Very good HVX vs HD100 article

xray said:
3. The Walter's article shows you with and without detail enhancement.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't. He shows the JVC at -7. I think he showed a -9 shot, which is still very enhanced, probably equivalent to an HVX at around "normal".

The JVC can go to "off". OFF is true "off", and is substantially blurrier than even "min". "min" on the JVC is about equivalent to -5 on an HVX. Walter shows it at -7 at one point, which is about equivalent to an HVX at +6.
 
Last edited:
icicle22 said:
we hear horror stories of HDV falling apart, then there seems to be a lot of people posting footage of HDV that doesn't represent this.
Click to expand...
Used under good conditions, HDV can perform very well indeed. It's not the normal, good conditions that cause issues.

HDV does not like it when a lot changes in the picture. Not due to "motion" per se, becase MPEG-2 has motion prediction algorithms that can deal reasonably well with something like a simple pan.

But a push-in? Where everything in the frame grows, in an un-predictable way? Doesn't like that very much. Flashes or strobelights? HDV hates that, just hates it. Smoke, or fire, or rippling water... all can contribute to the problems. Fireworks can cause it fits too. Not always, it depends on what else is going on in the scene, but fireworks cause flashes of colored light which cause every pixel in the frame to change -- and when that happens, HDV chokes.

But truthfully I haven't seen anyone post any broken footage to back it up.
Click to expand...
I've posted threads that show the FX1 and the HD100 disintegrating. It's not hard to get them to fall apart.

I think we'd all like to see a review with images and movies that show the problems with the HDV of the HD100 vs. the HVX DVCPRO-HD codec. Then it would be a lot easier to swallow all the hype that has preceeded the HVX.
Click to expand...
Well, start here for one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50288&highlight=hd100+vegas+strip

Here's another one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=45342&highlight=vegas+boulevard
 
One thing to remember about potential HDV (mpeg) artifacts: if you're ever planning on having your footage distributed on high-def DVD or broadcast as HD, it'll be put through a codec with similar weakness. So even if I were to avoid such an issue with my acquisition codec, I'd be faced with it down the line. If my only distribution were a film-out, obviously that wouldn't be the case.

I shoot HDV with an H1, and so far haven't wanted to shoot anything that would exhibit the problem. I'm not saying it's not real or doesn't exist. But man is it low on my worry list -- why shoot something that won't hold up to being broadcast?
 
But you make a good point -- HDV artifacts are well known to the broadcasters, and that's why they severely restrict HDV acquisition to a very small percentage of your total footage.

Artifacts in distribution can't really be avoided. But they can definitely be avoided in acquisition.
 
johncordell said:
I'm not saying it's not real or doesn't exist. But man is it low on my worry list -- why shoot something that won't hold up to being broadcast?
Click to expand...
That was our conclusion too. One of the cameramen present had read various things and from the start said (of the HD100), "but it breaks up badly on excessive movement, doesn't it?" He set out to test it to breaking point, and to a certain extent succeeded - you could see artifacting on still grabs - but AT NORMAL SPEED they became insignificant compared to all the blur of the motion. At the end his reaction was "is THAT what the fuss about HDV is about!?"

We didn't find that we thought the HD100 perfect in terms of quality, but the same we thought of the HVX200. Each was amazingly good for the price, if with it's own imperfections, and they each shone in different ways. I personally thought the HVX picture very slightly nicer overall, but it varied with subject, lens settings, so many variables, that we all thought 'picture quality' low down on the list of why to buy one camera over the other - they were too similar. Hence I use the term "comparable" to describe the relative quality of the cameras, not that they were "the same".

Far, far more relevant were a host of other practical factors. In lens terms I liked the HVX being so much wider at it's widest setting - the 5.5mm of the JVC is uncomfortably tight. That was more than compensated for by the JVCs ergonomics, with a Firestore actually IMPROVING it's handheld balance, whilst keeping a one block package.

Where we DID think DVCProHD scored in an obvious way was in terms of ease of editing, presumably due to being I frame only. This was a far more tangible benefit than any quality considerations, though coming at the price of high data rate.

We're still able to use SD gear at the moment, quite a relief with so much new coming up. The expectation is that when the change to HD has to be made more affordable 2/3" kit will be on the market, and hopefully this is the way we'll go. I have some reservations about HDV, but I have others about aspects of all the 1/3" cameras, HVX included. The comparison exercise we're going through at the moment is helping make me realise what benefits the extra money buys you in a 2/3" camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
Artifacts in distribution can't really be avoided. But they can definitely be avoided in acquisition.
Click to expand...

For narrative work they can be largely avoided -- the sets and shots are planned and designed. Panning wildly in a a smoke filled bar with wall-to-wall strobe lights is a bad idea if you're broadcasting in HD or distributing on DVD. If a script called for that, I'd be looking for some other way of capturing that vibe.

Note that I haven't noticed the problem on pushes that you mention -- either on my camera or broadcast HD. Avoiding pushes would be pretty hard!
 
Barry_Green said:
Used under good conditions, HDV can perform very well indeed. It's not the normal, good conditions that cause issues.

HDV does not like it when a lot changes in the picture. Not due to "motion" per se, becase MPEG-2 has motion prediction algorithms that can deal reasonably well with something like a simple pan.

But a push-in? Where everything in the frame grows, in an un-predictable way? Doesn't like that very much. Flashes or strobelights? HDV hates that, just hates it. Smoke, or fire, or rippling water... all can contribute to the problems. Fireworks can cause it fits too. Not always, it depends on what else is going on in the scene, but fireworks cause flashes of colored light which cause every pixel in the frame to change -- and when that happens, HDV chokes.


I've posted threads that show the FX1 and the HD100 disintegrating. It's not hard to get them to fall apart.


Well, start here for one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50288&highlight=hd100+vegas+strip

Here's another one:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=45342&highlight=vegas+boulevard
Click to expand...

Barry,
Excellent links my friend. Whenever I heard people refer to "barry's vegas strip footage" I thought they meant the original. I was out of town from March 16-March 28th and completely missed this thread. All I have to say is


"OMFG"!!!!

Big difference. I can see now how you can break the HDV codec on the JVC in those circumstances. Major difference there. All of a sudden I feel a lot better about my HVX200 investment.

Understand that I have shot about 4-5 hours of HD footage and while it looks really nice it just didn't look really amazingly like HD like I was expecting. I invested into the P2 workflow expecting better results than HDV codec cameras.

I have seen some footage form the JVC that looks so good I thought I may have made the wrong choice. At least I feel a little more justified in having to work within P2 limitations for the benefits you have shown.

Peace!
 
Oh, that's the same article again.

1) 24P was not tested

2) 1080 from HVX was not used

3) detailed enhacement was not turned off

4) No real stress test.

So how do you want me to conclude?
 
Well, it's my turn to ask a dumb question, but first let me preface by saying that this entire thread has been provocative, filled with insight and hasn't digressed into prejudicial fanboy talk. For that, I'm very thankful to everybody.

Now, here's the dumb question. harddrive just made reference to 1/3" and 2/3" cameras and I have no idea what he's talking about. What does that measurement refer to? CCD?
 
I just think the benefit of DVC pro format is its Consistency. it will behave with the same qualty under all situations. Thats its benefit. Granted its more difficult to work with, but if you business is on the line, consistency is more important than an "edge" in the sharpness game.

my 2cents
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
But Brian that is their motivation. To make people believe that the two cameras perform similarly and therefore buy the JVC instead of the HVX. So okay, perhaps I asked a rhetorical question because the motivation is not well disquised. The reality is that the two cameras do not perform the same at all. Only in the author's mind.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

with all due respect, there are numerous accounts of the hd100 outperforming the hvx in terms of image quality. There are also reports of the hvx's superior image. who is the consumer supposed to believe? someone like me looks at the conflicting reviews and surmises there probably isn't a whole lot of daylight in term of pure image quality between the two cams. so then it becomes an issue of features: p2, variable frame rates, interchangable lenses etc. so graff's review is one of the first to say pretty much what a lot of people deduced after reading through the endless user reviews.

I disagree with your assessment that claiming image parity sways one towards the HD100. why would it? what about variable frame rates? tapeless workflow? wide lens? the hd100 can't answer those features. if i were a feature filmmaker, the hvx200 would be my choice. However i don't make features or music videos, i needed something with a longer recording format, so the hd100 made more sense for me.
 
icicle22 said:
Barry,
Excellent links my friend. Whenever I heard people refer to "barry's vegas strip footage" I thought they meant the original. I was out of town from March 16-March 28th and completely missed this thread. All I have to say is


"OMFG"!!!!

Big difference. I can see now how you can break the HDV codec on the JVC in those circumstances. Major difference there. All of a sudden I feel a lot better about my HVX200 investment.

Understand that I have shot about 4-5 hours of HD footage and while it looks really nice it just didn't look really amazingly like HD like I was expecting. I invested into the P2 workflow expecting better results than HDV codec cameras.

I have seen some footage form the JVC that looks so good I thought I may have made the wrong choice. At least I feel a little more justified in having to work within P2 limitations for the benefits you have shown.

Peace!
Click to expand...

I was leaning to the HD100 for the past few weeks as I am about to take the plung and buy one of these, but the Barry article really may have swayed me the other way.
 
Okay I've determined that harddrive did indeed mean the size of the CCD's when he said 1/3" and 2/3" and I look forward to his thoughts on the issue.

Can somebody explain what "I frame" means? Is that referring to the capturing of DVCPro footage?

Also, can somebody break down the differences between DVCPro material and HDV material in terms of data size, capture times, efficiency, etc.? In lay terms 'cause I'm pretty ignorant.
 
Mirezzi said:
Well, it's my turn to ask a dumb question, but first let me preface by saying that this entire thread has been provocative, filled with insight and hasn't digressed into prejudicial fanboy talk. For that, I'm very thankful to everybody.

Now, here's the dumb question. harddrive just made reference to 1/3" and 2/3" cameras and I have no idea what he's talking about. What does that measurement refer to? CCD?
Click to expand...

Yes it refers to the size of the CCD
 
harddrive said:
That was our conclusion too. One of the cameramen present had read various things and from the start said (of the HD100), "but it breaks up badly on excessive movement, doesn't it?" He set out to test it to breaking point, and to a certain extent succeeded - you could see artifacting on still grabs - but AT NORMAL SPEED they became insignificant compared to all the blur of the motion. At the end his reaction was "is THAT what the fuss about HDV is about!?"

We didn't find that we thought the HD100 perfect in terms of quality, but the same we thought of the HVX200. Each was amazingly good for the price, if with it's own imperfections, and they each shone in different ways. I personally thought the HVX picture very slightly nicer overall, but it varied with subject, lens settings, so many variables, that we all thought 'picture quality' low down on the list of why to buy one camera over the other - they were too similar. Hence I use the term "comparable" to describe the relative quality of the cameras, not that they were "the same".

Far, far more relevant were a host of other practical factors. In lens terms I liked the HVX being so much wider at it's widest setting - the 5.5mm of the JVC is uncomfortably tight. That was more than compensated for by the JVCs ergonomics, with a Firestore actually IMPROVING it's handheld balance, whilst keeping a one block package.

Where we DID think DVCProHD scored in an obvious way was in terms of ease of editing, presumably due to being I frame only. This was a far more tangible benefit than any quality considerations, though coming at the price of high data rate.

We're still able to use SD gear at the moment, quite a relief with so much new coming up. The expectation is that when the change to HD has to be made more affordable 2/3" kit will be on the market, and hopefully this is the way we'll go. I have some reservations about HDV, but I have others about aspects of all the 1/3" cameras, HVX included. The comparison exercise we're going through at the moment is helping make me realise what benefits the extra money buys you in a 2/3" camera.
Click to expand...

Hey Hard drive, i've always admired the clarity and informed nature of your posts. it's obvious you know what the hell you're talking about. and so now come to find out you've been doing some comparison testing? come on my brother give us some love, or to paraphrase charles dickens, "can we have more"?

Share! Share! Share!
 
brianluce said:
with all due respect, there are numerous accounts of the hd100 outperforming the hvx in terms of image quality.
Click to expand...


Hey brian,

I am wondering. Do you think it is fair to evaluate the image quality of the HVX when 1080-24P image of the HVX is not utilized?

if 1080 is the best image the HVX can produce but it is not utilized in the test, what does this say about the article? In fact, 1080i was not used either.

I just leave you with this.

Cheers
 
I've read reports that the hvx produces its best image at 720. i think even some of barry's chroma keying tests reflected that.

further, my point, the one you quoted, was not even referencing walter graff's test.

you sarcasm suggests a strong panny bias, that's where we are different, though i own the jvc, as i stated earlier, if the panasonic suited my work requirements, that's what i would have purchased.

my larger point is that anyone obsessing over which camera gives the best image is barking up the wrong tree, no one can agree on which looks better. and if someone ever does conclusively prove one image is better than the other, i am confident it'd be a photo finish so to speak--the degree of superioty being incremental. which again takes us back to my larger point, base the decision not on image quality but on the feature set.
 
Mirezzi said:
Now, here's the dumb question. harddrive just made reference to 1/3" and 2/3" cameras and I have no idea what he's talking about. What does that measurement refer to? CCD?
Click to expand...
Yes. To be more precise, the diagonal measurement of the CCD which is limited by the coverage of the lens, and it tends to be a hangover from tube cameras when it was the diameter of the tube target.

With the same underlying technology, a 2/3" camera will always be superior to a 1/3" one, and that's down to the laws of physics. The sensor will have 4x the area, so for the same number of total pixels, each pixel will be 4x as big, so 4x the light gathering ability, so far more sensitive to light. Or for the same size of pixel a 2/3" camera will have far higher resolution. In practice the advantages are even greater than the numbers suggest, especially for HD, since the dimensions being considered are becoming of the order of the wavelengths of light.

But you don't get anything for nothing (sorry), and the disadvantage is that they are bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Generally, I'd expect them to come with far better connectivity than 1/3" cameras, have more sophisticated video processing, and the lenses to be far superior to those found on 1/3" cameras - not just higher quality, both sharper and with less distortions, but far greater zoom ranges and often wider angles. They should be superior, they cost a lot more money!

What is changing now is that the price gap between expensive 1/3" cameras and cheaper 2/3" is becoming less than it was. Broadcasters seem to be generally sticking with 2/3" as their mainstream camera, but using 1/3" as required - second camera, or where small size and weight is essential.

I won't dispute that DVCProHD is superior to HDV, but in QUALITY terms the differences have been hugely exagerated in the past, and posted stills of artifacting really need taking with a pince of salt - when seen as a sequence of images with lots of motion blur, the artifacting is normally well masked. Where the codec DOES have more tangible benefit is for easy editing, it's I frame only. But it also comes at a cost, in terms of data rate, and the necessity to use P2 at this price range. The question is whether or not it's worth it, when the limiting factor appears to be a 1/3" front end and a lens built strictly to price, and that's true of all the 1/3" HD cameras.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
I had one guy in the booth at NAB who insisted that I was so totally "old school" because I thought that 4:2:2 was better than 4:2:0...
Click to expand...
You are old school, if you just compare the chroma resolution, but don't consider the overall resolution to the equation.
Days of all cameras having same luma resolution (=SD) has ended.
Hd100 has chroma resolution of 640x360, hvx has 480x720.
There can be lots of opinions which one is better, but mine is that with progressive 16:9 Hd100's is better. 480 mapped out to 1280 raster isn't just enough.

The article was remarkable in that way, that it really showed first time that non-interchangeable lens (hvx) can be better than changeable (hd100 stock lens).
Problem is that if you buy $8k lens to hd100, it will be better than hvx and total price will still be only about $13k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top