Jump to content
echeng

Classification for SLR video files?

Recommended Posts

Hey guys. Footage Search currently doesn't have a classification for video taken by digital SLRs, placing them into a "AVC HD" category, which I don't feel is accurate (even though the Canon EOS specification does specify "AVC"). They are looking for advise on how to classify video taken with digital SLRs -- a term that is technically accurate, but also makes it clear that the quality is typically superior to AVCHD footage pulled off of camcorders and point & shoot cameras.

 

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric, I'll keep looking for good wording from competent sources that might help.

 

All dSLR video formats are not created equal...

 

There would be a need to specify that this is in reference to Canon's dSLR H.264 footage--not the 720p motion jpeg format of the Nikons.

 

My sense is that main aspects to emphasize to distinguish Canon's dSLR MPEG4/H.264 (from the 5DM2/7D/1DM4) from AVCHD will be 1) the size of the acquisition sensors, and 2) the higher data rate of this particular variant of H.264.

 

[Although there are some critics out there who are characterizing this variant of H.264 as "weaker" than AVCHD because of the lack of "B" frames in the long GoP structure, hence the need for a higher data rate:

 

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-7d-h...question-3.html ]

 

Another plus to emphasize might be the variety of lenses used to acquire the footage?

 

Will pass on what I find...

 

- ML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like with all of the format complexities of the different manufacturers, might be simpler just to classify it as "Canon EOS HD footage." It's sort of become a class of its own as this technology has come on strong in the last year.

 

As Mary Lynn points out, the Nikon and Canon footage are fundamentally different, so this would be more accurate than to just label it as DSLR h264, or some such label.

 

I talked to a colorist a few weeks back who does lots of features for BBC and Discovery, and he just graded a full-length feature shot on 5DII. He said the footage looked beautiful and held up in grading very well. The same can not necessarily be said for HD footage from other DSLRs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AVCHD is getting pretty high end itself on some cameras so I don't think it is necessarily wrong to classify Canon HDSLR footage in that 'category', but you certainly wouldn't want to transcode Canon HDSLR footage into AVCHD just to sell it! It's a hard one with so many different formats around right now. You wouldn't call HDV captures from a Z7 or Z5 a different format to that captured by an HC1 even though they would be superior in quality due to the overall camera/lens/sensors package. Perhaps a digital capture (non tape) category would be more suitably named than AVCHD?

 

Just random babble - hopefully someone will make sense of what comes out of my brain at this time of the morning :beer:

 

Cheers, Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is a big difference in price levels. HDV and AVCHD from consumer / cheap(er) cameras are in one category. AVC-Intra HD, XDCAM, HDCAM, and REDONE are in the next category. I think there needs to be a category in between.

 

"Digital capture" is way too broad.

 

Drew seems to think that the AVC MOV captured by the 5D Mark II should be in the same category as HDV, but after working with both, I disagree.

 

I tend to agree with Sterling that there should be a "Canon EOS AVC HD" category (since it is at the high end of AVC HD).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Sterlingz's approach of labeling it "Canon EOS HD footage" because it's brief and specific enough to distinguish this format. Folks looking for stock will know what it is. Price point should fall somewhere between HDV/AVCHD and HDCAM/etc.

 

-ML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artbeats is one of the leading royalty free footage firms on the market with very high quality footage collections. When a clip is shot with the Red One, they say 'Shot with Red 1'' I would think that the same could be said for footage shot with the Canon's. The high compression of AVCHD is certainly significant when compared with AVC intra and thus, advertised with those specs stated. The same should be apropoe for the DSLRs.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I talked to a colorist a few weeks back who does lots of features for BBC and Discovery, and he just graded a full-length feature shot on 5DII...

Interesting. So the 5DII can now be used as a primary camera for a beeb HD production? It's not on their list and the official word is still 50Mbps minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't use HD SLR's as a primary acquisition camera for the BBC, but to be honest that's doesn't necessarily mean an awful lot other than if you are going for a commission. Over the last couple of months I've sold footage to the BBC twice and on both occasions they ripped the footage off of a DVD that I'd sent them. Not a ProRes file, not any kind of .mov data file - they just ripped the MPEG2 and that's for prime time UK broadcast from one of the world's leading broadcasters! It's a can of worms sometimes...

 

Cheers, Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is a big difference in price levels. HDV and AVCHD from consumer / cheap(er) cameras are in one category. AVC-Intra HD, XDCAM, HDCAM, and REDONE are in the next category. I think there needs to be a category in between.

 

"Digital capture" is way too broad.

 

Drew seems to think that the AVC MOV captured by the 5D Mark II should be in the same category as HDV, but after working with both, I disagree.

 

I tend to agree with Sterling that there should be a "Canon EOS AVC HD" category (since it is at the high end of AVC HD).

 

 

Ah I see I didn't realise that they already had different categories. Personally I'd put HD SLR footage into the AVCHD/HDV category. It can look stunning, but it still has quite a few flaws and there is some very good HDV and AVCHD footage out there so I don't think it is a big enough step up for its own category. Just my opinion :beer:

 

Cheers, Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the tool you use but the tool who uses the tool that makes the difference.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tests broadcasters do are definitive in their rankings. BBC (and broadcasters in general) dropped testing any of the ViDSLR because of the aliasing problems, lower resolution and Long GOP 4:2:0 color issues amongst other issues.

However, it is being used as B-cams for broadcast (hence the category of HDV/AVCHD). Then of course you have the feature film crowd who want thelower resolution (and thus skin tones and smoothness, which for example will make Wagsy and Mike look 10 years younger), the super shallow DOF and the lenses which help in that. They are even being tested for cinematic acquisition for those same reasons.

People just look awesome on ViDSLR, very 'film' like. I love shoot people with fast primes now. Broadcast engineers don't have subjective ratings like that and that's why the categories exist. Obviously it doesn't preclude its use on broadcast shows but that's an esthetic choice by the show and not something the engineers would necessarily approve of. ;)

Here's the Twitter feed for Gale Tattersall and Greg Yaitanes, DP and Director respectively of a popular prime time show who used 5D Mark II for an episode in what was the industry's worst kept secret... I think even the script was leaked at one pt.

 

http://twitter.com/GregYaitanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...