PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.

[John Sharaf]

Randy,

These are good questions, but the real difference between these two cameras is the recording format. The Panasonic AVC-I is really four times as good as that on the XDCAM. For this of course you are going to pay the premium of the more complicated archival process, but depending on your work, this may or may not be an issue.

Remember that right now the PDW700 is vaporware, and when it does street it will not have 24p or other features that will come later. Both P2 and XDCAM can be dealt with without conventional VTR’s; there are inexpensive readers to connect with NLE’s so there is savings here as well.

While the XDCAM discs can be re-recorded, that is unlikely as they serve as an excellent archive and of course the P2 cards will come down in price and increase in size to the point where someday they might even be archival master media as well.

If I had to buy today, I’d go with the 2000!

JMHO

JS

[Michael Palmer]

Woooww ……….I don’t understand “The Panasonic AVC-I is really four times as good as that on the XDCAM.” how you can make this statement John……… Please enlighten us.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[John Sharaf]

AVC-I offers DVCPRO100 quality at 50 Mb or D5 quality at 100 Mb
XDCAM is limited to MPEG2 at 50 MB.

In a way it’s four times as good.

The recording format of the PDW700 is really it’s limiting characteristic. It’s meant to be a news camera where quality is not the defining characteristic, the limited bandwidth itself is the reason it will become the HD news standard. I don’t think that acceptance in other genres will be as enthusiastic.

JS

[Michael Palmer]

So what you are saying is that DCV pro HD is twice as good as XD Cam 50 Mbps, and that this new AVC-I is twice as good as DCV pro HD. I would assume this HPX-2000 now has full raster 1920×1080 CCD’s and not the CCD’s from the HPX-500 or do you know? The HPX-500 can only provide 1280×1080 with DVC pro HD.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[John Sharaf]

Michael,

The 2000 is more like the Varicam, in that it has a 1280×720 native imager but with the AVC-I codec there is no horizontal down res and full 10 bit recording. You have to go to the next model up (3000) to get a 1920×1080 native imager, but I believe the benefits of the improved recording format outways the slight handicap of the internal 720 to 1080 transcode. For critical work however, you could accomplish the same end by using the HD-SDI outputs of the PDW700 and recording onto a P2 mobile. This is a workflow promoted by Panasonic to leverage continued use of the Varicam.

JS

[Michael Palmer]

Here is what I found on the top of page three.
https://www.serv.com.ua/img/zstored/File/AVC_Intra_White_Paper_Ver_1_3.pdf

Table 1: Summary of the AVC-I features and Modes
Demands AVC-I Features
IT affinity / Tapeless International Standard / P2 file recording
Highly Efficient Compression MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 @ High10 / High 4:2:2 Profile standard
Editing / Operation Intra-Frame compression method （I-only compression）
Full Resolution HD mode 100Mb/s mode （1920 x 1080 / 4:2:2 @ 10bit）
ENG / Economy HD Mode 50Mb/s mode（1440 x 1080 / 4:2:0 @ 10bit）

The AVC-I 100 above is a full raster, but the HPX-2000 is the 1280×1080
And it looks like the AVC-I 50 take a page from the XD Cam with the 1440×1080 4:2:0

I’m still not sure what basis you find this AVC-I camera to be four times better at this point in time.
What would your workflow be with AVC-I files?

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[John Sharaf]

Michael,

I believe at this point your best workflow with AVC-I is ProRes 422 in FCP.

JS

[Ron Shook]

[john sharaf] “Panasonic AVC-I is really four times as good as that on the XDCAM.”

With respect, the relative quality levels of the competing codecs are not even close to 4 times different. You have to look at these apples and oranges from several perspectives to come to any even speculative conclusions, and we’ll have to wait for the real proof of the pudding when we can compare them directly. The fact that the Panasonic is intraframe and the Sony interframe makes a huge difference. The old rule of thumb when looking at MPEG2 compression is that interframe (long GOP) compression is approximately 2.5 times more efficient than intraframe compression (I-frame), just harder for the NLE to work with.

All compression schemes are conscious compromises. Since MPEG2 compression is perhaps a little more efficient in intraframe than the intraframe DCT compression used in DVCProHD, there is very little difference in quality between the 35 mbps XDCAM HD interframe codec and the 100 mbps DVCPRO HD intraframe codec, except where the respective companies decided to compromise. Panasonic went for 4:2:2 color space for improved color resolution and vibrancy and Sony went for 4:2:0 color space to improve the spacial resolution. These choices have been born out in the practical applications of shooters, who for the most part agree that XDCAM HD is sharper than DVCPRO HD but that DVCPRO HD images have a color vibrancy superior to XDCAM HD. This assumes that camera heads are equal which of course they never are, which is another reason that we have to look at things in the real world.

Now both Sony and Panasonic have new codecs, a 50 mbps, 4:2:2, interframe MPEG2 XDCAM HD codec for Sony and a variant of MPEG4, 50 and 100 mbps, AVC intraframe codec for Panasonic. The old rules of thumb don’t directly apply anymore because the AVC codec, if we are to believe Panasonic (and let us do so for simplicity), is twice as efficient as DVCPRO HD. If the old competing codecs were roughtly equivalent in quality, then the new competing codecs will give the edge to Panasonic, because it is twice as efficient as the old, while the new Sony is approximately a 1.5 times improvement. But that means that the Panasonic codec is perhaps 30-50% better than the Sony, not 4 times better.

We will have to wait and see how this works out in the field, but my suspicion is that there will be little real difference in the quality, such that other things like work flow and the subjective response to the camcorders’ imagery will be of greater importance than any mostly non visible differences in codec quality. Another thing to watch out for is the relative ease or difficulty of dealing with the respective codecs in the nle. We already know that long GOP XDCAM HD is harder to deal with, and we know that AVC-I takes more CPU horsepower to decode than MPEG2, but I at least haven’t heard how much. It may be a wash or it may not?

Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit*

[Michael Palmer]

Ok Randy my turn.
“I am currently shooting on DVCam. I want to upgrade to an HD Format.”

How are you delivering now and what format do you think you will be delivering with HD ?

The new Sony 700 is the next level of XD Cam upping the bite rate to 50Mbps along with the color space to 4:2:2 with an all new full raster 3-ccd 2/3 imager, unlike the HPX-2000 that still most likely has ccd’s from earlier units that are perceived as 720 native. These features between these two camera IMO make huge differences as to overall image quality. There will always be compression debates but I look to what the camera can produce without compression.

You are inquiring about two completely different record formats so given you understand the intangible solid state workflow I would say you should be looking at the Sony XD Cam EX series instead of the new 700 for a comparison. AVC-I is an up and coming codec that maybe the future for both companies, however the Sony camp still believes the MPEG-4 compression works best recording at lower bit rates and as the rates climb higher (as with what the HPX-2000 can record) they aren’t as dominate as some people are lead to believe. There are affordable solutions to record beyond these factory compression limits that include 4:2:2 color and Intra frame recording, with the Convergent Design Flash XDR HD-SDI recorder.

I believe I have found an affordable solution for my next production series for Animal Planet. We are planning to use the Sony EX3 together with the XDR recorder using the 100Mbps I -frame setting. The EX3 was an amazing new CMOS sensor that IMO is way better than the HPX-500 that I shot with last season. Another time saving benefit from this new Flash XDR HD-SDI recorder is it will produce QuickTime .mov files right to the card helping us with our Final Cut workflow. Both P2 and XD Cam solid state recorded files must be converted into Quick Time files to be edited with Final Cut and we won’t be spending any of that time converting. This market is ever changing and I would bet my affordable EX3 to XDR will provide near uncompressed quality without braking the bank.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[Peter Corbett]

Hi Michael,

I too am very interested in the EX3, but have you been following the concerns of some users over on the DVX user forum. There’s been some testing which appears to show significant image breakup (with the 35mbs codec)on moving images and panning across high-detailed areas like grass and trees. But when the camera is static or the subject is sharp in the screen, the images are amazing. I had a similar (but more severe) effect when shooting in Borneo last year. Following moving orang-utans across the trees looked dreadful in HDV. I only mention this because you shoot for Animal Planet.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au