DVX v. HX1

[ccroo]

Dear Folks:

Anyone here hesitating to buy a DVX because of the impending hidef Sony? I am. What should we do?

Raoul

[BrianAWells]

I think most people here already own a DVX100 or DVX100a. That being said, I'm interested in the Sony, too. HDV as a format, though higher in lines of resolution, is not as good on paper as MiniDV in terms of color depth and exposure latitude. So, it's a toss up. I think I would opt for the Sony in a New York minute, IF, I could find a suitable uncompressed portable hard disc recorder for it. At the present time, I would have to take a G5 iMac, an AJA I/O la, and still could only get SD quality uncompressed. My opinion is that a great looking SD image leaves a heathier impression on me than a heavily compressed but high resolution Hi-Def image. That is my opinion. So, I only would seek a MiniDV with component outputs, which since none exist at the present time, I would opt for the Sony since it (most likely, but I am not certain) would have 1080i and NTSC switchable component outputs and would fit my application well. If Panasonic improved the DVX to include component outputs and Quickstream would release a device to record uncompressed 23.98fps 8 bit 4:2:2 video, which comes out to 16MB/second plus audio, then I'd be shooting "miniDV" for a long time to come. And, I'd still be using Panasonic over Sony any day of the week. (very opinionated statement)

Brian

[dvpixl]

you go for yours Brian!
HDV has got a long way to go before you afford to utilize it.
and if i had the money, i'd shoot my movie on a sony hdw f900.

[ccroo]

Less color depth and exposure latitude? That sounds lousy.
But the extra resolution... Framing wider without having faces pixelate...

[BrianAWells]

Optimally, they would just lose the tape mechanism and give us SDI outputs only. Then, some enterprising indiviual would create the aforementioned uncompressed HD 4:4:4 using a small stack of 500GB microdrives (HA!) and the entire thing would weigh six pounds and look better than a 900.

Actually, to make it one step better, they could lose the lens as well and add a PL-mount so we could use prime lenses of our own choosing. Heck, Arri primes are made by Zeiss, so we'd still get Zeiss optics for those who must have their Zeiss.... Then, the camera should be priced much lower since there is no recording mechanism and no lens and we would get excellent picture quality. This is not too far off when one ponders the the entire universe and the small part of it we fill in terms of time. Even five years would be amazing. Fact is, that is about all it would take for a six pound 1080p with a 35MM sized image sensor, mount for traditional motion picture film lenses, and a highly compact disc based recorder.. maybe even bluray dvd media instead of hard disc... doesn't really matter. I think it'll be here within five years, whether Sony makes it all, or aftermarket products. Doesn't matter. It's only a matter of time.

This sort of thing has happened in every other industry.. the idea of the average guy being able to afford the equipment that only the professionals once could.. Remember when desktop PC's were introduced with software that allowed "the average guy" to embark in desktop publishing? Print shops were worried they wouldn't survive. In reality though, if you can't make a good layout on paper, then you can't do it with software either. Hence, when I need business cards I have it done by a professional. I don't use those tacky inkjet-perforated cards. I know I'm not the only one. Kinko's was not around much when PC's were introduced with Photoshop, but they sure do a lot of business now.

Same goes with photography. It is widely known that a good wedding photographer used medium format film with 2 1/4" square negatives or 2.7 times the size of 35MM. Now all I see are top notch photographers ($3,000/Day sitting fee and up) in town using Canon EOS-1, a $4500 digital camera. NO film to develop, instant gratification, and even the clients prefer it now. And, even with the EOS Rebel whose greatest fault is the 1.6x magnification of EOS lenses costs under a grand for 6 Mexapixel images. This is a far cry from the first Casio VGA quality (0.6 Megapixel) digital camera I saw in 1996 for $1,000.00. Simple math: ten times the quality in less than eight years.

We'll see this as time goes on and faster than ever before. Camera technology will become more affordable and image capturing quality will become better.

Some things will never change, IMHO. Renting a Fisher 10 Dolly will always cost $350/day and will require a million dollar liability insurance policy. (At $300/year for most small businesses it's actually less than the rental, but you get the idea!) Having used Fisher stuff extensively it's worth every last penny. And, if you use it often enough ya might as well get the yearly lease... it's only, you know, $700.00 a month, or $100.00 a month if you are an accredited film school. Or, at least convince them you are. Just kidding that won't work. ;)

On the comment about framing pictures wider without having them pixelate... have you ever seen a great uncompressed image or even a DV50 format such as DigiBeta on a great monitor? SD looks awesome but I think most think it sucks because of the advent of HD. Delivery method's remain the same. DVD's are standard def. How does anyone plan on delivering their material in an HD format? Does anyone plan on sending their home movies to digital theatre's expecting it to be projected or something? What am I missing? Will HBO accept HDV tapes now? DigiBeta, on a good, large monitor, through component cables or SDI, look absolutely awesome. HD looks great, too. But, so much of it on local tv, here in my town, locally, is unconverted to 1080i, except one station which (*may be*) 720p. I'm not sure. It looks awesome, too. But, the local NBC and FOX affiliates (owned by the same guy and share the same website.. how funny is that) are using standard def news camera's and yet the film at eleven always looks awesome. Remember, HD isn't ten times the quality but only two. 720x480NTSC vs. 1440x980, which is generally upconverted to full HD. Actually, to date not a single offering by Sony or Panasonic or Ikegami, etc. etc. even natively captures full HD. They are all highly compressed formats (except Sony's brand spanking new 800Mbps format... woohoo!!) with only double the native resolution. Not terribly impressive IMHO. It's only the difference between VGA and XVGA or so. Was there this much of a stir when our computer monitors doubled their resolution? Not that I can remember. Is that what the entire world is all worked up about? Double the resolution? Give me a break. My only interest is preserving/and or making the best of what the camera technology has to offer and the recording medium throws away. HDV is what, someone help here, 4:2:0 color definition? Worse than DV! I have a hard enough time color timing DV to look decent with it's 4:1:1 color sampling. I understand MPEG2 can be more and definately is more efficient than DV's MJPEG-based compression technique, but any time I can record direct to disc, uncompressed, well then I will. I have and I will.

Brian

[Richard__Knight]

So...between the two cameras, preference is to be determined by a dvd standard?

[Dan_Lahav]

aside from quality... you can always downres your HD footage and it'll look better than the DVX as far as resolution goes. There has only been one sample so far... this question is pointless until we see some real reviews and clips. If you need a cam now, get the DVX. If not, wait for the reviews.

[Aejaz]

I think, at the moment, choice between the DVX abd HX1 ( or for that matter any other HD cam) is just like choosing between 'Information Technology' and 'space engineering' as possible careers. Both should be considered as 'profitable' careers. First is one of the most common choices of the day, the other is a future investment...roughly speaking.

But how many would go for the second option and why?....I am sure each one of them 'must' have a valid reason to choose to specialise in that field. However whatever the raison d'eter for the decison, I am sure it must relate to the space engineering itself, not the IT. :D

The ongoing debate of DVX vs HD cams nonetheless shows the strong imprint DVX has had on the minds of the people. DVX HAS set some standards, which, though not impossible to beat, are invariably considred before a decison to OVERSTEP it. *

Just a thought

[XCheck]

HDV is what, someone help here, 4:2:0 color definition? *Worse than DV! *I have a hard enough time color timing DV to look decent with it's 4:1:1 color sampling.

Do I misunderstand? I thought that 4:2:0 has better color rendition than 4:1:1 because it samples Cr or Cb for every two pixels on alternate lines, whereas 4:1:1 samples Cr and Cb for every four pixels. That's why in SD, PAL looks better than NTSC. With HD resolution roughly twice that of SD, that actually translates to four times more color information for the same image area.

I understand your concern with compression and the rest of your post, but unless I am missing something, HD with 4:2:0 will definitely look better than SD with 4:1:1. Then you have other issues, of course, like the number/size of chips, etc...

[Policar]

You're both not exactly right about 4:2:0 versus 4:1:1 but you're close.

Think of 4:2:0 as having 360X240 pixels of color information and 4:1:1 as sampling 180X480 pixels. 4:2:0 is half resolution in both dimensions; 4:1:1 is 1/4 resolution in one dimension. It's the same amount of color, but, imo, 4:2:0 looks better because the artifacts "look" smaller, though at 4X1 pixels they are technically the same size as 4X2 pixels in PAL.

[BrianAWells]

I appreciate the correction. Thank you.

Brian

[XCheck]

Yes, that's how I understand it - but I was referring to 4:2:0 in HD vs. 4:1:1 in SD. With vertical resolution of HD roughly twice of SD, that's how I came up with approximately four times color information... Otherwise we are talking about the same thing.

BTW, Policar: your explanation is very good - in simple terms. I like it.

[magicdavek]

I understand there is some broadcasting in high def, and there are high def DVDs on the horizon, but really, don't you think it will be quite a while before High Def TVs, players, etc. are in most homes? Right now, for the average videographer, it seems high def would be lost on the bulk of their potential viewers. Yes, we'll all be there some day, but why all the extra cost and hassle in the meantime when current SD technology is still the norm, even in network broadcasting? This DVX vs HX1 question will be more relevant next year and even more relevant still in the year after that. But right now, for someone whose actually producing video on a regular basis, SD is fine. Unless you have some special needs, types of clients, or other nitch market, I just don't see high def as being there (YET!).

[Ranger]

Anyone here hesitating to buy a DVX because of the impending hidef Sony? *I am. *What should we do?
Hesitation? You bet!

Between the DVX, XL2 and the now the FX1, it has felt like Russian roulette. When I first started doing research into video cameras, the choice was pretty obvious – the DVX100A. From the example footage I saw, I liked the look, feel and color of the DVX with its signature 24p. However, the lack of a native 16:9 chip concerned me a lot (enough so that it prevented me from purchasing the camera). Then the XL2 comes along with its pseudo native 16:9 and 24p. After seeing Johnnie's video clips I'm psyched. Yet, like the DVX before it, I was concerned about certain aspects of the camera - chromatic aberration being one of them. Additionally, the viewfinder had me concerned. Would its small size be adequate for the job (early user reports are starting to bear fruit to such concerns)? I’m a huge fan of Canon’s digital SLR cameras and lens, but unfortunately the XL2 failed to convert me. After much anticipation, its arrival was a big let down for many of us. Now, with a Mike Tyson sucker punch to Canon’s gut, Sony announces the FX1. First generation technology, but with the potential to blow SD video out of the water. And like the two cameras before it, it too has its perceived limitations.

Which one will I choose? I guess it depends on each person’s needs and requirements. So far, I am leaning towards the FX1. For me personally, I’m not a filmmaker (in the classic sense) and have no desire to be one. 24p is nice, but not a deal breaker in my book. What is important to me is higher resolution and a true 16:9 chip (among other things). So far, most initial reports have been very favorable toward the Sony, but it’s far too soon to tell. Too bad it will not have 24p; it would’ve been a HUGE success with the Indie crowd much like the DVX is now. Eventually, the market will give the consumers what they want, but until then the FX1 has enough features that I am looking for in a camera.

[Ranger]

I understand there is some broadcasting in high def, and there are high def DVDs on the horizon, but really, don't you think it will be quite a while before High Def TVs, players, etc. are in most homes? Right now, for the average videographer, it seems high def would be lost on the bulk of their potential viewers. Yes, we'll all be there some day, but why all the extra cost and hassle in the meantime when current SD technology is still the norm, even in network broadcasting? This DVX vs HX1 question will be more relevant next year and even more relevant still in the year after that. But right now, for someone whose actually producing video on a regular basis, SD is fine. Unless you have some special needs, types of clients, or other nitch market, I just don't see high def as being there (YET!).
Yes, HDV development and acceptance into mainstream consumer homes is a major hurdle, but it doesn't have to be a deal breaker either. Many feel that an image captured on a HDV camera and then converted down to SD will (may) have a higher resolution than footage shot directly from a SD source.

Is it enough for someone to put down their current DVX and replace it with the FX1? Probably not, but for someone (like myself) that does not own a camera yet, it's worth a least some consideration.

[Barry_Green]

Regarding 4:2:0 vs. 4:1:1... they have the exact same amount of color information, just in a different pattern.

For every 4x2 block of pixels, they have two color samples. 4:2:0 has two samples every other line, 4:1:1 has one sample every line. 4:1:1 has 100% resolution on the vertical axis, 25% resolution on the horizontal. 4:2:0 has 50% resolution on the vertical, and 50% on the horizontal.

It all adds up to the same, it's just in a different pattern.

The 4:2:0 of HDV might look great considering that there are 4x as many pixels on the frame.

[magicdavek]

*4:2:0 has two samples every other line, 4:1:1 has one sample every line. *4:1:1 has 100% resolution on the vertical axis, 25% resolution on the horizontal. *4:2:0 has 50% resolution on the vertical, and 50% on the horizontal.

Barry, could you please help a real dullard. Define exactly what you mean by resolution along the vertical or horizontal axis. You you mean resolution along the vertical lines of the picture?

[Barry_Green]

Well, think of the picture in terms of 4x2 grids. In both systems there will be two color samples. They'll be different shapes: in 4:1:1 the color sample is wide and one pixel high, in 4:2:0 the color sample is a square.

Like this:

1111 = four pixels wide, 1 = color sample 1
2222 = 2 = color sample 2

In 4:2:0, it looks like this:
1122
1122

Put another way, in 4:1:1 the color samples bleed over horizontally, whereas in 4:2:0 they bleed down vertically.

[Barry_Green]

I don't know if that made much sense.

Another way to look at it is that in 4:1:1 sampling you have a color grid of 180 x 480.

In 4:2:2 sampling you have a grid of 360 x 240.

In 4:1:1 you get 1/4 the resolution horizontally, but full resolution vertically.

In 4:2:0 you get half the resoltuion horizontally and half the resolution vertically.

It all adds up the same: 180 x 480 = 86,400 color samples per frame, and 360 x 240 = 86,400 color samples per frame.

[Guest]

Hi folks. This is a good discussion and I think very much on the minds of many folks around here.

I recently attended the Canadian launch of XL2 in Toronto and admit coming away let down - as let down in the summer when speculation XL2 might have been HDV didn't pan out.

I love my DVX100 but am very interested in the FX1 - the fact that the JVC HDV-type cams weren't 3-CCD discounted them immediately.

In my research on the various Sony-FX1-related sites around the web, I've come to realize that Sony is positioning this new cam as a bona-fide entry level to HD, not just some pseudo-HD format like some claim. There's a tiny bit of footage that impresses me despite being "web-filtered" when I compare it to my XL1/DVX100 footage converted for the internet. So I have high hopes.

Would Sony be stealing Canon's thunder right now if HDV wasn't the real deal? Can they really afford egg on their faces right now? I am optimistic that HDV will deliver. Sony wouldn't be touting it the way they are if it didin't.

I'm going FX1 as soon as I can get it if it offers significant obvious advantage to SD. Who cares if Matsushita (JVC/Panasonic) counter with something in time or if Canon one year joins HDV fray - you can always wait for something better... The FX1 now seems "better" enough to warrant serious consideration.

Poor Canon - this has certainly affected them the most.

Now DVX not having truly native 16:9 nor JVC not having 3-CCD HDV... will be most interesting to see how Matsushita cares to respond to FX1 in (hopefully-near) future.

[Barry_Green]

Would Sony be stealing Canon's thunder right now if HDV wasn't the real deal? *Can they really afford egg on their faces right now? *I am optimistic that HDV will deliver. *Sony wouldn't be touting it the way they are if it didin't.
Frankly, yes they would. *Just like they did with MicroMV, like with Digital8, and heck, they came out so proud about their new PD170... all left them with Ostrich egg on their face.

So the simple fact that Sony's the one launching it doesn't imbue it with any undue credibility; Sony fouls up as frequently as they get it right. *The days of "Sony can do no wrong" are long past... Sony definitely can do wrong. *Look at the TRV950's replacement, no manual controls and all touch-screen... ugh.

However, it sure seems like with this FX1, they did it right. *I think it looks like a dynamite camera, and I sure hope the image quality holds up, and I suspect it will. *Sure we all wish it was 24P, but it isn't... but it looks like a very good implementation of 1080/60i. *The only failing I can see in it is the lack of XLR's. *Sony can get it very, very right when they try: the VX1000 was an out-of-the-park home run, as was the PD150 and the DSR500. *

[Barry_Green]

Okay, here's an interesting question: would you rather have a 720x540 progressive-scan 4:4:4 image?

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn on DVInfo.net posted that the Sony could do that, and after a bit of thinking, I think he's right.

If you take a 1440 x 1080 (as the Sony shoots) interlaced frame, at 4:2:0, and just discard one field, you're left with a 1440 x 540 4:2:2 progressive-scan image. Down-rez that by throwing away every other horizontal pixel, and ... yep, looks like 720 x 540 at 4:4:4. Quite interesting.

[Aejaz]

so can we presume that the hd format is ...'Progressive Ready'

[XCheck]

Okay, here's an interesting question: would you rather have a 720x540 progressive-scan 4:4:4 image?

<snip>

yep, looks like 720 x 540 at 4:4:4. *Quite interesting.
Now all we need is manual zoom and manual focus!

Interesting indeed - I would love to see downrezzed images compared with a DVX or XL2... It would have to go through a very precise process, though - actually throwing away the exact unused (unsampled) pixels rather than just interpolate. But then again, the unsampled pixels have the same Cy,Cr,Cb values as their sampled predecessors on the scan line, no?

In any case, it would make for a great plug-in.

[ccroo]

Panasonic should release a new DVX with real 16:9 chips and anamorphic in the LCD and viewfinder. Wouldn't that be nice?

Raoul

[ChuckS]

I understand there is some broadcasting in high def, and there are high def DVDs on the horizon, but really, don't you think it will be quite a while before High Def TVs, players, etc. are in most homes?

In part that may depend on where you live. In the Los Angeles area, it is increasingly difficult to walk into Best Buys or Good Guys and purchase a 4x3 CRT. They are being relegated to less and less shelf space. They are selling predominantly 16X9 LCD and Plasma screens.

As much as some of us might like to think that Sony is creating the new HDV camera for all of us “independent” film producers, by lowering the price barrier Sony is insuring a much faster acceptance of HD. When the consumers are showing off their new camera to their friends, I am sure the first thing out of their mouth will be “check out my new HD camera! For us this is a continuation of the format wars, for the average consumer the “V” does not mean anything.

There also seems to be a proliferation of HD channels coming on-line, I’m not sure what HD content they are showing – but that doesn’t seem to be stopping them. I think HD is being adopted at an astounding rate.

~chuck

[magicdavek]

In part that may depend on where you live.

*I think HD is being adopted at an astounding rate.

~chuck



I don't want my previous post to be misinterpreted. HD is here to stay, in fact, I've read that everything will be broadcast in HD and you'll need an adapter in order to use a traditional NTSC set. I've also read that the timetable for that is much slower than orignially projected. My point is that if you are looking to buy a camera TODAY, I don't think you're going to be left behind by buying a DVX or XL2. HD is not in most homes and will not be for a few more years. Of course stores want to promote TVs that cost thousands of dollars compared to $300 traditional sets. But buying for today doesn't mean you are stuck in SD for the next 10 years.

Also consider that by the time HD is in most homes and most of your client base will be using HD, there will be lots of cameras to choose from, many better the HX1 (and even less expensive).

I bought my DVX in May, and I wouldn't have purchased the HX1 even if it was available and cheaper. I like choosing between "video" and "film" with the DVX - the HX1 can't do that for me. For my projects and uses, it would create more complications. I won't be saying this in three years, but I have work to do between now and then. The DVX gives me a smooth ride for the next few years while the HX1 would be an uphill battle before it got easy. It is a rare client who needs HD right now. There are still some who (ugh) don't even have DVD players. I tell them they're getting a DVD anyway along with their VHS for future purposes. I cannot in good conscience take money from clients in exchange for VHS only. But HD? Not even close yet.

[magicdavek]

Thanks for the response, Barry. Too bad these posts couldn't include little graphics to illustrate the grids you mention. I "sort of" follow your explanation, but it's hard to know if I've really got it or not.

[Anhar_Miah]

very true!, but i remember buying a 1 mega pixel digital still camera and thinking wow this pictures are pretty , then later getting a 2 mega pixel camera and thinking WOW these are even better and then getting a 6 mega pixel and thinging WOOOOW these are even greater still!

when i had the 1 MP cam i thought it would suffice, then when i got the 2 MP cam i never used the 1 MP cam, finally when i got the 6 MP cam i have never looked back at the 2 and 1 MP cams.

Now the same things happing with DV (when does it stop!) ;D

[magicdavek]

when i had the 1 MP cam i thought it would suffice, then when i got the 2 MP cam i never used the 1 MP cam, finally when i got the 6 MP cam i have never looked back at the 2 and 1 MP cams.*;D

You are really comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they're both fruit because both involve digital imaging, but the difference in image between a 1 and 3 megapixel is much greater than the difference between high quality SD and HD. In fact, I get the impression that the consensus of this board is that high quality SD (e.g., DVX, PD170, XL1, XL2, etc.) is better than low quality HD (JVC's 1 CCD GR-HD1).

In the photography world, 35mm film has been standard. The progression from 1, 2, 3. and beyond megapixel cameras simply represents the attempt to get closer that standard of 35mm film. Now those cams 3-8 megapixel) are to the point that the naked eye can't tell the difference between digital and film, especially in 4x6 or 5x7 (or higher) photos. Video is a different story. SD has been the standard in video like film has been the standard in photography - these both represent the quality we've been used to. Now HD allows us to get a clearer picture on big TVs. And remember, it's only because of larger screens that there's been a move to HD. In SD, the same amount of information is being used on your 19 inch television as on the 42 inch large screen SD TV, so on the big screen it is stretched out and looks blurry - a really poor picture. So if you want a big TV, you need HD. If no one was interested in a TV beyond a 19" size, there would be little need for HD. When you are sitting across the room watching a 19" SD TV next to a 19" HD, you'd probably notice the HD is sharper. But do the same test with a 42" SD and 42" HD and the contrast between the two will be tremendous.

It doesn't seem fair to me to make an analogy comparing qood quality SD with those 1 megapixel photos. When you thought those were good pictures, I suspect you were thinking in comparison with the first digital still cameras which were 640x480, and not saying they look good in comparison to 35mm film.

The bottom line is that high quality SD is only going to look inadequate if either you are watching it on a large screen or standing too close to a small screen.

[Aejaz]

In theory, yes you are absolutely right, magicdavek.

However in practice, specially if it relates to professional work, there are factors other than mere resolution that are EQUALLY or even MORE important. You know it ...I need not elaborate.

Many people believe that in the overall comparison JVC Hd Cam GR-HD1 comes no way near DVX....despite its high resolution. Hence you are right ... the consensus is that "high end SD cams are better than low end HD cams". But I think the consensus does not end here. It goes a little further saying " it is also the application or usability or cost/benefit ratio of the HD cams which would determine an SD camera owner's decison to shift to the new technology....resolution of the camera is not the only deciding factor in this regard".

HD is a better technology than SD....who has a doubt about that? But how quickly everyone and related technologies realign with the new shift...that we will have to wait and see. Till then we can be comfortable with our SD cams....and try to do some good videography.

Just an opinion

[Antoine_Fabi]

I think that dynamic range is much much more important than resolution.

[tuface]

I agree.