HVR-V1E vs. HVX 200 - does it make sense?

[Kholi]

As far as I've seen and toyed with myself, the DVCpro HD footage starts to show a significant amount of noise when you go to really try to tweak an image.

Where-as the G1 footage seems to display a lot more tolerance when being "pushed" so to speak.

That could just be the HVX footage that I have, though.

 

[Flash Beaver]

As far as I've seen and toyed with myself, the DVCpro HD footage starts to show a significant amount of noise when you go to really try to tweak an image.

Where-as the G1 footage seems to display a lot more tolerance when being "pushed" so to speak.

That could just be the HVX footage that I have, though.

From my experience when you "really try to tweak" any image there's going to be grain, noise, etc. Just how much is going to depend on where that footage came from.

When you push material from any source you may see more latitude in one area, but usually at the expense of another area. I have found it to be different for each camera.

For still cameras, its very much like my Nikon D1x with a big fat CCD vs the tiny chip on my Minolta A1. I could get a lot more "tweaking" latitude out of the D1x images.

All of these small chip cameras, including the HVX and the Canon are going to give less tolerance for tweaking than their bigger chip brothers. Its just the nature of the beast, so all of us have to be a little more on our feet and work just a bit harder to get the great images we acquire from these cameras.

Balancing color a little is one thing, but when you are trying to eek out sometihng that isn't really there, a "bigger chip" camera is going to be smoother. Is there a little grain with the HVX200, in my opinion under certain conditions, yes, but there's nastys in HDV footage that I've encountered that I find far more undesirable.

I've done CC and keying with HDV footage and compared to the material from my HVX200 the best analogy I can think off hand is gradations in photoshop 8-bit mode vs 16-bit mode. Maybe this isn't the best anology but for me, the DVCPRO HD footage beats the HDV footage hands down for smoothness and ease of keying.

With a small chip camera, I would prefer a format that doesn't compress my small chip image very much. DVCPRO fits the bill nicely for us.

I am NOT saying, you can't get a good key with HDV material, I'm just saying I've been able to extract a smoother key with greater ease using DVCPRO HD source.

One thing to be sure, the HVX loves light and when you properly setup and make the adjustments you can get a really fine key from your HVX material.

Of course if I had a Varicam, life would be even better. I wouldn't mind having one for this "living scrap book" we're working on. But out here I will take DVCPRO from my HVX over HDV any day of the week.

 

[harddrive]

I really can't see any logical reason why a 25mbs codec with interframe encoding and half the color space would hold up better than a 100mbs one.

This is totally theoretical, but there is one very definate mechanism by which it would hold up better in regards to what is being discussed. With DVCProHD, the entire 100Mbs is split equally on a frame by frame basis, so on a 25fps basis, let's say 4Mb per frame.

With long GOP MPEG, I-frames are obviously allocated far more bits than B,P frames, and if we assume 2 I frames per second, they could (say) be allocated 5Mb each - so 15Mb for the remaining 23 frames each second, an average of about .65Mb/frame.

A fact fundamental to the MPEG spec is that the in-between frames can be seamlessly reconstructed to be of identical quality to the I-frames ----- ASSUMING THE AMOUNT OF MOVEMENT IS NO GREATER THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT. Hence (assuming the latter condition is met) the amount of compression applied/frame will be less for this example for HDV than for DVCProHD.

It doesn't stop there. For a given size of frame, 4:2:2 colour space will mean more samples per frame than 4:2:0 (33% more), so for a fixed no of bits/frame 4:2:2 will require much greater compression.

Of course, it all hinges on the words in capitals above, and I don't want to say too much there. I don't regard HDV as a fantastic codec, though I don't believe it's as bad as many make out. But if the condition is met, the argument above shows how a 25Mbs codec can indeed hold up better than a 100Mbs one for some post work, and why 4:2:2 may actually be a bad choice as opposed to 4:2:0. The main drawback is complexity, not necessarily quality.

 

[DavidBeier]

As far as I've seen and toyed with myself, the DVCpro HD footage starts to show a significant amount of noise when you go to really try to tweak an image.

Where-as the G1 footage seems to display a lot more tolerance when being "pushed" so to speak.

That could just be the HVX footage that I have, though.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "really tweak the image?" Are you speaking more by way of colors or do you mean pushing the luma? The best way to shoot with the HVX200 is the overexpose slightly (remember it actually takes 110% to completely blow out) and then bring it back down in post. Using this method, I've gotten nothing but very clean images that are incredibly flexible. In low light, it's more of a debate. Pretty much everyone agress that the Sony FX1 and Z1 produce the least noise in low light. The difference between the XLH1, HVX200, and HD100 I see constantly debated among people here with the general consensus seeming to be it depends on the situation and the operator as far as noise is concerned.

As far as image flexibility is concerned, everything indicates 4:2:2 intra is going to let you do a lot more than 4:2:0 inter. By the same logic, you'd be able to do even more with 4:4:4 uncompressed.

 

[harddrive]

As far as image flexibility is concerned, everything indicates 4:2:2 intra is going to let you do a lot more than 4:2:0 inter.

Only if you assume a given level of compression within each frame. So 4:2:2 will require a higher bitrate than 4:2:0 to maintain this, all else equal. So for a fixed bitrate, 4:2:2 will mean higher compression per frame than 4:2:0 - which may mean you can do LESS before it starts to show.

By the same logic, you'd be able to do even more with 4:4:4 uncompressed.

Well, you'll be able to do more with 4:4:4 uncompressed - if you have the bandwidth available. But bandwidth is normally constrained, which normally means compromises. Then the choice may be between 4:4:4 and very heavy compression, or 4:2:0 and much lighter compression owing to the fewer samples.

 

[harddrive]

Leaving all the technicalities aside, then when the Z1 was first released the people who would naturally upgrade to it, those coming from PD150/170s generally found the size/weight uncomfortably high for hand holding with that form factor. The same criticism could justifiably be levelled at the HVX200. This is where I believe JVC got it absolutely right - this size/weight is far better suited to shoulder mounting.

The V1 addresses the problem by trying to return to the dimensions and weight of the PD170, using the advantages of CMOS to make the camera smaller and lighter. It's a reasonable thought for a run'n gun camera. But when Panasonic turn to CMOS sensors for their next camera, my vote would be to retain the 1/3" design, but to make it shouldermount and easier to handhold. Solve the ergonomic problem that way, and use the CMOS dividend to up the quality.

 

[liebkid]

True, but you have to admit the dark spot is alot easier to deal with in post than vertical smear.

Agreed but, that's if its one spot only. if this happens with candle lights and car headlights on screen on wide shots then, its a real issue. I just don't think its something that should be happening in the first place period with a camera aiming at this market... specially, when Sony's selling point on their website are two (clearly) fake grabs straight at the sun, one from a competitor's CCD camera showing smear, and the V1 showing no smear (and no black burn in the center either). To me this is pure false advertising, and it goes along with the overall handling of lack of quality I see in every Sony consumer/prosumer product in the past years. My Sony VX1000, sucked. My Sony VX2000, sucked. My Sony FX1, sucked. My Sony VAIO SR-1 Desktop, sucked. My 2 Sony VAIO Laptops, sucked. My two Sony Minidisk walkman sucked. My Sony Qualia-004 SXRD Projector, sucked (and that is, aside from them killing the brand all-together recently and leaving me with a $25.000 machine with no more support or parts for, which REALLY sucks). My newer Sony Ruby SXRD Projector, sucked. My Sony HC3 HD camcorder, sucked. Several other DV and HD consumer cameras, all sucked. The first reviews out on the new Sonys AVCHD cameras also already suck (http://www.digitalcamcordernews.com/posts/2006/10/491-sony-hdr-ux1-review-at-ccinfo)! ALL SONY BATTERIES ON SONY, DELL & APPLE LAPTOPS EXPLODING WORLDWIDE... DO I NEED TO MENTION HOW MUCH THEY SUCK ALSO? So, aside from the V1's footage already looking horrendous, I can go purely on insight here, but, after having spent I-don't-even-want-to-add-up-how-many-thousands on Sony products in the past, the V1 has no chance as a "breakthrough" product as advertised. Of course everyone's mileage varies so, for the many, happy with Sony products, great! And, I might even be wrong... maybe the V1 ends up being a fantastic product, adn if so, great for Sony... that is, as long as I am not the one paying to find out...

Personally I think the canon XH A1 will be more of a threat to the hvx200 sales then the Sony Hvr-V1e.

No deal. Historically I love Canon products personally, but, the Canon H1 and new HXs series (same lenses and CCDs) suffer from the most horrid Chromatic Aberrations I have ever seen on any camera, at any price. Looking at any footage coming from these cameras is simply unbearable. Hey, I had an HX-A1 on pre-order from B&H till a few days ago in the hopes they had fix the CA issues present on the H1 and had made a better image capture block. Not so. The optical quality of current Canon 3CCDs HD cameras is simply unacceptable... a torture to look at... at least to my eyes... I know for some CA issues are not too bothersome, but to me its a complete deal-killer. Grabs from the H1 below...

 

[THoff]

If I had a choice between covering up a dark spot on something that is blow out vs. trying to recreate whatever was underneath vertical smear, I'm not going to think twice.

Don't get me wrong, I love my HVX, and I've not had any vertical smear problems yet. But the behavior I would prefer in response to overstimulation is what the CMOS sensor does.

 

[liebkid]

If I had a choice between covering up a dark spot on something that is blow out vs. trying to recreate whatever was underneath vertical smear, I'm not going to think twice.

Don't get me wrong, I love my HVX, and I've not had any vertical smear problems yet. But the behavior I would prefer in response to overstimulation is what the CMOS sensor does.

I have never had vertical smear issues on my HVX, and, I am totally aware of the camera's shortcomings. I wish for Panasonic to upgrade the HVX with the following:
es
- 3x full capture 1920x1080 CCDs or CMOS
- All the variable frame rate capabilities available on 1080p recording mode
- A better lens

Once such a camera exists, I'm in, and if its not from Panasonic, I don't know from who else it can be. The HVX200 is selling way too well for Panasonic to bother upgrading it... after all, they are in the market to make money, not specifically making us happy. I'd say it will be another couple years before and upgrade comes out. Till then, I'll be happy to wait. So far, my HVX fitted with 2 P2 8Gb cards has proven to be the most flexible and kick-a** reliable video camera I have ever owned with which, I can do just about everything I can think of, while being comfortable with its (many) limitations, flaws and drawbacks. In this world, everyone seems to be blinded by resolution and more resolution. I could care less. I love the film look the HVX provides, despite its imaging device's fairly low native resolution. Its a camera that everyone else is trying to copy with pseudo-added virtues that have no real value in the practicality of prosumer HD video shooting, while, the HVX, just keeps on doing right what it was designed for with great care by the Panasonic folks, that are very well aware of what it takes to make great video, look like great video, in 99% of the shooting scenarios.

 

[Tibby]

liebkid,

Those grabs you got were from dvinfo.net I believe and it wasn't conclusive that those are chromatic abberations.

 

[Kholi]

Its a camera that everyone else is trying to copy with pseudo-added virtues that have no real value in the practicality of prosumer HD video shooting, while, the HVX, just keeps on doing right what it was designed for with great care by the Panasonic folks, that are very well aware of what it takes to make great video, look like great video, in 99% of the shooting scenarios.

I think this statement is more opinion than fact. Especially in the 99% area.

 

[liebkid]

liebkid, those grabs you got were from dvinfo.net I believe and it wasn't conclusive that those are chromatic abberations.

Many people call it many names and state things like its from HDV compression limitations and other sources. However, its CA, no more, no less, and the worse kind, no matter how you look at it and how much people go around discussing the issue. I have had the opportunity of working with a vast range of cameras, including high-end professional HD cameras that, to some extent, also show some degree of CA with certain lenses under particular situations. Even the HVX surely has its CA shortcomings under very contrasty subject matters and fully open aperture settings. But like the Canon's, across the zoom range, at any aperture, and under any lighting scenario, I have never witnessed before. Its called poor optics, and, its very atypical of Canon's reputation of consistently designing great ones. So it goes.

 

[liebkid]

I think this statement is more opinion than fact. Especially in the 99% area.

I take in your opinion. True... beauty, funtionality... whatever works for someone, is really in the eyes of its beholder. I guess its all a matter of something working for you or not. The HVX works for for me most of the time (call it 99% of it or less), just as many Sony and Canon products work for others. Whatever works, is, the better product for its user . Limitations and drawbacks?... every product has them and always will of course...

 

[DavidBeier]

- 3x full capture 1920x1080 CCDs or CMOS
- All the variable frame rate capabilities available on 1080p recording mode
- A better lens

Unless they are using 1/2 chips then I'd rather NOT have 1920x1080. The resolution war is going a bit crazy at this point. I realize if I was trying to count leaves of grass or hair on a guys face I'd care a lot more but for most of what I do, I don't think I need full rez 1080p chips. What I want is some more lattitude which is lost the more pixels you onto a chip. Also, considering it's gonna be subsampled at 1280x1080, I'd be perfectly happy with an imager of that size. A 1280x1080 1/2 CMOS that would take advantage of the theoretically lattidue benafits of the CMOS and give us a full 10 stops or so. That would be so nice. As for variable frame rates in 1080p, I'm not sure how that can really be accomplished untill there is a new recording standard that somehow manages a 1080 60p signal. Right now you have to encode to 108060i so, theoretically, the most slow mo you could get wold be to shoot 30p and record 24p. It'll be a bit slower but not a huge amount and not really enough to justify such a feature. Don't get me wrong, I love the variable framerates but 1080 just doesn't seem to be there at this point (I won't make another rant on how much I wish we'd never bothered with 1080 untill we were ready to do progressive). As for the lense, I think the CA problems are really overblown. I've seen it a few times but only when people have pointed it out to me and are really looking. Check out the post on the XLH1 boards. There's CA in Episode III shot on a F950.

 

[liebkid]

Unless they are using 1/2 chips then I'd rather NOT have 1920x1080.

I agree. My point has always been the chips need to be bigger, that simple.

The resolution war is going a bit crazy at this point. I realize if I was trying to count leaves of grass or hair on a guys face I'd care a lot more but for most of what I do, I don't think I need full rez 1080p chips. What I want is some more lattitude which is lost the more pixels you onto a chip.

I agree also. Like I stated earlier I am much more interested in better dynamic range, lower noise and better lattitude also than resolution. BUT, owning a 1920x1080 single CMOS "cheapo" Canon HV10, I can tell you what downsampling can do fot you: it makes video look stunningly clearer, even in SD recording.

As for variable frame rates in 1080p, I'm not sure how that can really be accomplished untill there is a new recording standard that somehow manages a 1080 60p signal.

Right and I agree with you yet again. Remember I am giving it a solid two years of wait. God forbid in two years, a 1080 60p signal is somehow still not standard.

There's CA in Episode III shot on a F950.

Right, but that makes no sense because with the 100 Million budget they had, correcting CA digitally would have been a walk in the park. I mean... really... quite ridiculous.

 

[Flash Beaver]

Unless they are using 1/2 chips then I'd rather NOT have 1920x1080.

No doubt! I definitely would want bigger chips, be it CMOS or CCD rather than more pixels on a smaller chip. I mean just, look at digital still cameras with 10 megapixels crammed onto a tiny chip. Awful noise over anything over ISO100/200, and then processing of that noise just to render a half-crap/half-decent picture.

If they just made an HVX with a bigger chip to give even cleaner 720p I'd take that in a second over scratchy overprocessed 1080p with a smaller chip.

 

[John Froton]

My Sony VX1000, sucked. My Sony VX2000, sucked. My Sony FX1, sucked. My Sony VAIO SR-1 Desktop, sucked. My 2 Sony VAIO Laptops, sucked. My two Sony Minidisk walkman sucked. My Sony Qualia-004 SXRD Projector, sucked (and that is, aside from them killing the brand all-together recently and leaving me with a $25.000 machine with no more support or parts for, which REALLY sucks). My newer Sony Ruby SXRD Projector, sucked. My Sony HC3 HD camcorder, sucked. Several other DV and HD consumer cameras, all sucked.

You sure forked over a lot of money to Sony on stuff you didn't like

However, I do tend to agree with you on most of the HVX's merits. It is going to be tough to decide between the HVX, the V1 and the A1. If I had an unlimited budget, I think I would choose the HVX for it's variable framerates and comprehensive image adjustment capabilities (which include CC'ing in 4:2:2 color space). The real draw of the other two cameras is the less expensive cost of aquisition and the possibility of a real dramatic increase in resolution. Douglas Spotted Eagle says unofficially that the V1 shows 800 lines of resolution on the charts. That's quite a bit more than the HVX's 550 or so from Adam Wilts camera comparison.

 

[liebkid]

No doubt! I definitely would want bigger chips, be it CMOS or CCD rather than more pixels on a smaller chip. I mean just, look at digital still cameras with 10 megapixels crammed onto a tiny chip. Awful noise over anything over ISO100/200, and then processing of that noise just to render a half-crap/half-decent picture.

If they just made an HVX with a bigger chip to give even cleaner 720p I'd take that in a second over scratchy overprocessed 1080p with a smaller chip.

Well said Travis, my thoughts precisely. That is exactly what Canon did with the 1920x1080 full res imager on the HV10 that is a 1/2.7” CMOS chip. Now, use three of those instead of just one, improve their low light sensitivity, and there you have it.

 

[DavidBeier]

I agree also. Like I stated earlier I am much more interested in better dynamic range, lower noise and better lattitude also than resolution. BUT, owning a 1920x1080 single CMOS "cheapo" Canon HV10, I can tell you what downsampling can do fot you: it makes video look stunningly clearer, even in SD recording.

I'm guessing though that such a thing simply is affordible (hopefully will be down the road). I don't know how the prices of CCDs and CMOS compares but my guess is that if 3 1/2 CMOS chips were affordible, they would have puth them in the XLH1 since it already costs a pretty penny more than the other cameras. I'd also be curious to see what kind of results people are getting with the HV10. I saw the thing and frankly I'm scratching my head why such a small consumer device would merrit a bigger chip than any of their pro gear. I'm also a bit perplexed to the lense sice. It looks to have some mighty short lenses on that thing (like any consumer camera) which wouldn't work well with a bigger imager like a 1/2. Just odd.

Right and I agree with you yet again. Remember I am giving it a solid two years of wait. God forbid in two years, a 1080 60p signal is somehow still not standard.

Man that would be nice but sadly I don't think that will be the case. Too many people have 1080i TVs. Too many people are still investing in interlaced as well. Someone mentioned Adam Wilt's article. The XLH1, the Z1, the FX1, and soon the G1 and A1 all use interlaced chips. People talk about the HVX200's poor showing in the tests then forget that in the same article he noted that the interlaced cameras all gave away their vertical resolution advantage when put in progressive mode which produced a far softer image. Honestly, if you wanted to go by those tests then really the HD100 would be by far the resolution winner for progressive. But many people who like the XLH1, Z1, FX1, and many who will buy the G1 and A1 don't like to think about that and like to shoot 60i to get the most resolution. I don't think this will go away in just two years.

Keep in mind I'm 100% on your side. I'd love all the changes you are proposing. I honestly wish we'd just stuck with 720p untill 1080 60p was ready rather than jumping the gun with this interlaced crap. Unfortunatly, we now have enough people behind 1080i that it looks like it won't go away any time soon. And trust me, I'll be jumping for joy if I have to eat my words in 24 months.

 

[liebkid]

Let's be hopeful that in two years things have changed... the Red camera will be less than 10 grand, there are already a few 4K displays and consumer cameras out there and that top-notch 1080p prosumer cameras are all our dreams come true as far as features and performance goes... hmmm... OK... I'll settle for 20% of this ideal scenario Hey, at least dreming is (still) free