Panasonic, please build me a new perfect HVX!

L

Leon Trinidad

Active member
Panasonic I hope your listenting. Let me state this, I love shooting with my HVX. After shooting tons of shorts, commercials and corporate projects I'm so tired of messing with image adapters. SGpro, Brevis, and RedRock are great workarounds but I'd love to cut out the middleman and not have to worry about light loss, vignetting, etc.

How about a version of the HVX with no stock lens that allows all of us to throw on our Nikons, Canons, or PL mount lenses directly. Obviously because of the influx of image adapters there would be high demand for it.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?
 
Wouldn't that just give you only more telephoto, and not really the benefit of 35mm DOF since the chip is only 1/3 inch?
 
What you're asking for is a 35mm sized image sensor which is what the Red camera and the Genesis have. As far as I know Panasonic doesn't even have that kind of technology considering that their largest chip is 2/3".

At least Panasonic can give us a built in flip function. It's ridiculous that we don't already have that considering that the firmware is upgradeable.


Marco
 
I wish they had a HVX with a mount similar to the XL series or HD100s. That way you could use a relay lens with a 35mm adapter instead of having to go though the stock hvx lens. As far as the flip function, I doubt panasonic would ever offer a firmware update since they could make more money selling a HVX200a with that feature and maybe 6 other updates.
 
Neil Burner said:
I wish they had a HVX with a mount similar to the XL series or HD100s. That way you could use a relay lens with a 35mm adapter instead of having to go though the stock hvx lens. As far as the flip function, I doubt panasonic would ever offer a firmware update since they could make more money selling a HVX200a with that feature and maybe 6 other updates.
Click to expand...
I doubt that anyone who owns an HVX200 would buy a 200a for the flip or only 6 other updates, unless they were major. Panasonic to its credit drastically reduced the cost of non-HDV pro HD. Most likely other manufacturers will, within a year, offer features that surpass the HVX200 -- or a substantially similar HVX200a -- at an equivalent or lower price. That's why I think that, unless it's released very soon, there won't be a 200a.
 
The phantom is a 1080P 35mm sized sensor. the pixels are so big you can practically see them... that thing is FAST.... like DVX100 in 60i fast.
 
this is like asking chevrolet to mass market a corvette that will compete with top fuel dragsters. its a whole different animal.

not as easy as just incorporating a lens mount...
 
Today I was at the IBC at the Sony stand holding the XDCAM-EZ1. I think in an updated HVX they should implement a manual calibrated focus ring and an iris ring. Also, like many of you already state, an improved LCD/EVF is a must to keep up with the competition. I also do not understand why Pana does not change the P2 card into an express card type. Pana is putting themself out of bussiness when stcking to that PMCIA size cards.

That sony cam is very nice and to be honest if it would have had SD capability I would prefer it to the HVX. I wonder how that codec is towards motion artifacts.
 
HI,

Yes Sony is back in the game with its new hdv and hd xdcam releases....I definitely agree that hvx needs a calibrated focus ring and a iris ring - it's a must and so is the flipped lcd screen option - cmon don't be so uptight with the firmware upgrades...and that's the main reason I will withold with my oredering of hvx-200 and wait for the sony november release...

best regards

cckid
 
it sfunny listening to people who prefer sony, they refer to the "excellent highly efficient Long Gop Mpec codec"...

perspecitve is quite a things isnt it....
 
I wish they made a 50mbps codec that would be pretty cool and with a shorter GOP, like the JVC 6 frame Gop.

I'm not neccesarily opposed to HDV, i think its a good idea, in that its inexpensive to work with, HDV tape etc....

i just dont like that it introduces temporal artifacting to the already limited visual cleanliness of a 4:2:0 / 4:1:1 system.
 
The problem with interframe codecs is that they become dramatically less efficient with shorter GOPs, so you wind up raising the bitrate to compensate, and that defeats the purpose of using interframe/GOP codecs in the first place.
 
I have been shooting for a few weeks on a sony F350 (XDcam-HD) and today just finished my first real test outing with the camera.

When shooting 35mb/s, the codec is great. Could it be better? Sure, but for what it is it holds up very well. I shot someone on a BMX (hand held) and I cannot see any motion artifacts. The space and amount of recording you get is excellent and it edits, at least through Vegas 7, with the same speed as DV footage. On the flip side of your comment Timur, in practice the XDcam-HD codec works and I don't think it should be shunned so vehemently as it is, especially on these boards. I would bet that a lot of people who do say this codec is unacceptable are just looking at paper, and haven't gone out and actually shot anything with it. So while I would like an intraframe codec with better color sampling this will do for now.

With that said, the Sony F350 cannot touch the DVX mojo. I was shooting them side by side and the difference in color reproduction and feel of the image is something you can almost reach out and touch, resolution aside. I would love to get one of these next to a HPX. I would guess the Panny would crush.
 
Last edited:
THoff said:
The problem with interframe codecs is that they become dramatically less efficient with shorter GOPs, so you wind up raising the bitrate to compensate, and that defeats the purpose of using interframe/GOP codecs in the first place.
Click to expand...

Really? ithought the short GOP's were good?

William_Robinette said:
I would love to get one of these next to a HPX. I would guess the Panny would crush.
Click to expand...

To tell you the truth the image on the HPX500 just looks like a HVX200 image thats 2 stops brighter and cleaner. no sharper. infact i was comparing it to the HPX200 and HPX3000 at P2 Clinic.....

HOLY CRAP. the HPX2000/3000 is like the precise camera ive always wanted..... Except the 2000 is a 720p camera, and the 3000 is a 1080p camera. though the Images coming out of the 2000 were nearly as sharp, its the same chipset apparently as the Varicam. (thats what they told me) But DAMN was its picture GORGEOUS.
 
Interframe codecs gain their efficiency from having one full (key) frame, and a series of partial or incremental frames that only encode the changes from the previous frame.

Having more bitrate-gobbling key frames per second means you have less bandwidth available to encode the incremental frames, so if you want to maintain the same visual quality, you will have to increase the overall bitrate.
 
A shorter GOP would mean that if a GOP got overloaded and started macroblocking, that macroblocking would affect fewer frames (and thus disappear off the screen quicker). But as THoff said, the shorter your GOP the higher your bandwidth needs to be.

1080 HDV uses a 15-frame GOP because they needed to stretch it that long to get acceptable performance in such a tiny bandwidth (25 megabits). Professional codecs have traditionally always been intraframe-only, even when using long-GOP-capable compression systems (examples: MPEG-IMX and HDCAM-SR; MPEG-IMX is Sony's intraframe-only implementation of MPEG-2, and HDCAM-SR uses MPEG4 but is intraframe-only). Again, though, intraframe takes up more space -- MPEG-IMX is 50 megabits, and it's standard-def only, as opposed to the 25 megabits of high-def HDV. And HDCAM-SR is 440 megabits.

XDCAM EX introduces a new variant of the XDCAM HD codec; it bears a lot of similarity to XDCAM HD (they're both 35 megabit 4:2:0 long-GOP MPEG-2) but the XDCAM EX system records 1920x1080, whereas XDCAM HD records 1440x1080. What effect will that have on the performance? We won't know until it's tested; I'd suspect that all other things being equal, the EX system would be somewhat more susceptible to motion artifacts/macroblocking, in that it's packing 33% more data into the same bandwidth. But not all things are always equal; perhaps the newest codec is more efficient, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top