Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

-DVX100b-

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • stufferino
    replied
    excellent. thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • mikkowilson
    replied
    OK, i have the full scoop on the DVX100B ..i'll post in the "news from IBC" thread...

    - Mikko.

    Leave a comment:


  • stufferino
    replied
    cool. id just like to get the information, im not trying to be annoying.
    thanks all.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikkowilson
    replied
    I am posting all the news in the "news from IBC thread"
    BUt i'll quickly repeate here: the DVX100B is basicaly the same as the 100A -it has the SAME ccds.
    it has a few litle featurees added to it, which are described in teh other thread.
    more soon once i get to the show.

    - Mikko.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry_Green
    replied
    News will be available soon. We've been told to wait for IBC, IBC's here, so we should know something soon enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • dvpixl
    replied
    are we still talking about this? for the last time... no change in function- just new composite material for the body because of some new electronic law that's passed....

    Leave a comment:


  • stufferino
    replied
    yea, and wait a sec, can someone give us specs? does it have 16:9? line count? anything? price yet? release date? lets get back on topic...

    Leave a comment:


  • mikkowilson
    replied
    Yeah.. it seems like all the stuff here is European stuff (funny, the exibitor is Panny Europe.. considence?)
    I'd presume there'll be a US version coming too.. I will check tomorrow and post int eh news from IBC thread.

    - Mikko

    Leave a comment:


  • Kelly Olsen
    replied
    Nobody seems to be discussing here the picture that Mikko posted from IBC of the DVX 100B (E) which is what this thread is about. There is a least a version for Europe.

    Leave a comment:


  • mezelf27
    replied
    Sorry - I wasn't aware you were comparing progressive letterbox to interlaced 16/9... I was thinking more along the lines of a reasonable comparison: interlaced versus interlaced and progressive versus progressive :-)

    Anyhow, as you say, in that case: the difference is obvious...

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry_Green
    replied
    Horse said it correctly, yes.

    I'm referring to the resolution loss incurred by interlaced cameras (such as the FX1), vs. the resolution gain offered by progressive/thin on the DVX.

    And I'm not spouting theory either, I've tested it. Shoot a res chart with a native 16:9 camera like the FX1 in standard-def, and you'll get about 360 lines of res (talking NTSC here). Shoot a res chart in Squeeze/Thin on the DVX, and you'll get (you guessed it) 360 lines of resolution. But the DVX will have two stops more sensitivity, wider dynamic range, cinegamma, cinematrix, all that other stuff too -- which is why I say that a DVX/Squeeze can deliver a better 16:9 picture than even a native 16:9 camera can!

    Of course, this DEPENDS on shooting 24p/25p or 30p. If shooting interlaced, the 16:9 camera has a big advantage over interlaced/squeeze on the DVX. But if shooting 24p/25p/30p on the DVX, it gives nothing back -- it matches the resolution of the native 16:9 camera toe-to-toe.

    (and, of course, a native 16:9/progressive camera like the XL2 can of course exceed both of them in resolution -- but then you run into flicker issues on interlaced televisions).

    Leave a comment:


  • HorseFilms
    replied
    ...except in progressive mode it gains back enough resolution to make up for what squeeze takes away. The progressive/squeeze combo on the DVX puts it on par, as far as resolution goes, with true 16:9 interlaced cameras with 1/3" CCDs.

    Leave a comment:


  • mezelf27
    replied
    Originally posted by Barry_Green
    Can't speak for the BBC. Over here there are no 16:9 broadcasts in standard-def so it's a non-issue.

    But I'm curious which part you can't believe. I stand by everything I said there...
    Sorry to take so long to reply...

    I can't believe you said the 16/9 generated with a DVX is as good as true 16/9, that's what I meant. In this respect there is nothing to it but resolution - what the DVX lacks for 16/9...

    Leave a comment:


  • mmm
    replied
    Okay, how about 900p55, settles resolution arguements too!

    Leave a comment:


  • Barry_Green
    replied
    I don't think that'll ever happen, because of the 600 million TV sets there are in the world, and the necessity to maintain backwards compatibility with them (plus the existing library of footage, millions of hours of it).

    Hey, how about we meet in the middle: who could object to 1080/55p?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X