the reasoning for low bit rates...

[Leang]

So Panasonic has been running their compression rates at 100mb/s with their DVCProHD and newer AVCIntra for a while, and Canon a couple years back with their MPEG 2 @ 50mb/s.  Sony's new little $3,500 PMW-100 does also 50mb/s XDCAM, and JVC's Pro line has been doing 35mb/s.  It's to my knowledge the new $8K FS700 does a maximum of 24mbs?  Compared to a 220mb ProRes 422 their 24mbs codec holds up pretty nice.  Why couldn't they implement the 50mbs codec instead of AVCHD. 

All theories open to discuss.  I'm afraid it's all marketing hype. =(

[richg101]

[quote author=Leang link=topic=903.msg6547#msg6547 date=1340746834]
So Panasonic has been running their compression rates at 100mb/s with their DVCProHD and newer AVCIntra for a while, and Canon a couple years back with their MPEG 2 @ 50mb/s.  Sony's new little $3,500 PMW-100 does also 50mb/s XDCAM, and JVC's Pro line has been doing 35mb/s.  It's to my knowledge the new $8K FS700 does a maximum of 24mbs?  Compared to a 220mb ProRes 422 their 24mbs codec holds up pretty nice.  Why couldn't they implement the 50mbs codec instead of AVCHD. 

All theories open to discuss.  I'm afraid it's all marketing hype. =(
[/quote]

I think you'll find fs cams are 35mb/s avchd in camera.  35mb/s avchd is a lot more information than the canon 50mb/s compression system (from what I have read.  canon state 50mb/s to keep them viable for bbc use.  what you get from your 50mb/s canon 7d, 550d, etc is no better than 25mb/s? from a standard gh2, nex vg20, nex7.  35mb/s avchd out of the fs100 smokes canon at their 50mb/s.  I see no reason why anyone buying a dslr would need high bitrates.  the difference between 100mbs and 25mbs is so small.  only camera enthusiasts care anyway

[MOONGOAT]

mbit =\= mbps

[Axel]

We don't ask for ever lower bitrates anymore. We sacrifice 24 mbit for 176 mbit without batting an eye just for the [i]feeling[/i] that the stuff now is less compressed. Though one has to admit that with modern cameras the ominous compression artifacts (such as visible macro-block-patterns or the motion-blur-like smear of MPEG2) have become rare, there are other aspects than just data reduction efficiency to a higher developed codec. Motion prediction begins to recognize objects. Not too far in the future we will be able to point to a moving car in our clip and select it as a whole. If we "add smoke" the software will know the wind direction and so forth. Our tinkering with PTool is incredibly coarse compared to what the original AVCHD is already doing under the hood.

Higher resolutions for the end user may come, at least this is an ongoing trend. No problem if this only leads to "retina displays", but if the sizes of the images grow considerably, people won't tolerate 8-bit anymore. There will be a race for better quality, and this is the next challenge for manageable file sizes.