hmm.. having an HVX in my hands right now, and having shot plenty of things in both 1080p and 720p now,, i really dont know where this is coming from. without doing any fancy tests or getting into math whatsoever its pretty easy to see that the 1080p image holds more detail than the 720p. just today i was checking out the detail of a laser printed magazine cover. in 720p the laser dots are just specs.. almost like grain.. not well defined and dancing around with moire a little. switch to 1080 and i can see every single printed dot clearly defined with space between. ive uprezzed and resized the 720p material to see how it compares before as well, and the 1080p simply holds more detail. the 720p image just cant resolve the finer detail. of course i realize that this whole thing is just one of those things that people chatter about when a new camera comes out, but simply looking at the images from it i really have no idea where the idea that it isnt any better is coming from.
1080/24p Is More Detailed Than 720 Mode
- Thread starter PappasArts
- Start date
kyle_doris
Well-known member
reading all these posts is starting to get frustrating... is there any way Barry or someone could do a test and then not comment (if they feel it's inappropriate) i guess i'll just wait to test it out myself. I'm perfectly fine with it being a 720p24N camera, because for my next project we were considering doing that anyway until p2 becomes cheaper and bigger.
still i'd like to know or @ least see a picture or two.
still i'd like to know or @ least see a picture or two.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Pappas. Seriously.
This kind of thing (starting up a thread with an incendiary topic like "is 1080/24p useless") is the kind of thing that got you banned once before. Now you're talking about gathering all of Jan's posts and -- what, starting a class-action lawsuit? Puh-leeze. We simply don't need that kind of drama here. If you want to participate in the community, you're welcome to. If you want to stir up rumors and throw molotov cocktails around, you'll find that we have no patience for that here.
Now, let's address some of your concerns, assuming that they are legitimate concerns instead of merely trying to stir up some trouble (which, by the way, would be classified as "trolling", something we do not tolerate):
Is 1080p "useless"? How can you even say that? You've shown pictures that show the difference. You've seen the footage. Have you, or have you not, praised the footage continually?
Is there a difference between 1080 and 720? Yes, absolutely. Is Plastercity wrong? No. Can these two be reconciled? Yes. The difference is in the RECORDED footage. The live image on the scope will probably show a very similar image. But once you record it, the 1080 retains more detail than the 720 does. 1080 is *not* made from up-rezzing the 720 signal; 720 is made from downrezzing the 1080 signal.
I think they're about equivalent in vertical res, but 1080p retains a significant amount more horizontal resolution.
And as Neil said above me, and as I'm saying, yes there's a difference. It is not twice the resolution, no. It is somewhere around 30% more on the horizontal, and roughly equivalent on the vertical. 1080p holds more detail. If you're not taking the recorded image into context, then you're not making a valid judgement.
I mean, seriously. Keep it in context. Look at the footage. The HVX footage slays. It's gorgeous. Everyone who has one says so. I have yet to see a user report from someone who has the product who says "disappointing" or anything like that. In fact, as Jarred will announce shortly, the HVX was used for a pick-up scene in a $75,000,000 multi-Oscar-nominated feature film. They needed to reshoot a scene to comply with certain foreign distribution requirements, and they shot the scene on an HVX200.
So, the tool is what it is. It is a fantastic product. It makes a gorgeous image. Buy it or don't. But don't try spreading misinformation in an alarmist fashion, or you may find yourself on the outside looking in again. And nobody wants that to happen.
This kind of thing (starting up a thread with an incendiary topic like "is 1080/24p useless") is the kind of thing that got you banned once before. Now you're talking about gathering all of Jan's posts and -- what, starting a class-action lawsuit? Puh-leeze. We simply don't need that kind of drama here. If you want to participate in the community, you're welcome to. If you want to stir up rumors and throw molotov cocktails around, you'll find that we have no patience for that here.
Now, let's address some of your concerns, assuming that they are legitimate concerns instead of merely trying to stir up some trouble (which, by the way, would be classified as "trolling", something we do not tolerate):
Is 1080p "useless"? How can you even say that? You've shown pictures that show the difference. You've seen the footage. Have you, or have you not, praised the footage continually?
Is there a difference between 1080 and 720? Yes, absolutely. Is Plastercity wrong? No. Can these two be reconciled? Yes. The difference is in the RECORDED footage. The live image on the scope will probably show a very similar image. But once you record it, the 1080 retains more detail than the 720 does. 1080 is *not* made from up-rezzing the 720 signal; 720 is made from downrezzing the 1080 signal.
I think they're about equivalent in vertical res, but 1080p retains a significant amount more horizontal resolution.
And as Neil said above me, and as I'm saying, yes there's a difference. It is not twice the resolution, no. It is somewhere around 30% more on the horizontal, and roughly equivalent on the vertical. 1080p holds more detail. If you're not taking the recorded image into context, then you're not making a valid judgement.
I mean, seriously. Keep it in context. Look at the footage. The HVX footage slays. It's gorgeous. Everyone who has one says so. I have yet to see a user report from someone who has the product who says "disappointing" or anything like that. In fact, as Jarred will announce shortly, the HVX was used for a pick-up scene in a $75,000,000 multi-Oscar-nominated feature film. They needed to reshoot a scene to comply with certain foreign distribution requirements, and they shot the scene on an HVX200.
So, the tool is what it is. It is a fantastic product. It makes a gorgeous image. Buy it or don't. But don't try spreading misinformation in an alarmist fashion, or you may find yourself on the outside looking in again. And nobody wants that to happen.
Barry_Green
Moderator
kyle_doris said:
I've done that test. 720p looks great, and 1080p retains more detail. It's not night-and-day. It's not as much detail as the pixel count of the frame would indicate. But it is more detailed, my guess is around 30% more horizontal resolution is retained in the 1080 mode.
Is that enough for someone to give up recording time on the card for? That's up to each individual shooter to decide. I usually think it is, I usually shoot 1080.
But like I said -- wait for what Jarred posts. It'll blow your mind. And might make you feel plenty comfortable about getting and using an HVX200.
PappasArts
Veteran
The film-out was beautiful considering it came from a 6k camera. Though director Ben Rich and producer Illya Friedman had only a few days to use the camera, their results were gorgeous. PlasterCity did great post work as well LaserPacifics film out. They did shoot it in 720p, however many of us hoped to squeeze at-least 30% more out of the 1080p. That was the hope....
Still a great camera no matter what. It's color is so sweet, and quite sensitive in low-light. More so than I thought after testing it last night. The Lens is tack sharp.... I luv the magnify feature, It's awesome. Tough solid camera too! P2 is so cool. Luv thumbnails, just luv it! I can't wait for the 4 gigs to drop price even more so people can have many P2 cards.
Still a great camera no matter what. It's color is so sweet, and quite sensitive in low-light. More so than I thought after testing it last night. The Lens is tack sharp.... I luv the magnify feature, It's awesome. Tough solid camera too! P2 is so cool. Luv thumbnails, just luv it! I can't wait for the 4 gigs to drop price even more so people can have many P2 cards.
dregenthal said:
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
I think a rez chart comparison of 1080 to 720 is needed ASAP to clear this up. I'm very surprised it hasn't happened yet. I've advocated this at least three times in the last week. Had I a camera in hand, this would be first order of business based on the growing angst over the issue.
After downloading all the Sundance clips that were so graciously offered to the community, some of which were 720 and some 1080, I have to say I don't visually see a lick of difference between them. And if there is a difference in rez, it's so small that it makes no sense to waste the P2 space on double or more the bandwidth, IMO.
The camera makes great 720, and bad-ass SD with a luminous and rich picture. Just take a look at Evins flower stills, or Steevs recent tests. I don't feel slighted by the poor performance of the 1080, as I never had much real hope for it in the first place. If 1080 is what you need, then there is an excellent option in the form of the Canon.
Regards,
Jim Arthurs
EDIT: Man, it took me so long to write this that there were five new posts. Still would like to see the same chart and remove at least some of the guess work. As I said, 30% more rez... some great value, 15% or less... save the space...
After downloading all the Sundance clips that were so graciously offered to the community, some of which were 720 and some 1080, I have to say I don't visually see a lick of difference between them. And if there is a difference in rez, it's so small that it makes no sense to waste the P2 space on double or more the bandwidth, IMO.
The camera makes great 720, and bad-ass SD with a luminous and rich picture. Just take a look at Evins flower stills, or Steevs recent tests. I don't feel slighted by the poor performance of the 1080, as I never had much real hope for it in the first place. If 1080 is what you need, then there is an excellent option in the form of the Canon.
Regards,
Jim Arthurs
EDIT: Man, it took me so long to write this that there were five new posts. Still would like to see the same chart and remove at least some of the guess work. As I said, 30% more rez... some great value, 15% or less... save the space...
imgentertainment@mac
The Reverend
Panasonic dose give you a 1080p camera. it is just up rezed they did not say anything about it being native. This is a big bummer for me sence I was looking at shooting film personal film projects with this for 35 blow up. I still think this will work in 720. It works with the dvx. But for commerical jobs and music videos the jobs the pay the bills and put food on the table. I was going to use 720p any way. For hd film with a budget or a film job that I am getting good money for. I always will rent or buy a Cinaalt to do 1080p. So you just have to look at what your doing. and realise what you are getting for 6 grand.
Actually, after reading the other thread with all the threats about suing Panasonic Mr. Pappas, I do mean a great deal of disrespect. I am fairly new to this forum and concluded from your many posts that you were one of the "wise men" on this site. I was wrong.
I must have been at a different meeting than you were, or maybe you just have a selective memory. It was quite clear that Michael Cioni implied only that his observations led him to the conclusion that it "looked" like the camera produced at best a slightly better than 720p picture but that since Panasonic refused to state the resolution of the imagers he had no way to know for sure. The Panasonic guy winced at the comment but chose not to discuss it.
It is unlikely that Panasonic has lied about anything regarding the sampling method being appied to the output of the imagers. There would not be any reason to even imply it.
So the 1080p image does not look significantly better than the 720p mode. The most obvious explanation is simply that the imagers don't produce much more resolution beyond which a 720p sample reveals. That would fit with the fact that they won't reveal the resolution of the imagers at all.
So the camera imagers are not as sharp as you would like them to be. That is a fair criticism but not grounds for any kind of lawsuit. Personally, I thought some of the images shown at the meeting were a little soft, and I sat in the front row in front of the display. But then alot of footage I have seen from the DVX looks a little soft to me.
Regarding the work flow comments and the Canon camera. Most or Mr. Cioni's comments had little to do with the "workflow" and were mainly about HDV artifacts.
I doubt seriously that HDV footage floats around his facility as native HDV. It's already been converted to another format that simplifies the post process or is better for color correcting or effects work. He specifically stated that using HDV winds up costing more time and money in the mastering process TO REMOVE HDV ARTIFACTS. He SPECIFICALLY mentioned having to "paint out" HDV artifacts.
The comments regarding capturing HDV to the DVCPro codec are irrelevant to the issues mentioned unless you are implying that playing back HDV native in your NLE induces more codec playback errors than playing HDV out of a deck or camera. If the codec errors are the same in an NLE as the camera, then the HDV artifacts are simply being passed on and embedded into the newly recorded media using this method. Regarding Elvis's experience, certainly the original resolution would be recorded intact to the new media. But it also implies that the footage he tranfered this way either 1, happened to not exhibit any of the commonly mentioned HDV arifacts or 2, the artifacts were there but considered acceptable by Mr. Elvis. That is all that can be implied.
All of these cameras have advantages and disadvantages. By not revealing the imager resolution Panasonic is simply saying "we are selling this camera as a PACKAGE of features and want it to judge on it's OVERALL merits and usefullness". This is the same reasoning behind the fact that computer CPU makers like Intel have stopped pushing clock speed as the main feature of a processor. Rather, it's the entire package of features the CPU offers that's important.
If you think the image does not have enough resolution to suit your needs then fine. Sell your camera or cancel your order and get the Canon. Open up a space for the next person waiting in line. Put your money where your mouth is and MOVE ON. Stop misrepresenting what was said by who.
The panelists at the meeting clearly had issues with the camera. They also clearly endorsed the camera. Moviola also has made a significant commitment to providing resources to the people who are going to use this camera. Obviously they believe in it.
You have stated that you do not care about the various frame rates and other features of the camera, only sheer picture resolution. Maybe this camera isn't for you. Get the Canon and STFU.
There are lots of people who will love this camera.
I must have been at a different meeting than you were, or maybe you just have a selective memory. It was quite clear that Michael Cioni implied only that his observations led him to the conclusion that it "looked" like the camera produced at best a slightly better than 720p picture but that since Panasonic refused to state the resolution of the imagers he had no way to know for sure. The Panasonic guy winced at the comment but chose not to discuss it.
It is unlikely that Panasonic has lied about anything regarding the sampling method being appied to the output of the imagers. There would not be any reason to even imply it.
So the 1080p image does not look significantly better than the 720p mode. The most obvious explanation is simply that the imagers don't produce much more resolution beyond which a 720p sample reveals. That would fit with the fact that they won't reveal the resolution of the imagers at all.
So the camera imagers are not as sharp as you would like them to be. That is a fair criticism but not grounds for any kind of lawsuit. Personally, I thought some of the images shown at the meeting were a little soft, and I sat in the front row in front of the display. But then alot of footage I have seen from the DVX looks a little soft to me.
Regarding the work flow comments and the Canon camera. Most or Mr. Cioni's comments had little to do with the "workflow" and were mainly about HDV artifacts.
I doubt seriously that HDV footage floats around his facility as native HDV. It's already been converted to another format that simplifies the post process or is better for color correcting or effects work. He specifically stated that using HDV winds up costing more time and money in the mastering process TO REMOVE HDV ARTIFACTS. He SPECIFICALLY mentioned having to "paint out" HDV artifacts.
The comments regarding capturing HDV to the DVCPro codec are irrelevant to the issues mentioned unless you are implying that playing back HDV native in your NLE induces more codec playback errors than playing HDV out of a deck or camera. If the codec errors are the same in an NLE as the camera, then the HDV artifacts are simply being passed on and embedded into the newly recorded media using this method. Regarding Elvis's experience, certainly the original resolution would be recorded intact to the new media. But it also implies that the footage he tranfered this way either 1, happened to not exhibit any of the commonly mentioned HDV arifacts or 2, the artifacts were there but considered acceptable by Mr. Elvis. That is all that can be implied.
All of these cameras have advantages and disadvantages. By not revealing the imager resolution Panasonic is simply saying "we are selling this camera as a PACKAGE of features and want it to judge on it's OVERALL merits and usefullness". This is the same reasoning behind the fact that computer CPU makers like Intel have stopped pushing clock speed as the main feature of a processor. Rather, it's the entire package of features the CPU offers that's important.
If you think the image does not have enough resolution to suit your needs then fine. Sell your camera or cancel your order and get the Canon. Open up a space for the next person waiting in line. Put your money where your mouth is and MOVE ON. Stop misrepresenting what was said by who.
The panelists at the meeting clearly had issues with the camera. They also clearly endorsed the camera. Moviola also has made a significant commitment to providing resources to the people who are going to use this camera. Obviously they believe in it.
You have stated that you do not care about the various frame rates and other features of the camera, only sheer picture resolution. Maybe this camera isn't for you. Get the Canon and STFU.
There are lots of people who will love this camera.
kyle_doris said:
Hi folks -
I shot a couple of quick tests with my HVX at 1080 30p and 720 24pn (native). The clips show a range if materials, finishes and dark black to white - Zoom form 20 to 55 on the HVX zoom ring - both shot at f2.8 - imported into Final Cut Pro in DVCPROHD and output to a Quicktime file also in DVCPROHD so there was no recompression throughout the whole process.
There are better minds than mine that can offer very welcomed anaylisis but my observation is that the 1080 30p sure looks better. Thats about all I am going to say at this point and I will allow everyone to take a crack at the native DVCPROHD clips.
Both clips are saved into a .zip file at this link. The file is 68Megs. Try not to blow up my server!
http://www.ifoliohd.com/HVXsamples.zip
Best,
Kevin Mueller
imgentertainment@mac
The Reverend
Barry_Green said:
See this is what I thought. It would be to work to up rez but not that hard to down rez since that is what is sent the live out puts right? If you hooked it up to a scope it should look the exact same 720 and 720. But if you scoped the recorded footage I believe berry that you would see a difference. It is only logical. So the guys at the meeting are not wrong. They saw 720 in both settings on the scope just like were suppose to. So now that common since has entered the picture can we drop it?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Now that Jarred's made his post, I can fill you in here:
The HVX was used to shoot pickup shots for the foreign theatrical release of Spielberg's five-time-Oscar-nominated "Munich."
THEATRICAL RELEASE.
The HVX200.
MUNICH.
I'm just sayin'...
Okay, I'll say it: to hell with "pixel counts" and "res charts" -- the HVX200 was used for pickup shots in an Oscar-nominated seventy-five-million-dollar Steven Spielberg film! And not just pickup shots, but compositing shots. Ten technicians used to working with 2K film scans worked on the footage, and they chose to shoot it on an HVX.
The HVX was used to shoot pickup shots for the foreign theatrical release of Spielberg's five-time-Oscar-nominated "Munich."
THEATRICAL RELEASE.
The HVX200.
MUNICH.
I'm just sayin'...
Okay, I'll say it: to hell with "pixel counts" and "res charts" -- the HVX200 was used for pickup shots in an Oscar-nominated seventy-five-million-dollar Steven Spielberg film! And not just pickup shots, but compositing shots. Ten technicians used to working with 2K film scans worked on the footage, and they chose to shoot it on an HVX.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Correct.imgentertainment@mac said:
It pretty much does.
You do. The recorded footage retains more resolution.
I hope so.
PappasArts
Veteran
Barry you know I like the HVX200. I must be real about it though. I will not be a fan boy of any camera at all. I look at the material and give my opinion. You have read my positives statements about the HVX all over the place. I am not biased towards any of these cameras. If I was I would own one. If you have tests that say otherwise please post the full original frames. I have praised the footage left and right from the HVX200. The colors are so beautiful and it's simply a great image.
Last night I stood up and explained about some telecined vision s16 stock material that when compared to the HVX, the HVX is cleaner. If I didn't like the HVX200, i wouldn't have stood up in a full room to let people know that the noise issue is BS, and that he camera is in the 300 asa zone having good low light performance.
So many people whine about P2. I praise P2, I luv P2. I think its the future today!
We agree on many points than disagree I'm sure.
As of now I'm done with this thread since it has IMO reached a threshold. Lets just see some awesome raw or near raw footage like the H1 material being posted all over the place.
For god sakes please no more poo poo in the fan footage.
Last night I stood up and explained about some telecined vision s16 stock material that when compared to the HVX, the HVX is cleaner. If I didn't like the HVX200, i wouldn't have stood up in a full room to let people know that the noise issue is BS, and that he camera is in the 300 asa zone having good low light performance.
So many people whine about P2. I praise P2, I luv P2. I think its the future today!
We agree on many points than disagree I'm sure.
As of now I'm done with this thread since it has IMO reached a threshold. Lets just see some awesome raw or near raw footage like the H1 material being posted all over the place.
For god sakes please no more poo poo in the fan footage.
Barry_Green said:
If I was to go to a reliable post house that does thousands of Film outs and has reputable experience, and they told me there was no gain from filming 1080p on the HVX, I would certainly be concerned, like Pappas did. Let's not forget the HVX brochure states that the image is scanned on 1080P processing, and not 720P processing. This in theory is basis for a lawsuit, IF there's really no gain from going 1080p on the HVX. However, everyone out there with the HVX seems to agree that the 1080P footage has more detail than the 720P footage- And also, above all, Pappas himself saw the HVX blowup to film and said it was gorgeous. Isn't this what, in the end, matters? Anyway, I'm still going with the Hvx. But I'm still torn on Pal vs Ntsc...
Danilo Del Tufo
Well-known member
SPZ said:Hmm, very skeptical about this... Even tough theoretically dvcpro hd pal in 1080 is 1440... And I'm not seing any ccd revision on the PAL version... So it will still be at its best on 720P resolution, wich is equal in both territories (like you said in the Panasonic broadcast forum
Danilo, have you tried messing with the ntsc footage in post? Have you tried any Pal conversion? What are your results?
I have not did any test :embarasse , I'm waiting for the pal model, and a Quad (maybe Intel powemac for april?). According to Pal Dvcpro Hd specs, 1080p must show more resolution, Barry Green thinks the same too.
Considering the waiting time for Pal model I think it's due to this problem, a lot of people waiting for Pal camera to have resolution advantage, I hope to shot in 1080p, and use only a bit of 720p.
When I'll buy the camera (I believe in March) I'll do some test, in Italy Panasonic will launch *official* Hvx200 for Olympic Games.
http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/torino_2006/panasonic_olympics.asp
Italy has the official *launch* of P2 format and Hvx200 and Spx800.
In Naples, where I live, TeleCapri tv station has changed their system to P2 format too:
http://translate.google.com/transla...&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools
Well Panasonic has a lot of responsibility to maintain...
Cameras do not upsample. 720p does not come from 1080p and 1080p does not come from 720p. You just sample the ccd at different rates.
The detail has to be there in order to show. Many people scale 1080 to 720 to discover little difference in image in HDV cameras. That's normal. 720 already gets all the detail out. If you scale a resolution chart you will see resolution is lost. Same applies to HVX200. You can sample audio at 32khz and 48khz. Will you always hear an important difference in the output? It depends. Sampling a CCD is the same. The detail has to be there and you have to look for it. If you make sure it is there (resolution chart that goes beyond both formats) you will see the difference.
1080p is better for many reasons. Nyquist is higher and alias should be lower. More chroma is recorded in 1080p (640 compared to 480 horizontal pixels). And even if the ccd is 960x720, with pixelshifting you can get a lot more luma than 720p can record.
The Panasonic 1080p format is 1280 horizontal pixels so it is normal that you will see less detail than a format that sample 1440pixels or more (HDV or HDCAM etc).
The Panasonic 1080p is the only affordable HD format so far that does not have horizontal combed chroma artifacts due to 4:2:0 sampling. Zoom at a Canon or Sony frame and look for a red to grey transition. Also, look at a chart with colour blocks, such as the CamAligh ones. There is a line with pixels without any color in trasitions on the vertical axis. A grey line in a red block in a grey to red vertical transition that is.
Luma is not everything. HVX200 has the best color quality in 1080 so far (no artifacts). Not to mention its color precision. Too bad we don't measure color in these cameras. HVX200 is slightly better than the Sony (which is very good in that department) and a hell of a lot better than the Canon. On the Canon you have to color correct every single scene. Every daylight scene I have seen so far is totally wrong and needs tons of CC to look natural and get close to reality.
Btw, no company guarantees the final output resolution and that would be impossible with this quality of optics and size of imaging area anyway. The resolution is just a specification.
The detail has to be there in order to show. Many people scale 1080 to 720 to discover little difference in image in HDV cameras. That's normal. 720 already gets all the detail out. If you scale a resolution chart you will see resolution is lost. Same applies to HVX200. You can sample audio at 32khz and 48khz. Will you always hear an important difference in the output? It depends. Sampling a CCD is the same. The detail has to be there and you have to look for it. If you make sure it is there (resolution chart that goes beyond both formats) you will see the difference.
1080p is better for many reasons. Nyquist is higher and alias should be lower. More chroma is recorded in 1080p (640 compared to 480 horizontal pixels). And even if the ccd is 960x720, with pixelshifting you can get a lot more luma than 720p can record.
The Panasonic 1080p format is 1280 horizontal pixels so it is normal that you will see less detail than a format that sample 1440pixels or more (HDV or HDCAM etc).
The Panasonic 1080p is the only affordable HD format so far that does not have horizontal combed chroma artifacts due to 4:2:0 sampling. Zoom at a Canon or Sony frame and look for a red to grey transition. Also, look at a chart with colour blocks, such as the CamAligh ones. There is a line with pixels without any color in trasitions on the vertical axis. A grey line in a red block in a grey to red vertical transition that is.
Luma is not everything. HVX200 has the best color quality in 1080 so far (no artifacts). Not to mention its color precision. Too bad we don't measure color in these cameras. HVX200 is slightly better than the Sony (which is very good in that department) and a hell of a lot better than the Canon. On the Canon you have to color correct every single scene. Every daylight scene I have seen so far is totally wrong and needs tons of CC to look natural and get close to reality.
Btw, no company guarantees the final output resolution and that would be impossible with this quality of optics and size of imaging area anyway. The resolution is just a specification.
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
limo991 said:
1280 by 1080 DVCPRO 100 can look terrific, but I think it's rather ironic it took a Canon using fake progressive to show this to me. Let me explain...
Limo991, you make great points, and all are valid reasons to shoot 1080, but this statement I have to discuss, because it's at the heart of my HVX 1080 dissapointment.
The first time I realized that the Canon was really pounding the HVX in resolution was when viewing the "sisters" clip from Elton. This was the Canon fed into a NLE and recorded straight to DVCPRO 100. The clip had terrific detail, screamed "I'm HD!", and was the faux 24progressive and recompressed to H264 before I saw it, to boot. This made me reconsider everything I'd seen from both the HVX and the Canon up to that point. All the Canon clips I've seen have a true HD resolution feel to them. All the 1080 HVX clips feel... lacking. It's a gut level reaction from one viewer's standpoint.
I think of the HVX as a "Baby Varicam" and I'm very happy with what I'm getting. I think those who think it's also a valid "Baby CineAlta" are going to be let down.
Regards,
Jim Arthurs
Alex Leith
Well-known member
kevinM said:
Thanks Kevin for doing that. It's nice to see some uncompressed footage.
Justyn
Veteran
Jim Arthurs said:
Jim, what are you smoking and if it's any good pass it around. These statments about the canon compared to the HVX are incredulous. Rez tests on a fixed chart aside, the canon footage doesn't look at all like the kind of HD footage I want. It looks dark, merky, devoid of color and just plain yucky poo poo. I am/was a canon guy who's making the switch. I have been completely blown away by the HVX footage and physical attributes. The canon may be a good choice for others.. and I'm sure the debates will continue. But, given that I have deep sockets with eyeballs, I'll choose to make up my own opinion.. as countless others are doing the same. I feel that the Canon people must feel like Red Headed step-children constantly having to justify their purchases and views because they aren't sought after... they are on deales shelves sitting idle.. and certainly their isn't a clammering collection of filmakers after them... either now or when it was released. The local dealer has not sold ONE. He even let's it go out on demos overnight and still no sales. I was in his office and even heard a guy say, "hmmm the canon was nice, but I'll put my name on the list and wait for the Panasonic".
I'd maybe choose the Canon if I was in Montana shooting Grizzle bears at 12K feet, but down here in reality.. I'll choose the HVX and continue to LOL at the Red-headed canon brethren.
And barry, keep the inventive footage coming. I think maybe 3d crap hitting the fan... Or possibly, IMAX next time. Thanks for having a great sense of humor!