3D HD CineAlta, etc.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Finally some Sony NAB press releases.

 

 

These are new CineAlta SR product news releases:

 

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/4485

 

This news release means the following:

 

Sony was able to double the recorded bit stream on ther CinaAlta SR field recorder to 880 Mbps. The normal bit stream is 440 Mbps, which is about 3x higher than CineAlta. In addition to that the camera signal is first compressed through MPEG4 compressor. MPEG4 is maybe 2.5x more efficient than CineAlta compression. That means that the SR system has effective bit stream about 7.5 bigger than CineAlta. It can also take uncompressed 4:2:2, full 1920x1080 output of F900 and feed it into the SR field recorder. Actually it can simultaneously record two of these signals -- from (2) F900's -- perfect for 3D production.

 

This is very significant improvement of HD picture quality, plus it has the multi-camera / 3D recording capability.

 

 

This is Sony's one year old info on pricing:

 

The HDC-F950 4:4:4 camera and the HDCU-F950 camera control unit are scheduled to be available in October for suggested list prices of $115,000 and $45,000, respectively. The HDVF-C30W color viewfinder is scheduled to be available in April for a suggested list price below $10,000. The SRW-5000 HDCAM SR studio VTR is scheduled to be available in August for a suggested list price of $88,000. The SRW-1 HDCAM SR portable VTR and its companion SRPC-1 portable processor are scheduled to be available in early 2004 for suggested list prices of $55,000 and $16,000, respectively.

 

I don't have current pricing, but it appears that the system pricing is as follows:

 

$100K CineAlta F900

 

$230K CineAlta SR F950 camera, control unit, VTR and MPEG4 processor

 

$270K 3D system with (2) F900's, VTR, and MPEG4 processor.

 

Now, this is very expensive.

 

 

This is new POV camere news release:

 

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/4468

 

I think that they will develop a camcorder based in this, costing something like the Varicam.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> MPEG4 is maybe 2.5x more efficient than CineAlta compression. That means

> that the SR system has effective bit stream about 7.5 bigger than CineAlta

 

Careful. MPEG-4 was developed for ultra-low bandwidth applications. It scales spectacularly well, but I think this would be another example of someone making the horrible mistake of using a distribution format for origination.

 

The problem is the way MPEG-4 works. Broadly speaking, it's capable of a lot more transforms than MPEG-2 to map old picture data into new picture data; this is good, but only if you're doing GOP-based compression, which they're almost certainly not. MPEG-4 is also capable of intelligently separating foreground and background objects, and applying a higher level of compression to the background. This is fantastic if you are a video phone, but bodes ill for the overall image quality through colour correction and other postproduction tasks, which may remap image data in ways the compressor could not anticipate. A common example of this, which anyone who's ever graded DVSD will have seen, is post-compression increases in contrast which hilight compression noise in areas where the codec had previously seen low contrast and used heavy compression.

 

MPEG-4 is good for distribution - hi-def TV and DVDs will I hope make good use of the codec. However, unless they switch off most of these gizmos in the production-systems implementations (in which case you'd be largely back where MPEG-2 left off) there are... at least questions to ask. It's never going to be a poorer choice than MPEG-2, but it's just not designed to be a production tool.

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Even if the MPEG4 compression had no improvement over the DV-format-based CineAlta compression, it is a big improvement. Because MPEG4 compression is spread over bunch of frames, it is by nature more efficient than the CineAlta type compression. On still pictures you gain most over this type of CineAlta compression. On moving objects the MPEG4 will naturally be less pronounced, but the eyes does not see the image degradation as clearly as on still pictures.

 

MPEG4 by nature is better than the MPEG2 codec, which is better than the DV codec. Until now quality relal time MPEG4 was hard to achieve because of the need for very complex processing, with that associated tremendous processing power, and high power consumption.

 

We have not seen any movies made with this system yet. I haven't even seen a demo that would compare it to CineAlta. In my opinion this is a very significant improvement. There are even more modern compression codecs being developed. Still this real time gigabit stream fed HD MPEG4 encoder is quite an achievement.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Because MPEG4 compression is spread over bunch of frames, it is by nature

> more efficient than the CineAlta type compression

 

MPEG-2 is as well, but you didn't bring that up ! Anyway let's say we accept all of this, fine, but do you know that they are doing GOP based compression on this new format?

 

Have you actually done any homework on this at all?

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Hey Phil,

 

Let's bring this to the layman's level so everyone can understand and not argue if MPEG2 or 4 is better, etc. I have my opinion on that; you have yours. It is irrelevant in the big picture.

 

We all know that DV is 4:1:1 with 25 Mbps stream; DVCPRO50 is 4:2:2 with 50 Mbps bit stream and there is a definite improvement in quality. Digital Beta is 90 Mbps and there is even further improvement, although less pronounced, unless you do multi-generation transfers.

 

Let's compare CineAlta with CineAlta SR:

 

CineAlta Camcorder - 1440x1080 pixels, about 140 Mbps stream, 3:1:1

 

CineAlta SR 1920x1080 pixels, 440 Mbps stream with about 2.5x as efficient codec (my estimation; you disagree), which makes it 1.1 Gbps effective stream, 4:4:4.

 

F900 can now record full 1920x1080 pixels, with 4:2:2 output, with the same bit stream as F950, actually you can have 2 of the cameras record in synch to the same tape. So you have a quality that is not significantly worse than CineAlta SR.

 

Now, if you think that I am wrong in my estimation in regards to MPEG4, why don't you explain what is your estimate. I'm sure Sony chose MPEG4 over less complex MPEG2 because it is better and over a lot less simple CineAlta codec becuse it is again better; a lot better, and more complex and expensive, and until now almost impossible to do in such a small physical space in rel time.

 

Varicam, converted to 24p (from the recorded stream of 60p) has an effective 40 Mbps bit stream, 4:2:2 compression, 1280x720 pixels. Compared to CineAlta SR it is like night and day.

 

Joe

[Tenolian Bell]

Sony was able to double the recorded bit stream on ther CinaAlta SR field recorder to 880 Mbps. The normal bit stream is 440 Mbps, which is about 3x higher than CineAlta.

My question would be since the Viper records 10 bit uncompressed at 2Gbps to achieve full bandwidth 4:4:4. How is Sony doing the same with 880 Mbps, and compression?

[Guest Ultra Definition]

sony is compressing the signal with MPEG4 encoder

[Tenolian Bell]

I would think once you compress you no longer have full bandwidth. Then you run into having to process and sharpen and interpolate to make up for the loss of information.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

You have to decode the images with MPEG4 decoder before viewing or editing. The CineAlta SR compression appears to be very light; something on the order of Digital Beta, which is compressed about 2:1. For all practical purposes the difference between uncompressed and this lightly compressed would be hard to notice; still for acquisition uncompressed is the best; for distribution you can compress quite a bit before seeing artifacts.

[Mike Brennan]

A extraordinary achievement the SR recorder may be but the difference in picture quality is not anywhere near the increase in data rate. Who can tell between playback from a f900 and a live picture?

Considering its cost, no camcorder available, why bother with 444 but for bluescreen? The post houses love it becuase it will add $$$$ to their charges.

 

The SRW1 4:4:4 recorder is probably designed to record a (compressed) 4k image from the next camera. Now we are talking!

 

"Varicam, converted to 24p (from the recorded stream of 60p) has an effective 40 Mbps bit stream, 4:2:2 compression, 1280x720 pixels. Compared to CineAlta SR it is like night and day.

Joe"

 

Varicam records 960x720. if we are going to talk numbers lets make them accurate!

 

Mike

[Filip Plesha]

I think that any image system that is supose to rival 35mm film

should get you images that you can take any of its frames

make enlargements on a photo paper and put them on the wall.

every frame must have the qualitty of a still photograph (minus the

resolution difference)

So any kind of compressions that are visible but the eye misses them

(which is questionable) are unacceptable as a replacement to 35mm film.

 

Digital aquisition has a lot of trouble compeating with film even

with no compression or without subsampling,much less

with those present.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The CineAlta SR compression appears to be very light; something on the order

> of Digital Beta, which is compressed about 2:1

 

God. No. There are absolutely no correlating factors between the kind of bitrate reduction used in Digibeta and MPEG-4. They are not at all comparable.

 

Phil

[Mike Brennan]

"I think that any image system that is supose to rival 35mm film"

 

They are rivalling 65mm, but haven't got past 35mm yet.

 

It has been reported in DPreview forum the Kodak are knocking out 60,000 pro digital SLR cameras a month from one of their factories.

 

Like Sony, Kodak will become box shifters (of forever improving digital cameras) rather than roll shifters.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

"God. No. There are absolutely no correlating factors between the kind of bitrate reduction used in Digibeta and MPEG-4. They are not at all comparable."

 

Can you explain more Phil? Is it an apples and oranges comparison?

 

Mike Brennan

[Filip Plesha]

What do you mean rivaling 65mm?

[Mike Brennan]

What do you mean rivaling 65mm?

 

I wrote " they are rivalling 65mm but haven't got past 35mm yet"

 

Maybe I should have added a :)

 

Underlying point is that we use 35mm as the bar, digital will soon go beyond that, (on set) but like cinema distribution the *delivery* quality of digital will be at the lowest possible standard.

 

 

 

Mike

[Filip Plesha]

Why do you think that digital will go beyond 35mm soon?

It hasn't even reached 35mm by a long shot (on set)

 

Resolution is something that video manufacturers are fist

going to try to reach because it is the most obvious thing

and can fool a lot of people (it's clean numbers) into beliving

that they have film qualitty if they match its resolution only.

 

But just to isolate this problem (the resolution),

there is a very good reason why some digital scanners support

even 6K resolution.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

CineAlta SR is not rivalling 65 mm; it is not even rivalling 35 mm. It's main advantage is lower compression. The most familiar formats have the following compression:

 

HDCAM (CineAlta) 4.4:1

 

DV 5:1

 

DVCPRO-HD (Varicam) 6.7:1 (it's most compressed -- from the 3 formats)

 

CineAlta SR records about 3x bigger stream so you could say that the effective compression is about 1.5:1, but things get more complicated since we are recording a signal of higher quality, plus the MPEG4 compression makes the effective (not actual) compression appear to be even 3x less. The end result is that CineAlta SR has effective (not actual) compression about as light as Digital Beta. For most practical purposes the signal is about as good as if it would not be compressed at all. In side buy side comparison, you would not see any differnce on nearly any material.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't have the time to keep correcting this guy any longer.

 

Phil

[Mike Brennan]

In side buy side comparison, you would not see any differnce on nearly any material.

 

 

Exactly my point. Who can see the difference between HDCAM palyback and live HDSDI 4:2:2 output on TV.

 

 

Yet to see enough real world examples of how 444 transfers to film where, if signal is kept pristine throughout post process their may be a noticable difference.

 

 

Mike

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Bill, you have never corected me, except making some statements that you never backed up by numbers.

 

For the rest of you guys:

 

I'll try to summarize all this in laymen's terms. And I am sure that many will disagree. In these times of new digital technologies taking foothold in cinema production, there is a lot of antipathy to digital. It is rightful. 35 mm is better. But when it comes to the real world, situation is a little differnt. Optical projectors in theaters generally do not have higher resolution than CineAlta. CineAlta, due to lack of grain, looks generally sharper than film that has grain.

 

CineAlta has some problems. You've probably all seen Once Upon A Time in Mexico and Spy Kids 2. If you have not, go see it. You'll see what Rodrigues accomplished with CineAlta.

 

CineAlta has a lot less lattitude than film, so if the image is to look good, it has to be more contrasty. The chips have problem with highlights. You can't speed up the camera so for slow motion you need to shoot celluloid. There are ways around it. You can switch to interlaced; then do couple software tricks and you have pretty decent 2x slow motion.

 

What CineAlta SR does is it increases the lattitude of CineAlta by one F stop; it's still a lot less than film, but you can work with it. It is a lot less compressed format than CineAlta, and has excellent colors.

 

You get shallower DOF with 35 mm, but with Pro 35 mm adapter and 35 mm cine lenses you take care of this problem. And you have the advantage of a lot increased DOF, if needed.

 

The new CineAlta SR recorder also lets you run 2 CineAlta F900 cameras and record them in synch on one tape; it's perfect for 3D setup. You should again gain one f-stop lattitude compared to CineAlta, and have a significantly better color.

 

It is generally the optical projector and the lens, zoom especially, that limits resolution on a 35 mm originated project.

 

CineAlta SR is expensive, but although many will disagree, it is my opinion that it will make production more efficient than shooting celluloid.

 

If you thought that the 2 Rodrigues' films I mentioned had sufficient quality, the SR system should be about equal to celluloid, by the time it gets projected. I do not mean equal for a fine DP to analyze it. It will be good enough for the producer, and it will be good enough for most directors, and it will be more than enough for the average theater goer. It will not be better or equal to film, it will be good enough. CineAlta was not good enough.

 

This is the significace of CineAlta SR. It is good enough to compete with celluloid.

[Mike Brennan]

"Why do you think that digital will go beyond 35mm soon?"

 

My post stated that Kodak factory is producing 60000 units of pro slrs a month. Need more proof?

 

"It hasn't even reached 35mm by a long shot (on set)" I agree that it has not reached 35mm on set yet but it is closer than a "long shot".

 

Resolution is something that video manufacturers are fist

going to try to reach because it is the most obvious thing

and can fool a lot of people (it's clean numbers) into beliving

that they have film qualitty if they match its resolution only."

 

You are correct that they are improving resolution before anything else as this is what the viewer notices the most. Will they improve dynamic range soon? Fuji have a two pixel per sensor photosite that looks promising and then there is CMOS.

 

Question, how could a bunch of numbers fool people into thinking a digital (inferior) picture is equal to film?

 

"But just to isolate this problem (the resolution),

there is a very good reason why some digital scanners support

even 6K resolution."

 

I'm not isolating it, you are. And as a 6k scanner is in fact a digital camera you can see why I think digital technology can soon equal then better film. Latest imager called the v(nu)MAICOVICON from Panasonic being churned out *now* has 2 megapixels in 5.6 diagonal sensor. That is 4 or 5 times the density of a current HD chip! Oh it is more sensitive and uses less power than ccds and higher quality than CMOS. Thats their sales pitch anyway!

 

Digital imaging a "long shot" away from 35mm motion picture film?

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

"My post stated that Kodak factory is producing 60000 units of pro slrs a month."

 

Opps that should read Nikon Factory.

 

Here is a tour of the assembly line of the Nikon factory by a photographer.

http://dpmac.com/factory/index.html

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Good posts, Mike.

 

To see where this is all leading to, look at Kodak's and Fuji's R&D investments 10 years ago and look at them now. Try to figure out what they will be 10 years from now. There will not be any in celluloid. Zero. Don't listen to what a manufacturer is telling you. See what it is doing.

 

This electronic technology is improving very fast. In consumer Super 8 home movies it won very quickly, not becuse of quality but because of convenience. Now, with CineAlta SR that is good enough to compete against 35 mm film, it will be moving very fast into the film production area.

 

Ultra Definition prototype was shown. This format is 32 MP, uncompressed and transparent all the way to the projector. The high resolution you start with is the resolution you end up projecting with. And you don't have to spend money on prints.

 

This is where cinema is going.

[Filip Plesha]

Mike,you have misunderstood some of my words.

 

I never said you are isolating anything,i said:

 

"just to isolate this problem (resolution),

etc."

 

let me put this sentance in other words:

 

"for the sake of discussion,i'll isolate the sole problem of

resolution and talk about it..."

 

ok?

 

 

Allso a word longshot is subjective.Current HD at its best has

4 times smaller resolution than 35mm,has limited latitude

and can capture smaller number of color nuances.

All that combined,it is worthy of the word longshot to me.

 

 

And now for your question.

How can numbers fool people?

Well,maybe not cinematographers,but a producer would be

encouraged by reading in a brochure that a camera has 4K resolution,

and maybe he is not aware of all the other things.

 

there are a lot of people out there,that still think the main problem

is only resolution.

 

And as for scanners...we have discussed this issue in another topic

previously. Scanners deal with low contrast light sources,and perform,

and have always performed better than video cameras.

 

All these technical imrovements are mostly in still digital camera

market. The main problem now with HD is making a 4K based standard.

And i don't see this comming in the next 5 years. The issues HD market

is dealing with now is making a good HD signal,good compression

and better image sensors,all that being practicle and cheap.

 

As for still image technology,it is far more advanced than current HD

technology. In still image market,CMOS digital photography is comparable to film

imaging,but in cinematography HD is not comparable to 35mm film.

 

And i belive this is a cinematography forum,we are talking about

moving images,so you can't really rely on arguments taken from still

image technology.

We are talking about digital video as it is in reality