The Pro's Choice: EX1 & 3 [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

FrankC

08-17-2009, 11:24 PM

Article in American Cinematographer (Mar.09) highlighted the "Cutting Edge Camerawork" of four pro Directors of Photography on episodic television shows such as Dexter, The Usuals, etc. Two shows still shot in 35mm with Panavision cameras, but two were now shooting with the $200,000 Sony F23... AND the EX1 or an EX3. Roy Wagner,ASC, DP on The Usuals noted the EX1 is not the same 4-4-4 color space as the F23, but the EX's have such a substantial processing capability, they inter-cut seamlessly with their $200k bretheren. He went on to say "I love film but...I'd love to shoot a series using only the EXs".
With the pros, there is not a Panasonic or JVC in sight...

adamr316

08-18-2009, 12:46 AM

I love my EX1 but a post like this is gonna start a flame war. So to help diffuse this thread, let's just agree that it's safe to say our cameras are all being used in some professional capacity.

Panasonics were/are used on a number of documentaries. PBS and HBO come to mind. The HVX was used in more than a few major Hollywood releases. So let's not go there.

So indeed, the EX series are substantial workhorses and are excellent cameras, no doubt. But lets not pretend it's the only prosumer cams being used now!

DeeKay

08-18-2009, 12:57 AM

I like to think for myself and judge a camera by its output, not by what magazine articles say or how many pros are using what. Some folks make an HVX look good and others make it look bad. But any idiot can make good looking Red One footage. If you don't like a camera than you probably just don't know how to light for it or something.

cheezweezl

08-18-2009, 03:36 AM

With the pros, there is not a Panasonic or JVC in sight...

I too love my EX but to say that Pro's don't use Panny or JVC is just not true.

Tons and tons of TV content is shot with the HVX200 every day. I know of a few music videos on MTV that have been shot with the HVX. It was used in the movie "Cloverfield" among others.

I left my HVX200 behind and truly believe the EX blows it away but others will certainly argue with me on this point. The EX's are gaining popularity but there will always be a large number of "pros" that shoot Panny, etc.

But any idiot can make good looking Red One footage.

Idiot? not so much. The RED may look good even under less than perfect lighting but that doesn't mean an idiot can make it work. There is no auto anything on the red so unless you have a good understanding of how lenses work, you're gonna be pissing in the wind. It takes a ton of skill just to keep your subject in focus. You pretty much have to have the discipline needed to shoot film to properly use the red. A novice would have better luck with an HVX200 or an EX1. At least either one of these cams can be put into full auto mode and still look decent.

Spartacus

08-18-2009, 03:51 AM

But any idiot can make good looking Red One footage.
I doubt you would say this, if you had actually shot with it...

These articles always give me an awkward feeling:
we all here KNOW what the EX1 or HVX are capable of. And we always know it much EARLIER than the guys doing the really big jobs, because normally for them it´s just "rent whatever gets the job done". Camera rental costs become almost neglectable considering the total expanses for producing a network show.

It´s like the pad on the shoulder, that´s more reprehensive than commendatory, altough everybody is smiling...:huh:

Huy Vu

08-18-2009, 03:58 AM

But any idiot can make good looking Red One footage.

The trailer below was shot using a RED One, you tell me if any idiot can make good looking footage.

http://video.ak.facebook.com/video-ak-sf2p/v2685/175/105/1083856294665_20384.mp4

samphibbs

08-18-2009, 06:44 AM

Yeah good example of nasty looking red footage. I have really seen some garbage from the red one, but like others have said it is not the camera rather the operator who really makes the footage what it is.

navitas

08-18-2009, 08:43 AM

I think in general there only a few things that can actually be marked as being demanded for a camera to be treated as "pro". In my opinion these are: DoF, progressive scan and delivery format. DoF is basically an optics factor and can be achieved from 35mm adapters. Progressive scan is starting to be a standard of some sorts (even in consumer market). The only problem for me right now is delivery format. We are all victims of compression. That's where RED for me is a winner. The raw format these cameras produce (without a need for an external HD-SDI device) is unbelievable. But other then that you can still mimic film even on Canon's 5d.

I had an opportunity to make a full-length documentary on my beloved XH-A1 and I had sh$%-loads of problems with delivery. First of all (at least where I live) broadcast market is ruled by Sony and nobody actually heard about my little cam being used in TV industry. Then Canon's 25f format is not readable in other company's miniDV decks so the transfer was possible only from my cam. Finally when I had a complete edit TV heads woudn't accept footage in HDV format so I had to transfer everything onto Digital BETA. And I had a terrible fear that the film wouldn't be accepted by this "technological control department". Happily the film passed everything but I learned my lesson: no HDV in TV land. Even though you get movies shot with XH-A1 (Crank 2) these camera choices are made mainly on requirements.

So right now I'm thinking of making another documentary and I'll go with EX1. Because of the reliable XDCAM. But... DVCPRO in HVX200 is also a great format. You choose your equipment by your needs and needs of the production. To say: "only EX1 is pro" is like saying: "you can only win this race in a Ferrari - if you drive Porsche... man... You gonna loose..." And the truth is: Even in Lamborghini if you have an idiot driver you gonna finish the race on the first turn...

FrankC

08-18-2009, 12:47 PM

Adam is right... And I do apologize if I tossed some accellerant on the fire. Wasn't my intention. I was not saying other cameras are not as good. I was simply remarking about the "fact" regarding the choices being made by veterans "in the business". One can take from what what they may in the choice of camera they may want to use that is appropriate for the work they plan to do. It would be foolish to make a judgment on those choices since every project is different with different requirements.
But thank you all for chiming in... Shows we have a vibrant community out there.

Cranky

08-18-2009, 01:23 PM

First of all (at least where I live) broadcast market is ruled by Sony and nobody actually heard about my little cam being used in TV industry. Then Canon's 25f format is not readable in other company's miniDV decks so the transfer was possible only from my cam.
Canon's "F" is the same as Sony's Native Progressive Recording, only Canon was two years earlier in the game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#HDV_1080p

Happily the film passed everything but I learned my lesson: no HDV in TV land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#Use_of_HDV_in_broadcast_television

Huy Vu

08-18-2009, 02:46 PM

I think navitas' point was that the Canon F mode isn't readable in anything except for Canon camera so compatibility was an issue.

Cranky

08-18-2009, 02:59 PM

I think navitas' point was that the Canon F mode isn't readable in anything except for Canon camera so compatibility was an issue.
If you cared to follow the link that I posted in my reply to navitas, you would have found out that this is not correct.

Huy Vu

08-18-2009, 07:44 PM

If you cared to follow the link that I posted in my reply to navitas, you would have found out that this is not correct.

So you linked to the HDV entry on Wikipedia, so what? It's a fact that Canon progressive F modes are not readable on anything except for Canon HDV cameras. I should know, I own an A1.

dadoboy

08-18-2009, 08:28 PM

I'd just like to point out that episodic TV is killing the film business more than anything. I would say half to 3/4 of shows now shoot digital. It's making a huge difference in the they way they do business over at technicolor and deluxe (though kudos to them - they saw this coming and changed a lot of their business model and seem to be doing OK).

basspig

08-19-2009, 01:18 AM

My two cents from watching my own EX1 footage on a 154" screen, projected by a 30-bit projection system, as viewed from 96" away...

There is not a Blu-ray movie that I have rented in the past month, nor one in my collection, that equals or bests the quality of the images I am getting from my EX1.

I used to complain about a little bit of chromatic aberration at full tele, but I'm seeing tons of it in major motion pictures of the last 17 years.

The detail and clarity far exceeds all of the Blu-ray discs that were mastered from film.

The Fujinon lens really aquits itself well and the footage looks great, even after watching a major motion picture shot digitally and transferred to Blu-ray.

Seeing EX footage on a huge screen, up close, so it wraps around your entire field of view, really puts things in a new perspective. I'm seeing flaw after flaw in Hollywood footage, but the flaws are little to nonexistent in the EX footage. More detail, more dynamic range, far less noise/grain--in every respect, a top notch image.

And now that I'm experimenting with Detail Off and post detail enhancement, I'm getting even better images. I can only imaging what HD-SDI output would look like, rendered to QT Photo JPEG!

Cranky

08-19-2009, 01:34 AM

So you linked to the HDV entry on Wikipedia, so what? It's a fact that Canon progressive F modes are not readable on anything except for Canon HDV cameras. I should know, I own an A1.
So you did not care to follow the link, so what. Who am I to explain you what "F" modes are about and what are they compatible with.

Huy Vu

08-19-2009, 02:35 AM

So you did not care to follow the link, so what. Who am I to explain you what "F" modes are about and what are they compatible with.

Oh I've read it. And you'll understand if I don't put much stock in a public encyclopedia where anybody can just update anonymously (in fact, I can just change it right now if I wanted to). Real world experience trumps Wikipedia any time. Let me just ask you one thing: have you ever try to capture Canon F mode footage using a Sony HDV camera? If you were successful I would love to hear about it, since it didn't work the times I actually tried it out.

But hey, since you love to quote from Wikipedia, here's an entry for you and a quote from it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_XL_H1

"1080i60 and 1080i50 are cross-compatible with Sony's implementation of HDV; Canon 1080i50 and 1080i60 can play on Sony HDV cameras and decks. Canon's 24f, 25f, and 30f are not cross-compatible with Sony's implementation of HDV. No 1080 HDV footage will play on JVC HDV cameras or decks."

navitas

08-19-2009, 05:36 AM

I think the problem which cam plays which material is not a good reason to argue :)

Anyway... I tried playing 25f footage from Sony's Z1 and there is no way it's working. I don't know about newer Sony cams so I'm not gonna argue. I think the problem isn't in cams but in decks. Usually if you have a cam with you, you can always use it to transfer material. But... If you rent it you're stuck with tapes not playable in Sony decks and since Canon doesn't make any decks chances are in editing studio you'll be forced to rent the cam again just to transfer the footage.

I guess It isn't such a problem for documentaries etc but it kinda crosses XHA1 25f out of ENG
world forcing broadcasters to have at least HV10 in their editing bays (aside from having Sony HDV decks ;) )

But as I mentioned... Choose your camera carefully. At the time I was making the movie, XH-A1 was the HDV-cam making the most beautiful and crisp footage, that made people at test-screenings ask me If it was really HDV. For me, even with problems mentioned above, XH-A1 was a clear choice. It gave me a nice picture with not a lot of cash with possibilities to make re-edits on my consumer laptop.

Right now my choice is either EX1 with 35mm or Scarlet (Oh... The Scarlet... :) ) and I have time till the end of this year to make a decision ;)

But everyone has their own expectations and their own requirements (including user interface) that can make them choose some cams above others and believe me... If the DP is any good... They'll make it work ;)

Cranky

08-19-2009, 08:24 AM

Oh I've read it. And you'll understand if I don't put much stock in a public encyclopedia where anybody can just update anonymously (in fact, I can just change it right now if I wanted to). Real world experience trumps Wikipedia any time. Let me just ask you one thing: have you ever try to capture Canon F mode footage using a Sony HDV camera? If you were successful I would love to hear about it, since it didn't work the times I actually tried it out.
Yes, anyone can change it, but reliable entries usually have references. Here are a couple real-world examples for you:

http://www.lafcpug.org/phorum/read.php?1,237084,237086

I went and shot a myriad of format types of footage with my Canon....

i used my Sony HVR M15AU to digitize said footage (firewire 400)....

all of the footage was able to be captured onto my MBP FCP2 with minor machine control issues...

when Digitizing SD 24F, 60I, and 30F at 16:9 i was able to use the FCP Capture tool with machine control under the Firewire NTSC Device Control..

When Digitizing HD 60I, 30F, and 24F I could use Apple intermediate codec, and Prores 422, but I could not get machine control..http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xh-series-hdv-camcorders/129531-sony-hvr-m15au-xh-xl-series.html

Just tested the XHA1 tape recorded at both 24f and 30f in the sony hvr-m15au deck. It worked perfectly.
But hey, since you love to quote from Wikipedia, here's an entry for you and a quote from it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_XL_H1

"1080i60 and 1080i50 are cross-compatible with Sony's implementation of HDV; Canon 1080i50 and 1080i60 can play on Sony HDV cameras and decks. Canon's 24f, 25f, and 30f are not cross-compatible with Sony's implementation of HDV. No 1080 HDV footage will play on JVC HDV cameras or decks."
Old info, gotta update it :)

Barry_Green

08-19-2009, 11:48 AM

No Sony camcorder, that I know of, can play Canon 24F footage, except maybe the very newest one. A Z1U, FX1, etc., definitely can't.

No Sony deck, other than the new HVR-M15AU, can play back Canon 24F footage.

Canon invented their own format when they added 24F. Nobody supported it, for years no deck could play it.

Sony recently adopted straight 24p recording, apparently compatibly with Canon's 24F implementation. So the very most recent cameras and decks that support Sony 24P (instead of 24p-over-60i) can apparently also play Canon 24F mode.

Cranky

08-19-2009, 12:20 PM

> No Sony camcorder, that I know of, can play Canon 24F footage,
> except maybe the very newest one. A Z1U, FX1, etc., definitely can't.

These are ancient and out of production.

> No Sony deck, other than the new HVR-M15AU,
> can play back Canon 24F footage.

Barry, have YOU cared to read the link? All the compatible equipment is listed there, with appropriate references.

> Canon invented their own format when they added 24F.
> Nobody supported it, for years no deck could play it.

I don't know for sure who invented it, but it has been part of HDV 1080i for quite a while. Maybe Canon proposed it, maybe it built the equipment and THEN added it to the spec, whatever the case it is part of the spec now. Canon implemented it first in 2006, Sony implemented it in 2008. Please, read the wiki, it is all in there.

> Sony recently adopted straight 24p recording,
> apparently compatibly with Canon's 24F implementation.
> So the very most recent cameras and decks that support
> Sony 24P (instead of 24p-over-60i) can apparently also play Canon 24F mode.

It is not Canon vs Sony, it is 1080-line native progressive HDV, which is a spec. It is a different story that only Canon and Sony currently make the equipment, still it is a spec, not Canon's own, proprietary, in-house format that they don't want to share.

Barry_Green

08-19-2009, 12:28 PM

No, I didn't go through the link, I was just trying to bridge the gap between you and Huy by pointing out how things developed.

When HDV was introduced, there was no specification for 1080p recording. It was 1080i-only. Sony was the only manufacturer.

When Canon introduced the XLH1, they went outside the format specification. They added their own 24F mode, which was not part of the HDV spec. There was much consternation and frustration among Canon users, in that no camera and no deck would play anything shot in 24F on a Canon camcorder, for years. Canon doesn't make decks, and Sony showed no interest in supporting a Canon-only variant outside of the HDV spec; Sony even introduced new decks that didn't support 24F.

Now, the HDV spec has been extended with a new category of "optional" support, for 1080 @ 24p/25p/30p. That is a very recent development, and very likely coincides with Sony's own introduction of 24p. The spec was not always thus, and certainly wasn't that way back in 2003 when HDV was announced, nor in 2004 when 1080 HDV first was introduced.

Barry_Green

08-19-2009, 12:35 PM

I have since gone through the link, and it manages to leave out the history.

Here's a reference from http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/sony_hvr_series_0101/index3.html

So what is HDV native progressive recording anyway, and why is it needed? The original HDV specification announced by Canon, Sharp, Sony, and JVC in September 2003 did not include 720/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/25p, 1080/24p, or 4-channel MPEG-2 Audio Layer II and PCM audio — these have since been appended in a revised spec that better answers professional needs.

I don't know the date the spec was updated, I'm still googling around for that. You'll notice on the hdv-info.org site that the specifications call it "version 1.0 (revised)"

Cranky

08-19-2009, 12:46 PM

> When HDV was introduced, there was no specification for 1080p recording.
> It was 1080i-only. Sony was the only manufacturer.

Umm... actually, it was 720p only, and the name of the technology originator was JVC ;-) Then Sony took it and ran away with it, screwing it up along the way, and throwing high definition back into stone ages of interlaced video.

> Now, the HDV spec has been extended with a new category
> of "optional" support, for 1080 @ 24p/25p/30p. That is
> a very recent development, and very likely coincides
> with Sony's own introduction of 24p.

I became interested in video technology only two years ago, so I don't know how recent is "recent", but I believe that two years ago progressive modes were already in the spec. I agree that Sony never does anything that does not benefit it. It pushed interlaced because it already had the technology, now it sees that progressive is in demand so it starts pushing it. It is sheer fun to read Sony's whitepapers and executive summaries, as if they invented progressive scan. Sony even created a special logo for progressive recording. Canon was creating idiotic names like Vixia instead of branding its progressive modes ("F" is not branding to me, "Frame mode" is used standard def only). I wonder can Canon use Sony's logo now?

> The spec was not always thus, and certainly wasn't
> that way back in 2003 when HDV was announced,
> nor in 2004 when 1080 HDV first was introduced.

2004 is ancient history ;-) Third-gen Sony camcorders have native progressive sensors, record native progressive to tape, and can even do tapeless onto CF or HDD.

Barry_Green

08-19-2009, 12:51 PM

Here's the specs on the original press release, you'll see no mention of 1080/24p or 25p or 30p in it.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200307/03-0704E/

Still can't find when it was revised to add those progressive formats.

Barry_Green

08-19-2009, 12:56 PM

Umm... actually, it was 720p only, and the name of the technology originator was JVC ;-) Then Sony took it and ran away with it

No... JVC introduced consumer HD recording, but it wasn't called HDV. HDV, as a "format", occurred in July of 2003, or, officially, October of 2003, and it was a merged effort between JVC and Sony. JVC's format does indeed pre-date HDV, but it was grandfathered into HDV when HDV became a multi-manufacturer specification.

It is sheer fun to read Sony's whitepapers and executive summaries, as if they invented progressive scan. Sony even created a special logo for progressive recording.
Agreed, they do have a peculiar twist on things. However, when it comes to video 24p, you do have to give it to Sony; they invented the first 24p video camera back in 2001 for George Lucas to shoot Star Wars Episode II. And, in fact, there's a trial-run scene in Star Wars Episode 1 that used the video 24p mode. Sony even won a technical achievement Emmy for its 24p system.

Canon was creating idiotic names like Vixia instead of branding its progressive modes ("F" is not branding to me, "Frame mode" is used standard def only). I wonder can Canon use Sony's logo now?
Okay, you want some more history fun? Canon didn't invent "frame mode", Panasonic did! The first camera with "frame mode" was the AG-EZ1. The XL1 is the camera that popularized frame mode, but it actually used Panasonic chips. Yes, the "beloved" XL1 and its frame mode were Panasonic chips, and yes, those chips used "pixel shift"! Hah.

2004 is ancient history ;-) Third-gen Sony camcorders have native progressive sensors, record native progressive to tape, and can even do tapeless onto CF or HDD.
Yes, but that doesn't change that Huy was completely right, up until Sony changed the rules.

Cranky

08-19-2009, 12:56 PM

I have since gone through the link, and it manages to leave out the history. Here's a reference from http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/sony_hvr_series_0101/index3.html
He does not mention Canon "F" modes, which means he does not know that after being written to tape these are the same formats. Also, he writes: "there are two ways to skin the cat in terms of acquiring progressive-scan HDV: interlace (PsF) and native progressive. Sony calls the first method “24p/30p Progressive Scan Mode” — segmenting a 24fps progressive scan over 60i with 2:3 pulldown." In reality, 25-fps and 30-fps are PsF, while 24-fps is 2-3 pulldown. I've never heard that fields in 2-3 pulldown stream are called "segments", this is the term used for PsF, which 24p-over-60i is not. And of course, 30PsF has nothing to do with 2-3 pulldown. So, he is sloppy with terms and does not have full info on the subject, therefore I cannot trust him. Names like Adam Wilt or Steve Mullen are more trustworthy to me.

I don't know the date the spec was updated, I'm still googling around for that. You'll notice on the hdv-info.org site that the specifications call it "version 1.0 (revised)"
Last time I googled for that I found nothing. I will try again. If I did find anything, I would sure have included it in the wiki entry ;-)

Barry_Green

08-19-2009, 01:04 PM

The Canon "f" modes are the same as Sony's "native progressive". Canon did it first, Sony copied it. But Canon did it on their own, and stepped outside the HDV format to do it, and when they did it they made their equipment incompatible with every other piece of HDV equipment on the market.

Sony, owner of the HDV logo, updated the spec when they decided to offer native progressive as well. And they grandfathered Canon in, just as JVC had been grandfathered in earlier.

Of course, the history is hidden, so the modern interpretation is "sony invented HDV, sony invented consumer HD recording, sony invented native progressive" but none of those statements are true.

If I were to bet, I'd bet that the HDV specification was "revised" the day that the V7U was introduced, since it was (IIRC) the first "native progressive" HDV camera from Sony.

Cranky

08-19-2009, 01:07 PM

No... JVC introduced consumer HD recording, but it wasn't called HDV. HDV, as a "format", occurred in July of 2003, or, officially, October of 2003, and it was a merged effort between JVC and Sony. JVC's format does indeed pre-date HDV, but it was grandfathered into HDV when HDV became a multi-manufacturer specification.
You caught me on the term usage ;-) I meant what you wrote above.

Agreed, they do have a peculiar twist on things. However, when it comes to video 24p, you do have to give it to Sony; they invented the first 24p video camera back in 2001
Allegedly, there is a dude who "invented" 24p. Basically, he suggested a "virtual telecine" for a videocam. No formulas, no long nights spent doing math, no mockups. He patented this pretty obvious and broad idea, and AFAIK all videocam manufacturers pay him for using his "patent". What a joke, the patenting system that is. AFAIK, Philips experimented with this idea before the dude patented his "invention", but Philips did nothing about it.

Yes, but that doesn't change that Huy was completely right, up until Sony changed the rules.
He would have been right a year ago, but not today :-) Can never trust old knowledge, everything is a'changing, being a software engineer I know it better than some. On the other hand, in software, changing an existing API (application programming interface) is a big no-no. They should have called it HDV 2.0 instead of simply "HDV revised".

Barry_Green

08-19-2009, 01:26 PM

Well, if we're talking about what they "should" have done, they should have made one format that was cross-compatible, and not three different and incompatible formats that all shared the same tape and the same name! :thumbsup:

But, that's pretty much all behind us now, as file-based memory recording removes tape incompatibilities from the process.

Cranky

08-19-2009, 02:17 PM

Sony released its third-gen HDV cameras just last year, so the battle is not over. Apparently, being blamed for releasing -- and dropping -- more recording standards than any other manufacturer, Sony sticks to HDV this time ;-)

Some more Sony advertising: http://www.dv.com/article/85882

And some Pana advertising for a balance: http://www.dv.com/article/85856

FrankC

08-19-2009, 11:03 PM

My opinion is that HDV is a dead format. But it won't die until AVCHD gets a bit better. Then it's less than 1080 recording format will wither away. Right now pros use it only when they have to give a tape to a client at the end of a shoot. They're not going to do that with an SxS card. However the MxR with a SDHC card is a new wrinkle.
Having said all that. I love my little Canon HV-30...superb pictures on HDV... that I backup my EX1 with.
And it's not lost on me than another tape based format just will not die... BetaCamSP.

PerroneFord

08-20-2009, 01:46 AM

But, that's pretty much all behind us now, as file-based memory recording removes tape incompatibilities from the process.

Right , now we have MXF incompatibilities, and OMF incompatibilities, and AVC incompatibilities, and codec incompatibilities, and card incompatibilities.

Not saying tape was better... I hate tape. But things are nearly as screwy now as they were in '04.

Barry_Green

08-20-2009, 09:30 AM

Right , now we have MXF incompatibilities, and OMF incompatibilities, and AVC incompatibilities, and codec incompatibilities, and card incompatibilities.

Not saying tape was better... I hate tape. But things are nearly as screwy now as they were in '04.
Yep -- but at least we can lay the blame clearly at the software manufacturers' feet this time. Before, it was hardware, they could throw their hands up and say "what can I do?" But now, they're just being obstinate, belligerent, market-segmenting weiners. Now, you know for sure that you're a political tool in the game they're trying to play, and you can easily vote with your feet and move to a platform that doesn't play those games.

Cranky

08-20-2009, 11:44 AM

My opinion is that HDV is a dead format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#The_future_of_HDV

FrankC

08-21-2009, 12:23 AM

That's what I'm saying. The best progressive scan you're going to get with HDV is 720. That ain't gonna cut it in a 1080p world. HDV has nowhere to go...it's at the end of it's technology.

Cranky

08-21-2009, 01:15 AM

That's what I'm saying. The best progressive scan you're going to get with HDV is 720. That ain't gonna cut it in a 1080p world. HDV has nowhere to go...it's at the end of it's technology.
Um, I don't get you. HDV 1080p cannot do 50p/60p, but so cannot AVCHD. HDV 720p can do 50p/60p just like AVCHD. HDV 1080p is native 24p/25p/30p just like AVCCAM. In terms of frame size and scan rates, current HDV spec and AVCHD spec are pretty much the same.

I think it is dying because it is tape-based, not because video quality is noticeably worse (if at all) than AVCHD.

Fohdeesha

08-21-2009, 03:11 AM

Man you guys will argue anything

Go make some movies

FrankC

08-21-2009, 09:23 AM

Yeah... That's what makes it fun here.
As I understand it, there is no such thing as HDV 1080p (progressive scan)... only 720p. However there is 1080i (interlaced scan) you might be thinking of. Totally different. Most feel the interlaced mode gives too much of a "video" look.
Cranky is right on one point. Some HDV does look better than AVCHD. But as I said, that is only for the moment. Technology will improve AVCHD to surpass HDV. The tape-based HDV is at its technological limit and probably can't be improved much more.

Barry_Green

08-21-2009, 10:48 AM

The HDV specification was extended in 2008 (or so) to add 1080/24p and 1080/30p.

Cranky

08-21-2009, 10:57 AM

As I understand it, there is no such thing as HDV 1080p (progressive scan)... only 720p.
Not to sound like an ass, but why would not you go and read the wiki article, the link to which I have posted like three times already? Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#HDV_1080p

The tape-based HDV is at its technological limit and probably can't be improved much more.
They can speed it up, with corresponding loss in recording time. Roughly, 40% increase in tape speed would bring HDV to 35 Mbit/s, this is current XDCAM EX rate. This would lower recording time to about 40 minutes, the same as Digital8, not bad. With 80 min tapes this would yield the same one hour of recording. But I doubt they will do any of that, tape is winding down (sorry for the pun). Also, Sony would not want to hurt its XDCAM EX sales.

FrankC

08-21-2009, 11:09 AM

Thank you Barry... We know we can always depend on you. Now somebody has to correct the Wikipedia listing !!!
( Dang...that means my older Canon HV-30 is already obsolete!)

Cranky

08-21-2009, 11:12 AM

The HDV specification was extended in 2008 (or so) to add 1080/24p and 1080/30p.
And 1080/25p too. Native. No 2-3 pulldown, no PsF.

Cranky

08-21-2009, 11:13 AM

Thank you Barry... We know we can always depend on you. Now somebody has to correct the Wikipedia listing !!!
( Dang...that means my older Canon HV-30 is already obsolete!)
It cannot shoot AND record native 24p or 30p, but it can record native 24p and 30p in deck mode, and it can play these tapes back. It is all in the wiki article.

FrankC

08-21-2009, 11:24 AM

You see... That's why I love this site. You guys taught me something... Sincerely Thanks.

male_man

08-25-2009, 05:00 AM

Does anybody know what camera is used to shoot dancing with the stars?

Barry_Green

08-25-2009, 09:23 AM

male_man

08-25-2009, 11:25 PM

cheezweezl

08-25-2009, 11:44 PM

I ask this because that show when watched in hd, is the sharpest I ever saw in any format.

do you have discovery hd theater? i haven't seen this show in a bit but "insectia" is the sharpest hd broadcast i have ever seen. i've seen dancing with the stars. insectia much sharper.

male_man

08-26-2009, 08:15 AM

do you have discovery hd theater? i haven't seen this show in a bit but "insectia" is the sharpest hd broadcast i have ever seen. i've seen dancing with the stars. insectia much sharper.

I don't have that, but I can't see how anything can be sharper than that show on my pana plazma. I find myself just admiring the picture, looks kinda like 3d. I will however, try to check out insectia on discovery hd.

Chadfish

08-26-2009, 10:04 AM

I have to say that "Planet Earth" is the best looking HD series I have ever laid eyes on. They probably don't use any EX cameras, but since you were naming nice looking HD shows...

Barry_Green

08-26-2009, 10:48 AM

Chadfish

08-26-2009, 10:52 AM

They used:

"We shot a lot of footage on the Sony HDW-750, especially where we were controlling the light, such as in the cave," he said.

A Sony HDC-950 was used for much of the aerial gimbal shooting, along with a Canon HJ40 400x lens. The Panasonic Varicam, which Cordey sometimes used to give some sequences a film look, also got a workout at other sites.

The entire series--spanning nearly 2,000 shoot days--was captured in 720p, 1080i and 1080p--as well as a few sequences on HD-friendly 35mm film. Discovery HD will air the series in 1080i. Dolby 5.1 Surround

DadinWestchester

08-26-2009, 05:38 PM

Probably VariCams or HPX2000s. ABC is a 720p network and the show is shot 720p.
http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=D2BDD2BF0891486F82C4CD18D88D5192

Out in the field, they use Sony Z1 HDV cams.

Very strange workflow. The interviews are shot with handheld panas at 720p, the field work shot at with Sony's at 1080i and the live studio is Sony studio cam 900's at 1080i since it is CBS. That is why it is so sharp. SONY studio cams.....
The STUDIO cams at NBC and CBS are SONY, the news cams are the "standard" throwaway 300 panas.

Barry_Green

08-26-2009, 05:43 PM

That is why it is so sharp. SONY studio cams.....
What?

Where did Sony studio cameras enter into the picture? It's not a CBS show, it's an ABC show. And ABC is a 720p network. It's shot on 720p DVCPRO-HD, according to the article.

DadinWestchester

08-26-2009, 05:49 PM

Barry, it's shot at CBS studios. CBS only has SONY 1080i cameras in the studio. CBS and NBC only record in 1080i. Only the INTERVIEWS are shot in 720p.
Lots of standards conversion. Read the article.

Cranky

08-26-2009, 05:49 PM

I have to say that "Planet Earth" is the best looking HD series I have ever laid eyes on. They probably don't use any EX cameras, but since you were naming nice looking HD shows...
Planet Earth is also DVCPRO-HD, they use VariCams.

Kind of calls into question the whole 720p vs. 1080i thing, doesn't it? :D You never can tell with just numbers. You've got to just look at the actual footage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/11/bbc_hd_picture_quality_and_dol.html

Although 720 is HD for transmission, the international standards say it's not for programme exchange. Most of the HD programmes we make are 1080p25 (recorded, post produced and delivered 1080psf25) so are at the highest possible quality. Other programmes are 1080i25 so we have them in the archive at a standard that the rest of the world accepts as HD. ... The vast majority of HD programmes are produced using the 1080p25 format and I assume this will continue until cinema moves from 24p to a higher frame rate.
...
The Varicam has an "exemption" from the rule as it is still the only camera able to shoot NHU programmes in the way a simple Super16 film camera does. ... The list of HD NHU programmes shot on the Varicam is now very large and is still growing. It would be safe to assume just about every wildlife programme shown on the channel has used the Varicam for some if not most of the HD shooting. We will continue to use the Varicam for some time as there is no viable 1080 alternative yet. ... We clearly state the this camera will not be allowed as soon as a 1080 version is available.

Barry_Green

08-26-2009, 05:58 PM

Barry, it's shot at CBS studios. CBS only has SONY 1080i cameras in the studio. CBS and NBC only record in 1080i. Only the INTERVIEWS are shot in 720p.
Lots of standards conversion. Read the article.
It's shot at CBS Studio City, which is pretty much an open production facility where lots of shows for lots of different networks get shot. American Idol, Deal or No Deal, So You Think You Can Dance, all sorts of shows. It's not a CBS "sony-only" facility.

The only reference I can google related to what kind of cameras they have on hand were Hitachis, and that was from 1999.

DadinWestchester

08-26-2009, 06:02 PM

Barry, They're Sony. You dont go switching standards when you design a facility it's one or the other. You record in one standard and convert. CBS and NBC have always used Sony as studio cameras.

Barry_Green

08-26-2009, 06:05 PM

And yet -- how do you know? You're declaring it as a definite fact, and I'm asking why you say it. It could be Ikegami, it could be Hitachi, it could be Sony, it could be Panasonic, it could be Thomson, it could be any combination. And each studio might be configured independently.

DadinWestchester

08-26-2009, 07:56 PM

Barry, I know........ Nobody configures studios independently. It just isnt done. Don't argue. Sony has the studio market sewn up with switchers and cameras. Additionally, CBS just put in new loaded MVS8000G switchers and Evertz EQX 576 × 576 HD/SD/ASI router at Studio City. The Facillity uses HDC-1500HD and XDCAMHD cameras.
It's an all new 1080i HD embedded audio, server-based, tapeless facility. You dont just flip a switch and go from 720p to 1080i.