[Stephen Downes]

Jan,

I refuse to continue this dialogue because with words such as ‘patently untrue’ and ‘ridiculous’ to some of my statements, you obviously already have your mind made up and no amount of discussion will change your view. I’m one of the people who uses the equipment you sell, to make films. I have no brand loyalty (as I stated earlier, I use VariCam much of the time) and all I can relate are mine and my colleagues findings using the equipment in the field and how we manage to make it work for us. I also know there are many people on these web threads who’ve commented on and found the same things as I.

The one thing I will comment on is Discovery policy since it effects the company I work for greatly. The following is an internal memo at Discovery – you make up your own mind whether they have problems with the P2 workflow at present:

The document was written by Josh Derby who is Discovery’s Manager of Technical Standards and Operations.

The memo is as follows:

Panasonic P2 technology represents the next generation of acquisition formats, cameras that record files to re-usable media and enable truly tapeless production and post production. The day for that technology is certainly coming but there are questions as to whether its time has tryly arrived. P2 cards are expensive and are in no way disposable, nor are they intended to be stored as camera masters. As DCI requires producers to deliver original camera masters for all original and comissioned projects, the concept of fixed media poses a challenge. There may be a time in the future where DCI will be prepared to handle digital file-based delivery from its producers but until that time P2 will be governed by the following restrictions.

1. Material captured using P2 for commissions and original productions must be cloned to an approved tape format for final delivery to DCI. Tapes should be cloned in such a way as to ensure that they are properly referenced in the program’s final EDL or NLE project with proper timecode and tape name.

2. The program producer must demonstrate that workflow cost savings achieved by using the P2 format will cancel the expense of the transfer to tape.

3.Material for standard definition must be captured on P2 in the DVCPRO 50 codec. Material for high definition programs must be captured in the DVCPRO 100 codec.

4. The Panasonic HVX200 camera, which can record video in HD standards onto P2 media, has not been approved for unrestricted HD acquisition. While this camera records HD video onto the recording media the optical performance of the camera is closer to the performance of an HDV than to a oprofessional 2/3″ camera system. Consequently, HD media captured using this camera will be governed by the HDV guidelines. The HVX200 may be used in the DVCPRO format for unrestricted Standard Definition capture.

I also have a Discovery document that recommends the use of the Canon XL H1 and Sony Z1 in Standard Def production and how HDV should be handled in post – it’s exactly what I outlined in my earlier post (cutting preferably uncompressed).

Also, the company I work for has just purchased a number of HVX 200’s. The intention of my original post was not to flame the HVX but was merely to state how sick and tired I was of people incorrectly implying that HDV wasn’t really HD. Enough said.

Stephen Downes

[Stephen Downes]

Jan,

I think you misinterpret the purpose of my post. It certainly was not to dish the HVX 200, it was merely out of the frustration of others unfairly stating that HDV is not HD, when it patently is (it produces images that are larger than standard def so it has to be hi def!). I think the HVX 200 is another fantastic tool to add to our burgeoning HD filming toolkit, as I think are some of the HDV cameras – each has it’s place. If you need variable frame-rate in a small form factor then the HVX is the one for you, however the P2 workflow has serious limitations for long-form documentary and maybe an HDV camera is the way to go here (note: Discovery Channel International are not encouraging their co-producers to shoot with the HVX 200 due to archiving and storage implications but encourage the use of the Canon XL H1 and the Sony Z1 and are saying DV is no longer acceptable for SD production).

I would never advocate choosing a camera on it’s CCD dimensions alone and totally agree with you that one must judge the camera as a whole and look at the quality of results. This is in fact the challenge I’d put to many who suggest that HDV is not HD – just look at properly shot material on the appropriate high-end HD monitor and then judge for yourself, don’t listen to here-say. I’ve done exactly that and the HDV material looked stunning as did the HVX material. My dissertation on camera pixel dimensions was merely to make my point that HDV cameras are in fact true HD. And by-the-way, the comparison tests were performed with both cameras set to their minimum detail settings – the JVC could resolve around 700 TV lines in both the vertical and horizontal, whereas the HVX was resolving about 550 TV lines in both dimensions.

I do understand CCD’s are analogue devices and that there isn’t a 1:1 pixel relationship. I also happen to know that pixel shift technology acts to up the luminance resolution but does little to the chrominance information. Therefore take the analogy of another analogue source. If you were to record a VHS signal to DVCProHD would it improve the picture quality – no. But would it improve the image’s robustness through the multi-generation edit process – yes.

This brings me to my last point. To get the most out of HDV it must be thought of as an acquisition format only. To post in HDV beyond mere cuts is mad. Everyone I know who is shooting HDV, is either cutting as uncompressed if they’ve got fast enough disk arrays, or as another intra-frame codec, if not. Many are cutting HDV acquired footage as DVCProHD due to the codec’s high image quality and low data footprint – the quality of the end results look stunning. Indeed, HDV shooters owe a debt of gratitude to Panasonic for their DVCProHD codec, for it allows them to achieve fantastic image quality at very low cost of entry.

And just for the record, when I’m shooting high-end HD productions I usually shoot VariCam.

Best,

Stephen Downes

[Stephen Downes]

[iMan] “It is a JVC GY-HD101E, which shoots HDV progressive or standard dv interlace only. No HD.”

iMan,

The JVC GY-HD101E will in fact be shooting pictures that are more ‘HD’ when shooting in HDV mode than the HVX 200 you’ll be using – it records with CCD’s that are 1280×720 pixels, whereas the Panasonic has CCD’s that are only 960×540 (not that much greater than Standard Definition!!!). I’ve seen side-by-side tests with both cameras and the JVC definitely produces sharper looking pictures than the Panasonic. Also with such small sized CCD’s in the Panasonic, the degree of up-sampling of the chroma information means there is probably not that much difference between the colour held in the JVC’s 4:2:0 recorded image compared to the Panasonic’s 4:2:2 recorded image. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with either camera, it’s just that I get tired of people saying HDV is not HD – I’m sure the HDV consortium did a disservice to the format by putting a DV in it’s name. HDV is definitely HD because it produces pictures that are larger in dimension than standard def. Standard def is 720×576 for PAL and 720×480 for NTSC. The 1080i HDV spec is 1440×1080 (which incidentally is the same as HDCam) and the 720p HDV spec is 1280×720 (compare this to Panasonic’s high-end VariCam that has a native resolution of only 960×720!!). Both JVC’s HDV camera and Panasonic’s DVCProHD P2 camera are most definitely HD. The difference lies merely in the algorithms used to compress the material – and by the way, there is no uncompressed HD tape format on the planet!

Stephen Downes

[Stephen Downes]

Timelord 13,

Canon’s F mode certainly is not true progressive scan – the camera’s chips are interlaced and then the camera uses either pixel shift technology, reading the two fields at the same moment in time or field doubling (I don’t think Canon have released the details of how they do it) to gain a frame that is essentially equivalent to a progressive frame but is probably of lower resolution than what would be recorded if it was truly progressive. Maybe the Canon F mode frame would more accurately be called a psf frame? Having said this, unfortunately what you are seeing with regard to motion judder is not a result of Canon’s methods, it is in fact a natural result of progressive scan at low frame rates. This was part of the reason interlaced video was invented, because the low temporal data rates of 24 fps, 25 fps and 30 fps produces horrible motion judder at certain pan speeds. This judder disappears at around 60 fps and if you shoot 60 fps progressive the motion is smooth and the images very sharp. 30 fps interlaced is effectively 60 fps but instead of recording full frames it records half frames of alternate television lines, called fields. Two fields make up a frame and give you 30 fps but you’re still getting the equivalent motion smoothing of 60 fps because each field is recorded at a different point in time. I can tell you I’ve shot a huge amount of material progressively on VariCam and even these most expensive of cameras suffer from the same motion judder. If you shoot at 60 fps on VariCam the motion is smooth. If you shoot 24 fps or 25 fps the motion judder is terrible at certain pan speeds, particularly with strong hard-edged verticals in your shot. This has always been known to be a problem shooting 24 fps film for theatrical release and techniques have been employed to reduce motion judder – pan speeds are kept low, the camera is often moved with the subject (dolly and crane shots) which reduces the appearance of judder, the shallow depth-of-field of 35mm helps to reduce background judder and theatrical projectors employ a double shutter system showing every frame twice also helping to reduce judder (effectively giving 48 fps reminiscent of what interlacing does in television). I myself hate the look of 24, 25 and 30 fps progressive video on an interlaced CRT monitor/television. Having said this, these progressive frame rates look fine on an LCD or video projector which has a bit of latency and seems to smooth the motion.

Hope this helps,

Stephen Downes

[Stephen Downes]

Scott,

I’ve seen Final Touch HD in action and I must say it is a fantastic product. I know a number of post facilities that are dropping their Pandoras and going with Final Touch for 2K DI work. It has great integration with FCP – you export an XML of your cut and open your timeline in Final Touch. This enables you to correct each layer of a composite. The software is arranged in rooms for primary correct, secondary correct etc. The secondary correct looks extremely powerful. It has good control over masks and even has a very good motion tracker. All in all, nothing else comes close to Final Touch for the price and paired with a good correct console, rivals high-end proprietary systems for functionality.

Stephen Downes