4 12 bits up to 30fps!!!!
I don't think, among professionals, that the RED is most-used. Compare the Varicam, the Genesis, the D21, the F35, F23, F900(R), etc. RED is new and up-and-coming and and low-cost and is being used by a lot of people, but really saw zero major feature use prior to Knowing, District 9, and The Lovely Bones (err, Soderbergh had a feature in there too...The Girlfriend Experience? But we're still talking a handful). Certainly more in TV, but not beating out the above established professional cameras.
That said, of course, it's absolutely true that HDCAM SR and D5 are compressed formats, and that recording uncompressed dual HD-SDI streams is extremely rare.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-20-2010 09:57 AM
Yeah, you are right. I shouldn't have said it was the most used for movies/TV drama. It's one of the most used.
It has been used in other films like:
Tom Hanks's Angels and Demons, The final, Jumper, Bloody Valentine, Book of Eli, Gamer, Beyond reasonable doubt, Anti-Christ, Van Diemens, Night at the museum 2, The girlfriend experience, Che, Easier with Practice, The Informant, Labor Pains, Splinterhead, Woodshop, Manure, and many more, including overseas like Achchamundu! Achchamundu! in India and many large TV shows, like Sanctuary, Supernatural, Southland, ER, etc.
As you said, many other models are used. This one is "new" but up-and-coming fast. And probably even more with the new models just-about-to-hit-the-market-now, since they are even cheaper and better (their new sensors are testing above 12 real, solid f-stops at nice ISO's low/noise!!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) )
Adquisition is almost always compressed, outside special needs. Compression is usually intra-frame only out of convenience for editing and low CPU requirement for in-camera encoding, but I have the feeling inter-frame codecs are going to be used more in the future, as resolution keeps increasing (new cameras being 9K-bayer and even above) and memory is still expensive and not all that fast and CPU keeps getting faster and use less energy.
Specially with 3-D, a two-frame gop (for the stereo pair) makes sense as editing always happens in a two-frame boundary. You are not going to cut-edit one eye independent of the other, are you?
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic