HVX with HDV tape format instead of DV...
- Thread starter Milkbone
- Start date
The existing DVCProHD tapes are larger than MiniDV tapes, so DVCProHD tapes won't fit without making the camera larger. So then you are looking at a new tape cartridge -- why would they want to come up with yet another tape format at this stage in the game? Everybody is finally moving away from tape.Abaddon said:
And in addition to needing a tape drive in the camera, you'd likely also want a tape deck back home so you can avoid putting wear on the camera, that's yet another expense.
Both technically and economically, this makes no sense.
Milkbone
Member
Yes, a mini-dv sized tape. So you wouldn't get much footage on each tape, but at least it would be an option. There is a tape converter which allows them to be played in the 1200 or 1400.
But getting back to my original question.. which was about HDV, not DVCPRO HD on a minidv tape. I guess here was the point of my question... and it relates more to the decision between the Panasonic and the JVC:
Is the HDV compession so bad that you would never use it? In other words, if it had been an option on the HVX. It's a theoretical question, not a feature request. Here's why.. In my eyes, the reason to get the panasonic is a) 24Pn, and b) the DVCPRO HD compression which is 4:2:2, c) vari frame rates. The reason not to get it is a) the P2 cards which don't hold enough today and are too expensive for me (although the new firestore option would help - if it really can record 24pn and the other frame rates that it couldn't do before.) and b) the image sensor should have been 720 lines.
The reasons for the JVC are a) image sensor matching the HDV format resolution, b) tape, which I'm still a fan of, c) 24p, d) I think a good included lens. Reason's not to get it are a) HDV compression, which is long gop and 4:2:0 colorspace.
So the question was really.. is HDV so bad?
And honestly all the footage downloads are useless cause they're recompressed mpg movies and the stills are jpg, so they're not fair comparisons. To really compare I'd have to watch source footage on my HD projection system, or maybe on my HD cinema display.
Here's what I'm gonna do. I have some decent varicam footage in the source DVCPRO HD format (quicktime). I'll take it and recompress it HDV. Then I'll have a quicktime of the same footage, and we can compare. The test is to see how much the HDV wrapper, compression, etc degrades the image. Any thoughts? Has this already been done?
But getting back to my original question.. which was about HDV, not DVCPRO HD on a minidv tape. I guess here was the point of my question... and it relates more to the decision between the Panasonic and the JVC:
Is the HDV compession so bad that you would never use it? In other words, if it had been an option on the HVX. It's a theoretical question, not a feature request. Here's why.. In my eyes, the reason to get the panasonic is a) 24Pn, and b) the DVCPRO HD compression which is 4:2:2, c) vari frame rates. The reason not to get it is a) the P2 cards which don't hold enough today and are too expensive for me (although the new firestore option would help - if it really can record 24pn and the other frame rates that it couldn't do before.) and b) the image sensor should have been 720 lines.
The reasons for the JVC are a) image sensor matching the HDV format resolution, b) tape, which I'm still a fan of, c) 24p, d) I think a good included lens. Reason's not to get it are a) HDV compression, which is long gop and 4:2:0 colorspace.
So the question was really.. is HDV so bad?
And honestly all the footage downloads are useless cause they're recompressed mpg movies and the stills are jpg, so they're not fair comparisons. To really compare I'd have to watch source footage on my HD projection system, or maybe on my HD cinema display.
Here's what I'm gonna do. I have some decent varicam footage in the source DVCPRO HD format (quicktime). I'll take it and recompress it HDV. Then I'll have a quicktime of the same footage, and we can compare. The test is to see how much the HDV wrapper, compression, etc degrades the image. Any thoughts? Has this already been done?
DavidBeier
Veteran
Milkbone said:
Ok, lets try to put the resolution thing to rest once and for all shall we? First off, there are only two shoot outs I know of. In the Texas shootout, which I believe is the one you are refering too, the writers themselves said the HVX200 was handicapped because they upped the detail on the Z1/FX1 but neglected to do it on the HVX200. They mention this more than once. In the other test I know of, the "affordible HD cams shootout" the HVX200 and Z1 were ranked about the same in resolution.
Now, look at some real world rests. Barry did some side by side comparisons to show that the HVX200 had about the same amount of detail that the JVCHD100 did when the edge enhacment was the same. Similar tests have been done with the FX1/Z1 and once again they are the same (with the HVX200 and HD100 having MORE resolution when you set the FX1 to it's fake 24p). The Canon does resolve more detail than the others but the HVX200, HD100, and Z1/FX1 are all about the same. I realize I quote Barry a lot but considering he does this for a living and spends more time with this crap than I ever could, I'll take his word for it. Pappas Arts, another user here, actually bought each camera and spent weeks testing each. He decided to chose the HVX200 to keep at the end of it and indicated that the resolution was comparible to the HD100 and Z1.
As for the CCD, I think you worry a lot more about pixel numbers than you should. First of all, the extra resolution is done with pixel shifting not interpolation, big difference. Interpolation costs you resolution (as the FX1 demonstrates). When people were initally complaining about the HVX200's CCD, Barry made an interesting thread. How tookresolution charts from an adromedia (a DVX100 altered to pixel shift) and put them side by side with that of an HD100. Interestingly enough, the DVX100 (with its with 770x492 CCD) pixel shift actually showed more resolution than the HD100 with its native 1280x720 chips. On the same thread you'll see side by side comparison with the HVX200 and you'll notice the two cameras are comparible (HD100 with more horizontal resolution, HVX200 with more vertical).
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=45853&highlight=pixel
A big part of the problem is that you have to realize that detail and resolution are a hell of a lot more than just the CCD. To start with, all these cameras actually have the same size CCD of 1/3. The image focused through the lense goes to the same size imager. Some just chose to get more resolution by putting more lines of pixels into the CCD (costing one lattitude and sensativity) while the HVX200 does it through pixel shift. There's also the matter of the lense and the recording medium. Resolution charts only really apply in black and white when talking about these cameras. The HVX200 has twice the color resolution of the other and much of the fine details can come from that color. Dig up Barry's HVX vs HD100 comparison. You'll see more detail in a lot of spots on the HVX200 footage because of less color compression. There's so much more than just the CCD. I've heard experts say that they'd actually still want to go with the SD Panasonic SDX900 and up-rez it over the HVX200 or the other under 10k cameras. Why? Because despite having a lower rez CCD on it, it has a better lense, records DVCPro for less color compression and has a 2/3 CCD (a bigger one). Read some of BobDiaz's stuff later in the thread I linked. He says that despite the different pixels all of the cameras have pretty similar amounts of resolving power because they are all using 1/3 CCDs. It's amazing what we get out of them but we can only push so far.
Pansonic chose to use pixel shifting since it meant the HVX200 would have more lattitude and sensitivity instead of trying to cram more pixels onto a 1/3 chips than it was made to handle. I kind of wish they'd gone with a 1/2 chip but I guess that may have cost too much.
Last edited:
DavidBeier
Veteran
Abaddon said:
Abaddon, I'm still waiting to see a post of your which doesn't complain about P2s and proudly proclaim that you won't by the camera because of them. Am I just not looking at the right threads or what? Why do you hand out on the HVX200 board if this inspires so much frustration on your part.
Not to mention this is a totally pointless statement. DVCProHD tapes are far larger than miniDV. You can't just wave a magic wand and "make a small tape to fit." It's not that easy DVCPro holds 100mbs while miniDV/HDV only holds 25mbs. More space needs bigger tapes.
Milkbone
Member
David.. thanks for the explanation. I know there's a lot more to it than the image sensor. For one, the lens makes a huge difference. I saw AMAZING stuff at NAB from the Cannon when using a $20,000 lens. It was very impresive... but I just don't like that camera and would never buy it.
I had never considered the HVX because of the workflow (P2 cards) - until a week or two ago when a buddy told me that he had been playing with it. So that's what brought me here in the first place and got me thinking about this camera.
I hope I have not frustrated you with these questions.. but I don't go into a 5 or 6k purchase lightly. I was on the sony hdv info site reading and posting and then was first on the block to buy a FX1. Got it right when it came out and there was no way to edit the footage yet. And despite whether you hate it or not, I've been happy with it overall.
It's been said before, it's more about what you do with the camera. Filmmakers make films. My latest masterpieces have been about my 1 yr old daughter. And I'll put this out there also: it kind of sucks to get the "only good enough for wedding videos" comments... (which I don't do) I do professional work. My camera has paid for itself many times over. I've even shot pick ups and cut them into prime time network TV shows.
But as I said.. it's time to move on up upgrade. I just want to make sure that I'm really upgrading.. and not making a lateral move.
I had never considered the HVX because of the workflow (P2 cards) - until a week or two ago when a buddy told me that he had been playing with it. So that's what brought me here in the first place and got me thinking about this camera.
I hope I have not frustrated you with these questions.. but I don't go into a 5 or 6k purchase lightly. I was on the sony hdv info site reading and posting and then was first on the block to buy a FX1. Got it right when it came out and there was no way to edit the footage yet. And despite whether you hate it or not, I've been happy with it overall.
It's been said before, it's more about what you do with the camera. Filmmakers make films. My latest masterpieces have been about my 1 yr old daughter. And I'll put this out there also: it kind of sucks to get the "only good enough for wedding videos" comments... (which I don't do) I do professional work. My camera has paid for itself many times over. I've even shot pick ups and cut them into prime time network TV shows.
But as I said.. it's time to move on up upgrade. I just want to make sure that I'm really upgrading.. and not making a lateral move.
DavidBeier
Veteran
^
I fully understand the need to be careful when buying a camera and I urge you to do some searches on these boards. As I said, I think that with an FS100, the P2 thing shouldn't be an issue since you'll get all the record time you could want for about the same price as an HDV deck would cost (and trust me, you really need some sort of deck). And yes, it's more the filmmaker than the camera. The fact is though that the FX1 and Z1 are simply the weakest in pretty much everything but low light and just not suited for narrative film making if that's what you want. Very sharp video-looking stuff? Great. Films or commercials? Not so good.
Just figure out what you'd like. If you want the most resolution and interchangible lenses with HDV compression, then go with the Canon XLH1 (be warned it's 9k.
If you want variable frame rates, twice the color space, higher lattitude, true progressive CCDs, tapeless workflow, and the classic "film look," go with the HVX200. P2 is expensive but the FS100 is a great solution and I know so many people who use Firestores on the JVCs and Canon's as well (once again because it is often cheaper than getting a deck and tapeless workflow is a dream).
If you want interchangible lenses, true progressive CCDs, and cheap HDV tapes then go with the JVC HD100. Though be wary that it only does 720p and, though it uses HDV like the Canon XLH1, the codec isn't as good with more compressed motion and uglier colors (to my eye).
If you want great low light performance, go with the FX1/Z1. Though be aware that it's 24 frame mode is worthless (huge resolution loss, much more than the Canon's) and the HDV codec is just as weak as JVCs.
That's a very brief summing up of the basic differences and I'm sure many will dispute me so you really should look at some of mroe in depth analysis.
I fully understand the need to be careful when buying a camera and I urge you to do some searches on these boards. As I said, I think that with an FS100, the P2 thing shouldn't be an issue since you'll get all the record time you could want for about the same price as an HDV deck would cost (and trust me, you really need some sort of deck). And yes, it's more the filmmaker than the camera. The fact is though that the FX1 and Z1 are simply the weakest in pretty much everything but low light and just not suited for narrative film making if that's what you want. Very sharp video-looking stuff? Great. Films or commercials? Not so good.
Just figure out what you'd like. If you want the most resolution and interchangible lenses with HDV compression, then go with the Canon XLH1 (be warned it's 9k.
If you want variable frame rates, twice the color space, higher lattitude, true progressive CCDs, tapeless workflow, and the classic "film look," go with the HVX200. P2 is expensive but the FS100 is a great solution and I know so many people who use Firestores on the JVCs and Canon's as well (once again because it is often cheaper than getting a deck and tapeless workflow is a dream).
If you want interchangible lenses, true progressive CCDs, and cheap HDV tapes then go with the JVC HD100. Though be wary that it only does 720p and, though it uses HDV like the Canon XLH1, the codec isn't as good with more compressed motion and uglier colors (to my eye).
If you want great low light performance, go with the FX1/Z1. Though be aware that it's 24 frame mode is worthless (huge resolution loss, much more than the Canon's) and the HDV codec is just as weak as JVCs.
That's a very brief summing up of the basic differences and I'm sure many will dispute me so you really should look at some of mroe in depth analysis.
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
I would love an HDV option as a backup and to shoot event work. As nice as tapeless can be, it sure feels good knowing I have a tape to go back to if something goes wrong.
Milkbone
Member
David.. nice, level-headed reply. I appreciate it.
Yes.. I will agree that the FX1 is not good in low light. I did shoot a wedding.. (oh wait, I said that I don't do that... well.. when you got a camera and your wife's best friend gets married.. you all the sudden become a wedding videographer.) Anyway, AS A FAVOR.. I was shooting a wedding and used the FX1 in DV mode and my 2nd camera was a PD150. The PD150 looked WAY better in low light. But during magic hour, the FX1 did look good as well.
I had a sample FX1 clip I was going to post but I can't get to it until this weekend. Same with the DVCPRO HD vs HDV compression test I mentioned. It's gonna be a busy weekend... but I'll try to copy the footage to my powerbook and do it at work next week.
The camera I have my eye on today is that new Sony V1U, which sound promising. But I suspect that you still won't like it because it will probably have the same low light problems and the same sony 'sharp-video look.' But only time will tell. Maybe it will have enough internal controls to make it less videoy. The sample footage online is crap and don't bother even looking at it. Sorry to keep slamming VAAST on every forum, but it was just very disappointing to me, and it's my rant of the day. But please don't judge the camera on that footage.
To see my posts on sony hdv info about that camera (and workflow) go here:
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=6606&page=7&pp=10
Yes.. I will agree that the FX1 is not good in low light. I did shoot a wedding.. (oh wait, I said that I don't do that... well.. when you got a camera and your wife's best friend gets married.. you all the sudden become a wedding videographer.) Anyway, AS A FAVOR.. I was shooting a wedding and used the FX1 in DV mode and my 2nd camera was a PD150. The PD150 looked WAY better in low light. But during magic hour, the FX1 did look good as well.
I had a sample FX1 clip I was going to post but I can't get to it until this weekend. Same with the DVCPRO HD vs HDV compression test I mentioned. It's gonna be a busy weekend... but I'll try to copy the footage to my powerbook and do it at work next week.
The camera I have my eye on today is that new Sony V1U, which sound promising. But I suspect that you still won't like it because it will probably have the same low light problems and the same sony 'sharp-video look.' But only time will tell. Maybe it will have enough internal controls to make it less videoy. The sample footage online is crap and don't bother even looking at it. Sorry to keep slamming VAAST on every forum, but it was just very disappointing to me, and it's my rant of the day. But please don't judge the camera on that footage.
To see my posts on sony hdv info about that camera (and workflow) go here:
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=6606&page=7&pp=10
DavidBeier
Veteran
I'm more excited about the Canon A1 than the V1, since it'll use the XLH1's higher rez CCD and better HDV codec. Though, untill we see some real tests, we won't know how either perform.
One thing of interest may be this article:
http://www.chrisoben.com/discovering...00_dcs_web.pdf
They were trying to find a small HD camera to mix with the CineAlta which I assume you know has been the big bad boy of HD cameras (Star Wars Prequels, Sin City, Sky Captain, ect.) untill very recently (the Panavision Genisis has replaced it as the standard). What's very interesting here is that they make no mention of any problems with resolution on the HVX200's part (claim it looks comparible to the F900 at +2 detail) and that they talk about not using the Sony cameras because of the HDV motion compression.
Motion is really important since, if you build up motion artifiacts when recording, you can't get rid of them in post and are very noticible. The biggest problem with HDV is that it's actually much worse than standard DV when it comes to motion. The Sony and JVC both are quite guilty of this from what I've heard and seen. Canon's codec seems to be much better but the XLH1 costs 9k. I don't know if the V1 uses a new codec (would be a very smart move on Sony's part). What really is the best thing to do is look at the best footage you can find from all the cameras (a gifted operator and the right settings make all the difference in the world) and deciding which look you like the most. I hate Sony's look but you may not. This unfortunatly means that, if you have your eye on a unreleased camera like the A1 or V1, you'll need to wait untill good operators mess around with them and show us what they can do.
One thing of interest may be this article:
http://www.chrisoben.com/discovering...00_dcs_web.pdf
They were trying to find a small HD camera to mix with the CineAlta which I assume you know has been the big bad boy of HD cameras (Star Wars Prequels, Sin City, Sky Captain, ect.) untill very recently (the Panavision Genisis has replaced it as the standard). What's very interesting here is that they make no mention of any problems with resolution on the HVX200's part (claim it looks comparible to the F900 at +2 detail) and that they talk about not using the Sony cameras because of the HDV motion compression.
Motion is really important since, if you build up motion artifiacts when recording, you can't get rid of them in post and are very noticible. The biggest problem with HDV is that it's actually much worse than standard DV when it comes to motion. The Sony and JVC both are quite guilty of this from what I've heard and seen. Canon's codec seems to be much better but the XLH1 costs 9k. I don't know if the V1 uses a new codec (would be a very smart move on Sony's part). What really is the best thing to do is look at the best footage you can find from all the cameras (a gifted operator and the right settings make all the difference in the world) and deciding which look you like the most. I hate Sony's look but you may not. This unfortunatly means that, if you have your eye on a unreleased camera like the A1 or V1, you'll need to wait untill good operators mess around with them and show us what they can do.