Difference between Varicam HD and DVCPRO HD

D

daktulus

Well-known member
I saw a comparison between 35mm, Super16, HDCAM, Varicam HD and Digibeta.

Can you say that filming with the HVX DVCPRO HD comes close to Varicam HD (filmed 2004, dont know which camera) material?


Is Varicam the same datarate and resolution as DVCPRO HD?
(Couldn´t find anything useful googling)
 
Varicams use the exact same DVCCPRO HD codec as the HVX, the differences come from the all-around better quality of the Varicam and it's bigger, better CCDs.

Much the same way as the DVX using the MiniDV codec has a far, far better image quality than some 200 buck off brand single CCD MiniDV camera.

ETA: and Mikko beats me by mere seconds! lol
 
The CCD's definitely play a role but people always seem to forget about the lenses... The Varicam is far superior in that sense. Can't compare even the standard lens that goes on the Varicam with the HVX as a whole...not even close IMO. They do intercut awesome though, but there is a reason for the price difference thats for sure.

- Kyle
 
KyleProhaska said:
The CCD's definitely play a role but people always seem to forget about the lenses... The Varicam is far superior in that sense. Can't compare even the standard lens that goes on the Varicam with the HVX as a whole...not even close IMO. They do intercut awesome though, but there is a reason for the price difference thats for sure.

- Kyle
Click to expand...

Yup, that extra 50 grand has to go somewhere! I didn't mention the glass in my first post, but I figured it was implied in my "all-around better quality" comment. The glass also makes a huge difference.
 
its not the CCD's entirely. its the DSP. Thats the golden goose. Look what the DVX did with Andromeda. IT looks spectacular. The DVX DSP was its weak point. the CCD were able to create an amazing image.

Same with the HVX. ITs chip block is good. its just the DSP that creates the macroblocking and noise.
 
The big differences, as mentioned are the CCD size, lens options and also the DSP. Those will all play a huge part in the format.

However from a post-production perspective HVX/P2 media is quite a lot easier to deal with than Varicam footage.
 
Excuse my non-native english speaking ignorance: what is DSP?

I found out with which camera they filmed:
The camera they tested was a AJ-HDC27H compared to film and HDCam F900/3.
The difference between 35mm, HDCAM and DVCPRO HD is not big as one might think.
HDCAM has a wider 10bit colourspace and a higher resolution than DVCPRO HD and has about 35mm resolution with a "cleaner" look, but less contrast and colour variation.
DVCPRO HD is between 35mm and 16mm with less grain than 16mm.

So to judge the HVX200 in comparison to the tested HDCAM, you probably need to campare the HVX200 to the HPX500 (which has about AJ-HDC27H quality, am I right?)




Are there new comparison tests between HVX200 and HPX500?


.
 
DSP = Digital Signal Processor = The circuits in the camera that take the raw data from the image sensor and convert it into "video".

- Mikko
 
In my experience with the two cameras, for interviews and CU stuff like tabletop, the Varicam definitely looks better but the average consumer wouldn't notice the difference. It's in the wide shots and in low light shots where the better lens, bigger better CCD chips and superior DSP come into play.

Varicam is a good camera but I would suspect that the 2000 and 3000 cameras blow it away. Newer technology is cheaper and usually a lot better.

HVX was designed to intercut with cameras like the Varicam and HDX-900 as a "B" camera, the colorimetry, gammas and other details are pretty close overall.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top