HVX VS SDX900 w/ P+S Technic

[sponester]

Okay, Here is my delema.

I have a shoot coming up for a short film. We have access to an HVX and SDX900 for free. If we could out fit both with P+S technic 35mm adapter, matte box, rods, follow focus, etc....(same exact rental package) which one would you choose and why.

I would be shooting the HVX in 720pn mode

This Question is in regards to the cameras, not what adapter, primes, mattebox, followfocus, monitors, etc. Just the Cameras Mano e Mano with P+S technic.

If you have worked with these cameras Please give me advantages and disadvantages of each.

My feelings are:

SDX900
2/3 inch chip.
10bit sample rate
lower compression
straight to chip through adapter, not through lens then adapter, then to chip

HVX
more resolution
No tape stock
Immediate viewing on laptop

Our post workflow would be the same for both.
Master to HDcam and then color correct.

Please give me your insight, into which you would shoot with a 35mm adapter and why.

Also please enlighten me into any thing I am missing in the advantages of each.
I'm not the one making the decision. I need to convince the producers which is the better choice. I own a HVX200 and want to shoot the best thing possible. I have shot on the SDX900 many times, but never shot on either one with the adapter.

My goal is to make the best with what I have available.

Please answer ASAP, they will be making their decision within a few days.

[evinsky]

From my experience so far there is only one reason to shoot the SDX in this situation, it is cleaner. If noise is your #1 concern the the 2/3" chip block is definately cleaner, but other than that the HVX is superior in every other important IQ area.

[sponester]

hvx200 is 8bit
SDX 10 bit

that is 256 shades of grey compared to 1028 shades of grey.


When shooting a lamp you can see the banding much easier on the hvx then the SDX

[Rextilleon]

From my experience so far there is only one reason to shoot the SDX in this situation, it is cleaner. If noise is your #1 concern the the 2/3" chip block is definately cleaner, but other than that the HVX is superior in every other important IQ area.

Could you tell us why you think the HVX is superior in "every other important IQ area" I dont see it.

[tim_brown]

Bigger chips, superior glass, and the all important DOF for a narrative project... uprez that with a Kona 2.... I don't see it either Rex.

Tim

[pretopost]

I see the resolution as a big problem.

When uprez SD to HD it softens quite a bit. The HVX in my opinion, although a little soft, looks better than up-rezzed SDX900. I have seen both.

I mean if you want it to look like a soft Robert Redford movie than by all means...use the SDX. But if you want HD--Use HD.

[tim_brown]

Of course I could be wrong...

Pretopost, what method was used for the uprez you saw?

[AshG]

The SDX upconverts fabulous and the upconverted SDX I have seen that was shot with the 35mm package looks BETTER than HVX footage. Here are a couple articles about the SDX being using in an HD production, note that the engineers at a large Hollywood post facility were "hard pressed to tell the difference"

ash =o)

http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/hd_tech/20041028/Beautiful-Dreamer-Brian-Wilson-Smile-20041028/index.html

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/news/news04_038.asp

[Ernest_Acosta]

Without a doubt I would use the SDX900. Having a 2/3" chip makes a huge difference. Combine that with the P&S adapter and you get the best of both worlds. The 2/3" chip can handle/compensate for the 2 stop light loss you will get with the adapter. Just light your scenes a bit brighter. The SDX900 is native 16:9, 24P and is just a better camera in my eyes. You will have to buy a fair amount of tape stock though. But this decision is a no brainer.

[Barry_Green]

straight to chip through adapter, not through lens then adapter, then to chip

Not true, there must always be a lens between the chips and the adapter. On a removable-lens camera like the SDX (or XL2 or JVC HD100 or whatever) they add a special-purpose relay lens in place of the camera's normal lens. On a fixed-lens camera (like the HVX etc) they use the camera's normal lens for that purpose. But there must always be a lens.

[Barry_Green]

hvx200 is 8bit
SDX 10 bit

that is 256 shades of grey compared to 1028 shades of grey.


When shooting a lamp you can see the banding much easier on the hvx then the SDX
Again, not true.

The HVX's DSP is 14-bit.

The recording codec is 8 bit, yes, but that's on both cameras. Both cameras use the identical same DVCPRO50 mode, and DVCPRO50 is 8-bit.

[evinsky]

hvx200 is 8bit
SDX 10 bit
that is 256 shades of grey compared to 1028 shades of grey.
When shooting a lamp you can see the banding much easier on the hvx then the SDX

I have seen well photographed and CCd footage from both the HVX and SDX projected back to back on a 30' screen using a Christie 2k DLP cinema projector. There is no doubt that the HVX both resolves more and produces a more "Film Like" image in my opinion. There is a DOF diffrence between 2/3 and 1/3 but the AD converter in the HVX is 14bit and both codecs are 8bit so where are you getting 10bit? As far as the bulb, I have seen no banding in any properly exposed HVX footage.

Honestly, the SDX is a superior DVC-Pro50 SD camera, and only by a small margin, but it is not HD and will not compete with the HVX in an upconvert. In most shoting situations it's almost impossible to pick out HVX footage from Varicam footage.
They are that close!

[evinsky]

Damn Barry, you beat me to him.

[sponester]

Evinsky,

So what camera would you use? You get to pick either one with the same 35mm adapter set-up. Is there going to be shallower depth of field from the SDX than the HVX even if there are 35mm lenses on both.

Do you think there is a better adapter out there than the P+S one. Money is not an issue for renting the adapter.

Also, has anyone used the P+S technic on the HVX or SDX. Is there anything I need to be aware of when I get my rental package.

[sponester]

what does 14bit A/D conversion and 19bit internal processing really mean.

What is it converting from.


Panasonics websit says that the sdx is 12bit dsp with no A/D conversion.

I apologize about the 8bit vx 10bit thing. I had some wrong info.

SDX900
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=68651&catGroupId=14569&modelNo=AJ-SDX900&surfModel=AJ-SDX900

HVX200
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=93120&catGroupId=14569&modelNo=AG-HVX200&surfModel=AG-HVX200

[evinsky]

Evinsky,
So what camera would you use? You get to pick either one with the same 35mm adapter set-up. Is there going to be shallower depth of field from the SDX than the HVX even if there are 35mm lenses on both.

I would use the HVX because it's real HD and P2 is a much better system than tape.
The 35mm adapter DOF and FOV (Field of view) will be the same on either camera.


Do you think there is a better adapter out there than the P+S one. Money is not an issue for renting the adapter.

I've heard very good things about the current Redrock M2, personally I have never used one of these 35mm DOF adapters. I've always achieved my DOF shots in camera using force perspective, the long zoom and being creative.


Also, has anyone used the P+S technic on the HVX or SDX. Is there anything I need to be aware of when I get my rental package.

Can't help you there.


what does 14bit A/D conversion and 19bit internal processing really mean.

What is it converting from.

Panasonics websit says that the sdx is 12bit dsp with no A/D conversion.

I apologize about the 8bit vx 10bit thing. I had some wrong info.

Not a problem, what it means is there is actually more signal processing power in the HVX than the SDX. That makes sense since the HVX is a true HD camera. The SDX certainly has an A/D converter, all digital cameras do. But it dosen't need to handle the same data rate as the HVX does. What really makes the SDX good is that 16:9 2/3" chip block. But it will never record more than 480 vertical lines of resolution. No matter what, that's the limit of DVC-Pro 50 and DV.

As far as what it's converting from, well the HVX has three 960x540 pixel CCDs that use horizontal and vertical pixelshift to achieve a theoretical signal resolution of 1536x864 (Asuming a 30% bump per pixelshift direction). That is sampled off the chip by the 14bit a/d at 1920x1080 60p. From there the 19bit DSP either cross or down converts the image to whatever flavor of HD or SD you have chosen to record.

So you can imagine why the HVX has such an advantage here. It is starting with and can deliver a much greater volume of useable information than the SDX.

Please don't misunderstand me, I think the SDX is an amazing camera and I have personally shot on them on many occasions, but times change and the HVX is an evolutionary step beyond the SDX, with the SDX's larger chip block and lenses being it's only remaining advantage. Why do you think Pany just droped the price by $10k?

[sponester]

thanks evinsky,

anyone else have a preferences on what camera to use.

[caldwell]

the sdx900 is a wonderful camera the 2/3" chip size will allow your cinematography to shine...

the best cinema is about what is out of focus often.

the 1/3 inch chip cams all tend to look too much in focus, foreground and background.
at the end if you upres to HD from the sdx900 you'll be happy....

all that dubs and transfers are a pain though

nice choice you have.

[joe 1008]

What about the PAL-version of the SDX900? With theoretically 575 lines of resolution it comes quite close to the real-world-resolution of the HVX. The only problem ist it lacks 24p - but 25p should work great, too.

[evinsky]

Again even 525 lines is not HD. The HVX is, there is a visable diffrence in real world shooting (Not so much in charts). The HVX is able to resolve around 675 to 700 lines in 720 mode, maybe even 750-775 in 1080 mode. On a dvd the SDX may look a tad better because of the better DR and cleaner image but for projection I'd still choose real HD.

[Spartacus]

I would like to know what your final output will be.
If your not going to do a filmout and in the end only need a SD master, I know the SDX in DVCpro50 will yield great results.
As said, the DoF should be the same, since you´ll achieve it through the P+S...
Hm, downresed HD nevertheless looks amazing too what I´ve seen so far...
I guess at the current state I would favor the SDX, because it is tested and proven and I´ve worked with it, I´m not trusting the HVX yet (this will hopefully change in the next weeks)...

[joe 1008]

Again even 525 lines is not HD. The HVX is, there is a visable diffrence in real world shooting (Not so much in charts). The HVX is able to resolve around 675 to 700 lines in 720 mode, maybe even 750-775 in 1080 mode. On a dvd the SDX may look a tad better because of the better DR and cleaner image but for projection I'd still choose real HD.

But with a P+S or M2 adapter? Won´t the softening equal the advantage of the HD- resolution? But: I my opinion the DOF looks much better with an adapter than with a 2/3" cam.

[evinsky]

I haven't had a chance to test any of the 35mm adapters so i can't really say if the recorded detail would be different of not. But if the GG can resolve more than 525 then you will certainly see it on the HVX. As far as dvd, if that's you final output then by all means shoot the SDX. The only reason not to would be cost.

[joe 1008]

Funny: The more expensive cam is better at the lower resolution and vice versa. By the way: As I see now, the question was which one is better WITH adapter. So it´s not adapter against 2/3". I understood that wrong. But which adapter do they want to use? There is a very expensive adapter from P+S (about 20k) for 2/3" cams. Is it possible, to mount something like the much cheaper M2, too? That would be interesting to know.

[AshG]

I guess Evinsky can see things that established DPs and production houses cannot. Did you read the articles I posted? I dont question the results you have seen, my contention is that they are an aberration from the norm. Myself and every DP I know would, given the choice and budget, choose the SDX which is a fav cam in this area. The HVX does not technically resolve a lot more than the SDX. I mean, technically, the difference between the XLH and HVX is bigger than between the SDX and HVX. Resolution is A factor... not THE factor. Also, as noted and link, the SDX has been upconverted to both HD and film with established fantastic results.

Also, as wonderful as the HVX is, it is still 1/3" CCD... if you cant tell it from Vari footage, I would argue that the Vari is either not being used properly, or not being used in such a way that accentuates its strengths.




ash =o)

[Illya Friedman]

Anyone who went to the Plastercity presentation three weeks ago got to see both my HVX material, and material from an SDX900 with the P+S Technik Pro35 and Zeiss MKIII primes on the 30' 2K projection. The person who directed the SDX900 project is a friend of mine and it looks very good. That being said...

The SDX900 with the Pro35 will be much softer when blown up to HD or 35mm. I'm not talking DoF; rather an overall softness that could be considered "film like". However, I personally am not fond of it. I think the look is too soft. If you really, really want the shallower DoF consider the SDX900 with a nice 2/3" piece of HD glass and forgo the P+S. Since the SDX+Pro35+Cine glass is going to be far more expensive than an HVX rental, consider renting 2x HVXs, extra P2s, and getting more coverage on full zoom from B cam.

I.

P.S. I heard an image consultant once say, "sharp images are not always a good thing, and blurry images are not always a bad thing." I tend to agree fully.

[Illya Friedman]

I should have added. If you can afford the SDX+Pro35+Cine glass you are better off getting a Varicam package with 2/3" HD glass for the same $. It will be the best image in your price range and is definitely the same or less in price these days.

I.

[AshG]

Much softer? I say marginally softer, so marginal that most people would never know. Technically the HVX should be much softer than the XLH when bumped...it isnt, the difference is marginal.

I do agree that the Vari is an even better choice and with the rumored price drop, may drop to within budget for renting....



ash =o)

[Illya Friedman]

Much softer? I say marginally softer, so marginal that most people would never know.


On this we are in disagreement. Although in all fairness, I've only seen about 15 minutes of Pro35/Zeiss MK3 via SDX on 35mm film and 2K at Laser Pacific. What Pro35 footage are you referring too and how big is the screen?

I.

[evinsky]

I guess Evinsky can see things that established DPs and production houses cannot. Did you read the articles I posted? I dont question the results you have seen, my contention is that they are an aberration from the norm.

Ash, comments and insinuations like this are what will get you into trouble with less patient moderators like John Hudson. That is a truly incendiary tone and a contradiction. Of course you're questioning what I've seen. You seem to be so sceptical of my conclusion as to question my reputation as a cinematographer. I've told you before, I have shot the SDX myself. I've seen this footage projected. I know how to set the camera up, I have DP'd five broadcast television shows that have used this camera.
As far as the articles, they were both written before the HVX was even announced, so how could you use that as an example where a producion chose the SDX over the HVX. I already know that of all the SD cameras the SDX will upconvert the best, but, and you'll love this, I found that it showed only a little more recorded detail than the DVX100a with the anamorphic lens stopped down. Cleaner, much better color but not much more detail! The SDX is an SD camera, the HVX is an HD camera and that difference is very visable when blown up. And the difference between the XL-H1 and the HVX is not as great as the test chart would seem. I was a beta tester for cineform on that camera and it recorded a few more lines but in projection it's not even close to the same difference as the SDX to HVX.

I really don't understand this zelotrous stance you have toward the SDX. Technology progresses and things get better, smaller and cheaper. Most DPs and post houses who have had experience with HVX footage, like Plaster City, like myself, like Illya Friedman have come to the only conclusion the footage supports...
That the HVX produces a higher resolution image more suitable for a theatrical projection.

Please try to be more well informed before making these kind of comments in the future.

[kprince]

SDX + Pro 35 would be nice, so nice.

[Haakon]

After seeing some of the really cool footage from M2 users over the last couple of weeks, I'm surprised that more companies haven't made 35mm lens solutions as standard features of their cameras. The main reason that people don't like small-sensor cameras (besides limited latitude) is really limited depth-of-field - and you can get a solution for it now for around $500! Pretty sweet deal.

[brianluce]

I've never seen a side by side comparison. but i know 2/3" ccd's give a huge performance boost over 1/3". not to mention pro glass. i saw a side by side with a dvx100a and old beta cam with 2/3" ccd's. the dvx looked positively sick in comparison.

if the hvx can outperform a sx900, that would be impressive.

[Illya Friedman]

Haakon, you get the award for hijacking this thread.



I sense a lot of hypocrisy going on amongst the DVXUser moderators. If Ash's comments had been made to someone else by a member of the DVXUser staff, there would be no problem at all.

I know I've only been a frequenter of this forum for a few months and usually only read the HVX forums, but in my limited time here I haven't seen what you describe. If you believe this with such fervor, why don't you post a link to an example?



you have made buddy buddy with the people that run this forum and your little yellow name keeps you immune to the repercussions of your actions. I'm surprised that there aren't more users who question this strange power trip.

Umm, this is none of my business. I generally don't poke my nose into other people's beefs, and so I don't plan on really touching this with a 10' pole. However, since AshG's comments are really none of Haakon's concern ;-) I I'll get my hands dirty and add two cents anyway.

I've followed this thread from the beginning to its current place, and read every single post along the way. At worst Evan's post was tit-for-tat. If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out. Anyone making any sort of claim should be able to back it up, if you can't you should be able to admit that you are speaking theoretically, or worst case- that you're are in fact- wrong.

There are a LOT of forums that cater to the low end of camera equipment. The reason I frequent this forum (more frequently than the others) is the fact that they are discussions are moderated, there's a lot of traffic, and (IMHO) the best interface for posting, searching and reading.

I usually can't stand the low-end/consumer forums. They are usually full of members who talk out of the rear. It's also a pain when these same members don't so a search before they ask a question. This gets especially bad when moderators don't actually issue warnings, or take action! When intelligent discussion spirals into a dark un-moderated pit, it's replaced with post after post of trolling, flame wars, and other wastes of bandwidth. Not a single forum I've ever frequented was over moderated.



I am not a fan of Walter Graff by any remote stretch of the imagination, but I'm starting to sympathize with the situation he had to deal with.

Mr. Graff, is also a member of the professional forum I frequent. I don't know what his history @ DVXUser, but I can tell you that he trolls, offers up non sequitur and seems to have a hard time admitting he might (God forbid) be wrong about something. I know many people who now just completely skip reading anything he posts on ANY forum, even if he does have something relevant or helpful to offer, which he does from time to time. To hear that he had a "situation" anywhere doesn't surprise. I've never known anyone to be consistently curmudgeonly and acerbic without repercussions.



certainly not to call someone out by name and insinuate that a moderator will "deal with them" if they don't share the same opinion as you.


Haakon this is an obvious non sequitur. Evan said this:


Ash, comments and insinuations like this are what will get you into trouble with less patient moderators like John Hudson


Which had NOTHING to do with a difference in OPINION it was directly in regards to AshG saying this:


I guess Evinsky can see things that established DPs and production houses cannot.

It's hard to argue that this is anything but insulting.



Ash didn't feel that some of the findings you made were representative of the things he's experienced - and really, who's to say you're more "right" than he is anyway? Most of this stuff is unbelievably subjective as it is.



This is not correct.

In this industry there are a lot of people who talk about what others have done, and haven't tested or done it themselves. Until you do it yourself, you don't truly know. That's the rub. These things are NOT always subjective, they are often quantifiable and tangible so when someone talks about opinion as fact (and facts as opinion) it can become a problem for those who have done it and do know.

When you get a room full of professionals together you'll always get a difference of opinion. I attended the Santa Fe workshops in the summer of 2005 (www.hdworkshops.com (http://www.hdworkshops.com/)); and one of the big issues of the class was determining fact from opinion and how to go about testing and proving performance. It's really simple to get other people on-board with what you're saying... present evidence. The last day we saw footage (or evidence if you'd rather) shot with a F900 that was brought back to a more than acceptable level; really, nearly indistinguishable from dead on exposure. This footage was purposely under-exposed and over-exposed by 4-stops. The footage actually went an entire range under/over a total of 19-stops.

Now many DPs I've met tell me "Oh you can't overexpose the F900 even 1-stop or all the highlight information is gone." This is from DPs that tell me that they shoot a lot of HD, and even some that have had letters after their name.

I've been told by these very, very talented people that that 4-stops over with the F900 is impossible. This doesn't make them bad at what they do, or incompetent. It only makes them unaware of camera settings that allow this massive range of exposure correction potential. If they perpetuate that you can only overexpose the F900 one stop before irreparable harm is caused to the picture it also makes them wrong.

I.

[Barry_Green]

One thing that is not gonna happen on these forums is personal attacks. I'm sure Evin and Haakon and whoever can work out their issues with private messages but they're not gonna play out here. This thread is closed.