24p vs. 30p

So we are moving away (slowly all be it) from interlaced video to progressive video. There are a number of framerates common with progressive. Here's a brief breakdown
24 fps--what's used on film
30 fps--half as many samples per second as regular TV (e.g., 60 interlaced)
25 fps--half the frame rate of regular TV in Europe (e.g., 50 fps)
50 fps--the samples of images per second used in European TV
60 fps--the samples of images per second used in North America TV ( which is usually interlaced)

So people generally prefer the slower frame rates in documentaries and dramatic material because it reminds people of film and the cinema--in short it looks classy. The faster frame rates look like TV and are a must have for sports where things are moving fast.

This post is primarily concerned with the technological differences (and not aesthetic) between different frame rates. (If you want to brush up on your basic knowledge of interlaced versus progressive, check out their definitions from this glossary from Quantel.) So let me outline a couple of the technical advantages of progressive video versus interlaced video:

1) Monitors are rapidly turning progressive--LCD's (both TV's and computers) and plasmas. These monitors can't natively display interlaced video. So some processing has to be done to de-interlace, and very often you end of losing resolution (and lots of it) when the de-interlacing happens. It depends partly on how good the hardware is that does the de-interlacing, but this happens at the consumer's end--so you never quite know how it will look. In short, a cheap TV will do a bad job of this.

2) Better effects work on progressive footage. Lots of effects, including scaling, require the video to be de-interlaced. Final Cut Pro does a lousy job of de-interlacing. If your footage is progressive (and FCP knows it), then it won't de-interlace to do simple things like scaling up the video. This past week, I had to include some letterboxed standard-def video in a high-def show. It looked super soft in FCP. So I used Compressor to do a very slow but very good de-interlacing of the footage, which I then scaled up (but again I didn't even scale this footage in FCP). It looked a lot better with the de-interlacing that Compressor does than the de-interlacing that FCP does.

3) Progressive distribution of video. Computer monitors were never interlaced--so anything for distribution on computers benefits from being progressive. Also DVD's will handle 24 fps. This is great if the video is going to a progressive display, e.g., LCD or Plasma. As mentioned above, interlaced footage needs to de-interlaced to be scaled, but progressive doesn't. So a 24fps DVD will usually look much better on a high-def display than a comparable 60i video.

Important note: DVD doesn't have a standard for 30 fps--it's either 60i or 24 fps. So your DVD player and your TV treat 30 fps just like 60i--if it gets scaled up then you could lose resolution (but not always--again it depends on the display.)

Now let me move on to outline some advantages and drawbacks of different framerates:

24 fps: So if you're going to make a film print, then you should shoot in this framerate. OK .001 per cent of anything shot by professionals will ever end up on film. But because 24fps has been very hot for many years (essentially the Panasonic DVX-100 set that off) there are a lot of post workflows for working with 24 fps. 30 fps is gaining ground though--there are now lots of setups in FCP for it.

24 fps is very close to 25 fps. So a general option for converting for a European master is to just speed up the movie by 4%. No elaborate and/or expensive standards conversion. I think Compressor will handle this 4% speed up for you. I recently did a post of a technology guide from Quantel and they recommend 24fps as a universal format because it is so easy to transfer across the Atlantic.

And it's important that your software knows that you want to work progressive. You can put 24fps or 30fps in a 60i timeline, but then you've lost all of the technological advantages of working progressive. Your editing software, your computer, your DVD player, your TV will treat it like interlaced video. So as a general rule, pick a frame rate and stick to it throughout post and distribution. Obviously this can sometimes be really problematical--what about archival footage that's 60i? Or you want to work with a shooter and they don't own a camera that shoots progressive. You can convert that to 24fps using Compressor, but it's a real pain. No easy answer for this one.

As or 30 fps, one advantage is that is has more samples per second than 24 fps. 24 fps can look kind of choppy--you especially have to be careful with panning quickly. 30 fps is no walk in the park in this regards, but you have 25% more samples of the image per second than with 24 fps--so definitely less choppy.

In general for cameras, especially with CCD chips, it is easier to create 30 fps than 24 fps. CCD's have been doing 60i for so long that a lot of cameras out there are still based around that technology. Namely, the Sony HVR-Z1, which Link owns. The Z1 doesn't do real progressive imaging, but with the Cineframe modes you can get video that has 24, 25, or 30 images per second. Basically the camera blends the interlaced video to get progressive-looking video. Apparently, the Cineframe 24 with the Sony Z1 is supposed to be really crummy. The Cineframe 30 is supposed to be better, as is the Cineframe 25. Basically the camera is capturing video in an interlaced manner 60 time per second and has to figure out how to make progressive frames with it. With all Cineframe modes, this means tossing out some resolution. The Canon XL-H1 also does a similar process to get progressive frame rates. But going to 30 fps from 60i is easier--basically is the image is moving than you throw about every other field. And the Z1 does Cineframe 30 reasonably but fails with Cineframe 24 (Caveat: this is definitely true for HD, but if you are downconverting to SD it might be OK.)

One option I saw discussed over at a great post and discusion, which talks about frame rates, at HD for Indies is to shoot with the Z1 Cineframe 25 and then slow it down to get 24 fps. I think the easiest way to do this would be with Compressor, but these Compressor workflows are a hassle. However, if quality is important than this is an option.

By the way, Sony is moving from CCD's to CMOS, and the CMOS sensors are much more versatile with frame rates. So the HVR-V1 chips natively captures at 24 fps, as does the new EX-1, the HVR-Z7 and HVR-S270.

One problem is that even if the camera can capture images at 24 fps (or 30 fps), the camera often actually records in video that is actually 60i. With 24 fps that is recorded in a signal of 60i, the camera adds pulldown (see the definition in this Quantel post I did). In post you need to remove the pulldown, otherwise your editing software just treats it like 60i and you lose all the technological advantages of working with progressive video. So to post at 24 fps, you may have to convert the footage to remove the pulldown. This can make post-production very complex. FCP has added a setup for version 6.0.2, which is supposed to automatically remove the pulldown from the V1's 24 fps footage. Newer gear from Sony like the Z7 and S270 are doing a native framerate of 24fps recording in HDV. Tapeless cameras like the Panasonic HVX-200 and the Sony PMW EX-1 handle progressive footage in a much more straight-forward manner.

One drawback with 30 fps is that it doesn't convert well to 24 fps or 25 fps. 60i is easier to convert to 25 fps because it has a lot more samples across time to work with. Basically when you are doing a major standards conversion, a computer needs to generate frames that don't exist by analyzing the image information that is available. The more samples of images, the better that this process can be handled. In short if you have to make 25 fps video or 50i video, than 60 images per second is much better than 30 images per second. (Remember that going from 24 fps to 25 fps can be done in a much easier way by simply speeding up the video by 4%.)

UPDATE
I thought I should add a caveat about the above comments on standards conversion. The workflow that I desribe for speeding up 24 fps to make it a European-friendly 25 fps is a workflow that I've only heard discussed as a step done in a computer, e.g., Final Cut Pro or Compressor. So you could convert the footage on your Mac--but you'd still have to make a master on a 25 fps or 50 fps format, usually tape like DigiBeta or if HD, HDCam or DVCProHD. The traditional way to do standards conversion is that folks just make an NTSC master of their program and then send it to a high-end dub house to get a PAL copy done. This is obviously easier than having to make a master on your own for formats designed to work in Europe. I don't know of a dub scenario that exists for taking a 24 fps master and speeding it up during a transfer to make it 25 fps. If you want a standards conversion done during a dub, then 24 fps may not be any better than 30 fps.

In short, there is no easy answer to this question. First you got to know your camera, know your post options, and know your distribution plans. From there, it's a matter of trade-offs, for quality, time, and money.

Adobe--Photoshop and Future Technologies

PHOTOSHOP FOR VIDEO
With Photoshop CS3 Extended, you can now bring in video to Photoshop. Why would you want to do that you ask? What about After Effects? What about Color? Well I just came across a cool site/podcast that gives you a number of interesting ideas about how to harness Photoshop to make your video better.

Here's a video from the Photoshop for Video site that shows you how to use the Shadows-Highlights command on video. I recently used the shadows and highlights command in iPhoto to save some snapshots, and I was thinking "if I can do this on software that's practically free, why can't I do this in Final Cut Pro?". Well I still don't know how to do it with FCP, but I could correct my video this way with the latest & greatest version of Photoshop.


Back to the issue about Color. I haven't used it yet and frankly I'm not thrilled about learning a new interface. Now I have the option of harnessing my knowledge of Photoshop to do some cool tweaking. Also, for you folks who don't know Photoshop, I think this website/podcast is good way to pick up knowledge about the best image editing application out there.

Here are some other cool videos from Photoshop for Video at Adobe TV that I recommend:
Spot Color Grading
Making Alpha Channels for Logos (I do this lots)

So this appears to be regularly updated via a podcast--good way to use podcast subscription to do some regular learning if you're interested in Photoshop. Oh, video in Photoshop only just got added to the Extended verison of the latest Photoshop. But not everything on this site is about this feature, good stuff that can be done in older versions of Photoshop is available too (e.g., the alpha channels for logos movie.)

ADOBE'S FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES
While on the topic of Adobe, there's another interesting video from NAB where Adobe talks about some future technologies. The most interesting one for me is what they call "End to End Metadata". In particular, they were demoing speech recognition that generates transcripts for movies. Then that transcript can be leveraged in editing (Premiere Pro) and in delivery to the web (Flash video.)

Avid has already deployed some of these tools with their Script Sync, which I wrote about on this post. Basically you can hop around in the text of a script or transcript, and the software know where people are saying that bit of dialogue. But I like how Adobe takes it another step further by allowing delivery of the text too--think subtitles, think closed captioning, think searchable text on the web.

I don't know about the voice recognition engine creating automatic transcriptions. I can't believe voice recognition is that good--on the other hand, I'm sure our government is spending billions on voice recognition software so that they can monitor everyone's phone calls. Eventually that technology will filter down to us mere mortals--just another great benefit brought to us by the Bush Administration.

Here's the outline of the Adobe technology presentation if you are interested in any of the other stuff:
1. Cinema DNG
2. End to End Metadata
3. Mobile Delivery
4. Interactivity without scripting

So I found out about these video over at Pro Video Coalition, which is turning into my main source for video news.

Apple Rumors (and a little news)

I try not to pass along rumors, but there's a scary one that's been floating around enough that I thought I'd mention it. I think it started around the time that Apple said that it was going to skip NAB. The word from the grapevine is that Apple is going to sell its Pro Apps, which includes Final Cut Pro.

The rumor has been pretty persistent, enough for Apple to officially deny it. In Robert Cringely's latest article he says that Apple spent the NAB conference looking for buyers for their Pro Apps. He's been saying for a while that Apple will buy Adobe in order to get Flash. If that's the case, then Cringely thinks that Apple can't keep both their Pro Apps and Adobe's competing products, like Premiere, After Effects, and their other audio-video apps because of anti-trust concerns. He's more convincing than any of the other sources that I've heard with this rumor or similar ones, so I'm a little more concerned about it. Although, Cringely goes on to to suggest that if Apple really did buy Adobe, then it would sell the Adobe apps that compete with Apple's.

I still think it's unlikely that Apple would sell Final Cut Pro, and for that viewpoint there's a short blog at Final Cut User.

For a bit of official news, there was a statement from an Apple employee on why Final Cut Server took so long to appear on the market--nearly a year after it was announced. According to this interview at TVBEurope, Apple went back to the drawing board to make Final Cut Server easy to administer. Apple's marketing director for professional video apps said that they were reworking Final Cut Server so that it could run "without an IT department to support it." Final Cut Server seems to have been based on asset management software that Apple acquired late in 2006 from a company called Proximity. If they were simplifying the software, I can appreciate that. I'm not interested in becoming an IT professional, but I'm the most likely person to set up and run Final Cut Server at Link TV.

In the same article, Apple's marketing guy says that they have sold a million licenses of FCP. He also said that FCP had 49% market share in 2007 versus Avid's 22% share.

Blu-ray and Macs

As I've said before on this blog, Apple isn't giving Blu-ray any love. No drives, no playback, no authoring software. Apple is supposed to offer some support for burning Blu-ray data discs now, but Apple has been slow to jump on the next-gen for optical media (remember how Apple was out in front with DVD players in their computers back in the day?).

Right now, 3rd party software is providing support for burning. Toast 8 and 9 let you burn data Blu-ray. Toast 9 is supposed to let you burn high-def video to Blu-ray that will playback on Blu-ray players. But Adobe's Encore, part of Production Premium CS3, is now the best solution for putting high-def video onto Blu-ray. With a Blu-ray burner on the way to Link TV, and a copy of CS3 Production Premium available, we are on our way to burning our first Blu-ray discs. (Now if I can only convince my boss to buy a high-def TV and a PS3, so we could play the darn things.)

Adobe can encode your video for you, but there's a recent blog post Apple's Compressor & Encore Blu-Ray from Adobe that helps you figure out how to encode your high-def in Compressor. Adobe gets kudos for playing well with others. They don't pretend like they are the end-all and be-all of post-production software and that anything you would ever want to do can be done on their software. And I like the concept of an Adobe blog as a personable way to distribute info about software. The closest thing Apple gets to providing updated info on their software is their antiseptic support documents.

Adobe can't find a way to get h.264 encoding from Compressor working with Blu-ray, so they are using MPEG-2 encoding. Adobe will encode your high-def to h.264 for you, but it's nice not to have to do an export of your entire high-def show before you even start to encode.

I found this blog post over at Final Cut User who is also bemoaning Apple's lame response to Blu-ray.

NAB 2008

Well, 2 weeks after it started, I'm finally coming out with a NAB post. It wasn't a huge post-production year at NAB--Apple and Avid didn't have booths. And no new products from Adobe. All the major camera manufacturers had some new models. But I've been blogging too much about cameras that I'll probably never work with, and none of the new cameras introduced any real post ramifications. I found the best coverage of NAB at two sites: Pro Video Coaltion and FreshDV. They have good coverage of new stuff from Sony, Panasonic, Canon, JVC, and RED.

There were a couple of post-production things that were interesting, but not earth shattering. Blackmagic Design added HDMI in and out to their $1000 Decklink HD Extreme card. They keep cramming more and more features into their cards. At this point AJA only matches Decklink's in and out on the aprrox. $3000 Io HD (which stole the show last year). I like AJA's gear but they aren't staying competitive feature-wise with Blackmagic. Heck, the analog-only and standard-def only IOLA is still selling for $1K.

Blackmagic also announced a little USB thingy called simply Video Recorder that captures standard-def video straight to h.264. So there's digitizing hardware and h.264 compression in a tiny piece of plastic that plugs right into a USB port. For $120 you get analog capture with the Blackmagic Video Recorder. For $300, you get SDI-only input and RS-422 deck control. Sort of like Elgato's Turbo.264 with video capture too. Not sure how we would use this. It's basically like a quick-and-dirty way to capture really compressed video. Hopefully it will do a good job with the compression. Seems like they should have it work with some PVR software like Elgato's EyeTV.

Matrox came out with a something like a competitor to the Io HD. The MXO2 is portable I/O hardware for about $1600. Unlike the Io HD, you can do uncompressed HD if you want. But unlike the Io HD there's no built-in codec support. A great thing about the Io HD is that it will transcode to ProRes in the box. ProRes is pretty processor-intensive to transcode in real-time--for HD you need 4 Intel Xeon cores at a minimum. So I don't see how you could capture HD on a laptop with the MXO2. It hooks up to a tower through a PCI-E card and to MacBook Pro through Expresscard slot (so no support on iMac's or Macbooks.) It also is supposed to do up/down/cross-conversion and claims support for Adobe Premiere Pro and of course FCP.

Last year, Telestream announced Pipeline, a network encoder/capture-device. It basically has an SDI input, SDI output, rs-422, port, and an ethernet port. Because it's on an ethernet network and any computer can use it--it doesn't need a host computer to run. It could be a good way to share a deck with SDI in/out between different computers. It also can layback to tape, but I'd like to see it as the capture and lay off are done through Telestream's software. A cool thing they were showing at NAB was the ability to start working on video while it was being captured. They demo'd an encode in Telestream Episode Pro of video that was being captured. HD support is supposed to be on the way for Pipeline. They also announced Pipeline support for Final Cut Server.

Finally in the "Shape of the Things to Come?" category, there's Maximum Throughput and their MAXedit systems. It's network and web-based editing. No beefy computer needed to edit your footage. Maximum Throughput hosts all of the heavy-lifting on the a server and then the editor is accessing all of the footage and the heavy-lifting through the network using any-old PC as a simple client. There's also a web version too for remote editing. Sounds cool. If you read my last post on Final Cut Server, I was bemoaning a crucial missing feature--editing. Last year Apple said that Final Cut Server clients could do some editing of footage on the server. But this year, not a mention of editing for Final Cut Server. I'm hoping that we'll see the feature in a year, but I'm worried that Apple is protecting sales of Final Cut Pro and Mac's. Network-based editing not only undercuts sales of licenses for expensive editing software, but also hardware-sales. With network-based editing, you don't have to worry about each editor having the latest and greatest Mac. Now, I don't know about you, but I've never heard about of Maximum Throughput. But I think they are really on to something.

Final Cut Server

After existing as vaporware for a year, Apple sprang Final Cut Server on us right before NAB. It's now shipping. There are two versions. Feature-wise they are identical. At $1,000, you get a version that will host up to 10 concurrent clients using the server. At $2,000, unlimited folks can log into the server at once.

Seems like since it was first announced a year ago a few important features have been stripped from it. But I'm still pretty excited about this program. It seems like it adds a whole new powerful set of organizational tools for editors and producers. It could help in complex workflows or complex projects where multiple personnel are working with media. Apple is describing Final Cut Server as both an asset management application and an automation workflow program.

The asset management part of FC Server basically sets up a giant database that's a library for any and all media that you have on your Mac's--the library is in one spot (a Mac) but accessible to just about anyone on your network (including Windows users).

For editors, it's easy enough to get started with asset management. Tell it where you keep your Final Cut Pro projects are and FC Server will go through all of the clips in the projects. Any metadata associated with that clip in Final Cut Project will be copied over into FC Server. FC Server will also keep track when a clip is in more than one project--nice if you are ever wondering if you borrowed a clip from one project to put in another when it's time to clear old media off of drives. FC Server creates proxies versions of all this media--basically smaller versions of the original media. These proxies are easy to playback over a network and can even remain on the server when the original media has been deleted. So even if you can't keep all of the original media, you can still see a proxy on the server. Examples of formats for proxies are h.264 and Apple ProRes.

All of the data is fully searchable. Movies, graphics, most any file can be added in FC Server. You can also sort assets under productions. So once you do this, FC Server lets any client access any of this info. Up to 10 concurrent users for the $1K version and unlimited users for the $2K version. The server part of FC Server runs on Mac Pro's, MacBook Pro's, most iMac's, and Power Macs made within the last 3 years or so. But it looks like the client will run on just about any decent Mac and on Windows XP and Vista. That means a producer on a PC can browse through assets through the proxies. Also, FC Server requires Final Cut Studio 2.

In the pre-release info from last year, Apple said that some basic cutting could be done on the client. I can't seem to find anything about that on Apple's website now. I really hope they didn't pull that feature permanently. Editing on the FC Server client would be a great way for producers to be able to do simple assemblies of things. I hope a great feature didn't get cut because somebody at Apple complained that an editing feature would cut too much into sales of Final Cut Studio.

FC Server also tracks movies for approval and notes. Put a movie on the server, and FC Server can host it to any client. That way, a producer can quickly check something out on their PC without leaving their office and then post notes through the FC Server interface. Notes can be attached to a movie and attached at specific time codes. FC Server can also keep track of multiple versions of a project. So editors can make notes on a project, so other folks can know quickly what work has been done.

The automation workflow seems most helpful for encoding tasks. FC Server can watch a folder for any files that pop up. Once a file appears (e.g., after it's been exported from FCP), FC Server can begin encoding it through Compressor or run a script to send to, for example, send it to another app. If you are lucky to have enough to have access to a broadcast server, FC Server can send files there with some extra help available with Telestream's Episode. It's nice that all of these deliverables can be tracked in one place too. For example, I'd use it to track MPEG-2 files encoded for DVD's, which now are stored all over my hard drives.

Final Cut Server also helps you delete and backup media. For example you can delete media directly through FC Server, and it will tell you all of the projects that a clip is used in. It will help you archive media or move projects around the network. I'm not going to cover all of the features in this article. More good info on how you might use it at Apple's website.

OK, so here are some specific ideas about how Final Cut Server could help at Link.

EDITORS
As an editor, I'm always looking for media. Often, I'll need something on another system. Our current solution is for me to network to that computer. Then I have to figure out which project the media was stored in. I can often play back those files over the network. But if the other computer is older and/or busy with a big encode or render, then I might have some problems. With FC Server, I could search by file name, project name, reel # across anything that we've ever edited. Instead of trying to use another editor's computer as a file server, I can check out clips using FC Server's proxy files. So streamlined searching for media. Plus, the proxies can hang around even after the original media has been deleted. So it really opens up the amount of media that I can scan through without relying on tapes. Yippee!

Plus, FC Server sounds like it's easy to get up and running to catalog your existing media and projects. I just tell it where the Final Cut Pro projects are, and it start cataloging and making proxies. Now it's going to take a long time for the server to make all those proxies files--lots of encoding to h.264 to make proxies that are small enough to store and move quickly over the network. That's not going to happen overnight.

PRODUCERS
Producers will have the same ability to search and watch media as editors. Producers can watch through proxies video that's been captured. No more waiting to use a Beta deck or, even trickier at our facility, a DVCam deck. If the footage has been captured then producers have as much access to the media as editors.

Busy producers no longer have to come by the edit room to review materials. The editor drops an exported movie into FC Server, and FC Server creates a proxy. Then the producer can watch the proxy movie over the network. Notes are added through the FC Server client app and are stored on the server.

NEWS ARCHIVES
We have three large projects of monitoring international news. FC Server allows the option of adding proxy movies to a database of news. The FC Server interface allows for a centralized database that is connected directly to actual media. I could see news reports getting converted to h.264 proxy movies. A producer could quickly search for stories, then organize them into a project. This info can be seen by an editor or assistant who can begin converting the video to DV for editing in Final Cut Pro.

As far as I can tell, FC Server is being billed for in-house use I'm not sure how open it is to the internet. Maybe it's not internet-friendly or maybe Apple is being conservative about those features because of security concerns or the hassles of streaming media over the internet. To put that valuable of a server on the internet must carry some significant security risks (not that I'm a network and/or server expert.)

Like the simple editing feature, last year Apple was touting client access over the internet. Now, Final Cut Server doesn't say anything about the internet. I can only hope that internet access to the FC Server is coming in the future.

CAVEAT
OK, as an Apple fanboy, I'm usually onboard with Apple as soon as a product is announced (or even rumored.) But I've been burned before, and it's good to be wary of 1.0 products. Especially something this complex--a giant database with 1,000's of associated media files. I'll look forward to hearing some reports of folks who are actually using it, and even better see it in action. At this point, everything I know about Final Cut Server I've gleaned from their website. If you are interested in the product, I encourage you to check it out--there are some good video tutorials/demo movies there where you can see Final Cut Server in action.

Will Your Next Project Come from a $150 Camcorder?

Check this out:
"Flip Video Vlog: A Tale of Two Formats"

This guy literally taped a $150 Flip camcorder to a Canon XH-A1 and made the same exact film on both cameras. You can watch them back to back on his website. Basically, there's not too much difference when watching them in web video, and I couldn't hear much difference on my MacBook Pro's speakers (the audio for the Flip footage was recorded on an iPod using a microphone accessory.)

Now on a TV, I'm sure the difference would be readily apparent (not to mention the fact that the XH-A1 is a nice high-def camera and the Flip only records 640x480.) Oh and the Flip doesn't even have an optical zoom not to mention dozens of features that a $3000 camcorder has. But it does make you think about how cheaply and easily someone can make something now that is very watchable.

If you are interested more in reading more about the Flip camcorder, check out this review at the New York Times (registration req'd.) Their tech guy David Pogue shoots his video blog on the Flip phone.

Camera Blogwad

I seem to have a lot of posts about cameras even though this is supposed to be a blog about post-production. So I've been saving up some interesting links on cameras because I didn't think they warranted a post to themselves on my blog.

First Look: Sony HVR Series
Good info on the new Sony HVR-Z7 and HVR-S270 HDV cameras, as well as their companion deck, the HVR-M35. More detail on how Sony is doing progressive recording and playback with this gear.

CompactFlash Media Test Results
The HVR-Z7 and HVR-S270 will record HDV onto Compact Flash memory cards. But there are some performance issues, especially with cheaper cards. The test found delays in starting recording, dropouts, and even lockups.

Another review of the Sony PMW-EX1 at DV.com (registartion req'd.)

Three good posts from Adam Wilt at his new blog at the ProVideo Coalition:

Three three-letter cameras: EX1, F23, RED
The new Sony XDCAM EX1 and the $250,000 Sony HDCAM SR F23, versus the upstart Red.

Whither The HVX200?
Adam says: "Does the EX1 render the HVX200 obsolete? Don’t be too sure!"

2008 FAA rules on battery transport
Frankly, I don't understand all of this. But if you're a production person who travels on planes, then you should.

FCP's Competition--Avid & Adobe

Big news from Avid today. The cost of the software-only version of Media Composer has been cut in half to $2500. And they are killing Xpress Pro.

I haven't worked on Avid in over 5 years now. So I can't really comment on how it measures up now to Final Cut Pro. IMHO, I don't think this is going to upend Final Cut Pro's dominance. But it may help Avid from losing too much more market share. They are also offering an educational license of Media Composer for $295. For owners of Xpress Pro, you can upgrade for $500.

Good commentary on these blogs about the latest news from Avid:
ProVideo Coalition
HD for Indies
Studio Daily Blog

I'm about to get a copy of Adobe Creative Suite 3 Production Premium. I'm getting it is as a swap. Unlike Avid and Apple, Adobe has a non-profit pricing. So Production Premium CS3 retails for $1700, but the non-profit price is under $600. When you look at everything that's in the Production Premium, it's a competitive product. Here are the apps:
After Effects CS3 Professional
Premiere Pro CS3 (runs on Intel Macs but not PowerPC Macs, e.g., G5's)
Encore CS3
Photoshop CS3 Extended
Flash CS3 Professional
Illustrator CS3
Soundbooth CS3
Device Central
Ultra CS3 (Windows Only)
OnLocation CS3 (Windows or Bootcamp)

Afters Effects and Photoshop Extended each cost $1000 retail if you buy them separately. So the bundle has some value. When you compare what Apple is offering for $1300, it leaves me wanting more from Final Cut Studio. While I'm very happy with Final Cut Pro, Apple needs to do more work on the secondary apps. Color has bad buzz for being unstable. I know Motion 2 left a lot to be desired in reliability and performance--I'm hoping that once I start working with Motion 3, I'll be happier. And no update for DVD Studio Pro when Final Cut Studio 2 came out. What is up with that Apple? I'm still holding out hope that Apple's waiting until they can introduce a Blu-ray burner in their laptops and then they are going to announce support for authoring Blu-ray discs in Final Cut Studio. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Adobe's Encore CS3 already does Blu-ray authoring. (Recently Toast 9 was announced with support for authoring Blu-ray video discs.) The fact that the MacBook Air doesn't even come with a DVD drive makes me worried that Steve Jobs thinks that the iTunes Store means that no one needs a disc to watch video anymore--or reading between the lines, Blu-ray is just competition for Steve's dominating video like he dominates music.

The things I'm most looking forward to in After Effects CS3 are better performance and 3D text effects. But frankly, I'll probably never even try out Adobe Premiere. I worked on it ages ago and felt burned. I'm happy with Final Cut Pro and it's not worth it for me to learn a new app when I don't know that if it's as powerful and reliable than FCP (much less better.) Not to mention the advantage Final Cut Pro has by being the de facto editing package for the type of work that I do.

My 2¢ on the Consumer Experience--HDTV, Apple TV, iPhone

Executive Summary of My 2¢: HDTV is great, but there are too many gatekeepers and technology hurdles--the hottest distribution platform in the future could be mobile video. (This post ended up being much longer than I thought it would be.)

HDTV
So I bought a high-def TV on Friday. I didn't want a big set that would dominate my studio apartment or cover up windows. So I decided on a 32" set, which is still larger than the 27" set that it is replacing. But once I got to the store and stood back about 8 feet, I was having a hard time distinguishing the advantage of high-def. They have these videos at Best Buy that do a split screen of high-def and a simulated standard-def. Well at 32" and 8 feet, the advantages weren't that great. (I wrote recently about some equations for how screen size and viewing distance effect perceived resolution.) I went with a $900 Sony KDL-32s3000 because it was the set that I could perceive the most difference in high-def that was under a 1K. I found that basic 32" sets weren't as sharp as the more pricey Sony. I wanted to feel like I wasn't just getting a slightly larger, brighter set.

I've watch a decent amount of video so far, and I'm happy with the set. I watched a couple of DVD's and they looked good. The DVD's look much larger because 1/4 of the screen isn't lost to letterboxing as was the case with my old 4:3 tube TV. Road to Perdition was on ABC last night, and it was nice to see a movie in HD. Although sitting through commercials to watch a movie is a hassle, and I don't plan on watching movies this way. PBS had a travel show on Italy, and I was totally absorbed by the Italian coastline in HD.

Old analog TV looks like crap on an HDTV. I used to record a fair amount of TV on a DVD recorder that only had an analog over-the-air tuner. Well when I hooked this recorder up to the HDTV and tried to watch some TV that I recorded, I decided I couldn't watch TV like that. The artifacts from analog TV, like ghosting of the image and noise, look just awful on a high-def display. So I replaced my old DVD recorder with a newer model with digital TV antenna. So far, the clean recordings that I get from the new DVD recorder, a Panasonic DMR-EZ27 look good even though they are standard-def recordings only. The difference in recording a digital standard-def signal is significantly better than an analog TV signal.

So I think I have dissed digital OTA (over the air) TV before. I had an experience a few years ago where I bought a digital tuner and found that I could not get channels reliably. Well my experience this time around has been very good. The digital reception is much better now than my analog reception was. Even my old rabbit-ears antenna works fine.

Apple TV
I have been thinking about getting an Apple TV after plugging it so much. But when it came down to it, I didn't think it was yet worth the $225 price. While it would be great to rent HD movies, there's not that much selection yet. There are almost 100 movies in HD, but it looks like Apple is having a harder time getting movies than they expected. They had promised 1,000 standard-def rental by the end of February. Instead, they had only around 350. It makes me worried that the studios are going to dick around with Apple because they don't want to see Apple TV succeed like the iPod did and become a dominant media platform. Not good news for the Apple TV when they can't even meet their targets for content.

I did go check out the Apple TV at the Apple Store. I thought the HD movie clips looked good although everyone says that Blu-ray leaves it in the dust on a large set. The podcast interface was cool. With the 2.0 software on Apple TV, you don't need to use your computer to download podcasts before watching. You can browse and search podcasts right on your TV, and if their server is fast enough, start watching them immediately. I think it's a pretty good model for media distribution. Unfortunately, until these media extender boxes take off, then there's just not that many boxes out there that will play video podcasts on the TV.

I was able to easily search for our show Mosaic and play it on the Apple TV. Unfortunately, 320x240 looks just awful on an HDTV. Apple has been recommending video podcasts be 640x480 or 640x360 in order to look good on an HDTV. That's about 4 times as many pixels, so much more data to serve/download. But there's something to the idea that you have 1,000's of different podcasts that you can access instantly on your TV set and it is not controlled by gatekeepers like Comcast or AT&T. (Check out this blog post "7 Ways Apple TV Changes The Game And What Podcasters Need To Know And Do About It" for some interesting thoughts on Apple TV and podcasting.)

So when it came down to shelling out $225 for the chance to rent HD movies with Apple TV, it wasn't worth it, even for an Apple fan boy like me. I'm also not ready to spend $400 for a Blu-ray player/PlayStation 3 to watch Blu-ray movies. For the time, I think DVD's look good enough on my set. If the selection takes off on the Apple TV, I'll reconsider.

iPhone
So after buying an HDTV set, I've decided that the real action is on the small-screen. This week was a big week for the iPhone with the announcement of a software developer kit. That means all kinds of third-party applications are going to start appearing for the iPhone. Apple showed off an instant messaging app for AOL. I was skeptical that they would allow IM because that seems like competition for the SMS messaging that AT&T still charges for. I think Apple is really going to open up phones as a great mobile computing platform.

This past week, BBC came out with an iPlayer site that has BBC videos in h.264 Quicktime for the iPhone. Recently it's come out that there's no real chance for Flash on the iPhone--Apple says that the iPhone doesn't have enough computing power to run Flash. Since most sites are encoding videos in Flash, that leaves a pretty big hole for streaming video to the iPhone. BBC decided to start encoding h.264 video just for the iPhone. (YouTube has been doing some h.264 encoding too since the iPhone launch.) BBC's iPlayer is basically a website with a simplified interface that works well on the iPhone's small screen. It only works over WiFi now--the Edge data network is too slow to stream video, but maybe when the iPhone gets on 3G networks streaming video will be better. Oh, no BBC for you--it only works in the United Kingdom. But I think it's interesting to think about mobile distribution of video. Our Mosaic Intelligence Report and Global Pulse would be great for mobile video.

In short my thoughts at the moment are that HDTV is great, but there are too many gatekeepers and technology hurdles--the hottest distribution platform in the future will be mobile video. I think Apple is still playing a positive role for consumers in opening access to content on both the mobile end and on the TV. Maybe I'm too optimistic about mobile--the telco's also control the mobile network and I can't see them being excited about their mobile networks being filled with free videos.

Interlacing

I spent 11 hours on Friday fixing a show, which was cut by an editor outside of Link, the day before air. One of the big problems with the show is that the editor didn't seem to have any concept of interlacing. For example, HDV and DV have different field order--HDV is upper field first, and DV is lower field first. You can't just throw them together in the same timeline without some processing. That processing is namely the "Shift Fields" filter. When editing HDV that's in the viewer into a DV sequence using the overwrite or insert command, FCP will automaticaly apply the Shift Fields filter with the correct setting--it also scales and distorts the video so it looks proper. However, I think if you just drag an HDV clip into a DV timeline, then FCP does not apply the filter, scale, and distort settings to the clip.

If you don't apply the shift field filter when you are mixing footage with different field orders, then you will got stuttery playback. Chris & Trish Meyer have a good write-up on fields along with all the particulars you need to know to handle interlacing in After Effects. Check out this article from ProVideo Coalition:
Field Order - Who’s on First?

I suspect that the show that I fixed was edited on an LCD monitor. FCP makes it easy enough to use a computer LCD to display footage that I think more and more people are doing without a video monitor. Some might even say that interlace is dead because 99% (not actual number) of new TV's are progressive anyway. Well, as long as you are delivering for standard-definition, then I think you have to got to look at your show on a CRT monitor that can properly display interlace (except for those rare cases, when you have a 24p show that is only going to DVD in standard-def.) There will be plenty of CRT TV's around for a long time, and plenty of broadcasters using 480i or DVD video encoded as 30i.

Teleprompting Software

I just tried out some demos of teleprompting software. Seems that the price is coming down with some new competitors entering the mix.

dvcPrompt!
After checking out the demo and reading about the features, I was impressed with the $100 dvcPrompt! software. There's a PC and Mac version. Scrolling seemed smooth and it responded well to control from my MacBook Pro's trackpad. It did seem a bit processor intensive. It was using up almost 100% of a core in my new dual-core system. That was a problem because after a couple of minutes my fans were cranking and making quite a bit of noise. Not good if the computer is in the same space as the talent.

With dvcPrompt! you can mirror text so it displays properly when reflected in a mirror. There are also 2 separate displays-one for the talent and the other for the operator. That's nice if you have different displays available. The operator display is not mirrored, so the operator can follow along with the text. A 10-day demo is available.

Prompt
This software is about $45 for a Mac or Windows version, and for about $65 you get both versions. From what I saw in the demo, it was lighter on features than dvcPrompt. You couldn't edit text with the prompter app, which you could do with dvcPrompt. I couldn't use the trackpad to control scrolling. However, I was able to get good scroll with using the arrow keys. There's a mouse control where you place the cursor within a large square to control scrolling--but this took up a lot of the display. Also there wasn't a separate operator and talent display. If you turned on mirroring, then the operator would have a hard time running this because the text would look backwards to the operator.

On the plus side, it wasn't as processor-intensive as dvcPrompt!. It took up about 65% of a core on my laptop--enough to keep the fans from getting really loud.

They also have this cool video on building a $50 teleprompter unit.


Teleprompter - DIY - video powered by Metacafe

I have this other post on DIY teleprompters with some other ideas on cheap setups.

Oscar Day Fun

Oscar's Obscure Category
Honestly I don't think a lot about editing when I go to the movies. But this is video is good overview of the different approaches to editing in this year's Oscar nominees. I do like the editing from director Paul Greengrass's "Bourne Ultimatum" and the previous "The Bourne Supremacy." I haven't seen "No Country for Old Men" but I'm thinking this year might see a lot of awards going to the Coen brothers.



Bad Movies: Oscar Slumming
The campy worst (or best depending on your taste) from former Oscar winners. My favorite is Sir Laurence Olivier as a rabbi starring opposite Neil Diamond in a remake of the Jazz Singer. Worst. Movie. Ever.

[via Studio Daily Blog]

Panasonic Announces HVX200-lite Camera

Panasonic Aims for an AVCHD Future with AG-HMC150

After giving so much love to Sony's new HD cameras, I have to acknowledge Panasonic's newest announcement, the AG-HMC150. It looks like a HVX200 but without the DV tape transport and using SD/SDHC memory cards and not the more expensive P2. No price, but I'm guessing that it will be cheaper than the HVX200. It's expected to start shipping in the fall.

While it would be great to see some great competition for Sony, I have my concerns about this camera because of the AVCHD codec. You'll always hear marketing claims that AVCHD is supposed to be more "efficient" than MPEG-2--that's why AVCHD's bit rate is in the teen's and HDV's is usually 25 Mb/s. The only problem is that so far AVCHD cameras don't come close to HDV in image quality. Apparently, Panasonic will be offering some new "professional" bit-rate quality on the camera, but the lack of detail on this feature makes me skeptical.

Camcorderinfo.com, which has reviewed a lot of the AVCHD cameras out now, has this to say about the prospects for the AG-HMC-150.

Extensive testing of AVHCD camcorders in the consumer range by CamcorderInfo has shown that manufacturers have yet to produce a camcorder that can match HDV in overall quality. However, the lens and processing systems have so far remained strictly consumer-grade. The AG-HMC150 is the first AVCHD camcorder to come equipped with an imaging system this advanced, and may help overcome some of the image quality issues.

Expect to hear more news about this camera at NAB. If you want to know more about AVCHD, my latest wrap-up of AVCHD news is here.

DV.com on HD Monitoring

"Ten HD Monitors for Desktop and Camera Use" PDF (registration req'd)

A little gear guide from DV.com. I'm most interested in the JVC DT-V1710CGU because 1)it's relatively affordable 2) it's CRT based. CRT is good because it can actually display interlaced images natively and it is the standard for doing color correction. Mike Curtis of HDforIndies recommended it in his editing configurations over at Silverado Systems.

This article also covers some smaller LCD's that are small enough to be mounted on a camera. LCD's are being used in post-production, and this article lays out the competition from Sony, Panasonic, and JVC.