Just bought the Sony HC3

[Hulk]

Jerry,

Remember we're not talking about encoding efficiency, we're talking about unconstrained bitrate best case picture quality.

You still haven't shown me anyone using MPEG-4 layer 10 doing bitrates over 20MB/s. If H.264 is so good why would the BD people even consider encoding anything HD to MPEG-2?

I'd still rather have my HD camera use high bitrate MPEG-2 over H.264 at this point in time. I'll stand by that until I see some H.264 cameras that are better than the Sony HDV 3 chippers. In addition most computers won't even smoothly play back a 1080i H.264 stream. Right now, today, my choice for economical HD is HDV. That could very well change in the near future of course.

If SD is suiting your needs that's great, it's suiting mine as well. But I am looking to move to HD.

Finally, you might want to have a look at this tread.

http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=466536&Replies=8

- Mark

[Jerry Jones]

If H.264 is so good why would the BD people even consider encoding anything HD to MPEG-2?

Because the high bit rate profile - specified within the FRExt (Fidelity Range Extension) for H.264 - was completed in 2004, which is less than two years ago.

The FRExt extension includes a wide range of high bit rate options, including a 4:4:4 color space and "lossless" encoding option.

One of the practical uses discussed was DIGITAL CINEMA.

I'll hunt for a document that specifies a bit rate in the 50 - 100 range.

But both Sony and Panasonic -- in a move that clearly demonstrates THEY know that H.264 is the future - have announced a *consumer* HD format:

http://tinyurl.com/lv2zz

http://tinyurl.com/pc7d8

Doesn't it make sense that the *professional* HD formats utilizing the less efficient MPEG-2 codec are going to be replaced by *professional* H.264/AVC formats based on the FRExt extension specifications that are less than two years old?

MPEG-2 is an ancient codec by MPEG standards; MPEG-2 has been around for a decade.

By the way, I did take the time to read the thread you referenced.

One individual - who claimed to be the source of the opinion you earlier outlined - says he talked to a Canopus engineer who claimed MPEG-1 was the best codec.



Is he the "expert" you were referencing earlier, by any chance?

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

In addition most computers won't even smoothly play back a 1080i H.264 stream. Right now, today, my choice for economical HD is HDV.

Ah, but therein lies the fallacy of HDV.

Let's take a look.

1. Ulead specifies an "Intel® Pentium® 4 3.0 GHz or higher" for "non-proxy" HDV editing:

http://tinyurl.com/9tg83

2. Sony says a "2.8 GHz" is recommended for HDV:

http://tinyurl.com/qonrd

3. Adobe specifies a "Pentium 4 3.4GHz" processor for HDV:

http://tinyurl.com/cvkva

When I read your suggestion that "HDV" is "low cost," I can't agree.

The average computer user does not have a 2.8 GHz or faster processor in his or her computer, in my opinion.

a. I doubt that 2.8 GHz and faster chips are widespread - even among video enthusiasts;

b. I doubt that high definition monitors are widespread - even among video enthusiasts;

For many people - and you obviously aren't among those - NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO BUY.

I suspect you are not a typical video enthusiast.

For most video enthusiasts, I recommend WAITING.

1. HDV is confined to tape;

2. HDV utilizes MPEG-2, which is an outdated codec soon to be replace by H.264;

3. Sony and Panasonic have announced their new disc-based (TAPE FREE) AVCHD H.264 HD camcorders will hit the market within a year;

4. High definition monitor prices, in the meantime, continue to fall;

5. In spite of support for the HDV format, consumer software companies aren't ready for H.264 editing and it would be wise for the consumer to WAIT until they ARE READY;

6. There are few ways that consumers today can SHARE HDV video in its original, pristine resolution due to the "format war" now being waged between the *incompatible* "HD DVD" and "Blu-ray."

Using the time-tested MiniDV format, I believe consumers can now enjoy the following benefits:

1. MiniDV camcorders - even 3CCD models - are available at bargain basement prices;

2. MiniDV's standard definition is ideal for the majority of monitors actually in use in the world today;

3. MiniDV's standard definition is ideal for the EXISTING *compatible* DVD formats currently shared by the people of the world;

4. MiniDV can be edited on virtually ALL notebook and desktop PC models being sold worldwide.

Therefore, I believe MiniDV is still the optimal format for consumer use at the present time.

I also believe most consumers should NOT jump on the high definition bandwagon because I doubt that even today's HDV-enabled software has truly been optimized for that task.

I personally believe APPLE is the company to watch, in that regard.

When Apple releases the first "Final Cut Pro" or "iMovie" version that can successfully edit H.264 video that will be recorded by forthcoming AVCHD/H.264 consumer HD camcorders from Sony and Panasonic, THEN I think the time will be ripe to jump to HD video.

If - as you've explained - one has a "pressing need" to archive NOW to an HD format, one might be able to justify spending the substantial amount of money that will be required to properly edit HDV MPEG-2 video.

HDV MPEG-2 video editing is still NOT economical for many people.

It often requires an upgrade of one's computer, one's monitor, one's DVD burner and one's software - in addition to the premium-priced HDV camcorder - to preserve the high definition content on a high definition DVD disc.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Interesting comments by ATI on the ATI Web site:

http://tinyurl.com/zbows

"H.264 is the Future"

"H.264 video is a next generation video entertainment standard and is a key building block for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD media."

"Offering much higher efficiencies than the MPEG2 standard used in DVD videos, H.264 content is visually compelling and enables new capabilities:

* Higher quality. Say goodbye to artifacts such as blockiness, color bands and a general unrealistic look.
* Higher resolution because the world is going to High Definition
* Lower storage requirements. Hours and hours of media on a single disc"

"Blu-ray and HD-DVD – enabled by H.264 – deliver beautiful, high definition video with six times DVD’s resolution on a single disc!"

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

ATI's excellent PDF format "white paper" on H.264:

http://tinyurl.com/ru84c

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Jerry,

I recommend people explore and research and make their own informed decision without a push from a person supporting one side or the other when it comes making the move to HD.

As for H.264 I am all for new formats and hope it replaces MPEG-2. But ironically it is in a similar situation to HDV right now in that H.264 needs quite fast computers for smooth playback.

And please don't think I'm an advocate of tape based recording systems! I want more non-taped based camcorder choices. Specifically I'd like to see some of the manufacturers higher end offerings having Flash and Hard Drive recording options.

As far as MPEG-1 being "the best codec" by that one individual. He knows far more than I do about codecs so before coming down on him I would explore the context of that remark.

If you have some really high quality HD content please encode it to MPEG-2 and H.264 at a bitrate of 25Mbps and let me know which you think looks better right now on your computer today.

Do you think native H.264 editing will require more or less CPU than native HDV editing?

- Mark

[Jerry Jones]

Mark,

H.264 will require more processor power, however, ATI and NVIDIA are already stepping up to the plate with hardware that takes the load off of the processor and puts much of the processing load onto the graphics display.

ATI "Avivo"

http://tinyurl.com/ozfcc

NVIDIA PureVideo HD

http://tinyurl.com/zspxa

I suspect we may again see specialized accelerator cards or other components built into newer computers, but it really won't be any more expensive than HDV editing because most people - as I said earlier - ALREADY have to UPGRADE nearly every system component to edit HDV... processor/computer, monitor, DVD burner, camcorder, etc.

As for not pushing people one way or the other, I'm not pushing anybody at all.

I'm simply saying "buyer beware" when it comes to HDV editing because you may be buying into a technology that is already obsolete.

In addition, we don't yet know how the "HD DVD vs. Blu-ray" high definition DVD battle is going to play out.

This is why I present the opinion that most consumers are far better off waiting to see how this technology develops within the next year.

Time - in this case - works in favor of the consumer.

1. Processors/Computers are getting faster and cheaper;

2. HD Monitors are getting cheaper;

3. HD camcorders in the H.264 variety will be much less expensive than many of today's older technology HDV camcorders;

4. Software companies will have time to work on the H.264 editing question;

5. High definition DVD drives will be faster and cheaper;

6. The Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD battle will play out.

Later,

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Jerry,

I agree that most people are better off waiting. But there are some people for which HDV makes sense right now if they can charge a premium for the product or if they have deep enough pockets to fool around with the technology.

Hey, I didn't know about the extensions made to the H.264 codec and would love to see something better than MPEG-2 appear in the next wave of consumer/prosumer HD cameras.

I know you had a first generation JVC HDV camera and they were a bad representation of the format. I even spoke with a JVC rep who *implied* to me that those cameras were pretty much rushed to market to be the first ones out. The Sony 3 chippers and newer JVC offerings look quite impressive to me when viewed on HD monitors.

My next purchase is going to be a Conroe based desktop system.

I'm not a huge fan of HDV mainly because I don't want another tape based camera. I'll probably buy the first HD camera that uses disk or solid state memory storage technology, and of course has a great picture for ~$3k. Oh yeah, I want it progressive.

Talk to you later,

Mark

[neonbob]

Well... for what it's worth, I own the HC3 and I love it!

As far as editing goes... I use a few editors, but I favor MSP8. I have my computer hooked up via dvi to my hdtv and I capture, edit and play back most of the time from the computer.

HD can also be put on a standard dvd and played back through the new toshiba hddvd player... however, you can only get about 20 minutes or so of HD on a 4.7g disk. But its real HD.

I have had dv cams prior to this.... and I will NEVER go back... HD is such a treat!!!

[Jerry Jones]

HD can also be put on a standard dvd and played back through the new toshiba hddvd player... however, you can only get about 20 minutes or so of HD on a 4.7g disk. But its real HD.

Sure the HDV is plenty nice.

However, think about how much *more* HD could fit on that DVD disc if one were using H.264 recorded by one of the forthcoming disc-based AVCHD camcorders:

http://tinyurl.com/lv2zz

http://tinyurl.com/kq4eu

http://tinyurl.com/pc7d8

About 30% - 50% more "AVCHD" video could fit on the same DVD disc and AVCHD H.264 is also supported by the Blu-ray and HD DVD players.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Jerry,

I agree with you there. H.264 is so darn efficient that standard DVD discs could be useful for HD if normal DVD players could decode and output the H.264 high definition content. With a good two pass encoder 720p looks great at 10 to 12MBps as long as the entire video isn't filled with motion, water, or other tough to encode scenes.

I think the shift to HD-DVD and BD is driven more by the desire to move a format that can't be copied bit-for-bit rather than pushing technology.

The more I think about it the more I think a dual layer DVD could fit most any 2 hour HD movie if some care was taken with the encoding and ONLY the movie was on the disc.

- Mark

[Jerry Jones]

I suspect Ulead MediaStudio Pro users might be able to use the same solution for editing AVCHD files as is currently being used for HDV files... the Cineform intermediate codec.

The minimum system requirements - for me - are not too steep:

Minimum: 2.8+ GHz HT Pentium 4 or Athlon 64
Best Performance: Dual-core Pentium D (820 or 840) or or Dual-core Athlon X2 (3800+ or greater)

The "Connect HD" product by Cineform looks pretty good:

http://tinyurl.com/kzo5e

According to the product description, "Sony Vegas" and "other Windows applications" are supported by "Connect HD" by Cineform.

According to the product description, the product employs an "AVI wrapper for compatibility with other Windows AVI applications, including Adobe After Effects."

Doesn't this mean it would be compatible with Ulead MediaStudio Pro 8?

Could it be used to convert and edit H.264 streams?

I think I'll e-mail Cineform and find out.

If this product can work with H.264/MPEG-4 files, then... cool... it works.

It costs $199.

On the other hand, it might not be able to convert H.264 files.

If not, then I wonder if one could simply use the Ulead conversion tools to convert the H.264 files into an intermediate codec that might already be available within Ulead MediaStudio Pro...

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

By the way, Videomaker Magazine did a comparison between Ulead's native HDV editing and the Cineform intermediate editing.

Here's the Videomaker Magazine article:

http://tinyurl.com/mcfyv

"Our tests reveal that there is a clear difference in performance, with the CineForm solution offering better realtime previews with more complex effects."

"Again, this is a result of how the CineForm plugin handles the video and requires you to use *ONLY* the special CineForm effects."

"You cannot use your favorite Adobe effects or the superb transformation tools without sacrificing realtime previews."

"The Ulead solution lets you edit the MPEG video just the way you would any other video, using any of MSP's native tools, effects and transitions."

"The downside is that it is not a realtime solution and you need to render everything, just like you used to in the old days."

Again, this was a review of Ulead MediaStudio Pro 7 with Ulead's former "HDV Plug-in."

Ulead MediaStudio Pro 8 has - in theory - been vastly improved with the Smart Proxy feature.

I wonder what Ulead is planning relative to H.264.

Anybody at Ulead care to chime in???

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

HDV, or any HD non-hardware assisted editing is the old "two steps forward one step back" as far as editing performance. Just when computers got fast enough to edit *most* segments of *most* SD projects in real time we have a new format with lots more pixels. The new Intel chips should be a good step in the right direction when it comes to editing native HD streams. I have a feeling that most video editing apps aren't really optimized for dual core yet. All operations should show nearly a two fold performance increase given the linear and repetitive nature of video operations but only a few editors using a few scripts do so. TMPGEnc is one that comes to mind that is dual cpu optimized from tests I have run.

I have CineForm on my desktop. When I get home I see if I can transcode some H.264 to that format.

- Mark