Hello Mr. Pappas, your dinner is ready!

? 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.
 
brianluce said:
why did the texas shootout say the canon has the better hdv codec when the gop is longer than the jvc's?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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

IMG_0546.jpg


IMG_0553.jpg


IMG_0556.jpg


IMG_0547.jpg


IMG_0555.jpg


IMG_0591.JPG


IMG_0587.JPG


Pappas


soarprod said:
It is h.264 @ 8.6mb.

Here are some grabs:

Most shots were F6 - detail +1, color +3 - everything else default f6 settings.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Hi disjecta!

These were from the XLH1 in ""24F MODE"" with a cooler color tone for a test.
 
Last edited:
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!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Rich Lee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay! :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

How about one cam, the canon and for closeups just use a promist or equivalent? LOL
 
disjecta said:
Okay! :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

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

soarprod said:
And give up good 24p?
Click to expand...

im sure this has been discussed much...but i havnt noticed anything odd with the canon 24 fps footage...
 
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.
 
^
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top