HVX SD Worse Than SD

D

drdimento

Well-known member
Is it just me or is the SD on the HVX worse than SD on a SD camera like the DVX100?

My HVX200 high def is amazing. However when I capture with it in SD 4:3 miniDV it is grainy, dark, and the colors are not nearly as good as a DVX100 would capture.

Thoughts?
 
It's not you, I think it produces alot of noise if you have a bright object. I regret selling my DVX.

My thoughts Rob.
 
We use two DVX's and one HVX in a three camera shoot and we'd tried virtually everything to make a compariable picture from changing shutter speeds, to boosting color temperature, and ?? (I don't even know what all) and just figured I was doing something wrong and it's starting to show up with all our wide shots really bad. Moreover, we cannot leave the HVX on auto iris because it will ALWAYS produce dark video when wide and hot blown out video when zoomed . . even in auto. We have to use manual and play with the thumbwheel constantly and even then wide looks like a wedding reception with the lights down low and close up looks like one notch of ND ought to be applied but if you turn down the iris too much, whoops there comes that grain back.

Is there a happy medium "settiing" in there anywhere? Or, am I to wonder if it's a tape issue and DVCPro50 would fix it? I've never tried this latter because our Avid will allow us to put virtually anything on the timeline BUT not in multicam, therein we'd have to fuse all three clips (two tape digitizes and one P2) into the same fuse type before they'd edit. Or, just use Edius but we're not proficient there yet.

Thoughts all? I have to find a fix here or welcome in the competitor :o(
 
The HVX is less light sensitive than the DVX.
National european broadcaster like the HVXs SD, be it miniDV or DV50 - never got complaints...
To be fair I never owned a DVX, so I can´t compare the two.
It would also help to post your settings, some are more likely to get noisy than others...
 
I think there a lot of confusing factors when comparing DVX/HVX/SD/HD/PAL/NTSC versions.

For instance my PAL country HVX looks much better than my DVX in everything bar 4:3 SD, this would be down to the fact that it's a 16:9 chip with a 4:3 cut out. On the DVX you've got a 4:3 chip so more samples.

Yet, NTSC countries talk of how bad the HVX is when compared to the DVX under certain circumstances.

I also think there is a lot to be said for display technologies and the relevant component stages.
 
Settings:

Scene F1 Factory Default
Operation Type Video Cam
Syncro Scan 1/48.0
Gama = HD NORM
V Detail Freq = THIN
Aspect Conv = Normal
Rec Format = 480i/30p

All else are either "0" or factory default settings.
 
I just thought I would put in my two cents,
According to some of the gurus here like Barry G, to get a comparable picture from the HVX to DVX, maybe set your gamma to SD norm, try setting your Vertical Detail Frequency to thick. And instead of using normal in aspect just use the full 16:9 and extract the 4:3 in post, and tape your display. I hope these setting improve your picture. As a former DVX owner I find the SD quality of the HVX to be much better.
 
I just tried the "8-Ball Press High" and while it did improve the image in the finder, not significant enough to "fix" the look to a comparative to the rich two DVX's. However, I messed with that Master Ped and got what looks really close to our two DVX's and will digitize some material to see if the noise is gone or at least acceptable. This much I do know, just iris & light will not fix the comparison.

Charlie do you do all outdoor shoots or super lit? Outdoors we don't have an issue. It's on our TV set where we have a softlight and slightly thin on fill in order to keep shadows down without having to have any form of fill lights and avoid "hot spots" or wash and again with the DVX, the picture is awesome but with the HVX200 we have yet to get a good picture comparison regardless of what we do, bearing in mind that we're not going to go out of our way to change lighting to make the HVX work, what we will do is get another DVX.

However, as I say changing that Master Ped and the iris setting below it the picture looks a lot sharper and cleaner in the viewfinder and LCD, so we'll see where that goes shooting some material and then digitizing it. But, this past days shoot (Monday 03.10.2008) the image will be unacceptable.
 
as far as im concerned. if you buy a lamborghini to drive to church and its not as smooth riding as your friends lexus - well, you bought the wrong car.
 
lamborghini/lexus, not sure how this applies since i bought an hvx200 camera and not a car :o) let alone i didn't pay that kind of price those cars cost. had i bought a varicam or a 2000 or the like then i probably could complain but what i do have is a really nice camera for a reasonable comfortable price :o)
 
I think wqzn is hinting that the DVX will do a better job in this situation than the more expensive HVX.....and that sometimes the so-called 'better' camera isn't always the best camera for the job....ironically.

The HVX shoots very good SD to P2, but not so much so to tape. I think the HVX shoots 4:2:2 SD to P2, but only 4:1:1 to tape. Also, the DVX is better in low-light than the HVX.
 
I've had this problem shooting to both P2 and tape and I'm fairly certain it comes down to light. We get spoiled shooting in low light with the DVX and then disappointed that the HVX doesn't work nearly as well. As for color balance, the DVX is also naturally warmer so when matching DVX and HVX I always set manual white balance. Also, use the HVX in the position that is least demanding on the iris; one thing I've also done is move the camera physically closer and zoom out to give it a bit more iris. And, of course, the real solution is: more light in the studio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top