Hvx-200, Xlh1, Hd100 and the Z1 pros and cons thread please help me decide

[DavidBeier]

Thorny issues:

1. Image quality -
   If HVX can capture images from a SD size 960x520 pixel CCD, and extrapolate it to 1920x1080 at 4:2:2 with techical wizardry- can't the JVC capture at least comparable image quality with a native 1280x720 at 720p?

Resolution wise, yes. Color wise, not exactly. I've said this many times but there is SO much more to the image than resolution. Becuase we are moving up to HD resolution is all anyone cares about recently (in which case they should just get an XLH1) but I honestly think other things are more important.

The HVX200 produces better looking colors. It uses 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0 and this is simply more color infomation (fact).

The other thing that has endeared me to panasonic (not brand loyalty but a matter of how things look to my eye) is that they simply do the film look better. Two friends of mine shot the same subject using a HVX200 and HD100 both in SD so that resolution and color compression would be the same. Pansonic's image was simply much more pleasing. The gamma curve looked much more like film and the colors were much more vibrant. This, if anything, was what REALLY sold me on the HVX200 (since it was the only test I was actually there to see with my own eyes instead of reading reports). It's a shame these things cost so damn much to rent.

 

[redindian]

The HVX200 produces better looking colors. It uses 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0 and this is simply more color infomation (fact).

David, This is one of the things I never clearly understood.

Does it become 4:2:2 just because it uses DVCPROHD as a carrier format?

As an example to get the point across -
if I shoot my cat with my webcam, then play it on my computer, and shoot that with 35mm film
- Do I have a 35mm footage? sure, you have a 35mm film footage of cat playing
- but its still webcam quality because it was originally aquired that way.

I understood like this - HVX aquires image at with a small CCD, pixelmaps it and dumps it in a 4:2:2 DVCPROHD format which carries it along...
So, is it still a technically extrapolated 4:2:0/1->4:2:2 signal riding on a fantastic DVCPROHD 4:2:2 format... or did i read a one too many techo-engineering posts from banned members here

 

[Barry_Green]

or did i read a one too many techo-engineering posts from banned members here

I'd vote for that explanation.

Look at the comparison photos here, and decide whether the 4:2:0 JVC is delivering as much color resolution as the 4:2:2 HVX:

Decide for yourself whether one's delivering better color resolution than the other...

Original images are here:
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HD100-n-HVX-on-Strip/HD100-Strip-1.JPG
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HD100-n-HVX-on-Strip/HVX-Strip-1.JPG

 

[brianluce]

The HVX200 produces better looking colors. It uses 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0 and this is simply more color infomation (fact).

t.

wait just a minute now, some very credible and unrefuted reviews have stated that the HVX does not deliver true 422 in HD. As someone has said, 422 is just a container, and the 1/3" chips are the limiting factor. However I emailed one of the engineers who analyzed the hvx and asked about the hvx's dv50, he said in SD dv50 the hvx does indeed yield 422, but not in hd.

 

[brianluce]

My version:

HVX200 pros
-variable frame rate
-p2
-multi format (dvcpro50!)
-better battery
-better audio (in theory at least, no one has done a "listen" out)

HVX200 cons
-Macro blocking (this one hasn't gone away yet)
-short record times
-it's butt ugly
-fixed lens
-ergonomics not as good
-p2 expense
-expensive archiving


HD100 pros
-removable lens; various lens options
-ergonomics (shoulder mount)
-cheap long form recording format
-more extensive manual controls
-chick magnet
-cheap archival solutions
-more mature product (it's already on the "A" version)
-lower price

HD100 cons
-lens issues (CA)
-short battery life
-SSE. though largely elimated, can potentially still be an issue
-that wierd ear piece (what were they thinking?)
-inferior codec for post work

WASH
-Resolution (no one agrees on this, though a slight majority seem to feel the JVC has the edge)
-filmic image (too subjective IMHOP to evaluate/compare- besides there's always magic bullet)
-overall image quality. no one agrees, personally, based on Barry's and (gulp...) walter graff's comparisons, i like the way the hvx captures images at night (jvc gets a bit a smearing) but prefer the JVC's image in day shots (they just look better to me...) that might be stupid way to break it down but i'm kind of a stupid guy.
-focus assist, the HD100 allegedly has a better focus assist, but I seen enough user feedback/comparison to substantiate.

 

[Barry_Green]

However I emailed one of the engineers who analyzed the hvx and asked about the hvx's dv50, he said in SD dv50 the hvx does indeed yield 422, but not in hd.

And yet, the photographic evidence does not lie. The HVX clearly delivers more color resolution than the competition. I refer again to the side-by-side shot of the HVX vs. the JVC. Check out how much more clarity there is in the vertical dimension, which is exactly what you'd expect from 4:2:2 since 4:2:2 is twice the vertical resolution of 4:2:0.

The HVX is the real deal and delivers higher, better color resolution than the competition. Whether it's exactly precisely engineered 4:2:2 or not is something the engineers can debate until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that the pictures show better color resolution than the 4:2:0 products do.

 

[brianluce]

Barry,

being more specific, one could say that though the HVX may not deliver true 4.2.2 in HD, it still gives MORE color info than the HD100.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, that's the point I guess. That's what I tried to explain by saying "whether it's preciseley engineered 4:2:2" or whatever, that we can't know for certain. But there's no doubt that it's not what the detractors and haters are trying to claim -- they're trying to claim it's 4:2:0 carried in a 4:2:2 bucket. And the proof is in the pictures -- it's obviously way better than 4:2:0. Whether it's exactly up to carrying every jot of chroma that the 4:2:2 recording system is capable of, well, they can debate that if they want.

But the obvious proof is that it's way better than the 4:2:0 delivered by the other products.

 

[joelnet]

The HVX200 produces better looking colors. It uses 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0 and this is simply more color infomation (fact).

Even Jarred has posted that in HD modes the HVX is more like 4:2:1 due to the interpolation.

I've never seen an obvious color or latitude difference between the two cameras. I HAVE had several people tell me they've had better luck with the HD-100 in post when it came to bringing up the shadow area levels. BUT you really want to move to Cineform or a different codec and not stay in HDV. I've read that FCP converts everything to 4:4:4 internally when rendering effects and doesn't re-render back to HDV until the final render.. thereby making native HDV editing realist with a fast mac.

You also have to remember there are A LOT of controls you can adjust on both cameras, but even more on the JVC. Those controls really impact the image and I don't believe it's likely most side by side tests really squeek the most out of each camera in every test.

And yet, the photographic evidence does not lie.

The first shootout saw the HD-100 retaining more highlight detail in rolling into overexposed skintones better.

I feel like the HD-100 has better latitude (barely) from my own tests. But the way it handles whites is great. THe HVX handles specular highlights better.

ANY side by side test could EASILY show either camera the "winner" by just hitting a couple subtle settings. My contention is that it's VERY, VERY easy to make the photographic evidence "lie" in these tests because every camera is so adjustable.

 

[brianluce]

My contention is that it's VERY, VERY easy to make the photographic evidence "lie" in these tests because every camera is so adjustable.

okay, before anyone goes nuts, joel is obviously NOT saying barry "lied" he's merely use the term in a figurative way.

 

[joelnet]

okay, before anyone goes nuts, joel is obviously NOT saying barry "lied" he's merely use the term in a figurative way.

Heh - thanks.

Well I know this because I did it myself when I did my testing. Obviously I didn't do it on purpose. It really wasn't until MUCH testing that I started to see a few settings that with just 1 or 2 units difference would do something like crush 20% more of the blacks.

One thing I learned is nights shots with bright light sources are probably the trickiest shots of all to get just right. Missing the exposure by a little creates a dramatically inferior image.

Also, Barry had dialed in a "DVX" scene file for the HD-100. I've not used that scene file, but who's to say that's a scene file that shows the best of what the HD-100 is capable of? If there's another scene file and exposure combination that gives much better results can we really say "photographic evidence doesn't lie"?

I don't think that's fair. I guess everyone can go nuts now.

 

[Barry_Green]

How about instead of "going nuts", which is what we've been trying to limit on this board, we just put this to bed since it's a tired, played-out subject anyway. We're not going to have accusations (blatant or veiled) and we're certainly not going to have another flame-fest of people "going nuts" and we're not about to have round 9 of 'camcorder wars' playing out in the HVX200 News forum.

Over, done, locked.