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

AlienFX,

You can't be too sure yet. Panasonic never said a word about the DVX's HD abilities, or its offset sensors. The only way to find out is for someone like Juan to open the camera up and do some work. Hydra *could* have been put into your camera... I'm beating that fact pretty hard, as who ever buys Hydra, has a huge market of cameras (past, present, and even future) they can install it into.
 
cardmaverick said:
AlienFX,

You can't be too sure yet. Panasonic never said a word about the DVX's HD abilities, or its offset sensors. The only way to find out is for someone like Juan to open the camera up and do some work. Hydra *could* have been put into your camera... I'm beating that fact pretty hard, as who ever buys Hydra, has a huge market of cameras (past, present, and even future) they can install it into.
Click to expand...

Even if it is possible, I would need it to be 4:4:4, and according to Barry, that wouldn't be possible?

Barry_Green said:
So if the HPX3000 employs spatial offset, he could probably get it up to 4K. But not at full 4:4:4. If it doesn't have spatial offset, then he could get uncompressed 1920x1080 @ 4:4:4 from it.
Click to expand...
 
AlienFX said:
Okay, thanks. Then I guess I'm gonna be stuck with the Dalsa.... I was just hoping to pull double duty (4k for features and 1080P for behind the scenes) out of the HPX3000's I''m buying.
Click to expand...
Okay, humor me -- why do you "need" 4K for features? Has there even been a feature shot on 4K yet? There's plenty of HDCAM features around, and the HPX3000 you're getting spanks the HDCAM F900R pretty hard.

And 1080p for behind-the-scenes? You do realize that the 1080p from an HPX3000 is going to beat the pants off of the A-camera that most digital features are shot on, right?
 
What Barry said.
Plus if you want 4K, why are you going to pay $48,000. for a 1080p camera body when you can have a great RED ONE package for $20,000 less than that and get your 4k "for features" and 1080p "for behind the scenes" and end up with what would be way better than a Hydra set up?
If it's the wait and you need it now, unless you will be using it on a daily basis, I would rent now and get in line for RED.
 
Mediacre said:
What Barry said.
Plus if you want 4K, why are you going to pay $48,000. for a 1080p camera body when you can have a great RED ONE package for $20,000 less than that and get your 4k "for features" and 1080p "for behind the scenes" and end up with what would be way better than a Hydra set up?
If it's the wait and you need it now, unless you will be using it on a daily basis, I would rent now and get in line for RED.
Click to expand...


The Red, doesn't have a practical workflow solution yet for Avid.... and Red doesn't have a shoulder mount.... I honestly get annoyed with cameras that don't have shoulder mounts built into them. Also, I'm working on my own camera project, so I have no desire to buy a RED camera..... but the Panasonic has the P2 workflow in place, has a shoulder mount, and with 4k would be future proof.... atleast for TV. Since I see 4k starting to be broadcast over TV within 3-5 years.

I'll just rent both..... Dalsa Origin/Evolution and the HPX.

EDIT: I just realized the HPX3000 isn't even true 24p, it's 23.98p.... so unless the mod. could correct that to true 24p, it's not worth it. Nor is shooting with the HPX3000 un-modified for the feature.
 
Last edited:
AlienFX said:
It hit me today that I a mod. like this, on a HPX3000, could potentially hit a 4k resolution. If they can get 2k on HVX from the sensors it has, I'm assuming they could atleast double the res. on a 1080P sensor.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt it. The most optimistic estimates I've seen for the resolution enhancement due to pixel shift are 1.5x, and Panasonic quote an absolute theoretical max from the HVX200 of 1440x810 for luminance.

But they are theoretical maximums, and I doubt you can simply scale the numbers up without a thought to manufacturing tolerances. Go to higher resolutions, and the accuracy to which chips can be optically aligned becomes much more limited. Which is why for the highest resolutions (think Red) the move is to a single Bayer sensor, where the relative positions of the r,g,b pixels are obviously tightly controlled. And for such as Red, the sensor is big enough to make up for the sensitivity disadvantages inherent in single v 3 chip designs (all else equal).

What a mod COULD (theoretically) get from the HPX3000 is true uncompressed 4:4:4 1080p. Whether or not it would be worth it (as the HPX3000 is 10 bit anyway) is another thing again. As Barry puts it, "the 1080p from an HPX3000 is going to beat the pants off of the A-camera that most digital features are shot on", and that's a pretty good point.
 
AlienFX said:
The Red, doesn't have a practical workflow solution yet for Avid.... and Red doesn't have a shoulder mount.... I honestly get annoyed with cameras that don't have shoulder mounts built into them. Also, I'm working on my own camera project, so I have no desire to buy a RED camera..... but the Panasonic has the P2 workflow in place, has a shoulder mount, and with 4k would be future proof.... atleast for TV. Since I see 4k starting to be broadcast over TV within 3-5 years.

I'll just rent both..... Dalsa Origin/Evolution and the HPX.

EDIT: I just realized the HPX3000 isn't even true 24p, it's 23.98p.... so unless the mod. could correct that to true 24p, it's not worth it. Nor is shooting with the HPX3000 un-modified for the feature.
Click to expand...

Do you have any knowledge of digital filmmaking, or post-production whatsoever? 23.98 is irrelevant with proper post-production to 24p film out.
 
Who cares about all the numbers. Why is it that everyone trots out sensor size and number of pixels when talking about their big "feature". It's doesn't guarantee distribution, you know. Make the best film with what you can afford. Not even a RED is 4k so stop trying to achieve it.
 
SPZ said:
Do you have any knowledge of digital filmmaking, or post-production whatsoever? 23.98 is irrelevant with proper post-production to 24p film out.
Click to expand...
No 23.98 isn't irrelevant.... sure if you don't mind slowing down your film to be put to Film for projection, then it's irrelevant.... but I do mind... I'm not going to comprimise the image and audio just to get it to project correctly.

taormina said:
Who cares about all the numbers. Why is it that everyone trots out sensor size and number of pixels when talking about their big "feature". It's doesn't guarantee distribution, you know. Make the best film with what you can afford. Not even a RED is 4k so stop trying to achieve it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it must be 4k, but I want to get as close as possible.... sure HD looks great put to film and projected, but for me I'd like more Resolution, Dynamic Range, ect. I want my image to be as clean as possible. The higher resolution you start with, the lower the digtal noise your going to get that's going to convert into grain (which is the one reason I will never shoot on film; grain.).
 
AlienFX said:
No 23.98 isn't irrelevant.... sure if you don't mind slowing down your film to be put to Film for projection, then it's irrelevant.... but I do mind... I'm not going to comprimise the image and audio just to get it to project correctly.
Click to expand...

23.98 is the framerate most (if not all) digital features that go theatrical are shot on.

You speed up picture and sound a completely negligible amount to get to 24fps. It's completely standard practice. There is no loss in resolution to picture and you won't be able to hear the difference in the sound.

23.98 is used instead of 24fps so that the images can be played back on NTSC video systems with 3:2 pulldown and so that sound post facilities can run at 29.97 (which is the standard)

You'll probably get yourself into more issues with sync and playback compatibility by shooting at 24fps over 23.98.

23.98 is the standard.
 
AlienFX said:
No 23.98 isn't irrelevant.... sure if you don't mind slowing down your film to be put to Film for projection, then it's irrelevant.... but I do mind... I'm not going to comprimise the image and audio just to get it to project correctly.



I'm not saying it must be 4k, but I want to get as close as possible.... sure HD looks great put to film and projected, but for me I'd like more Resolution, Dynamic Range, ect. I want my image to be as clean as possible. The higher resolution you start with, the lower the digtal noise your going to get that's going to convert into grain (which is the one reason I will never shoot on film; grain.).
Click to expand...

Well, first you need to prove your talent. people won OSCARS with the DVX. Heck, a short done on the DVX won best cinematography at Sundance some years ago. You want to shoot 4k? The time you're going to waste waiting for it, or the ressources to make it workable is the time you regret never using to actually shoot and learn with the experience gained.
 
kenn michael said:
23.98 is used instead of 24fps so that the images can be played back on NTSC video systems with 3:2 pulldown and so that sound post facilities can run at 29.97 (which is the standard)
Click to expand...

We'll this doesn't matter.... because I am not releasing a SD version of my film on Tape or DVD. I'm only releasing to HDDVD and Blu-Ray (on one disc)..... and only on HD channels when it goes to TV. And audio is going to be recorded through Digidesign Live Venue to a Protools system synced to the camera at 24p.
 
Hey guys, does anyone know a camera that can do 'true' 30 frames per second?
I just found out my DVX is actually shooting 29.97.

Thanks.
:)
 
AlienFX said:
We'll this doesn't matter.... because I am not releasing a SD version of my film on Tape or DVD. I'm only releasing to HDDVD and Blu-Ray (on one disc).....
Click to expand...
Er, you do realize you just eliminated about 99% of the market then, right? Maybe, in a very optimistic world, you could say that 1% of American households have an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player.

and only on HD channels when it goes to TV.
Click to expand...
Okay, so that rules out about 90% of the market...
 
Barry_Green said:
Er, you do realize you just eliminated about 99% of the market then, right? Maybe, in a very optimistic world, you could say that 1% of American households have an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player.
Click to expand...

Barry, to be fair I think you might be discounting the fact that the film probably won't be finished until 2021. I would imagine HD-DVD and Blu-Ray penetration will be much higher then.
 
AlienFX said:
No 23.98 isn't irrelevant.... sure if you don't mind slowing down your film to be put to Film for projection, then it's irrelevant.... but I do mind... I'm not going to comprimise the image and audio just to get it to project correctly.
Click to expand...
Well, this presupposes that projectors actually run at 24.000 fps. Some may, but there are plenty that are probably running at 24.5, 25, or even maybe 26 frames per second. When a theater operator realizes that he can shave 15 minutes off of a three-hour film by running his projector a little faster, and thereby squeeze another screening in, don't be surprised if he does.

You may well find that the variance in actual film projection speeds at various theaters is far more than the 0.1% speed difference between 23.976 and 24.000 fps.

I'm not saying it must be 4k, but I want to get as close as possible.... sure HD looks great put to film and projected, but for me I'd like more Resolution, Dynamic Range, ect.
Click to expand...
Then you probably want less resolution, not more. For any given sensor technology you're going to face a battle between sensitivity, noise, and dynamic range on one side, and resolution on the other. The more resolution you get, the worse performance you get on the other end of the scale. (this is dependent on using similar technologies of similar generation, obviously).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top