Ah yes, the good old days. I did a side by side test with random setups shot with a digibeta and an IMX camera side by side. The IMX fell apart in the shadows. Sort of like Canon 5D footage, if you shot what you wanted, it was great. If you wanted to fix it in post, there was nothing there to retrieve.
Those who believe you can have the exact same amount of data in a smaller space, also believe in the tooth fairy and should come to me so I can sell them the Brooklyn bridge.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "johnrobmoore" <bigfish@...> wrote:
>
> I recall comparison tests done by Terry at Matchframe years ago showed the IMX Camera footage to fall way short of Digibeta Camera footage. There was all kinds of pre filtering and a lack of detail in the dark areas. Given it was a digital tape format all the compression seemed to be part of the format and not directly related to the tape mechanism. Perhaps that was 30Mbits/s on the tape but the compression codec is the codec regardless of whether it is recorded to a file or a tape isn't it? Was it the how the camera data was being compressed to get it into the imx bandwidth or was it the imx codec itself? That's what I'd like to know more about.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Degan <DennyD1@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:48 PM, johnrobmoore wrote:
> >
> > > According to my quick web search D-10 is also known as IMX. Is IMX-50Mbits/s not plagued by the poor image quality that had been associated to the IMX format back when it first came out. Digibeta was a far superior recording format than the IMX camera packages when they were new. Has this changed over the years?
> >
> > I offer:
> >
> > The alleged poor performance of Sony's IMX format was more attributed to the mechanical limitations of tape. The digital format itself is quite good. Unfortunately, in real-world conditions, Beta IMX videotape would not hold up to repeated shuttling, pausing on one spot, reverse running, etc. Nowadays, as a file format, IMX is amazingly robust.
> > DigiBeta was better primarily because the data rate was much higher (185MBps) and used a much lower amount of data reduction, which allowed the limitations of the tape format to be overcome by the increased tolerance of the recording format. Also, IMX is a long-GOP format while Digi-Beta uses Intra-frame compression only. Secondarily, Digi-Beta VTR's were designed to handle the tape better than IMX VTRs, since Sony considered the IMX tape format to be a lower-tier one related to Digital Beta. In effect, the two formats competed for much of the same market space but were clearly of differing quality. Sony did produce and market the two formats for different users. But they did this by shortchanging the IMX tape format's mechanical robustness, choosing to put all their engineering expertise and quality into the Digital Beta format. If Sony had given IMX VTR's the same level of tape transport and paid more attention to better tape handling and higher quality circuitry, the IMX tape format would have had a better reputation in the broadcast industry. They couldn't do that while keeping IMX VTR's costs down.
> >
> > Dennis Degan, Video Editor-Consultant-Knowledge Bank
> > NBC Today Show, New York
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (33) |
No comments:
Post a Comment