Recording 19:6 on DV tape on HVX200

F

fed

Member
Does the HVX 200 record in true 16:9 on DV tape, or is it squeeze (not from letterbox but from the native 16:9), ior is it like the DVX100 (4:3)?
 
"squeeze" = true 16:9

It only looks "squeezed" (anamorphic) on a 4:3 monitor.

Just as 4:3 looks "stretched" on a 16:9 monitor.


And yes, the HVX200 records true 16:9 to DV tape in 16:9 DV mode.

- Mikko
 
Thank you very much.

I am thinking about getting the HVX despite the fact that I am planning on using it mainly for 480p DV recording. I do not really want to use the DVX because of the 4:3 format, and I do not want to fuss with an anamorphic add-on lens.

Do you think that the image quality at 480p (on DV) with the HVX would be better than that with the DVX? This is in addition to the HVX recording in 16:9 (in 480p) without the need for the add on anamorphic lens.

I figure that there is a $1500 difference between the two:
HVX=$5000
DVX=$2700 + $800(for the anamorphic lens) + fuss
 
The HVX200 gives better quality (provided you have enough light) over the DVX100/a/b in all comparable modes, except SD-60i (in which case the DVX100 has a better result).

Anytime you are shooting progressive, the HVX200's image will be sharper.

But do note that due to the higher number of (smaller) pixels, the HVX200 isn't as light sensetive as the DVX100.

- Mikko
 
Because the HVX suffers from excessive aliasing and stairstepping in its 480/60i mode. Plus, the DVX gains an extra stop of sensitivity when it's switched into 60i mode, so it ends up being two stops faster than the HVX when both are in 480/60i.
 
Why do you suppose they didn't include the capability to record HD onto tape on the HVX200?
 
Because the mechanics required to record a 100mbps DVCPRO-HD signal to tape are very expensive. Much more expensive in the long run than a few P2 cards.

I can't recall tape speeds off the top of my head, but a 60min DV (25mbps) tape running spe dup for DVCPROHD might only hold 15mins .. that's less than a 16GB card that you can get for $800. I can garuntee that the tape mechanism for DVCPRO-HD would have cost much more than that.

Plus DVCPRO tape is more expensive.


AND .. there is no "Mini" size tape in the DVCPRO standard. "Standard" and "Large" tapes only .. so you couldn't have fit a standard DVCPRO deck into a handheld camera.
Plus the new format would necesitate the development of a new media "MiniDVCPRO" tapes .. again, adding complexity and cost. With relativly little benefit.


We are *allready* past the point that P2 is cheaper than DVCPRO-HD Tape in all ways except long term archival. (But P2 paired with Hard drives, is cheaper than DVCPRO-HD tape for archival too)



So, with those things in mind, it's almost a question of why would they put a HD tape deck in there?

- Mikko
 
I mean, why not have HDV to tape in addition to, or instead of, DV to tape as it is currently?
 
Because Panasonic has nothing to do with HDV. It's a crappy consumer format, why spoil such a good camera (that can do so much better) with a poor recording format? It's allready got an arsenal of Profesional formats.

- Mikko
 
About 60i on HVX: we just shot DV 60i with a crew that brought AVID Adrenaline and some hefty expensive SONY LCDs to edit it. They were deeply impressed by the image from the HVX, and they usually only edit DigiBeta or HDCam.
I wouldn´t worry much about the 60i mode (or any mode for that matter) with the HVX.
 
Do you think that recording on the HVX to tape (ie DV) and then converting to HD would be better then recording to tape in HDV on another camcorder?
 
I am being told by a friend in the CBC that SD is no longer accepted by broadcasters (like the BBC). If uprezed SD to HD is worse than HDV, why bother with SD at all?
 
SD is still standard for a lot of smaller networks and companies, and big ones too I assume. Not everyone has an HDTV yet, and so they are still watching SD no matter how you acquired it. For the shooters whose audiences doesnt necessarilly have a prevailent number of HD playback options, why bother with the hassle and cost of HD when SD would suffice?

As an example... I shoot my "films" in HD, but when I do an event video for a paintball company I shoot SD since they want to distribute the show on VHS and DVD.
 
DVD and SD TV are the biggest distribution mediums by far. SD is still a perfectly valid format, and will ALWAYS continue to be so.


Many TV stations are switching to digital, but that doesn't mean squat about resolution. Sure, ones that are working on/planning/going/gone HD will want as much HD as possible. But it's in no means a requirement in most places.

For example: The Finnish broadcasting company "YLE" (the largest production company here by FAR) has switched to entirely P2 for their news production, with some HPX500s and an arsenal of HVX200s, they are just completing a completely tapeless workflow all the way through transmission. And no longer broadcast an Analog TV signal at all. What format are they using? Yup: DV.


Will you be shooting for the BBC?

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