EX! and EX3 for BBC

Hey All

Drew forwarded me a link where the BBC talks about settings for the EX1/3 to be accepted by them.

Add that BBC is apparently considering it as a full HD capture camera BUT not confirmed yet because of the 35mbps GOP codec.

Here it is:

BBC EX1 EX3

Thanks for posting Mike. I recommend folks with the EX1 (or considering it) read the .pdf link in the article (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034_ADD30-rev1-Sony-PMW-EX1-and-EX3.pdf).

Probably more useful than the settings suggested by the BBC (which are actually quite minimal), is the comments of the various settings and how the correlate to "film" and "video" looks. This is useful when you are preparing to shoot for a particular project or broadcaster and want to be ready with camera set to go.

There are a couple of oversights (I believe) such as the recommendation on Knee point settings in conjunction with the "Cinema" gamma settings. As far as I understand (and have tested) knee is disabled when Cinema (1-4) is selected because "Cinema" gamma settings seek to control this to achieve a desired look.

I was also encouraged by the Color Performance, Resolution and Noise tests. Overall the camera performance was tested as quite good in these categories. A number of folks have expressed concerns about the out-of-the-box results from the EX1. Really, to get great results in IMO you need to get a handle on the profile settings and pay attention to your Iris and Gain levels.

Under the "Detail" recommendations play close attention to what these values mean. The -45 recommendation for "Crispening" (or noise suppression) does not suggest a massive shift is required. The factory set (neutral setting) is not "0" for this value but close to the BBC recommendation. In addition the recommended "Level" of -5 for the "film look" is quite insignificant when you consider the range of -99 to 99. The acknowledge that it may be best to turn off Detail altogether for the film look. I have tended to keep Detail off altogether to avoid possible headaches in the edit (mine or others using my footage).

Under the Matrix settings you might experiment with High Sat underwater. I have gone back and forth between High Sat and Cinema, with one emphasizing color saturation and the other gamma. Under water both or these are muted and could benefit from non "Std" settings.

Section 1.2.3 has an interesting discussion about the SP mode (25mbps vs HQ 35mbps). Comparisons are made between this setting and HDCAM Luma and Chroma sub-sampling. The summarize by saying "In this mode, chroma is sub-sampled 4:2:0, thus the chroma channels are only 960x540. This is exactly the same

number of chroma pixels recorded in HDCAM, which sub-samples 3:1:1 and therefore delivers chroma signals of 480x1080. Subjectively, this 960x540 square matrix 4:2:0 mode appears to be better than HDCAM’s highly asymmetric chroma mode." This is perhaps a significant factor in BBC considering this the EX1 as a primary format. Of course HDCam has a bit rate of 144mbps vs HQ mode of only 35mbs for the EX1 (significantly less). So the question they are wrestling with is how much does the lower bit rate and Long GOP structure offset the Luma/Chroma advantage of the EX1.

Also of interest was the performance comparison of EX1 and EX3. The tests seem to indicate that the fixed lens performance (lens aberrations and noise) was surprisingly good compared to other fixed lens cams. Compared with the detachable lens EX3, they stated that "performance is very similar, showing

that there is little to be gained by using the detachable lens of the EX3". This seems consistent with my first impression that the EX3 is essentially and EX1 with detachable lenses, where the camera really is not designed to optimize results from detachable lenses (my opinion). For underwater shooters, this should help with the decision process between EX1 and EX3.

Another take away for me relates back to the XDR drive discussion. The EX1 has a higher resolution sensor than HDCam format cams (1920x1080 vs 1440x1080) and appears to have the edge on both Chroma and Luma sub-sampling even at 4:2:0. The remaining issues are bit rate and Long GOP. By increasing the sampling to 4:2:2 and bit rate to 100mbps with the XDR drive through HD-SDI output, I could imagine the EX1 might then leap ahead of HDCam cams. I would love to see this analysis run! I would love a 11k camera that outperformed a 65K cam from a pure performance perspective...though I am not sure Sony would

JEEZ !!!!!... In English somebody

Dive safe

DeanB

 

JEEZ !!!!!... In English somebody

 

 

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

Why you think i just posted the link

 

JEEZ !!!!!... In English somebody

 

 

 

Dive safe

 

DeanB

HA! Thanks for my laugh this morning Dean. Thanks to Sean for the techy post as well.

Why you think i just posted the link

Cheers Mikey...

I bet if i took time to look at it i'd... still not understand it...

I love the boys and girls on here who get 'hard' over what they think is normal talk... But 'us' in the real world want basic camera speak... GOP , DOP, FOP BOP, SOP , SCOP , FLOP TOP and POP !!!... what the freak !!!??? honestly it sounds great when 'geek' style chatting up a real 'bored' lady at the bar but give it to us in real time... Please...

Excepted or not... black and white... its easy...

Dive safe

Dean( )B

So what about focusing it underwater?

I heard it can be abit of a handfull.

I use the EX-1 on full manual and don't find the focussing to be too stressful, i very seldom switch to autofocus... But then again i'm mostly shooting macro at the moment.

Hey Dean....

Buxton is playing with his knees now..

Hey Dean....

 

Buxton is playing with his knees now..

Its a prerequisite for any GOP BOP FLOP filming escpecially in 4.2.2 or 4.2.0 or macro

Or so i heard But then he's never off his knees

Dive safe

DeanB

Yeah yeah yeah If this stuff were easy, we would have no need for a forum b/c the answers would be obvious. When it comes to codecs and standards, it's almost impossible to stay out of the deep end. When trying to figure out why a broadcaster accepts one format and not another, you have to understand their criteria. In this case, their criteria is very geeky.

Now when you are trying to decide on your next camcorder purchase and part your livelihood hinges on whether your footage and services are accepted (or rejected ) based on the format of your cam, it probably is worth some extra time to familiarize yourself with some of the more geeky concepts.

If folks have any specific questions regarding some of the concepts, I would be happy to do my best to translate them.

Auntie Beeb (and other broadcasters) set their format criteria based on workflow and sensor size. For the post guys, the issue is "editability" in native codec. A series like Planet Earth came up with over 3000 hrs of tape on HDCAM and DVCPRO HD (plus some DVCAM, Photron and others). They shot DVCPRO HD in 720P. Anyone who bought the BluRay version of the series can see the difference in quality from scene to scene, especially on 40"+ screens. Even untrained eyes can see the difference.

With DVCPRO HD, it's intra-frame and has higher bitrate. The post guys had to use the Frame Rate Converter to get the look right. Compare this to a GOP MPEG2-4 codec, where they have to transcode to edit.

Bottomline is for certain shots that require smaller more disposable cameras, they'll take AVCHD even so long as the shot works. Editorial will always have priority.

...the difference in quality from scene to scene, especially on 40"+ screens. Even untrained eyes can see the difference....

I went to the cinema to see a film-length edit of Blue Planet footage called Deep Blue.

Boy oh boy, I could sure see differences between capture formats/devices on the big screen.