Record uncompressed 14-bit (4:4:4) on your HVX200

Hello,

So, don't you think that Hydra is an option for handheld/stabillizer work, when done as described?
Click to expand...

Yes, it should work just fine, as long as the computer host side is running up the speed it needs to, like you describe. And with Hydra, the long cable lengths should allow for the same situation that commonly exists with film cameras on steadicams, just have somebody behind you taking care of the cable. If you have the entire setup on you or on the camera, that works too.

When will we know the pricing?
Click to expand...

We should have pricing information within 1-2 months after NAB once we're in Beta. Again, our whole goal is to make this as affordable as possible, we're not interested in having another 'affordable' system that costs as much as a new sports car. :) The idea is that if you can afford the host camera, then you probably can afford this system.

Lastly, How will the Hydra compare to the SI-2k? Obviously the PL mount is an advantage, but I love the motion characteristics of Panasonic's 24p
Click to expand...

Technically, the HVX has a global shutter(CCD). I'm not sure if the SI camera has an external physical shutter but I do know the Altasens sensor is a rolling shutter CMOS sensor, so that may be what you see in the motion characteristics of the DVX/HVX. I think Hydra is aimed at a different price range and market, given the pricing I think somebody looking to use an SI camera is probably also looking at the RED ONE.

Cheers,
Juan@reel-stream.com
 
How are they going to get 2K out of chips that are 960px wide? More processing.

Is this for us April Fools?

hd
 
The same way you can get more power out of a car if you put 3 engines in it. :)

And for a real April Fool's joke check out Google today.
 
Besides, this thread is older than April 1st. =)

So we're waiting even longer than NAB for pricing huh?
 
Juan, thanks for the info on the shutters.

That was a BIG sticking point with me! HDCAM cameras seem to have severely excessive blur on motion. To make it makes it have a very artificial look. Panasonic just has a more filmic look to me, personally, and motion, I think is a big part of it.

I've seen three CineAlta movies, and only one of them had a decent motion blur (sin city... just awesome graphics in all ways)! Remember attack of the clones? That werid effect when HUMANS walked past the lens. Just a very odd motion characteristic.

I just don't see that in Panasonic material. So now I'm thinking a little different about RED. No matter how good the resolution/color/lense/etc is, motion is a VERY big deal to me (I guess everyone has their cinema-pet peeves), and now I know there'll be a solution in the future for stepping up quality without sacrificing the motion I've come to love and adore.

Juan, you're making a lot of people very happy.
 
Also, perhaps some of the F900 movies you've seen were shot with "shutter off" (specifically "Ali" or "Collateral"). That's become an artistic choice for some reason, but it's not representative of what the camera can do when using a film-emulation shutter of around 1/48th. With the shutter "off" you're getting 1/24 exposure, which does make for significantly more blur. And the F900/HDCAM cameras are all CCD, not CMOS.

So it may be a case that the F900 is capable of delivering the look you expect, but for some reason the cinematographer chose not to employ that capability and instead chose a blurrier look on purpose.
 
Can someone explain this to me, because I'm confused and I don't really have the answer.

The director/DP I was working with this weekend bought the new Sony HDR-FX7 and is praising it as the 2nd coming of Jesus and talking about how it wipes the floor with the HVX200 and such. He said I should bring along my camera for "backup" which I faithfully did, as I'm getting paid either way.

However, in order to get around the artifacts of HDV, he decided to shoot from the HDMI out of the camera into a macpro and then capture using a dvcpro hd codec that would give him uncompressed and full colour. When I mentioned the Hydra, he said that the system he has now is exactly the same and he's taking the full, uncompressed image right from the camera using HDMI.

Now, from what I understand, it IS compressed going out over HDMI because the signal from each of the chips has already been mixed, and picture "settings" have already been applied to it, then there's a second stage of compression writing the image to tape, but it's still not "full, uncompressed HD" like he was claiming.

Am I correct? His answer was basically that the chip on the Sony is so much better than the HVX that even coming over HDMI, it's a better image, better quality and more colour space, it would beat the Hydra's specs. This seems pretty blatantly wrong, but can someone explain the difference between these two stages of compression?

At the end of the day it's his gig and he wants to use his camera, I just hate seeing my own equipment bashed with incorrect information. It seems especially incorrect considering my camera has HDMI out and it would be pretty dumb to get Hydra installed just to mimic HDMI.

Anyways, can someone explain more about 2k resolution and what that means? And what about HDMI out, is that 4:4:4 colour as well, or is that only from the Hydra?
 
arrestthisman: I've noticed the same blur in the Star Wars movie, although afaik the Sony CineAlta cameras use CCD's so it must've been some shutter setting they were using.

mrWr0ng: I'm just going on my subjective opinion here, but your friend sounds like somebody who has a new toy and is really excited with it, we've all been there :)

I haven't tested the FX7 directly but I have tested the Sony V1 (24P 1080) over HDMI. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, not all uncompressed is created equal. There is big difference between uncompressed formatted video and uncompressed raw video direct from the sensors. As you correctly point out, the video over the HDMI port has already been processed by all the internal circuitry, framed to a standard into 8-bit color space. You normally loose dynamic range and color information when video is converted back and forth between color spaces, etc, etc. Besides, the FX7 is a 1/4" sensor camera, if it is anything like the V1 i tested the dynamic range is not bad for a consumer camera but not up to par with the HVX or Andromeda+DVX. At least in the V1, the sensor chips are at 45degrees and they are implementing a pixel-shift very similar to the HVX but with the pixel elements laid out as 'diamonds'. A cool looking idea, but having closely examined the results i'm not really sure what the big advantage of this approach is. Artifacts galore.

Cheers,
Juan
 
mrWr0ng said:
The director/DP I was working with this weekend bought the new Sony HDR-FX7 and is praising it as the 2nd coming of Jesus and talking about how it wipes the floor with the HVX200 and such.
Click to expand...
Did anyone point out that it's an interlaced-only camera? Odd, odd choice for a director/DP.

However, in order to get around the artifacts of HDV, he decided to shoot from the HDMI out of the camera into a macpro and then capture using a dvcpro hd codec that would give him uncompressed and full colour.
Click to expand...
DVCPRO-HD isn't uncompressed, he was compressing it when recording it.

When I mentioned the Hydra, he said that the system he has now is exactly the same and he's taking the full, uncompressed image right from the camera using HDMI.
Click to expand...
There is practically nothing similar. Yes he's getting uncompressed, but he's getting it after it's been quantized to 8 bits and with 4:2:2 color sampling. The Hydra is going to provide 14 bits, more dynamic range, variable frame rates, and 2K resolution. Not at all the same, although your friend certainly was improving his video quality by sidestepping HDV and recording direct.

Now, from what I understand, it IS compressed going out over HDMI because the signal from each of the chips has already been mixed, and picture "settings" have already been applied to it, then there's a second stage of compression writing the image to tape, but it's still not "full, uncompressed HD" like he was claiming.
Click to expand...
The HD coming out of the HDMI system is uncompressed in that it hasn't gone through a video codec, but it has been through some processing and it has been stripped down to 8 bits (embedded within a 10-bit signal) and it has been chroma decimated from 4:4:4 down to 4:2:2.

His answer was basically that the chip on the Sony is so much better than the HVX that even coming over HDMI, it's a better image, better quality and more colour space, it would beat the Hydra's specs.
Click to expand...
Debating statistics and numbers is a popular and, ultimately, pointless exercise. Let's see some results from the HVX/Hydra, and not worry about whose camera's big brother can beat up whoever else's camera's big brother until the results can be seen and demonstrated.

The key and only point in this whole discussion is: an FX7? No 24P? The argument was over right then and there. :)
 
Last edited:
Right on, I'm glad I got all the major information.

Can someone give me some quick knowledge on 2k resolution and what it is exactly?

I think the big problem is that he was very sure that he was right about the uncompressed HDMI being 4:4:4 (even though the DVCPRO codec WAS compressing it as well, but it would still be better than 4:2:0) and even when I explained there was a stage of compression between the chips and the HDMI, his response was basically "nuh uh". So I gave it up because it's his show anyways.

It looks like the argument between cameras is ultimately going to come down to chip size, which is an unfortunate side for the HVX, but when I was shopping, I was looking at the whole package - perhaps a smaller chip size, but better low-light performance that many competitors, but the real beauty was at the P2 end, with the higher-bandwidth codec and variable frame rates. I wanted a camera that would perform beautifully under field conditions, which was why I went with it over bigger-chip HDV cameras which could possibly beat the HVX in head-to-head HDMI conditions, but lose out in the field with their heavy-compression codecs. I went with something that will perform under any conditions without that kind of hit. IMO, the camera is about the overall package, not one particular component. Every manufacturer made compromises this generation, theyr'e just in different places.
 
Bigger chip HDV cameras, huh? The FX7 has a smaller chip.
The FX7 has 3 x 1/4" cmos sensor, that will only shoot 1080/60i or 480/60i.
The HVX has 3 x 1/3" ccd sensor, that will shoot 1080/60i, 1080/24p, 1080/24pA, 1080/30p, 720/60p, 720/24p, 720/30p, 720/24PN, 720/30PN, 480/60i, 480/24p, 480/24pa & 480/30p.
Your director is very sadly mis-informed in his arguments, but like you said "it's his show".
 
researching the two chip styles (CMOS v CCD) it looks like the size issue becomes an apples v oranges thing, although he mentioned the camera was not a low-light performer and we pretty much had to over-light every scene in order to get it to appear well on the FX7. I pulled out my HVX "backup" camera and did some handheld for my own edification and it was blown out on shots, so I had to stop down. Meanwhile we're blowing circuits trying to pull enough power to light for the other camera.
 
Wow...i have been dreaming of the Adromedaized HVX for a while now...all of a sudden its here, and WAY better than I imagined! sweet!!! This really is the middle of the road set up, and the Mini-RED alot of people have been looking for. This is exciting indeed; so many choices now a days its almost overwhelming...
 
Now if someone could get a Fire store, or cioneporter to ingest the data straight...... (jk)
 
mrwr0ng, I'm sorry to tell you this but your friend is a know it all a**hole/moron.

I'm sure you figured that out a while ago. We all know people like that, and this may sound terrible, but there's no better feeling than coming back with the facts and sniping them off their high horse.

I'm not religious and I don't turn cheeks. If I acted like that to someone I hope they'd have the decency to slap me in the face or shoot me.

That said, Barry's right (when isn't he?), the proof is always in the pudding. But seriously quarter inch CCDs? That's what they put in apple isight... don't get me wrong for webcam it's awesome, but "WAY BETTER THAN YOUR CRAPPY HVX200..." WOW that just makes me laugh.

I'm really not fond of HDV. In the hands of God-like cinematographers it can look great... cough, alphadogs. For most people in pro settings, long GOP editing, 27-35:1 compression... no thank you. For some people it's great though, the low data rate makes it great for quick and dirty editing. For paying videography gigs it's fantastic. Digital Cinema... maybe.

But yeah, to sum it up: Hydra will be awesome, and your friend is an #%%^^
 
Craig Ryan said:
Wow...i have been dreaming of the Adromedaized HVX for a while now...all of a sudden its here, and WAY better than I imagined! sweet!!! This really is the middle of the road set up, and the Mini-RED a lot of people have been looking for. This is exciting indeed; so many choices now a days its almost overwhelming...
Click to expand...

I'm excited, too.

I remember a year ago or so, Barry was talking about Juan someday "Andromedizing" the HVX. I believe he said: "I can't wait! I can't wait!"

Anything that makes Barry Green sound like a kid waiting for Christmas has to be pretty danged cool.

I hope to see a prototype at NAB. IF not, maybe Juan can answer more questions from us 'nice' girls and boys waiting for our Christmas Hydra.


Ciao
 
mrWr0ng said:
The director/DP I was working with this weekend bought the new Sony HDR-FX7 and is praising it as the 2nd coming of Jesus and talking about how it wipes the floor with the HVX200 and such. He said I should bring along my camera for "backup" which I faithfully did, as I'm getting paid either way.
Click to expand...

Is this the same a**hole you were talking about in the other thread? Man, if I were you, I'd quit that gig. There are plenty of other people that you can work with to learn from. That and the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about should help make the decision to get away from this person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top