First Shoot Impressions of HVX200

[Kearney]

hi guys

the preface: i was lucky enough to snag a hvx200, from a tip given on this board (that roscor/ discount video warehouse had a couple un-spoken-for). also got 4 4gb cards from roscor at the same time.

got the camera the wednesday before a saturday and sunday corporate training shoot. i've been using a dvx100a for a couple of years so i already knew how i wanted to set up the scene files. i worked out and practiced moving files from the card to the laptop, and viewing them on the laptop.

the rental house that furnished an arri light kit also happened to have that panasonic 17" lcd monitor that's advertised with the hvx200, so we rented that too, which was most fortunate.

i haven't done much shooting with it beyond this weekend shoot because i've been editing this shoot for the week since.

its most important features in my opinion, in order of importance:

1. enhanced feedback during shooting:

playing back clips easily and immediately ( especially at full HD quality thru a calibrated HD monitor and headphones) makes knowing whether you got the shot (or not) pretty clear, for everyone involved. i was directing this shoot in addition to shooting it, which helped me particularly appreciate this aspect of P2. not having to shuttle back and forth on tape, find starting points of scenes, and then get lined back up on timecode for the next shot. to be able to go to 3 takes earlier. not being able to shoot over prior footage. being able to see clips on the laptop, if cards have been cleared.

being able to light and shoot with HD feedback, both setting up/shooting the shot and on playback, on that big monitor brings a better and quicker result. pretty easy to see what's in focus, what's blowing out and so on.

i think this level of, ease of, and speed of feedback at the time of shooting really helps improve the result. try the shot again knowing exactly what to improve. not slowing down the production too much. no guessing and wondering.

2. incredible picture:

HD detail, accurate and pleasing color, a creamy smooth rendition overall, surprisingly good dynamic range for 1/3" chips. doesn't look like video.

3. wide-angle lens:

lens goes wide enough and telephoto enough to suit real world shooting situations (unless you're shooting windsurfing). don't need to buy an additional lens for wide-angle.

4. bang for bit:

720/24PN takes up relatively little space, makes using 4gb cards practical.


the downside:

noise, especially in shadows and murky mid to low exposure areas.

cards are expensive and small (for now).

the iffy continued existence of resulting files on hard drives. the additional time, hassle and expense of backing up these files.


my settings for this shoot:

scene file: detail: -6, pedestal: -6, everything else at 0. color matrix: normal, gamma: cine-V. (these settings got the best picture for me on the dvx100a)

shooting mode: 720/24PN (partly to get maximum HD on the cards)

took 4 4gb cards to this shoot, filled 4 and moved the contents to my Windows laptop hard drive. imported those files into FCP 5.04 on my G5 tower. all with no problems.

audio question: if recording audio to 4 channels (with external mics or lines into ch 1 and 2) , what are we hearing during recording and playback? ch 1 and 2 only? or all 4? so there's no control over internal mic input into channels 3 and 4?

in short, i think the non-linear playback advantages of the P2 system are even more important than the advantage of that HD picture, at least for some kind of shoots (lots of short takes, to be done at highest quality at that time).

in summary, i'm super happy with my hvx200.

Kearney Buskirk

 

[Kenn_Christenson]

in short, i think the non-linear playback advantages of the P2 system are even more important than the advantage of that HD picture, at least for some kind of shoots (lots of short takes, to be done at highest quality at that time).

Absolutely right! I had to go back to tape last weekend after shooting about a month on the P2s. It was kind of like going back to editing on 1" after using Final Cut.

 

[thefilmaddict]

Great report Kearney. It's very similar to my report. We both saw the noise. Perhaps this is just what you get with a camera at this price point. I'm not sure. Both of us tested in 720 24p. Someone told me that shooting in 1080 24p will clean up the image noise. Have you tried that?

 

[thefilmaddict]

I like the camera a little more everyday. It's a powerful tool. Thanks for the report!

 

[holditnowfilms]

P2 is a sweet sweet solution.

 

[Steve Shovlar]

This noise issue is really starting to worry me. I have an HVX200 on order but every report coming in mentions noise problems.

Guess its an issue with this camera. Wondering now whether to hang fire on it and wait for the next generation in 18 months time.

 

[Alex Leith]

This noise issue is really starting to worry me.

It makes me nervous too. But as far as I can glean from the various reports, we know the noise is no worse than the DVX100. We have been told that it's less noisy than a PD150 and the HD100. And we've been told that it's about as noisy as an H1, although the noise has a different character.

What seems most worrying to me is that the noise seems to be slightly unpredictable, appearing more intrusively in some situations than others.

I suspect all the hoo-haa about noise is mostly because it's one of those things that you only notice when it's pointed out to you... and then you can't stop noticing it. I didn't really notice that my DVX100s were noisy until I started reading all the posts about the noise in the HVX image.

I love the noise-free nature of the Sony FX1 and Z1 image, but I can't stand interlaced footage or the fact you lose half your resolution in CF25, I don't particularly like HDV, and I hate the overwhelmingly prosumer nature (having to struggle to turn off the automatic settings).

For me the HVX is the only option for my own camera in this price range. I would have jumped at the HD100 had it not had the split-screen problem... but that has even more noise in the image, apparently.

 

[harlan]

It's not just "an issue with this camera"!!!! God I wish people would stop implying that it is; there's just nothing worse than misinformation. Not pointing fingers at anyone or anything.

EVERYTHING is going to have noise issues, especially these little 1/3" cameras. I'll even go so far as to say that the XL-H1 is more noisy than the HVX - the noise on the H1 however has a slightly different "look" to it making it less offensive.

In short, learn the settings on the camera and how best to tweak them to eliminate noise. Most importantly, learn how to light a scene!!! If you're having to gain up to 12db in a scene, odds are you're not properly lighting it. We've had a hundred some odd years with the noise/grain from motion picture film, but we learned how to deal with it and work around it. You must do the same thing with these new cameras, learn their limitations and how best to work within them.

If you're shooting weddings, I wouldn't recommend any of the HDV or HVX cameras. They're all **** in uncontrollable lowlight settings such as a candle lit church. If you're making films, commercials, episodics, or anything else where you can control the environment then you'll be more than happy with these cameras.

A terrific example of learning your equipment can be seen with the HD100. Someone here (I forget who it was exactly) picked up an HD100, and rather than join in on the SSE & Noisy Image ***** sessions he chose to test a multitude of adjustments to the camera settings. What happened??? He was able to achieve an increase in latitude equivalent to bumping the gain to 9db or so while maintaining a fairly noise-free image.

Sorry for being annoying, but I'm just so bloody sick of hearing about "HVX noise" - especially when it's origins are from rumor or improperly setup/untested gear. Remember, the advantages of this new technology far outweighs its flaws. Just do a continuous shot going from a very dimly lit indoor setting to the bright daylight outside to see what I mean - now try the same thing with 35mm film and tell me the digital camera doesn't have the advantage in that situation.

 

[harlan]

I love the noise-free nature of the Sony FX1 and Z1 image

That's a bit of a stretch, calling the FX1 & Z1 "noise free". Great cameras, YES, but they also suffer from the same noise trouble that everything else does (it may not be as apparent in most situations, but they're certainly not "low-light champions" by any stretch of the imagination).

 

[Alex Leith]

That's a bit of a stretch, calling the FX1 & Z1 "noise free".

Okay, yes... I mean noise free relative to most 1/3in CCD camcorders. And you're right they're pretty limp in low light. I owned and used a JVC GY-DV700W (2/3in 16:9 CCDs) for a couple of years, and that had a beautiful noise-free image (DV compression aside) and was also great in low-light. The compromise was that it was large and expensive.

Harlan, you're absolutely right that we need to see these cameras as tools and work with the limitations positively rather than fret about the fact that we're not getting the "perfect" camera on what is essentially a shoestring budget (again relatively speaking!)

 

[stabwound]

It's not just "an issue with this camera"!!!! God I wish people would stop implying that it is; there's just nothing worse than misinformation. Not pointing fingers at anyone or anything.

EVERYTHING is going to have noise issues, especially these little 1/3" cameras. I'll even go so far as to say that the XL-H1 is more noisy than the HVX - the noise on the H1 however has a slightly different "look" to it making it less offensive.

In short, learn the settings on the camera and how best to tweak them to eliminate noise. Most importantly, learn how to light a scene!!! If you're having to gain up to 12db in a scene, odds are you're not properly lighting it. We've had a hundred some odd years with the noise/grain from motion picture film, but we learned how to deal with it and work around it. You must do the same thing with these new cameras, learn their limitations and how best to work within them.

If you're shooting weddings, I wouldn't recommend any of the HDV or HVX cameras. They're all poo poo in uncontrollable lowlight settings such as a candle lit church. If you're making films, commercials, episodics, or anything else where you can control the environment then you'll be more than happy with these cameras.

A terrific example of learning your equipment can be seen with the HD100. Someone here (I forget who it was exactly) picked up an HD100, and rather than join in on the SSE & Noisy Image ***** sessions he chose to test a multitude of adjustments to the camera settings. What happened??? He was able to achieve an increase in latitude equivalent to bumping the gain to 9db or so while maintaining a fairly noise-free image.

Sorry for being annoying, but I'm just so bloody sick of hearing about "HVX noise" - especially when it's origins are from rumor or improperly setup/untested gear. Remember, the advantages of this new technology far outweighs its flaws. Just do a continuous shot going from a very dimly lit indoor setting to the bright daylight outside to see what I mean - now try the same thing with 35mm film and tell me the digital camera doesn't have the advantage in that situation.

Harlan... take it easy, buddy.

The folks above are just submitting their impressions of their personal uses of the HVX , both good points and bad. If they were to leave out the negatives, then I'd consider THAT misinformative.

Yes, I am concerned about noise. From what I've read, all the 1/3 sensors are noisy in one way or the other... I just wanna determine the degree and the nature of the noise.... and these posts are really helpful.

I hope to do lotsa greenscreens and composites with the HVX. Image components with noise will not look good when composited with a CG generated image.

But I'm sure, once everyone has used the HVX, someone will ocme up with a work around to minimize the noise aspect.

 

[harlan]

Yeah yeah, I know.



.

 

[Loki]

This noise issue is really starting to worry me.

why does that worry you?


DVX has lots of noise... all these 1/3" camera's do... proper lighting and exposure goes a long way..

 

[Kearney]

Someone told me that shooting in 1080 24p will clean up the image noise. Have you tried that?

not yet. i suspect that dealing with HVX200 noise will similar to dealing with DVX100a noise - much improved by good lighting and exposure, and the choice of color matrix and gamma curve. i accept some noise as part of the tradeoff of 1/3" CCDs. at this point in camcorder evolution, i don't think we can expect to spend under $20,000 and get no noise. i think we're getting quite a camcorder for the money. a sony XDCAM IMX picture (2/3", 50mbs) has zero noise but then the body only is $30,000.

i mention the noise only in giving a honest, balanced full-disclosure. in my overall "big picture" assessment, the noise is a relatively minor problem. again, my basic impression is incredible picture and the great value of non-linear P2 playback.

 

[Emanuel]

Harlan... take it easy, buddy.

The folks above are just submitting their impressions of their personal uses of the HVX , both good points and bad. If they were to leave out the negatives, then I'd consider THAT misinformative.

Yes, I am concerned about noise. From what I've read, all the 1/3 sensors are noisy in one way or the other... I just wanna determine the degree and the nature of the noise.... and these posts are really helpful.

You are completely right!

 

[Emanuel]

not yet. i suspect that dealing with HVX200 noise will similar to dealing with DVX100a noise - much improved by good lighting and exposure, and the choice of color matrix and gamma curve. i accept some noise as part of the tradeoff of 1/3" CCDs.

Of course. But because it's HD -- despite my DVX ignorance as non-owner, I think it's noticeable than SD. If I'm not wrong but unfortunately I think that I'm not.

at this point in camcorder evolution, i don't think we can expect to spend under $20,000 and get no noise.

I hope so. That is, with a 1/2" CCD there will be more performance at low lighting. See this (February, 22) report what Mauricio Rubenstein from InDigEnt films (the same US company that produced November or Wenders' Land of Plenty shooted@DVX) he is saying:

http://www.if.com.au/tech/2006/02/22.html

[26th & 27th paragraphs]

i mention the noise only in giving a honest, balanced full-disclosure. in my overall "big picture" assessment, the noise is a relatively minor problem. again, my basic impression is incredible picture and the great value of non-linear P2 playback.

To some shooters the HVX is a dream came true because they didn't need so much image quality to web or SD delivery. To others like everyone that needs it to 35mm blow-up, we are very concerned with this handicap. If not all -- fortunately, a lot of indie people that are needing of run & gun devices to doc work or to working with very small crews with available light set-ups an so on. And there are a lot of professionals with this goal as method of work. Here is the 1/3" chip limits problem that the majority of us is thinking that wouldn't be more a limitation. But IMHO, HD with 1/3" CCD is not the ideal marriage. At least, with these low rez 1/3" chips. Maybe in the future... Prove me that I'm wrong, please!

 

[Kearney]

Of course. But because it's HD -- despite my DVX ignorance as non-owner, I think it's noticeable than SD. If I'm not wrong but unfortunately I think that I'm not.

the HVX noise is way less noticeable than with the DVX, in my opinion.

I hope so. That is, with a 1/2" CCD there will be more performance at low lighting. See this (February, 22) report what Mauricio Rubenstein from InDigEnt films (the same US company that produced November or Wenders' Land of Plenty shooted@DVX) he is saying:

true, 1/2" gives better performance in low light. but this Sony XDCAM HD in the article you point to is essentially a $30,000 HDV camera: 35mbs (for 1920x1080) long GOP MPEG-2, 4:2:0 color. if it were I-frame only and a much higher bit rate, it would be much better. but it's $17,000 for the body and $12,000 for a HD lens.

To some shooters the HVX is a dream came true because they didn't need so much image quality to web or SD delivery. To others like everyone that needs it to 35mm blow-up, we are very concerned with this handicap. If not all -- fortunately, a lot of indie people that are needing of run & gun devices to doc work or to working with very small crews with available light set-ups an so on. And there are a lot of professionals with this goal as method of work. Here is the 1/3" chip limits problem that the majority of us is thinking that wouldn't be more a limitation. But IMHO, HD with 1/3" CCD is not the ideal marriage. At least, with these low rez 1/3" chips. Maybe in the future... Prove me that I'm wrong, please!

i think the HVX image would blow up pretty well. i saw some 1920x1080 projected on a big screen and it looked great. it was professionally lit and shot. otherwise you could wait for the upcoming:

"The new AJ-HPC2000 is equipped with three HD resolution 2/3” CCDs and 14-bit A/D processing, offering exceptional dynamic range and low light recording in the 720p or 1080i HD and 480i SD formats. The 2/3” CCD imager allows the use of widely-available professional quality lenses and accessories. The camcorder offers high sensitivity (F10 at 2000 lux), and can capture images at a minimum illumination of 0.032 lux (at +62dB), addressing the most challenging requirements of broadcasters."

-from news at Panasonic.

at a price comparable to the 1/2" XDCAM HD, in november.

 

[joelnet]

That's a bit of a stretch, calling the FX1 & Z1 "noise free". Great cameras, YES, but they also suffer from the same noise trouble that everything else does (it may not be as apparent in most situations, but they're certainly not "low-light champions" by any stretch of the imagination).

I just got done doing a several hours worth of side by side HVX vs. Z1 with a friend. Plugged into my Dell 2405, the live (not HDV) image from the Z1 was less noisy at +12DB than anything we could dial into the HVX at 0DB (720p)... and we tried everything.

BUT - the HVX still looks really good. At 3 feet from the monitor the noise disappears. On my 50" DLP you can really see the pixeldance at about 2 feet viewing distance but at 6+ feet it disappears. So it's "there", but it shouldn't be a a deal killer. 1080 might help, but I would think someone would have mentioned that by now.

Some pixeldance coats the entire HVX luminance range no matter what you do. Shadows, mids, highlights, daylight, lowlight - it's there. We saw very little, if any help using detail coring.

I'll add that the camera is overall very cool and I really like a lot of things about it.

I think the firmware needs to be updated so we get full access to the gamma curves... we should be able to dial in curves on our computer and upload them as custom curves. I'm told that the Canon has some pretty advanced curve capabilities. If Panny wants us to squeeze this camera for all it's worth we're going to need that.

 

[joelnet]

Image components with noise will not look good when composited with a CG generated image.

But I'm sure, once everyone has used the HVX, someone will ocme up with a work around to minimize the noise aspect.

In film they sometimes drop a layer of grain over the whole composite or the CG elements to make the CG elements blend better. You'll have to do that with the HVX IMHO. I think noise workarounds will start to be developed. Some are considering lighting up the whole scene and bringing it down in post for instance. Good thought - but I'm outside in the rain at 2am. How do I light those shadows?

 

[stabwound]

In film they sometimes drop a layer of grain over the whole composite or the CG elements to make the CG elements blend better. You'll have to do that with the HVX IMHO. I think noise workarounds will start to be developed.

I was afraid of that.

Some are considering lighting up the whole scene and bringing it down in post for instance. Good thought - but I'm outside in the rain at 2am. How do I light those shadows?

Yup. We need dem shadows for our next horror flick. Without shadows, Dracula would suck. OOps. Maybe we should try high key lit comedies instead. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

I've not seen any actual HVX footage yet, but the report that the Z1 cranked up to 12db is as good as the HVX at 0db for noise really depresses me. I had the FX1 for a few months and sold it, so it's the only camera I can relate to so far.

Maybe when I actually get to see the noise, I may not find it too objectionable.

I'll check out Leo's camera store in Vancouver on Monday.