We have the famous DVX-100a and now B, they look great in SD BUT some highly respected experts say they don't look as good as HDV Z1u footage downconverted to SD. SO Ned Stoltz says so and I believe him.
HVX-200 should blow doors on the DVX-100a/b in DVCpro50 and dvcprohd, RIGHT? Can we assume this basic value?
Can we assume the HVX-200 looks better in downconvert to SD than the z1u? I would hope so....
Anyone know for sure? I get so confused because some of the "experts" come off as paid Panny shills. Oh, the internet and all of it's assumptions....
Right the CCD dimentions are still secret, why? If you are better come tell us all.
Thread: How does it look?
Results 1 to 5 of 5
12-17-2005 09:25 PM
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
12-17-2005 10:23 PM
- Join Date
- Sep 2003
Anything the Z1 can do, footage-wise, the HVX can do better. Better sharpness, better color, better resolution, better detail, better latitude, better sensitivity, better lens, fewer aberrations, and no motion artifacts. I say this having used the FX1 (same imager and same lens as the Z1) and the HVX side-by-side. And having two other shooters with me, watching the same footage I was, and reaching the same conclusions.
So will the HVX make better downconverted SD than the Z1? Yes. Unquestionably.
Will it be a night-and-day difference? No.
But 720p and variable frame rates and DVCPRO50 and all the rest of the things it does do add up to a night-and-day difference.
As to the bait in your next-to-last question: whether someone is an "expert" or comes off as a "paid Panny shill", well, all I can do is explain how I approach it: I publish the screen shots, the methodology employed, the settings used, and the conclusions that I reach, as well as invite anyone to review the footage and reach their own conclusions. And I also invite anyone to examine the footage and the methodology and point out any errors, or to provide their own tests. I also involve other sets of eyes in the process to make sure that more than one opinion is being accurately reflected in the report. I really don't know how someone could do it more fairly than that.
The fact of the matter is that an opinion is an inherently biased thing, and at the bare minimum it is biased based upon someone's weighing the importance of certain features and valuing them, for whatever reason, over other features. If you value interchangeable lenses above all, for example, then no comparison test that puts the HVX or Z1 ahead of the JVC HD100 will be satisfactory to you and will look "biased". That's unavoidable. I would expect that for someone who values shoulder-mount form factor and interchangeable lenses above all, that their conclusions will obviously, inherently, be biased towards the HD100 in a comparison against the HVX and Z1. Ultimate image quality is not, however, subject to such biased interpretation, whether it was generated by a fixed-lens product or an interchangeable-lens one. So you have to weigh your priorities, and attempt to understand the reviewer's priorities, in order to know how much you agree with the reviewer's perspective.
12-18-2005 12:10 AM
What I love about you Barry, is that when someone baits you you don't swim around it, you chomp down, break the line and spit out the hook!
If it makes any difference I've ssen the same footage and agree. But that hasn't stopped me from shooting a reality pilot on the Z1 already. I won't buy one, but it is not a bad camera at all if your priorities are handheld size and long record times in 60I.
As to weather it will look better at SD... you first have to ask yourself if 24P is important. If it's not then the HVX may be wrong for you. For me it's an absolute necessity so that rules out the Z1. I also need the handycam form factor to fit into my existing DVX100 based workflow. It would be easier to give this up than 24P but would still require further investment.
Here is an intersting observation though. I shot my first HD TV show on the Varicam.
The HD looked georgous, but the down convert looked very soft, even compared to the DVX we used as a D camera. After the online we did another downconvert this time with a technician and the difference was immediate, but still not the night an day difference from the DVX I was expecting. Mostly, it just had better lattitude.
My advice is don't shoot HD thinking it's gonna make better SD. Shoot HD for HD and DVC-Pro 50 if you want better SD. Of course if you need both there is only one answer. My 2¢.
12-18-2005 12:51 PM
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
Mr. Green & evinsky I meant no offense and I appreciate your professional and thoughtful replys. I get frustrated with the info I get off of the internet with the combination of chasing the technology. I have been wanting to buy a camera for over a year and I am tired of dealing with rentals, I lose too many work hours in the process of renting (2 hour round trip. and poor service-1.5 hours to get out the door)
I wish I had written my post with a little more class now that I re-read it along with your response. I was not baiting you specifically. I will try not posting after any more X-mas parties this season. Someone there told me that the HVX-200 will not look as good as the DVX-100a in SD. I was angry over this rumor, hope that is all it was.
I am taking away that no matter what the senario it will not be a dramatic difference between the various SD options from HD/HDV. I recognize the method of downconvert as to be the key factor. I appreciate the info.
"My advice is don't shoot HD thinking it's gonna make better SD. Shoot HD for HD and DVC-Pro 50 if you want better SD. Of course if you need both there is only one answer. My 2¢."
I need both.
12-18-2005 10:55 PMOriginally Posted by CentralTexasVideo
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
Originally Posted by CentralTexasVideoRED ONE @home
#111Emanuel & Co's RED ONE
RED ZOOM LENSES
RED 300mm LENS
#82Who am I?