Some idiot says the HVX is not really DVCProHD?!

N

nashmotionpictures

Active member
I was at a camera orientation where I was told that the HVX actually records DV standard footage calling it DVCProHD. This is because the censor on it can't record full HD like the bigger Panasonic cameras. Apparently Panasonic does not publicise this much but it turns out HVX just gives larger pixels and a fake DVCProHD, according to the young man there. So he recommended me to go for HDV cameras instead. I was told that even the Sony HD1000, the cheapest and most consumer-ish camera would give me better resolution really.

He did look like he knew what he was saying. But I don't want to believe it. What is he talking about?:Drogar-Shock(DBG):
 
I'm by no means an expert but I've been shooting HDV for 3 years and switched to the HVX in th last 5 months and the difference is so severe that I'm disgusted it took me so long to change.
 
nashmotionpictures said:
I was at a camera orientation where I was told that the HVX actually records DV standard footage calling it DVCProHD. This is because the censor on it can't record full HD like the bigger Panasonic cameras. Apparently Panasonic does not publicise this much but it turns out HVX just gives larger pixels and a fake DVCProHD, according to the young man there. So he recommended me to go for HDV cameras instead. I was told that even the Sony HD1000, the cheapest and most consumer-ish camera would give me better resolution really.

He did look like he knew what he was saying. But I don't want to believe it. What is he talking about?:Drogar-Shock(DBG):
Click to expand...

Is this guy paid by Sony? This is some of the more ridiculously stupid HVX-bashing I've heard.

Suffice it to say, he should in no way be allowed in a position to "teach" on this stuff.
 
DVCPRO, DVCPRO50 and DVCPRO HD are codecs. The HVX records in true DVCPRO HD because it is a codec, or container and cannot be faked. Yes it is true that DV could be transcoded into DVCPRO HD and it would look blocky and nasty, but the HVX does not do this.
It uses spacial offset to transform its non-standard resolution image at the sensor into a standard resolution HD image and then it is encoded to DVCPRO HD.

I have never used the HD1000, but highly doubt that the resolution is better than the HVX. In fact, what many people perceive as resolution is actually contrast (adding digital outlines around in focus areas to increase the perception of a sharp image). This teacher may have mistakenly thought that a highly sharpened image was a high resolution image. There is no doubt that an HPX500 (which also uses spacial offset), HPX2000, HPX2700 or HPX3700 have a huge advantage over a HVX. But the HVX produces surprisingly wonderful images for $5k.

One last comment - DV is 4:1:1 color space and the HVX records in 4:2:2. Separate the RGB channels on a DV stream and a DVCPRO 50 or DVCPRO HD stream and you will see a huge difference between the luminance and color channels.


J
 
Who was this guy, and in what circumstances was he set up to teach?

To say something so profoundly stupid, He would have to be either a liar or an ignoramus. Sorry, but such statements as you're reporting here are just offensively stupid.
 
DVCPro HD = 100 Mbit/s, 4:2:2
HDV = 25 Mbit/s, 4:1:1

That makes a big big difference for fast motion encoding and post production.
As far as I know none of the small 1/3" chip camcorders have full resolution HD chips (which doesn't mean their image is not HD). You'll need to get a Varicam/Cinealta type camcorder for full-resolution chips, I think.
 
Who held this "camera orientation?"

And what were the credentials or affiliation of the person make these totally inaccurate statements?
 
The HVX200 gets hits for the pixel shifting from several folks.

Some point to the Discovery Channel's Technical Guidelines that name it with the HDV cameras that pours confusion on an already confusing situation.

Who (by name) made the claim?
 
It really does look like I have struck a sentimental chord with this thread! This was basically a demonstration for various cameras, one of which I was considering to buy, at a famous film equipment store in the UK.

Yes, Mike, that is it I think. "Pixel shifting" was precisely the term he used to explain what I mentioned. Somehow, even I, being quite new at this, felt that couldn't be it (since I've been reading this thread for a while and have watched Barry Green's DVD's).

But I think it's best not to mention names. And I feel safe now. I have a place where I can get true and fair advice! Thank you!
 
nashmotionpictures said:
Yes, Mike, that is it I think. "Pixel shifting" was precisely the term he used to explain what I mentioned. Somehow, even I, being quite new at this, felt that couldn't be it (since I've been reading this thread for a while and have watched Barry Green's DVD's).
Click to expand...

So many people entirely misunderstand the concept of spatial offset (aka "pixel shift"). They think the camera is taking a low-resolution image off the chips and interpolating pixels to create a "fake" HD image. That is so incredibly far off the mark. The HVX imaging system creates a true 1920 x 1080 image from the chips.
 
As to the "sentimental" sentiment, I think nashmotionpictures is missing the point.

Look at identically shot footage, and compare

Don't rely on anything else.

Also look at post production workflows.
 
It bugs me when these so-called "experts" go around spreading misinformation about stuff like this. Absolutely ridiculous that guy. He has no business lecturing people if he can't get his facts straight.

I think that any good and ethical business (like this famous camera store in the UK) would want to make sure that their "people" are qualified to be representing whatever they're representing. So, I believe that the word needs to get back to them so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
 
nashmotionpictures said:
It really does look like I have struck a sentimental chord with this thread! This was basically a demonstration for various cameras, one of which I was considering to buy, at a famous film equipment store in the UK.

Yes, Mike, that is it I think. "Pixel shifting" was precisely the term he used to explain what I mentioned. Somehow, even I, being quite new at this, felt that couldn't be it (since I've been reading this thread for a while and have watched Barry Green's DVD's).

But I think it's best not to mention names. And I feel safe now. I have a place where I can get true and fair advice! Thank you!
Click to expand...

Sentiment has nothing to do with it, as others have mentioned.

Pixel shifting is vastly misunderstood, Mr Green can explain that better than I, and he has so often that I'm sure he's rather tired of it.

Naming names likely doesn't do much good - other than to point out some poorly prepared presenters or worse, some apparatchiks working furtively for the other side.

Keep in mind that scurrilous comments in an open forum are damaging. You were smart to get clarification, but others might not be so wise. How much damage was done is hard to calculate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top