VideoHelp Forum


Try DVDFab Video Downloader and rip Netflix video! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 28 of 28
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Are built-in encoders of the Panasonic Canon & Sony top camcorders the best HW h264 encoders on the whole market/world?

    Can they compete even software encoders like x264? I know, this statement sounds strange for many people, but practically true.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Are built-in encoders of the Panasonic Canon & Sony top camcorders the best HW h264 encoders on the whole market/world?

    Can they compete even software encoders like x264? I know, this statement sounds strange for many people, but practically true.


    No

    In general, a dedicated fixed function hardware encoder will never be as flexible , or have as many options as a software encoder. The compression will not be as good because the HW encoder is optimized for realtime encoding and speed. You can't do a multipass encode for example, you have very limited control over bitrates, encoding options, search complexity etc...
    Quote Quote  
  3. Are you talking, for example, about Sony's use of XAVC on its prosumer camcorders? versus the benefits of say a dedicated capture device like Atomos which uses either DNxHD or ProRes HQ?

    EDIT: I suppose if I wanted I could run all my final edits through the HDMI out on my PC to my Atomos and let it do the final encode in QT format. Seems a little kludgy to me.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    Are you talking, for example, about Sony's use of XAVC on its prosumer camcorders? versus the benefits of say a dedicated capture device like Atomos which uses either DNxHD or ProRes HQ?
    I think, this camcorder compression chips have better video quality on the same bitrate, than what you can get in PC capture cards or USB HW h264 recorders can provide.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    Are you talking, for example, about Sony's use of XAVC on its prosumer camcorders? versus the benefits of say a dedicated capture device like Atomos which uses either DNxHD or ProRes HQ?
    I think, this camcorder compression chips have better video quality on the same bitrate, than what you can get in PC capture cards or USB HW h264 recorders can provide.

    If you mean realtime, probably not. If you mean non realtime /offline in software, then 100% for sure the camcorder is worse

    In general , USB HW h264 encoders are very poor , probably even worse then the camcorder.

    You can record uncompressed, and internally to memory card simultaneously. Then compress the uncompressed recording using software and compare. It's no comparison at the same bitrate. Unrestricted software compression will always give the best quality, if you don't place restrictions on it like realtime encoding or a certain speed
    Quote Quote  
  6. I agree with pdr. If capturing video in your PC is your goal, than just do it in an uncompressed or lightly compressed format and save the encode step for after you edit. That is essentially why I purchased the Atomos Ninja, to bypass the in-camera encoding on my camcorder and move the encode to the final step in my workflow.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Yes, DNxHD, Prores - they can make a big difference. Many of these comparisons have been in various camera forums. Software encoding AVC using a good encoder with good settings will give you dramatically better results in situations when the onboard compression is taxed. (People ask these types of questions frequently - is it worth getting an external recorder etc..)

    When you shoot something like a still wall with very little motion, the onboard compression is fine, no problems. Canon, Sony and Panasonic are all fine in that regard, even the less expensive consumer models

    But if you have a scene that taxes the compression. Eg a pan in a detailed scene like forest, or fields of grass - anything that will push the compression - the internal compression isn't enough - you will see ugly artifacts. Recording lightly compressed (prores, dnxhd), or uncompressed, and then using a good software encoder will yield much better results
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Why people use prores and other lossy intermediate editor codecs in the era of lossless video compressors?
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Yes, DNxHD, Prores - they can make a big difference. Many of these comparisons have been in various camera forums. Software encoding AVC using a good encoder with good settings will give you dramatically better results in situations when the onboard compression is taxed. (People ask these types of questions frequently - is it worth getting an external recorder etc..)

    When you shoot something like a still wall with very little motion, the onboard compression is fine, no problems. Canon, Sony and Panasonic are all fine in that regard, even the less expensive consumer models

    But if you have a scene that taxes the compression. Eg a pan in a detailed scene like forest, or fields of grass - anything that will push the compression - the internal compression isn't enough - you will see ugly artifacts. Recording lightly compressed (prores, dnxhd), or uncompressed, and then using a good software encoder will yield much better results
    Yes, the biggest problems are when you shot very distant large hills & mountains with forests. But this situation means problem even for a lossless-compressed 4K HDMI capture too.... I perdict that even the 8K lossless capture won't solve that visual phenomenon...

    Is this situation too complex for early 21th century imaging technology?
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Why people use prores and other lossy intermediate editor codecs in the era of lossless video compressors?
    Because there are other considerations like cost ($) for storage, it's a good trade off between filesize and good quality

    You can't use a single mechanical HDD with uncompressed 1080p24 (forget about UHD), it's not enough I/O bandwith. You need SSD or HDD's in Raid 0
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Why people use prores and other lossy intermediate editor codecs in the era of lossless video compressors?
    Because there are other considerations like cost ($) for storage, it's a good trade off between filesize and good quality

    You can't use a single mechanical HDD with uncompressed 1080p24 (forget about UHD), it's not enough I/O bandwith. You need SSD or HDD's in Raid 0
    Yes, there are compressors like Utvideo which can reduce the bandwith to 3 times.


    But what about the above mentioned phenomenon... distant mountain chain with variable forests and grass areas....
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Why people use prores and other lossy intermediate editor codecs in the era of lossless video compressors?
    Because there are other considerations like cost ($) for storage, it's a good trade off between filesize and good quality

    You can't use a single mechanical HDD with uncompressed 1080p24 (forget about UHD), it's not enough I/O bandwith. You need SSD or HDD's in Raid 0
    Yes, there are compressors like Utvideo which can reduce the bandwith to 3 times.
    Yes, UT is very good lossless codec, there is even a 10bit 422 variant

    But it has no support in the professional area (there aren't any portable devices that support it natively, but there are several that support prores, dnxhd, even cineform)

    You can still use it with a computer capture setup in software, but for many people it's not feasible to drag a computer into the field or shooting locations, many only in some indoor shoots and studio sets
    Quote Quote  
  13. Amen to that.

    Also, I often use ProRes HQ on my Ninja, but at 220 Mbit/s that is 100 GB/hr of video which adds up lightning fast. I think uncompressed HD video clocks in at something like 600 or 700 Mbit/s or ~300 GB/hr. Even in today's world of uber-cheap storage, at $0.05/GB, uncompressed HD video will cost $15/hr. Puts a new spin on things, no?
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    But what about the above mentioned phenomenon... distant mountain chain with variable forests and grass areas....
    hahaha... is this the part where you name drop <insert> some new codec that has no objective testing done on it ? ahem.. If it pans out that it works well, and industry supports it, that's great for everyone

    Prores HQ does fine with those "taxing" shot situations . This is very minimal degradation compared to uncompressed. If you zoom in an pixel peep, there is a bit of loss, and it's "noisier" than other similar codecs like cineform

    People even record uncompressed raw now. Huge data rates. It's a continuum of how much you want to spend or can afford.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Why people use prores and other lossy intermediate editor codecs in the era of lossless video compressors?
    Because there are other considerations like cost ($) for storage, it's a good trade off between filesize and good quality

    You can't use a single mechanical HDD with uncompressed 1080p24 (forget about UHD), it's not enough I/O bandwith. You need SSD or HDD's in Raid 0
    Yes, there are compressors like Utvideo which can reduce the bandwith to 3 times.
    Yes, UT is very good lossless codec, there is even a 10bit 422 variant

    But it has no support in the professional area (there aren't any portable devices that support it natively, but there are several that support prores, dnxhd, even cineform)

    You can still use it with a computer capture setup in software, but for many people it's not feasible to drag a computer into the field or shooting locations, many only in some indoor shoots and studio sets
    I've bought a new strong laptop, and I bought a large but conventional 4TB laptop-HDD and an usb3 HDMI-USB3 converter and a 20m HDMI cable. Utvideo works without any special raid and fast HDD systems. The system is perfect, only people look me crazy when they watch me with laptop camcorder tripod and a 20m long cable.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    But what about the above mentioned phenomenon... distant mountain chain with variable forests and grass areas....
    hahaha... is this the part where you name drop <insert> some new codec that has no objective testing done on it ? ahem.. If it pans out that it works well, and industry supports it, that's great for everyone

    Prores HQ does fine with those "taxing" shot situations . This is very minimal degradation compared to uncompressed. If you zoom in an pixel peep, there is a bit of loss, and it's "noisier" than other similar codecs like cineform

    People even record uncompressed raw now. Huge data rates. It's a continuum of how much you want to spend or can afford.
    Beleieve, this situation causes problem even for the original image of the CMOS chip too. Simply the present day imaging devices (CMOS or CCD) are too weak for that visual problem.
    Quote Quote  
  17. That's great, it's just a PITA to lug that setup in some situations, wouldn't you agree ? Battery and electricity/plug in considerations too. But for indoor/studio shots it should work fine
    Quote Quote  
  18. The main reason I would justify lugging my laptop to a shoot is because it gives me access to additional scopes not available on my camera that I just had to have, for example, a FOH setup, where you already got so much gear around, a laptop is almost a must. I suppose if I absolutely needed a lossless capture then that would be a second reason. But yeah, if you are going to all that trouble already, no point in using the in-camera compression. Have fun!
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post

    Beleieve, this situation causes problem even for the original image of the CMOS chip too. Simply the present day imaging devices (CMOS or CCD) are too weak for that visual problem.
    ok, maybe you're talking about something else? maybe language /translation issue

    I was only talking about compression artifacts
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    That's great, it's just a PITA to lug that setup in some situations, wouldn't you agree ? Battery and electricity/plug in considerations too. But for indoor/studio shots it should work fine
    Yes, the laptop battery can hold on for 60 or 70min. ((((


    Yes, it is very uncomfortable (and laughable looking) set up in public outdoor situations.
    Last edited by Stears555; 18th Nov 2015 at 15:05.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post

    Beleieve, this situation causes problem even for the original image of the CMOS chip too. Simply the present day imaging devices (CMOS or CCD) are too weak for that visual problem.
    ok, maybe you're talking about something else? maybe language /translation issue

    I was only talking about compression artifacts
    I spoke about the capture of very complex situation: distant mountain chain with forsts and grass-areas and houses.... They are nightmare for camcorders even with uncompressed HDMI capture too...
    Quote Quote  
  22. Complex situations require bespoke solutions. Sounds like you already have one: taking your studio to the field. If that doesn't work you can always rent a RED.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Yes 2.5-3x compression of most lossless formats is often still not compressed enough. Most of the slightly-lossy intermediate codecs give you options going from ~5x to ~20x (not counting proxy versions), with the sweet spot usually being between 8-10x. All this with minimal/negligible loss.
    Jump to your standard lossy end formats where things are usually compressed 30x (and sometimes up to and over 100x) and it is understandable that those would exhibit noticeable quality loss.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    That's great, it's just a PITA to lug that setup in some situations, wouldn't you agree ? Battery and electricity/plug in considerations too. But for indoor/studio shots it should work fine
    Yes, the laptop battery can hold on for 60 or 70min. ((((

    Yes, it is very uncomfortable (and laughable looking) set up.


    BAH, people only laugh at that because they don't understand what you're doing. It's great. Don't let it discourage you.

    Hire some kids to carry your extension cords and spare batteries
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    Complex situations require bespoke solutions. Sounds like you already have one: taking your studio to the field. If that doesn't work you can always rent a RED.
    Just try to capture with a camcorder the distant hills like Badacsony hill. https://www.google.hu/search?q=szent+gy%C3%B6rgy+hegy+panor%C3%A1ma&source=lnms&tbm=is...h=1010#imgrc=_


    https://www.google.hu/search?q=szent+gy%C3%B6rgy+hegy+panor%C3%A1ma&source=lnms&tbm=is...y+hegy&imgrc=_
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Yes 2.5-3x compression of most lossless formats is often still not compressed enough. Most of the slightly-lossy intermediate codecs give you options going from ~5x to ~20x (not counting proxy versions), with the sweet spot usually being between 8-10x. All this with minimal/negligible loss.
    Jump to your standard lossy end formats where things are usually compressed 30x (and sometimes up to and over 100x) and it is understandable that those would exhibit noticeable quality loss.

    Scott
    But you can be sure, that these lossless coders can capture mathematically the same visual info as your HDMI cable provide!

    I don't shot long-long soap operas ))) So the file-size is not important for me. It is just a hobby for me.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by SameSelf View Post
    Complex situations require bespoke solutions. Sounds like you already have one: taking your studio to the field. If that doesn't work you can always rent a RED.
    Just try to capture with a camcorder the distant hills like Badacsony hill. https://www.google.hu/search?q=szent+gy%C3%B6rgy+hegy+panor%C3%A1ma&source=lnms&tbm=is...h=1010#imgrc=_


    https://www.google.hu/search?q=szent+gy%C3%B6rgy+hegy+panor%C3%A1ma&source=lnms&tbm=is...y+hegy&imgrc=_
    Cool!
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Yes 2.5-3x compression of most lossless formats is often still not compressed enough. Most of the slightly-lossy intermediate codecs give you options going from ~5x to ~20x (not counting proxy versions), with the sweet spot usually being between 8-10x. All this with minimal/negligible loss.
    Jump to your standard lossy end formats where things are usually compressed 30x (and sometimes up to and over 100x) and it is understandable that those would exhibit noticeable quality loss.

    Scott
    But you can be sure, that these lossless coders can capture mathematically the same visual info as your HDMI cable provide!

    I don't shot long-long soap operas ))) So the file-size is not important for me. It is just a hobby for me.
    I don't shoot soap operas either. As if that had ANYTHING to do with it. I do shoot movies, long and short, personal and professional, doc and fictional, as well as events, corporate trainings, etc. All kinds of stuff. And most all of it benefits from shooting and/or editing/processing and storing in (near-lossless) lossy formats. Only occasionally do I need to make use of lossless, and those are usually with extenuating circumstances.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads