PDA

View Full Version : HVX200A - First Look



Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:06 AM
Click Here to read the article (http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/hvx200a/)

Erik Olson
04-14-2008, 08:23 AM
A nice update, but I don't know how much of a hit I'd like to take on the trade-up. Where is the HD SDI out? Where is that?

e

KyleProhaska
04-14-2008, 08:24 AM
Great to hear Barry, nice article. That comparison of the two cameras (the mp4) suprised me...the image was way better. Its always tough to tell when they simply say its a 'better' chipset. Nice to see its much better than I thought.

Tzedekh
04-14-2008, 08:31 AM
Over on the Panasonic site, there's a short video presentation with Jan Crittenden wherein she says the new CCDs have 1.1 million effective pixels, which is almost twice as many as in the old ones (960 x 540 = 691,200).

EDITED -- Oops, that should be 960 x 540 = 518,400.

Jason Adams
04-14-2008, 08:31 AM
Great info ...Thanks

Erik Olson
04-14-2008, 08:38 AM
It's a bit of a conundrum for Panasonic - the way P2 has taken off. It leaves the first P2 camera - the HVX200 - to continue to shoulder the burden of being a hybridized DV/P2HD platform.

With the requisite (and in many cases, unused) MiniDV tape system, the resulting price point must, theoretically, remain higher than the significantly better specification HPX170. At the same time, they can't simply eliminate the DV25 camera, because they no longer have the DVX in the line-up.

The HVX200, in my opinion, becomes the red-headed stepchild of the P2 family - which is an unfortunate outcome.

e

florisvaneck
04-14-2008, 08:40 AM
1280x720 is 921,600. So with overscanning/underscanning I think we can safely say that these camera's have 1280x720 CCD chips.

florisvaneck
04-14-2008, 08:41 AM
And people seem to forget that the HPX-170 has a HD-SDI output. I am not sure how much difference a tape mechanism vs. hd-sdi out is in terms of costprice but I suppose the HPX-170 can still cost more. Also, the HPX-170 carries the HPX label (like the HPX-500) and not the HVX label, so I am not sure why people believe it will be cheaper.

If the HPX-170 is like $4,999 that would be a very nice price.

florisvaneck
04-14-2008, 08:47 AM
Barry,

Can you tell us about the LCD? It is much improved or the same?

Chris Lynch
04-14-2008, 09:16 AM
Do they use the same image block? Looking at the HPX170 as a second camera? What are the improved refinements in the HPX170?

Jockomo
04-14-2008, 09:20 AM
Also, the HPX-170 carries the HPX label (like the HPX-500) and not the HVX label, so I am not sure why people believe it will be cheaper.

From what I can tell, the V in HVX is for videotape and the P in HPX is for P2.
The model numbers designate it's position and price point. The 170 still being lower lower than the 200 and the 200a being higher than the 200.

Kholi
04-14-2008, 11:15 AM
Aaahhhhhhhh yessssssss.

Very clean test from the A camera. Those few things will go a LONG WAY to producing a more High Definition image as opposed to SD uprezzed really well images.

Thanks for the pre-test, Barry! Even more excited about the 170.

Did you see if the cameras had the Dynamic Range menu option thingy?

Cees Mutsaers
04-14-2008, 01:41 PM
I have the feeling that in the mid and dark grey tones the noise is about the same but in the light grey tones it is substantial better. The HVX200 is somewhat greenish (at least on my screen).

bilgami
04-14-2008, 02:44 PM
Is the HPX170 more of a dvx or hvx upgrade or in between?

ilauzirika
04-14-2008, 03:13 PM
Is the HPX170 more of a dvx or hvx upgrade or in between?

For what I've seen is a new line with all the advantages of the hvx (except the tape drive) with more added features, like the hd-sdi.... so for me this camera (if priced below the hvx) is the hvx but for lower budgets.

Erik Olson
04-14-2008, 05:27 PM
Yeah, but doesn't anyone care about 1080/24pN... as in NATIVE. That is a big feature in my book.

e

Kholi
04-14-2008, 05:40 PM
I do care about it. Absolutely. Doesn't the HMC150 do 1080/24pN? One of these cams does it, can't remember which.

That's somethin' to be pointed out as well.

Luis Caffesse
04-14-2008, 05:45 PM
Yeah, but doesn't anyone care about 1080/24pN... as in NATIVE. That is a big feature in my book.

e

Where was that mentioned?
That's HUGE news.
I must have missed that.

ullanta
04-14-2008, 05:48 PM
Over on the Panasonic site, there's a short video presentation with Jan Crittenden wherein she says the new CCDs have 1.1 million effective pixels, which is almost twice as many as in the old ones (960 x 540 = 691,200).

"Effective Pixels" is sort of an unclear term. How one gets a number of "effective pixels" from the sensor array is complicated, and arguable... pixel-shifting, e.g., increases the number of "effective pixels" for the same number of elements in the sensor array.

So, any claim about the number of "effective pixels" can't rerally be used to evaluate the number of elements in the sensor array unless you're told exactly how the "effective pixels" are derived.

If the Green Barry sees significant improvement in sensitivity and noise performance, but none in sharpness, then it would seem the sensors are similar to the original 960x540...

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:33 PM
A nice update, but I don't know how much of a hit I'd like to take on the trade-up. Where is the HD SDI out? Where is that?
That's on the HPX170.

Honestly guys, I think the 170 is going to be what you all were expecting the 200A to be. The 170 looks like where the fun is (waveform, HD-SDI, 6-pin firewire, 8-position scene file dial, additional ND filter, 20 frame rates instead of 11, and who knows what else is lurking under the hood.)

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:34 PM
Would love to see a bullet point compare of HVX200a vs new HPX170 features.
I would too. But there's not that much known about the HPX170 yet. I can tell you what the outside looks like, but I don't know what it does "under the hood" yet.

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:36 PM
Also, the HPX-170 carries the HPX label (like the HPX-500) and not the HVX label, so I am not sure why people believe it will be cheaper.
HPX = P2 recording. HVX = DV recording. The "V" means there's a DV tape drive present. So that's not an indication of quality or anything, it's not a "label" or a "brand", it's a model specification. D=standard def, H=high def. V=DV tape, D=DVCPRO tape, P=P2.

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:37 PM
Barry,

Can you tell us about the LCD? It is much improved or the same?
Every aspect of the HVX200A is identical to the HVX200, except for the CCD related items I listed at the end of the article. So yes, the LCD is identical.

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:41 PM
Do they use the same image block?
Many people have asked that, and I don't know the answer. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that they are indeed the same -- after all, how many 1/3" HD progressive chipsets does a single manufacturer really need? The terminology in the press releases all sounds similar, so I'd say that it's a reasonable assumption to say that the 200A chipset is the same as the HPX170's chipset. Of course, we'll know more when we get a chance to put the two side-by-side, but that probably won't happen for many months.


What are the improved refinements in the HPX170?
We don't know everything yet, the only things I know for sure were the physical features I could see on the 170. Things like an additional ND filter switch position, HD-SDI output, 6-pin firewire port, no tape drive, much lighter, a little smaller, 72mm lens instead of 82mm, 3.9mm-51mm focal range instead of 4.2-55mm, and the press release says 20 variable frame rates instead of 11. Oh, and a WFM button for a waveform monitor.

If there are other goodies waiting under the hood (meaning, new software features) I don't know yet, that hasn't been revealed.

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:42 PM
Did you see if the cameras had the Dynamic Range menu option thingy?
The 200A's menus are identical to the 200's. I haven't seen any menus on a 170 or 150.

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:43 PM
Is the HPX170 more of a dvx or hvx upgrade or in between?
The 170 looks like it's a streamlined, upgraded 200. It's a little odd because the 170 is smaller, yet it looks like it's more professional because it has a 6-pin firewire and HD-SDI. Yet its model number is lower. So... a bit of confusion there.

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:43 PM
Yeah, but doesn't anyone care about 1080/24pN... as in NATIVE. That is a big feature in my book.
On what camera? That's on the 150 (AVC-HD), but I don't recall seeing any reference to that on the 170 (DVCPRO-HD). It's not on the 200A (DVCPRO-HD).

Barry_Green
04-14-2008, 08:45 PM
If the Green Barry sees significant improvement in sensitivity and noise performance, but none in sharpness, then it would seem the sensors are similar to the original 960x540...
I saw no improvement in resolution, just significant gains in noise and a decent boost in sensitivity.

ProjX v2.0
04-14-2008, 10:20 PM
Barry,

Since they already have a working 200A, does this mean it will be available immediately or at least sooner than the the HPX170 & HMC150?

If not, did they give any indication of availability for the 200A?

EDIT: Found where you already answered that question @ http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1250814&postcount=65

:dankk2:

Tzedekh
04-14-2008, 10:48 PM
"Effective Pixels" is sort of an unclear term. How one gets a number of "effective pixels" from the sensor array is complicated, and arguable... pixel-shifting, e.g., increases the number of "effective pixels" for the same number of elements in the sensor array.

So, any claim about the number of "effective pixels" can't rerally be used to evaluate the number of elements in the sensor array unless you're told exactly how the "effective pixels" are derived.Maybe, but I find it odd that Panasonic promotes the 1.1 million figure with the 200A but always downplayed the pixel count with 200. And why the more precise "1.1 million" and not "more than a million" if effective pixel count is derived through spatial offset?

vocare
04-14-2008, 11:15 PM
Maybe, but I find it odd that Panasonic promotes the 1.1 million figure with the 200A but always downplayed the pixel count with 200. And why the more precise "1.1 million" and not "more than a million" if effective pixel count is derived through spatial offset?

is this 200a modal an answer to ex1

Barry_Green
04-15-2008, 12:10 AM
is this 200a modal an answer to ex1
A little bit, in that it largely matches the EX1 in noise and sensitivity, but basically no. The EX1 is a $6500 product. The 200A is a $5200 product. Different class.

Erik Olson
04-15-2008, 06:17 AM
To clarify... I now see no indication in the official HVX200a brochure that 1080/24pN has been added. Damn brochure gremlins!

e

Tzedekh
04-15-2008, 12:05 PM
If the HPX-170 is like $4,999 that would be a very nice price.In an interview on FreshDV, Jan said the price of HPX170 would come in right around that of the 200A.

Also, when the interviewer said, "So the 200A is in some ways maybe a stepping stone to the 170 -- you basically kept the tape drive on the 200A and added some feature sets to the 170," Jan responded, "I like the way you put that. Absolutely." So in some ways it looks like the HPX170, even with its lower number, is viewed as a successor to the 200 -- tapeless, streamlined, new features. And it has LCD flip.

Luis Caffesse
04-15-2008, 12:16 PM
In an interview on FreshDV, Jan said the price of HPX170 would come in right around that of the 200A.

Also, when the interviewer said, "So the 200A is in some ways maybe a stepping stone to the 170 -- you basically kept the tape drive on the 200A and added some feature sets to the 170," Jan responded, "I like the way you put that. Absolutely." So in some ways it looks like the HPX170, even with its lower number, is viewed as a successor to the 200 -- tapeless, streamlined, new features. And it has LCD flip.

It does make you wonder why they opted for the "170" name.
Leaves quite a range from 170 to 500...
:)

Let's start the NAB 2009 speculation.
(I'm kidding folks...)

kamikaze1213
04-15-2008, 12:19 PM
So what's the availability on the HVX200a? When are they shipping?

slimchrisp
04-15-2008, 08:11 PM
anyone know if the 16gig p2 card will be in the hvx200a box? if not, i may abort on my hvx200a reservation and just pick up the hvx200, 16 gig p2 and $400 rebate. hopefully it does though.

Barry_Green
04-15-2008, 11:51 PM
So what's the availability on the HVX200a? When are they shipping?
They said "end of the month."

Barry_Green
04-15-2008, 11:51 PM
anyone know if the 16gig p2 card will be in the hvx200a box? if not, i may abort on my hvx200a reservation and just pick up the hvx200, 16 gig p2 and $400 rebate. hopefully it does though.
I'm pretty sure it will, but not 100% sure. I will try to remember to ask tomorrow.

slimchrisp
04-16-2008, 05:36 AM
I'm pretty sure it will, but not 100% sure. I will try to remember to ask tomorrow.

awesome. thanks tons barry. like i said, i have a 200a on reserve, but losing out on the p2 card would probably be a deal breaker for me. thanks!

dver
04-17-2008, 12:05 AM
has anybody shot dvcpro50 with hvx200? how does it come vis-a-vis dv25 and other bigger cameras that caryy 2/3inch chip and shoot dvcpro50?
is there a comparison available shomewhere?

joe 1008
04-17-2008, 06:23 AM
Barry, were you able in the recent days to perform further testing concerning smear and resolution? When can we hope for a more in depth report?

bikefilms
04-18-2008, 01:09 PM
dver,

I've shot just about half of my paid work in DVCPRO50. The color and resolution using the HVX200 is amazing. And, after working with it for a few years, I really notice how much better it is than DV25.

FYI~ When compressing video for the web, I make sure to go straight from the DVCPRO50 or DVCPRO-HD file, keeping as much color as possible.

-andrew


has anybody shot dvcpro50 with hvx200? how does it come vis-a-vis dv25 and other bigger cameras that caryy 2/3inch chip and shoot dvcpro50?
is there a comparison available shomewhere?

hitsam
04-27-2008, 05:28 PM
Does anyone know how the 200A compares (low Light wise) to the vx 2000 which is a 2 lux? I want to switch over to a better camera but I need the low light. The 200A has a 500 ISO how can I compare?

Mike Murray

Barry_Green
04-27-2008, 10:50 PM
No HD camera short of the HPX500 compares to the VX2000 in low light performance. The VX2000 clocks in at around 1280 ISO.

wilsonentertainment
05-07-2008, 02:44 PM
VX2000 is not HD. orange and apple.
No HD camera short of the HPX500 compares to the VX2000 in low light performance. The VX2000 clocks in at around 1280 ISO.

pinakbeth
05-11-2008, 10:25 PM
Where is the vide clip comparison link?

surfdawg
05-17-2008, 08:59 PM
I wish I'd have known the "A" model was coming. Instead of buying the 200 in mid March, I would have waited for the A.

Bob Gruen
05-19-2008, 06:59 AM
To clarify... I now see no indication in the official HVX200a brochure that 1080/24pN has been added. Damn brochure gremlins!

e

If you do a bit of research on the DVCProHD CODEC you'll find that there is no spec for 1080/24pN. I believe that this has to do with current and speculative broadcast specs which seem to have progressive 720 but only interlaced 1080 (here in the US at least). I'm sure it has to do with bandwidth issues and how many channels they can get out on the RF bands.

If I understand it right the 170's HD-SDI is a pre-compression output, which means you can jack it into a Kona card and record on a computer in any CODEC you want (or even raw). To me that would be the shiznet right there. I think the only difficulty would be the same difficulty as the Hydra mod, that Audio and Video would not be synced. Do I have all this right? I wonder how clean THAT image would be...

Bob

Barry_Green
05-19-2008, 11:18 AM
If I understand it right the 170's HD-SDI is a pre-compression output, which means you can jack it into a Kona card and record on a computer in any CODEC you want (or even raw).
Correct.


I think the only difficulty would be that Audio and Video would not be synced.
No, this is not a problem because the HPX170's HD-SDI port has embedded audio and timecode right in the signal.

FatDaddy
05-19-2008, 08:07 PM
Correct.


No, this is not a problem because the HPX170's HD-SDI port has embedded audio and timecode right in the signal.

Sweet Jesus. It only gets better and better...

Bob Gruen
05-20-2008, 05:12 AM
No, this is not a problem because the HPX170's HD-SDI port has embedded audio and timecode right in the signal.

Perfect! I wonder what the max resolution from the HD-SDI port it? I seem to recall that the Hydra mod used all of the CCD chips surface area while Panny crops a little... Also, true 1080 24P would come out of the port, right? It wouldn't be 1080 24P/i, would it?

Now all that would be needed is a small computer recording system to haul around with it...

Barry_Green
05-20-2008, 11:50 AM
Perfect! I wonder what the max resolution from the HD-SDI port it? I seem to recall that the Hydra mod used all of the CCD chips surface area while Panny crops a little...
The resolution coming out the HD-SDI port might be a little higher than the 1080 recorded res; it'll be quite a bit higher than the recorded 720P res. It'll be 4:2:2 at 10 bit, but as I understand it's only using the upper 8 bits, the lower 2 bits are forced to zero (like the HPX500 and the Canon cameras do).


Also, true 1080 24P would come out of the port, right? It wouldn't be 1080 24P/i, would it?
Probably not; it probably works the same way the EX1 and HPX500 do, which is that all HD-SDI 1080 output is embedded in a 1080/60i signal.


Now all that would be needed is a small computer recording system to haul around with it...
Or a Convergent Designs XDR or NanoFlash portable HD-SDI recorder...

timbook2
07-07-2008, 08:17 AM
Thanks for this article Barry !

markyf
07-07-2008, 08:27 AM
I bought the Matrxo MXO for HD monitoring. Signal is carried along the DVI cable as you know, which is maximum 8 bit. If I'm utilizing the 10 bit signal from the HD-SDI, how would that work with the Matrox? Would it simply not function or would it drop the useless two bits?

Ursa
07-18-2008, 06:06 AM
I can't see the comparison video Barry posted, anyone help?

thanks :)