HVX200 or HVRZ1U?

O

OrsonRP

New member
I'm trying to figure out why the show I work on recently switched from the DVX-100A to the Sony HVR-Z1U HDV camera. The only thing I can think of is that they got a great price on the Sony's...?

This article

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/HVX200/

Sort of makes it sound as though the HVX-200 can't record in HD when it says, "...[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]it becomes much more difficult to understand why someone would consider the Sony Z1 over the HVX200, unless you absolutely positively have to record some type of high-definition footage on tape..." I think the emphasis here should be on *tape,* correct?

Assuming the HVX200 records in HD (as I'm 99.99% sure it does), why on earth would a show choose the Z1? Unless the HVX200 can only record HD to P2 cards...?

Thanks.
[/FONT]
 
"Unless the HVX200 can only record HD to P2 cards...?"

The HVX can record HD to either P2 cards or the FS-100 Firestore Hard drive recorder or direct to a computer. I was at NAB all week. Hardly any 4:3 CRT interlace monitors around.
The HVX200 was in more booths than any other camera. It's rapidly becoming a 16:9 progressive world.
 
Ahhh... So it's the fear of investing in P2 cards that's probably scared them off then. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

I'm a bit confused by your reference to 4:3, though: The Sony records native 16:9 as well, meaning the major difference between the two would be the ability to record an HD signal to tape... no? Of course there are many other differences as well (lack of any progressive option on the Sony being the other major one).

Thanks again.
 
Once you see the P2 workflow the light bulbs turns on. My reference to 4:3 interlaced was
pointing out that interlaced recording in general for most projects is not desired.
Sure some networks broadcast in 1080i but that does not mean you have to shoot
and edit interlace. Most films are shot and edited progressive.
I don't need to get into a flame war here on i vs. p.
You can record HDV HD to tape. However that is Long GOP.....
You can do a search and find out the pros and cons of Long GOP recording and editing.
 
I'm sorry, I hope it didn't seem as though I was trying to pick a fight; just hoping to learn about the two cameras. Truth be told, the HVX has always seemed like the better camera. Everything I'm learning about it just backs up that point.

Thanks for the tip re: Long GOP recording. Until now I've never read that in any discussion of HDV.
 
No not at all. You have to use and experience both cameras and then sit down at the edit bay to really see what I am talking about. The HDV cameras can make some nice pics. The big difference is in posting - DVCPRO HD is intra-frame. You have a discreet picture for every frame. It just holds up better for CC and eventually when you go to DVD or the web.
 
I see. Very helpful! One last question: A colleague suggested the Canon XH-A1 as an alternative. Any thoughts/insights regarding this camera, perticularly in regards as to how it compares to the Sony?

Thanks.
 
OrsonRP said:
I see. Very helpful! One last question: A colleague suggested the Canon XH-A1 as an alternative. Any thoughts/insights regarding this camera, perticularly in regards as to how it compares to the Sony?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You have very good friends Orson. The A1 records hdv to tape and it offers 24p. I think this would be the best way to go if you are coming from DVX. Your shooting workflow would stay close to what it is now. Shoot to tape transfer and edit only now in 1080p.
 
The XHA1 is basically better in every way than the Sony FX1. The Z1 has some features the XHA1 doesn't (like NTSC/PAL switchable). Between the FX1 and XHA1, the XHA1 is the hands-down winner. Between the Z1 and XHA1, it's a much closer match, but the XHA1 is way less expensive.
 
Funny this. I'm not sure if anyone has ever shot anything of consequence in 1080i on the HVX? I've been 24 frame native (720PN), 720 under/over and 1080p (24 frame) only.

I have hundreds of hours on the Z1U in 60i and a few weeks in cineframe mode (not so wonderful for myriad reasons, mostly due to halved resolution and the fact that it looks awful as a "24 frame" solution).

The Z1U is a terrific camera and it's HD. Granted, it's 1080i in 4:2:0. It is used in many HDTheater, Discovery and TLC programs. It intercuts acceptably with CineAlta footage acquired at 60i.

Your CTO or person who makes the technology decisions might've avoided the decidedly HD HVX for a number of reasons:
  • Lack of knowledge of DVCProHD P2 workflow
  • Fear / lack of research into archiving P2 data
  • Contractual deliverables conflicts with end-client / network
  • Dumb as a bag of hammers
Probably the last one. J/K!

Not really.

e
 
bummer...

bummer...

OrsonRP said:
I'm trying to figure out why the show I work on recently switched from the DVX-100A to the Sony HVR-Z1U HDV camera. The only thing I can think of is that they got a great price on the Sony's...?
Click to expand...

Do they have a grudge against you? Are they trying to inflict inordinate amounts of pain on their crew for some reason? :-O

I shoot a syndicated show that uses the Z1U. The camera stinks. Yes, it does a nice interlaced HDV picture- that's it. The honchos of your show probably wanted a camera that shot to tape. This camera is an unfortunate pick. As your colleague has suggested, try to steer them towards the Canon if they are really hooked on the idea of HDV and shooting to tape.

Of all of the companies making small form cameras, Sony is the most cynical in it's feature specifications. This camera epitomizes that strategy.

Talk them into the Canon if possible.
 
hotchkiss said:
Do they have a grudge against you? Are they trying to inflict inordinate amounts of pain on their crew for some reason? :-O

I shoot a syndicated show that uses the Z1U. The camera stinks. Yes, it does a nice interlaced HDV picture- that's it. The honchos of your show probably wanted a camera that shot to tape. This camera is an unfortunate pick. As your colleague has suggested, try to steer them towards the Canon if they are really hooked on the idea of HDV and shooting to tape.
Click to expand...

First off, thanks for the great replies: The article by Barry Green is really eye-opening.

Hotchkiss, can you elaborate on why, exactly, the Z1 stinks to work with? I'd love to go into my meeting with my PM this Thursday with some ammo that will get through to him (i.e., non-camera nerd stuff): Too slow in low-light. Too finicky with focus. Too hard to work with in CC/compositing. You understand what I mean... Basically, his eyes gloss over (even though he's trying) at the mention of Mbps, compression, etc. etc.

Argh! I wish they could have asked me to research these cameras *before* they bought three of them...

;(

-Orson
 
overlandfilms said:
Funny this. I'm not sure if anyone has ever shot anything of consequence in 1080i on the HVX?
Click to expand...

Maybe you wouldn't consider this to be of consequence but the HVX was used on the 4 episode Speed TV series "Forza Motorsports Showdown" It was shot at 1080/60i to intercut with footage from the cinealta F900r and it did so nicely.
 
Well, here are some considerations for your meeting:

1st- Codec. DVCPRO HD is a professional format. No other camera on the Sony professional market uses HDV. They use a more robust mpeg2 compression.

2nd- New 16gb and 32gb P2 cards. This means longer recording times. 3 32gb P2 cards= 96 minutes of continuous recording. Enough for all type of shooting.

3rd- Post Production (This can be arguable). Immediate editing of the footage, without need of capturing, in a proven professional codec. (The arguing is that, with a AJA Kona card or similar, you can capture to the DVCPRO HD codec trough the Z1 component outs- but the footage would already have been captured to HDV tape to 4:2:0 color compression, so the only gain to upconvert to dvcpro HD would be to edit in intraframe timeline)

4- Better internal audio. Uncompressed 48000 audio vs the Z1's compressed audio.

5- Full manual zoom. Don't underestimate the power and look of Manual zoom on the HVX.

6- Future proof media that will have value for resell and reuse- You can use P2 on the HVX, HPZ500, the H something 2000 and the new Varicam.

7- Best cinematic on camera look available! And of course beautiful colors, and the Panasonic proprietary cinegamma is unmatched in the price range (subjective)
 
Ozduc,

I was really just making a very gross generalization about how people tend to use the HVX. I assumed that there is some broadcast footage out there there that originated in 1080 60i - I've just never seen it myself.

Thanks for the tip - I'll look for that show!

e
 
I am currently working on a feature film for Sony.

Our behind the scenes guy who happens to be a friend of mine started shooting with the Z1U. Which I personally do not like. There are things about the design I like, but overall there is a reason I bought a HVX.

Anyway, a couple weeks into the movie the producers decided to buy the newer V1 sony camera. My friend has fallen in love with this camera and enjoys shooting with it everyday.

So, there is that to consider. Perhaps sony did a little better with the newer gen of hdv cameras. I wouldnt know personally, I havent even asked to play with the camera. I dont like or care about hdv. But I am giving you the opinion of a good friend who works on professional shows.
 
Well, to play devil's advocate for a moment, one reason for picking the Z1U over the HVX is that recording to tape makes more sense for a documentary/reality tv-type workflow (don't know what your show is), where you're shooting large amounts of footage per day, which doesn't really lend itself to shooting to P2, unless you have a ton of cards, at least two p2 stores, and an AC to manage all the footage. Sure, the p2 thing can be done in a doc situation (read Marc Singer's reports on his recent work), but on the reality shows I've worked on, we shoot way too much for p2 to make sense, despite its other advantages.

I love my HVX, but there are a few things the Z1U does better. The Z1's servo zoom, for example, is much smoother and more nimble than the HVX's -- slower slow zooms, easy to ease into. Despite being rated slower than the HVX (160 vs. 320, I believe), the Z1 produces much cleaner images in low light than the HVX, even at 3 or 6 db gain. The Z1's 9db looks cleaner than the HVX at less gain as well. Neither camera's focus ring is to my liking; the Z1 goes from infinity to focusing down to the lens with barely a turn, while the HVX's takes too much turning to effect a similar change. Of all the "spinner" type prosumer focus rings, only the DVX100 got it perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top