Press Release: HMC150, "the new DVX"

I've tried to sell video from a few major fires that was shot on MiniDV. The vibe I got from the stations in the Midwest was that if I got flames and they didn't, it didn't matter what format it was in.
I just wish I could ftp video to the news stations instead of paying extra for media and driving it down at all hours of the morning.

I shot a project for a 48-hour short film festival that was deeply influenced by 2001.
http://www.jonkline.com/reel/daisy.wmv
 
ProfessorU said:
I've tried to sell video from a few major fires that was shot on MiniDV. The vibe I got from the stations in the Midwest was that if I got flames and they didn't, it didn't matter what format it was in. I just wish I could ftp video to the news stations instead of paying extra for media and driving it down at all hours of the morning.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what they said of us however they said it would have to be a major breaking story before they'd use HDV . . AND . . they would label it as amateur video and if the first part didn't turn me off the second would. So, we'll just (as you put it) FTP the stuff in P2 and not worry :eek:)
 
Robert M Wright said:
That would be a little ironic to see video, which you SOLD to a television station, labeled amateur video.
Click to expand...

Exactly! That's why we deciided not to go HDV and we aren't going to go ACV-HD because the stations we've asked about the format(s) (HDV in the past and more recently about the ACV-HD) have all said as I've indicated for the most part although slight modified but the same net result let alone they all indicated that they would NOT use any material unless a "breaking" story.

Also, we do work for them regularly and they all take our miniDV from a DVX100 without fail . . go figure . . and of course our P2 which anything less than 3 mins P2 we can upload via ftp and any miniDV under 12 mins we can upload.
 
I got a HVX that's quite new and I got tell you guys that I might be switching to this new camera just for one reason: 50/60 Hz operation. This thing has been on Sony cameras for years now, and I was so sad to learn that my HVX worked only in 50 Hz mode. I have been working between Europe and Brazil for some time now, and I suffer a lot when I am making a documentary, all those 60 Hz fluorescent lights. Sure I can switch to 30 fps, but it is still so limited... I wish I knew why Germany sold such a format to brazil decades ago. PAL and 30 fps is crazy.

Well, maybe they will update the HVX as well... who knows? maybe Barry hehehe
 
Last edited:
it seems like the color samplings are the biggest diffrence between the HVX & the HMC so I'm trying to learn the color smapling now but
does anyone know what the color samplings are for the HMC is? (I thought I read it's 4:2:0 some where... )

would the best quality in order be
8:4:4> 4:4:4 > 4:2:2 > 4:1:1 > 4:2:0
right?

also does anyone know the color samlings for the these camera's??
Sony EX1
Canon's XLH1 or XHA1 ?
and the DVX too???
thanks
 
4:4:4 is ideal. It also doesn't exist in any video format short of something like HDCAM SR.

So, as a practical matter, 4:2:2 is the best we ever get. And that's what the HVX uses.

4:1:1 and 4:2:0 are basically the same, in that both systems give you 1 chroma sample for every four luma samples. 4:2:0 is probably better in progressive, 4:1:1 is unquestionably way better in interlaced.

3:1:1 is halfway between 4:1:1 and 4:2:0, but is only used by HDCAM as far as I know.

All HDV is 4:2:0, all DV is 4:1:1 (in NTSC) or 4:2:0 (in PAL). EX1 is 4:2:0, and all AVC-HD is 4:2:0.
 
ilauzirika said:
poor steve......:evil::thumbsup:
Click to expand...

For those who may not get the joke, in my Podcast about Trade Shows, I told the story about how at one trade show I managed to put my co-worker's name (and work address) on every "X" and "XXX" video mailing list. While Trade Shows can be stressful, to those who are somewhat "evil" and clever, you can have a lot of fun!!!


4:4:4, 4:2:2, & 4:2:0 Color:

Rationale Because of storage and transmission limitations, there is always a desire to reduce (or compress) the signal. Since the human visual system is much more sensitive to variations in brightness than color, a video system can be optimized by devoting more bandwidth to Y' than the color difference components Cb and Cr. The 4:2:2 Y'CbCr scheme for example requires two-thirds the bandwidth of (4:4:4) R'G'B'. This reduction results in almost no visual difference as perceived by the viewer.

...
Click to expand...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:2:2

There is some controversy over 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0. For the most part, viewing a 4:2:0 image will look about the same as a 4:2:2 image to most people. DTV in the US and DVDs are 4:2:0 color.

The biggest issue comes up over green screen and blue screen work. Clearly the extra color information makes working with green or blue screens easier. Many on the 4:2:0 side will argue that green or blue screen work can be done in 4:2:0 and it's only a matter of a bit more effort in getting the right adjustment.

If one is not using blue or green screens, one can make a case for the fact that if the end result is a DVD or Blu-ray disk (also 4:2:0), the extra color information isn't used in the end anyway. Others may wish to point out that it's always better to master in a higher quality format.


If by chance we get into a debate about this, I'm going to repeat the words of Sergeant Schultz form Hogan's Heroes, "I know nothing, I hear nothing, I Vasn't even here!!!!" and avoid getting into the 4:22 vs 4:2:0 debate.... :D


Bob Diaz
 
4:2:2 has twice as much color information, and accordingly twice the color accuracy, of 4:2:0. 4:2:2 is way better in interlaced than 4:2:0.

4:2:0 in progressive is not bad at all.
 
Either one (4:2:2 or 4:2:0 in HD) is a significant oversampling, when the final product will be standard definition 4:2:0 (like NTSC DVD).
 
I'm almost thinking that if all I were doing was some TV work and some commercials or weddings (more on this below) then HDV would probably hit the mark for me. However, one of my ultimate goals was making our award winning movie last summer and while the DVX100B was fun to work with I'm looking forward to making another movie soon only in HD this time. To that accomplishment, I learned this much . . there were a lot of things we had to do with regard to color correction, scene matching, and "fixes" of all sorts to get the "look and feel" we wanted and if I were to suffer losses in color width/sampling then this would be a major issue.

Next I did a quick search on movies/tv shows shot on HDV and quite frankly I couldn't find any. Not a few . . but none. However, doing the same search on HVX200 and DVCProHD I found over 100 in the last three years. What this tells me is that HVX200/P2/DVCProHD is an acceptable production format and HDV is not professionally. The latter would scare me right out of my business goals of higher ended productions.

Weddings are different. Brides don't often look for the "best" production but a cheap production . . the latter of which we avoid. So, if we were to go HDV with them it would work. A cheaper camera, a lighter weight camera, and yet some form of HDV (the technical specs of which we hardly understand) but satisfactory to their liking. A Sony camera result looked terrible to us when it failed and if that were our only source and it were a wedding our higher priced weddings would be in trouble. Moreover, our brides think that our SD weddings are HD and have often said, "how could it be any better?"

In addition, Sony tapes (wet lubricant) in our Panasonic dry shop would be a nightmare. So, we'd have to go with Canon since it looks like the most favorable from a spec point of view. However, we've seen what a GL2 looks like and my handheld 16:9 panny looks way way better with it's 1/6 ccd's and thus if that is any marker for Canon that's a big problem. We're guessing that the GL2 was their pig in a poke and thus will not hold that over the decision barrel so then it comes to mixing HDV and DVCProHD. I guess I'd go for it. But then, if I were going to go for what we are viewing as a semi pro format like HDV then perhaps we should just wait for the 150 wherein we'd get the same thing maybe? Only on cards instead of tapes which is ultimately our direction anyway . . tapeless.

So, what to do? Here's our answer . . .

Sell off another DVX100B . . (next week)
Buy another HVX200 + 2 extra 16Gb cards (movies & tv shows)
Rent an A1 and check it out by comparison to the HVX
Look at the 150 when it comes out as a possible alternative 3rd camera

In other words, stick with the proven P2 DVCProHD and just work harder at lighting and target shoot the tv shows to 2 camera (same format) with a dvx100B as back up 3rd camera (record and just archeive and use only if absolutely necessary) and/or trade for an A1 so that it gives us a really good miniDV with possible HDV.

Sound good all? Or am I as usual putting too much scientific logic into the equation?
 
Thanks again Berry. that was really helpful.
you really do answear every question everyone has!!
 
Last edited:
Dr. D, there are really a few things at work here. First, do you need cameras that will match so you can do multicam stuff? Obviously it'd be much easier to do that if you just used the same make and model.

Second, as you suspect, HDV is not a professional format, it was never designed as such. AVC-HD and HDV are in the same basic quality ballpark, they're birds of a feather, although AVC-HD is meant to be the replacement for HDV. As to whether networks and broadcasters will endorse AVC-HD, we'll see. I doubt it, but -- we'll see. Nobody expected to see DV used so extensively in broadcast, but DVX100s and PD150s were everywhere.

The biggest advantage that AVC-HD has over HDV may be that it's an inherently tapeless format, which means you'll never get hit by a tape dropout. Tape dropouts are partciularly devastating on HDV; if you get hit by a tape dropout on a DV camcorder you might get a frame that has a little bit of sparkly corruption in a few places. That same dropout on HDV will cause an entire 15 frames to be forfeited.

Something else you'll want to look into is workflow. I don't know what you edit on, but editing and conforming MPEG-2 is a lot more processor intensive than what you're used to. If you're doing weddings with a lot of footage and a quick deadline, that might be a big consideration. Volunteer to cut a wedding for one of your colleagues and see what you think -- if you have no problems, then HDV is worth considering. If you find it to be a nightmare, then you can rule HDV out. Or if it's somewhere inbetween, then you know how much to weigh that in the final decision.
 
drdimento said:
In addition, Sony tapes (wet lubricant) in our Panasonic dry shop would be a nightmare. So, we'd have to go with Canon...
Click to expand...

This is one issue that can be easily put to rest. There is absolutely no reason that you could not continue right on using the same MiniDV tapes you currently use with the DVX, with any HDV camera (or any other MiniDV camera, for that matter).

Of course, camera makers recommend that you use their tapes with their cameras. Obviously, it would be foolish for them to do otherwise (unless they have a reason not to want to be in the business of selling MiniDV tapes). It's like Ford Motor Company recommending the use of Motorcraft spark plugs in their vehicles (when Bosch double platinum spark plugs can be far superior).

As a practical matter, many Sony, Canon and JVC MiniDV and HDV camera owners shoot with Panasonic MiniDV tapes, without any trouble whatsoever. In particular, many, many owners of those cameras use Panasonic PQs and AMQs for professional shooting (again, without any trouble whatsoever).

Where problems are reported, it is almost invariably when brands of tapes are mixed, and not when one brand is used exclusively (regardless of what brand tape that is, or what brand of MiniDV or HDV camera).

Also, a lot of people seem to think that the specs for HDV tapes are somehow different from the specs for MiniDV tapes. They are no different. HDV specs simply call for the use of MiniDV tapes. When you see the letters "HDV" boldly printed on the packaging of a tape, that tells you it conforms to the specs for MiniDV tape (and nothing else - ok, maybe it tells you the price is going to be a whale of a lot higher than the price of another tape of equal quality, without those letters printed on the packaging).
 
MPEG-2 vs MPEG-4

MPEG-2 vs MPEG-4

Assuming good quality CODECs:

At high data rates, like 350 Mbps, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the quality of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. Mostly because we are approaching virtually lossless compression. (Not exactly lossless, but getting close.)

However, at lower rates, MPEG-4 shines over MPEG-2. At 25 Mbps MPEG-2, a simple fade to black presents problems for MPEG-2; all the pixels are changing, but nothing is moving. A while back, in the HVX-200 forum, Barry posted several photos that showed that the CODEC for the JVC HD-100u showed problems with the sudden change in brightness due to explosions in the Treasure Island Show.


If the highest data rate is 24 Mbps, there will be no question that the AVCHD CODEC will outperform the other MPEG-2 CODECs on the other HDV cameras. My fear is that the engineers at Panasonic will test the AVCHD CODEC and find that 18 Mbps is good enough, thus select that rate. However, the 24 Mbps is more of a "psychological specification", that gives the user a good feeling. It's unlikely that we really need it that high, but I still want it anyway. So, even the Engineers and teachers like big numbers. :thumbsup:


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