Hello Mr. Pappas, your dinner is ready!

[soarprod]

HERE IT IS! SOMETHING TO FEAST ON!
Now we have comparison footage between the HVX and the JVC - well, maybe not directly.

I went over to Corona Del Mar and Laguna Beach last saturday to do a little testing. Mike Pappas did some testing with his HD100 a few months ago in the same areas so you can see a poor mans comparison. I dont know how long I can keep this up - depending on how popular it is. If someone wants to mirror, feel free to do so.

This wasnt really encoded for streaming, right click - "save target as"

http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/CDMLB_sorenson_768x432.mov

I also have the 720p version but it is ~500MB - anyone want to host that?

Enjoy... Phil

[J.R. Hudson]

Someone please hook em up ! Let's see the HVX blow the JVC out of the water!

Muahaahhahahhahahha !

-

I mean (cough cough) I'd be interested in viewing comparison footage

[soarprod]

Any takers for hosting? Too bad I cant show the original, original (4.1gb). H.264 really adds noise.

[flydef]

Can you post the 720p of just the basketball footage?

Color space and balance just looks so much better and natural on the HVX over the H1.

[They are Them]

why dont you try to upload it to megaupload.com?

[J.R. Hudson]

Be patient; I am sure someone will ante up

-

Awesome footage by the way. Very very nice. I find the JVC to be 'sharper' but truly in a neglible manner. I find the HVX (Like the DVX over similar cameras) has a nicer color rendition and better edge enhancements; meaning it appears natural and not 'sharpened' artificially

[soarprod]

Yeah I agree Hudson, I was concerned over sharpness until I just took the time to do some tests. The CA on the lens is also much better than the JVC. Megaupload may work but my bandwidth is being used right now :) I wish I had the Century 1.6 - would have thrown the background more out of focus. Most of the shots were f5.6 to f6.8 some were f2.8 to open. I need some more ND!

[They are Them]

did anyone notice @ about 2:09 in the clip on the porsche the colour gets pretty funky, pixel world........is that the compression of hte file i'm viewing? how does it look as a raw HD file?

[soarprod]

from the file you are viewing. Remember, i am crushing the color space to make a 4.1gb video 51mb.

[FatBird19]

HERE IT IS! SOMETHING TO FEAST ON!
I also have the 720p version but it is ~500MB - anyone want to host that?


what codec?

[soarprod]

It is h.264 @ 8.6mb.

Here are some grabs:
http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/Edit-2.jpg

http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/Edit-3.jpg

http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/Edit-4.jpg

This one has magic bullet applied for the grad - I dont know if it is destroying the codec?
http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/Edit-1.jpg

http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/Edit-5.jpg

http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/Edit-6.jpg

This shot is with detail +5 horizontal & +2 vertical I believe.
http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/Edit-7.jpg

Most shots were F6 - detail +1, color +3 - everything else default f6 settings.

[J.R. Hudson]

soarprod

What is your opinion on the listed HVX Infinity ?

-

Specifically; how sharp can we get the horizon ? The DVX100 had an infinty listed at Z98 but in reality it was Z95 (Or 94 depending on model). Does the hVX share this same attribute ?

Care to run outside and see?

[soarprod]

Well my 100A was 95 and the hvx is 95 - I would generally just hit infinity on this one but for a few, I did manually focus for distance. I might do some tests on focus this weekend.

[soarprod]

http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/CDMLB_720p_bbstuff.mov

There is a gamma bug in QT7 so I reduced the gamma by 1.3 to try to correct for this. If it is too dark, you can brighten it in your QT AV controls or you can brighten your monitor.

[Barry_Green]

I haven't done much with the MF00-MF99 scale. I find the distance readout is far more accurate, in that there are way more data points. The distance readout (feet/meters) updates far more frequently, at more increments, than the MF00-MF99 does.

If you force the camera to infinity (using the push-infinity button) it shows up as MF95. You can focus "past" infinity up to MF99, but normally you definitely don't want to do that. Only reason to do that would be if you're using a macro adapter or other lens adapter which changes the focal point, and the shot *needs* to focus there to get proper focus. But I just shot the mountains, and "push to infinity" brought up proper sharp focus.

[StMad]

Shots in the mid and foreground are nice, shots with background depth not so. Do we think the JVC would handle these better?

[soarprod]

you mean shallow depth of field?

[StMad]

Yeah I wasn't very clear. I was thinking background detail.

[soarprod]

Some of the shots I agree. But, for one, you are looking at a compressed version, there is a little more detail there and most of the shots were run and gun - some I hit the infinity button, some I focused by eye (on the lcd). 95% of the shots were with detail set to +1 or 2. The shots with +6 pop more for wide shots but dont look as good on closeups. The JVC is pretty sharp but looks over-sharpened. For detail, the Canon is the one to get but then you dont get 24p, good color, p2, etc. I look at my old DV shots and cringe at the color and lack of sharpness. For $2K more than the DVX, quite a deal.

You could always buy the JVC with the better lens at the low cost of $14,000.

Oh, and like I said - If I were to throw on some ND so that I could get from f6.8 to f2.8 the shots would look a little shallower.

[J.R. Hudson]

Yeah I wasn't very clear. I was thinking background detail.

Interesting question

I thin kthe JVC sharpens too much. The softness looks natural to me in these. How can we sharpen a shallower DOF ? We don't want too !

[StMad]

Yeah, it's a tricky decision. Definately a case of buy what suits your needs most, and what has the most acceptable trade-offs for your purposes.

24f on the Canon doesn't faze me, (price does), and on the JVC I'd worry about breathing, ca, and split screen. All have workarounds, but sometimes you don't want to workaround. For narrative work it's hard to go past the HVX.

[disjecta]

Bottom line is that the HVX does not resolve fine detail because it doesn't have the pixels to do so. You guys can go on all day long about codec this and compression that. I will respectfully submit that this all sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. The shots and frames I have seen look like a larger DVX image, not true hi def.

Compressed or not, the Canon XL H1 is mind-blowingly detailed...it has nothing to do with sharpness, it has to do with recording actual information. The HVX does not cut it for detail but it looks fine with evereything else. This does not make the HVX a bad camera, just that detail is not its strength....for that reason alone, I am not interested in it right now.

[Poi Boy]

They are all incredibly close in detal; that is the bottom line. The canon may have a minute advantage but you have to be tethered to get it !
Aloha
-A

[disjecta]

Actually, from what I have seen, the difference is not minute at all, it's hugely significant to my eyes. It's all a matter of what you like. For me, there is no beating the resolution of the Canon in its class and no amount of arguing will make me believe otherwise :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

[Poi Boy]

reminds me of my kids going la, la, la, la, la really loud.
-A

[disjecta]

La La La La La La La

Lol

[soarprod]

The canon is freaken sweet in 60i but 24f? Bleh. I do like my 20D SLR tho :)

[StMad]

Disjecta, can you point me in the direction of 24f footage that displays superior background detail?

[FatBird19]

http://www.ochauntedhouse.com/soarprod/hvx/CDMLB_720p_bbstuff.mov

There is a gamma bug in QT7 so I reduced the gamma by 1.3 to try to correct for this. If it is too dark, you can brighten it in your QT AV controls or you can brighten your monitor.

You had a gamma issue? Are you using the PC version of QT7Pro?

I wanted to get QT7 but I know that the gamma issue still exists. :/

[disjecta]

Disjecta, can you point me in the direction of 24f footage that displays superior background detail?

Not sure which files but you'll find lots of great detail in these shots:

http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=pappasarts&templatefn=FileSharing1.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.1.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en

[tuface]

The only realistic way to tell is to look at footage you've shot yourself so you know what went into it, and not off the internet.

And why are we talking about background detail? Are you shooting 60i? Do you want everything in focus?

[Justyn]

Bottom line is that the HVX does not resolve fine detail because it doesn't have the pixels to do so. You guys can go on all day long about codec this and compression that. I will respectfully submit that this all sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. The shots and frames I have seen look like a larger DVX image, not true hi def.

Compressed or not, the Canon XL H1 is mind-blowingly detailed...it has nothing to do with sharpness, it has to do with recording actual information. The HVX does not cut it for detail but it looks fine with evereything else. This does not make the HVX a bad camera, just that detail is not its strength....for that reason alone, I am not interested in it right now.


wah, wah, wah... Someone didn't get his dose of mind blowing details from canon. Well dude, pass that around what ya been smoking cause all I see from the canon is dark merky mess, the crapiest lens around, and a big box of steaks anyone stupid enought to buy it...

I'll come over and shoot the detail out of you picking up that giant clot of a camera.. and this is someone who was loyal to canon in the video department.. Still am on their still stuff.. but what were they thinking

XL1s.. then XL2.. then this monster.. and all well after 24p and in a seemingly crazy rush... What's their deal?

Also.. come on on over and let's shoot some trees and leaves blowing in the wind while we skoot by on our skateboards... Then we'll see what kind of detail the canon has... I'd say it'll have the detail similar to super mario bros.. circa 1986.

[Isaac_Brody]

Why you picking on Disjecta? I agree with him. I've looked at some of Pappas's clips and the XLH1 definitely has more detail. For Disjecta's work shooting Pine Lake nature footage detail is pretty important. The HVX really excels with its color handling. The color in this footage is awesome.

I'd really like to see some action XLH1 footage. I know it's supposed to be a more robust HDV codec, but just how robust remains to be seen.

[disjecta]

Thanks Isaac, you got my point :thumbsup:

Again, for those not understanding what I said, and I apologize for hijacking this thread, this is my opinion and the criteria I am interested in. I will not indulge in disrespecting anyone else's choice of camera.

Someone said earlier that there are no wrong choices. If someone has done exhaustive research and makes a decision, then it is right. If nothing else, it's nice to challenge conventional thinking. I don't want to put the HVX on a pedestal before it has been challenged. It is simply not right for every shooting situation.

[brianluce]

why did the texas shootout say the canon has the better hdv codec when the gop is longer than the jvc's?

btw, i'm an jvc owner, and i agree with the person who said the hvx is the best camera for making movies.

[StMad]

Justyn, if the HVX isn't perfect that really is ok. None of this should be personal (how can it be?). The people asking the questions want the best camera for them. That feeling of investing heavily then feeling disappointed is pretty sh!tty.

Disjecta, thanks for the link.

[J.R. Hudson]

Justyn

You may be the one that is smoking and D Man is not whining at all. I agree with D and Isaac.

[Dmitry Kichenko]

Great stuff! I liked how the sound of the siren was almost in sync with the music, although the music didn't quite fit the shots for the most part.
*gets shot*
Nah.. I know it's a test. I guess it corresponds to the stylish feel of the beach generally.
As to the the sound+music syncing, it's one of my favourite tricks. Ala the sound of the music transforming into a clock ticking. Or like in the matrix, the Rob Zombie song in the club crossfading with the alarm to the clock

[soarprod]

HVX isnt good for long recording times at the moment :(

I picked the music because it is upbeat and makes watching static shots and clips more interesting. Not really my style of music for something like this but I just wanted to drop something in quickly. Anyhoo, glad you liked it. You can always hit mute -

[J.R. Hudson]

What's the longest take you can get soarprod ?

[soarprod]

? you mean how long would I want a take? or technically how long can I record?

I would never really want a shot longer than 20sec or so. But for interviews, documentary work or reality tv/shows I would like a 32gb p2 card.

4min @1080 per 4gb card, 10min @720 (24frame mode) per 4gb card or 8min @480 50Mb. Sure there are 8gb cards but, compare that to $5 tape w/ 60min. When the prices come down, I will reverse my statement.

Currently I use 2x4gb p2 cards and a field laptop.

[Barry_Green]

why did the texas shootout say the canon has the better hdv codec when the gop is longer than the jvc's?
Did they say that? I haven't seen a report like that yet, I've only really seen Mike Curtis' blog...

Shorter or longer GOP doesn't by itself indicate whether one is better than the other.

JVC smokes Sony's codec, but it's not even primarily because of the shorter GOP. It's due to two things, mainly:
1) progressive-scan encoding, which is far more efficient than interlace scan encoding, and
2) more bits per pixel. JVC pushes about 22 million pixels per second in 19 megabits, Sony has to fit 46 million pixels per second into 25 megabits. Obviously JVC has more bandwidth, per pixel. JVC allocates about .86 bits per pixel, Sony only gets .54 bits per pixel.

Some of that will be made up for by efficiencies in Sony's longer GOP, but... overall, the JVC implementation is just more robust.

Well, now enter Canon's 24F: it also uses progressive encoding, and it also encodes fewer pixels (because it only does 24 frames). It only has to move 37 million pixels per second, vs. Sony's 46 million; Canon's doing about .68 bits per pixel, somewhere around halfway between JVC and Sony, and a lot more bandwidth per pixel than Sony. So not only does it have more bandwidth per pixel than Sony, but the progressive encoding makes it more efficient with those bits, and because 24F is lower resolution than 60i, there's less detail in the shot making compression still more efficient.

I don't know what the GOP size is on the Canon. Longer GOPs usually make more efficient use of the available bandwidth, but 24 frames doesn't work too well with a 15-frame GOP, so I'd suspect they're probably using a 12-frame GOP. A 12-frame GOP with .68 bits per pixel may very well match (or perhaps even exceed) a 6-frame GOP with .86 bits per pixel.

In any case, I expect Canon's HDV codec performance will be close to the JVC, better than the Sony.

[PappasArts]

Very nice philip! They look very good. I shot some flowers like that too! Here are a few XLH1 grabs in ""24F MODE"" with a
cooler color tone and two warmer tone images and was filmed at -3 detail. Nothing special, shot these over at my friend Bob Jones house of Skycrane & the
warmer tones was for client color tests. Unfortunately there not as sharp as the originals since it was captured from HDV tape to
the jpeg SD card. This adds noise I got some others all post, when I have time though! Thanks for posting HVX material,
they truly look awesome! Love the HVX color! Awesome camera the HVX is...


Pappas

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0546.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0553.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0556.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0547.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0555.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0591.JPG

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0587.JPG

Pappas



It is h.264 @ 8.6mb.

Here are some grabs:

Most shots were F6 - detail +1, color +3 - everything else default f6 settings.

[adam powell]

That looks fantastic, made me glad I have a HVX in my house ;)


soarprod,
when that police car pulls up are they coming to talk to you about your choice of music? It made me want to shoot myself in the face, nothing personal dude but that music fills me with an anger I cant quite explain. haha.

people were talking about some metal on here and about it making them want to slit their wrists, for me House music is the devil on CD.

but yeah good work dude, sorry for the mini-rant guys.

[disjecta]

Hey Pappas,

Which camera did you capture those images with? When you say HDV tape, you are obviously not talking about the HVX. Is this the HD100 or XL H1?

Thanks

[PappasArts]

Hi disjecta!

These were from the XLH1 in ""24F MODE"" with a cooler color tone for a test.

[Kholi]

Whoo boy. Pappas, those stills are nice.

[soarprod]

Ok, maybe I'll do a re-edit with different music - suggestions? The mute button and clicking on winamp isnt difficult.

Hey Pappas - looking good man - glad that you were able to see the HVX stuff.

Funny - the XLh1 is the upgraded Xl2, HVX is the upgraded DVX, HD100 is the upgraded HD10. They all carry the benefits of the previous versions that they came from as well as the some of the problems.

JVC HD10 - poor lens, not bad all around but no editing support
XL2 - videoey with good rez
DVX - noisy but filmic with less rez

The saga continues... There can be only one!!!

[kimko]

oops i thought this was about food

[DavidBeier]

The cameras all have different pros and cons. We've said this over and over.

The HVX200 easily has the best color, gamma curve, handling of light, and motion of the bunch. True tapeless capturing doesn't hurt either. It's the one I plan to go with as soon as NAB confirms that the Red Camera will be out of my price range.

The Canon has some of the most amazing detail I've ever seen. I am incredibly impressed with how sharp everything is. If I had the money and the no-how to get the most out of it, I might well have considered it over the HVX200. Unfortunatly, 24f, HDV (no, I can't afford and expensive deck to get the footage out uncompressed), the fact that the HDV tapes only apparently work with Canon (which means the risk of damaging the head and such), and long with the extra 3K price tag all means that this camera is simply more trouble that it's worth to me.

The JVC seems like a very solid piece of equipment (i have a friend with one and have fiddled with it) but utlimatly, it seems to lack the strengths of either. It's not nearly as sharp as the Canon (in fact, from what I've seen it really doesn't look much sharper than the HVX200) and the colors and motion aren't nearly as good as the HVX200 (hell, a friend did a documentary using his own DVX footage mixed with the JVC in SD and, when the same shot was put side by side, the DVX100 had much nicer colors and gamma). The problem is that it seems this one doesn't do anything REALLY well. Canon has really great resolution and the HVX200 has really nice color, gamma, and motion. This is sort of a compromise that doesn't really impress me like the other two.

[soarprod]

Just imagine what a HVX300 with bigger chips & better lens would do? By then, we may have 64 to 128GB P2. All the strengths and none of the weaknesses.

So anyone willing to mirror? I am at 39GB transfered of 50GB per month.

[Rich Lee]

i dunno...that canon footage looks great...

im still not totaly down with the HVX image...but i like everything else about it...been messing with one latly...totaly digin its tech. the image just feels a bit off.

btw, getting a bit tired of seeing flowers/plants in test footage...why do they always become the subject of these "tests"? there has got to be more interesting things in peoples worlds.

[DavidBeier]

Just imagine what a HVX300 with bigger chips & better lens would do? By then, we may have 64 to 128GB P2. All the strengths and none of the weaknesses.

Yeah, but the HVX300 will be at least a few years off and I think that most of us will be shooting direct to HD instead by then (cineporter will be out).

[Isaac_Brody]

i dunno...that canon footage looks great...
btw, getting a bit tired of seeing flowers/plants in test footage...why do they always become the subject of these "tests"? there has got to be more interesting things in peoples worlds.

Just had a great idea for a camera comparison shoot. No res charts, no engineers, just send all the cams to Disjecta and let him shoot for a few days.

And yep, that canon footage looks real sharp. Makes me want to shoot with more than one camera. Use the canon on wide shots, and the HVX on closeups where a softer look is more flattering than the ultra sharp Canon.

[disjecta]

Just had a great idea for a camera comparison shoot. No res charts, no engineers, no NERDS :evil:, just send all the cams to Disjecta and let him shoot for a few days.

And yep, that canon footage looks real sharp. Makes me want to shoot with more than one camera. Use the canon on wide shots, and the HVX on closeups where a softer look is more flattering than the ultra sharp Canon.
Okay! :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

How about one cam, the canon and for closeups just use a promist or equivalent? LOL

[soarprod]

And give up good 24p?

[Rich Lee]

Okay! :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

How about one cam, the canon and for closeups just use a promist or equivalent? LOL
i bet a nice little 35mm adaptor will take the edge off nicely...


And give up good 24p?

im sure this has been discussed much...but i havnt noticed anything odd with the canon 24 fps footage...

[J.R. Hudson]

I agree Rich on several points; I too get tired of flowers and would like to see footage using light and darks together ... something more dynamic in terms of latitude for example or my always favorite request examples of Chiarscura ?

-

Also, I have not noticed anything off with the Canon image; someone recently submitted the Monkey footage in the other thread (reflex I think?). Looked great

-

These cameras seem to have gotten to the the point where the image is great now let's start concentrating on function and possibly built in 'filmmakers' tools. Built in Follow Focus for example to allow us more control ? A better EVF ? A better LCD ?

-

Agghh - 'nother conversation.

[DavidBeier]

^
Once again I must say that if you end up having to use the actual Canon as a deck to capture your footage (assuming you don't have the money for the uncompressed stuff), that's gonna be a big deal as far as logistics go.

[J.R. Hudson]

But it is nota big deal for those that accept that fact and are ready for it David. No one is forcing anyone into these corner's.

-

Like the naysayers crying over the P2 cost and workflow; for those that embrace it, it isn't a problem. But it seems to be for those that aren't using it.

The irony

[soarprod]

I have to say even for 1080 stuff, the p2 "flow" on 4gb p2s isnt that bad at all.

[Ranger]

i dunno...that canon footage looks great...

im still not totaly down with the HVX image...but i like everything else about it...been messing with one latly...totaly digin its tech. the image just feels a bit off.

btw, getting a bit tired of seeing flowers/plants in test footage...why do they always become the subject of these "tests"? there has got to be more interesting things in peoples worlds.
I agree, the canon footage does look the best of the cameras resolution wise, but that dog ain't gonna hunt regarding CA on the lens.

I also agree that the HVX image looks soft. This is the one Achilles Heel that has had me flip flopping. Everything else about the camera Panasonic was dead on target - color accuracy, tapeless workflow, codec and variable frame rates. It's too bad Pana was not able to incorporate a chip similar to Canon's in the HVX. That would have been the coup de grace that would have separated the HVX from the rest of the pack. Sigh ... maybe next time. As others have mentioned ad nauseum, you just have to pick your poison and run with it.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Any takers for hosting? Too bad I cant show the original, original (4.1gb). H.264 really adds noise.

SIMPLE! ...... Torent! :)

[DavidBeier]

But it is nota big deal for those that accept that fact and are ready for it David. No one is forcing anyone into these corner's.

-

Like the naysayers crying over the P2 cost and workflow; for those that embrace it, it isn't a problem. But it seems to be for those that aren't using it.

The irony

The problem with P2 workflow I think is completely ligitimate but I think it will be releaved when the cineporter comes out.

As for cost, things are odd. Up till about a month ago, one could get a HVX200 two P2 cards and a P2 store (and later an HVX200 and a cineporter) for still less than a Canon XL H1 would cost. Recently however, the price of the H1 seems to have dropped about 2k (and the HVX200 some) so I'm no longer sure how they compare price wise.

Now first I'd like to say that I really am blown away by the Canon's resolution as it's far sharper than I would have thought for this price range. I heard arguments of the JVC being much sharper but all the footage I've seen from both leads me to believe the difference is pretty neglible. Canon's on the other hand makes a real and viable alternative to the HVX200.

Unfortunatly, from what I've heard the Canon HDV tapes only play with the Canon itself. This just strikes me as totally bad planning (unless there are options I don't know about which is quite possible). I've worked with the DVX100 for a LONG time and most of my troubles arise from the recording head in one form or another. This is WITHOUT every using it as a deck as I had previous cameras breakdown from such things.

The idea of having to use the H1 as a deck and having it breakdown, thus rendering the camera a nine thousand doller paper-weight is pretty scary to me and pretty much eliminates it as an option. My commentary on it is more out of personal frustration than anything as it seems like such a bad choice to make for such a powerful piece of equipment.

[J.R. Hudson]

The problem with P2 workflow

It's not a problem to those it is not a problem for !

LOL

-

The Canon and the JVC both appear sharper too me than the HVX100 by leaps and bounds with the Canon getting the trophy.

The HVX, thus far, is showing up like Super16 in my eyes minus the grain of the film stock but in the softness of the image and the latutude and color rendition.

-


"....from what I've heard the Canon HDV tapes only play with the Canon itself"

I had not heard this. Is this true ? That may be the dumbest thing they have done. Ouch on the head times. So for every hour of shooting it's an hour of capture ?

[DavidBeier]

^
I've heard two people on these boards tell me this and no one refuted them (though someone said this thankfully isn't the case with the JVC). If it's true (which I'm asking on Canon boards) it is DEFINATLY a deal breaker for me.

[soarprod]

JVC has a deck for ProHD, Canon doesnt have a deck - and dont try runnin cannon 24f stuff in a sony deck :(

[Barry_Green]

^
I've heard two people on these boards tell me this and no one refuted them (though someone said this thankfully isn't the case with the JVC). If it's true (which I'm asking on Canon boards) it is DEFINATLY a deal breaker for me.
It is absolutely true.

The possibility exists that Canon will introduce another camcorder, perhaps a $3,000 GL-series, which would play the 24F/30F tapes. Canon has never produced a videotape deck, so if they were to produce a deck that would be a first for them.

The JVC situation is better, but not a tremendous amount. JVC tapes are incompatible with Canon and Sony equipment, and only play on JVC gear. But JVC at least makes a deck (the BR50) that can play the 24P tapes, so you're not restricted to using the camera itself. And, the cheap JVC HD1/HD10 can be used to transport the 24P footage. You can't "play" the 24p and see it, but you can use the cheap cameras as a blind digitizing deck. And, of course, no JVC equipment can be used to play any Sony or Canon tapes either.

[Emanuel]

The Canon and the JVC both appear sharper too me than the HVX100 by leaps and bounds with the Canon getting the trophy.

The HVX, thus far, is showing up like Super16 in my eyes minus the grain of the film stock but in the softness of the image and the latutude and color rendition.I'm with John. He said all, though the JVC latitude (also despite Evin's opinion) it is, at least to me, as suitable as HVX. My only HVX problem that you didn't add but I can understand 'cause I do the same with the things that I love, it is the macro blocking. As well, the lack of definition to handle with a 35mm adapter if we'll go to blow-up regarding its device softness.

[Emanuel]

^
I've heard two people on these boards tell me this and no one refuted them (though someone said this thankfully isn't the case with the JVC). If it's true (which I'm asking on Canon boards) it is DEFINATLY a deal breaker for me.Why? HDV can be a good acquisition format not a delivery one.

[Poi Boy]

I think that if you have well shot adapter footage you would have no softness problems with a film out.
Aloha
-A

[J.R. Hudson]

In 24F and 30F mode this is true

How lame is that ? Who knew.


I'm with John. He said all, though the JVC latitude (despite Evin's opinion) it is, at least to me, as suitable as HVX. My only HVX problem that you didn't add but I can understand 'cause I do the same with the things that I love, it is the macro blocking, as well, the lack of definition to handle with a 35mm adapter if we'll go to blow-up regarding its device softness.

Yes yes

The Macroblocking is a concern I have seen. Now here is what I am seeing:

No Macroblocking at regular resolution but when 'magnifying the image' say in PS or enlarging a QT File the Macroblocks become very pronounced. Again, not seeing any of this in regular defination or in other words the way it is is intended to be viewed.

So for those that know; is this Macroblocking appearing on a film out and blown up on a screen ?

-

I understand the def on a 35MM adapter, but I am not sweating the def (Think 28 Days Later) at this time. On a filmout it will pass and on DVD it will RULE

[Emanuel]

I think that if you have well shot adapter footage you would have no softness problems with a film out.
Aloha
-AI hope so but when I put directly the question to Jonathan (G35/CineMek) he wasn't so sure.

Aloha
-E

[Poi Boy]

Well will all due respect to Jonathan, he does not have a product on the shelf.
-A

[Emanuel]

How lame is that ? Who knew.



Yes yes

The Macroblocking is a concern I have seen. Now here is what I am seeing:

No Macroblocking at regular resolution but when 'magnifying the image' say in PS or enlarging a QT File the Macroblocks become very pronounced. Again, not seeing any of this in regular defination or in other words the way it is is intended to be viewed.Initially, I thought the same but after there were a lot of users that said it would be impossible to avoid it@raw_footage, as well.

I opened a lot of discussion points in these same forums (posts & posts, threads, etc) in order to push to a post solution but the only answer that I had it was: «I will test it!» and silence or something like it's filtering (as softness) the image.


So for those that know; is this Macroblocking appearing on a film out and blown up on a screen ?I'd like to know, I hope it didn't. And to see that too. The question is also the run & gun low lighting (I'm afraid that HVX it is well suitable to controled situations).


I understand the def on a 35MM adapter, but I am not sweating the def (Think 28 Days Later) at this time. On a filmout it will pass and on DVD it will RULEI agree with you but the point is@indies' theatrically release you must have the best definition picture that your money can afford.

[Emanuel]

Well will all due respect to Jonathan, he does not have a product on the shelf.
-ABut he has the best available footage out there. And 'cause of that we just can believe in the know-how of this 35mm adapter filmmaker engineer of 26/27 years old.

[J.R. Hudson]

Initiatly, I thought the same but after there were a lot of users that said it would be impossible to avoid it@raw_footage, as well.

Well they said it; but let's see it or get this from someone who has evidence ! I watch Bob's footage FULLREZ files and see none of it. It is only upon blowing stuff up that I have seen it.

Is this happening with every single unit ?

---------------------------------------------

Run and Gun Low Lighting ?

Bah ! They use old Arri's and Bolex's for this; it'll be fine. You get what you put into it and if you expect amazing results running and gunning over a controlled production environment then you're expecting miracles. This goes for any camera.

If these guy's want low-light run and gunner's, go back Stone Age Style and use the PD-170

[Poi Boy]

E-
everyone on this site has different opinions of what great looking footage is; somethings I think look like poo others rave about. Some things I think look soft others think they are too sharp,It is human nature. I can say from my experience of 25 years of shooting and 10 years of manipulating digital images that a filmout from well shot m2 footage would look awesome.
Aloha
-A

[Emanuel]

Well they said it; but let's see it or get this from someone who has evidence ! I watch Bob's footage FULLREZ files and see none of it. It is only upon blowing stuff up that I have seen it.

Is this happening with every single unit ?Yup, also I was thinking if it wouldn't be a single unit hassle? But there were a lot of people to claim it. But I can assure you that also I will want to see FULLREZ files before any single purchase.


Run and Gun Low Lighting ?

Bah ! They use old Arri's and Bolex's for this; it'll be fine. You get what you put into it and if you expect amazing results running and gunning over a controlled production environment then you're expecting miracles. This goes for any camera.

If these guy's want low-light run and gunner's, go back Stone Age Style and use the PD-170The point is if this or that camera it will not be the best capture device according your own lighting or even production needs. And if we have an excellent tool like Canon's XL-H1 why to go back? The same to HVX vs. DVX. I prefer the last one but after HVX launch it will be impossible forget it. HD rules. At least to me.

[Emanuel]

E-
everyone on this site has different opinions of what great looking footage is; somethings I think look like poo others rave about. Some things I think look soft others think they are too sharp,It is human nature. I can say from my experience of 25 years of shooting and 10 years of manipulating digital images that a filmout from well shot m2 footage would look awesome.
Aloha
-AYou're right despite there is a motion picture science behind such kind of subjectivity!

Aloha
-E

[DavidBeier]

??? Where do you see this? Canon H1's haven't dropped one single solitary penny. Dealers are *required* to sell it at full retail price, they're not allowed to discount one penny or they put their Canon reseller relationship in jeopardy. The XLH1 is $8999 no matter who you buy it from (unless you're looking at unauthorized gray-market scam shops, in which case you're just getting lied to).

http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=342803&display=2

http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=503652&start=1

http://www.shopcartusa.com/Product/0967B001/Electronics~TV_Video~Camcorders/Canon_XL_H1/PT_Y/?ic_campID=98

I don't know if these count as gray market. Anyway, they were all about 2k more expensive when I last checked several weeks ago so I assumed there was some sort of price drop.

[Emanuel]

Be careful with those kind of reps rates. Follow it @resellerratings.com or bizrate.com and good luck!

[J.R. Hudson]

http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=342803&display=2

http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=503652&start=1

http://www.shopcartusa.com/Product/0967B001/Electronics~TV_Video~Camcorders/Canon_XL_H1/PT_Y/?ic_campID=98

I don't know if these count as gray market. Anyway, they were all about 2k more expensive when I last checked several weeks ago so I assumed there was some sort of price drop.

Point made. These guy's you need to run from. If it sound's too good to be true, well, you know.

best price cameras? 0.18
express cameras 0.24

shop cart usa ? Didn't even show up !

[GaryinCalifornia]

Why is it that everyone thinks you can get the camera for $2 grand less... that'd be like walking into a Ford dealer and the sticker price is $20,000 but Joe's Car Sales down the street has it for $12,000...

Or say you want to buy a house... all the houses go for $500,000 in the tract... but one is going for $400,000 either the seller is getting repoed and he needs to sell if it fast or its a fixer up and by the time you're finished it's going to cost you the same as the other houses...

[Ranger]

I'm just amazed why very little is done to shut down these criminal operations. What a great topic for a 60 minutes news story.

[J.R. Hudson]

No doubt

What a great topic for any one of us in the NYC Metro area in particular. Shiieett Ranger ....

I can go on and on about criminal operations in America:

Insurance Companies
Automotive Dealers
Credit Collection Agencies

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr (Mumbles)

[Emanuel]

shop cart usa ? Didn't even show up !It doesn't appear 'cause there's a smart but just another one scam behind such kind of ratings website.

See this:
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1734.html
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1895.html
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller8278.html


No, those are all dishonest scam shops. Look 'em up on resellerratings, you'll find out there's nothing legit about the bait 'n' switch tactics they use.

You cannot buy an XLH1 from an authorized, legitimate US reseller for less than $8999.There is also the non-scam gray market with non-usa warranty like adorama.com with a price around $7,999.

[Poi Boy]

J-
Don't forget credit card companies.
-A

[Emanuel]

J-
Don't forget credit card companies.
-A:D You're completely right! :kali:

[Elton]

Ouch on the head times. So for every hour of shooting it's an hour of capture ?

This is where the portable Firestore's come into play. You can record much like a Cineporter and have a tape backup at the same time.

You drag and drop the M2t's from the Firestore to your computer drive, or even just edit off of it.

No hour of capture plus you get a handy backup. They're not cheap but it's a pretty good solution.

[Elton]

I too get tired of flowers and would like to see footage using light and darks together ... something more dynamic in terms of latitude for example or my always favorite request examples of Chiarscura ?

How's this for Chiarscura? Let's see some stuff like this. ;-)
http://homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton/.Pictures/Movie%20Stills-JPEGs/ANow11.jpg

and this...
http://homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton/.Pictures/Movie%20Stills-JPEGs/ANow9.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton/.Pictures/Movie%20Stills-JPEGs/Bladerunner11.jpg
the all time greatest role...;-)
http://homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton/.Pictures/Movie%20Stills-JPEGs/DuneFrame5Sting.jpg

[PappasArts]

Sting! LOL!

[J.R. Hudson]

Man I feel old

[PappasArts]

I agree Rich on several points; I too get tired of flowers and would like to see footage using light and darks together ...
something more dynamic in terms of latitude for example or my always favorite request examples of Chiarscura .


Hi John......I couldn't agree more. Content related to narrative filmmaking in a filmmaking board would be more suitable. However,
it's not because we don't want to post shots, it's that the clients wouldn't be happy if we did. That's why I post these,
to balance the flowers out with some contrast shots that don't look like a opening montage to Little House on the Prairie.
However, there just tests and boring to boot. These don't even represent the full sharpness of the original footage either
since the frames were captured from HDV tape to SD card. Also these were -3 detail and -9 too!

Pappas

••••••••This shot was Detail -3 on the H1!
http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0591.JPG
••••••••This shot was Detail -3 on the H1!
http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0587.JPG


••••••••This shot was Detail -9 which is off for the H1!
http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/CANON%20XLH1IMG_0187-CC%20copy.jpg


••••••••PROMIST FILTER EFFECT ON THIS SHOT WITH A LOW CON EFFECT TOO! THIS SHOT HAS THREE PASSES OF MEDIUM JPEG SINCE IT WAS ADJUSTED FOR TESTING ONLY.
http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0250%20Color%20c%20-2.jpg


•••••••• -5 DETAIL ON THIS SHOT--FULL TELEPHOTO AT 16X.
http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/YOUNG%20ROMANCE.jpg

••••••••This shot too was Detail -9 which is off for the H1!
http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/CANON%20XLH1%20IMG_0190%20copy.JPG

•••••••• THIS SHOT WAS 16X FULL TELE WITH -3 DETAIL • 81B FILTER • Focus was off, I hit the wall ( Duh ) instead of me! Opps- Cameron would have been pissed!
FOR THE NOSTALGIC; THAT IS A TRUE "EARL" SLATE GIVEN TO ME FROM DON AND HIS WIFE WHEN I WAS 15YRS OLD.
DON WAS THE BIG MAN OF THE 65MM DIVISION AT PANAVISION LA. This was the begining of my love for 65MM...
http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/.Pictures/IMG_0580.JPG

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

[PappasArts]

The HVX300 will for sure be a camera to start putting the penny's away for. However, in the meantime the HVX200 is an amazing camera for the money. I so look forward to seeing films shot with it. Hell, I can't wait to film with it too! Tapeless is very nice! Love the work flow of tapeless! "THE WAY OF THE FUTURE" "THE WAY OF THE FUTURE" "THE WAY OF THE FUTURE""THE WAY OF THE FUTURE""THE WAY OF THE FUTURE""THE WAY OF THE FUTURE""THE WAY OF THE FUTURE""THE WAY OF THE FUTURE"...... Damn, OCD took over!.......................




Just imagine what a HVX300 with bigger chips & better lens would do? By then, we may have 64 to 128GB P2. All the strengths and none of the weaknesses.

So anyone willing to mirror? I am at 39GB transfered of 50GB per month.

[soarprod]

Good grabs Pappas - Too bad that all these 1/3" cams have some CA on the long tele. Like the shot with the kids over on the right of the frame. JVC has a solution but @ $8K for the lens, makes you want to get a 2/3" cam.

[GaryinCalifornia]

Nice grabs... but what camera... been busy... first I thought you had the JVC... then the Canon... then I thought I read were you went back to the JVC...

So forgive me if this is a repeat... but camera did you shoot these with...

Thanks.. Gary

[soarprod]

Those grabs from Pappas are the XLh1 Canon

[Danilo Del Tufo]

Garyin all the Pappas' stills are from Xlh1 Canon.

[GaryinCalifornia]

Thanks Danilo... on my sisters computer and this thing is the slowest thing in the world... almost bought her a new one yesterday at Best Buy... so I can search for things much faster...

[PappasArts]

Garyin all the Pappas' stills are from Xlh1 Canon.


Yes from the HDV tape to SD media card on camera. This is a great feature to be able to grab stills straight from tape during production.

Pappas

[DavidBeier]

Interesting. I didnt' know you were using an HD card. Out of curiosity, have you tried to see if you made a still from actually footage from the HDV tape if it looked the same? I mean, since 24f interlaces the footage thus losing resolution I wonder how it would hold up.