Comparison footage of four cams

Barry_Green said:
You will not get that answer. Panasonic has made a conscious decision to keep their proprietary information proprietary. You might as well go ask Canon how they're creating their "24f" footage -- you'll get the same answer, which is "we're not saying."
Click to expand...
Active sensor(s) pixels is the most important information for one digital camcorder. Find out and read about that at info of every serious HD camera like the following:

1. ARRI D20
http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/d_20/d_20.htm
2.THOMPSON Grass Valley - VIPER
http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/
3.CineAlta SONY
http://www.cinealta.com/index.html
4.Varicam PANASONIC
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webap...d=15768&modelNo=AJ-HDC27F&surfModel=AJ-HDC27F
5. Panavision/SONY GENESIS
http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=36&id=338&node=c0

ACTIVE SENSOR(S) PIXELS SHOULD NOT BE SOMETHING LIKE A PROPRIETARY INFORMATION HIDDEN FROM THE CUSTOMERS.
YOU BUY A CAR AND YOU KNOW HOW MUCH PS AND CUBE CM MOTOR HAS, ISN'T IT?

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Maybe. But like it or not, it's their decision as to whether to release that info or not, just like it's your decision whether to buy their product or not.

And they are not going to release that info at this time. They may choose to never release it. Canon never released the pixel configuration on the XL1's CCDs, and that camera was on the market for six years (XL1 and XL1s versions used the same CCDs).

They're not going to answer. It is their right to not answer. It is your right to decide whether to buy or not. They have chosen to show footage instead of answer engineering-level questions. The footage is sharper than the Sony or JVC, so whatever the pixel count is, it's "enough".

That may not satisfy you -- not everyone will be satisfied with everything everyone does. But it doesn't change the fact that they WILL NOT ANSWER. Asking again and again won't change that.

You talk about cars -- for about a decade after the last "gas crisis", NO automobile manufacturer advertised horsepower ratings. They just didn't. And for a long, long, long time, Rolls Royce listed horsepower as "ample." Want more details than "ample"? Too bad, they would not give you any more details. That's the way they chose to act, that's the way they chose to provide information to their customers. It's their choice.

Some people are acting like it's their inalienable RIGHT to know what the ccd pixel count is, and that's just not true. It may be common practice to do so, but that doesn't mean that it's guaranteed. The manufacturer will disclose what they will. They will withhold what they want. If they determine something is proprietary, they will keep that info to themselves.
 
SJUSER said:
Active sensor(s) pixels is the most important information for one digital camcorder.
Click to expand...

Then without a doubt you should buy any of those cameras and disregard the HVX completely. There is no chance it can even accumulate a charge on it's sensor since it obviously doesn't have one. Or else Panasonic would tell you the spec.

The cheapest camera you listed above is no less than 10x the price of the HVX.
I'd bet if you offered Jan $65,000 for an HVX she would tell you the native res.
She might make you sign an NDA, but she would probably tell you.

I would argue that the most important SINGLE piece of information about a given camera is it's lens cap. Because all cameras look the same with it on. Therefore they can be evaluated by chip resolution only.
 
Barry_Green said:
Maybe. But like it or not, it's their decision as to whether to release that info or not, just like it's your decision whether to buy their product or not.

And they are not going to release that info at this time. They may choose to never release it. Canon never released the pixel configuration on the XL1's CCDs, and that camera was on the market for six years (XL1 and XL1s versions used the same CCDs).

They're not going to answer. It is their right to not answer. It is your right to decide whether to buy or not. They have chosen to show footage instead of answer engineering-level questions. The footage is sharper than the Sony or JVC, so whatever the pixel count is, it's "enough".

That may not satisfy you -- not everyone will be satisfied with everything everyone does. But it doesn't change the fact that they WILL NOT ANSWER. Asking again and again won't change that.

You talk about cars -- for about a decade after the last "gas crisis", NO automobile manufacturer advertised horsepower ratings. They just didn't. And for a long, long, long time, Rolls Royce listed horsepower as "ample." Want more details than "ample"? Too bad, they would not give you any more details. That's the way they chose to act, that's the way they chose to provide information to their customers. It's their choice.

Some people are acting like it's their inalienable RIGHT to know what the ccd pixel count is, and that's just not true. It may be common practice to do so, but that doesn't mean that it's guaranteed. The manufacturer will disclose what they will. They will withhold what they want. If they determine something is proprietary, they will keep that info to themselves.
Click to expand...
Barry,

OK, It is HIDDEN. It's like in a Thai story that "they HIDE the age of their girl or boy because its easy to sell them without an official announcement how old they are".

This does not mean that I am not buying HVX200. If it's better than I have now (Sony FX1E, JVC PD1) I should have it. But also I am not interested in "Thai kids "either.

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Hi Sanjin (SJUSER),

I noticed on Creative Cow that when the HVX200 was announced, you clearly were the first to knock it down, and praise the qualities of your new FX1 that you bought. You've just joined DVXuser and have started off on the same footing here. You don't work for Sony do you? :-)

It's ok to ask questions, and concerns about workflow and image quality. But already I can see that you're coming to the board with a 'FX1 is great' attitude. Which is kinda is - but most of us dont care cos we loved our DVX and the cinegamma it provided and we're about to get a HD version and a whole lot more thrown in! :-) I think everyone on here is aware of the HDV cams and their capabilities and most have opted to wait for the HVX and with good reason. Comparisons are good, but not when they are weighted in favour of your beloved FX1!

The clip you downloaded was 24p, so slowing it down is of course going to result in stutter. Wait for some variable frame rate footage to be posted before jumping to conclusions. What I have seen looks good and 'true' variable to me. no gimicks.

The footage you posted for comparison on your website is a little unfair. Firstly you've included the 1080p clip from the HVX that was badly scaled down to 720p with artifacts. It's not good footage. There is another WMV file from the HVX showing true 1080p and it looks MUCH better than the one you have shown. Also you're fx1-e footage looks colour corrected and you've added film grain. If this is a fair comparison, show raw footage from each cam - again you're trying your best to make FX1 look good. What suprises me tho is that even this badly scaled 1080p clip looks pretty good next to the FX1.

For film makers, dynamic range is more important than pure pixel count. Not only does the HVX look much, much sharper than the FX1 (wait till you see the WMV1080p clip), but it also has I think about 2.5 stops more lattitude than the FX1 - far more important in my eyes. You get good slo-mo direct from the camera - and you get a higher quality frame independant codec (no motion artifacting) with it.

Yes, the FX1 is cheaper and it isnt bad value for money. But you are preaching to the converted here. Everyone on this board knows the cost of the HVX and they are prepared to pay for it.

Im not trying to be rude - ask questions and people will answer, speak with a technical standpoint and post FAIR footage and people will respond accordingly; but come here trying to justify why people should buy an FX1 with opinions rather than fact and you'll find it an unfriendly place. You're right in that Panasonic have not announced the HVX chip size - seeing results for me is more important.

The HVX is mroe expensive, true, but its just simply a much better camera in more ways than one, if you dont want to pay for that - fine. But dont tell people why they shouldnt.
 
Darkline said:
Hi Sanjin (SJUSER),

I noticed on Creative Cow that when the HVX200 was announced, you clearly were the first to knock it down, and praise the qualities of your new FX1 that you bought. You've just joined DVXuser and have started off on the same footing here. You don't work for Sony do you? :-)

It's ok to ask questions, and concerns about workflow and image quality. But already I can see that you're coming to the board with a 'FX1 is great' attitude. Which is kinda is - but most of us dont care cos we loved our DVX and the cinegamma it provided and we're about to get a HD version and a whole lot more thrown in! :-) I think everyone on here is aware of the HDV cams and their capabilities and most have opted to wait for the HVX and with good reason. Comparisons are good, but not when they are weighted in favour of your beloved FX1!

The clip you downloaded was 24p, so slowing it down is of course going to result in stutter. Wait for some variable frame rate footage to be posted before jumping to conclusions. What I have seen looks good and 'true' variable to me. no gimicks.

The footage you posted for comparison on your website is a little unfair. Firstly you've included the 1080p clip from the HVX that was badly scaled down to 720p with artifacts. It's not good footage. There is another WMV file from the HVX showing true 1080p and it looks MUCH better than the one you have shown. Also you're fx1-e footage looks colour corrected and you've added film grain. If this is a fair comparison, show raw footage from each cam - again you're trying your best to make FX1 look good. What suprises me tho is that even this badly scaled 1080p clip looks pretty good next to the FX1.

For film makers, dynamic range is more important than pure pixel count. Not only does the HVX look much, much sharper than the FX1 (wait till you see the WMV1080p clip), but it also has I think about 2.5 stops more lattitude than the FX1 - far more important in my eyes. You get good slo-mo direct from the camera - and you get a higher quality frame independant codec (no motion artifacting) with it.

Yes, the FX1 is cheaper and it isnt bad value for money. But you are preaching to the converted here. Everyone on this board knows the cost of the HVX and they are prepared to pay for it.

Im not trying to be rude - ask questions and people will answer, speak with a technical standpoint and post FAIR footage and people will respond accordingly; but come here trying to justify why people should buy an FX1 with opinions rather than fact and you'll find it an unfriendly place. You're right in that Panasonic have not announced the HVX chip size - seeing results for me is more important.

The HVX is mroe expensive, true, but its just simply a much better camera in more ways than one, if you dont want to pay for that - fine. But dont tell people why they shouldnt.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that people should NOT buy HVX200 because I am not working for Sony or JVC, Canon etc. I just wanted to clear some things before the cam arrives in Europe and have more tech info that is officially written. By the way from my site at
you could get the most links if you are interested in HVX200 athttp://

www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html

Also I did not say that FX1E that I owe is the best cam, I put on a third place behind Canon and Panasonic that I think is a real at the moment.

Also I renewed my clip using original files have got them from the Internet so everything is how it should be. I am sure that Panasonic clips are also color corrected a bit and my clips are old from the summer and I used them just that a footage is more attractive for people to watch. This is not "scientific" test footage it is from ordinary user with all possible artifacts. And all FX1 files are downscaled from 1080 to 720 too. What I would like to have is RAW uncompressed 8 bit 4:2:2 file and DVCPRO HD 1080i from the HVX200. I already have RAWs files from Canon and FX1. JVC is out of the game for me because I am not LUCKY with their equipment (JVC PD1 and DVHS deck).

At the end I am not waving anybody FLAG. I had an exhibition about the Flags exactly ten years ago. The title was "Third American Empire". That's exactly the World were we are living now. Take it or leave it, as you like it.

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Hi sanjin,

As far as i'm aware the clips from the HVX are not colour corrected at at all. Barry stated that these are direct from the camera, imported into the NLE and exported; no post processing. I'm glad you've updated your site to include the new 1080p footage and not the incorrectly scaled clip.

You should maybe compare the best footage from each cam. Take a 1080p HVX clip and a 1080i FX1 de-interlaced clip and run these side by side - no CC, no added grain, no rescaling. That would be about the best you could expect for a film-out comparison. At this point its hard as we have very limited footage; but I expect more tests to be conducted by many people over the next few weeks.

I was not meaning to be rude - I find your enthusiam very admirable; just the way you do it seems to be slightly bias.... remember we're all on these boards for the same reason and we try to help each other out.

As for "Third American Empire", well Im British so who cares, but you may have offended someone else....lol
 
Darkline said:
Hi sanjin,

As far as i'm aware the clips from the HVX are not colour corrected at at all. Barry stated that these are direct from the camera, imported into the NLE and exported; no post processing. I'm glad you've updated your site to include the new 1080p footage and not the incorrectly scaled clip.

You should maybe compare the best footage from each cam. Take a 1080p HVX clip and a 1080i FX1 de-interlaced clip and run these side by side - no CC, no added grain, no rescaling. That would be about the best you could expect for a film-out comparison. At this point its hard as we have very limited footage; but I expect more tests to be conducted by many people over the next few weeks.

I was not meaning to be rude - I find your enthusiam very admirable; just the way you do it seems to be slightly bias.... remember we're all on these boards for the same reason and we try to help each other out.

As for "Third American Empire", well Im British so who cares, but you may have offended someone else....lol
Click to expand...
I was looking for 1080 HVX200 footage and it was written 1080 but opposite than was 720. Give me a right link. I am glad to know that HVX200 clips were not colour corrected. Looking forward to get the cam.

By the way of "Third American Empire" that was a title I found in New York Times ten years ago and my exhibition was about contemporary fine art but with a connotation to the present political situation. Anyway nobody can change it not even in the art field. Curators rule, not an artist. It is like it is. And no offending anybody. The real life is mostly rude as we all know.

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
the link is at the start of the "World exclusive..." Post

http://www.ramgate.com/

here you'll find a link to the 720p karate footage and a 1080p WMV file.

BTW - the link keeps changing as they rotate the file on different servers. check out the top post of the forum if this link does not work.
 
Barry_Green said:
<snip>
The footage is sharper than the Sony or JVC, so whatever the pixel count is, it's "enough".
<snip>
Click to expand...

Interesting omission! Is the XL H1 footage equal or sharper?
Inquiring minds want to know.
 
SJUSER said:
thanks, downloading 1080p wmv

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
Click to expand...
Because I have got HVX200 1080p clip than I will start to prepare the second comparison test between the cams now will be in 1080p presented in a short two to three seconds of each example together one after another in line. So than people can see and compare it. Hope would be smaller file for download, I will work on it in the next days. It was about 35 downloads from the old file and still 10 people is downloading. A lot of traffic for my home cable connection with three IP addresses.

STAY TUNED.


SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Konrad said:
Interesting omission! Is the XL H1 footage equal or sharper?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...
Equal? Sharper? Footage has many ways of being judged.

I can't say if it was sharper because it was playing back off DVCPRO-HD tape, so any additional sharpness it may have had would probably have been lost in the transcode. But regardless, it was plenty sharp -- plenty sharp indeed. Looked great, other than the dynamic range -- easily a stop, maybe two stops narrower than the HVX, with burnt-out highlights in many shots. Noise performance seemed about equivalent, Yuval reported seeing it on the LCD and said that the XLH1 was noisier than the HVX; I only saw the XLH1 footage on the CRT and it looked about the same as the HVX.

XLH1 footage looked dynamite. If all you want to shoot is 1080i, the XLH1 looks like it could compete very strongly against the HVX, and easily trumps the Sony. Of course, you'd need a $30,000 DVCPRO-HD deck to go with the XLH1 to get the kind of results they were showing! They didn't show their footage off HDV, and they didn't record their "Watchmaker" stuff on HDV, so it's hard to judge.

Eventually we'll get all four cams and do a big side-by-side of the same subjects, judged by various pros in a double-blind situation so no bias will be possible.
 
SJUSER said:
Because I have got HVX200 1080p clip than I will start to prepare the second comparison test between the cams now will be in 1080p presented in a short two to three seconds of each example together one after another in line. So than people can see and compare it. Hope would be smaller file for download, I will work on it in the next days. It was about 35 downloads from the old file and still 10 people is downloading. A lot of traffic for my home cable connection with three IP addresses.

STAY TUNED.


SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
Click to expand...

3 low budget HD cams - 1080p test footage*


This footage consists three 1080p short clips
approximately 2 seconds of each from the following
low cost HD camcoders:


1. Sony FX1E (approx. €/$ 3.600),


2. Canon XL H1 (approx. €/$ 11.000)


3. Panasonic HVX200 (approx. €/$ 8-10.000)

* JVC 3-CCD PROHD CAMCORDER GY-HD100 is not
included in this footage because a lack of 1080i recording format.

Footage format: H.264
Color: Millions of color
Size: 1920x1080 pixel
FPS: 24
Data Size: 80.21 MB
Data Rate: 105.79 mbits/sec
Duration: 00:00:06.36 sec

Footage credits:
1. Canon XL H1 - Kaku Ito
2. Panasonic HVX200 - Michael Pappas
3. Sony FX1E - Sanjin Jukic

THE BEST PLAYED AS A LOOP IN A FULL SCREEN MODE
AT THE HD SIZE 1920x1200 PIXELS COMPUTER MONITOR.

This consecutive sequence from the comparison
footage is not a scientific test or any accurate
analysis about the camcorders. It is just a simple
information that leads us to an answer on the often
consumer question: What could be possible
to get from each of the camcoder in 1080p?
All basic files were recordedusing the native codec
HDV or DVCPRO HD 1080i.
Also these are not the best clips from each cam.

Using 'DeInterlace' function in Apple Shake 4
Sony FX1E and Panasonic HVX200 clips are made
progressive and together with Canon's XL H1 24F file
colour corrected also in Shake 4 using
the the following filters: True Light and Film Grain to
achieve a basic film like simulation on video. Later than all
are imported, edited and exported from Apple FCP 5 to H.264.

Used Apple Shake built in filters:

1. TrueLight 2.1, Film Light Filter
Profile: Kodak Vision Primer
Display: digital Projector
Colour space: video

2. Film Grain Filter
Film Stock: Kodak 5279
Grain size: 0.5

To get download visit
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_3Cams_1080p.html


This file is on my official server that is much faster and number of downloads is unlimited.

FTP download of on old file is OVER by Saturday Night at 23.30 PM.

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
I've tried SJUSER but I couldn't download it after several attempts without to know why. Even in the past, I downloaded always with success @sanjinjukic.com
 
Emanuel said:
I've tried SJUSER but I couldn't download it after several attempts without to know why. Even in the past, I downloaded always with success @sanjinjukic.com
Click to expand...
I just download it, this server is in the south-west part of Austria, in Villach a far away about 400km from Vienna. So it works. Check it out your Quicktime 7 settings once more.

FTP download of on old file is OVER by Saturday Night at 23.30 PM.

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
This does not mean that I am not buying HVX200. If it's better than I have now (Sony FX1E, JVC PD1) I should have it. But also I am not interested in "Thai kids "either.
Click to expand...

you must make a lot of money... to just throw it away on whatever camera peaks your interest next...

wanna buy me an HVX? or donate your FX1 to me?
 
Loki said:
you must make a lot of money... to just throw it away on whatever camera peaks your interest next...

wanna buy me an HVX? or donate your FX1 to me?
Click to expand...
I am making enough money with all these gadgets combined with a partnership that keeping a fashion and style sales. Have a look in specs of my Digital studio:

Apple Power Mac G3, G4 & G5 Dual 2 Ghz & 4.5 GB RAM, PowerBook G3 & G4, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X Client+Server, Apple LCDs 15", 20" LCD , Dual 23" HD Cinema Displays, Panasonic plasma TH-42PWD6, DeckLink Pro SD video card, Medea Video RAID RTR 320 GB, Lacie FW BigDisk 1 TB, Lacie Porsche FW 80 GB, Ice Disk FW 120 GB, Sony HDR_FX1E, JVC GR-PD1 PAL, JVC DVHS HM 40000 HDTV Recorder, Sony DCR-TRV30E PAL, 2 iSight cameras, Nikon D50, Canon EOS 10D, Fuji FinePix 6800, Yamaha 01X mLan Audio Mixer, M-Audio FW 410, Emagic a 2/6, Yamaha Home Theater System, MidiMan Oxygen8 Keyboards, Genelec 1029A Active Monitors, M-Audio Sonica Theater, Logitech Z680 5.1 Speakers. Harman/Cardon Soundsticks, iPod 20 GB 1G FireWire, iPod video 60 GB 5G, Sony PSP, EyeTV 300 DVB-S, etc. Also have a look at the picture of my studio at

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/

SJUSER
------------
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
SJUSER said:
This footage consists three short clips
approximately 3 seconds of each from the following
low cost HD camcoders:

1. Sony FX1E (€/$ 4 000),
2. Panasonic HVX200 (€/$ 8 000) and
3. Canon XL H1 (€/$ 11 000)

Footage format: H.264
Size: 1920x1080 pixel
FPS: 24
Data Size: 65.61 MB
Data Rate: 53.55 mbits/sec
Duration 10.28 sec
Click to expand...

Interesting, but here's the problem;

Your source for the Canon and Z1 was probably the raw .m2t files... I know I have the Kaku clip somewhere on my system in it's raw state, and I'm sure your own footage from the Z1 was first generation. Now the data rate of these clips was 25 Mb/sec, while the source for the Panasonic was Barry's 8.8 Mb/sec WM9 clip. No way is this a fair test for the Panasonic. Wait until you have some raw DVCPRO 100 files and do it again.

Second point... finally a data rate high enough to bring my system to it's knees... I understand why you used a high data rate to eliminate as much as possible the impact of the QT's own compression, but you negate that by using a second generation clip for the Panny. Jarred's 720p clip of the karate guy was only 14.8 Mb/sec and I think that was hard on the average system, from reports I've seen.

Regards,

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