DVX100 DV vs HPX170 DV

[Jason Adams]

I know that the DV codec is confined to its codec definitions. I know the color sampling and bit rate is the same across the board, however my three chip 100B camera and my single chip panny that my wife uses at home for family videos both shoot very different images.
Both DV, but it would seem sensor, glass, etc greatly affect image quality.

So I was wondering if my HPX170 would shoot a better DV image to the P2 card then my 100B. I am also curious how it pulls of the aspect ratio difference?

Thanks

Jason

[William_Robinette]

It should be much better. The 170 is doing everything at 1080p res inside and then downsamples to what ever the recording format is. If you are set for wide screen DV then just the scaling occurs. If you want 4:3 DV I would imagine it scales then center punches for the correct ratio.

[Jason Adams]

It should be much better. The 170 is doing everything at 1080p res inside and then downsamples

Are saying the 170 is 1o80P native???? I always thought the images were scaled up from the sensor size not down?

Thanks William.

[Gabriel Berube]

You sure about that William? Like Jason I always thought that the 170 did 720p then upscaled it, hence the "720p24N" or "720p30N" recording setting for native 720p res.

As for 170 DV vs DVX100 DV, I'm guessing there wouldn't be much difference visually since it's basically the same codec with a different chipset. The HPX170 has more recently developped CCD chips, so DV might be a bit sharper than on the DVX100, or at the very least cleaner under low-light conditions.

That's just a guess though, anyone care to post stills or footage? :-)

[DSWMEDIA]

You guys got it all wrong.

The HPX170 uses pixel shifting, that is the green sensor block is offset by 1/2 a photosite, to achieve a resolution higher than 720p. In my own testing, the HPX170 resolves a but under full 1080p, which is incredible considering the size of it's chips.

When recording to DV, the camera downsamples from 1080p, to 480i. Also of course, the camera does in-camera pulldown to allow for 24p and 30p recording inside a codec that only allows for interlaced 480x720 recording.

savy?

[puredrifting]

I did a shoot in December on my DVX100A and used my 170 as a wide master shot in timelapse. When comparing the footage, the 170 footage that I also shot in DV, looked superior to the 100A image. Cleaner and clearer.

Dan

[Gabriel Berube]

Hey Dan, care to post some stills from your shoot comparing the DVX and HPX170 please? I only own the later and am curious about the differences under the same conditions.

[puredrifting]

Hey Dan, care to post some stills from your shoot comparing the DVX and HPX170 please? I only own the later and am curious about the differences under the same conditions.

If I had the footage, I would be glad to. Unfortunately it all went to the client, the project was for an unreleased product and they wanted the masters.

Dan

[Rob]

If I had the footage, I would be glad to. Unfortunately it all went to the client, the project was for an unreleased product and they wanted the masters.

Dan

Dan,

Is the 170 better than the HVX200 in SD Mode ?

Thanks. Rob

[puredrifting]

Dan,

Is the 170 better than the HVX200 in SD Mode ?

Thanks. Rob

Well, it's a better image that the camera CCDs and processing produce so yes, in theory, the 170 should be better than the 200 in NTSC. But I have not done side by side testing shooting NTSC because I pretty much just shoot NSTC with my DVX100A.

D

[CW-35]

not much to contribute to this debate, as I don't have an answer but:

I shot this fashion show last year (runway, dressing room, etc.) with my DVX100A.

I did the same event this year with my 170.

Last year I shot to tape & captured the material to 422HQ with a 1500 deck via SDI.

This year I shot to DVCPRO50...

I have to say there is obviously not much of a difference between the two. Grain is definitely tighter on the 170.

The 4 audio tracks with the 170 was a plus though for sure.

It ultimately goes to DVD so that will level any quality anyway...

So, I saved digitizing time with the 170 but the 100A is still a great camera for SD work as well.

[jin]

Actually, there is a significant difference. I still use both the DVX100A and my new 170, and I am in the same situations where I am shooting another annual event with the new cam. I love my DVX and will be using it for a while, but there is no comparing the DVX's SD with that if the HPX170. I have done the side by side comps in the following arenas:

1. Camera to 1080p LCD hookup via a/v cables
2. Camera to 480i digital TV " "
3. NLE preview monitor (in CPUs with the exact same graphics card, processor, RAM, etc)
4. On set preview monitor
5. Authored DVD (both single and double layer)
6. DVX SD uprezzed to Instant HD vs HPX SD on DVD/LCD monitor
7. DVD in a Blu Ray player (both high quality player and PS3 separately)

I think that covers it. But there is no question whether or not the HPX has superior SD quality compared to the DVX, all due respect to that fine machine. It's sort of like using an HPX 170 as a secondary cam to a VariCam, although that is a comparison I have not done, so don't quote me. Too late. The question is what do you do to make them compare the best for coinciding use.

My 1.5 cents.

[David Jimerson]

The 170 processes everything at 1080p first and then downscales.

There's a sticky here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=96274

[losgatos]

I'm currently using both cameras together in DV mode. I haven't done extensive tests like some others who have posted here, but I have found that softening a lot helps them match up. Here's some pictures (the full sized graphic stills are actual size).
http://cinemali.com/2009/05/26/matching-hpx170-to-dvx100/