Do you feel this review is fair to the HVX200?

I haven't gotten that first check yet. :) Panasonic doesn't pay me a penny to promote their products. They do buy books from me, and they have brought me (and others) out to train their dealers and sales support engineers as to what the product does and to talk about how we use it to dealers and customers, and they put me in their booth at NAB to teach how variable frame rates work (along with lots of DVXUser members like Noah, Jarred, Shane Ross and Rush). But that's all as an independent consultant. I'm not an employee, I'm not on the payroll, and they can't tell me what to or not to say, and I've frequently said things that I think Panasonic employees would prefer I didn't... But overall, I talk about the product because I like it, and I think it's easily the best of the bunch.

I was looking at the FS-100 and CitiDisk HD as solutions, but it seems neither supports some of the more exciting features of P2, such as 720PN and under/overcranking - or am I wrong?
Short answer: yes you are wrong. :) Longer answer: Firestore can definitely be used for overcranking and undercranking, and maybe someday they'll announce a firmware update that enables 720pN recording, we'll have to see. You can record variable frame rates with the firestore and extract the sequence in post, the same workflow that VariCam shooters use. You won't be able to preview the overcrank/undercrank effect in-camera (like you can with P2) but you can definitely do overcrank/undercrank with it. Just like the VariCam -- you can't preview off-speed effects in camera, you have to run the footage through the Frame Rate Conversion utility -- but the ability to get the effect is definitely supported.

Don't know about the citidisk, that product is a big unknown as to what it can or cannot do, and when it will or won't come out.

25 to 24 for film transfer doesn't show up any conversion artifacts at all, other than as a 4% slowdown. Each frame is transferred individually and discretely to a frame of film. The audio gets time-stretched by 4%, but the video/film is imaged directly.
 
Last edited:
its so tiring hearing about how expensive p2 is
2 4 gig p2 cards = $1300 (one time purchase and then virtually never again)

hard drive that holds 200 gigs or over 7 hours of footage at 720 = $100

Never having to capture to disk = lots of time savings

now figure out how much tape would cost for that amount of shooting and how much is your time worth for the capture. And you would never reuse the tape

the math works out in favor of P2 IMHO
 
Barry_Green said:
I haven't gotten that first check yet. :) Panasonic doesn't pay me a penny to promote their products.
Barry, I was kidding. I read elsewhere on the forum that Panny uses you as a consultant, which implied that money has changed hands. I'm a consultant myself for a couple of major companies, and know perfectly well what kind of apparent conflicts of interest may arise from it.

Barry_Green said:
Short answer: yes you are wrong. :)
Good, I'm glad for it :)

Barry_Green said:
25 to 24 for film transfer doesn't show up any conversion artifacts at all, other than as a 4% slowdown. Each frame is transferred individually and discretely to a frame of film. The audio gets time-stretched by 4%, but the video/film is imaged directly.
Slowdown and time-stretching... the perfectionist in me says 'no way'. The perfectionist in me also says 'what are you doing, playing around with digital - shoot on 35mm film instead, you gimboid.'

Decisions, decisions... *sigh*
 
I assume you were commenting on my post.

smelni said:
its so tiring hearing about how expensive p2 is
2 4 gig p2 cards = $1300 (one time purchase and then virtually never again)

First off, it is expensive in my opinion (which oddly enough happens to be the only one I care about). I'm comparing it to SD memcards and HDDs, and price/capacity ratio is well wonky. There's a huge mark-up just lying there, bloated and flatulent. Besides, I'd have to pay almost double that for 2 4 gig p2 cards where I live.

Oh well, maybe I win the lottery next weekend. Then I'd be able to buy p2 cards and all the additional hardware needed to alter my workflow, so it would suit using p2 in my projects. All in all, HD100 looks better suited for my budget and workflow needs... but I made a promise to myself some years ago never to use tape again. Nice dilemma.
 
jimdigriz said:
I'm also torn between NTSC and PAL. I'm currently in a country where I can buy the HVX200 (NTSC) for US$4550. In a few weeks time I'm back home (a PAL country), where I'd have to pay US$5700 for the PAL version. While it would be nice to have PAL for eventual DVD production, I dislike the fact that the PAL version shoots 25p instead of 24p. That might cause problems when shooting for film/theater release in mind. Yes, I read elsewhere on this forum about how European filmmakers shoot 25p for mixed theater and TV release, but I can't help thinking that 25p to 24p conversion would somehow show up on the big screen.

QUOTE]

i'm a bit confused here, the PAL/NTSC issue is only an issue if you're shooting mini dv right? do you really plan to shoot much mini dv with your HVX? I've always thought of the hvx's dv capability as a throw in.
 
brianluce said:
i'm a bit confused here, the PAL/NTSC issue is only an issue if you're shooting mini dv right? do you really plan to shoot much mini dv with your HVX? I've always thought of the hvx's dv capability as a throw in.
Hi Brian, thanks for replying. If there's anyone confused, it's more likely to be me. I was under the impression that the PAL version shot HD 25p instead of HD 24p. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, again.
 
In the HD modes the Pal cameras shoot 25P and the NTSC cameras shoot 24P. In the Tape modes there is not HD but again will do 25P or 24P. In moving from 25P to film, it has been done so many times, it does require that you are using a lab that had done it before, but which one hasn't. I would say buy a camera that you can get serviced in your own country and from someone that will help you get answers for your questions.

Hope this helps,

Jan
 
Hi Jan,

and thanks for chiming in. So, it's like I suspected.

Now, care to confirm another suspicion of mine? I have a feeling PAL and NTSC cameras are identical in hardware, and the only difference is the firmware. Correct or not? If correct, couldn't I buy an NTSC version and then convince the local Panasonic service to update it with PAL firmware?

Also, I know many Panasonic products have worldwide guarantee. How about HVX200?


Thanks.
 
this exchange seems to suggest there's a PAL and NTSC version of HD. My understanding is that there is only HD and it's only in SD that there's a distinction between pal and ntsc. I understand there might be a frame rate difference, but is the diff between 24p and 25p gonna make any real world difference?
 
brianluce said:
this exchange seems to suggest there's a PAL and NTSC version of HD. My understanding is that there is only HD and it's only in SD that there's a distinction between pal and ntsc. I understand there might be a frame rate difference, but is the diff between 24p and 25p gonna make any real world difference?

Good question. I have experimented with 1080 25p footage and trying to find out the best way to make 1080 24p versions.
I have used Cinema Tools, FCP directly (I mean dropping the 25p footage into a 24p timeline), After Efects and Edius.

I turn around and create SD versions of the 24p file to test out as well. I just seem to be getting a little strobing??
I have looked at the nattress plug-ins but I think that is only for SD footage?

Any input will be greatly appreciated!!
 
jimdigriz said:
Correct or not?
Not correct. The crystal that governs the speed of the camera is different; the US version is based on 59.94Hz and the EU version is 50.00Hz.

Also, the DVCPRO-HD codec chip is different in the EU version for 1080.

Firmware can update minor things like menu layout, but it can't change fundamental hardware issues. For example, you could get a firmware update that unlocks a few more frame rates if the frame rates are supported by the hardware already, but you couldn't get a firmware update that adds H.264 recording. That would require a dedicated H.264 chip, which the HVX doesn't have.
 
brianluce said:
this exchange seems to suggest there's a PAL and NTSC version of HD. My understanding is that there is only HD and it's only in SD that there's a distinction between pal and ntsc. I understand there might be a frame rate difference, but is the diff between 24p and 25p gonna make any real world difference?
There is a difference, and it's the frame rate. We were all hoping for one universal standard, and that's not what we got. US HD is based around the same 59.94Hz as NTSC TV (and hence the derivatives of "30p" and "24p"); EU HD is based around the same 50.00Hz as PAL TV (and hence its derivative of 25p).

When I had an HD100 I tried playing its 25p signal on my HDTV, and it didn't work. TV sets are not necessarily universal (although obviously some may be designed for worldwide compatibility, but they certainly don't have to be).

In the move to HD some things were equalized: the spatial dimensions of the frame, and the color space, etc. But the frame rate difference continues to make them incompatible.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not correct. The crystal that governs the speed of the camera is different; the US version is based on 59.94Hz and the EU version is 50.00Hz. Also, the DVCPRO-HD codec chip is different in the EU version for 1080.

Ah, of course. I should've realized that. Thanks.
 
The 50hz vs 60hz framerate is not likely to go away soon as no camp wants to accept the 10hz difference artifacting (I live in 50hz world and love 25p which requires no mucking about or data wastage for delivery).

I've got a question: I hear often there is no substitute for the feel and repeatability of a manual lens... Does that comment hold up against the HVX?:)
 
I am sold on the HVX because of how it handles low light situations. I have done extensive shooting at night and got great results on more than one occasion. The smearing of the JVC is a deal breaker for me. All the other stuff aside, that smear coming off of the halogens is unexceptable and I would have been furious if I'd have bought one and noticed that. I'd like to hear one person say that that is a look that they would want in a shot. No way, not me.
 
Back
Top