4:2:2 HVX vs 4:2:0 DVX in SD or WMV

T

TotalX

Active member
Just wanted to know if anyone has compared side-to-side a shot with the HVX and DVX in SD and if the colorspace of the HVX really made a noticable difference.

I plan on doing alot of work in WMV and was wondering if the HVX was even worth it considering the file size will be larger for customers to download vs using the DVX.
 
there have been no images from the HVX as of yet, I don't think we'll see the results from a test like this until December - I assume you will see richer color tonalities though with 4:2:2 colorspace - thats 4x more the color information, (barry correct me if I'm wrong)
 
ok. Thanks. i will wait and see how eveyone likes it. I will especially be interested if going to SD DVD with the HVX has any advantages to warrant the extra cost.
 
Is se 4 benefits with the HVX for SD DVD

Better colorcorrecting in post

Slow motion

Better for multigeneration work

Is sound cool with the lable: "Mastered in HD"
 
Not exactly related to your post, but . . .

I would guess that the DVX is about a 450-line, horizontal-resolution camera (Barry, post a correction, if known). Jan said that the HVX is probably about a 650-line, horizontal-resolution camera. We oughta see a noticable difference in the HVX from just the higher-res optics/cleaner signal right there.
 
I was wondering about the resolution myself. But, I remember in a previous post that Barry said that downrezzing to SD - you are better off using the DVX since it doesn't make that much difference.
 
If you are shooting anything other than 4:3, then the HVX will have a considerable advantage over the DVX even when shooting SD video.

Using either squeeze or in camera / post letterboxing gives up a considerable amount of resolution [1- (1.33 / 1.778) or about 25%], so this combinded with the 4:2:2 color space, I would expect an easily noticeable improvement over the DVX on SD projects.

I shoot with the anamorphic adapter quite often and I can tell you that despite it being a pretty decent piece of glass, I won't miss it a bit once I start shooting with the HVX.
 
TotalX said:
I was wondering about the resolution myself. But, I remember in a previous post that Barry said that downrezzing to SD - you are better off using the DVX since it doesn't make that much difference.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily -- what I said was, if all other things are equal, then the downrezzed HD won't look sharper or higher-res than the SD original. That wasn't meant to apply to any specific cameras, other than those that I spelled out -- such as, a downrezzed VariCam vs. an SDX900, my money's on the SDX900 producing at least as good, and probably better, final results on DVD


A fair comparison requires all other things to be equal, but there are a couple of things about the HVX/DVX comparison that are not equal. First and foremost, the HVX has native 16:9 chips, the DVX doesn't. Second, the HVX has DVCPRO50, and the DVX doesn't. So just based on those factors (and forgetting the HD downrez red herring), it would seem, on paper, that the HVX could have some significant advantages for SD DVD release.

I would expect (and this is just an assumption based on theory) that an HVX shooting DVCPRO50 is going to deliver a better-looking final DVD than an HVX shooting HD and downrezzing would. And that should be a great way to put the theory to the test -- in one camera we have ALL other things equal! Same lens, same chips, etc.
 
khmuse said:
I shoot with the anamorphic adapter quite often and I can tell you that despite it being a pretty decent piece of glass, I won't miss it a bit once I start shooting with the HVX.
Click to expand...
Same here. I already sold the anamorphic, in anticipation of getting the HVX...
 
low light performance

low light performance

I read somewhere the the HVX will be at least 1 stop slower than the DVX. I hope that's not the case because the DVX is not the best in low light as it is..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top