Who Has Received Their PAL HVX200?

Yeah but the XDcams are disappointingly 4:2:0, the extra 2 adds a lot :)

Though the savings that you'll make from media costs will make you happy. I'm bracing myself for spending over £1000 on 8gbs of storage. Absolutely crazy! You'd be able to buy a fig-rig, some 35mm SLR lenses and still have change!
 
Last edited:
I follow you booth!...and I'm sorry my non-techie interest regarding the 4:2:0 issue. I was 6/9 months (maybe more than that!) under this influence 'til, at least, 4th of July Pappas' HDV footage posts. Did you see it?...

BTW, I like the flat synthetic CineAlta look. It's not mimic!

:costumed-smiley-047
 
Last edited:
I agree Emanuel, I'm a director not a DP. However I know what my DP and colorist like and it's 4:2:2 color space. Our colorist can work wonders with 4:2:0 but I've seen what he can do with 4:2:2, and working with the Davinci it's looking very close to 35mm - it's a world apart. I now know how difficult it is to sell a film that looks rough and grainy, the challenge now is to create something that the layman thinks was shot on 35mm. I believe with my DP and colorist we can take the footage from the HVX (and the Davinci2k and Red Rock M2 adapter) and make it look as good as this.

We may crash and burn but it's the taking part that matters :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

I'm going to feel like someone has stolen my wallet when I pay for the HVX plus extras tomorrow... In the words of Kermit the Frog... "Sheesh!"
 
booth said:
However I know what my DP and colorist like and it's 4:2:2 color space. Our colorist can work wonders with 4:2:0 but I've seen what he can do with 4:2:2, and working with the Davinci it's looking very close to 35mm - it's a world apart. I now know how difficult it is to sell a film that looks rough and grainy, the challenge now is to create something that the layman thinks was shot on 35mm. I believe with my DP and colorist we can take the footage from the HVX (and the Davinci2k and Red Rock M2 adapter) and make it look as good as this.
Click to expand...
If I'm not wrong, we can have 4:2:0@shooting and a good 4:2:2 workflow@post afterwards without hassles and with your quoted advantage as add-value as rel(v)iable, isn't it?
 
There's a BBC television drama here in the UK called Funland - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426694/ - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/funland/ - when I saw it on television I thought it'd been shot on Super 16mm. However I then found that our colorist did the grading on it, and it was actually shot on a Sony Z1 with stock lens! It's the best Z1 footage I've ever seen, ever, and everyone should see it to understand how good it actually is - simply because it doesn't look like Z1 footage. And yes, it's 4:2:0, but what you have to realise is that it was shot with a very experienced television DP, and graded by a very good colorist on Emmy Award winning hardware. So you can get a lot out of well shot 4:2:0 but you can get even more out of well shot 4:2:2 - and I mean a lot more.
 
Last edited:
Thank you booth for your input -- it's useful and it goes in order to my personal belief(s). My major concern(s) is/are the rez/def (native 1440x1080 specially@1/2"CCD -- 50% more than a 1/3" device will it be enough?) + noiseLESS + motion + progressive mode's anti-aliasing safeguard (see this: LINK1) despite uncompressed audio, not so visible compression artifacts (35megabits -- 40% more than the regular 25megabits HDV will it be enough?*), etc.

* According Graeme (Nattress), «The 35mbps rate should be, extrapolating what we see with HDV, as good as HDCAM - no reason why it shouldn't be.» LINK2
 
Emanuel said:
More precisely less than €17,000 (IVA away to non-UK residents)...and the disks (40 mins. of 1080HD right?) they cost $30 -- well, I dunno, I dunno... :D

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/public/view_item_cat.php?catalogue_number=sony_pdw-f330k
Click to expand...

Emanuel, is that the price for the F330 or F350? Does this price include a Lens? I guess not...

I've tried the Sony XDCAMHD at the same place I tried the JVC. The picture looks significantly sharper than the Varicam, but, color wise, it looks worse. It looks flatter and has a gamma curve that's nowhere as filmlike as the Varicam (Note that I'm comparing to the Varicam because that's what I saw in a HD to film screening). With CC, XDCAM HD still looked HD video, and not film, like the Varicam comes close to look. The HVX follows the same rules, gamma curves and color interpretation as the Varicam. I tested a HVX, and it certainly looks fabulous, so there's no doubt, at least for me, that, seing the HUGE price difference, the HVX is the way to go.

EDIT- Add to that the full lengh of accessories that are significantly cheaper for a small form handheld camera like the HVX VS the XDCAm, like my Glidecam smooth shooter, my DV tripod, carrying case (that come from my dvx legacy), and also its non intrusive looks for those shots that you want to shoot somewhere but don't want to go for months of applying shooting permits, and ALSO the freedom a small form handheld camera permits in shooting dinamic angles, and you have a winner of a camera. I'm certain someone will win awards in cinematography with the HVX
But we need PAL results! Fellow PAL users! Lend me your ears! Er... Mouths!... Er... Eye, brain, mouth and analysis? :)
 
Last edited:
booth said:
Yeah but the XDcams are disappointingly 4:2:0, the extra 2 adds a lot :)
Click to expand...
How much it really adds?
If you shoot 1080p with xdcamhd, you'll get 720x540 chroma pixels.
To get similiar recording times and storage use, you should shoot 720p with hvx and then you get 480x720 chroma pixels.

Now, which one was better?

Or with hvx in 1080p mode you'll get 640x1080, so xdcamhd has 44% less, but more horizontal resolution. A world apart?
 
toke lahti said:
How much it really adds?
If you shoot 1080p with xdcamhd, you'll get 720x540 chroma pixels.
To get similiar recording times and storage use, you should shoot 720p with hvx and then you get 480x720 chroma pixels.

Now, which one was better?

Or with hvx in 1080p mode you'll get 640x1080, so xdcamhd has 44% less, but more horizontal resolution. A world apart?
Click to expand...

It ends up to personal taste, in my view: XDCAM HD looks best on High Resolution TV's (Plasmas and CRT's- LCD's you don't notice that much of a difference, tough), but looks like video, even with CC (OK, a fortune in Da Vinci might- and enphasys on might :) get you close to a Varicam in therms of color), while the HVX looks a lot more like film- and, blown up for HD projection (if it compares to Varicam like most people state in this forum). XDCAMHD is a better HD Broadcast camera, but it is not a Better Film-out camera. At least from what I've seen.
 
The out-of-box camera settings are fairly flat on the XDCAMs (and presumably the XDCAM HDs). However, you have far more picture tweaking controls in the menu than you've ever seen on a 1/3in CCD camera. It's perfectly possible to create an image that looks rich and film-like.

4:2:0 isn't a massive problem. Don't forget that the "CCD" colour resolution of the HVX200 isn't really much above 4:2:0. However, in post you need to work with the highest quality codec you can use to get the best results from CC and keying. As far as pulling a key from 4:2:0 is concerned, there are tools that allow you to combine the luma and chroma info to help pull a smooth key. This gives you all the smoothness of a 4:4:4 key, albeit with slightly more work.

The F330 and F350 are undoubtedly "better" cameras than the HVX200, but they're twice(?) the price. The HVX seems to produce a fantastic looking image in 90% of situations. If the HVX is what you want or all you can afford... don't worry about it!
 
toke lahti said:
And do you really believe that this film-like comes from chroma resolution?
Click to expand...

A bit, yes, but I believe it comes to the way Panasonic developed their "look"and interpretation of image. It feels to me that panasonic looks at Picture in a much more film perspective than Sony. There's certainly something to Panasonic's Cinegamma that is unique and not present in the competition's interpretation of "cine-gamma".

And, Alex, yes, the XDCAM should be a better camera, but it certainly doesn't have that cine look the HVX has, as well as the Varicam. More resolution? Yes. Better Lens? Definetly- you can't buy anything "El Cheapo"in the HD market. Better recording medium? Also a yes. But better Film-look and color rendition? In my opinion, no.
 
Ok, guys, quit playing Hide and Seek. We know you have the Pal camera and are playing around with it! Post footage! Share your joy with us! Can someone check their operator manual to see if there's any reference to the capture specs for this camera (in 720p and 1080Pa) ?

We are dyin' here! :)
 
Well, I'm at work type worky work and away from the camera but I have with me the operating instructions manual. Any specific questions that can be obtained from it that you'd like to have answers to?

record to p2 1080i/50, 1080i/25p, 720p/50p, 720p/25p, 720p/25pn, 576i/50i, 576i/25p

is that what you were after?
 
Paul, any reference to the resolution of 1080P? Or 720P? How about available frame rates in 720P?

Any reference to Final Cut Pro Editing?

(it must be hard to work with such a baby waiting for you home :) )
 
Well, I didnt get much sleep last night. The camera kept calling me from downstairs. I have a mistress and she's called panny.

VFR 720p/n default, 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 37, 48, 50
 
Paul Llewellyn said:
Well, I didnt get much sleep last night. The camera kept calling me from downstairs. I have a mistress and she's called panny.

VFR 720p/n default, 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 37, 48, 50
Click to expand...

LOL. Txs for the info, Paul :)

EDIT- Paul, how did the Slowmotion look like? Did you try any?
 
Had great fun with the frame rates. Shot the wife and boy jumping around. It looked nice. I'm monitoring it on a sony 17" monitor/tv so I dont think I'll be the best judge of ultimate image quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top