Barry might explain this better, but all the cameras up to Genesis use interpolation of one kind or another (Bayer-pattern for example) to achieve final resolution. Isn't this correct for most all HD cameras?
e
e
HVX200 Has Only 960x540 Pix Chip?
- Thread starter Neurodancer
- Start date
- Status
You really aren't getting any extra detail out of the non-pixel shift JVC HD100 though, and with HDV you may be getting even less. I'm sure getting rid of the stock lens would perhaps resolve more detail, but that's going to cost you an additional $15000, and still HDV with 4:2:0 color space. So to say that the HD100 camera (nice camera though it is) is full res this and that, just doesn't cut it in the real world. Originally when I read some posts about the HD100 I was expecting the HD100 to have twice the rez of the HVX or something the way people go on. When I actually found them to have almost exactly the same resolved detail, but the HVX has better color sampling and a more solid codec in DVCProHD.
Last edited:
Stevet
Veteran
booth said:
Hmm....
I've never heard anybody go to that extent.
We've all heard and read about the tests done by Adam, Barry, Nate and others that concluded the HD100 displayed higher resolution during these test.
The tests that I've done show that the HVX200 is close to HD100 resolution.
Where the HD100 will excel is with the 13X lens which puts it in a higher class of rez.
Of course this is somewhat a moot response since it brings the JVC into another cost point.
Tim Dashwood ran some comparison rez tests between the stock HD100 and 13X lens. The 13X lens smokes the stock lens. Granted it will cost you $9K or so.
I agree the HVX does have nice color - No doubt ! :thumbup:
Although, I think the JVC looks dang good too.
Last edited:
John Rivers
Active member
let's not also forget a BIG gain by using lower resolution CCDs: better low light performance. The larger each sensor is, the more light it can take in, resulting in much better low light performance.
The Canon XL series are great cameras, to be sure, but from experience, filming indoors proved annoying, as I'd have a regularly lit room (lamps on, ceiling lights on) and the picture still looked a bit darker than what it actually was.
That's probably part of the reason why Panasonic decided to go with this whole new "Spatial Offset" whatever and new technology: so it could allow for both a really great hi-res image which performs very well in low light conditions. For indie filmmakers, where there might not be a studio or light crew to carry all this equipment arount and there isn't the time to set these things up continuously, this is a boon. Canon seems to market themselves more towards studios and television anyway, it seems, so it works.
As for not releasing the specs, that's not an uncommon occurance, especially when most consumers are obsessed with numbers and specs (TVs and processor speeds are two great examples). We're raised with this sense for most items that the higher the number, the better. Heck, even Nintendo hasn't released the specs of their new videogame system "Revolution", but do we expect them to be up to no good? Nope, because the fact is that in the end, what really matters is performance.
The Canon XL series are great cameras, to be sure, but from experience, filming indoors proved annoying, as I'd have a regularly lit room (lamps on, ceiling lights on) and the picture still looked a bit darker than what it actually was.
That's probably part of the reason why Panasonic decided to go with this whole new "Spatial Offset" whatever and new technology: so it could allow for both a really great hi-res image which performs very well in low light conditions. For indie filmmakers, where there might not be a studio or light crew to carry all this equipment arount and there isn't the time to set these things up continuously, this is a boon. Canon seems to market themselves more towards studios and television anyway, it seems, so it works.
As for not releasing the specs, that's not an uncommon occurance, especially when most consumers are obsessed with numbers and specs (TVs and processor speeds are two great examples). We're raised with this sense for most items that the higher the number, the better. Heck, even Nintendo hasn't released the specs of their new videogame system "Revolution", but do we expect them to be up to no good? Nope, because the fact is that in the end, what really matters is performance.
Last edited:
We basically took some footage and found that on the JVC (with stock lens) we were seeing less actual detail in things like tiny little bits of text than on the HVX. Barry did something similar on a thread and came to the same conclusion that they are both highly similar, despite the HD100 seemingly having more resolution - which there probably is, it's just not resolving any more detail.Stevet said:
In my opinion, probably because of the stock lens.
And the pixel shift in the HVX does a damn good job. Much better than the pixel shift implemented in the Canon XL1 series.
I was going to go for the HD100 after it was recommended to me by FX legend Robert Kurtzman who's using it on his feature The Rage. However when we found the the resolutions were actually very similar we decided the extra color space + DVCProHD was the way to go.
But yes, it'd be good if we could get the HD100 as well. It's a nice camera.
Last edited:
DavidBeier
Veteran
For a while, I actually was worried about the whole spacial offset thing to. I loved the HVX200s colors, latitude, sensitivity, and gamma curve but liked JVC's higher rez.
That was untill Barry did some test shoots with both cameras (do a search as it was a recen thread). As you'll see from his shots, the HVX200 looks every bit as sharp as the HD100 and a bit sharper in many cases. To the eye at least, it seems that the Canon is the sharpest of the under 10k cameras with the HVX200 and HD100 being a bit softer but still pretty close. Not only was the HVX200 a bit sharper than the HD100 in may cases but the HVX200 clearly has better colors (4:2:2 v 4:2:0), a nicer gamma curve, more sensitivity, and better low light performance. Add to this pure tapeless recording and variable frame rates and the HVX200 is the clear choice in my book.
That was untill Barry did some test shoots with both cameras (do a search as it was a recen thread). As you'll see from his shots, the HVX200 looks every bit as sharp as the HD100 and a bit sharper in many cases. To the eye at least, it seems that the Canon is the sharpest of the under 10k cameras with the HVX200 and HD100 being a bit softer but still pretty close. Not only was the HVX200 a bit sharper than the HD100 in may cases but the HVX200 clearly has better colors (4:2:2 v 4:2:0), a nicer gamma curve, more sensitivity, and better low light performance. Add to this pure tapeless recording and variable frame rates and the HVX200 is the clear choice in my book.
Aaron Koolen
Well-known member
And hey, the HVX is tapeless.....mmmmmmmm - how I wish I could have one.
Forget res, we've seen tests now, they're pretty close. Move on.
Forget res, we've seen tests now, they're pretty close. Move on.
Neurodancer
Well-known member
Ok you guys have me back on track. I won't cancel my order. But I am still going to NAB to see the latest. The way things are going I won't have my cameras by then and some other great camera may be released that I can wait another 6 months to get.
DavidBeier
Veteran
^
I doubt anything in the under 10k price range will be released. Pansonic, Canon, JCV, and Sony (it's sucked) have all released their nice little under-10k HD cameras in the last year or so. They're going to spend the next few years simply upgrading these things, releasing the As and maybe B versions. You can wait for those but don't expect anything major.
I doubt anything in the under 10k price range will be released. Pansonic, Canon, JCV, and Sony (it's sucked) have all released their nice little under-10k HD cameras in the last year or so. They're going to spend the next few years simply upgrading these things, releasing the As and maybe B versions. You can wait for those but don't expect anything major.
Neurodancer
Well-known member
I was interested in having a look at the Sony PDW-F350 1/2" chip camera. I know it costs around $15K without lens.
Elton
Veteran
Neurodancer said:
It's 960x540. It's an uprez. via spatial offset. That can work, but it has its limitations. The camera does alot of things very well, but so do the others.
Here's a bunch of HD100 and XL-H1 footage from a guy who has both. You'll need the VLC player on the Mac or PC. www.vlc.org
http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/...tefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en
Take a look at some HVX footage floating around and decide which camera has more actual resolution.
IMHO, resolution-wise, the HVX is like a mini-720p Varicam. Take a look at some 1080 from it and try uprezzing HVX 720 also. You might find that they look quite similar.
Last edited:
Elton
Veteran
TedRR said:
Have you ever seen H1 HDV converted to DVCproHD, or SDI straight to DVCproHD?
Funny thing is I use the same format with very satisfactory results...and SD downconverts to DV50 are phenomenal too. Full 4.2.2 believe it or not.
While I do really like the Varicam-like features of the HVX, I've found I can get results that are quite similar in post. I've done "overcrank" by doing a 1080i to 60p conversion in Compressor, and then conforming to 24p in Cinema Tools. If the 1080i is shot fast shutter for this effect, the results are basically the same as if you shot 24N. But the one thing I cannot get back with an HVX is the rez. It just doesn't have the pixels to begin with.
JMHO too.
I've seen Z1 footage hardware uprezzed and hardware deinterlaced to HDCam SR 1920x1080 and that looked splendid. Graded in 4:4:4 with the Davinci2k it looked amazing, but the Davinci seems to add to the color res of footage. How? I don't know. I asked our colorist and he said that basically the Davinci takes the image apart and puts it back together cleverly, so if it finds some yellow in the image, it expands on the color and only adds it to parts of the image (a wall in our footage) without messing with other elements of the image (ie, people, objects, etc). So yes, if treated right HDV footage can look splendid, but we're all keen to know what can be done with HVX footage. Varicam footage put through this process looks like 35mm, not just to the Layman but also to experienced pro's. That said if the image was blown up to a cinema screen it'd probably fall down a bit. Even so it's good and we're hoping that lighting and shooting footage well will yield better results with the HVX (not to the Varicam, but to the Z1) when put through the same process.
A small amount of testing with H1 footage put through that process had our colorist saying. "That XLH1 looks like some camera."
But he still wanted us to get a HVX.
A small amount of testing with H1 footage put through that process had our colorist saying. "That XLH1 looks like some camera."
But he still wanted us to get a HVX.
- Status