Uncompressed signal out .. what does it mean ?

[redindian]

Does it mean we can actually bypass HDV and its GOP6 compression.., then what do we get .... *gasp* raw unprocessed 4:4:4 ?

So what does it take to process that uncompressed signal ?



ram

[Barry_Green]

It means you will likely bypass HDV and its GOP compression, yes. As to whether it'll be 4:4:4 or not, we don't know yet. It depends on where in the signal path the decimation to 4:2:0 takes place. If it's after the DSP, which it should be (so gamma, color shifts, pedestal settings, white balance adjustments, menu tweaks, etc. all show up in the output) then I would go on record as *guessing* that it's going to be 4:2:0 on the outputs. But that's a guess.

Also, uncompressed out means you'll need a way to capture and record. That typically means a heavy-duty desktop computer, an uncompressed HD I/O card, and a RAID of hard disks. You're talking about 166 megabytes per second of footage, or about 70x as much space as HDV footage on tape. Not likely something you'd be doing in the field.

[Robert_Niemann]

166 Megabytes per second? If blows me away... (and maybe most of the hard disk drives too).

[Barry_Green]

That's what I'm saying. People seem excited about the 60p uncompressed output of the JVC, and I'm not sure why, because it'd be highly impractical to use it. The Sony FX1 and Z1 also have uncompressed output, but I don't think I've heard of anyone using it yet; I'm 99% certain the Panasonic will have it as well, but -- what's the point, if you can't use it?

I guess in some limited studio circumstances you could use it, but until there's some practical and portable way to record 166 megabytes per second, um... doesn't seem like it's of much value. Unless you're solely working in a live HD switching environment, at which point it'd be a great thing to have!

[fomoDVXpal]

I'm not sure how large the files would be but one thing I know for certain HDV just doesn't cut it if you want a high-end production.

If it can be transferred to a lossless codec then I would say you could at least use it for commercial or music videos...or short films.

One thing I’m hoping for is larger hard disks to come out. By the time I get one of these cameras I hope the current storage average is doubled.

[reservoir]

If you *could* record uncompressed at 4:2:0, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4, and had the money to do so (Buying a badass RAID system), then you'd be a regular Robert Rodrigeuz / George Lucas. :)

~reservoir~

[ChuckS]

Or you could use the ProspectHD codec capture 10bit 4:2:2 compressed HD that would look much better than the DVCProHD codec, all over firewire.

[xray]

I guess in some limited studio circumstances you could use it, but until there's some practical and portable way to record 166 megabytes per second, um... doesn't seem like it's of much value. Unless you're solely working in a live HD switching environment, at which point it'd be a great thing to have!

Its the same limitation P2 gives you, you only can shoot for minutes on a drive.
Working daily with 1:2 compression Media 100/Avid files most of the editing stations today can work with uncompressed material. Sure I don't now how it is for the semi-amateur world like you described some time ago. (people buying cameras without reading specs)

[Barry_Green]

Except P2 can go in the field, fits in the camera, can be handheld run 'n' gun, etc. Using the uncompressed output on one of these cams seems like you'd have the same limitations you'd have on the Viper -- you'd have to wheel around a caseload of RAID drives and a desktop computer, chained to the camera through the component outputs.

[xray]

Yes, now you're right. It gives you the same recording time but it is studio only. (I can live with intelligent small image compression, I do'nt need the raw image) Digibeta go in the field too.

[Isaac_Brody]

So impractical.

[lebroz]

this is a great thing for chroma keying on a budget, I'm surprised all of you aren't excited about this.

why trample over something that can do nothing but help you and it isn't even in its final stages.

Computer technology grows quick

you can buy 4 gigabytes of ram right now

1 GB DDR = $100 4 x $400 for 4 Gigabytes- that is DDR400 200MHZx2 and if you have a dual channel mobo 4 get about it a sweet amount of bandwidth

so even if you don't have a hard drive you can capture,

with hard drive if you have a 4 GB (ram) buffer than you can easily handle 4:4:4

so say you have a laptop , 2 GB of ram in sodimm should be about $250-350 couple that with a 5k rpm hard drive and up (the 16MB cache Toshiba is sweet) you have a portable hardrive/ monitor

cheap laptop with ram hard drive upgrades/ your camera / 4:4:4

thats a Sweet setup and I'm sure the smart ones Will follow my advise

Peece L.J.

[will_griffith]

from the info on hdforindies it looks like it will really have uncompressed 720p60 output
before the MPEG compression.

this is going to make a great effects camera.

-will

[joelnet]

this is a great thing for chroma keying on a budget, I'm surprised all of you aren't excited about this.

why trample over something that can do nothing but help you and it isn't even in its final stages.


Yeah. Keying is what I want to do so this is a big deal. And what if a device was built that converted the output to Avid's HD codec and saved to hard drive? That might be here before the Panny is even on the marktet. That would be a really cool solution. And since the Sony is capable of the same thing there may be a market for it.

I was talking to a guy at Reflecmedia who said keying the Sony HDV was a bitch, but the uncompressed out of that camera into an HD card worked really well.

This same guy told me the Panasonic won't be doing this, but I see from the Panny thread that the reviewer here thinks it WILL. Hell, I'm so confused right now.

[Mediacre]

Or you could use the ProspectHD codec capture 10bit 4:2:2 compressed HD that would look much better than the DVCProHD codec, all over firewire.


What?

[Mediacre]

Yes, green screen work is a great possibility. It would look better than even DVCPRO-HD if the signal is really 4:4:4.
It's like having a mini-Viper. for 6K :)

[will_griffith]

Even uncompressed 4:2:2 is much better than DVCPRO-HD.

For that matter you could use FCP and capture to PhotoJPEG,
have a tiny file size and still look better than DVCPRO, although
PhotoJPEG is not a realtime HD codec for editing in FCP.

-will

[Glenn_Gipson]

>>Even uncompressed 4:2:2<<

Is there such a thing as uncompressed 4:2:2? I thought all uncompressed stuff was automatically 4:4:4?

[Jan_Crittenden]

The Panasonic wil offer the same type of output that the other cameras offer.

Best,

jan

[will_griffith]

The Panasonic wil offer the same type of output that the other cameras offer.

Pre-DVCPRO compression right?

How about getting them to stick a HDSDI out on it
since it isn't finished yet.

You are going through all the trouble to incorporate
a high quality image...might as well have the highest
quality output. :)

-will

[Mediacre]

The Panasonic wil offer the same type of output that the other cameras offer.

Best,

jan


Yeah, but with a fixed lens :D

That's basically what's attracting people to the JVC. The professional form factor, the exchangeable lens and the much better looks.

[fomoDVXpal]

The exchangeable lens will easily sway buyers.

Looks can be forgiven.

Uncompressed SDI will bring high-end customers.

Shoulder mount will accommodate news, documentary and event videographers.

Sad but true: specs may be great but practicality wins overall.

[Barry_Green]

Exactly my point -- practicality will triumph.

And when people see that they can only shoot 30p, not 60p, they'll probably find that it's not practical for live events, news, conventions, reality TV, all sorts of types of shooting.

Then when they find that the lens is a $1300 "HD" lens, they'll have to consider how "practical" it is to upgrade that lens to the other option, which costs over $12,000 by itself. All of a sudden, to have an HD-caliber lens, you're talking about a $17,000 purchase. That still won't shoot 60p or 60i.

I think it may do well for documentaries, where the 30p or 24p look would be appropriate. I don't think the footage is going to work for news and event videographers, whether the camera's mounted on someone's shoulder or not. It's not practical to shoot those types of footage at a 30p or 24p-only frame rate.

I wish them the best, but I am horribly disappointed that they didn't include 60p, and I'm still puzzled as to why not -- obviously the imager runs at 60fps, and the HDV spec provides for 60p. They just didn't do it.

In the end, specs are specs, and people's perception of practicality will be answered once they have it in their hands, but the footage is what they should be basing their decision on. It'll be months before we see footage from either camera.

[fomoDVXpal]

"Then when they find that the lens is a $1300 "HD" lens, "


Did you mean the lens is NOT an HD lens?

The only upside you mention is that 60p is important. it may be, but here in Australia it's not...I’ve yet to hear much about it. Does it get shown much in the States? Or is it 60i?

I think wedding video guys will be happy with HDV, as it's probably very convenient. Plus the shoulder mount! I can't imagine the hard disk nightmares at 60p for prosumers.

[Barry_Green]

It is classified as a "ProHD" lens. The question is, how good can it be, at a valuation of $1295? That's less expensive than Canon sells its 16x manual SD lens for the XL2.

It may be phenomenal, for all we know. But the DV500 was also released with a bundled inexpensive Fujinon, and it was easily the weakest component in the whole package.


The only upside you mention is that 60p is important. it may be, but here in Australia it's not...I’ve yet to hear much about it. Does it get shown much in the States? Or is it 60i?
There is no 60i, and no 60p, no 50i and no 50p. What I'm saying is, you cannot shoot the "reality" look with the camera (for some incomprehensible reason, they left that capability off). Obviously people aren't understanding how important this is, so let me put it this way: you've seen how people whine and gripe about DVX footage, saying it "stutters"? ALL footage from the JVC will "stutter" the same way, because it has no provision for the glass-smooth "reality" look that you get from 60p or 60i. It just doesn't have it. Granted it has a "motion smoothing" filter, which actually films at 60p (or 50p) but instead of recording that, it instead blends two frames together, converting 60p into a frame-blended 30p, and 50p into a frame-blended 25p. Near as I can tell, that'll result in the look of 30p with a 1/30 shutter speed, or 25p with a 1/25 shutter speed. Think of it as kind of like "reverse CineFrame".

I guess in all the hubbub, people aren't paying attention to this. They're looking at the NAB booth, where they're *not* seeing footage from tape, they're seeing 24p or 30p or 60p out the analog outputs. And because of that, they think it's fine. But when they find out there's no 60p after they've bought it, I think they're going to be pi$$ed.

And mind you, I'm not talking about HDV here, none of this has anything to do with HDV, it's just the specific frame rates they chose to include (or, more curiously, about the one vital frame rate they chose to exclude).

We'll see how people react once the first users get it. Expect there to be a whole lot of posts saying "WAIT A MINUTE... HOW COME I CAN'T SHOOT 'VIDEO' WITH THIS THING?" and "I went to shoot a segment for our news station, but they won't broadcast it because they say it's too "jittery", etc.

[joelnet]

I wish them the best, but I am horribly disappointed that they didn't include 60p, and I'm still puzzled as to why not -- obviously the imager runs at 60fps, and the HDV spec provides for 60p. They just didn't do it.

Hmmm... I'm kinda guessing it might be easier for JVC to add 60P at this point than it will be for panasonic to make P2 cards bigger and cheaper or make their tape drive record in HD.

If JVC adds 60P don't they win event videographers over P2?

I think when JVC came in at $6250 MSRP instead of $10k they pulled a head fake that really stole Panasonic's thunder at this NAB. I walked into NAB "knowing" I was getting the Panny, I walked out saying... damn that $6k JVC was awesome and they had 10 of them on the floor working. And the side by side against their $100,000 cam was impressive.

JVC stole the show for anyone actually there to compare those cameras because they had a bunch of working units on the floor. Sony came off looking good. I was really impressed by what I saw at their booth. And reflecmedia was using the component out of the Sony to do live keying at their booth. I'm sure you saw that, and it looked great.

I do think Jan will have time to make the HVX200 the best video quality camera on the market when it hits the street and that'll be worth a lot. But Sony and JVC aren't in a vacuum. What are they up to right now? Will we see a very quick upgrade cycle? I'd bet on it.

[Aaron Koolen]

Regarding the "HD"ness of the lens, can we really assume that the Panasonic lens will be any better than the JVC. The HVX will be a cam in the same price range, the lens can't really be that high end can it? Or does making it a fixed lens mean we can get vastly superior quality for the same price?

Just curious cause I've seen a few people state that the JVC lens must be pretty bad for an under 10K HD camera, without mentioning why the HVX would be any better.

Aaron

[Barry_Green]

Hmmm... I'm kinda guessing it might be easier for JVC to add 60P at this point than it will be for panasonic to make P2 cards bigger and cheaper or make their tape drive record in HD.

If JVC adds 60P don't they win event videographers over P2?
Oh, definitely it would be easier to shoot longform events on ProHD. Whether the footage holds up is one question, but for ease of use, I'd say yes, the longform event shooter will have an easier time. If they just add 60p, they overcome 90% of my objection to the camera.


I do think Jan will have time to make the HVX200 the best video quality camera on the market when it hits the street and that'll be worth a lot. But Sony and JVC aren't in a vacuum. What are they up to right now? Will we see a very quick upgrade cycle? I'd bet on it.
I don't know about that... I mean, it depends on what you mean by "quick". Most manufacturers (other than Canon) seem to be working on about a three-year cycle. Three years from the VX1000 to the VX2000, three years from the VX2000 to the FX1. Three years from the DVX to the HVX. How long was the DV500 out? I'll bet it was three years. Canon seems stuck in a much longer cycle, but everyone else replaces in about three years. So you might see a response from Sony and JVC in 2008. They'll all have bigger, more expensive shoulder-mount 2/3" versions sooner, probably next year, but in this price range, it'll be years before there are replacements (if past patterns are any indication of future actions).

[joelnet]

JVC lens must be pretty bad for an under 10K HD camera, without mentioning why the HVX would be any better

Good point. All I can say is it looked pretty good to me on the HD monitors. The Sony looked great at their booth too. I think modern optical engineering and manufacturing is capable of pretty amazing things so I'm not really suprised.

35mm print lenses have been resolving beyond HD for a long time. (OK, I know there are breathing issues when zooming etc. - but still Nikon and Canon have great lenses relatively cheap)

We're adding manufacturing volume so that should drive the price of high quality lenses down, right?

We may simply be looking at lenses that compete well with lenses from 5 years ago that are 10 times the price. Or I might be full of it. :-)

[Barry_Green]

Regarding the "HD"ness of the lens, can we really assume that the Panasonic lens will be any better than the JVC. The HVX will be a cam in the same price range, the lens can't really be that high end can it? Or does making it a fixed lens mean we can get vastly superior quality for the same price?
Remains to be seen. The point people are making is that the cheapest fully-manual, professional-style HD lens out there is probably the new $12,000 Fujinon 3.5 wide-angle. B&H carries a couple of 2/3" high-def lenses, one's $27,000 and the other's $65,000.

Even a standard-def broadcast lens can run easily $4,000 to $8,000.

So the question is, how much of a "professional, interchangeable, fully manual, high-def" lens can you expect for a value of $1295? When you compare it against other products that supposedly fit that same category, well, people are naturally concerned.

As to how a fixed-lens camera can compare, I don't know, we'll find out when we test 'em. The FX1/Z1/HD1/HD10 all have fixed HD lenses, and they deliver HD footage... and the FX1 is down to almost $3,000 street price... that doesn't necessarily mean anything, as the JVC may smoke all of 'em. We'll have to see.

I'm not specifically knocking the lens, I'm saying that there are concerns about it: concerns that may be alleviated, or validated, once we test it.

[Barry_Green]

Good point. All I can say is it looked pretty good to me on the HD monitors. The Sony looked great at their booth too. I think modern optical engineering and manufacturing is capable of pretty amazing things so I'm not really suprised.

35mm print lenses have been resolving beyond HD for a long time. (OK, I know there are breathing issues when zooming etc. - but still Nikon and Canon have great lenses relatively cheap)

We're adding manufacturing volume so that should drive the price of high quality lenses down, right?

We may simply be looking at lenses that compete well with lenses from 5 years ago that are 10 times the price. Or I might be full of it. :-)
Actually, I think those are all good points. Especially about manufacturing volume.

Gotta test it to know.

[joelnet]

Three years from the DVX to the HVX.


I guess I'm looking at the still camera market - which is a little quicker. My thinking is IF (big IF) they can use the same HD design and drop the latest CCD in THEN we may see some quick upgrades.

If not - then I think you're right. We might be waiting 3 years as you say.

This has just been such a dramatic year with the under $10k HD cameras and camera like that $50k tapeless Ikegami coming out. Really seems like quantum leaps are happening right now. A lot of forces are coming together to drive HD.

I really appreciate you staying on top of this stuff for us at NAB. I know I was pretty overwhelmed going through it all.

[Gibby]

See my new thread post a few minutes ago for a Fujinon engineers take on the 1/2" and 1/3" lenses used on the HD100. Anyone who is already putting down the T16x5.5 lens on the HD100 needs to go to the JVC booth and take a long look at the images in the HD monitors over the cameras. Granted it is uncompressed analog component 720p60 at 4:2:2 that is piped into the monitors, but after spending alot of time tickering with the cameras at the booth, It is apparent that no matter how good the analog component output is, and how good the monitor is, the inexpensive 16x and the more expensive 13x do an outstanding job of resolving the images. I've looked at footage for 27 years now while editing TV programs, in SD, and more recently in HD. I shoot with HD900's and Varicams. I'm not saying the footage from the HD100, with either the 16x or the 13x lens matched an F900 or a Varicam, but it looks outstanding, and the "cheap" lenses resolve the images extremely well.

As for the camera not being any good for news, reality, sports, etc. I don't buy that either. I've produced, directed, edited, and shot over 700 national TV programs in exactly those genres. The 30p footage, FROM THE CAMERA, with motion filter applied, as demonstrated at the Lumiere HD space on FCP5, and at the Avel Link space, was SMOOTH. In my judgement, so far, footage from the HD100 at 30p with motion filter applied, with be easily smooth enough for televising sports, news, reality, etc. The uncompressed analog component out at 720p60, and 4:2:2, through an HD-SDI converter, which I personally verified through JVC engineers at the JVC NAB booth this morning, will be excellent for hardlining into Fox Sports and and ABC sports.

I'll probably purchase a few HD100's. I'll probably also buy a few HVX200's when they ship, because they both do different things. I'm brand agnostic. Whatever works best for the particular project is the one to use. After three straight days at NAB checking through tons of tech toys, including the HD100 in depth, I'm quite impressed with the camera, the technology, and the excellent images. When the HVX200 is operational, I'll chack it out just as close...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[joelnet]

I've looked at footage for 27 years now while editing TV programs, in SD, and more recently in HD. I shoot with HD900's and Varicams.

What's your take on the Sony HDV?

[Gibby]

I've shot with the Z1. I like it. If it is used right, the footage can be stunning. It has the MPEG2 resolution loss problems in fast pans, or with fast crossing movement. When I shoot with the Z1, I always shoot clean 1080i. In post we can then manipulate the footage as needed.

By this time next year I wouldn't be surprised if I own all three: a Z1, an HD100, and an HVX200. Each has pluses and minuses. Even though I do shoot with F900's and Varicams, I'm not hung up on the ego end of "I shoot high-end HD". I simply pull the arrow out of the quiver that is right for that particular project. If that is a smaller camera, that's fine with me. As long as I'm getting the "look and feel" that I'm after.

In answer to your question, I like the Z1. It's an excellent tool for the right project. That said, after three days of handling the HD100 at NAB, I am deeply impressed with the possibilities for the camera! Pro-style lenses give me more control over depth of field and other production issues. The Z1 and HVX200 don't give me that flexibility. I'm sure I'll buy all three though...

Gibby
www,cut4.tv

[Mediacre]

Regarding the "HD"ness of the lens, can we really assume that the Panasonic lens will be any better than the JVC. The HVX will be a cam in the same price range, the lens can't really be that high end can it? Or does making it a fixed lens mean we can get vastly superior quality for the same price?

Just curious cause I've seen a few people state that the JVC lens must be pretty bad for an under 10K HD camera, without mentioning why the HVX would be any better.

Aaron

Exactly. The HVX200 lens might not be any better At least with the HD100 you have the option of changing it. Renting it when you need a better lens. About 60p, if the negative buz is big enough about it, JVC might add it before release. I think it might be only a software adjustment. But the reason they might left it out is because the camera seems to be market for the indie filmmaking market.

[Mediacre]

Remains to be seen. The point people are making is that the cheapest fully-manual, professional-style HD lens out there is probably the new $12,000 Fujinon 3.5 wide-angle. B&H carries a couple of 2/3" high-def lenses, one's $27,000 and the other's $65,000.

I think the point is more like, the HVX200 probably won't be any better and you are stuck with it for good. At lest the JVC gives you an option. At least they give you a lens. They could be selling the body only for 6K. Or could have bundled a yack auto lens like canon doe with the XL2 and asked extra for a manual lens. At least they are selling it with a manual lens. That's another way to look at it.




So the question is, how much of a "professional, interchangeable, fully manual, high-def" lens can you expect for a value of $1295? When you compare it against other products that supposedly fit that same category, well, people are naturally concerned.



Well, for me the question really is, at least it is a fully manual lens and gives you the option to upgrade if you want too. The HVX200 might be the same level of glass and it will be a fixed auto lens. I mean, really, what people were expecting for a under 10K camera? Cookie digi-primes? I think complaining about the lens doesn't make much sense for me. As I said, at least JVC is giving a lens to shoot with till you have the cash to upgrade, if you ever need. I wish Panasonic would throw in a 4Gb P2 for k like JVC is throwing in the lens for 6K. Most important, they give you the option to upgrade. I wish Panasonic would have goe the same route. The lens is the strogest point in the HD100, so I thought that would be the last thing people would complain.

[fomoDVXpal]

Remains to be seen. The point people are making is that the cheapest fully-manual, professional-style HD lens out there is probably the new $12,000 Fujinon 3.5 wide-angle. B&H carries a couple of 2/3" high-def lenses, one's $27,000 and the other's $65,000.

Even a standard-def broadcast lens can run easily $4,000 to $8,000.

So the question is, how much of a "professional, interchangeable, fully manual, high-def" lens can you expect for a value of $1295? When you compare it against other products that supposedly fit that same category, well, people are naturally concerned.




or maybe the point is how badly have they been ripping us off!!

[joelnet]

or maybe the point is how badly have they been ripping us off!!

Yeah - I kinda think "pro" stuff is priced way higher than it needs to be because that market has less price elasticity. Also, who are you selling to? People that will get fired if the gear doesn't perform. Maybe today's shoot is costing $100k an hour. If they buy the "best" they are protected.

Now pro gear actually is better. BUT is it so much better as to justify ten times the price to the average viewer. By that I mean, when you're done with your project does it really generate that much more revenue BECAUSE you used a $30k lens instead of a $2K lens?

If you're filming "Gladiator" maybe so. At that point the lens cost is so small in comparison to the other 100 million you're spending that you may as well get the best. Which is exactly WHY those units can be sold for so much more. They are a tiny part of a very large budget.

When it gets down to brass tacks and you do side by side comparisons on a consumer HDTV I'm not sure most of our customers are going to see the difference. They are going to see our story unfold before them and hopefully be absorbed by that.

At NAB I saw that perfectly demonstrated at the JVC booth when they did a side by side with the $100k camera. Was there a difference? Yes! Was it huge. No way - I think the average non pro would think they both looked fine. This medium is about CONTENT (as Catwoman will remind us forever).

[Barry_Green]

Well, for me the question really is, at least it is a fully manual lens and gives you the option to upgrade if you want too.
Well, that's one way to look at it. But isn't the whole point of the JVC the lens? That's the part I'm having trouble with.

Let's assume the lenses were identical (both removable, in fact let's pretend the HVX came bundled with the identical same lens). Would anyone, anywhere, with any sense, be buying the JVC, at 4:2:0-only, 720-only, 24 & 30-only, 19-mbps-only, vs. the Panasonic at 4:2:2, 720-and-1080, interlace and progressive, 60i and 60p, and variable frame rates and 100mbps? No. As a body-only, the JVC is woefully underperforming the Panasonic, on specifications. So the whole reason the JVC has appeal at all is because of the interchangeable/manual lens, right?

And that lens is likely not a high-quality piece, given the price and the reputation of prior Fujinons bundled by JVC. That's an assumption, but it seems like a relatively safe one.

Granted it's interchangeable, but I expect a far, far, far smaller percentage of JVC users to interchange lenses than even XL1/XL2 users. At least a few users of the XL cameras actually bought optional lenses, because they were only $900 or $1200. With the JVC, the optional lens is $12,000. So yes, it's interchangeable, but as a practical, real-world matter, I'd expect 98% of JVC users will never interchange it.

Interchangeable is better -- don't let anyone misunderstand that. Obviously more options are better than fewer options, most definitely. But understand that by going with the JVC you're also sacrificing options. You'll never have autofocus (which, while frowned upon for dramatic/narrative work, can come in very handy during certain events etc). You won't have optical image stabilization (will you? I don't think it has OIS...) There are options you will not have because you chose that lens system, just as you won't have the option to interchange if you went with the HVX.


The HVX200 might be the same level of glass and it will be a fixed auto lens.
Okay, let's discuss this. It may or may not be the same level of glass, that's for testing to determine. But let's presume it is. How much of a disadvantage is the "auto" lens vs. the "manual lens"?

There are three degrees of control we're talking about: focus, zoom, and iris. First, the HVX is going to have fully-manual, cam-driven zoom control, which I will wager will at least match the zoom control on the $1295 Fujinon. It remains to be seen if it will, but I'm predicting it will. It has hard stops, it has barrel markings, it is servo driven.

Second, iris. Both cameras offer auto-iris, and they offer manual iris. The Fujinon has an iris ring, the Pansonic an iris dial. The Panasonic will likely have precision down to 1/6 stop increments, like the DVX does (although that remains to be seen, it seems reasonable to suppose that it will be comparable to its parent camera). What does the Fujinon offer? Is it in fixed steps, a stop at a time? Or fully variable? I don't know, I'm asking (I'll find out later today at the booth). And exactly what big difference does it make to spin a ring vs. spinning a dial -- I'm not being facetious, I'm asking when you get down to it, when you're working with it, is there really so much benefit to pulling the camera away from your eye, tilting it upwards so you can read the iris dial, rotating the dial to where you want it to be, then putting the camera back up to your eye... vs. just thumbing the iris wheel and reading the iris display on the viewfinder? Is it really a drawback, or just a different way of working that accomplishes the same thing? I've used both systems extensively, and frankly, it really doesn't make a whole hoot of difference to me. Either way I get exactly what I'm looking for.

Finally, focus. Everyone keeps asking about hard stops, as if somehow the presence of hard stops makes for a better focusing mechanism. First, I would question that -- exactly what about a hard stop makes you focus better? Anything? Didn't think so. You can spin a hard-stop focus ring to infinity and have it "lock", or you can spin a non-hard-stop focus ring and it'll hit infinity, and either way, you're at infinity. What did the hard-stop buy you, in a practical, real-world sense? And if it's so important to you to have that hard stop, you can get a focus ring from Century Precision Optics that adds hard stops.

So let's discuss repeatable focus. The DVX has 100% repeatable focus, and so would any broadcast lens. Presumably the HVX will have it as well (I'd go out on a limb and guarantee it, but that would be going out on a limb). You turn the ring to a certain spot, and the focus distance will be set to a certain distance, each and every time. You can do the gaffer-tape-the-stops trick and rack focus equally efficiently on the DVX and on a broadcast lens. It works. It's not like a PD150 with a vague servo ring, or the XL2's auto lens servo rings... that's not what we're talking about. The DVX focus ring provides concrete discrete repeatable focus. What benefit do you get from the "manual" lens over that? In a real-world, practical sense, I'd say none. Either system lets you precisely control focus.

So, the final question is, focus markings on the lens barrel. There will be zoom markings on the zoom barrel, so how about focus markings on the focus barrel? On the HVX there will likely be none. On the JVC, there will be. Is that "game, set and match" for the JVC? Well, let's discuss. You may have focus marks on the lens barrel on the JVC, but you will also have them in the viewfinder on the HVX. Want to set the focus to exactly 10 feet? Do it. On either camera. The HVX will report when it's at 10 feet, or the JVC's lens barrel marking will line up at 10 feet. Want to set it to 11 feet? On the HVX, you can. On the JVC, presumably you'll have markings at 10 feet and also at 15 feet, so you can sort of guess between the marks as to approximately where 11 feet will be, vs. on the HVX you can set it at exactly 11 feet (for example). Oh, and with the JVC, of course you'll have to pull the camera off your shoulder, turn it around, and look at the focus ring in order to dial in that 10 feet or 11 feet setting, whereas with the HVX, you can set it to precisely 10 feet (or whatever) while shooting.

So you do have precise focus marks on the HVX, just like on the JVC, except they're even *more* precise, and more user-friendly because they're in your face instead of printed on the lens barrel where you have to move the camera (or your head) to see 'em.

It's different, yes. It's new, and not the familiar old system, that's true. But which will be a more practical system to use, out in the field? Honestly? To me, based on specs, based on the paper, the HVX lens control seems the more flexible, the more usable in real-world circumstances. In manual mode it will do everything the JVC manual lens will do, perhaps in a different way, but with benefits to that different way. And on top of doing all that, it also adds the option of autofocus and image stabilization, two options you don't have and won't ever have with the JVC.

I'm not knocking broadcast lenses, obviously. I mean, duh. All I'm saying is, to dismiss the HVX's lens as "fully auto" is a woeful mischaracterization, and when using it in the field, I predict that it will prove just as useful, just as precise, just as controllable, just as repeatable as the JVC's.

But not interchangeable, true. But for giving up interchangeability, you get 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/60i, 720/60p, variable frame rates, 4:2:2 color sampling, discrete frame compression instead of 19mbps MPEG compression, DVCPRO50 for DigiBeta-caliber standard-def recording, and all the other goodies the HVX gives you. Is that enough of a bonus to make up for not being able to interchange the lens (something that, I repeat, 98% of users will likely never do?) Obviously that's for the consumer to decide. I think there's merits to both approaches.

[fomoDVXpal]

I just don't know if the consumer will see what your saying. No matter how logical. Some of the best pros keep it so simple that the see an image they like, see that it's an interchangeable lens, uncompressed out, easy to tape and the say BUY!

But that's not say that what you say is super relevant.

[xray]

Hello Barry,
First , when the Z1 arrived you said: 'O, this cam shoots 60i it is almost reality, so it is only usable for news shoot and sport. You need progressive for a real magic image feeling.' Now with the JVC HD100 you say ' O, this cam can't shoot reality it can only shoot progressive so it is almost unusable for news, sport etc.'

You go with the wind, and the hurricane is named Panasonic.

A progressive shooting cam like the JVC ProHD100 with interchangeable lens is way superior to a semiautomatic consumer oriented lens system. Just for the possibility to rent a 12.000 $ lens for your shoot. Do you know that lots of movies have been shot with the Canon? Only DV but with powerful lenses? Do you think the automatic Leica lens is way better than the Fuji or Canon broadcastlenses? Really?

So how to think over an item like the shoulder mount and the rig system. With a camera like the HDX/DVX you have to - amateur oriented- shoot out of your hands or you have to buy an external rig. And it has a $600,- ? lens on it.

Sure we have to see the image, and with the JVC you can connect a good lens and say: 'he! this is possible with this cam, make up your choice. '

So if you want to advertise the mighty Pana as THE best in anything and even promotes that the fixed lens seems to be superior to a system where you can create your one image by adding a lens, go ahead. But some documentary and cinema people will think HUHH?

Now you are saying that the auto-lens is practical the same as a real lens but with some extra like image stabilisation and autofocus?

Lets give the two cams to a DOP and let him decide what he likes best, and find most truthfull to handle. And let it be an independent filmmaker!

[Mediacre]

I have been wanting to say it for a while already on these boards, but I didn't because I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. But I think this boards is incredibly biased towards Panasonic. At least that's the impression I get. Well, I guest it's expectable, since it's called DVXuser and just look which camera is pictured at the top of the main page. :grin:
Not particularly talking about Barry by the way. He seems not to be biased. But I still get the feeling from many.


Now, I don't say the JVC is better, or the HVX is better. I want to see footage first. All I do is discuss the available specs. I'm actually a little more excited over the HVX for 108024p and variable frame rates with 4:2:2. As long as the lens will be an improvement over the DVX, it should be a workable solution for the price. But if it can't record straight to a firewire drive, I probably won't buy one.
But regardless of all the features the HVX may have, in one department the HD100 is running miles around it, and that is the lens department. I really can't see the HVX lens being better quality for that price. I think they will be pretty much the same quality, but....the HD100 is a manual lens and gives me options. Enough said for me.

[Barry_Green]

First , when the Z1 arrived you said: 'O, this cam shoots 60i it is almost reality, so it is only usable for news shoot and sport. You need progressive for a real magic image feeling.' Now with the JVC HD100 you say ' O, this cam can't shoot reality it can only shoot progressive so it is almost unusable for news, sport etc.'
When the Z1 arrived, I said "great for shooting reality. Not good for drama." With the HD100, I'm saying "suitable for drama. Not good for reality." Are you implying there's any inconsistency in that?


You go with the wind, and the hurricane is named Panasonic.
Instead of accusing me of "going with the wind", why don't you just examine the statements and see that they're true. With the DVX and with the XL2, Panasonic and Canon are giving you both. You don't have to choose one or the other, you can shoot whichever one you want. What's hard to understand about that? You put it in 60i for the "realilty" look, or 24p for the "drama" look. JVC and Sony don't give you that choice, they limit you to either/or. And those framerates that they do offer are suitable for certain tasks, and not suitable for others.


Do you think the automatic Leica lens is way better than the Fuji or Canon broadcastlenses? Really?
Did I ever say anything even remotely like that? I mean, anything that anyone, anywhere, on any planet speaking any language, could possibly interpret to mean that I said something like that? I don't think so.

The point of the writeup was to call into question the notion that only an interchangeable, fully-manual lens is the only viable way to work. I never said that a fixed lens was better than interchangeable -- to say so would be stupid. What I said was, this lens isn't like the auto-only lens on an XL1 -- this can do just about all the jobs that need to be done. You can focus with it, you can use a follow focus, it has true manual zoom and repeatable focus, etc. Is it "better" than a broadcast lens? Probably not. But a) make sure you're talking about an ACTUAL broadcast lens, I'm not sold on the idea that the included $1200 lens is one; and b) compare what you're gaining vs. what you're giving up.
Like I said, if both cameras included the exact same lens, the question between the two would be ridiculous -- of course everyone would get the Panasonic; 1080/24p is worth it alone. But because the lenses aren't the same, then you have to compare: is the extra capability of the Panasonic worth putting up with the fixed lens, vs. is the interchangeability of the JVC worth the HDV compromises you have to make for it.

That's an open question. That's for the user to decide. All I'm spelling out is that the decision isn't as simple as saying "oh, this lens is removable, therefore this is the camera I want" -- someone thinking that way would be ... well, misinformed, at the least.


Lets give the two cams to a DOP and let him decide what he likes best, and find most truthfull to handle. And let it be an independent filmmaker!
I was talking with Adam Wilt today, and we're talking about putting together the ultimate camera comparison when the HVX and HD100 are both on the market and available... Z1, HVX, HD100, CineAlta, and VariCam. And this comparison will feature owner-operators handling their own cameras, so there won't be any chants of "bias". And I'll probably bring in some DP's to a) view the footage, not knowing which camera shot which, so there won't be any bias at all. Then we'll let them use the cameras themselves, and write up their report.

[joelnet]

JVC and Sony don't give you that choice, they limit you to either/or. And those framerates that they do offer are suitable for certain tasks, and not suitable for others.



Well, there was that guy around here with 27 years of experience who's done tons of news that said the JVC smoothing looked terrific and he'd have no problem airing it for news or reality. I'm trusting his opinion - he saw the footage being edited and he felt good about it. Unless he's an impostor - but we'll know when the unit comes out.

I think people are going to plug in, turn on, edit and make up their mind.

The one GIANT thing you left out of your analysis is P2 vs. miniDV tape. There are probably a lot of people NOT buying into P2 as being worth $4k just to get 20 minutes of recording time. And we really don't know much about JVC's implementation of HDV. Their reps seemed to want to say they weren't like Sony to me.

Back to P2 - Imagine paying $4k for those 2 8gig cards so you can swap cards every 8 minutes at an event. Dump one card at 1gig per minute while you're recording on the other. Panasonic isn't getting any of those people. Well, maybe a few hardcore Panny fans. The Panny argument seems to be "just wait, prices will come down". Wait how long? 2 years? JVC, Canon and Sony might have their new thing with 4:4:4 raw out, variable fps, 20 gig memory stick raids and the kitchen sink by then. (I really am betting the next cycle will be faster than the last cycle because it's not a quantum leap like last cycle). Also, if I was a marketer (ok, I am) I'd realize there's a unique opportunity here to steal market share because it's a format change - IMHO. So they should be going balls to the walls for the next couple of years - overtime, loss leaders, paying off industry leaders to rep their unit. The HD gold rush is on.

Panasonic are well behind Sony and a little behind JVC at the prosumer end of the market and are trying all they can to keep people from buying now buy "promising" a lot tomorrow.

Mediacre does have a point. Some folks give Panny every benefit of the doubt despite the fact that they showed up with a camera full of sand (apparently) but those same people assume the worst about HDV, Sony and JVC - who actually had working products at NAB.

I'm brand agnostic. I want the best color range, clarity and keying potential. On paper that's the Panasonic, but when's it going to be here and do they really deserve my benefit of the doubt?

[Barry_Green]

Well, there was that guy around here with 27 years of experience who's done tons of news that said the JVC smoothing looked terrific and he'd have no problem airing it for news or reality. I'm trusting his opinion - he saw the footage being edited and he felt good about it. Unless he's an impostor - but we'll know when the unit comes out.
That's Steve Gibby. He's no impostor, we sat together at the Emmy awards a couple of years ago, and each won one. He's since relocated to California. Definitely not an impostor.

I don't know how he saw the motion smoothing, unless either the JVC rep that told him he was watching motion smoothing was wrong, or the JVC rep that told me I *wasn't* watching motion smoothing, was wrong. Or he was shown some different footage that wasn't available on the show floor, footage that I didn't get to see.

Frankly, I'm hoping that what I saw *was* motion-smoothing, and was just mis-labeled. I was told initially that it was motion-smoothed, then the guy I was talking to went and checked and came back and said that he was wrong, and that it *wasn't* motion-smoothed. If it was, then that would explain a lot, about why it looked blurry, etc.

The live output was sharp enough that you'd cut yourself if you touched the screen. On tape, that was another story entirely. If Steve saw something that none of the rest of us saw, I'll defer to his judgement. But if we were looking at the same footage, all I can say is that several of us would disagree. BUT -- I still say, what I saw on that plasma monitor is not necessarily indicative of what final footage will look like, so judgement must be withheld until the finished product is shipping.


The one GIANT thing you left out of your analysis is P2 vs. miniDV tape. There are probably a lot of people NOT buying into P2 as being worth $4k just to get 20 minutes of recording time. And we really don't know much about JVC's implementation of HDV. Their reps seemed to want to say they weren't like Sony to me.
I left P2 out because frankly, people don't understand it, and it's one of those things that as soon as you use it, a light bulb goes off in your head and you say "oh, now I get it" -- and you'll never go back. But apparently it can't be explained adequately -- I've tried, others have tried, and still people come back and say "but a tape is $4."

As far as JVC not talking about their HDV, I'm not sure that's really a concern -- JVC's been pretty open about it, haven't they? What questions did you have that they didn't answer?


Mediacre does have a point. Some folks give Panny every benefit of the doubt despite the fact that they showed up with a camera full of sand (apparently) but those same people assume the worst about HDV, Sony and JVC - who actually had working products at NAB.
Yes, but the reason why is -- because they have working products, we've been able to see the footage. Fanboys want to argue specs all day long, but like I've said a million times, I don't care what the specs are, I only care what the footage looks like. I don't care if the CCDs have 40 x 30 pixels, if the footage looks better than the competition (and the camera's workable) then that's all that matters. We've had a chance now to work with the JVC HD1 and the Sony FX1/Z1, and I don't really care that much for the workflow. I like the FX1 okay, but not HDV, there's really nothing very good about it, it's like a stopgap format. So yeah, I'm amped about the prospect of what Panasonic's promising -- on paper, it looks like it will be far superior.

But if the footage doesn't keep the promises that the specs are making, then forget it.

And I still say, the jury's out on the JVC until I see footage from a working, finished, production model. The live output is great -- what does it *really* look like once it hits the tape? That's what counts. And that footage I saw was definitely not good enough to qualify as "HD", but in my opinion that is *not* a fair test case, because things can change a lot between now and July.

[redindian]

I left P2 out because frankly, people don't understand it, and it's one of those things that as soon as you use it, a light bulb goes off in your head and you say "oh, now I get it" -- and you'll never go back. But apparently it can't be explained adequately -- I've tried, others have tried, and still people come back and say "but a tape is $4."
.

In SLR film camera anology
Tape - Like Kodak film, you delevop it, print it, scan it, then edit it in computer
P2 - CF card - shoot then you plug it in computer, and there u have it. The image is developed and scanned straight ONE STEP process.

Then you can just use the compact flash card over and over. Life is simple - my 2GB card was $400, now its $200 - but the convinence it offers is 'priceless' :) I think 8GB p2 will be around $1000 when the camera is eventually released.

Barry is right - once you get it - its hard to go back.

I *wish* really wish Panasonic had built interchangeable lens in HVX - they seem to know the pulse of the market, but somehow fudged it. I wud gladly pay 1K more for that feature alone.

[thisiswells]

These will be my final comments on why having a lens on the camera is a good idea.
Even if I could pay extra to have a camera without a lens, I could not afford to buy
a lens with the same, useful focal lengths of the 4.5-57mm as the HVX comes with.
That type of lens would cost about the same as the camera itself and I can't afford that.
I make purchases based on what a product does for me now, not some magical point in
the future when I'll be able to upgrade or whatever. Because it has an lens mount and
thus exchangeable lenses is selling me on an idea--the idea that one day I will strike gold
and purchase a high quality lens to match the camera. If that were to happen, I would
probably buy a different camera altogether. The only thing the JVC offers is like a mirage,
a hope that having that camera somehow makes me better off because dangling right in
front of me is the hope that I could have something different, something better. But, it's
not real. It's one singular feature on a sourly performing camera that makes some people
think it might create sharper images. There's a point at which sharper just isn't as relevant
as other aspects of imaging, such as response curves which Panny owns the market on, or
variable framerates, or IT-based workflow. Those are features that matter to me. As I've said,
the one thing HD100 offers is like a mirage, it looks good on the surface until you get close,
then it's gone. I only mention this in case you didn't know what a mirage is. lol. ;-)
night.

brian wells

[xray]

[QUOTE=Barry_Green]When the Z1 arrived, I said "great for shooting reality. Not good for drama." With the HD100, I'm saying "suitable for drama. Not good for reality." Are you implying there's any inconsistency in that?/QUOTE]

Yes it is, you said 'it is like looking out the window' Nowhere the feeling of progressive shoot. You take the side with comes you best. Why don't you say the JVC is great for shooting drama and suitable for reality too? We shoot newsitems with an DVX 25P.
[ Please wait a moment I have a message: CARD FULL ]

[QUOTE]
Instead of accusing me of "going with the wind", why don't you just examine the statements and see that they're true./QUOTE]

Accusing? ;>) Well, I say the hurricane you go is named Pana, and that is the wind you go, You do not agree? I think you bring it up in a way it promotes Panasonic.
[ can you hold on? I have a message: SWITCH CARDS ]

Not so long ago you said that JVC could sell tons of the HD100 because people who are buying the JVC do not read specs, or do not know the system at all- sure that would then go for any cam-, but as you noticed, I don't believe that.

[QUOTE]You can focus with it, you can use a follow focus, it has true manual zoom and repeatable focus, etc. Is it "better" than a broadcast lens? Probably not. But a) make sure you're talking about an ACTUAL broadcast lens, I'm not sold on the idea that the included $1200 lens is one; and b) compare what you're gaining vs. what you're giving up./QUOTE]

It does not feel like a real lens is a`ll that matters.
And no one is buying a cam with a manual lens without looking specs. And I like the possibillity to rent a lens if I need it. You think the DVX lens has better optics?
[ Do you have a moment? I have to dump the P2 cards to my external drive ]

[QUOTE]Like I said, if both cameras included the exact same lens, the question between the two would be ridiculous -- of course everyone would get the Panasonic; 1080/24p is worth it alone./QUOTE]

Dont think so, if the choice is a system which uses tape and/or hard drive with HD quallity image with a good shoulder mount and professional feel against expensive short memorycards and the looks of a computer with a fixed lens.

[ please can you smash that car again? I was dumping my last 4 minutes shoot ]


[QUOTE]I was talking with Adam Wilt today, and we're talking about putting together the ultimate camera comparison when the HVX and HD100 are both on the market and available.../QUOTE]

You are right, only the Z1 is available, the HD100 in july, the HDX not in the next 6 months.
[ where is my drive? Who's stolen my drive? ]

[QUOTE]And this comparison will feature owner-operators handling their own cameras, so there won't be any chants of "bias". And I'll probably bring in some DP's to a) view the footage, not knowing which camera shot which, so there won't be any bias at all. Then we'll let them use the cameras themselves, and write up their report/QUOTE]

That I realy like, specially to bring in unbiassd DP's, they know it is worth sometimes to rent a $6000,- lens.

[joelnet]

I agree with most everything you say in your previous response and I'm with you, I'll look at real world performance. If the JVC tape thing is horrible then that product will be cooked. Regarding JVC's HDV I think their sales reps were trying to imply their version was somehow better than Sony's. I really don't have any questions that can be answered other than real world testing. Again, that's only attitude a reasonable person can take. Specs give a hint but does it really work?


I left P2 out because frankly, people don't understand it, and it's one of those things that as soon as you use it,

I do take a little exception to this. We don't "get it"? I think you're being a little presumptuous there. I really haven't seen much criticism of the idea. Mostly it's just the outrageous price.

I certainly get the convenience and I MUCH prefer a digital solution to tape. And in my case, the short recording times don't bug me at all. I've been shooting 100 and 400 foot rolls of film. It doesn't get less convenient than that. :-) In reality, you can do an awful lot of damage in 8 minutes. And the Panny clearly provides easy deletion of takes. Also, no time code breaks, right? Lotsa great stuff there.

BUT with such short recording times and such expensive media people who need longer continuous recording times will have to find another solution. That solution will probably be to get the Sony or the JVC. I don't think Panny has a hope in hell of getting those people unless something like a Firestore gets developed for the HVX. Imagine a Firestore loaded with replaceable compact flash cards or SD cards in a raid for a fraction of the P2 price. At that point P2 is done and over. Even if the Firestore used a hard drive people would prefer it to P2 at P2's price.

Also, the second someone builds an external recording device that converts raw input to a nice HD codec like Avid's then EVERYONE has solid state recording and the P2 edge is gone. I think that'll happen before P2 prices get reasonable.

I have to say, the more I think about the more I think P2 will have A LOT of competition. Even if they give it away.

Also, the Panny is pretty ugly. It seems near unananimous. If I was them I'd hit the drawing board again and streamline that thing somehow.

I think Panasonic got TERRIFIC feedback at NAB and here that they can really use to their advantage.

[thisiswells]

P2 is the only solution that fits inside the camera with out cables, HDD's, and more batteries.
There is benefit there for me having it inside the camera as opposed to being tethered to something
else in a backback. That doesn't really appeal to me much. To each his own. 40 minutes on 2-8GB
P2 cards in 720p24 HD in a package around 10K seems ridiculously reasonable to me. Offload the
cards to something when they're full then start over. The cards aren't cheap, but they enable
cheaper and smaller and lighter camcorders that don't require a DVCPRO-HD tape system. : )

[Neil Rowe]

..yeah, ive got to agree with barry as far as people understanding of p2.. theres alot of misunderstanding and plain lack of understanding concerning the P2 workflow and how the HVX works with it in general.. and all the skepticism associated seems to all roll back to .. " well i cant afford it ...so its not good" .. whatever.
..so much rationalizing trying to make HDV or HDV pro cameras stand up to the HVX and its all really rediculous.. just buy the best camera you can afford to work with and dont try to convince yourself or anyone else that its as good , or any better than the ones you cant afford the workflow with.. because its not. end of story.

P2 makes perfect sense. if you dont get it.. it doesnt mean that it doesnt make sense.. it just means you dont get it. ..people didnt grasp the DVX and 24p when it came out either.. why.. i dont know. becuase im not one of those people. but its simply a case of : if you know you stuff.. its going to look awsome.. if not.. its going to confuse you, and seem complicated and too much trouble. when in fact its very simple, and makes alot of sense.
the problem lies in those that are know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be any help. .. anyway . fact of the matter is that the P2 workflow is the most reliable and affordable way to record in a high quality professional format like DVCPRO HD that is available... you cannot have you cake and eat it too. you can t have uncompressed, and stick it on a mini dv tape or your i-pod, and you cant get high quality HD like DVCPRO-HD without a great solution like P2 in a camera at this cost. ...people dont have to understand it, but they should at least respect the facts in the matter. people want HD , and then they complain that they might not be able to use it now.. .. whatever.. they want uncomprimised high quality HD and then they dont want to pay for it even though its at breakthrough pricing from costst they could never afford before.. lets get real people. the HVX isnt a toy .. its alot more "PRO".. and less "SUMER"... its for serious people. serious people pay for what they want. and understand how to use it.

rant over.. sorry. had that built up.

[thisiswells]

yah, i'm about to bust a cap, too.

[Barry_Green]

Xray, your points are taken. You hate the idea. Fine. I wish you the best with your tape-based solution.

I will freely admit being biased towards the best product. I am not biased towards any particular brand or manufacturer, but I am biased towards the best solution. I do have to ask -- do you have a DVX? If so, do you notice any difference between 60i and 30p? Any difference between 60i and 24p? And if so, do you not agree that one is vastly more appropriate than the other, for certain shooting circumstances?

And, assuming that you do, do you at least acknowledge that the Sony shoots interlaced ("reality") but not slower-frame-rate progressive ("drama"), and the JVC shoots 24p and 30p, but not 60p. If we can't agree on that, then there's no point in continuing any sort of discussion.

[Mediacre]

Somebody suggested a Mac Mini as an more portable alternative to a laptop in order to record uncompressed direct to HDD in another board. His idea was to use the Mac Mini with Andromeda. I have no idea if it would work, but if it would really work with Andromeda, couldn't it work with the HD100 and HVX200 as well? So we could record uncompressed 4:2:2 720 60p to HDD without the huge weight of a laptop.

[Barry_Green]

A Mac Mini isn't a portable computer. It's small, yes, but it's not portable like a laptop -- its hard drive isn't designed for portability, its power supply is a cord, not a battery, it needs a keyboard and a monitor attached to it...

A Mac Mini would be easier to carry from one location to another than a desktop computer would, but short of that, it *is* a desktop computer...

[David Jimerson]

Don't you need a . . . monitor? Keyboard?

[Mediacre]

But would it work?

[David Jimerson]

If it could, I don't see the advantage over the laptop, and in fact, I see a considerable disadvantage.

[Barry_Green]

With the Andromeda he's using a USB2 or Firewire800 bus to transfer the data, right? If so, it seems like a Mac Mini would work, but then again so would any desktop computer, right?

The difference with the HVX and JVC is that you're talking about digitizing component analog high-def video, at a rate of 166 megabytes per second. To get that kind of data stream into a computer you'll need some sort of card to capture it (which may not work in a Mac Mini) and you'd need a RAID to support the data rate, again something the Mac Mini doesn't have.

I haven't really kept up on this, because last time I looked at uncompressed HD capture it was wildly impractical. Have things changed? What does it take to handle a 166-megabyte per second data stream, captured from Y/Pr/Pb, nowadays?

[Mediacre]

If it could, I don't see the advantage over the laptop, and in fact, I see a considerable disadvantage.


Which is?

[Batutta]

A mini only has a Firewire 400 port and isn't expandable, so it wouldn't work with a card. However, from what I read on the andromeda site, it can record a compressed 4:4:4 8-bit stream to a 5400 rpm drive, which would work on the mini. Still, a laptop would be better. Built-in battery, and even the ibook matches the mini on specs.

[Mediacre]

I heard you need a SATA

If some how you could get a DeckLink component in there and a SATA would really work, might be in business.

[joelnet]

its alot more "PRO".. and less "SUMER"... its for serious people. serious people pay for what they want. and understand how to use it.


I think you're right and I agree with your rant generally. I personally am leaning towards the HVX. I really like the "no tape" idea and the features announced. Like I said before - I wish they left the tape drive off altogether and saved me a few bucks or added 6 Compact Flash or SD Card slots to back the P2 UP or record SD.

Hey, now that would have been a cool idea.

Removable lens would have been a cool idea too. Oh well - can't have it all, but we can ask!

[Mediacre]

Well, the only thing I know is that there must be a way without a "computer". I mean, the Drake camera guys found a way to capture uncompressed 4:4:4 without being hooked to a laptop, so there must be a way to capture uncompressed 4:2:2 as well.

[Barry_Green]

But the Drake might just have its own onboard computer to handle it.

I looked around, it looks like you'd need a Kona 2 card, somewhere around $2500, and a Media Fiber-Channel RAID, RT3X, at around $6,000, to be able to capture uncompressed HD. I don't think either of those will work with the Mac Mini.

[Mediacre]

Well, so one could built a compact box with a computer with enough power and a couple of SATA HDDs. It could just attach to the back like a FS-4, maybe a bit longer. hey this camera is small anyways. Don't need a Kona. Too expensive. A deckLink would do for cheaper. The point is, if Drake does it, why can't the HD100? I don't think the Drake is using anything like a Media Fiber-Channel RAID.
Just need somebody who is willing to do it and knows his stuff.

[joelnet]

40 minutes on 2-8GB
P2 cards

I thought it was more like 20 minutes on 2 8GB cards and less than half that at 60p. 2 16 gig cards would get you 40 minutes, right? But God knows what that'll cost. At least that's what people around here has been saying for the last week.

Still no problem for my work flow, but if it really costs $4k I'd buy a smaller P2 card and spend the money I saved on a HD Monitor and wait for lower P2 prices to upgrade instead of burning $4k on P2's right away. That will be the part of the system that devalues VERY, very quickly. Maybe I'd rent cards if I really needed them for something.

I just listened to the Firestore rep on some internet radio show. He emphasized the drives they use are very tough and they are mostly used by news crews. I'll have to at least look at how that would work in the real world. That's 2-3 hours of footage for $800 or so.. provided the HD price isn't higher than the SD price. We'll see about that.

[Barry_Green]

I thought it was more like 20 minutes on 2 8GB cards and less than half that at 60p. 2 16 gig cards would get you 40 minutes, right?
2 8gb cards would get you 40 minutes of 720/24p. You'd get about 16 minutes of 720/60p or any of the 1080 modes.

[joelnet]

2 8gb cards would get you 40 minutes of 720/24p. You'd get about 16 minutes of 720/60p or any of the 1080 modes.

Oh - well that's not bad. And currently 8gb is $2k?

[Barry_Green]

Well, "currently" the 8gb cards don't exist. They're going to debut in August. They are expected to be at $2k, because the camera alone is $5995, and the camera bundled with two 8gb cards will list at $9995.

[Mediacre]

1,500 for a Kona A/D converter + 1500 in components to build a compact computer box with storage. 3K+ 5k(HD100 likely street price) is 8K. It might actually work. If it does, you would have a 720p(24,25,30,50,60fps) variable frame rate, 4:2:2 uncompressed with exchangeble lens for under 10K. Now of course the price is just a guess. But if those Drake guys are doing it, there's a solution. Somebody just need to work on it.

[Mediacre]

Why do we have P2 talking in a HD100 forum by the way?

[joelnet]

Not much of a bundle discount eh? If I can buy this thing piece by piece for the same price I'll probably get the camera and a small P2 and play for a while hoping P2 pricing comes down.

Also - 3rd party P2 makers may arrive around then.

Overall I'm really looking forward to going HD in 6 months or so. I'll upgrade everything at the same time I guess. New computer, monitor and camera. Till then I've got a lot of software to get better at.

[xray]

Xray, your points are taken. You hate the idea. Fine. I wish you the best with your tape-based solution.
Im not standing still but do not find P2 practical now.

//And, assuming that you do, do you at least acknowledge that the Sony shoots interlaced ("reality") but not slower-frame-rate progressive ("drama"), and the JVC shoots 24p and 30p, but not 60p. If we can't agree on that, then there's no point in continuing any sort of discussion.//

I work with different cams, I know the specs, so we can agree on that. I have a sense of humor and talent for writing suspense too, thank you. I started working with film and the first U-matic in 1983.

[Barry_Green]

I work with different cams, I know the specs, so we can agree on that.
Just trying to find common ground. I absolutely agree that different cams are appropriate for different purposes. That's what I've been saying -- 24p is suitable for some types of shooting, but not for others. 60i/60p is definitely far superior for some types of shooting, but not for others. In that context, I think my comments about the Z1, and about the HD100, are entirely appropriate, consistent, and unbiased.


I have a sense of humor and talent for writing suspense too, thank you. I started working with film and the first U-matic in 1983.
Not questioning your credentials at all! Just because we may disagree on some things doesn't mean that I don't respect your opinion. In the interest of full disclosure, NAB seems to have delivered me some sort of nasty cold/virus, so I'm probably "crankier" than normal, and for that I apologize.

[simpleknight]

"The Sony FX1 and Z1 also have uncompressed output, but I don't think I've heard of anyone using it yet"

[simpleknight]

Barry Green says:

"The Sony FX1 and Z1 also have uncompressed output, but I don't think I've heard of anyone using it yet"

is this true? if so, how? i'd love to try this out...

sk

[Barry_Green]

How? How to use it? It's the same as the JVC: analog component output. The big question is, what are you going to do with it? If you want to record it, you'll need either an HD deck ($$$$$$$$$$) or a computer with an uncompressed analog input card, or a computer with an HD-SDI input and then you'll need an analog-to-HD-SDI converter, plus you'll need a RAID of hard disks that can support a sustained data rate of over 166 megabytes per second.

Plus you'd need enough storage, because one gigabyte will give you maybe 6 seconds of HD footage. That's 600 gigabytes for one hour of storage.

If you have all that, you could use uncompressed output from the FX1/Z1 right now. Of course, you can't record it to tape first, because tape is where it gets compressed, so you'd have to use this system for live production work only, no tape. But if you have that, you can get uncompressed output from any of these cameras (FX1, Z1, HD100, or HVX). It's not like the HD100 is providing any special capability, they can all do it. The only thing about the HD100 is that uncompressed output is the only way to get the 60p frame rate, I guess that's why it's garnering attention on the HD100. But it's not a feature that's unique to the HD100, they all support it.

[Mediacre]

Hmm, I was just thinking. Couldn't you record it to a D-Vhs deck? Or are they Mpeg only?
Maybe a W-VHS, if one could ever find one those days. I remember it had component in. It was analog HD with 1125 lines. Since the output is component, it is already coverted to analog. Wonder what kind of result would it produce.

[thisiswells]

D-VHS is MPEG2, Yes. The 28Mbps datarate is 50% higher than 19Mbps HDV format.
I have no idea what this means in terms of picture quality; it's anyone's guess.

You bring up an interesting point in W-VHS.. wasn't thing (EDIT:that) an analog HD format or something?

[thisiswells]

To answer the redindian's original question, "what is an uncompressed signal out"
---------------------

1) The same thing as the analog composite or S-video output on a MiniDV camera,
except on the small HD camera it's three composite connections for a component signal.

2) The same thing as the three analog composite connectors on the back of a dvd player
with component outputs, except they are HD-ized in a Hi-Def camera and not SD.

brian wells

[Mediacre]

Yep. W-VHS is analog HD. But the uncompressed output would also be analog HD. Interesting indeed.

[Barry_Green]

D-VHS is the same thing as HDV. So recording to D-VHS would defeat the whole point of why you wanted to go uncompressed in the first place.

Don't know anything about W-VHS. It was 1080i-only, wasn't it? If so you'd be crossconverting the 720p output of the camera to 1080i, then recording that on the W-VHS deck... but I have no idea what sort of recording format or compression W-VHS uses...

[Mediacre]

It wasn't 1080. It would record any resolution up to 1125 lines. I think uncompressed.

[thisiswells]

Mediacre,
Find out more about it and send us some links. Thanks.

[Mediacre]

That's the problem. It's hard to find info on it. Best thing would be somebody who has a contact in JVC ask for info.

[dvxStephen]

The idea of using the component output of any one of the current crop of HDV cameras has caught my eye for green screen studio work, as I have a bunch of this to do before the new Panny comes out.

Rather than assuming it the component output from these cameras would have to be captured uncompressed, with all the bandwidth overhead that implies, surely there must be a vaguely affordable way to convert the analog component signal on site to DVCPro50 -- and either record to tape in that format, or direct to disk in a laptop or even a desktop computer.

For example, at the high end, using Panasonic's AJ-SD93 with the optional component input module would do this, and also allow (as I understand it) direct DVCPro50 firewire output in addition to rolling tape. But it's an expensive solution -- close to $8k for the deck and the deck's optional card that's needed to pull this off. On the other hand, this deck would also be a useful way to record long runs from Panny's new camera (without fear of bumping the camera while changing out cards) until larger P2 cards come down in price, as well providing a means for archiving footage in multiple formats including DVCPro50.

Better yet, Is there a laptop PCMCIA card that converts analog component to DVCPro50, allowing laptop 4:2:2 capture on location -- or another way to accomplish this with a laptop? That'd be fantastic!

If not, is there an affordable PCI card for a desktop unit that does this? (Component to DVCPro50 4:2:2) Of course it would mean lugging a desktop computer to the job site, but for studio green screen work that might be well worth the tradeoff.

All this assumes that the component output from the Sony or JVC units, or Panny's new camera, are all of high enough quality (4:2:2 or better) to make all this worth the effort...

[dvxStephen]

I should clarify my previous post-- I'm shooting SD, and the deck solution I mentioned above, the SD93, is SD.

My goal is seeing if I can come up with a way to approach SDX900 quality green screen keying and avoid DV25's 4:1:1 compression on our green screen segments. I know I can rent a SDX900, but we have weeks of green screen work ahead of us this summer, and I'm hoping I can put what would otherwise go into SDX rental into something that would approach that key quality -- a camera setup that I could come close to paying for, instead of pouring it into SDX rental.

Another way I could go, I guess, is to shoot HDV with one of these cameras (Sony or JVC) and pull my key before converting back to SD. Perhaps that would work just as well...

If noone's already evalutated this, I'll run some tests once Final Cut 5's shipping, borrowing a friend's Sony HDV, and can post the results if there's interest here.

[Graeme_Nattress]

35mm print lenses have been resolving beyond HD for a long time. (OK, I know there are breathing issues when zooming etc. - but still Nikon and Canon have great lenses relatively cheap)

35mm lenses resolve a lot less detail than an HD lens needs to achieve it's full rated pixel resolution on the CCD. A 35mm lens might resolve somewhere in the region of 40-50lp/mm, whereas the lens on a HDCAM needs to resolve 100lp/mm, and a 720p camera with a 1/3" CCD needs about 133lp/mm and a 1080p camera with a 1/3" CCD needs 200lp/mm. The smaller the imaging area for a given resolution means you need a higher quality lens.

Graeme

[Don Tucci]

Hi just a note on lenses .both canon and nikon have primes capable of over 100lp/mm please ck out nikon 60mm f2.8 as an example.Don

[Graeme_Nattress]

Do you have a reference for them, measurements, price etc?

Graeme

[Knock Out Films]

Regarding the uncompressed idea. I've read thru the posts but I'm still a bit unsure.

I understand that you can get HD uncompressed analoge component
-Is this 4:4:4 or 4:2:2?
-Can I do 720p24 or is it just 720p60?
-Is the only way to capture this via Kona 2 HDSDI (or other card) straight into FCP (or other NLE)?
-Could you take the signal (still thru Kona) and use a different codec, say DVCProHD into standard drives?
-How would this analogue component signal look vs digital component.
-Would all menu adjustments, gama, etc, apply to the signal out?

Cheers,
Chris

[Barry_Green]

-Is this 4:4:4 or 4:2:2?
Analog is not 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 or x:x:x anything -- those are digital notations, and only apply to digital signals. Analog signals use sampling frequency, the details of which have not been disclosed yet as to how the JVC does it; I don't think we know how the Sonys do it either.

Frankly it could be the equivalent of 4:4:4, or it could be the equivalent of 4:2:0, or it could be the equivalent of 4:2:2, or the equiv of 3:1:1, or maybe even something else... I don't think any details have been announced. My guess is that it's more like 4:2:0, since in DV the chroma decimation step is unrelated to the digital compression step, and presumably in HDV it will be the same. But that's just a guess.


-Can I do 720p24 or is it just 720p60?
You can only output 720/60p, but it will output the 24p images carried within a 60p stream. So, yes, you could output 720/24p, but when you go to capture it you'll be capturing 60p, and you'll have to identify and remove duplicate frames.


Is the only way to capture this via Kona 2 HDSDI (or other card) straight into FCP (or other NLE)?
An HD-SDI card cannot capture an analog component signal. You'd need to either get an analog component HD capture card or, if getting an HD-SDI card, you'd need to get a converter that converts analog component into HD-SDI. You'd need a huge array of RAIDed hard disks as well.

Another capture option would be to a tape deck, like HDCAM-SR or D-5 (presuming, of course, that the deck has an analog component input).


-Could you take the signal (still thru Kona) and use a different codec, say DVCProHD into standard drives?
Probably. But if you were going to do that, it might make more sense to get an HVX instead and avoid the conversions entirely (plus all the other features, including 1080i/1080p and variable frame rates).


How would this analogue component signal look vs digital component.
No way to know until we see it. An educated guess would be that it's not going to be as good, but how different? Don't know.


Would all menu adjustments, gama, etc, apply to the signal out?
From what I understand, yes.

[dvxStephen]

The smoke seems to be clearing on a way to do high quality SD green screen studio work affordably while waiting on the new Panny. I've found that AJA's IO box (about $2k) will convert component (SD only) on the fly, direct into a Powerbook firewire port, and with final cut you can set the resulting capture to be uncompressed 4:4:4, DVCPro50, or anything you want, really.

And DVCPro 50 and maybe even uncompressed SD apparently is something one can capture using affordable accelerated firewire 800 drives, which La Cie says handle around 80 mbs. (La Cie has two flavors of firewire 800 drives, and the accellerated ones are almost twice as fast.)

So outfitting the powerbook with a PC firewire card to accept the AJA signal, and using the powerbook's built in firewire 800 port for the external drive, looks like a workable solution.

Then the trick, of course, is finding an affordable camera that ouputs SD component until Panny's new camera comes out, since it should do competent greenscreen work without much trouble.

Meanwhile, since Sonys and the forthcomming JVCs can switch between MiniDV and HDV, will either of them put out compenent SD when in MiniDV mode?

Thanks!