Why doesn't the HVX do HDV? [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Mediacre

10-15-2005, 07:51 AM

I don’t think roxics wants HDV instead of DVCPRO-HD. I think he just wants one more option. Maybe for projects he doesn’t need the extra color space, and could use some storage space savings. Having said that, this thread had some pretty funny and other plain ridiculous comments.

why the hell would you want HDV over DVCPRO HD?.

Why the hell would you want DVCPRO-HD over HDCAM?

The way I see it, HDV may have a place in the consumer industry for average-joe users who want "cheap HD" in order to film their kid's birthday parties, but other than that, it's just a toy.

I’m glad you started with “The way you see it”. Because to say such a stupid thing is the same as saying, HDCAM is the real professional format, DVCPRO-HD is just a toy! Also, which one looks more like a toy for you? A HD100 or the HVX200 with it's Fisher Price blue plastic looking?
The thing is that as somebody else said, most of HDV bashers have never worked with HDV. So they have no right or base to put the format down. Most of those people who are praising DVCPRO-HD have never seen anything shot on DVCPRO-HD, or even operated a Varicam. So they have no base to compare either. All they have is specifications to draw from.
If compression was what determined the quality of a format, DVCPRO-HD would be worse than DV, because it’s more compressed. If color space was what determined the quality of a format, DVCPRO-HD would be better than HDCAM. But HDCAM is the chosen format by Hollywood for movie production. Do you think they picked it because it’s worse?
I have never seen a major studio film shot on a Varicam. Only HDCAM, HDCAM-SR and Viper. Now we have Superman with the Genesis.
So the whole talk that HDV is so much worse than DVCPRO-HD because it’s more compressed and have an inferior color space holds no water. Also we have the matter of the camera head. As mezelf27 said, DVCPRO-HD will be no good if the camera head is not. Since Panasonic is hesitating in releasing any specifications on the camera head, you can only guess it’s not that impressive. Why would they miss the chance to hype it if it was impressive? Specially Panasonic, who is the queen of hyping. If it was Canon, it would be understandable. They are not of the talky kind. They don’t hype. They just release their products. But Panasonic loves to hype their things even before they know what it will be. So why are they withholding the specs?
So yes, DVCPRO is better than HDV in some ways. But HDV also has advantages over DVCPRO-HD, like a more efficient compression. DVCPRO is not that much better in the real world and not better in every scenario. If shot with a Varicam, against a HD100, DVCPRO will sure look better. But we don’t know about the HVX200. As mezelf27 , I will also take a superior camera head on an inferior format, over a mediocre camera head on a superior format any day of the week.
The real test will be when the HVX200 comes out. We will see if it will be the better camera or just have the “better” format. Until then, all this ridiculous comments only sound like cheerleading from people who have no idea of what they are talking about.

You have $10,000.00 to spend on a camera.... You have 2 options, the Canon XLH1 (the only real semi-professional HDV) or the HVX200....

Dude, you made me almost choke to death laughing. A camera with an auto lens is the only real semi-professional HDV camera? So I hope you are saying that because you consider the HD100 is professional. Because it is, and way more than the Canon XL-H1. The HD100 is sold by JVC's professional division. I passed on the HD100 because of the split screen issues. But, it's much more professional than the XL-H1. The XL-H1 is just a black XL2. The XL2 is no way more professional than the HD100, that is a camera with a manual professional lens. Besides that, just pick a HD100 up and then do the same with a XL2. Just there, you can see which one is more professional. SDI doesn't make a professional camera and neither does a format.

mezelf27

10-15-2005, 10:14 AM

I coudn't have said that better....

Nathyn

10-15-2005, 12:10 PM

No, of course not. I would want you to actually sit down and have to think about that... Take your MiniDV tape and a keep on a shootin' my man! Although, what I said in my other post still holods up, if you keep shooting and dont stop to think about what your shooting, it wont turn out as good!

I mean, really folks! Think about it, would it really kill us to stop shooting for 15 or so minutes between 18 minutes run time's just to pop the card in the laptop and let it unbload while your explaining the next scene to your actors?

Video-tape people are so spoiled, and those who complain about 18 minute run times have clearly never shot film.
I graduated from Columbia College Chicago, you don't take film classes if you don't shoot film, and shooting and editing film is why I love DV. I'll agree I am spoilded. The DVX aided in the spoiling and the HVX continues. I don't like having to reload a camera or stop and dump P2 cards, if I did, I'd be shooting film. If you read my many posts you know I advocate the Firestore system and tape only as a back up.

And no one whose really directing a film continues to shoot without set-up, running lines, general direction, etc. As a one man crew or often part of a small crew, I would prefer not having to worry about reloading/dumping P2 every few minutes while I'm also directing, choregraphing, etc. So yes, while I love the HVX and hope to get one I do see the advantage of HDV being able to back up on tape while capturing digitally at the same time. I like the idea.

Again I would say I too would've loved an HDV setting on the HVX specifically for movies I knew weren't going to film (micro budget horror/action) but I'll take what I can get and for the money, the HVX seems to be king and I can always drop the footage down to SD. Still if it wasn't for the problems with the JVC it would've been the main contender with the HVX as far as I'm concerned. The initial Split Screen/Dead pixel problem (Sony's PS2 had dead pixels and virtually destroyed them in Japan), $13,000 step lens and now the continual split screen problem keep me far away from the HD100. And I'm not one of these anti-JVC people (it's obvious JVC does make good pro-stuff but they just dropped the ball here) considering I used to love that consumer Hi8 camera with the swivel screen and I liked the images it produced.

Again I'm curious as to how many HDV bashers have used (shot on/edited) HDV because I've been on a lot of video forums and there's always a lot of chatter but I'm willing to bet 90% or more of those who bash HDV (like those who bash cameras) haven't used it. That not a pro HDV statement as much as it's just probably the truth. People shot on the original JVC and found ways to edit, many seem to love the Sony FX1 even without 24p, and some have even found ways to shoot on the current JVC w/ split and all. And these people will beat you if you try to take their cams. Many of these people are professionals. So do they just not know the pitfalls of "uneditable" HDV? Have they been in the dark for years?

-Nate

Barry_Green

10-15-2005, 01:05 PM

Why the hell would you want DVCPRO-HD over HDCAM?
Because HDCAM can't do 720p and can't do variable frame rates maybe? :thumbsup:

But HDCAM is the chosen format by Hollywood for movie production. Do you think they picked it because it’s worse? I have never seen a major studio film shot on a Varicam.
Stick with apples to apples please. HDCAM/CineAlta has been chosen over the VariCam by Hollywood primarily because the VariCam is only 720p. HDCAM is a directly comparable format to DVCPRO-HD, but 720p is not directly comparable to 1080p. They chose 1080p, not HDCAM. When the VariCam II comes out, with its rumored 1080p version, that will make for a rather interesting choice, and we'll see if the CineAlta remains the Hollywood choice.

Since Panasonic is hesitating in releasing any specifications on the camera head, you can only guess it’s not that impressive. Why would they miss the chance to hype it if it was impressive?
See, that's where you lost me. Did you even bother to go look at the footage at any of the ResFest events? Specs don't mean crap if the footage doesn't hold up. The footage holds up. It looks substantially superior to any HDV footage I've seen yet. Substantially.

So why are they withholding the specs?
I don't know. And, frankly, I don't really care, as long as the footage delivers. I have a "native 1280x720" HDV camera here, I know all the specs in the world on it, and the specs sound pretty good. But the footage isn't very good at all. The lens is abnormally soft, it's grainy, there's a lot of chroma noise, there's white speckles all throughout whenever you use the slow shutter speed, and -- oh yeah, every now and then there's a split-screen issue that ruins the shot completely. And sure, the specs on the lens sure sound great -- "professional this" and "professional that" -- but when you get massive chromatic aberrations and color fringing, and you get incredibly soft edges when you zoom in, and when the entire picture takes a slight magenta or slight green tint depending on how you pan -- what do the specs matter at that point?

Specs? Footage is king. Specs are not. Specs are not what you use in day-to-day use, they're what marketers use to try to sell the product. Footage is what you use to sell your services, not specs.

The XL2 is no way more professional than the HD100, that is a camera with a manual professional lens. Besides that, just pick a HD100 up and then do the same with a XL2. Just there, you can see which one is more professional. SDI doesn't make a professional camera and neither does a format.
I'm 100% with Mediacre on this. We haven't done a lot of agreeing in the past, but here we will for sure. The HD100, if it would just work, would be a fantastic little camera and completely professional. It looks and feels and acts like a pro cam. If they solve the split-screen issue and fix whatever the heck's wrong with my lens, I'd be happy with it for what it is. I used the XL H1 at ResFest, and it's a little better than the XL2, but it's still a consumerish cam from a consumer division of Canon, that happens to have some nice pro connectors on it. That doesn't make it a pro cam, and that lens (while sharp and basically aberration-free) is not in any way "professional" to use. If they could gut the JVC's optics and replace them with the glass from the Canon, (and fix the JVC's other issues), then you'd really have something there.

Alex Leith

10-15-2005, 03:57 PM

There seems to be a rather a lot of predjuce here against all things that don't have a Panasonic badge.

Judging by some of the responses you would get the impression that HDV looked worse than 3rd generation VHS, and that DVCProHD can see in the dark and gently massages your feet while you film, and that HDCAM - whilst looking good - calls you names and then has a poop in your coffee when your back is turned...

HDV is not as bad as most people here seem to think. MPEG2 as an interframe compression codec is about twice as effecient as an intraframe codec like DVCProHD - and that's part of the reason why the data rate is so much lower. HDV chroma resolution is lower, but luma resolution is higher. And contrary to popular belief motion artefacts are not as common as some would have you believe - jumping out of the picture, kicking you and then shaking the tripod.

In terms of data-rate HDCAM is less compressed than DVCProHD, although it does have weird undersampling of both luma and chroma.

And I would agree with most that DVCProHD (especially in the HVX200) is a great combination of quality and value. But I wouldn't assume that HDV is leaving crumbs in the bed just because I'd prefer DVCProHD.

ddh

10-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Look Alex - Jan has said Panasonic is not a member of the HDV consortium. It's as simple as that. DVCProHD in the HVX, I'm sure, will live up to what we've come to expect as standard on the DVX = great images! I'm personally more interested in SD at 4.2.2 at the moment and that's what excites me about the HVX. I'd love to have something like the SDX 800 but I've got to think of the future and HD figures in that future. The HVX has got a right now usability that will get me better green screen capabilities and is in the center of the up-coming HD revolution. Here in Japan, HD TV sets are selling, so, it's clear HD is here to stay.

Alex Leith

10-15-2005, 05:31 PM

Look Alex - Jan has said Panasonic is not a member of the HDV consortium. It's as simple as that.

Heh! Heh! I know! I'm for DVCPro not against it! Given the choice I would use DVCProHD over HDV! But I have used HDV and it's not as bad as some people maintain. I'm just trying to encourage people not to be prejudice and to investigate things for themselves.

I'm personally more interested in SD at 4.2.2 at the moment and that's what excites me about the HVX.

I agree. I think it's absolutely fantastic that Panasonic have given us the full swath of DVCPro variants here. The HVX is going to be a fantastic and very versitile little tool.

Loki

10-15-2005, 06:52 PM

There seems to be a rather a lot of predjuce here against all things that don't have a Panasonic badge.

well.. this site is called 'dvxuser.com' for a reason...

Judging by some of the responses you would get the impression that HDV looked worse than 3rd generation VHS, and that DVCProHD can see in the dark and gently massages your feet while you film, and that HDCAM - whilst looking good - calls you names and then has a poop in your coffee when your back is turned...

it is my opinion that HDV does look like poop. The footage I have seen where there is actually something going on, eg: the footage apple uses to show off FCP at the apple store, all the footage of waves crashing on shore look pretty awful, I can plainly see the blocky MPEG artifiacts...

Sure HDV looks great when there is no movement, or it is a simple shot... but start adding in complex imagery, something with high frequency of detail... like grass.. water etc.. and the MPEG-2 compression falls apart... noticing this on a computer monitor is one thing.. but I can imagine it blown up and shown on a 30 foot screen... artifiacts galore.

HDV is not as bad as most people here seem to think. MPEG2 as an interframe compression codec is about twice as effecient as an intraframe codec like DVCProHD - and that's part of the reason why the data rate is so much lower. HDV chroma resolution is lower, but luma resolution is higher. And contrary to popular belief motion artefacts are not as common as some would have you believe - jumping out of the picture, kicking you and then shaking the tripod.

HDV is just poor... who cares if it is a more efficient compression? That comes at the sacrifice of quality.. it is a trade and always will be. Interframe compression is just plain bad for anything that requires frame by frame work.. DVCPRO-HD is just a plain better format... technically and visually... Intraframe is easier to edit any day.. plus less compression means the image will hold up better over multiple generations of manipulation.

I know what your trying to argue.. I am just making my point here...

I don't see what all the fuss is about anyways.. by the time most of the people actually go into HD production... it will be a 5 years... by that time.. we should have 32 and 64 GB P2 cards....

Anhar Miah

10-15-2005, 07:30 PM

Didn't Jan C. already answer this?

If I remember correctly it was along the lines of something like:

Panasonic wanted to make a distinction from HDV, because if the HVX did do HDV, then what may happen is that HDV's weaknesses and negative qualities would be attributed to the camera. That’s how I remember it anyway.

Anhar

eddavid

10-22-2005, 07:02 PM

I have to say that HD is nice for resolution and color space..but, Digibeta has a "better" color space than mini dv and I would choose to shoot on the DVX over DIGI beta anyday.
if you expose and light properly you can get a GREAT look from these cameras. After all your real audience, the ones you make these videos and films for, will have a very hard time distinguising 16mm from the SD DVX100.

DV over digi, huh? You want to rethink that for a second?

esperman

10-22-2005, 07:09 PM

lol. his screen name is high8

esperman

10-22-2005, 07:27 PM

I have shot varicam, dvcpro 50 , dvcam and dv. I have seen alot of hdv...from jvc, and canon. Sorry guys...hdv doesn't look good. Effiecent codec? so what. long GOP is not the way to go.
and at rez fest they were trying to justify why the hdv footage looked bad...and the color space is worse than SD DV. Stay away from hdv, at least for now. It's not even a standard format between manufactures.

dont wast 6-9k on crap ....I'll take good SD over crap HD compressed within an inch of it's life anyday.

Tibby

10-22-2005, 08:06 PM

Most HDV decks in cameras will record to standard DV. Had Panasonic included a deck of that nature in the HVX200 it would completely dominate that market.

Wow think of all the choices!!!

Multiple frame rates, multiple formats, multiple resolutions.

Let's not pretend that anyone purchasing an HVX200 this year wouldn't mind the option of HDV, but alas Panasonic wouldn't sell as many P2 cards.

HDV consortium? Huh...it ain't the mafia, it ain't the illuminati, it aint the freakin Masons. It's not like it's some club Panasonic couldn't join

Anhar Miah

10-22-2005, 08:26 PM

Huh, I may be wrong but , the Illuminatim and free Masons are all but the same thing?

anyway thats OT, interesting BUT OT, (UNLESS I SHAKE MY HANDS IN THIS MANOR) :wink:

Anhar

braw

10-22-2005, 09:33 PM

It's not like it's some club Panasonic couldn't join

correction: wouldn't join. :happy:

Bob Diesso

10-23-2005, 02:19 AM

Specs don't mean crap if the footage doesn't hold up.

Specs? Footage is king. Specs are not. Specs are not what you use in day-to-day use, they're what marketers use to try to sell the product. Footage is what you use to sell your services, not specs.

Barry, you are a highly respected industry figure and many people, including myself, hang on virtually your every word.

But language like this makes me very nervous. ("Never mind that man behind the curtain.") Too many of your posts devote so much time to split screen and the unfortunate details of the HD100. By your own admission, you get to tag along on behind-the-scenes Panasonic interviews. What I want to hear about are SPECIFICS of the HVX200! That's what we're all here for, aren't we? Respectfully, if I wanted to hear complaints about the HD100, I'd be reading DVinfo.

By your own words, demo cameras are coming to Panasonic's salespeople November 8th. So the specs are now finished!!! Coy wording creates the impression Panasonic is ashamed of the specs. This is NOT what I want to believe!

Where are the HVX technical details and real PICTURES??

mezelf27

10-23-2005, 05:40 AM

esperman

10-23-2005, 08:16 AM

by the way, ProHD is SHORT-gop HDV... I haven't seen a single motion-compression-artifact in footage from the HD101's HDV...

i stand corrected on that point...

I wanted to like the JVC ProHD...I really did. But the codec is too constrained.

Haakon

10-23-2005, 09:31 AM

Where are the HVX technical details and real PICTURES??
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?p=324675#post324611

Barry_Green

10-24-2005, 02:50 AM

("Never mind that man behind the curtain.")

Sorry, but I've been fielding the "what's the pixel count" question for about 8 months now. I've answered every possible permutation of pixel counts, I've gone into every circumstance I can imagine, I've pointed out how megapixel CCDs harm video quality in every camera that uses 'em, I've demonstrated mathematically how Panasonic could get a native 1080p picture from as little as 960x720 chips, I've tried to point out a hundred different ways that the actual chip count is nearly irrelevant as far as the final image is concerned...

... and yet people insist on asking this same question. Even though it's obvious we don't have the answer, we haven't been given it.

So I ask again: what would you do with the information, if you knew it? Would it somehow influence your buying decision? Would knowing the pixel count of the chip, in any way/shape/form, change your opinion of the product? If so, then I'd say your priorities are in the wrong place -- you should be making your decisions based on the FOOTAGE, not the pixel count.

And yes, I re-iterate my HD100 experience: on paper it may have sounded good, in practicality it had split-screen issues, chroma noise, poor sensitivity, and my particular unit had a defective slow-shutter system and very poor overall resolution. Should I cling to the specs to comfort me? Or should I look at the footage and say "screw this, this thing's going back to the store?"

I'm not saying we're not curious, I'm sure we'd all like to know the specifications, just like many of us want to know how many horsepower our car has. But we do not have that answer, and won't have it until Panasonic releases it, and may never have it.

Does it matter? Really and truly? Would you rather have a high-pixel-count chip, even if that means a split-screen picture and lousy sensitivity and a noisy image and fixed-pattern noise? Or would you rather have killer footage, regardless of what the pixel count is?

I'd give an answer if I had one. I don't have it. But in the intervening 8 months, I've had plenty of time to think about it, and I've come to the conclusion that the chip count is IRRELEVANT. It really, truly, deep down, doesn't mean jack squat. The only thing that matters is what the footage looks like. If the footage doesn't hold up, the camera's a dud, regardless of what the pixel count is. If the footage sings, the camera's a winner, regardless of what the pixel count is. How would pixel count influence that one way or the other?

Too many of your posts devote so much time to split screen and the unfortunate details of the HD100.
That's because I bought one and used it and had firsthand experience with it, and knew the answers to the questions people were asking. With any luck, tomorrow I'll receive my RMA# and the HD100 will exit my life and all will be well again. But the point is: the specs sounded good. The footage was not. I decided that I was not comforted by the printed literature that listed the specs.

What I want to hear about are SPECIFICS of the HVX200!
You've heard all that we have. When more is known, it will be discussed. It cannot be discussed before it's known.

By your own words, demo cameras are coming to Panasonic's salespeople November 8th. So the specs are now finished!!! Coy wording creates the impression Panasonic is ashamed of the specs. This is NOT what I want to believe!
I doubt they're "ashamed" -- they all seem pretty darn proud of the product. But I have been told repeatedly that they will let the footage do the talking.

Here's two scenarios for you. Let's presume that in both scenarios, the footage is absolutely drop-dead gorgeous, okay? Let's also presume that the chip pixel spec is startlingly low -- let's say 400 x 300 or something ridiculous like that, and that through some sort of camcorder engineering wizardry, they make it deliver a full native resolution image. And, let's say that in side-by-side demonstrations, it's shown to be clearly sharper, cleaner, more detailed, with better sensitivity and better latitude than all the competition (XL-H1, Z1, HD100, etc).

In scenario 1, they announce the chip spec before footage is available.
In scenario 2, they announce the chip spec after footage is available.

What would happen in scenario 1? I'll tell you what would happen, people on this board and others would shriek holy hell and raise a hue and cry and stink about it and complain, they'd pronounce the product dead on arrival, they'd suggest that anyone still considering it would have to be an idiot, etc. Now, mind you, these are people who are NOT camera engineers, do NOT understand imaging technology, and would have never seen a frame of HVX footage. But oh how they would complain. And yes, that would taint the product and put a stain on its introduction, and many people may make up their minds to look elsewhere.

Now, in scenario 2, the footage gets released first. People see it and they go ga-ga. They go wild, they love it, and they start chanting "show us the specs! show us the specs!" And Panasonic eventually says the number. What's people's reactions at that point? More than likely they'd say "are you kidding me? Amazing! How did they do that? This is incredible, I didn't think you could do that, but the footage doesn't lie." Buzz continues to build, and instead of being excoriated, the engineers are praised for their amazing technological accomplishment.

It's not unlike filmmaking. Make a movie on a $500 budget and most of the jaded distributors will say "uh, no thanks." Let them see the movie first and get them excited to where they want to buy it, have them actually offer you a million bucks for it, and THEN tell them you made it for $500, and they'll be blown away. Same movie. Same budget. The difference is all in how you manage the info.

So -- again: I don't know the specs. I'm not worried about it, I've seen the footage. I look forward to finding out what the specs are, and I look forward to testing the daylights out of the camera to see what it's capable of. But I am not worried about what the specs are. I've seen the best specs, and I've seen what comes of that footage. Specs are overrated.

aquafox

10-24-2005, 06:11 AM

Bless you Barry. This should be made into a sticky, so people would read it before asking.

mezelf27

10-24-2005, 09:05 AM

So I ask again: what would you do with the information, if you knew it? Would it somehow influence your buying decision? Would knowing the pixel count of the chip, in any way/shape/form, change your opinion of the product? If so, then I'd say your priorities are in the wrong place -- you should be making your decisions based on the FOOTAGE, not the pixel count.

Obviously the footage rules, but the footage is a result of DSP-ed light that was captured onto a sensor. Quality of footage and quality of CCD (in this case, number of pixels) is obviously very much connected.

Footage of a 400x300 camcorder might look good or fine, just as long as you know: it looks good for a 400x300 sensor-camcorder. Problem is, if sharpness and definition is what you're after, there is NO substitute for pixelcount. yes, you can interpolate missing pixels to enhance the resolution. You might do it linear, cubic, bicubic or even with spline-interpolation. The last one is very, very good. It's just no native resolution and it never will yield the same true definition in your footage. Pixels-shift is another technique, arrange the 3 CCD, so that the short in resolution is covered by the fact that colors that are given priority by our eyes are represented best. Better than interpolation? Better than linear interpolation. Probably no better then spline interpolation. DEFENATELY no replacement for native resolution CCD's.

If you can't have full res, pixelshift is the best. No doubt. But if you can have full res: even better. a whole lot better.

I understand the sentiment you're trying to make, but I also understand that someone is anxious to know the real specs, because they matter too. It isn't possible to mathematically prove that 960x720 is enough for 1080p, because it isn't. It means that the highest detail you can get in your camcorder from the outside world is your frame surface devided by (960 x 720). You can uprez that, but higher order corrections (like interpolation) are just 'mathematical guessing techniques' estimation that nothing weird happens in between scan lines. Obviously you lost that info at the CCD and you won't get it back.

Truly dosens and dosens of techniques exist ('nearest neighbours', ....), but they all have in common that they estimate what would be in between pixels, by information out of the rest of the image. No real world solution there, only continuous mathematical models. Nice solutions, no substitute for the real world.

Besides Barry, if that would be so - I was out of a job. No need then for us (mathematicians and physics masters) to refine new techniques...

mmm

10-24-2005, 11:13 AM

I think Panasonic are just jealous that HDV can record higher resolution at 1/4 the bitrate of DVCPROHD...

:evil:

In all honesty, HDV can look pretty darn good at first generation. At present I would prefer the compromises of ProHD to DVCPROHD on P2, but in a year or two I am sure I will feel different. From what I have seen, 1080i HDV at only 25Mbps is pushing it. That does mean that I won't buy an HVX though. The footage will determine that.

If I am doing higher end work, I use more than a 1/3" camera. IMHO 720p HDV is a good match to this level of camera. I wouldn't go recording a $100M feature on it though!

jdv

10-24-2005, 11:50 AM

...And yes, I re-iterate my HD100 experience: on paper it may have sounded good, in practicality it had split-screen issues, chroma noise, poor sensitivity, and my particular unit had a defective slow-shutter system and very poor overall resolution. Should I cling to the specs to comfort me? Or should I look at the footage and say "screw this, this thing's going back to the store?"

Barry - I, for one, have deeply appreciated your view/review(s) of the JVC 100. I run a small independant film company, and for us, the next camera we purchase will be the only one we use for the next 2 to 3 years, along w/ whatever else we need to make it sing (which editing system, etc).

Having never used the DVX I had no real loyalty to Panasonic and thought that, on paper, the JVC was the obvious way to go.... But then all those rumors about the SSE and other problems began to surface.

Out of all the reviews, on this site and others, I felt that yours was the most thought-out, least emotional, and most informative of those I had read. With your most recent postings, plus the others I had read, I now feel that I made the right desicion to wait for the HVX....

And that is what makes boards like DVXuser such a power tool. As a small shop w/limited time and money, the decision on which equipment to buy is invaluably aided by postings by yourself + others who take the time to help the rest of us who are not experts in cameras, et al.

Specs are interesting - but the picture is King.

Hail to the King baby - and keep up the great work on this board. Thanks....
John

Barry_Green

10-24-2005, 12:34 PM

But if you can have full res: even better. a whole lot better.
This is where the whole concept just doesn't work though.

Is native res better for resolution? Maybe -- keeping in mind that there is not a 1:1 relationship between CCD pixels and frame pixels.

But is native res better for IMAGE QUALITY? Not necessarily! And when it comes to 1/3" sensors, the answer is almost definitely NO. For 2/3", I'll agree with you. For 1/3", I don't.

The pixels get too small, and too much surface area is wasted with the dividing lines between the CCD registers. And the pixels get smaller than the resolving capability of the lens. So you end up with unnecessarily small pixels, which results in wasted image quality.

There is a see-saw effect, with competing, arguing factors in play. On one side you have resolution. On the other side you have everything else: latitude, sensitivity, noise, signal-to-noise ratio, everything. They are in direct competition. If you go for native-pixel res, you will be tilting the scales in favor of resolution, but necessarily and unavoidably harming sensitivity and latitude and SNR. If you go for larger pixels, you put more weight towards sensitivity and latitude and SNR, at the expense of maximum potential resolution.

There's a critical mass of pixel density and pixel size. Once you get above the "critical mass" you can expect great performance with native-res pixels; 2/3" cameras accomplish critical mass, where the sensor pixels are large enough that making them larger wouldn't add much power to the sensor, but would harm resolution. However, 1/3" sensors are way, way below that critical mass.

Look at it this way: what effect does adding another computer to your rendering farm have on the overall farm's performance?

The answer is, of course, that it depends on how large the farm was to begin with. If you have 100 computers in your rendering farm, adding one will have a negligible impact on performance. If you only had one computer, adding a second one will have a tremendous impact.

That's the way it is with these CCD pixels -- a megapixel 1/3" CCD has pixels that are so unbelivably tiny that we run into limitations as to how they can resolve an image. The ratio of dead area (between pixels) on the sensor vs. sensitive area grows dramatically as the pixel size shrinks too. Add a little size to that pixel and you have a massive impact on its performance.

With a 2/3" chip, it doesn't matter -- each pixel is so big that adding a little size to it would have minimal impact -- so at 2/3" size, native res is the goal.

But with 1/3", native res does more harm than good. The pixels are just too small to begin with; making them smaller than necessary just hurts video performance.

I'd love to be proven wrong, of course -- I'd love to have maximum resolution AND maximum latitude AND maximum sensitivity AND maximum SNR. But I don't think it's possible.

mezelf27

10-24-2005, 01:08 PM

Barry, I thgink we're agreeing, just not saying it properly.... If resolution is what you are after: you need the pixels on the CCD's. which does indeed bring problems along about resolving power of lens etc, etc...

On the other hand does it have advantages to have less pixels indeed: higher sensitivity, ...

BUT: I clearly stated "if definition and sharpness is what you're after...." you need the pixels. Actually, I'd like the HVX to stick to 720p if (!) the CCD turn out to be just 960x720... All kinds of uprezzing can be done in post - rather than when shooting (with the obvious exception of pixel shift, but that does enhance resolution just like 1/3...).

I have to agree that it sometimes is better to have a nice shot with the right colours and suffer some resolution. In some curcumstances you won't notice the lack of resolution.

People that are asking about the pixel-count are obviously after the "sharpness and definition", so it is valuable information for them - and frankly, I need to agree with them that only saying the footage will be wonderful and "we don't want to start a war of numbers" are coy words.

No disrespect to you Barry, you indeed bring lots and lots of valuable info to these boards and give very good advice to these people.

steindj

10-24-2005, 01:37 PM

It's not unlike filmmaking. Make a movie on a $500 budget and most of the jaded distributors will say "uh, no thanks." Let them see the movie first and get them excited to where they want to buy it, have them actually offer you a million bucks for it, and THEN tell them you made it for $500, and they'll be blown away. Same movie. Same budget. The difference is all in how you manage the info.

The advantage for us more creative types is that while most of this technical talk flies way over our heads and we'd really like to understand more of it, at the end of the day we arrive at the same place. The footage looks good or it doesn't.:thumbsup:

Barry_Green

10-24-2005, 01:43 PM

No disrespect to you Barry, you indeed bring lots and lots of valuable info to these boards and give very good advice to these people.

And I very much appreciate your participation in these discussions as well! You're exceptionally knowledgeable and level-headed.

I know people are interested in the chip specs; I'm just amazed at how persistently (and how passionately) this question keeps coming up. Especially because there is no concrete answer we can give -- we don't know the specs.

Here's how I look at it: I was a professional videogame programmer for 15 years, and gamers are at *least* as rabid at following new product introductions as we camera geeks are. Tons of chatter in the forums about this new game or that new game. But in the 15 years I was a programmer, I don't think I EVER heard anyone say "yeah, but what LANGUAGE are they programming it in?" or "If they program it in C++ I'll buy it, but if they write the program in C then forget it, I'll buy Warcraft instead." I mean, it never, ever entered into any discussions.

If the game played well, if it was responsive and fast and had great design and it was fun, then it would do well in the marketplace and we'd sell lots of them.

If it didn't play well, it didn't matter what language we programmed it in -- it'd tank!

And who, among the gaming community, was qualified to judge what language we should be programming it in anyway?

Occasionally we'd hear someone being excited about something because it was programmed in machine language -- and yes, machine language CAN lead to the greatest efficiency, in terms of speed. But a game like Command & Conquer: Red Alert programmed in machine language? It'd never happen! You simply couldn't do it -- the task would be so enormous, so unwieldly, and the complexities involved would make it an impossible task. An object-oriented langage like C++ was the only rational choice. Yet I can still imagine if HVX buyers were gamers: "no way, C++ is no good, it's 'compiled' -- if it's not machine language, I don't want it."

With all due respect to gamers, and understanding what they want, um... how do I say this... the decision of which language to use should be made by the programmers. The gamers should judge the game on how it plays, not on what language was used to program it.

That's why I say: the decisions on the chips, and the reasoning behind those decisions, should be made by camera engineers. We users out in the field are not qualified to know the factors they use to make those decisions. All we can know is whether we agree with the end result. Does the game play great? Then let's buy it. Does the camera footage look stellar? Then let's buy it. Does the image fail? Then let's not buy it -- no matter what the specs are.

mezelf27

10-25-2005, 06:55 AM

And I very much appreciate your participation in these discussions as well! You're exceptionally knowledgeable and level-headed.

Thanks Barry.

I know people are interested in the chip specs; I'm just amazed at how persistently (and how passionately) this question keeps coming up. Especially because there is no concrete answer we can give -- we don't know the specs.

... I can imagine that is annoying, perhaps irritating ...

Bob Diesso

11-01-2005, 03:51 AM

Barry or Jan: Understand the question is annoying and irritating. A straight answer would make the question go away, but also understand Panasonic feels information is not ready for prime time. (It's hard to understand why, when every one of their competitors has released this information weeks in advance of product launch...)

Panasonic's been dodging this question for months. Will a straight answer be forthcoming from Panasonic EVER? If so, any ballpark idea when? If not, why?

stabwound

11-01-2005, 04:54 AM

So yes, DVCPRO is better than HDV in some ways. But HDV also has advantages over DVCPRO-HD, like a more efficient compression. DVCPRO is not that much better in the real world and not better in every scenario. If shot with a Varicam, against a HD100, DVCPRO will sure look better. But we don’t know about the HVX200. As mezelf27 , I will also take a superior camera head on an inferior format, over a mediocre camera head on a superior format any day of the week.
The real test will be when the HVX200 comes out. We will see if it will be the better camera or just have the “better” format. Until then, all this ridiculous comments only sound like cheerleading from people who have no idea of what they are talking about.

I don't see HDV's "more efficient compression" as being an advantage at all. That would be true if we were stuck with DV tape with its ancient 25mbs bandwidth. Let's bring in the dreaded car analogy....

If the price of gas was $100 per gallon then efficient cars (eg a Toyota Prius)would be highly valued as opposed to a gas guzzling hummer. HDV is like the Prius, efficiently utilizing the meager bandwidth of DV tape.

HVX and P2 brings us a whole new world. The price of gas is now suddenly close to zero. Efficiency is now no longer prized. We are no longer trapped by narrow bandwith. The HvX hummer is faster and get the job done quicker.

The benefits of P2/dvcproHD are an improved workflow (no capturing, intermediate video creation, recompressing) and better color (lots of headspace for color correction and easy greenscreen keying). Now THAT'S efficiency I value.

I'm not knocking high efficiency compressions... mpeg 2, and mpeg4 types are designed for delivery, not capturing. They are efficient because they NEED to be... and it's got nothing to making the video process easier for the producer.

If someone could prove to you that mpeg4 is more efficiently compressed than HDV, would you run out and buy an mpeg4 camera?

If they made HDV version 2 with a GOP of say, 60 frames, would you think it's even better? It would certainly be more efficient.

mezelf27

11-01-2005, 05:51 PM

...with its ancient 25mbs bandwidth.

Why does everyone keeps hitting on the 25? If it was compression 'per'-frame (as DVCPRO) it would be not a whole lot. Thanks to the efficiency of MPEG2, 25 IS a whole lot.

You want to talk cars? Well, If some car has a reservoir of 'only' 25 liters, you'd say that's not a lot... you can barely touch the throttle. But you should know it is a VERY, VERY economical car. With this 25 liters is does about the same distance and with the liters/seconds that it can shift it has about the same performance....

I understand that efficiency of compression isn't important to aquisition, it is just important to know, so you also know you can't compare the 25 Mb/s interframe compression to a 100 Mb/s intraframe compression as if it would be 1/4th of the quality....

esperman

11-01-2005, 06:33 PM

geez..you guys are killing me with the car analogies already.
Bottom line, who cares how efficient the mpeg is....why start super compressed and super processor intensive to edit?

stabwound

11-01-2005, 08:28 PM

Why does everyone keeps hitting on the 25? If it was compression 'per'-frame (as DVCPRO) it would be not a whole lot. Thanks to the efficiency of MPEG2, 25 IS a whole lot.

You want to talk cars? Well, If some car has a reservoir of 'only' 25 liters, you'd say that's not a lot... you can barely touch the throttle. But you should know it is a VERY, VERY economical car. With this 25 liters is does about the same distance and with the liters/seconds that it can shift it has about the same performance....

I understand that efficiency of compression isn't important to aquisition, it is just important to know, so you also know you can't compare the 25 Mb/s interframe compression to a 100 Mb/s intraframe compression as if it would be 1/4th of the quality....

You have happily embraced a limited bandwidth format, which only works by virtue of it being efficient.

I personally would want as much bandwidth as I can afford. If Panasonic sold a cam that gave uncompressed video on zillion megabyte p2 cards at a reasonable price I'd buy it.

I supposed you'd argue that it's not efficient enough to put on a 25mb tape so therefore it's no good.

Yes, I can't compare 25mb/s interframe compression to a 100mb/ intraframe compression... but if I have 100mb/s intraframe compression... why would I still want the former?

I like the HVX for its format. If you like hdv, there's lots of cameras to choose from.

Bob Diesso

11-03-2005, 03:41 AM

"If you are working with the P2 card in 720P at 24 frames, the P2 card can be set to record just the 24 flagged frames(works differently on the 1080I/24P). At 720P/24, it is the same thing as the VariCam but the flagged frames being saved constitute 24/60ths of the entire data rate, or roughly a little more than 1/3 or 100Mbs. It comes out at 40Mbs, and thus it takes up less real estate than DVCPRO50. " Tosh Bilowski, Panasonic Broadcast.

I like this format, too, but when recording HD to P2 cards, it's not always a 100Mbs format...

Seems it's always a 100 Mbs format only when recording to tape, or when Panasonic PR "spin" is on the scene. Otherwise, data rate is reduced to save media space. Isn't this just another way of saying "compression"?

mezelf27

11-04-2005, 05:09 AM

stabwound

11-04-2005, 05:47 AM

40 Mb/s interframe, vs. 25 Mb/s intraframe... That means the quality-advantage should be at the 25Mb/s intraframe-compression... (I know, I know, 4.2.0 vs. 4.2.2 and all, but still, during compression you create a difference vs. the original image. That should be less in the intraframe-compression here...)

I'm a bit confused with that post. I assume you're answering Bob's post, who quoted a Panasonic official who stated that P2 takes DVCproHD (720p) at 40mb/s and 1080p at 100mb/s.

DVCproHD is intraframe compression.

http://www.newmediarepublic.com/dvideo/compression/adv06.html

HDV is interframe compression.

http://newmediarepublic.com/dvideo/compression/adv07.html

:)

harddrive

11-04-2005, 04:34 PM

I don't really think anybody can deny DVCPRO HD is intrinsically better than HDV (though the latter isn't as bad as sometimes made out).

In very controlled conditions, with the ability to download often and easily, the choice is easy - which is why independent filmmakers are probably right to be very interested in the HVX200. It will work in their workflow.

But not all filmmaking happens in controlled conditions - far from it - downloading at convienient times is not always easy, or sometimes possible at all, and under those circumstances (with the cost of P2) being able to record AT ALL becomes the most important factor. Surely better to have a little artifacting on your footage, than just sit there and miss the most important action because the P2 cards are full!? I stress my point is not against any feature of the HVX200 - rather that it could be stronger still, and really wipe the floor, if it included other features AS WELL.

Given the cost problems of P2 for some applications, the most obvious things to have done would be to give an HDV to tape OPTION, or an inbuilt hard drive OPTION. (I'll say again, OPTION, not ALTERNATIVE.) Yes, it may suit some purchasers fine out of the box, but it would suit an awful lot more if something along those lines had been considered at an early stage of design. And I'm sorry, but the excuses given for not doing so don't convince me.

Barry_Green

11-04-2005, 04:57 PM

HDV is not and will not be an option on the HVX. Panasonic isn't a member of the HDV "coalition", and Panasonic doesn't believe HDV is a professional solution, nor is Panasonic satisfied with the quality delivered by HDV. So wishing and wanting is not going to make it happen. It will never happen. I asked them for it as well -- and I was told what I just told you (although probably in less bold terms, of course). But the gist is, HDV isn't up to Panasonic Broadcast standards, and Panasonic Broadcast isn't going to put HDV on any product that bears the Panasonic Broadcast name.

As far as recording time, 16gb cards should be out around NAB in April, and 128gb cards may be out as soon as the end of next year. Not cheap, I'm sure, but you're talking about two and a half hours of 1080, or five and a half hours of 720/24p -- PER CARD. You could have two cards loaded and record over 10 hours of 720/24p, or five hours of 1080. And that's perhaps as early as one year away (based on Samsung's new 32gb SD cards that are slated to be introduced mid-2006.) Yes it'll be expensive, but when you compare it to the competition (er, are there any other HD cameras of any type whatsoever that can record FIVE HOURS of continuous footage?) it'll be downright cheap! No Infinity, no HDCAM camera, no XDCAM-HD and no HDV camera will be in the same ballpark as far as recording time goes. The JVC GY-HD7000U is the only one that may be able to compete in recording time, since I think it'll use the large cassettes -- but that's a $28,000 camera without lens, and more like $40,000 with lens.

Finally, there's going to be a FireStore available in March, which offers at least 100 minutes of recording time and perhaps as much as four hours of 720/24p depending on how they implement it. And it should cost the same or less than a single 8gb card would.

So with all due respect to those who are concerned about recording times, it really does look like things are well in hand.

wabbit

11-04-2005, 05:01 PM

But I think this has already been adequately addressed. Panasonic doesn't want it's camera associated with the bugs and workarounds that HDV entails. Call it a marketing choice, whatever. We will see soon enough if their choice pans out. Second guessing it will not change the decision.

However, should P2 and the lack of HDV cause the HVX to "fail" then the second guessing and pointing Panasonic in a direction that "everyone" wants can and should occur. If nothing else Panasonic has demonstarted it's skill at listening to it's customers. As much as their are people that dislike the lack of HDV there appears to be plenty of people who don't care and are glad HDV is not on it driving up the cost of the camera. People have options and everyone will be voting with their pocketbooks soon. Let's see how it works out. :happy:

For people like you describe, the Canon looks like a great options. Even has the removable lens. No one camera is gonna satisfy everyone. Get the XL H1 and be happy.

Bob: Only recording the 24 frames instead of full 60 fields is not compression, it's making efficient use of not having to have a constant data rate recorded like you do with tape.

Best

harddrive

11-04-2005, 05:56 PM

But the gist is, HDV isn't up to Panasonic Broadcast standards, and Panasonic Broadcast isn't going to put HDV on any product that bears the Panasonic Broadcast name.
Sorry Barry, I don't find that excuse convincing. We'd better agree to differ. If we were talking about a Varicam or whatever I may go along with it. But in connection with a camera in the same price range as a Z1, HD100 etc, with no facility for interchangeable lenses it rings hollow. And I stress (if it wasn't clear enough before :) ) that I'm talking about an option, not alternative - I think people in the market for this sort of camera have more sense than Panasonic seem to be giving credit for. I don't want HDV instead of DVCPRO HD - I want it as well as, use one or the other as appropiate. (Not an option with the Canon, so no, it's not a case of get one of those and be happy.) Would HDV really drive up the price of the camera? Given that a DV tape deck is already there?

But let's forget about HDV, and think of the other possibility - an inbuilt harddrive, again as an "as well as" to P2, and recording a DVCPRO HD recording just as P2. Yes, the Firestore is a possibility, but it comes with problems of it's own - weight, mounting, powering, reliability of connections and (from personal experience) less than 100% reliability. And with small consumer cameras with inbuilt drives costing half a single P2 card all up, surely price couldn't have been an issue?

(On the subject of price, are there any estimates of what two 128GB cards will be this time next year?)

OK, in many ways it's a dead argument, as presumably the details are already finalised and won't change no matter what's said here. That's not to say it's not worth going through these points. It's good business practice to find out what your customers DON'T like about your products, as well as what they do, in order to hopefully refine the next generation, and the generation after that. That applies to all manufacturers, and not just of cameras. If nobody ever states what doesn't work for them, manufacturers can't have any idea where to go next. Regrettably too many seem to go through the motions of consulting, only to do their own thing anyway.

ALL the cameras so far announced in this price range have their strong and weak points, and IMO none of them is anywhere near ideal, even allowing for current technological constraints. What is annoying is that there is no real technical reason why the best points of each couldn't be brought together. And saying "if you don't like the weak points of A, just go and put up with B and it's weak points" helps nobody.

Barry_Green

11-04-2005, 06:35 PM

Sorry Barry, I don't find that excuse convincing.
Excuse? They say it doesn't meet their standards for quality. How is that an excuse? There's plenty of projects I refuse to work on because they don't meet my standards, and I don't call that an excuse. And yes I turn down a paycheck (usually a small one) but, hey...

I don't want HDV instead of DVCPRO HD - I want it as well as, use one or the other as appropiate.
I asked them for exactly that. And they said "no, we wouldn't put HDV on this camera, and then went to great lengths to explain why they were not happy with HDV and don't think it properly represents a product coming from Panasonic Broadcast. You can argue price tag all you want, but the thing is coming from the broadcast division, not the consumer division. And broadcast wouldn't put their name on an HDV product.

Would HDV really drive up the price of the camera? Given that a DV tape deck is already there?
When did price enter the equation? Nobody said anything about price being the reason why. I would assume it'd be quite inexpensive for them to add it (other than the licensing fee to the consortium and the cost of the MPEG-2 encoder chip). But they wouldn't do it, any more than Mercedes would introduce a Mercedes with naugahyde seats. Not gonna happen. Mercedes might let Dodge make a Neon with naugahyde, but they're not going to put it on their top brand. And Panasonic may choose to offer consumer HDV cameras, but they're not going to be putting it on anything that's manufactured/sold through the Panasonic Broadcast division. That's a settled matter.

For the record, I asked them *to* include an HDV option. I said "more options = better". They said something along the lines of "no, we won't have our tools using that format, it's not good enough for us."

So it's a closed matter.

But let's forget about HDV, and think of the other possibility - an inbuilt harddrive
They gave a presentation on this at NAB, and said that they considered all options -- hard disks, optical storage, tape storage, solid state... and for various reasons, (mainly reliability), they ruled 'em all out except for solid state. Hard disks have numerous problems -- they're not in any way rugged enough to handle the production environment Panasonic expects their cameras to face. Panasonic figures these things will be used in Iraq for war coverage, in Miami for hurricane coverage, in the snows of Montana and the deserts of California and the humidity of Virginia. Hard drives would puke in many of those circumstances. Drop the camera, there goes the hard drive. Hard drives are noisy, and they have to be big to be fast. You mention consumer cameras using hard drives -- have you seen how SLOW those hard disks are? Nowhere near fast enough to support a minimum sustained transfer rate of 15 megabytes per second. You'd have to RAID four of those microdrives together before you had a chance at achieving the data transfer rate necessary to record a 100-megabit signal.

Yes, the Firestore is a possibility, but it comes with problems of it's own - weight, mounting, powering, reliability of connections and (from personal experience) less than 100% reliability.
Yes, and noise, and temperature and humidity concerns... add that all up and you're looking at most of the reasons why they ruled out hard disks as a viable option.

They'll let Focus make the hard disk recorder, but they themselves wouldn't do it, and I think it's for the same reason -- if the firestore fails on you, they don't want the panasonic broadcast name sullied by that experience. And they certainly didn't want to face that scenario on an inbuilt system.

And with small consumer cameras with inbuilt drives costing half a single P2 card all up, surely price couldn't have been an issue?
For how much storage, at what transfer speed? Are you talking about a little MPEG-2 stream of a standard-def image, where a 5mB/sec drive is overkill? Because that doesn't begin to think about approaching the requirements for the 100-megabit data stream on the HVX.

(On the subject of price, are there any estimates of what two 128GB cards will be this time next year?)
That's supposition on my part, based on Samsung's press release. I would guess they would be exorbitantly expensive to begin with. Thousands and thousands of dollars.

OK, in many ways it's a dead argument, as presumably the details are already finalised and won't change no matter what's said here.
That's exactly right, the product is finalized and isn't going to change.

That's not to say it's not worth going through these points. It's good business practice to find out what your customers DON'T like about your products, as well as what they do, in order to hopefully refine the next generation, and the generation after that.
Agreed, and they'll read this, I'm sure. But people have to keep practicality in mind, and keep an apples-to-apples comparison. People are looking at the ipod Nano and saying "hey, there's a 4gb RAM module and it's only $249, so why are P2 cards so expensive for 4gb?" And again, that's not a fair comparison at all -- you're talking about a RAM chip that only has to handle 256kbit-second data (probably does more, but that's all it *has* to handle) as opposed to something that runs at 80 megaBYTES per second. World of difference. So when you look at hard disk recording, make sure you're looking at a practical alternative, and not just little microdrives that'd never work.

If nobody ever states what doesn't work for them, manufacturers can't have any idea where to go next.
Agreed. Which is why it was so refreshing to see Panasonic ask us for a wish list, and then deliver almost everything on it (except for our pie-in-the-sky requests like 2/3" chips and removable lenses, although they are making exactly that product too!)

wabbit

11-04-2005, 08:07 PM

That was me that brought up price. While I believe the quality issue of putting HDV on their professional product is the main reason it is not included, additional price would be another downside. Gotta figure it would add a noticable amount to a price people are already cautious of.

Since I am one that is completely disappointed in HDV, I am glad it is not even an option on the HVX.

Example 1 (HDV with HVX): Bunch of people buy HVX and for economy purposes skip P2 or Firestore and always use the HDV options. The issues of HDV present themselves to their clients. I come along and offer to shoot with HVX. They expect the same "quality" they received with the HDV, so they respond, "No we need something better." I am now stuck having to point out and sell the difference between the two different shooting formats on the same camera.

Example 2 (No HDV on HVX): The HVX gets a reputation for quality picture and sound (partial from the superior DVCPRO HD format) just like the DVX has for DV shooting. So clients actually start out requesting their cameraman use it because they were pleased with past performance and possibly disappointed in other HDV cameras. This has happened many time with our business and the DVX. Clients saying they want their piece done with the DVX and if you don't have it, they don't want to work with you. I can spend all day explaining stuff like camera B is just as good or better, or point out how the camera is not as important as the person behind it, but many clients are lost to this approach.

Since the camera is not out yet, we don't know what will happen. I think it's pretty obvious that if not having HDV dramtically affects sales, THEN Panasonic will listen when they go back to the drawing board. Until then, they really have nothing they can do anymore. HVX specs (save maybe a couple more frame rates :) )are locked in at this point.

As for the whole why they didn't go with a HDD or some other format, I think Barry has covered perfectly.

I believe the reason (other then cost) that there is no one perfect camera is there is no one purpose or type of owner for a camera. Ask around about what form factor people perfer, XL2 or PD170/DVX style? I don't think you can find a consensus. Right now our company is looking for a palmcorder style camera so the HVX is perfect for us. We also use shoulder mounts for certain shoots. Hopefully Panasonic or someone else will offer a similar quality shoulder mount style HVX camera (that Grass Valley camera is getting a lot of excitement). Since HD is hardly necessary right now, I am sure there will be a ton more options available by the time we all HAVE to get an HD camera.

One guy's perspective :grin:

harddrive

11-04-2005, 08:13 PM

You can argue price tag all you want, but the thing is coming from the broadcast division, not the consumer division. And broadcast wouldn't put their name on an HDV product.!)
Perhaps here Sony have a corporate structure advantage? I believe they have consumer and Professional divisions (not Broadcast) and "professional" can easily cover anything from the highest end broadcast to the lowliest corporate. Sorry, it seems therefore the consumer is suffering from corporate pride. Sony are happy to put HDV, HDCAM and HDCAM SR logos across their range of professional products, and leave it to consumers to pick the price/quality point that suits them. Panasonic COULD have played a blinder by having a product that appealed to two markets at the same time.

When did price enter the equation? Nobody said anything about price being the reason why. I would assume it'd be quite inexpensive for them to add it .......!)
Well...... that completely contradicts what wabbit said in the post before my last one. Quote: "........plenty of people who don't care and are glad HDV is not on it driving up the cost of the camera".

For the record, I asked them *to* include an HDV option. I said "more options = better". They said something along the lines of "no, we won't have our tools using that format, it's not good enough for us."

So it's a closed matter.!)
At least for this camera! But perhaps if the message gets said enough it may influence the future, though no doubt that will bring a fresh set of options/challenges/technology to discuss.

They gave a presentation on this at NAB, and said that they considered all options -- hard disks, optical storage, tape storage, solid state... and for various reasons, (mainly reliability), they ruled 'em all out except for solid state. Hard disks have numerous problems -- they're not in any way rugged enough to handle the production environment Panasonic expects their cameras to face. !)
What worries me about all this is the amount of wanting to have ones cake, eat it, and have another portion as well! I seem to remember that when worries were expressed about the cost/linited recording time if relying on P2 cards that the official reply was "don't worry, there will be the option of the Firestore, no problem". I'll go along with all said above about reliability issues, but then how is it that the Firestore is then seen as the saviour? Surely an external solution, with flying cables, is even less reliable than an internal drive, or ideally a slot in device.

You'd have to RAID four of those microdrives together before you had a chance at achieving the data transfer rate necessary to record a 100-megabit signal.!)
Which begs the question of what Firestore will do!? And if they can overcome the problem in a small device, then surely something comparable could be inbuilt?

Agreed, and they'll read this, I'm sure. But people have to keep practicality in mind, and keep an apples-to-apples comparison. .............................So when you look at hard disk recording, make sure you're looking at a practical alternative, and not just little microdrives that'd never work.
So lets get this straight. Are you therefore saying that the Firestore will never work with an HVX200? Or if it will, why will a microdrive never work within a camera such as the HVX200?

Agreed. Which is why it was so refreshing to see Panasonic ask us for a wish list, and then deliver almost everything on it (except for our pie-in-the-sky requests like 2/3" chips and removable lenses, although they are making exactly that product too!)
Well - JVC and Canon don't consider interchangeable lenses to be pie in the sky for a camera in this price bracket. (Though, yes, those cameras have other issues, otherwise I'd just say lets all go off and buy one.) And HDV. If that would indeed have been a low cost additional option, and if it was on your wish list, was it really refreshing to see Panasonic deny it for what seems like departmental pride reasons? I'd be far more impressed with them including the option, and putting a big warning sticker on saying "this gives less good results than the other option, but the choice is up to you".

stokestack

11-04-2005, 08:23 PM

HDV is uneditable? That's news to me since I've been editing it for months now in Final Cut Pro with no problems whatsoever.

Umm, no, you've been editing a converted copy of it. You can't edit interframe-compressed video except to remove entire GOPs.

harddrive

11-04-2005, 08:38 PM

Since I am one that is completely disappointed in HDV, I am glad it is not even an option on the HVX.
I have some sympathy with your later reasons for saying that, but still say I'd prefer (in some situations) to be able to record at all in HDV, as opposed to record nothing in DVCPRO HD. In other situations DVCPRO HD would be the right route. Either way, it would be nice to have the choice. No camera on the market does, and the HVX200 is the only one that theoretically could quite easily - all the hardware is already there. I do hear what you are saying, but hope you can understand my frustration.

Ask around about what form factor people perfer, XL2 or PD170/DVX style? I don't think you can find a consensus.
For hand held use, and for Z1 size/weight cameras, in this respect most people I know reckon the HD100 wins hands down. (I stress "in this respect". :) ) If most work is on a tripod, it doesn't matter too much. Go much smaller, and the HC1 becomes optimum.

wabbit

11-04-2005, 08:56 PM

At least for this camera! But perhaps if the message gets said enough it may influence the future, though no doubt that will bring a fresh set of options/challenges/technology to discuss.

Are you referring to a HVX200a type future upgrade or a completely different camera line that they might be developing?

Either way I think Panasonic will wait until the HVX makes their major push for a P2 HD workflow and then maybe consider a drastically different approach or how to refine the one they are presenting. Until that happens in December I don't think they have much new information to consider.

Best

Barry_Green

11-04-2005, 11:56 PM

Sorry, it seems therefore the consumer is suffering from corporate pride.
That's one way to put it. Another would be that Panasonic Broadcast refuses to pander to the lowest common denominator, or participate in a race to the bottom.

Sony are happy to put HDV, HDCAM and HDCAM SR logos across their range of professional products, and leave it to consumers to pick the price/quality point that suits them.
Sure. And GM was happy to build diesel engines when they thought people wanted diesels. But that was a complete disaster for GM. HDV has issues, some serious issues, which can bite you if you don't know how to work around them. HDV, as a format, is not all that unlike the split-screen effect on the HD100 -- sure it usually doesn't show up, but there are times that it does, and it renders the footage unusable. HDV artifacting is the same way. Panasonic Broadcast decided they didn't want their customers playing russian roulette with their footage. Their angle is more of "Use the Panasonic, get guaranteed results; use the HDV products, and you don't necessarily know what you're going to get."

And I have to say, that while I wish the option was there as well, I can absolutely understand their position. Not everyone using this product is going to know what causes HDV to break, and what situations to avoid. I like to think that I'm experienced enough and well-versed enough to handle a format like HDV, but there are an awful lot of shooters who aren't, who don't understand the issues, who still think that panning causes artifacting, and who are someday going to shoot a smoky club with flashing lights and are going to be utterly horrified by what the HDV format does to their footage. Panasonic chose that they won't have that happen to their customers, and I imagine that they well understand that it may cost them some sales up front; I would wager that they're betting on picking up those sales on the back after people get bitten by HDV.

Panasonic COULD have played a blinder by having a product that appealed to two markets at the same time.
I said the same thing. I said "who in their right mind would buy an HDV-only camera when they could have HDV+DVCPRO-HD in the same camera?" I understand their point, but heck, I wanted 'em to at least put the JVC HDV encoder chip in there so you could record *something* to that $5 tape. They didn't think it was worth the tradeoffs.

"........plenty of people who don't care and are glad HDV is not on it driving up the cost of the camera".
I didn't see that part, so okay, I understand where that's coming from. There are others who are disappointed that there's a tape drive in it at all, and that it supports miniDV at all, and wouldn't want to pay the extra $20 or whatever it's costing to have the miniDV drive in there. I'm glad it's there, it certainly doesn't hurt anything and it provides a lot more flexibility. If it had HDV on it as well, even as an add-on option, even if it drove up the price $200, I think it would have been a nice option to have. But it doesn't, and I've been relaying the reasons I've been told. And I do see logic in their reasons. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have preferred to have the choice, but it does mean that it's the way it is.

I'll go along with all said above about reliability issues, but then how is it that the Firestore is then seen as the saviour? Surely an external solution, with flying cables, is even less reliable than an internal drive, or ideally a slot in device.
I'm certainly not looking too heavily forward to the FireStore. I think it's a product that's going to prove useful for some people, but I doubt I'd get one or ever use it. I haven't seen a direct-to-disk recording system that I fully trust yet, even my beloved DV Rack has caused a couple of hiccups (albeit in the course of digitizing over 60 HOURS of footage for a multi-camera feature!) I think the P2 card is a vastly preferable solution for every conceivable circumstance except one: long-form recording. For that purpose, the FireStore will have appeal to some buyers. But I think it's quite telling that Panasonic didn't make it themselves, that they let some other company develop it and market it -- if there's any sort of reliability issues, they won't be reflected on Panasonic themselves. I'm not trying to disparage the FireStore, as of yet we don't even know what type of product it will be (will it plug into the firewire port, or into a P2 slot? Will it record active frames only, or just the 60i/60p data stream? etc). But it's not what I'm looking for, for all the reasons mentioned about hard drive recording.

Which begs the question of what Firestore will do!? And if they can overcome the problem in a small device, then surely something comparable could be inbuilt?
I don't know what they'll do. They say it'll be 100gb, so that sure sounds like it'll be a single drive, but there are few laptop drives that can handle a 15mB/sec minimum sustained transfer rate. I had thought that they might actually be raiding together two laptop drives, and if the capacity had come in at 80gb or 120gb I'd think that was a good clue that that's exactly what they'd done, but with the stated capacity of 100gb, that kind of rules the raiding idea out.

There are some drives that can do it; the new Seagate Momentus has a minimum sustained speed of 18 megabytes per second. That's just fast enough, that's probably what the FireStore will use (that or something like it).

So lets get this straight. Are you therefore saying that the Firestore will never work with an HVX200? Or if it will, why will a microdrive never work within a camera such as the HVX200?
Do you know how fast a drive needs to be to work with the HVX? And how slow microdrives are? And just how big a task this is?

The existing FireStore FS-4 has a maximum transfer rate of 40 megabits per second. 40. As in, it'd need three of them RAIDed together to work with the HVX. That's why a new FireStore had to be developed. A top-of-the-line super-densely-packed Seagate Momentus notebook drive is just fast enough. If they use SATA or something, I don't doubt that they'll get it working, but maybe one reason it's not due until March 2006 is they're waiting for technology to catch up to what they need (and prices to drop accordingly).

Compare that with a MicroDrive, as used in the JVC Everio line of camcorders. The best microdrives have a minimum sustained transfer rate of 4.5 megabytes per second or so. About four times slower. Again, you'd need to RAID four of those together to get close to the performance you'd need. And even then it'd still be 1/4 the speed of a P2 card.

Microdrives can work for a little still camera or a tiny MPEG-2 SD-only program stream of maybe 3 megabits per second, like the Everio uses. But they're not the right tool at all to handle the comparatively massive 100-megabit data streams the HVX produces.

Well - JVC and Canon don't consider interchangeable lenses to be pie in the sky for a camera in this price bracket.
No, but have you seen the JVC's lens? I'd say the Canon's lens is probably a good six times more expensive than the JVC's, and probably accounts for at least half, if not more, of the total pricetag of the XL H1. And even then it doesn't have manual controls.

I've been lobbying Panasonic to build an HVX model with proper interchangeable lenses; we'll see where that goes. It'll probably be much more expensive, and someone would have to develop some quality 1/3" high-def lenses. It's probably a ways off from ever happening.

If that would indeed have been a low cost additional option, and if it was on your wish list, was it really refreshing to see Panasonic deny it for what seems like departmental pride reasons?
"Departmental Pride." Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is to say they have standards, and they wouldn't compromise them. I think that the fact that they gave us almost everything else is quite reassuring.

I'd be far more impressed with them including the option, and putting a big warning sticker on saying "this gives less good results than the other option, but the choice is up to you".
And there are some of us that can handle that.

Then again, there are REASONS that hair dryers sold in this country include warning labels that say "do not use while in the bathtub."

If the HDV option was there, people would absolutely use it. And when things go wrong, it would absolutely reflect poorly on the manufacturer, and them saying "hey, you're the one who was dumb enough to actually USE the HDV feature" is not going to be much of a defense. So they chose to make a product that, in their opinion, they can be assured will always perform to their expectations.

You can fault them for that, or you can applaud them for that; I've seen people do both. But what you can't do is change the product at this stage of development, and continuing to ask for HDV on any Panasonic Broadcast product is, as near as I can tell, wasted breath. They are going to move past HDV, skip it entirely, and the only thing that could change that would be if ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, and every other broadcaster said "well, sorry, no, we only want HDV". If that happens, you can bet they'll backtrack and start producing HDV.

But the odds of that happening are slim and none, and Slim left town.

harddrive

11-05-2005, 03:49 AM

Barry - thank you for your detailed reply. I fear we must agree to differ on the HDV option. I hear what you're saying, it may apply in a crystal clear fashion to one group of user, but it doesn't address what's really at issue to many of us - how to overcome the very expensive cost/minute of recording to P2. Equally, it doesn't solve the problem of what is for many cameramen a common situation - being booked for a days shooting, then waving production goodbye at the end of the day and giving over a handful of tape. It may be possible to work around the situation, but only at the cost of additional hassle.

Panasonic even acknowledge the cost/minute problem, and hence their comments about Firestore being an answer. But for all the reasons you outline above, is it really going to be reliable enough? They can't have their cake and eat it.

You paint a very bleak picture of HDV. I'll acknowledge it is not as good as DVCPRO HD, but then that is more compressed than HDCAM SR, say. Where should one draw the line? MPEG2 at 25Mb is after all comparable (better than) HD transmission to the home - is it really THAT bad?

If we were talking about a camera costing many times more, I'd be more inclined to agree with Panasonics points. But for a camera in the same range as a Z1, I wonder if the inevitable quality compromises of the front end will be more significant than the recording part. We will have to wait and see.

If, as you say, "Panasonic refuses to pander to the lowest common denominator, or participate in a race to the bottom", then why no interchangeable lenses? Why not go for 2/3" chips? Why not adopt a better form factor, a la HD100?

The obvious answer must be "we're designing to a cost"! And no doubt they will say that P2 and DVCPRO HD don't cost that much to incorporate. But they DO come at a cost to the consumer, either thousands of dollars for memory, or very limited recording time. I'd admire Panasonics commitment to quality standards far more if it was tempered with more pragmatism, and an understanding of field workflows. ALL field workflows.

Are you referring to a HVX200a type future upgrade or a completely different camera line that they might be developing?

I'm being completely unspecific, I'm not even SOLELY directing the comments at Panasonic alone. ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

Yes, I fully accept that it's too late to change the design of the HVX200, but by commenting now, along with everybody else, hopefully the cameras that follow the HVX200, the Z1, and the HD100 will be more suitable than if nobody had spoken up. The HD100 is a case in point - it has it's issues, but JVC really do seem to have consulted and listened to cameramen, real cameramen. The result is something that really does handle like a scaled down pro camera, and not a scaled up consumer camera. Potential problems with the HD100 seem to be down to the limitations of the technology at their disposal, rather than ideology, and I for one respect them for that. Compared to what came before, they really do at least seem to be moving in the right direction.

It begs the question what my ideal camera would be, which in turn begs the question of how much money we're talking about. Off the top of my head, for the same amount of money, I'd probably reckon that with current technology it would come out as something like the HVX200, but with an HDV OPTION, and with an HD100 form factor.

With more to spend, perhaps something more like the forthcoming Sony HD XDCAM, but with higher bit rate recording, and the ability to record to solid state as well as XDCAM. Maybe the latter built along the lines of the standard that's been agreed to replace the PCMCIA slot.

Discuss. ;)

mezelf27

11-05-2005, 05:20 AM

:-) yep, stabwound, you found the typo.... I'll steer away from the above discussion. Of course any company will say they won't use any other format because it doesn't meet their quality standards, but it is a personal thing to agree with them or not...

MovieSwede

11-05-2005, 05:49 AM

Harddrive how many of your costumers have asked for HDV tapes?

stabwound

11-05-2005, 05:49 AM

Harddrive:

The changes you'd like to see done to the HVX would have driven the price beyond what I can afford.

I'm very happy with the current specs and especially the price. When and if the p2 prices drop (soon, pretty please) , then I'd say that everything is perfect.

But if you managed to convince Canon, Sony and JVC to use DVCproHD as an option then I'll seriously have to reconsider my order with Rush....

Jan_Crittenden

11-05-2005, 07:23 AM

Harddrive said:how to overcome the very expensive cost/minute of recording to P2. Equally, it doesn't solve the problem of what is for many cameramen a common situation - being booked for a days shooting, then waving production goodbye at the end of the day and giving over a handful of tape. It may be possible to work around the situation, but only at the cost of additional hassle.

Yes, there is an associated workflow change with this camera and frankly some will enjoy it and others won't, and because of the workflow change, there is the ability to have the entire shoot backed up and ready to start editing before you leave the set. And yes, it is something that you need to work through, and it is not HDV. So the point is, the more you use the P2 cards, the less expensive they become. It is a DVCPRO HD camera or a DVCPRO50 camera or a DV camera or whatever you need today camera. But it isn't nor will it be an HDV camera. So if you want to work with this camera you have to think through the workflow and there are a number of workflows that can be utilized.

Panasonic even acknowledge the cost/minute problem, and hence their comments about Firestore being an answer. But for all the reasons you outline above, is it really going to be reliable enough? They can't have their cake and eat it.

The Firestore is really one way to deal with a long recording situation, for events where you need to record continuously without a break, like a wedding ceremony.
It may not be necessary when larger P2 cards are available. And yes we do feel that the Firestore will be reliable, as does its manufacturer, Focus Enhancements. They have a very good track record with the FS-4, and we expect that to play out in the FS-100.

You paint a very bleak picture of HDV. I'll acknowledge it is not as good as DVCPRO HD, but then that is more compressed than HDCAM SR, say. Where should one draw the line? MPEG2 at 25Mb is after all comparable (better than) HD transmission to the home - is it really THAT bad?

Point is where do you draw the line to compromise. What we heard was people wanted low cost HD production equipment, and so we followed our heart on that and brought DVCPRO HD down to an affordable price point. Actually the HDV algorithm is the delivery to home signal if they were to use the entire bandwidth for one HD signal.

If we were talking about a camera costing many times more, I'd be more inclined to agree with Panasonics points. But for a camera in the same range as a Z1, I wonder if the inevitable quality compromises of the front end will be more significant than the recording part. We will have to wait and see.

On the front end, the cameras will just about be equal, plus or minus here and there. The recording differences will be the key. When I stop on a frame that has motion in it, what I have is motion blur as the artifact, not compression artifacts. What I see through the viewfinder is what I have in the recording. There is a large difference in working with DVCPRO HD as compared to HDV. Those folks used to working with DV will make some honest mistakes in working with HDV, because they assume that what is in the VF is what is on the tape. This is simply not true, because the resolution is not frame based, one frame with lots odf detail and motion can affect the resolution of the next frame. DVCPRO HD will net them the result that have been used to, what you see in the VF is what goes to the recording.

If, as you say, "Panasonic refuses to pander to the lowest common denominator, or participate in a race to the bottom", then why no interchangeable lenses? Why not go for 2/3" chips? Why not adopt a better form factor, a la HD100?

Three questions here. Why no interchangengeable lens?
Because the mechanism to make interchangeable lenses is expensive and the likelihood of a great piece of glass will be expensive. So Panasonic chose to have a consistant performance out of the camera at $6000. At $6000, the JVC looks one way, due to the cheap nature of that lens, and like something else with a lens that costs twice the price of the camera, so how many folks are going for the more expensive lens for that camera and how many 1/3" HD lenses are there? This is rhetorical and if you don't know, there are 2. Point is, there are other lenses that you can put in front of a fine piece of glass, from other manufacturers like Schnieder. The lens that is on the HVX200 is the best that the money can buy and it certainly passes the muster of Leica. They really do have to approve the lens if their name is on it.

Why not go for 2/3" chips?
Well at this price point, you could not do it.

Why not adopt a larger form factor?
Well that is a question that just can't be answered. We happen to think that the form factor of the HVX to be sweet, if you want to adopt a shoulder mounted routine you can, there are shoulder mounts out there, but if you want a hand-held then you couldn't use it that way effectively as it is too big. I mean it is a question like; did you walk to work or bring your lunch?

The obvious answer must be "we're designing to a cost"! And no doubt they will say that P2 and DVCPRO HD don't cost that much to incorporate. But they DO come at a cost to the consumer, either thousands of dollars for memory, or very limited recording time. I'd admire Panasonics commitment to quality standards far more if it was tempered with more pragmatism, and an understanding of field workflows. ALL field workflows.

While there is a way to address many workflows, the short recording time of the P2 card doesn't address them all, in time that will change as well. One cannot hit this price point with DVCPRO HD without P2. If you want to work with DVCPRO HD which was engineered for high end HD production, then there is the need to figure out how to work with the P2, or buy a VariCam. If we had put in the HDV algorithm, then everyone would be shooting in HDV and calling it an HVX200 recording, and that would confuse and erode the DVCPRO HD format. Why? Because people would see the artifacts that are a part of the HDV algorithm and and mistakenly attribute it to the DVCPRO HD format because it is an "HVX200 recording." This is a mistake that Panasonic would not endure.

I'm being completely unspecific, I'm not even SOLELY directing the comments at Panasonic alone. ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

And so you should look at the cameras with a slightly different eye, which one has the least compromise, rather than disadvantage. If you can figure out how to work within the P2 paradigm, there is a no compromise to its quality over other 1/3" cameras because it is working in a frame based compression scheme. There is a compromise of it to a bigger brother 2/3" camera, but that is not the discussion here.

The HD100 is a case in point - it has it's issues, but JVC really do seem to have consulted and listened to cameramen, real cameramen.

I can point to just about every feature on the HVX and relate it to a list that was on this very forum, actually under the DVX100 forum. We too listened to experienced camera people, we listened to some inexperienced ones as well. Many of the features on the HVX are part of that very customer focused design.

With more to spend, perhaps something more like the forthcoming Sony HD XDCAM, but with higher bit rate recording, and the ability to record to solid state as well as XDCAM. Maybe the latter built along the lines of the standard that's been agreed to replace the PCMCIA slot.

The PCMCIA slot will be here for years, and I do mean years, to come. And in a few years we will have P2 cards that will individually hold 30 minutes and 60 minutes and 128 minutes. Memory prices always fall, and increases in capacity at the same time. This is the beauty of the paradigm as it is driven by the consumer market's demand for higher capacity SD cards. There are over 700 manufacturers making products that are based on SD memory. There is demand. and the P2 Card benefits.

I do see that this discussion goes on and on and seems to have a life blood in wanting the HVX to be something it is not. It is not an HDV camera, and it was designed that way on purpose. It may not be the camera for you, not you in particular Harddrive, but the ubiquitous you that wants this camera to be HDV. If want to use $5.00 tapes, okay, go buy the HDV camera, because this camera will not be that camera. If you want the feature set that makes the HVX200 a slick little camera, it is based on the fact that it is frame based recording and DVCPRO HD. This is what sets it apart from the other cameras.

Best regards,

Jan

harddrive

11-05-2005, 09:24 AM

Harddrive how many of your costumers have asked for HDV tapes?
The simple answer is not many. Before you go "huh, well then" then none have asked for DVCPRO HD, and not too many for HDCAM.

All that is because in the UK there is no HD broadcasting - yet. Hence shooting for my main (large) client is currently mainly Digibeta at the high end, DV at the low end. The top end is starting to go towards mainly HDCAM, and currently Z1s are starting to be used in quantity at the other end. Currently mainly in SD, but with the advantage that they are a far better 16:9 camera than what went before. The expectation is that over the next couple of years these will increasingly be used in HDV mode as HD broadcasting ramps up. Hence my visiting this and other forums - I want an idea of how things will progress in the next couple of years.

The point that seems to be being missed is that this client (like many others) will not be choosing to use HDV over DVCPRO HD because they consider it a better format. They will choose it because of practicalities of workflow, and put up with the disadvantages. The possible ways of changing workflow to make P2 feasible have been fully explained and explored, believe me, and I don't personally know anyone who has been convinced. (Though many concede it will be the norm in about 5 years, and I go along with that.) Obviously there are many on this board who disagree, and yes, there are types of work for which it is the right answer. But I'd maintain that in the industry as a whole, that work represents a minority, albeit a very important one.

Thanks to Jan for her very detailed reply. There are a couple of things I must respond to though.

And yes we do feel that the Firestore will be reliable, as does its manufacturer, Focus Enhancements. They have a very good track record with the FS-4, and we expect that to play out in the FS-100.

I use an FS4 Pro a lot, have been using one all this week, and use it out of choice - it saves me a lot of time overall. That said, it is NOT 100% reliable. Occasionally when importing into Avid I get one or more clip report "Media offline". Because I always record to tape AS WELL there's no problem, I can always go back to that. I would not entertain now ONLY recording to the FS4. Equally some of my colleagues have had no problems, some have had a couple of catastrophic ones - but we can always revert to the tape copy at the moment.

Why not adopt a larger form factor?
Well that is a question that just can't be answered. We happen to think that the form factor of the HVX to be sweet, if you want to adopt a shoulder mounted routine you can, there are shoulder mounts out there,
The question I asked was "Why not adopt a BETTER form factor, a la HD100?", very different to "larger form factor". After first seeing photographs, I was amazed to find the Z1 and HD100 very similar in terms of size and weight, give or take a bit, and I'm expecting the HVX200 to be similar again. But I've tried hand holding the first two. The HD100 I could happily film with until the cows come home, the Z1 gave me wrist ache after a few minutes, and there seems to be considerable consensus amongst cameramen about this. A shoulder mount may be possible, but then the entire length of the camera is pushed in front of one, whilst with the HD100, half the length is alongside the head. Far better in confined spaces.

I feel the Z1 would be far more ergonomically satisfactory with an eyepiece finder where the LCD screen currently is.

If we had put in the HDV algorithm, then everyone would be shooting in HDV and calling it an HVX200 recording, and that would confuse and erode the DVCPRO HD format. Why? Because people would see the artifacts that are a part of the HDV algorithm and and mistakenly attribute it to the DVCPRO HD format because it is an "HVX200 recording." This is a mistake that Panasonic would not endure.
I really, genuinely believe that if you and your company truly think that you are underestimating the intelligence of the film making company at large. We must agree to differ.

If want to use $5.00 tapes, okay, go buy the HDV camera, because this camera will not be that camera. If you want the feature set that makes the HVX200 a slick little camera, it is based on the fact that it is frame based recording and DVCPRO HD.
I'd like to have my cake and eat it. Sometimes DVCPRO HD will be most important (and P2 will suit a workflow), sometimes it will be totally unsuitable and HDV will be a more pragmatic approach. I'd like to have the option to decide for myself on a job by job basis. As things stand I see no camera at this price range that properly meets many peoples needs for the foreseeable future.

Jan - I'm afraid I'm still unconvinced by Panasonics arguments, though I concede they may be true for some people. But thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply in detail, and thank you for listening.

I wonder if Sony are across this debate? And what they may even now be planning for the "Z2"?

Barry_Green

11-05-2005, 01:08 PM

Equally, it doesn't solve the problem of what is for many cameramen a common situation - being booked for a days shooting, then waving production goodbye at the end of the day and giving over a handful of tape.
Oh, I agree, and I couldn't figure out a way to do it either. And I've made some decent money doing exactly that. I badgered poor Jan for a workflow solution to that situation, and finally realized that while there's a way, it's not the way we're used to (it would involve dubbing to an off-the-shelf drive and handing that over). And I think that would be a fantastic option for the producer to receive, but not necessarily practical in all cases.

So frankly, that's why I bought an HD100 as well. I figured that yes, it'll cost me more, but then I have two cameras, two approaches to whatever circumstance arrives. For those who need a tape at the end of the day, and just can't imagine any other workflow, well, I'd have the ability to provide that. And at an anticipated rate of $1000-$1200/day for shooting HD, it really was a no-brainer -- the thing would pay for itself in five days of shooting, so big whoop as far as having to shell out for two cameras, right?

Well, sorry, but it just wasn't ready for prime time for several reasons, and I returned it. First, the split-screen made it impractical for available-light shooting circumstances -- I simply could not trust that the footage I was getting would be usable for the client. And others will disagree, and they're free to -- but for my standards, I could not reconcile the idea of handing over footage that had the split-screen down the middle.

But second, and far worse: HDV is not a standardized format. It is, at current count, three different and incompatible formats! Sure you may want to be able to hand over a tape, but: can the client use it? If the client has Sony or Canon equipment, that JVC HDV tape will be utterly useless to them. Are you going to require your clients to have a JVC deck and a Sony deck and a Canon camera, just so they can be sure they can play whatever tape you happen to give them? Or, alternately, are you going to have to buy a Canon and a Sony and a JVC camera, so you're prepared for whatever a client calls you and asks for? And they can't just say "HDV" because there are three incompatible HDV formats out there. If your client has JVC equipment and you shoot Sony, you are 100% incompatible with them -- you may as well give a DigiBeta tape to a VHS user, because that's about how compatible the formats are.

HDV is majorly flawed, and those who buy into it are in for some rude awakenings. Interestingly enough, the *only* way to guarantee compatibility is to *NOT* give them a tape, it's to give them the footage on a hard disk! HDV is compatible at the editor level (well, actually, that's a lie too -- FCP can't read HDV 720/24p, and it's likely that editors will have trouble with Canon 1080/24F as well)... but assuming you shoot 720/30p or 1080/60i, editors are cross-compatible if you supply the footage on hard disk, not on tape. And as long as you're supplying hard disk, why not hand over a pre-dubbed hard disk from the HVX, which will be better-quality footage anyway?

One of these days one of these manufacturers will pluck their heads out of their rectums and design a universal-format deck that can properly play (to firewire) all the HDV variants. When that happens, and when everyone adopts that deck, then the incompatibilities of HDV will start to fade away. Until then, someone who buys into HDV with the idea that they're going to be a hired shooter is just asking for a world of hurt.

MPEG2 at 25Mb is after all comparable (better than) HD transmission to the home - is it really THAT bad?
You're in London, so I assume you haven't been watching much HD broadcasting, correct? Yes it definitely is that bad, when you consider that it's happening to your source footage. 720p transmissions usually look pretty good, 1080i transmissions break up any time there's a fade or dissolve or transition of any type -- and break up significantly. I find 1080i HDTV irritating and frustrating to watch -- when it's performing well it looks so good, and when it breaks up it looks so BAD. Now, HDV is better than that, and while it is prone to artifacting, you don't get it quite as bad as broadcast transitions etc. But this is your SOURCE footage we're talking about here. I can almost understand it happening in the final broadcast, which is always the worst that any signal ever looks. But in your source footage? Completely unacceptable -- to me, at least. Others standards will vary. The only flavor of HDV that I find reliable and satisfactory enough is the 720/24p version, which allocates by far the most bits per pixel and is thus the least-compressed of any variant.

Why not adopt a better form factor, a la HD100?
I keep asking... and I hope they will. I hope they'll make a companion product, such as the DSR250 was to the 150. But frankly, the DVX has been such a runaway hit, by far the biggest hit Panasonic has ever had, that I don't blame them for one second for designing the HVX to be as DVX-like as possible. I just hope they see the wisdom of releasing a second, companion product.

But they DO come at a cost to the consumer, either thousands of dollars for memory, or very limited recording time.
Versus the cost to the consumer of getting ruined macroblocked footage... as you like to say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Panasonic makes the compromise known up front. HDV bites you in the butt when you least expect it.

but JVC really do seem to have consulted and listened to cameramen, real cameramen. The result is something that really does handle like a scaled down pro camera, and not a scaled up consumer camera.
Agreed -- the JVC handles beautifully, its ergonomics are great (provided you get the IDX or A/B battery; it's very front-heavy otherwise, but with a proper battery it balances very well). If it hadn't been for the split-screen, and there had been an easy way to adapt 16mm movie lenses to it, I would have loved that HD100.

Off the top of my head, for the same amount of money, I'd probably reckon that with current technology it would come out as something like the HVX200, but with an HDV OPTION, and with an HD100 form factor.
I agree, which is why I bought both. Although I will say that the HDV option, after experiencing it, is no longer what I'd want. I'd want what HDV should have been, not what it is. What it is, is a mishmash mess of three incompatible formats. What I would have wanted is a cheap and easily-delivered, easily-recorded-on-cheap-media, standardized high-def format.

I still have hopes that FireStore will get it right for the HVX. If they make it like the FS-4, it'll be a mistake in my opinion. The FS-4 is not the product we need or want -- I'm sure it'll be useful for some purposes, but not for what you & I are asking for -- a way to hand footage over to the client at the end of the shoot. What it should be is a user-interchangeable hard disk solution. Something where you can buy a $100 laptop drive at CompUSA, and plug it in to the FS100 housing. At the end of the shoot you press an "eject" button and it spits it out. Then you hand the hard drive over to your client (and if you're kind, you encase it in a $25 enclosure so it's USB2-compatible). Same workflow as handing over a tape, similar cost to other professional HD tape formats, but it's pre-digitized and instantly editable. That's what the FireStore should be. And I hope that's what they make it.

wabbit

11-05-2005, 02:49 PM

The simple answer is not many. Before you go "huh, well then" then none have asked for DVCPRO HD, and not too many for HDCAM.

All that is because in the UK there is no HD broadcasting - yet. Hence shooting for my main (large) client is currently mainly Digibeta at the high end, DV at the low end.

That is part of why I believe Panasonic hit the nail on the head here. Professionally very few of us are receiving a demand for HD. Eventually (and hopefully soon) HD will be the standard request. By this point P2 will be at a more reasonable price and size for most. In the meantime, customers who want HD will pay for it and you can rent P2 cards for that shoot. That's why I see it as the perfect transitional camera as we move into the HD world.

I really, genuinely believe that if you and your company truly think that you are underestimating the intelligence of the film making company at large. We must agree to differ.

I would disagree with you on that. The IQ of the producers I have had to deal none-withstanding, they are move often quite clueless as to equipment and technical details. Basically they become parrots of what some cameraman or editor they trust told them. For that reason, I believe the HVX will impress enough people that it will be the requested "cheap HD" camera like the DVX has become for DV. Throw HDV on it and you have to expect the producer to listen and comprehend the difference in compression schemes. As a whole, how many producers do we know that will listen, pay attention, or comprehend the differences? "Just tell me what camera we should use!"

(apologies to any producers reading, but that has been the majority of my experience :happy: )

Konrad

11-06-2005, 01:20 PM

Lets not forget that sound is 50% of the viewing experience. Sony's own spam in the form of the VASST book on HDV that came with Vegas paints a dim view of HDV sound. The HVX200 appears the clear winner in the sound department. But as Barry said it's not the specs it's the qualty when you view it.

Not to mention while all the HDCP fallout that the FCC drop on us 7/1/05 which is a negative impact on all HD users.

baro

11-07-2005, 05:35 AM

Hard drives are noisy, and they have to be big to be fast. You mention consumer cameras using hard drives -- have you seen how SLOW those hard disks are? Nowhere near fast enough to support a minimum sustained transfer rate of 15 megabytes per second. You'd have to RAID four of those microdrives together before you had a chance at achieving the data transfer rate necessary to record a 100-megabit signal.

Forget Microdrives! 1.8" hard drives are much better. For one megabyte they are much faster, lighter and cheaper than microdrives. They are not too large, so they are quite resistance to shock (they are used in iPods), still they are capable of recording the required data rate (in the Kinetta they record 110Mb/sec). Two of these are the size of one 2.5" HDD, so you could easily put two of these for data redundancy into the HVX200.

It is not that I'm unhappy about the HVX200. It seems they came close to perfection as far as the initial information can tell. But with an internal HDD versus the FireStore, they could have come even closer.

dstevens

11-07-2005, 06:32 AM

The advantage for us more creative types is that while most of this technical talk flies way over our heads and we'd really like to understand more of it, at the end of the day we arrive at the same place. The footage looks good or it doesn't.:thumbsup:

Sorry to jump into the fray rather late, but this discussion is interesting.

I've seen some footage on the HDR-FX1 posted on the web which blew me away. Part of the appeal wasn't just lines of resolution, there was clearly a lot of thought and talent in composing the picture, DOF, etc.

Maybe it looked that good I was watching on the web, not on a big screen. But I'm more on the creative/indie film maker side, and the results speak the clearest to me. I emailed the guy who did it, he had the PAL version of the FX1 and a 35mm adapter. Whatever he had, I'll take it. He had a Fisher Price looking camera and the uncompressed/doohickey/flux capacitor editing thingy? Fine! I'll take it if it looks that good!

How does Sony's HDV look when will transferred to 35mm? I'm not chasing the 35mm grail. I'm among those tending to think the future is watching stuff on the web, downloadable content on your pc and mobile devices.

ullanta

11-08-2005, 06:34 AM

Harddrive, dude, you just have to come to terms with the fact that Panasonic is making a product for which you are not the intended audience. These things happen. I shoot long form, and though I love my DVX, and long for all the features of the HVX, I just had to come to the realization that, until P2 prices come down, it's not ready for me and I'm not ready for it. A few years ago, I had no need or justification for the cost of the DVX, and didn't buy a DVX. When it made sense, I bought one. You're not ready for the HVX. Don't be offended... many companies make products that don't suit your needs. Lucky for you, many companies do indeed make products that suit your needs and desires - Sony, Canon, and JVC, for instance. Buy one! And let the HVX travel it's own path without enmity.

-Barry

harddrive

11-08-2005, 04:55 PM

Lucky for you, many companies do indeed make products that suit your needs and desires - Sony, Canon, and JVC, for instance. Buy one! And let the HVX travel it's own path without enmity.
I don’t think you can have really read what I’ve been saying. I’ll requote again just one of the ways I said it. “ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.”

I don’t have enmity for the HVX200. Far from it. It has much to commend it, and what is really, truly irritating is that it could so easily be so much better, so much more universal, without making it any worse for any of it’s current admirers. The truth is that none of the models you refer to is without fault, none is ideal for me and many others.

Why should I therefore just go away and buy another model with it’s own set of problems, rather than try and debate the matter through logically? Especially somewhere where influential people are known to listen, and hopefully take note? Just because it may suit you well as it stands, isn’t it somewhat selfish to then say “to hell with the problems of others”?

Professionally very few of us are receiving a demand for HD. Eventually (and hopefully soon) HD will be the standard request. By this point P2 will be at a more reasonable price and size for most…….
I don’t think there is that much time. The expectation is that HD demand will greatly increase in about a years time, and be well on the way to the norm in maybe two. At least for some clients which concern me. One particular (large) company’s estimates reckon that P2 viability for them will not be close to acceptable for HD at 100Mb for about six years (24p and 40Mb is not an option in their case, it will be 1080i/25 or 720p/50). HDCAM will soon supercede Digibeta for their high end work, but what about the rest?

Z1s are currently the most likely least worse all round option, with maybe HD XDCAM for mid range work, but an added to HVX200 would, IMO, be a better option. (Can anybody really believe those to be the words of one who bears “enmity” towards it!?!) “Add-ons” that wouldn’t inconvenience or disadvantage any of it’s supporters here?

You're in London, so I assume you haven't been watching much HD broadcasting, correct? Yes it definitely is that bad, when you consider that it's happening to your source footage. 720p transmissions usually look pretty good, 1080i transmissions break up any time there's a fade or dissolve or transition of any type -- and break up significantly.” …….
Yes, I’m in London, and yes, I haven’t seen any at home. But we do get satellite services from Belgium for demonstration purposes, live big events for cinema showing, etc etc, which are all 1080, and I’ve been able to view plenty of those. I’ve never noticed a “significant breakup” “any time there’s a fade or dissolve or transition of any type.” Maybe there are some imperfections, but generally it is very, very good. Better than other demos we’re getting at the moment in stores, using hard drives and WMV with god knows what bit rates/processors etc. Even so, those are still substantially better than the RF distribution that retailers generally use!

I had the chance at work to bring some of these points up with some of the broadcast engineers in the company in the last day or two, who also brought up the subject of the OB links that are necessary as an overall solution, as well as the eventual transmission to end viewer. One comment stuck in my mind: “Do you really believe the world’s broadcasters would be moving over to a system (MPEG2 at about 20Mb) if it really was as flawed as (Barry) makes out!?” They suspect the problem may lie with a local fault, poor reception, whatever rather than an intrinsic system failing if you really do experience such serious problems – your experiences don’t appear to be general.

That’s not to say you’re wrong when you talk of DVCPRO HD being preferable to HDV for production in principle. Just that for links, transmission, recording when memory is constrained (as with P2) etc etc broadcast TV sometimes necessitates compromise (always has). And they don’t believe the compromise is anything like as serious as you’d have us believe. Even DVCPRO HD has it's compromises - reduced horizontal resolution compared to other HD formats.

“But second, and far worse: HDV is not a standardized format. It is, at current count, three different and incompatible formats”
It also seems that any incompatibilities between HDV systems aren’t quite as bad as you infer. By and large, there are really only two – HDV1 (for 720) and HDV2 (for 1080), which is comparable to NTSC and PAL for DV. The basic spec for the latter allows for 1080p/25 and 1080i/25 (/30 in 60Hz countries). Canon seem to have extended that to permit a 24p option which earlier machines hardly surprisingly don’t recognise. My understanding is that any other (non 24p) recording made on the Canon will be fine on any other HDV2 machine. Since 24p is not really seen as so important in Europe (except for solely laying off to film) it’s not seen as a real problem here. No worse than having 720 and 1080 in the first place, or NTSC and PAL for DV.

Barry, I’m glad at least we agree about desirable form factors. Over the last day or two I did hear an interesting point of view as to why JVC seemed to be so much better than Sony or Panasonic in this respect – namely that they have no significant very expensive true pro range to protect, so need all the help they can get! Whereas for the big two it’s a way of “stunting” their appeal for the higher end market, without lowering the output quality. I don’t normally go for conspiracy theories, but that has made me wonder.

Barry_Green

11-08-2005, 06:57 PM

Yes, I’m in London, and yes, I haven’t seen any at home. But we do get satellite services from Belgium for demonstration purposes, live big events for cinema showing, etc etc, which are all 1080, and I’ve been able to view plenty of those. I’ve never noticed a “significant breakup” “any time there’s a fade or dissolve or transition of any type.”
I recorded some footage of a football game from NBC, from the over-the-air transmission, on a digital DVR recording the native broadcast stream. If I can figure a way to export single frames or take screen shots, I'll show you what I'm talking about. Some of it will curl your nostril hairs, I guarantee.

When it looks good, it looks great. When it gets overloaded, it does not look great.

One comment stuck in my mind: “Do you really believe the world’s broadcasters would be moving over to a system (MPEG2 at about 20Mb) if it really was as flawed as (Barry) makes out!?” They suspect the problem may lie with a local fault, poor reception, whatever rather than an intrinsic system failing if you really do experience such serious problems – your experiences don’t appear to be general.
Hey, I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing, and I get HD in two different feeds -- via over-the-air, and via cox cable. It does it equally on both. It's much less prevalent in 720p, but 1080i is just pushing things too far. It's mostly noticeable in sports, but it can happen in other circumstances as well. And it ain't just me -- google search for the HD broadcast of the olympics if you want to read some horror stories, especially related to the diving competitions.

Now, with that said, I greatly prefer watching HD over the SD broadcasts of the same shows. When it looks good it looks amazingly good. But I'm not going to pretend that there isn't serious SERIOUS artifacting going on, because there most obviously is. Someone would have to be blind as a bat, stoned on acid, and actually have their television turned OFF in order to not see it. Again, not so much in primetime dramas (unless it's a radical jump cut, a foggy/smoky scene, or a dissolve) but very prevalent in sports coverage, and moreso in 1080 than in 720.

It also seems that any incompatibilities between HDV systems aren’t quite as bad as you infer.
Well, here's where things are at today with "HDV", and you can decide whether it's bad or not.

No Sony recording of any type will play in any JVC equipment of any kind.

No Canon recording of any type will play in any JVC equipment of any kind.

No JVC recording of any type will play in any Canon equipment of any kind.

Of the three modes the Canon records, only 60i will play in Sony equipment. 1080/24f and 1080/30f will not play in any Sony equipment of any kind, and presumably 1080/25f won't either.

Sony equipment cannot be used to digitize JVC footage. Sony equipment can play back JVC footage to an analog output, but cannot play it back digitally. And I don't know if Sonys can even try to play back the 720/24P footage from the JVC.

Only the HD100 and BR-50 deck can play back JVC 720/24p footage. Not even JVC's other products (the HD1, HD10, and CU1 deck) can play that! JVC's own format is somewhat incompatible even with itself!

On the plus side, Sony footage can be played back in Canon equipment.

So there you have it. You decide if it's a workable situation for your own purposes, but this isn't "opinion", this is tested and guaranteed facts. This is what's actually happening under the "HDV" label.

For a "closed shop", where you edit everything you shoot, it's workable. For a hired-shooter who gets a call from someone who says "hey, I need you to shoot some HDV"... well, it isn't quite the same as when someone calls and says "hey, I need you to shoot some BetaSP" or "some DV", etc. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of being hired to provide footage and handing over a tape that the producer cannot use, or have them find out that now they have to go buy a $3,000 deck just to be able to view it! (and of course in the case of the Canon, they couldn't even do that because there *are* no decks!)

wabbit

11-08-2005, 07:29 PM

I don't own a HD set yet but when I go to Best Buy I swing by the TV's and watch some programing. The HD content certainly is beautiful but I have seen tons of artifacts from some pretty simple pictures. The one that really stood out to me was a live broadcast of a gold tournament. 98 percent of picture was fairly static, the pro putts the ball......little artifacts chase the ball all the way to hole. Clearly live compression needs some work. :angry:

Emanuel

11-08-2005, 07:49 PM

Your quote:

(...)24p is not really seen as so important in Europe (except for solely laying off to film) it’s not seen as a real problem here.(...):thumbdown

Your own words:

(...)[about HVX200]and what is really, truly irritating is that it could so easily be so much better, so much more universal, without making it any worse for any of it’s current admirers. The truth is that none of the models you refer to is without fault, none is ideal for me and many others.(...):thumbsup:

Loki

11-08-2005, 08:07 PM

HDV is just a poor format...

I prefer DV to it immensely.. and I don't even consider DV a good format..

guess I will just have to use the HVX... life sucks :happy:

jonnothin

11-08-2005, 08:21 PM

Has anyone noticed that all the "news" items on the HVX say that it IS an HDV camera?
What a bunch of boobs...you figure since they get paid to write this shit, they'd actually research it.

Emanuel

11-08-2005, 08:32 PM

It's only a question of...prosumer-standard...that HDV is. And unfortunately, non-profissionalism nor even prosumerism...

Stevet

11-08-2005, 08:45 PM

I'm amazed how some people just keep complaining so much about the HVX200. Here's a great solution: Don't buy it! There's several other offerings out there.

Let's face it, everyone's wishes will not come true with this camera or any camera especially in this price range.

Barry_Green

11-08-2005, 08:50 PM

HDV is just a poor format...
I wouldn't go that far! I think HDV is an amazing accomplishment, and when it looks good, it looks very good indeed. The 720/24p version is probably the most robust, but on static shots the Z1 can certainly make you say "wow". It's definitely capable of delivering some great looking shots.

With that said, there are definite issues with it, issues that I can't reconcile, but many people can, and more power to them. It's certainly an affordable format, what with HC1's going for around $1600, and the FX1 offers an awful lot of camera for its $3200 price tag.

I don't think it's robust enough for professional use, but I was willing to work around that (knowing what causes it problems, and having a reasonably good idea of how to avoid them). It was the HD100's other problems that killed it for me. And I just cannot stomach the 1080i version no matter how you slice it, although I recognize that others are very happy with it. I think the Z1's a nice design, and for the last 9 months it's been the best value in affordable high-def. I do think the HVX renders the Z1 completely irrelevant for all purposes except those that require a tape to be handed over at the end of the day's shoot, but that doesn't mean a Z1 is "bad", it just means that I can't fathom dealing with the artifacts and dropouts limited color sampling and other issues when the HVX is due out soon and suffers from none of those drawbacks.

For a closed shop, I can see where HDV could make sense. The main area where I say the format is bad is in the incompatibility among the various manufacturers; if they'd given it different names that would have been better (JVC should have never joined the HDV group, they should have just marketed it as ProHD, and Sony should have called theirs HDV, and Canon should have called theirs something else like XHD or something; then we wouldn't be complaining about the compatibility issues, we'd be celebrating the limited range of compatibility that they do offer!)

Jarred Land

11-08-2005, 09:11 PM

i think HDV is junk too. It can look pretty on some shots sure, but I just am not a fan of the post process.

That said.. HDV its better than nothing, and its pretty safe to say JVC and HDV helped kickstart the whole HD-Prosumer market. HDV is a good solution to people needing to hand off tapes at the end of the day... its the only real reason to use it.

But what if Panasonic or Sony made a little external field deck, like it did with the DVX, that went from firewire to HDV hah hah hah... then you would have it all covered. But, since that cool little field recorder panasonic released with the DVX didnt fare well and got discontinued pretty quick, i doubt it will happen.

stephenlnoe

11-08-2005, 09:44 PM

I've been shooting with the HD-100 for weeks now in every kind of lighting and environmental scenario and I can attest to it's quality. It is extremely easy to work with in the NLE. The deliverables in SD have been great and far better than the DVC/DVX rigs we're used to. Right now we (my production company and SMS Chicago) are working an a 35MM transfer from HD-100 footage to show as a sales reel for the camera. We've also shot the Varicam and HD-100 together. It's surprising how a $6000 camera can have such great quality. The HD-100 in an excellent camera and very well thought out. There are some drawbacks and B.Green pointed out the biggest one with HDV1.

Barry is right about the fact of compatability between HDV. Even in my NLE (Liquid) I must setup the program to favor either HDV1 or HDV2 at any one time. If you do go with HDV you must make a decision to either go with HDV1 or HDV2. The BR50 deck will convert to to 1080i for you but it will not play tapes shot in 1080i. There is talk of a multi HDV format deck on the horizon but that's not now. The BR50 deck will play just about everything (DVCam, miniDV, HDV1) but HDV2 tapes so the only exclusive part is the HDV for that deck.

I reserve judgement on the HVX200 until the thing actually arrives. Nothing is ever as good as it seems (except maybe a first kiss).

@B.Greene, I've been working directly with JVC on all these HD-100 test. We're pushing the limits. Had you thought about looking at the HD-100 again?

Barry_Green

11-09-2005, 05:17 AM

One comment stuck in my mind: “Do you really believe the world’s broadcasters would be moving over to a system (MPEG2 at about 20Mb) if it really was as flawed as (Barry) makes out!?”
By the way, IINM, Europe is planning on skipping MPEG-2 and going with MPEG-4, aren't they? That right there would make *all* the difference in the world. MPEG-4 delivers quality about equivalent to MPEG-2 at twice its bitrate, so a 20-megabit MPEG-4 stream would be about equivalent to a 40-megabit MPEG-2 stream, and that would overcome a huge degree of the bit-starved nature of broadcast HD.

I only wish they could do the same thing here.

harddrive

11-09-2005, 08:23 AM

By the way, IINM, Europe is planning on skipping MPEG-2 and going with MPEG-4, aren't they? That right there would make *all* the difference in the world.
You're right about MPEG-4 (or another advanced codec, I'm not sure it's finalised yet) BUT the reason isn't to enable higher quality, but to enable reduced bit rates and more channels with all else equal. I agree with your maths about an approximate factor of two referred to MPEG2, so we're talking about twice as many channels. Currently I understand 20Mb is the MAXIMUM you're likely to get at home, though I'm less familiar with the US sitauation. In Japan I believe that's what a satellite receiver is likely to get, with around 14 Mb being the norm for terrestial transmission. Consequently, HDV2 with 25Mb doesn't seem so silly does it?

This is for broadcast to home. I don't know what will happen regarding links within broadcasters, especially satellite links, since the quality/bitrate improvement of MPEG4 comes at the cost of more complex processing and latency problems (delay). That's already a problem for situations such as a news programme and a reporter in the field, with a delay between a question being asked and the answer. MPEG4 would make that worse.

I've been led to believe that all this is the result of very extensive tests done to determine minimum acceptable bit rates before noticeable quality loss occurs. As said before, all TV must involve an element of compromise, but I don't believe the severity of the degradation you describe would have been considered remotely acceptable by such as the EBU or the equivalent US authority. Equally it doesn't match my own experiences. The engineers do speculate that maybe something is giving a high error rate within your equipment? Who knows. Either way, you may find some interesting reading at http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_home.html relating to what the situation is in Europe at the moment - and it may convince you that current systems have been arrived at after a lot of expensive complicated research!

The "all else equal" rule of thumb I've heard is that MPEG2 gives about one third the bitrate for comparable quality to an I-frame only system for the vast majority of material. (Very roughly.) The drawback is that it involves more processing power, and complicates the edit, though with modern computers the situation is arguably better than when DV itself first emerged, with the power then available. One engineer has said to me that if they were now bringing out a camera and could afford 100Mb, they wouldn't use it to make an I-frame only system. Better to improve on DVCPRO HDs resolution horizontally (up the luminance to 1280 from 960, and the chrominance to 640 from 480 for 720p), reduce the I frame compression, and accept a certain amount of interframe compression. Better still would be even higher bitrates, and even fewer compromises, but now we're talking about the likes of HDCAM-SR.

To be honest, I'm not sure how much most of this quality discussion matters, certainly not for my main client, who I believe is not alone in expecting to use high end cameras for the top work, and smaller cheaper ones for the rest. For the latter I'd be very happy to use DVCPRO HD and P2 if all else were equal. But it's not, and the reasons are nothing to do with picture quality, but workflow, and this brings this topic straight round to where I started.

An HDV recording on the tape is worth two DVCPRO HD recordings that didn't happen because not enough cards could be afforded. (And before somebody yet again screams "so go and buy a Z1 or a HD100", there are some scenarios where P2 would work well for us. Very well indeed. An HVX200 with HDV as an OPTIONAL EXTRA would be ideal for us, an HDV only camera would not be.)

So at present we're reluctantly inclining towards an HDV camera with Firestore for the lower end work when HD ramps up, along with other people I know. But my SD work with the FS4 leaves me in no doubt that that has it's fair share of issues - long switch on to ready time, powering issues, reliability of connecting cables, fan noise, and needing to be totally protected from rain being the ones that spring to mind. All of which would go away with a camera which recorded HDV to tape, as well as whatever to P2.

steindj

11-09-2005, 11:21 AM

I'm amazed how some people just keep complaining so much about the HVX200. Here's a great solution: Don't buy it! There's several other offerings out there.

Yep, well said. "Waaaahhhhhh!!!!! But it's not HDV." BFD, go buy JVC.:grin:

The Machinist

11-09-2005, 12:16 PM

Barry

I read elsewhere from someone who claimed to have talked to a JVC representative that the split-screening effect only occured when theHD100's gain was cranked up to 12db. Did you find this to be true in your experience? Also what other problems did you notice with the camera?

I'm looking for a rentable HD solution while i wait for the horses to come in before making a final purchase, and have been looking to rent an HD100 to give it a test drive. I've already used the Z1 and was not very impressed by its handling of simple camera movements.

wabbit

11-09-2005, 02:10 PM

Barry

I read elsewhere from someone who claimed to have talked to a JVC representative that the split-screening effect only occured when theHD100's gain was cranked up to 12db. Did you find this to be true in your experience? Also what other problems did you notice with the camera?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/forumdisplay.php?f=46

There is a whole section dedicated to the JVC camera on here. Barry posts over there too. :thumbsup:

The Machinist

11-09-2005, 03:17 PM

most excellent. Thank you.

AshG

11-09-2005, 05:08 PM

I dont care for HDV that much but it is viable, editable and can look very very good. It also is CHEAP and records to tape for up to an hour. Fitting in HDV just was probably too much to ask but if you compare apples to apples... the cost of getting HD from the HVX is substantially more than getting HDV, same goes with the post. We are still a ways away from developing a solid workflow and field acquistion for the masses...

ash =o)

Malcolm Wright

11-09-2005, 07:00 PM

Perhaps here Sony have a corporate structure advantage? I believe they have consumer and Professional divisions (not Broadcast) and "professional" can easily cover anything from the highest end broadcast to the lowliest corporate. Sorry, it seems therefore the consumer is suffering from corporate pride. Sony are happy to put HDV, HDCAM and HDCAM SR logos across their range of professional products, and leave it to consumers to pick the price/quality point that suits them. Panasonic COULD have played a blinder by having a product that appealed to two markets at the same time.

Its not necessarily an advantage to place a product straddling two markets, and I'll exempt myself from having to demonstrate the how's and why's of that: it should be self-evident.

It is simple: everything about the HVX points to cater to the expectations of users with professional, higher-end needs. People who couldn't afford previous dvcPro HD cameras, or who need smaller, less obtrusive amd more maneuverable cameras offering similar image quality to the gruntier and more expensive options.
That's the target market, and diluting that market in any way to cater to people who want to use a lesser quality format simply doesn't make sense.

I cannot bring myself to see how the consumer is suffering from 'anything' if the HVX200 delivers what it seems to promise for the price it will be sold for. But I guess some people just need to complain.
You just need to figure out what you really want. If you want HDV, there are plenty of cameras out there for you...

At least for this camera! But perhaps if the message gets said enough it may influence the future, though no doubt that will bring a fresh set of options/challenges/technology to discuss.

Sure, but how long do you think people are going to ask for HDV? P2 is going to drop radically in price over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 50 percent drop within the first year or two. Once that is under way, why would you even be thinking about HDV anymore?

What worries me about all this is the amount of wanting to have ones cake, eat it, and have another portion as well! I seem to remember that when worries were expressed about the cost/linited recording time if relying on P2 cards that the official reply was "don't worry, there will be the option of the Firestore, no problem". I'll go along with all said above about reliability issues, but then how is it that the Firestore is then seen as the saviour? Surely an external solution, with flying cables, is even less reliable than an internal drive, or ideally a slot in device.

Which begs the question of what Firestore will do!? And if they can overcome the problem in a small device, then surely something comparable could be inbuilt?

This simply proves you'll never be happy.

Once again, from Panasonic's viewpoint, P2 is going to satisfy a large portion of their customers from the get go. The expense, even in the early days, is nothing to what one had to pay for a dvcPro HD camera to date. The fact that a firestore will be available is simply another option for those who absoutely refuse to dump their p2 cards alternatingly while shooting, or who can't afford to have many of them. As a manufacturer, you don't want the liability of building a big hard drive into your camera that might fail necessitating the unit to be returned for service, when you know the camera is going to be in situations that tend to cause such failures.
As an option, the firestore can be used in less perilous conditions, or left out of the equation on shoots where conditions would endanger it. Option = good. Plus, with the drive separate from the camera, your camera doesn't have to be immobilised when transferring data to an editing system, or for derushing.

Well - JVC and Canon don't consider interchangeable lenses to be pie in the sky for a camera in this price bracket. (Though, yes, those cameras have other issues, otherwise I'd just say lets all go off and buy one.)

They have other issues AND none of the incredible innovations the HVX200 is such a big deal for in the first place... hence my wonder at why they are being brought into the equation.

And HDV. If that would indeed have been a low cost additional option, and if it was on your wish list, was it really refreshing to see Panasonic deny it for what seems like departmental pride reasons? I'd be far more impressed with them including the option, and putting a big warning sticker on saying "this gives less good results than the other option, but the choice is up to you".

For everyone who thinks like you, there will always be someone like me (or two) who will think: why did I have to pay for the rights to the format and the encoding chip when I have no use for HDV whatsoever? If you want/need the advantages that dvcPro HD offers in terms of greater color correction latitude, ease of keying, and overall better image quality (which are the main reasons for desiring this camera in the first place), chances are you are not going to care whether you can shoot to the lesser format.
You have more of an argument suggesting changes to the camera that would hike its price that are in line with higher-end needs: interchangeable lenses, for instance.

This is my forst post to these forums, and I'm sorry its not the most joyous post you'll ever read. I'm just a bit at a loss to see so much negativity about such a bold and visionary move on behalf of Panasonic. You mentioned having your cake, eating it and wanting another piece... That's a pretty good description of your expectations for this new camera. You want it to do EVERYTHING that you want it to do, regardless of sound economics, and regardless of what its primary target market wants out of it.

So people don't get the wrong impression: I think this forum is excellent. I've learned a huge amount from reading, and I joined because I hope to contribute back. I'm sorry my first post was a bit of a rant.

M.

stephenlnoe

11-09-2005, 08:01 PM

I'm just a bit at a loss to see so much negativity about such a bold and visionary move on behalf of Panasonic....
That is definately a point of view that you are entitled too. The P2 scenario is not new though. They used to call it 'flash memory' and flash cards. People have legitimate trepidation about P2.

The truth of the matter about the new league of cameras in the 5k to 9k range is that any one of them can record to DVCProHD when suited with an appropriate external device. Also the HD-100 is fully capable to record variable frame rates as demonstrated by David Newman of Cineform on this blog:

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2005/10/jvc-hd100u-frame-rates.html

The notion that the HDV camera's (XL-H1 and HD-100) are relegated to only HDV is not based in fact. You can get signal before codec off of both cameras and the HDV codec hardwired to the JVC is excellent (if you choose to record to tape).

It's all good, but quibbling over a camera that doesn't even exist in the market is a little over the top. The hype has been going on for months. I maintain the wait and see stance on the HVX200. Nothing is ever as good as it sounds....

Haakon

11-09-2005, 08:28 PM

The notion that the HDV camera's (XL-H1 and HD-100) are relegated to only HDV is not based in fact. You can get signal before codec off of both cameras and the HDV codec hardwired to the JVC is excellent (if you choose to record to tape).
I don't think anyone is saying they are "relegated to only HDV." But the fact of the matter is, these are expensive 1/3" cameras and the people who are buying them are not going to have an additional $20,000 laying around to blow on an external deck just to get DVCPROHD out of them, or have mammoth ammounts of computer power and storage to deal with the uncompressed abilities of the XL H1's HD SDI port. And let's be realistic. Anyone who's THAT anal about shooting uncompressed is going to buy/rent a 2/3" chip camera with better optics anyway. There are a handful of ways to get around the native codecs in these cameras, and there are definitely many options with how to handle the footage. But at the end of the day, the HVX is a DVCPROHD camera and the XL H1 and HD-100 are HDV cameras, period.

Malcolm Wright

11-09-2005, 08:29 PM

That is definately a point of view that you are entitled too. The P2 scenario is not new though. They used to call it 'flash memory' and flash cards. People have legitimate trepidation about P2.

Mmm. Not saying solid state is a new scenario. The new scenario, obviously, is offering a camera under 10k that can record dvcPro HD.

The truth of the matter about the new league of cameras in the 5k to 9k range is that any one of them can record to DVCProHD when suited with an appropriate external device. Also the HD-100 is fully capable to record variable frame rates as demonstrated by David Newman of Cineform on this blog:

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2005/10/jvc-hd100u-frame-rates.html

Yes. What devices are available though, and at what cost? You know this already, but I'll say it anyway because it really does justify calling the HVX200 a bold and visionary move: it'll be the first cam for less than 10k that can record its signal to dvcpro HD in the field, without need for a deck.
Its all good and well to say that in theory, any of those cams can record dvcpro formats, but in practice, once you look to do this, you're no longer in the 5-9k price range, and you're lugging an external device around.

Props given where props due: if the cam delivers what it is promising, it will be the first of its kind - and that's not really an opinion.

The notion that the HDV camera's (XL-H1 and HD-100) are relegated to only HDV is not based in fact. You can get signal before codec off of both cameras and the HDV codec hardwired to the JVC is excellent (if you choose to record to tape).

I haven't seen footage from of JVC's hdpro recording format, but I doubt it will suit my purposes... It is still interframe compression at the end of the day, and money lost trying to pull good keys adds up very quickly.

It's all good, but quibbling over a camera that doesn't even exist in the market is a little over the top. The hype has been going on for months....

Well that's the bottom line isn't it, and my point exactly. I don't understand the heavy duty negativity about the product when it isn't even out yet. I always give the caveat 'if it delivers what it promises' to my theoretical approval, but the negativity I read about the camera has no grounds. Holding a new product to the standard of fulfilling all of one's special interests simply isn't reasonable...

M.

stephenlnoe

11-09-2005, 08:58 PM

Hi,

@Haakon, Thinking of the HD-100 and XL-H1 as only HDV cameras is selling them way short of their capabilities and actual design specifics. Those component out's and HD-SDI aren't there for looks.

@Malcolm, You and I come to the same conclusion but from different angles. You may like to check out the HD-100. dvinfo.net is building a really nice following for the it. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=98 Key's are always an issue but with the HD-100, you can dump the HDV to a DVCPro50 or I frame timeline and key your heart out for SD.

good luck...

wabbit

11-09-2005, 09:21 PM

These are the points we all keep making. Specwise the HVX is an exciting camera. 2 years ago the idea of any form of HD for under $80,000 much less $10,000 was a revolution. If we are lucky 2 years from now the HVX will seem pretty average.

Of course the camera could suck. That split screen issue with the JVC caught us all by surprise. HVX COULD (not saying it will, please don't flame) have a issues that are just as frustrating. The point has always been let's wait until it comes out to see if it delivers on it's promises.

The start of this thread was why not include HDV in addition to DVCPRO HD. It has been beaten into the ground (even before this thread). Some are unhappy with the answers, others don't care, and still others are happy it doesn't have it (like myself). No matter what camp you are in, the camera's specs are locked. You can either like it or not.

To continue on debating it is just futile. As I said before if the P2 solution does not "catch on" then the naysayers can come back on and say "I told you so". Beating it into the ground now reads as people who either can't afford the P2 workflow or already own a HDV camera trying to disparage a camera they can't own.

At least that is now I am seeing it.

Best

Malcolm Wright

11-09-2005, 09:28 PM

@Malcolm, You and I come to the same conclusion but from different angles. You may like to check out the HD-100. dvinfo.net is building a really nice following for the it. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=98 Key's are always an issue but with the HD-100, you can dump the HDV to a DVCPro50 or I frame timeline and key your heart out for SD.

good luck...

Thanks!
Barry's nightmare with the split screen is just too prominent in my mind to really consider the camera. The fact that even a camera you have tested out before buying may later drift so that the split screen issue arises just makes it too much of a gamble for me... I'll hold my horses and wait for the opportunity to test the HVX!

:)

M.

stephenlnoe

11-09-2005, 09:56 PM

Thanks!
Barry's nightmare with the split screen is just too prominent in my mind to really consider the camera. The fact that even a camera you have tested out before buying may later drift so that the split screen issue arises just makes it too much of a gamble for me... I'll hold my horses and wait for the opportunity to test the HVX!

:)

M.

You're welcome.

Barry is a respected figure across the various video sites and it's unfortunate that he had issues, however, he had one camera of the thousands produced. We all had our first experience with the HD-100 about the same time. In my case with 2 HD-100's I've had excellent luck with not only no SSE but also CA is not extrodinarily bad. Now the SSE has mysteriously vanished from the web sites and people talk about the incredible flexibility of the camera's settings and possibilities with the component outs.

anyway, we're all waiting to see what the HVX200 brings to the table and then after that we'll wait for the JVC7000U and then the replacment for the Sony Z1 and then back to Panasonic etc. etc...

Barry_Green

11-10-2005, 01:49 AM

I read elsewhere from someone who claimed to have talked to a JVC representative that the split-screening effect only occured when theHD100's gain was cranked up to 12db. Did you find this to be true in your experience?
That's absolutely not true. Split-screen happens at 0db; I never had to go to gain to get the SSE. But it usually happened in very low light conditions.

Also what other problems did you notice with the camera?
Well, you have to separate out the issues that happend with my particular one, vs. the issues that are endemic in every HD100. Those primarily concern lens aberrations/edge-to-edge sharpness, dead pixels, and SSE. My particular unit had extraordinarily low resolution and a weird nasty slow-shutter speckle effect, but I tried to get other owners to duplicate those issues and they couldn't, so those appear to be isolated defects in that one particular unit.

I'm looking for a rentable HD solution while i wait for the horses to come in before making a final purchase, and have been looking to rent an HD100 to give it a test drive. I've already used the Z1 and was not very impressed by its handling of simple camera movements.
By all means try it. Some people are thrilled with it. Some have been pretty vocal about their disapproval of it too, but hey, only you can determine whether it's suitable for your use. If you're using controlled lighting circumstances, the SSE can usually be worked around. The chromatic aberrations are something that's just going to happen, and about the only thing you can do is stick to the wider angle of the lens -- that'll eliminate the edge-to-edge sharpness issue, and the chromatic aberrations will be much milder. As for dead pixels, that one's pretty easy, there's a masking routine in the camera for that and any decent rental house should make sure that the process has been performed before you ever see the camera.

Barry_Green

11-10-2005, 01:56 AM

Thanks!
Barry's nightmare with the split screen is just too prominent in my mind to really consider the camera.
Hey, let's be clear -- what was a problem for me may not be a problem for someone else! There are many shooters (like Stephen, and Nate, and Tim, and Sonisfear) who seem very, very happy with the HD100 and are well able to work within its capabilities. My usage didn't allow for the risk, but that's the particular usage I had intended the product for. Your mileage may vary, and may vary significantly. And I also don't discount that my cam appeared to be a lemon on several fronts.

The fact that even a camera you have tested out before buying may later drift so that the split screen issue arises just makes it too much of a gamble for me... I'll hold my horses and wait for the opportunity to test the HVX!
I'm not sure I'm aware of situations where it drifts so that SSE can appear -- is that a new development people are talking about? Because AFAIK, every one of them will exhibit the SSE under the same circumstances, and as the camera warms up the SSE is supposed to actually minimize, not get worse.

I think it's more of a case of people having not noticed it before, and then at some point they do notice it. That's what happened with us at the mini35 shoot; none of us saw the SSE during the shoot, but Charles noticed it in a shot when he was reviewing the footage in post. We went through that whole shoot having no idea that there was any such thing as the SSE. Now, in retrospect we recognize that the potential was there the whole time, we just didn't see it until later. So I'm guessing that's what's happening here -- it's not that the camera is actually drifting towards producing SSE, it's just that either a) the shooter's eyes become more discerning, or b) the camera gets used in an SSE-prone circumstance, and at that point the issue becomes visible.

Barry_Green

11-10-2005, 01:59 AM

however, he had one camera of the thousands produced.
And, it had issues that other cameras didn't. It was a lemon.

(however, I'm certain that all HD100s have SSE -- JVC has as much said so, that it's endemic in the design and cannot be "fixed"). It just comes down to how you use it and whether you experience it.

but also CA is not extrodinarily bad.
Now, that's surprising. I've used several HD100s (I think I'm up to four now, at various shows and such) and every one of them has the same level of CA. Are you saying that maybe the newer lenses are performing better?

harddrive

11-10-2005, 03:02 AM

It is simple: everything about the HVX points to cater to the expectations of users with professional, higher-end needs.
Everything? Form factor? There is a lot good to say about the HVX, but if you do hand held work the HD100 is a far better design ergonomically, and the Z1 comes off badly against the HD100 as well, certainly in this respect at least.

But I guess some people just need to complain.
You just need to figure out what you really want. If you want HDV, there are plenty of cameras out there for you...
Sigh. Before making your first post I really wish you could bother to read what I've said before (several times), or is this just an attempt to be provocative? If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and if you can't be bothered. I'll requote yet one more time:

"ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

I don’t have enmity for the HVX200. Far from it. It has much to commend it, and what is really, truly irritating is that it could so easily be so much better, so much more universal, without making it any worse for any of it’s current admirers. The truth is that none of the models you refer to is without fault, none is ideal for me and many others.

Why should I therefore just go away and buy another model with it’s own set of problems, rather than try and debate the matter through logically?"

As I've also said many times before, I don't "want HDV", period. I would prefer the good features of such as the HVX200 some of the time, but be able to fall back on HDV when workflow issues meant P2 wasn't suitable. Is that point really so difficult to grasp?

Sure, but how long do you think people are going to ask for HDV? P2 is going to drop radically in price over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 50 percent drop within the first year or two. Once that is under way, why would you even be thinking about HDV anymore?
Not many people are actually "asking for HDV" as such. What they may well be asking for is consumable media, for extremely valid workflow reasons. In the case of my main client, then the calculations I've heard indicate that P2 may be considered as such for 100Mb HD in about six years, with reasonable estimates made for loss, recycling of cards, and assuming a year on year halving of memory prices (or doubling of capacity for the same price). The requirement for HD is likely to ramp up in one or two, so the question is what to do in the meantime.

For everyone who thinks like you, there will always be someone like me (or two) who will think: why did I have to pay for the rights to the format and the encoding chip when I have no use for HDV whatsoever?
Earlier in this thread, I asked: "Would HDV really drive up the price of the camera? Given that a DV tape deck is already there?" to which Barry Green replied back:

When did price enter the equation? Nobody said anything about price being the reason why. I would assume it'd be quite inexpensive for them to add it (other than the licensing fee to the consortium and the cost of the MPEG-2 encoder chip).
And later on he gave the impression that he thought it would probably be under $200. There's no reason why that need even be passed on, at least in full. If it made the camera appeal to a far greater user base, economies of scale could absorb the cost, higher sales leading to higher profits for Panasonic. With no disadvantage to those customers who are currently satisfied. Any problems with that?

Wabbit - "2 years ago the idea of any form of HD for under $80,000 much less $10,000 was a revolution. If we are lucky 2 years from now the HVX will seem pretty average." is very, very true, and puts much of this in perspective. I don't believe the debates are futile though - why otherwise bother to come to forums such as this? I don't see myself as "beating P2 into the ground", if that comment is aimed at me. I see P2 as having many pluses, whilst some workflow negatives - for a few years at least. It just irritates me when I see people trying to brush these under the carpet, rather than debate them openly. (That last sentence is not aimed at you.)

stephenlnoe

11-10-2005, 06:00 AM

Now, that's surprising. I've used several HD100s (I think I'm up to four now, at various shows and such) and every one of them has the same level of CA. Are you saying that maybe the newer lenses are performing better?
Barry, It's there but not extrodinarily bad and making itself self evident all the time. Do you remember the picture of the swans? That's extrodinarily bad. I'd say, when the footage is burned to SD or output SD that it's not very evident. Wouldn't you?

harddrive

11-10-2005, 06:43 AM

From what I've seen of the lens, a bigger issue is coverage angle - it's only 5.5mm at the wide end, equating to 11mm on a 2/3" camera. It may have some CA, but I wouldn't call it too excessive given the overall price of the camera.

More to the point, it's interchangeable. Quite good enough for run of the mill work, then maybe a better one could be hired for that big feature that your name may be made by? I believe they are talking of an alternative, with a better (much wider) range of focal lengths and higher quality - and with a price tag several times that of the basic camera. But for most people, to be able to hire one when it most mattered........

Barry_Green

11-10-2005, 01:44 PM

Barry, It's there but not extrodinarily bad and making itself self evident all the time. Do you remember the picture of the swans? That's extrodinarily bad. I'd say, when the footage is burned to SD or output SD that it's not very evident. Wouldn't you?
Didn't try. I would guess that downrezzing would tend to mask it in many instances, inherently.

In what I've seen from the camera though, I would call the aberrations extraordinarily bad, and I'm surprised that more people don't. There's a purple tint to most things. The swan itself photo, that was an extreme example, but on any black/white surface you're going to see excessive and noticeable green and purple. Look at the photo here:
http://files.photojerk.com/yusufwings/Fuj1.jpg

That's from DVInfo.net, from the guy who was comparing the HD100 lens against his Nikon adapted Tamron zoom. Look at the chain on Daffy -- the whole thing's purple. Look at the silver thing in the right 1/3 -- it's all purple. Look at the black and white chart on the right edge -- it shouild be solid black and solid white. What's with all the green and purple? Look at the bleed of the left edge of that chart -- there's got to be a dozen pixels worth of ghost shadow there.

Obviously at full telephoto the thing's worse, way worse than it would be at wide angle. So some people would ask: why didn't they just limit the zoom range and avoid all this whole debate? What if JVC had made it a 12x zoom, instead of 16x, and avoided so much of the CA issue -- would they have been better off for it? Is there anyone who can honestly think otherwise? Not to mention the edge-to-edge sharpness that totally falls apart at the extreme telephoto end -- they could have missed out on all that criticism too.

I think that if they had it to do over again, it's probably a no-brainer -- they would have made it a 10x or 12x lens, and ditched the overly-problematic long end of the lens, and all the flack and hassle they've taken from people because of pictures like this. And I think that very clearly summarizes this whole thread. Panasonic chose to avoid all the hassle they'd get from people complaining about HDV. Yes, there are some JVC users who would lament the loss of ultimate telephoto reach, even though it means the compromises they'd have to put up with. Just like there are some HVX prospective users who are currently lamenting the lack of a cheap HDV tape recording mechanism. But I think the C.A. issue and lens sharpness issues exactly crystallize why Panasonic chose not to include HDV at all, just so they could avoid all that headache that JVC is currently sifting through.

stephenlnoe

11-10-2005, 02:38 PM

In what I've seen from the camera though, I would call the aberrations extraordinarily bad, and I'm surprised that more people don't. There's a purple tint to most things. The swan itself photo, that was an extreme example, but on any black/white surface you're going to see excessive and noticeable green and purple. Look at the photo here:
http://files.photojerk.com/yusufwings/Fuj1.jpg
Tang makes fruit cocktail now? I'll have to try that!

We did a shot across the water ripples in Lake Michigan at the very long end of the lens and it was a purple mess, but then we pulled zoom back 40% and it looked OK. We are waiting and waiting for the 13x lens to make it's arrival and it will be available at SMS here in Chicago for rent probably next month. It should be a drastic change to the camera.

Here's some new things to look at. This is the HD-100 mounted to a mobile crane. These pics are linked from JVC's site. See more of the moble crane setup here (http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/pics.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101539&itempath=&feature_id=04) at the bottom of the page.

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/photos/general/RC_Aug05_009.jpg

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/photos/general/RC_Aug05_003.jpg

Today I delivered part of the uncompressed HDV 24p footage for 35mm filmout. We'll see how that turns out soon.

anyway, it's all good (or at least about 100x better than last year!).

Luis Caffesse

11-10-2005, 02:40 PM

Yeah, I guess that rig's okay.
:)

Barry_Green

11-10-2005, 03:10 PM

Stephen, that's stylin'! That's hawt! That's the nizzle! Okay, is it obvious that I'm a 40+ white guy yet? :)

Okay, so we're in basic agreement about the lens then. Full telephoto is where most of the issues are; at equivalent focal lengths to the Sony, it seems to have CA about the same as the Sony does (which is more than I may want, but certainly workable in most circumstances, and probably completely maskable through a downrez process to SD).

Malcolm Wright

11-10-2005, 10:32 PM

Sigh. Before making your first post I really wish you could bother to read what I've said before (several times), or is this just an attempt to be provocative? If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and if you can't be bothered. I'll requote yet one more time:

"ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

Hey Harddrive: I certainly don't mean to be provocative... I just have never, in any of the lines of work I have been in, found a tool that allows me to do everything I would like it to. And I don't see it as reasonable to expect to be able to get all the types of jobs one faces done, in ANY given trade, with the one tool.

I've been working in VFX over the last decade and it never crosses my mind, or the mind of my colleagues, to demand one software package that can do it all. You just pick various packages for their strengths, in function of the needs of the job... and customize them to cover any bases that still aren't covered.

It is from this perspective that I get a little irritated to find people accusing Panasonic of pride or what-not because their new product doesn't do everything you want it to by including a lesser format when the target market for the tool doesn't want or need that format.

Panasonic wants to make money. I'd wager their market research supports their not including HDV recording.

Barry said it very well: when you turn down a project offered to you because you don't feel it is going to meet your standards of quality, and that it is not going to help you get where you are heading in your career, should people accuse you of foolish pride? Of course not? Astute observers will say you have a sense of direction, and that you are choosing your projects strategically.

If 200 bucks is a good estimate of what it would cost to add HDV to the HVX, those are still 200 bucks I personally don't want to pay for something I will never use. And if by some strange twist of fate I need to shoot HDV for some reason, I'll buy an HDV camera.

So to conclude: I did not mean to offend - I'm just speaking my mind... We're professionals - we choose our tools and use them to the best of our ability. I don't see anything productive in expecting one tool to replace another - the people who need 4.2.2 and intraframe compression will get what they need out of the HVX (fingers crossed) and won't give HDV a single thought. Those who have projects that can be satisfied with HDV and appreciate the disposable media will certainly be able to pay for an HDV camera if the need is real.

Peace,
M.

icicle22

11-10-2005, 10:44 PM

Malcolm Wright

11-10-2005, 10:47 PM

Hey, let's be clear -- what was a problem for me may not be a problem for someone else! There are many shooters (like Stephen, and Nate, and Tim, and Sonisfear) who seem very, very happy with the HD100 and are well able to work within its capabilities. My usage didn't allow for the risk, but that's the particular usage I had intended the product for. Your mileage may vary, and may vary significantly. And I also don't discount that my cam appeared to be a lemon on several fronts.

I hear you :)

I'm not sure I'm aware of situations where it drifts so that SSE can appear -- is that a new development people are talking about? Because AFAIK, every one of them will exhibit the SSE under the same circumstances, and as the camera warms up the SSE is supposed to actually minimize, not get worse.

This may be a case of me making an assumption based on faulty understanding of the technology. I am assuming that the performance of a CCD drifts over its lifetime for various reasons... if it doesn't, then I'm just being paranoid :)

M.

Malcolm Wright

11-10-2005, 10:52 PM

Malcolm......$200 bucks to have the ability to shoot HDV would be great. I'd rather that than have to go rent/buy a dedicated HDV camera. Having said that I am still 100% for the HVX. But if forced to shoot something HDV I would rather do it with the HVX if I could ( I know you can't...this is theoretical). Remove DVCPRO-HD (in theory again) and make the camera an HDV camera and I still like the other features it offers over the competition.

Fair enough...
I guess that on top of having no need for HDV, there is nothing that bothers me about the workflow for shooting dvcpro-hd... and not having tapes as an intermediary stage is all bonus in my book.

M.

Jarred Land

11-10-2005, 11:05 PM

Very well put Malcom.. I agree with your statements completely. I would rather put that "$200" somewhere else, as I am personally not a big fan of HDV. I don't understand the dual standard requests people are making. It would be nice if one tool did everything under the sun.. but its not the way it works, even more so in the Professional Arena. The Varicam doesn't record HDCam and the CineAlta doesn't record DVCpro-HD.

People need to decide which road they wanna take and follow it. Just remember, HDV is not a professional format, Just like Mini-DV never was. DVCpro-HD however is, along with DVCpro-50.

As a deliverable, people will, and I guarantee it on a distribution level, take you more seriously if your selling them DVCPro-HD material rather than HDV content.

stabwound

11-10-2005, 11:54 PM

We're professionals - we choose our tools and use them to the best of our ability. I don't see anything productive in expecting one tool to replace another - the people who need 4.2.2 and intraframe compression will get what they need out of the HVX (fingers crossed) and won't give HDV a single thought. Those who have projects that can be satisfied with HDV and appreciate the disposable media will certainly be able to pay for an HDV camera if the need is real.

Peace,
M.

Nicely put, Malcolm. :thumbsup:

I for one is excited as hell with the HVX. It's specs are very appealing to those who want to do sfx intensive indie work like me.

Panasonic has clearly defined it's product and market strategy: Dvcpro HD and P2. They've declared war, and it's not just camera vs camera, it's also format vs format.

For Panasonic to include HDV is like Sony deciding to include HD DVD into its Blu-ray players.

For what I want to do, the HVX is tops. An HVX with HDV is like a DVD/VHS combo player I see in the Wal Mart.

Why isn't it December yet???

harddrive

11-11-2005, 04:30 AM

Hey Harddrive: I certainly don't mean to be provocative... I just have never, in any of the lines of work I have been in, found a tool that allows me to do everything I would like it to. And I don't see it as reasonable to expect to be able to get all the types of jobs one faces done, in ANY given trade, with the one tool.

I've been working in VFX over the last decade ........
OK Malcolm, peace! My irritation was solely down to your not having been the first to say "just go away and buy an HDV camera, if that's what you want" when much of what I've already posted should make it abundantly clear that's not what I do want. (In fact, it probably won't be up to me anyway - I will be one of others who will have to toe the client line.)

In VFX I can well see that any tape requirement is probably unnecessary, same with any controlled environment, and in these circumstances solutions such as recording to laptop are sensible. But imagine doing documantary filming away from base, with much handheld work. Suddenly the laptop solution becomes a non starter, even a Firestore is far from ideal, with it's long delay between switch on and record ready. Eventually P2 (or a future solid state answer) will be the answer, of that there is little doubt, but the question is how to handle the next few years.

Regarding the analogy of tools, then I'll certainly agree that screws are certainly best dealt with by a screwdriver, nails with a hammer - I wouldn't expect a tool to handle both. But what about, say, opening bottles and cans? I've got just such a thing in my kitchen drawer which does an equally good job of opening both - I'd think it silly if I had to buy two separate tools then.

And so it is with video. I've already said that the main company I do business with is increasingly using HDCAM for high end work, but looking for alternatives for the lower end. They fully appreciate that one tool will not do everything. An HDV camera (chosen for workflow) will handle the lower end, but a 1/3" camera with HDV and DVCPRO HD would handle some of the middle as well, at little extra expense. And putting HDV onto the HVX is not like turning a hammer into a "screwhammer" - the DV deck is already there, physically there would be no change.

Stabwound - the DVD/VHS combis you talk about. Are they not actually a very sensible option? If you've had a VHS recorder for years, and built up a collection of tapes, then on a move to DVD are you suggesting that they should just be junked? A separate VHS machine is the alternative, but isn't that less convienient, ties up extra connectors on the TV etc? For many people the combis are an extremely sensible TRANSITIONAL product - just as an HVX with HDV would have been! In 5-6 years I won't saying it would be, and won't expect to see VHS around either, but transitions have to be managed.

You said: "For what I want to do, the HVX is tops." Good. I'm glad for you. Enjoy. But try and see other peoples problems.

stephenlnoe

11-11-2005, 06:17 AM

It would be nice if there was a swiss army knife of cameras.

stabwound

11-11-2005, 07:45 AM

Stabwound - the DVD/VHS combis you talk about. Are they not actually a very sensible option? If you've had a VHS recorder for years, and built up a collection of tapes, then on a move to DVD are you suggesting that they should just be junked? A separate VHS machine is the alternative, but isn't that less convienient, ties up extra connectors on the TV etc? For many people the combis are an extremely sensible TRANSITIONAL product - just as an HVX with HDV would have been! In 5-6 years I won't saying it would be, and won't expect to see VHS around either, but transitions have to be managed.

You said: "For what I want to do, the HVX is tops." Good. I'm glad for you. Enjoy. But try and see other peoples problems.

Hiya Harddrive:

I don't have any vhs tapes.

I used to have some fifteen years ago. They were only good for X number of showings. They disintegrated. They scratched. They shed flakes of iron oxide. They jammed. They clogged the head. They demagnetized with time, or just plain stopped working. I pity anybody with a large collection of tapes. I haaated vhs tape.

Tape is like the dead parrot in a Monty Python Skit, where the salesman tries to convince the customer it's "only sleeping."

Maybe that hatred unfairly spilled over to HDV, I dunno. There's no way I'd pay extra for the vhs portion. Fortunately, the market is saturated with product (DVD) choices, so everybody can get he needs.

Honestly, I can see your point of view... you want to have both... and I hope you do... in the next iteration of HVX.

Please don't misunderstand me though... I don't hate HVD. I actually owned the FX1 for about four months. I sold it because at that time I couldn't edit the footage... and Mainconcept wanted 600 smackers for the intermediate codec. While the picture is really nice... there were other aspects (I don't want to go into it... it's been discussed to death in this forum) which kind of limits HVD as a tool for me.

A quick observation, though:

I saw some footage from another FX1 user, who shot with a min1-35 in this forum. I took the pain to download the video, because it looked amazing... and the model (her name starts with an "A"... too pooped to look it up) was pretty and nude.

I noticed that the model held her pose... and didn't move... except slightly. Different shot... still no movement... the camera was locked down... no movement either.... the video ends.

My conclusion... but I could be wrong: I suspect the camera guy knew the limitations of HDV interframe compression... that movement would ruin the lovely resolution of his HD picture... and structured his shooting style around it. He's got other video samples, but I didn't download them due to my low bandwidth connection... so I'm open to the fact that I could be dead wrong. Mebbe his next clip has a great action sequence in it.

But that's my personal perspective. I wanna make a action-filled, smack-em sockem shootem up with lots of intraframe movement. HDV may not be suitable for that,, but would have made a fantastic wedding camera.

As for the TRANSITIONAL viewpoint you're advocating... it would make sense if we all had large libraries of HDV material which we want to add to and work with. But we don't... most of us are HD virgins whose first camera could be the HVX.

Panasonic wants no compromises with the HVX, and I agree. HDV would be luggage.

Peace, buddy.

contentlab

11-11-2005, 12:55 PM

Why isn't it December yet???

because we haven't begged superman to fly around the earth really fast to speed up time

how do you get a hold of superman anyway?

harddrive

11-11-2005, 05:08 PM

... and the model ........was pretty and nude.

I noticed that the model held her pose... and didn't move... except slightly. Different shot... still no movement... the camera was locked down... no movement either.... the video ends.

My conclusion... but I could be wrong: I suspect the camera guy knew the limitations of HDV interframe compression... that movement would ruin the lovely resolution of his HD picture... and structured his shooting style around it.
Under those circumstances, I don't think I'd be worried about the intricacies of interframe compression systems...... ( :) ) And are you sure the model wasn't more worried about revealing too much of herself than compression artefacts? :)

... Honestly, I can see your point of view... you want to have both... and I hope you do... in the next iteration of HVX.

As for the TRANSITIONAL viewpoint you're advocating... it would make sense if we all had large libraries of HDV material which we want to add to and work with.
The trouble is that by the time of the next iteration of HVX (or other products) all this will be less and less relevant - it's what happens in the next few years I'm thinking about. The DVD/VHS combi approach illustrates the transition problem for the end user. For the other end of the chain it's somewhat different, and whatever it is I'm advocating relates more to workflow considerations than those of library.

For a single user totally responsible for their own material, and in a controlled environment P2 is excellent now. But think of the opposite end of the spectrum, documentaries and hard news, say. Currently material may be taken away from a cameraman to be edited etc elsewhere, whilst they carry on shooting, and many people may be involved in the chain. Alternatively, a common scenario for a cameraman such as myself is to do a days shoot, and the material be taken away for later editing, not necessarily even by the producer responsible. Panasonic have been challenged to come up with suitable workflows for such scenarios, and frankly haven't managed it.

Some - no, many - scenarios will need a media which can be classed as "consumable" for the foreseeable future. Eventually solid state will reduce in price to the extent it may be classed as such, at which point it truly will become universal. When I talk of transition, it's from tape - any tape, not just HDV - to that.

Panasonic wants no compromises with the HVX, and I agree.
Well - you are presumably talking of quality, I'm talking of workflow. For many users, including many current DVX users, the HVX is severely compromised here. I don't WANT to compromise quality, but if it's a choice of that or not being able to shoot at all, or suffer great inconvienience....... that's a no-brainer. Unlike any current HDV camera, an HVX + HDV would allow the best of both worlds. In a way, it's a typical struggle between the idealists and the pragmatists. But if like you, my workflow wasn't inconvienienced, would I see it like that?

Peace, buddy.
Amen.

Malcolm Wright

11-11-2005, 06:07 PM

Hey!

Well I actually plan to shoot a documentary with the HVX next year (and I am crossing my fingers the Firestore will be available by early April), so the concerns Harddrive mentions are not alien to me.
I'm confident that with a firestore or two and two 8gb P2s, I'll be able to function fairly well. Yes, I'll have to do some archiving every evening but I see that as a good thing... doing a preliminary trim of footage and taking stock of what the day has yielded while archiving the good stuff will be good discipline, and inspiring as well.

Some nights I'll be knackered, but the quality of the finished product is worth a little extra effort. I wouldn't dream of shooting the project in HDV. I'd limit its distribution potential, and anything I devote that much of my time and energy towards is worth doing well within the confines of my budget.
I'd rather shoot it in SD than HDV.

M.

stabwound

11-11-2005, 06:23 PM

For a single user totally responsible for their own material, and in a controlled environment P2 is excellent now. But think of the opposite end of the spectrum, documentaries and hard news, say. Currently material may be taken away from a cameraman to be edited etc elsewhere, whilst they carry on shooting, and many people may be involved in the chain. Alternatively, a common scenario for a cameraman such as myself is to do a days shoot, and the material be taken away for later editing, not necessarily even by the producer responsible. Panasonic have been challenged to come up with suitable workflows for such scenarios, and frankly haven't managed it.

I agree that Panasonic does not suit your workflow in its current model. But almost every other camera does. For your type of work (I am making assumptiions here.... ENG, wedding, corporate, documentaries etc....)

An FX1 would do fantastic and it's almost half the price of an HVX. I just don't see how using a Panasonic HVX will give you an advantage in your field of work. The appeals of the HVX are primarily the DVCproHD, P2, progressve and 24fps. Why pay for aspects which you won't use?

It's like buying a fast sports car (aaieee! Accursed car analogy again...) and wondering why the trunk's not large enough to haul two by fours. Better to buy a truck to begin with.

As Barry pointed out, EVEN IF Panasonic incorporated HDV into the HVX, the odds of your client playing your footage is low, unless he also has the same system. If ENG is your bag, I think you're better off getting something the news people are using for compatabilities sake.

Some - no, many - scenarios will need a media which can be classed as "consumable" for the foreseeable future. Eventually solid state will reduce in price to the extent it may be classed as such, at which point it truly will become universal. When I talk of transition, it's from tape - any tape, not just HDV - to that.

I look forward to that. All will be P2. All will be assimliated... resistance is futile(spoken in Borg tones).

Well - you are presumably talking of quality, I'm talking of workflow. For many users, including many current DVX users, the HVX is severely compromised here. I don't WANT to compromise quality, but if it's a choice of that or not being able to shoot at all, or suffer great inconvienience....... that's a no-brainer. Unlike any current HDV camera, an HVX + HDV would allow the best of both worlds. In a way, it's a typical struggle between the idealists and the pragmatists. But if like you, my workflow wasn't inconvienienced, would I see it like that?

Actually, I was referring to Panasonic's vision... and as they see the future. The roadmap may have been provided by today's DSLR's... reusable memory. For me, I rediscovered still photography in an amazing fashion. I hope the HVX will do the same for me.

I enjoyed the discussion with you, Harddrive! But I know your needs will be fulfilled one way or the other... hopefully soon. :)

harddrive

11-11-2005, 06:58 PM

As Barry pointed out, EVEN IF Panasonic incorporated HVD into the HVX, the odds of your client playing your footage is low, unless he also has the same system. If ENG is your bag, I think you're better off getting something the news people are using for compatabilities sake.

I enjoyed the discussion with you, Harddrive! But I know your needs will be fulfilled one way or the other... hopefully soon. :)
Likewise I enjoyed the discussion, and I think nearly everything that can be said now has been. Hopefully we're both the wiser.

But the compatability issue really isn't that great, really just one in two: HDV1 or HDV2, 720p or 1080i. No worse than the choice of 720 or 1080 in any system. Canon may have complicated the matter by extending the spec to give 24p support, but AFAIK non 24p Canon recordings are perfectly playable in Sony machines, and 24p is generally not seen as that important in the 50Hz world anyway.

True, I may wish to (say) have bought the HD100, but an important client may (say) have many HDV2 players and force me to the Z1. So haven't Panasonic missed a trick by not allowing for HDV1 recording to tape when recording 720 DVCPRO HD to P2, and HDV2 to tape when 1080 DVCPRO HD to P2? What a universal device that would have been..... The same camera for every client, no matter what they wanted? OK, a different camera for HDCAM, but I'll live with that. :)

BigMike

11-12-2005, 08:44 PM

-Nate[/QUOTE]
Again I'm curious as to how many HDV bashers have used (shot on/edited) HDV because I've been on a lot of video forums and there's always a lot of chatter but I'm willing to bet 90% or more of those who bash HDV (like those who bash cameras) haven't used it. That not a pro HDV statement as much as it's just probably the truth. People shot on the original JVC and found ways to edit, many seem to love the Sony FX1 even without 24p, and some have even found ways to shoot on the current JVC w/ split and all. And these people will beat you if you try to take their cams. Many of these people are professionals. So do they just not know the pitfalls of "uneditable" HDV? Have they been in the dark for years?

Hi Nate, I've never quoted before, sorrry if I get it wrong.

I rented the JVC HD100 for a weekend and virtually all the filmmakers who wanted to attend the test shoot flaked out, so I shot buildings and people crossing the street.

Then, in the evening, I did some simple stuff with a couple lights on a very colorful mask I bought in Venice Italy.

My conclusions are that If you take that JVC camera's componant footage out before it is converted to MPEG (HD-SDI) and then input it into a computer via an Aja adapter and using Cineform Prospect HD to ingest (and upres it) up to 1920 x 1080p, you will have spectacular footage that can be edited easily ona PC.

They even have their own capture hardware coming out soon that ingests the footage in on two RAID 1 disks that mirror each other so you don't lose footage.

On the other hand, when using the tape, the picture looked great until I would pan or there was an actor moving. Then the resolution seemed to drop until the motion stopped.

I didn't have this problem coming out of the Componant Y/U/V outputs.

I'm dying to see the Panny, but I haven't ruled out he JVC yet. I jus taccept that if I buy JVC I will be carting a computer or the Saefor device around with me to bypass the HDV compression.... Which is fine. Right? For the price of the camera it's a fantastic deal.

There's my two cents.

Mike

Stevet

11-12-2005, 09:08 PM

My conclusions are that If you take that JVC camera's componant footage out before it is converted to MPEG (HD-SDI) and then input it into a computer via an Aja adapter and using Cineform Prospect HD to ingest (and upres it) up to 1920 x 1080p, you will have spectacular footage that can be edited easily ona PC.

Yes you could. I can only imagine this would look great. You could also do the same thing with the HVX200.

How would you manage this type of work flow outside of a studio?

Steve

stephenlnoe

11-12-2005, 11:38 PM

On the other hand, when using the tape, the picture looked great until I would pan or there was an actor moving. Then the resolution seemed to drop until the motion stopped.
Please post an m2t showing what you are saying about motion in the frame. You are the very first person to say there are motion problems with the HD-100. I'd like to see what you've come up with that can force the JVC codec to macroblocks.

BigMike

11-13-2005, 07:59 AM

Yes you could. I can only imagine this would look great. You could also do the same thing with the HVX200.

How would you manage this type of work flow outside of a studio?

Steve

I'm not kidding when I said I would cart around a computer. A dual Opteron with a SATA RAID on board.

I've been shopping around for generators. Honda makes an inexpensive generator that's pretty quiet, less than 50 decibles. Not to run lights, just enough to run the computer (they don't make a powerful enough laptop yet).

I'm hoping that the HVX200 will make that unnecessary.

dregenthal

11-13-2005, 11:43 PM

I've been shopping around for generators. Honda makes an inexpensive generator that's pretty quiet, less than 50 decibles. Not to run lights, just enough to run the computer (they don't make a powerful enough laptop yet).

Hmmm, I may be wrong, but I don't think you'd really want to power your computer off a camping generator . . . Perhaps one of our "EE" types will comment?

OliverM

11-14-2005, 07:07 AM

BigMike

11-14-2005, 12:22 PM

Generator into UPS power supply that's grounded ought to do the trick. Don't you think?

Ernest_Acosta

11-14-2005, 12:58 PM

Big Mike, what is the model number of the generator you are referring to. I think any kind of portable power with a low decibel rating is good for our kind of work. I have a 3 phase power distribution box with 150 feet of cable basically for a tie-in to a main line, but there will be instances where this will not be feasible (in the woods, at the beach, etc.).

BigMike

11-15-2005, 12:08 AM

Boy! You are all asking me specifics when I haven't even begun to shop. I was thinking a small portable Honda generator because they are less than 50 Dbs and I might be able to put portable sound proofing between it and the actors.
I'm sure there are other options out there to power a computer, I just haven't searched them out. Who knows? Maybe by next June there will be a laptop with the equivilant of a dual opteron?
Right now I'm hoping the Panasonic HVX200 will be as good a camera as the general consensus is hoping. Then won't have to figure out how to power a computer and lug it to shoots. It would be a pain in the butt, but worth the trouble to get the best picture possible.

Let's wait for the HVX200 to be released before we talk about this... Unless you already know of some equipment suggestions I might look into to provide portable power.
Thanks for all the responses!

MIKE

stabwound

11-15-2005, 12:13 AM

I've got some motion problems with hdv to. Altough this concerns the sony z1. If you move the camera, everything seems to get a little blurry untill half a second after you stop moving. And no this wasn't just motion blur. That usualy stops at the same time the camera stops. :)
Don't know about the other HDV cams though.
But THE thing I don't like about HDV is the audio. Unlocked and compressed? Not for docu and so on thank you. I need my sound to be cristalclear. Hell, I need everything to be on an acceptable level.
Besides, this only the first generation of small semipro to pro HD cameras. So you still have compromises. I'll take the more difficult workflow. Because it just means (a bit) more hassle for me, but then I'll have the best possible quality picture and audio from a 'handycam'. Normally the HVX should rival 16mm or better. And with this kind of portability, it's worth the hassle for me.

A funny thought occurred to me while I was reading your post.

Here's a "what if" situation... what if we had to do the next Bond movie with the Z1 and had to work around it's apparent limitations....

Script:

Blofeld: "Mister Bond. You intend to kick my gun from my hand... yet you do it in very slow fashion... why?"

Bond: "If I moved any faster my features will turn mushy, and my fans will no longer recognize me. It's the long GOP thing with HDV."

Blofeld: "Aah... I understand. This is a high definition movie... but we can adjust."

Bond: "In what way?"

Blofeld: "Instead of the usual high speed chase via speed boat and helicopter, we will have to work in scenarios that call for... low speed chases..."

Bond: "You mean like as in the O.J. Simpson car chase?"

Blofeld: "Even slower, Mr. Bond. My evil plans for world domination calls for my secret space satelite to shower the entire globe with a coating of sticky fudge, entrapping entire armies and reducing humanity to a state of helplessness and slowness..."

Bond: "Lovely! Trapped in molten fudge, we can hurl insults at each other, and the first to cry is a loser..."

Blofeld: "You and I are geniuses... we can sweep around any limitation and find success... by the way... I can see your nosehairs quite clearly when the camera stops moving."

Bond, to waiter: "Please... I said shaken... but slowwwly....."

Ok. Ok. I don't think HDV is that bad. Or maybe it is.

:grin: