Apple announced a few new Mac Mini models today, the ones with Intel processors. There have already been some shots taken at the new Mini’s graphics. Some say that it’s a step backwards, because it includes a integrated Intel graphics chipset. I just wanted to take a minute to address the integrated-graphics naysayers.

In my opinion, the Intel graphics chipset in this new Mini model is tailored for home theater.

For starters, the chipset supports Core Image. A Good Thing. On the HDTV side of things, it’s got hardware MPEG-2 decoding with hardware motion compensation. Supports resolutions up to 1920×1200, 16×9 and 16×10 ratios, as well as the necessary 480i/p, 576i/p, 720i/p and 1080i/p resolutions (with overscan settings too).

This particular chipset doesn’t game well (one review claimed a mere 20fps in Quake 4), but guess what? It shouldn’t. It’s not in a machine that is built for gamers. It’s a HDTV output chipset for a low-cost media center.

Mike at HD For Indies (God rest his soul) has been preaching for months now about the coming Apple home theater/media center assault. Looks like he was right.

In Part 3 of Videosystems ongoing “Just What is 1080?” article series, Steve Mullen dives right into the Sony XDCAM HD system, as well as current and forthcoming MPEG-2 Profiles.

Steve makes a good case for the XDCAM capabilities over standard 25Mbps 1080i HDV:
“The real value of XDCAM HD comes with 35Mbps (31Mbps video) where MPEG-2 motion artifacts should be eliminated. Further, the ability of optical disc recording to use VBR rather than CBR encoding increases image quality for difficult scenes.”

He then goes on to predict Sony’s next move with XDCAM:
“The next likely step for Sony is 4:2:2 color sampling using the Profile@High1440 (422P@H-14) codec. Naturally, when encoding additional chroma detail, the recorded data rate must increase to avoid MPEG-2 artifacts. Up to 80Mbps is supported by 422P@H-14, which means Sony will be able record at up to 70Mbps. (The maximum recording capability of XDCAM optical system is 72Mbps.)”

“Sony can be expected to introduce this theoretical XDCAM HD system when double-density blue-laser drives ship. By waiting for these drives, recording times for 4:2:2 XDCAM will remain identical to those of the current XDCAM HD.”

An excellent read. And if you’ve been following the recent HVX200 biaxial-pixel-shift news, you’ll pay heed to Steve’s predictions. He was one of the only (the only?) professionals that spot-on predicted the true HVX200 native resolution back when Panasonic was hemming and hawing around releasing actual specs.

A Blu-ray ship date has been finalized (hopefully). May 23rd 2006 we are supposed to be able to buy the Samsung BD-P1000 player and 8 Blu-ray DVD titles. One might assume that the “P1000″ designation is a reference to price, as all initial estimates place the Samsung player hardware in the $1000 price range. Go figure. There are more BD players in the works, to be released following the launch date.

Don’t know about you, but I’m a little underwhelmed by the 8 disc launch titles. They include such classics as 50 First Dates, A Knight’s Tale, The Last Waltz, and XXX. Color me disinterested.

Engadget says “Sony will be charging $23.45 for new flicks and $17.95 for catalog titles.”

(Via Engadget)

The Zenview Command Center Elite consists of (6) 24″ Samsung LCD flat panels arranged in such a way as to yield a 5760×2400 resolution (each of the 6 panels lends 1920×1200). Everything comes arranged in a custom stand, and the package includes multi-monitor management software (looks to be Windows only). The product page is also kind enough to direct you to the supported graphics cards.

Very sexy, very specialized, and very pricey at $11,999. I’ll take one for the edit suite and one for our summer home in the Hamptons…

(Via HDBeat)

SRF has a nice little roundup of DIY projects for filmmakers. A good list, from 8mm Telecine to a DIY Vehicle Camera Mount. Fun stuff, if you have time for that sort of thing.

I’d like to add a DIY that I saw recently at DVXuser, it’s a nice knockoff of the P+S Technik Skater mini dolly, made out of plywood and hardware store parts. This is no wimpy $14 steadicam (I use the word “steadi” very lightly there), it’s an excellent plan and diagrams, that with a little work delivers a very usable and solid skater dolly. Time to start wining and dining your good carpenter friend that has shop tools…

Here’s a great reminder from Jeffrey Ulrich at Television Broadcast mag. He’s written an article that discusses taking into account the 16:9 “stretcherâ€? and “zoomerâ€? users out there.

There is no magic bullet solution, besides simply being aware of the different ways your footage will be viewed (and abused) by the widescreen television viewer. Having a 16:9 capable television in the studio should be a priority, so you can QA your titles and content to ensure the sensitive and important stuff isn’t invisible to the “zoomers”, or distorted to illegibility by the “stretchers.”

To illustrate the impact this issue may have on your market, here’s a few quoted statistics:
“If you think this doesn’t affect your advertisers’ commercials, think again: The Consumer Electronics Association estimates that over 10 million digital TVs (the majority being widescreen models) have been shipped in the U.S. Furthermore, it’s not just commercials that get cropped, it’s your station’s news ticker…your lower third Chyron supers…and the time and temperature bug during your morning news broadcasts, too.”

He goes on to recommend that you keep the “call to action” and critical elements like telephone numbers and URLs out of the top and bottom 10% of the frame, as that is the area that might be chopped by “zoomers.” Obviously it’s not a hard and fast rule, but as a content producer, it’s something to keep in mind. Good advice, and a good article.

This sucks. My heart goes out to this guy. Tommy D, a user on the DV Forums, really took a butt kicking on a recent shoot. It was his first with a HVX200 and P2 card workflow. In the end everything went all to Southern Hades and they had to resort to finishing the shoot with Panny SDX900’s. But I’m getting ahead of the story…which by the way, you really should read.

The bottom line is this; the HVX portion of the shoot did not fail specifically because of P2, it failed because of a multitude of unforseen P2-related workflow issues that cropped up, and required a workaround of some kind. And after so many workarounds, it was back to the rental house to cut the losses and finish the shoot with the SDX900, a workflow they had a good handle on.

At first glance it’s all too easy to demonize Tommy D, to chalk things up to inexperience, to simply say “bad planning,”. Right? Not necessarily. The dude is a professional, this isn’t his first rodeo. IT SHOULDN’T BE THIS HARD, and based on his account, he planned the best he could under the circumstances (which were time-crunched, BTW). There simply wasn’t a lot of planning time, and the perceived best course of action (going with an HVX rig) ended up blowing up in their faces.

I feel that this personal account highlights some very critical issues with the P2 workflow. It’s not forgiving in many ways, and if you read the article, you see too that the tools to help deal with P2 media have obviously not matured (as one small example, Tommy makes mention of the P2 Store manual being all but useless).

Here’s an example:
“3. But what do you do when the director wants to look at something, oh, four cards ago… Oh, you just hook up the P2 Store to your Mac and view them, right? Not with the P2 Viewer, as it’s only a PC product (?) now. Guess you’ll have to import them into FCP on your Mac.

4. Better have FCP 5.0.4. because 4.5 doesn’t give you a P2 import option. Ok, so say you have FCP 5.0.4, transferring this footage (ie, translating it into a QT takes time. By this time it’s pushing into lunch. Director’s focus has changed from wanting to see something from 4 cards ago, to wanting to *know* that the footage resides somewhere in that little black box of a P2 Store. Can you blame him?”

Let me reiterate that neither I nor Tommy are bashing P2, or the HVX200, or anything. These experiences and issues caught a professional offguard, so they can just as easily snag you too.
Panasonic has every right (and responsibility) to market and promote their product in the best possible light, so the P2 workflow looks really smooth and simple when you talk to them. However, YOUR reality may be much different, so plan and test in advance before you put your butt on the line with an untested and unreliable workflow.

As always, there is no magic bullet, nor is there a camera or workflow that fits every need. Choose and use the tools that help YOU stay productive, creative, and profitable.

Camcorderinfo is reporting that the new Archival Gold DVD-R blanks are available from Delkin. The new line of archival discs include “Scratch Armor”, a proprietary coating that supposedly makes the discs 10 times more resistant to scuffs and scratches than standard DVD recordable media. A 10-pack with cases will set you back $30, 100-pack spindles are $280.

Delkin calls them “The Most Reliable DVD-R In The World!” It has an exclamation mark, so it must be true…

Update below, concerning 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0
And another update (below), with some interesting chroma charts culled from the DVXuser thread.

“…check out this tech paper my friends at Panasonic gave me”, says “Tosh”, the once-embattled and entirely fictional friendly face on Panasonic’s HVX200 propoganda informational blog.

Despite the obvious corporate rudder behind the blog and the controversy that once swirled around it’s psuedo-creator, this info looks to be rather interesting. Perhaps there is hope for the defperception blog as an information source after all. And I have to hand it to them, the blog name is pure genius. But I digress…

Here’s a quick summary of the info that seems relevant to me. I’m no camera engineering genius, so I hope someone more technically strong on the design end of things has a chance to dissect this info, and soon.

*Panny HVX design team determined that 1920×1080 native pixels would not gather enough light, due to the individual pixel size on a 1/3″ imager (which, while the standard at this price point, is still relatively small as CCD’s go). So they chose to use 960×540 native res, and then spatial shift both horizontally and vertically to obtain a 1440×810 effective resolution. They call this Advanced Progressive Technology or A.P.T, it’s a 1/2 pixel biaxial shift.

*Panasonic goes on to state that interlaced CCD capture equals only 70% of progressive CCD imagers, and since their CCD is progressive, the HVX effective resolution compares very favorably to all the other competing cameras in this arena. They describe the competing cameras as Companies A, B, and C. Apparently “Tosh” is scared of being sued. Wuss.

*Due to the native res of the chip, the camera must capture 4:2:0 colorspace into a 4:2:2 codec (DVCPROHD). But since it’s doing all this analog before scanning a 1080p signal to the DSP, I’m a little confused by what might be gained or lost. Perhaps someone smarter than me could clarify…

UPDATE: Did some reading on the DV.com Forums, and ran across a post aptly entitled “Is the HVX really 4:2:2 color space???” Graeme Nattress made a few comments on the chroma capabilities of the HVX200. I’d link directly to the post, but the DV.com Forums don’t ever seem to link properly, due the whacked out URL’s their forum software spits out.

Quothe The Graeme:
“It’s probably close to 4:2:2 in 720p, and closer to 4:2:0 embedded in 4:2:2 in 1080p.”
He goes on to state the HVX chroma probably equates to approx 3/4 of 4:2:2 in 720p, and then explains further:
“It could very well do about 4:2:2 in 1080p on certain colours, and on other colours it could do about 4:2:0, and the rest of the colours are somewhere inbetween. When you start pixelshifting, you start getting results that are image dependent.”

UPDATE: Here’s a handy dandy little comparison chart culled from the DVXuser thread on this subject, it compares 4:2:2 (DV50), 4:2:0 and 4:1:1.

*The article makes a pretty big deal over the new DSP chip, a “14 Bit A/D conversion with a 19 Bit DSP system”.

Props to DVGuru for catching this news.
There is also some discussion at DVXuser on the topic.

Many are saying “oh, that explains the slightly soft image”, “Steve Mullen was right”, and “oh great, here come the pixel count police”. But as Josh Oakhurst stated in our recent interview, “…budgets and workflows should determine camera choices instead of the other way around. Smart camera operators and talented editors should be more valuable than equipment with a special feature.” Words to live by, folks.

One of the DVXuser posters makes an interesting point…since the biaxial shift requires different colors in the image to offset and gain effective resolution, a dark image or an image without much green chroma would tend to go softer than one that was more evenly color balanced. Of course this issue would affect other cameras that use pixel shift to gain res, but it’s something to consider anyway.

Regardless of your opinion of the camera, these new specs should spark some heated and informative discussions on the various forums, blogs and news sites. Good Times…

As reported on Slashdot, and briefly at Cinematech, Google Video has announced a pilot program to digitize and make publicly available the entire contents of the National Archives.

To whet your appetite, Google Video has already uploaded quite a few videos at the NARA Google Video site. Here are a few direct links:

*Marines Raise Flag Over Iwo Jima 1945
*Allied patrols in action on Anzio beach
*Reclamation and the Arid West
*The Eagle Has Landed 1969
*Boulder Dam 1937
*White Sands 1938

A valiant effort, and one that will no doubt be greatly appreciated the world over. But it raises the question; why couldn’t the National Archives deliver such a solution on their own? Why must Google step forward? I am assuming, of course, that they did indeed step forward and were not approached first by the Archives.
Not to mention…geez, if this “Google” machine ever becomes concious, we are headed straight towards a Matrix-inspired armageddon…

Ever heard the expression “The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese”?

In related news, it seems that early HDTV adopters are being shut out by the content protection attached to the emerging next-gen HD DVD formats.

The copy-protection scheme that has been chosen by both the Blu-ray and HD-DVD camps is called Advanced Access Content System (AACS). The finalized specs for AACS are just now being revealed, and one interesting wrinkle is no full-res support for analog HD signals. Because the copyright holders cannot control what is done with the analog signal (copying, for instance…or maybe just watching), they have decided to cut the resolution on analog outputs. What this means is that if you have an HDTV with nothing but component inputs, the max res that your Shiny! New! HD-DVD or Blu-ray player will output is 960×540 pixels. That is just 1/4 of the 1920×1080 max res that your Shiny! New! HiDef! DVD player supports.

The article states “Estimates vary, but it’s believed 3 to 6.6 million such displays are in U.S. households.”

Those with HDTV systems that offer digital inputs have been blessed by the gods of AACS draconian control copy-protection, and can watch the content that They! Paid! For! at it’s full 1920×1080 resolution. Thanks AACS. That’s big of you…

Mike Evangelist also has a post concerning AACS at his site. He seems to be rather incensed by the level of control afforded to copyright owners in the AACS scheme, and rightly so. In the comments, he’s got a particularly insightful reply:

“I view the DMCA as a criminal conspiracy that should be prosecuted under RICO statutes, but of course it won’t be, as the conspirators are in charge.

But the big difference with AACS is that they can change the rules after the fact. If you buy an high definition DVD, you’ll have no certainty what rights you will be granted in the future. It’s insane.”

Well said.

(Via Slashdot and DVGuru)

Videosystems has an article on the use of LEDs as a backlight in LCD flat panels. Standard LCDs use fluorescent lights as backlight, and the downside to this is that the display cannot reproduce the full range of color afforded by a CRT monitor. NEC now has an LCD flat panel that uses LEDs as backlighting, and the display delivers a range of color that rivals CRT specs.

“The result is a color gamut that is 103 percent that of NTSC and 107 percent that of Adobe RGB.”

The tech is still prohibitively expensive, NEC’s 21″ LCD2180WG-LED is currently priced at $6,749.99. But as with all new things, the price will drop over time and we’ll all reap the benefits.

Paul Harrill of SelfReliantFilm has put together a customized Rollyo search engine that specifically trawls 25 excellent sites related to film and digital news and production. You’ll need to visit the SRF main page to find the search box.
Paul is calling it “a search of the web’s best Film and Digital Cinema sites/blogs”, and the list of sources is solid. It’s a handy resource, check it out.

Willard Boyle and George Smith, co-inventors of the Charge-Coupled Device, were honored today by the National Academy of Engineering with the $500,000 Charles Stark Draper Prize. The two will split the award. The inventors were also inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame back on February 8th.

The Charge-Coupled Device was born in 1969 from a brainstorming session lasting a single hour. Not too shabby. The first CCD had a total of 6 pixels. Today’s digital still camera CCD’s commonly boast 6 million+ pixels. Also not too shabby…

(Via Slashdot)

By Matt Jeppsen | e-mail the author

I had recently had opportunity to interview Josh Oakhurst, Indie filmmaker and Senior Editor at SportsHD. In his spare time, Josh maintains a blog at www.joshoakhurst.com where he regularly opines and rants on various topics pertaining to shooting, editing and production.

What follows is Part2 of our two-part interview. In Part1, Josh sounded off on HD and HDV tools and workflow, why he believes that the P2 format vanish, and ripped Canon a new one.

Alright Josh, to kick it off…720p vs. 1080i vs. 1080p - Your thoughts?

Okay, this is an easy one. I know you’re barking at me about the ’small four’ Indie HD and HDV camera choices now - so lets just get dirty. I’ll start at the bottom.

Canon’s XL-H1 is nice, but its WAY over priced for what it offers. Sorry Canon, but go back and try again.

720p is fucking retarded. Its MEDIUM DEFINITION!!! Buying the JVC HD100u is almost as stupid as people who are buying the DVX100b. 720p will be an outdated format before anyone figures out how to use it to make something of substance. Sure, its great for broadcast work NOW, but what about in 18 to 24 months? I have no problem with the image quality of this camera - but ITS STILL MEDIUM DEFINITION!!! Why buy a piece of equipment headed in the wrong direction of the future?

Currently, MTVHD and ESPNHD broadcast in 720i. They won’t in 3 years. HDNet will ONLY Broadcast things in 1080i. No 1080p allowed, and let me talk about this for a minute.

Okay people. How many of you filmmakers out there will actually end up with a film out print of your masterpiece? Anyone else besides the film school students in lala land? Okay good, because unless you ARE POSITIVE your film is headed for theatrical distribution, native 24fps editing capabilities should not be of concern to you. Hell, most people who shoot in 24p don’t edit at 24fps anyway.

Don’t get me wrong. My DVX100 has pretty much never been off of 24p - but is mostly for the COLOR. So if the RED camera does come out as promised (still a big IF), guarantee I’ll probably never take it out of progressive mode, but for now, the HVX’s 24p capabilities do not outweigh P2’s shortfalls (or the price compared to the Z1U).

It’s a sad fact, but most Indies want to believe a piece of equipment is going to help advance their careers.

“Oh, the HVX overcranks and undercranks!� Not in 1080. Cool for Broadcast or Medium Def. work, but not for my Indie HD workflow.

For green screen and compositing, people worried about the perceived advantages in any of these cameras should be concentrating on learning how to light properly more than anything else. The HVX may offer 4:2:2 chroma (color) sampling, but it offers lower luma (light) sampling than HDV. At 1080i, the HVX’s DVCPRO HD samples at 1280×1080 compared to HDV’s 1440×1080. These differences are very negligible in post. Again - find the right people, not MAGIC equipment.

You’ve mentioned that you work almost exclusively in HD. What are some of the challenges of the high resolutions afforded by today’s cameras?
Haha, if anything, the HD resolution affords great looking AND really shitty looking images. When you’re staring at a huge 1080 monitor, all the imperfections of the frame and or the cameraman stand out much more than at SD resolution.

24p and other progressive flavors, do they have a place in broadcast? Over-rated?
Yes to both questions. 24p does have a place in Broadcast, but it is over-rated. Neat-O technology does not make interesting stories. 1080p certainly offers the Feature world great looking images, but for Broadcast I don’t think its necessary. One thing to consider: HDNet won’t even air anything shot in progressive mode. They are 1080i Broadcast ONLY. Sadly, this fact is due to perceived compression issues upon encoding for satellite transmission. There’s actual a mandate for editors there to never use jump cuts or white flashes because they’re worried about artifacting after using the proprietary satellite compressor they invented.

Is the vaunted and much-sought “film look” attainable in post, or should Indies shoot with 24p cameras that offer film-like modes?

While its always better to get the look you want in the camera, “film look� is absolutely attainable in post production, but budgets and workflows should determine camera choices instead of the other way around. Smart camera operators and talented editors should be more valuable than equipment with a special feature. Hey, film looks good, but there’s no reason HD has to look exactly like film. Good storytelling should be of more importance than the nuances of format aesthetics. 1080 24p does not look completely like film, but it does look really fucking good! Why keep striving for vivid image mockery?

Is ‘film look’ dead? Do you think that maybe it’s time for “high end video look” instead?

This is a question more Indies should be asking themselves. Why keep chasing the “film look’? Why must your art look exactly like 35mm? Surprisingly, the answer is people want video to look like film because they feel it will add more legitimacy to their projects. Since the emergence of video in the late 70’s, expositional quality has always been compared to that of 35mm, but why must that continue?

Film absolutely looks great, but great looks do not make a great film. People don’t enjoy Dumb and Dumber’er over Clerks just because it was shot in color. The only people married to the idea that video HAS TO look like film are filmmakers who are scared their project will suck otherwise.

I predict a future in which people will be shooting on the ole’ 35mm legacy format just because it offers them an aesthetic they’re looking for, rather than whatever will transpire in the future.

Tell me a little about your influences? What drives you, creatively? Where do you draw inspiration?

I take influences from people and places around me. I like to surround myself with creative and motivated people. I don’t worry about competition because I know there’s plenty of room for more talented artists. I like knowing other directors and making friends with all types of Indies. Motivated people who aren’t just all talk are very hard to find.

All my inspiration - my drive to get up in the morning comes from creating emotional reactions to which people relate. I look forward to reaching greater audiences with ever step of my career. I’ll be happy if I say a lot of smart things I’m trying to say. I don’t ever need to sell out a multi-plex and really, I pick up cameras because they’re fucking fun.

In closing, what do you enjoy most about your work? What do you dislike most? What are some other areas in production that you would like to explore?

It’s easy to dislike a lot about Television. For one thing, I hate TV. I own a TV because I own a DVD player and that’s it. I like a few TV shows but I refuse to watch TV because of scheduling and commercials. Traditional TV is a dying because people want random access. I’m not saying TV will ever go away, but On Demand choices will become the rule rather than the exception.

Principles aside, I hate TV because it’s hard to create art. The only people creating art on TV are a small handful of motion design companies and well-connected producers. Even then, TV doesn’t pay you to make art. TV pays you to be efficient, and you’re lucky if you can make a little art in the process. TV is a monster.

I’m just a director trying to make it happen like everybody else. Along the way I’ve been able to learn a little bit by finding a temporary home in the HDTV market. I mean, at least I’m working in the same field. Overall I can’t complain too much - I was ‘freelancing’ (read: unemployed) and managing a snowboard shop for three years straight before my talents were picked up for broadcast exploitation.

Can’t wait for the opportunity for my talents and soul to be exploited on film too. Well, HD anyway.

Thanks to Josh for taking the time to sound off. Feel free to sound off with an opinion of your own below.
Josh can be found ranting and raving at www.joshoakhurst.com.

Read Part1 of this interview here.