4-cam comparison -- initial response

[Barry_Green]

Haven't had a chance to use a remote focus product yet. Matte box is a decision I'm still trying to sort out. I had a CAvision but sold it; I think I'm going Vocas; looked at the Chrosziel at EVS the other day, Rush has made the Sony Z1 connecting kit fit on it, but I'd rather wait for the fully integrated kit.

Rush and Jay are big fans of the Marshall 7" ~$1300 LCD; I thought it looked pretty darn good for the price, but didn't spend too much time with it.

 

[Rush]

I don't know what their deal is, usually Chrosziel is Johnny on the spot with technology, and their site still doesn't have an AGHVX200 kit, even though the components already exist to make it happen. They just need to add an 82mm lens adapter and done... I have to call and see what's up. Considering both matteboxes they make for DV, the 41150 and 450HDV already work with the HVX, there should be no delays...

 

[Student]

Hey Guys,
What about the Chrosziel matte box I got to work with the 19_6 panasonic adapter (the one you had to to shave of the front rim to fit) . Will it work with HVX200? It's plenty big enough and with a 82mm lens adapter it could work to , could it?

 

[davidas]

Thanks, Kudos and Rock 'n' Roll, Barry!

Thanks, Kudos and Rock 'n' Roll, Barry!

Hi Barry

I'm replying a tad late, but thanks, again! I couldn't have asked for (or even expected) a more relevant evaluation. Truly awesome. Sure, it's subjective but, hey, as is the case with any technology, we're always stuck with having to transform specifications into procedure - moving dirt from one place to another, whether it be by hand, Cat D-9, carbon or pixels. I've got a definite timeframe within which I've got to choose and purchase equipment, so I really appreciate the direct, illuminating (for me) and often tongue in cheek analysis you took the time to write.

Because I'm not up to speed when it comes grasping the objective results of the comparisons and their immediate implications, I value your opinion. I have to make decisions which, strictly speaking, should be made only AFTER having a command of the technologies in question. Larry Booth, a master filmmaker (I hope) I learned from, used to say, "Before you can create art, you've got to master the medium." That's mostly true, and since he was an engineer, for us students that meant reels and reels of incremented DOF testing, b & w, and color latitude charting, taking apart a 16mm projector in the dark and...well, just learning to generate and internalize the kinds of specs you guys tested and are evaluating in the "shoot out." In the same way, mastering digital HD(V) means being able to manipulate location ambience and lighting against the tested capabilities of the cameras with knowledgeable, reasoned evaluation.

1) the lens..."left, left, left, no, too far, back, wait -- back, back, okay, now stop. No, stop! Stop!...The Panasonic lens just works. Try it. You'll see. Perfect manual zoom, and tack-sharp precise repeatable just-as-good-as-any-manual-only manual focus. It's great glass, very sharp, minimal fringing and even then only at full telephoto. But the key thing is: you can WORK with this lens. Perfect manual zoom, every bit as manual and precise as the JVC. And the focus is perfect perfect perfect. It's absolutely repeatable, absolutely precise. You get distance readouts on the viewfinder/LCD instead of on the barrel, yes -- but that just means it's more usable, because you can see far more precise distance readouts, and they're in front of you at all times rather than as with on-the-barrel cameras where you have to take your eye away from the viewfinder in order to see what the distance markings are. The viewfinder method is, quite simply, better...

-- I hear you, Barry. Man, do I ever. To this day, whenever I've had the infrequent opportunity to pick up a PD150 or VX2000, or even when shopping around for a digital still camera I find myself always reaching for the ring to adjust focus or focal length. Doh. And, when I finally remember to work solenoid switches, it's just like you describe above. The above factors, when combined with the post workflow (looking towards the Cineporter) may be the dealmakers for me (Ok, ok, I expect I'll crash and burn in flames for saying that. ;º}.

...Form Factor: hard to argue here, it's a clear case of which do you prefer and for what...For my taste, I wish the HVX had a shoulder-mount version, but I'm perfectly content with the existing form factor. The camera is on a tripod or jib for 80% of what I do, so the form factor isn't much of a consideration to me.


-- I'd prefer the shoulder mount form factor, as well, and while I reckon a good part of what I'll be doing will be shoulder work, there are solutions like the local DVProRig that's an extra expense, but do the job. Then too, there are the cranes and trackers for steadier non-stationary povs.

Audio: hands down, no question, hand the trophy to the HVX...It would be more usable if the four channels could come from four XLRs though; hopefully there will be a modification soon so we can use additional XLRs instead of the onboard mic for channels 3 & 4.


-- I read the posts below (above?) on that. Thanks for the heads up, guys. I'll be investigating.

Usability/flexibility: here's where the HVX is in such a class unto itself that it's silly to compare. It's like a word processor vs. a pack of typewriters...

-- The only real, outstanding issue for me remains the PAL issue. The PAL version is nearly twice as much dinero than the US one. Ulp. I saw a thread in passing which I want to check out in which a forum member was going to use the NTSC version in Europe anyway, given his requirements. I've gotta do my homework on that, but it may be the way to go for me, as well. I don't know.

Pt. III

...I think the differences between them OTHER than image are what people should be deciding based on. And for any circumstance other than needing to record multiple hours of footage per day, I think the HVX's advantages are compelling.

-- I've been leaning towards the HVX ever since I first heard of it, and actually put off buying the Z1U a few months ago, even though by all accounts it would have served me very well. Sure, I missed out on shooting, which is the point, but I have friends and contacts I worked with a long time ago who are now accomplished DoPs and would happily go to them for the really serious shooting, anyway. I've learned that as time goes by and you wear the treads down on the road of experience you learn to make objective decisions in the moment on an intuitive level. Well, that's the idea, anyway. Heck, I've probably forgotten more than I'll ever know. Thanks to your feedback, Barry, I have a lot more confidence in making a decision for the right reasons. It sounds as if the HVX 200 will more than see me through in terms of learning and workflow until I hopefully can earn a dime. On my own, I want to do events - dance and performing arts (similar, in a way to personal sports documentaries) and the bread and butter weddings and infomercial. I sense there's a place for bringing the film look to these genre, locally and looking to pay some bills with them, but in time, I hope to get into documentary and narrative.

On a final note, it would be extremely interesting to hear similar appraisals by your colleagues with respect to the cams they prefer. We can only benefit and learn! BTW, If I can lend a hand with collating info, tables, editing or whatever, I'll be glad to.

Thank you et al once more. Good luck with your new book. And add my name to the list for pre-orders!

Best regards,

David

 

[Student]

Sorry Rush, just notice you mentioned the Chrosziel 41150p thats the one I have . Would it be simple enough to make a 82mm lens adapter ourslves. Both the camera and matte box are supported by the rails.

 

[holyzoo]

I emailed Century Optics about their DV Wide Matte Box for the HVX200 and it should be coming soon - by March.

 

[Lduke32]

Adam is working on an article for DV.com, and will publish a more in-depth article in DV Magazine


No, we shot what we had -- the Chroma DuMonde and the Ambi Combi-2.



Well, you'll have to see it in context. I think we're looking at up to 25% in each direction, so maybe 30% to 40% more res overall. On a bang-for-the-buck comparison then no, no way will you see 2.5 times as much res for 2.5 times as much space, no. But it is higher res. Another thing to factor in is comparative noise; I think it was Luis Caffesse who said that he thought 720 looked a little less noisy than 1080. I haven't tested for that but I guess I could think of a theoretical reason why, as the 1080->720 downscale may be hiding a bit of noise in the process, so that could be a factor in someone's decision as well. But I don't know that that's the case.

Barry, i thought that there is substantially more image in the 1080 shot versus the 720. Can you validate this from Microsoft ...

Frame Sizes
HD source formats are almost always either 1920 x 1080 resolution or 1280 x 720 resolution. Note that a substantial difference exists between the 1080 and 720 standards. The 1920 x 1080 resolution contains 2.25 times more pixels than 1280 x 720 resolution at the same frame rate. This difference substantially increases requirements for processing 1080 content in terms of encoding time, decoding speed, and storage.

 

[Lduke32]

Adam is working on an article for DV.com, and will publish a more in-depth article in DV Magazine


No, we shot what we had -- the Chroma DuMonde and the Ambi Combi-2.



Well, you'll have to see it in context. I think we're looking at up to 25% in each direction, so maybe 30% to 40% more res overall. On a bang-for-the-buck comparison then no, no way will you see 2.5 times as much res for 2.5 times as much space, no. But it is higher res. Another thing to factor in is comparative noise; I think it was Luis Caffesse who said that he thought 720 looked a little less noisy than 1080. I haven't tested for that but I guess I could think of a theoretical reason why, as the 1080->720 downscale may be hiding a bit of noise in the process, so that could be a factor in someone's decision as well. But I don't know that that's the case.

Barry, i thought that there is substantially more image in the 1080 shot versus the 720. Can you validate this from Microsoft ...

Frame Sizes
HD source formats are almost always either 1920 x 1080 resolution or 1280 x 720 resolution. Note that a substantial difference exists between the 1080 and 720 standards. The 1920 x 1080 resolution contains 2.25 times more pixels than 1280 x 720 resolution at the same frame rate. This difference substantially increases requirements for processing 1080 content in terms of encoding time, decoding speed, and storage.

 

[Barry_Green]

In theoretical terms, yes. In spatial dimensions, yes. In terms of resolved definition on an HVX or XLH1 or Z1 or HD100, not a prayer, not a chance.

The HD100 resolved more definition and more detail than the Z1 did. The Z1 records 1440 x 1080, the HD100 records 1280 x 720. 1.56 million pixels vs. 921,600 pixels. But you can see more detail, more resolved definition, in the HD100 picture.

You cannot just look at the numbers and draw any useful conclusions from them. It simply does not work that way. There are too many factors involved (including lens, chip sampling, the effects of interlacing, pixel shift, DSP processing, recording format subsampling, and on and on and on).

I'll give you a coarse example: say you had a 5x7 sheet of paper, on which a master artist did a pencil sketch of a cat. Then say you had an 10x14 sheet of paper, on which a two-year-old scribbled with a crayon, trying to draw the same cat. Which will have more definition? Which will look better? There's a lot more to it than the size of the paper.

Now, if you were working only in a theoretical, non-camera-based domain, then you'd get exactly the results you'd expect from the numbers. Say you were rendering 3D computer graphics images, and you had a choice to render out at 1280x720 or at 1920x1080 -- yes obviously the bigger format will hold more detail. But when you're talking about a lens and CCDs and sampling chips and all that, the numbers are largely irrelevant -- it's what ends up recorded on the screen that counts.

 

[Jaime Valles]

...I'll give you a coarse example: say you had a 5x7 sheet of paper, on which a master artist did a pencil sketch of a cat. Then say you had an 10x14 sheet of paper, on which a two-year-old scribbled with a crayon, trying to draw the same cat. Which will have more definition? Which will look better? There's a lot more to it than the size of the paper.

Dammit, man!!! What kind of crayons? Crayola?! Is the paper acid-free? Was it a #2 pencil? What about the framing?! It can't be good art if we don't know the specifics of the media, right? What's the thread count on that sheet of paper? Does it have watermarks?

Nobody cares what the image looks like... Talent? BAH! If I have the best tools my art wins! WINS!!!!!

:evil:

 

[Rush]

Would it be simple enough to make a 82mm lens adapter ourslves. Both the camera and matte box are supported by the rails.

Well you'd probably be better off just buying their adapter for under $100, unless you are very handy and have access to a machine shop. It's kinda weird, it has a barrel that steps down to a smaller cylinder, then that has the threads to fit in the lens, and the front cylinder fits precisely into the mattebox's square pancake piece. But if you have someone who can do that, go for it, can't be all that hard for a pro to manufacture.

As far as the baseplate, I had to use the Chrosziel base for sony HDV cameras to get the height of the rails far enough, and also because it is dead center like the HVX, whereas the DVX base was off-center.

 

[Emanuel]

In theoretical terms, yes. In spatial dimensions, yes. In terms of resolved definition on an HVX or XLH1 or Z1 or HD100, not a prayer, not a chance.

The HD100 resolved more definition and more detail than the Z1 did. The Z1 records 1440 x 1080, the HD100 records 1280 x 720. 1.56 million pixels vs. 921,600 pixels. But you can see more detail, more resolved definition, in the HD100 picture.

How does it work? Where's the beef?

 

[Mitch_Ives]

I'm sure there are many here who could give you those answers; I haven't even decided which Mac to order yet.

Barry, it isn't which Mac you get that's important... it's the fact that you finally are...

Seriously, if you need any assistance, I think you'll find me fairly knowledegable in that area, and I'd be happy to assist you with any Mac or FCP questions... as a way of thanking you and Adam for all you've done on this forum...

 

[Barry_Green]

Mac's on order, should be here tomorrow. Just went with the lowly dual G5 2.0 system... and thanks for offering assistance! It's a whole new world, between this and Avid, so I am sure I'll be bugging all you guys for answers!

 

[Mitch_Ives]

Its clear the only answer you want to hear is that your FX1E is a better camera than the HVX200. I don't think you're going to be 'feeling the love' on a forum called HVX200.

I don't know if I agree here. I too remain unconvinced on the P2 issue. Everyone seems to want to dismiss the short recording times, the time to backup, and the problems with having to erase the cards before all the footage can be fully viewed. For short Indy projects this may not be an issue, but for the vast majority of production, these are issues to consider.

I realize that many of you are hanging your hat on these HD recorders, but as someone with a fair amount of experience, they are not the panacea everyone seems to want to think. I've lost footage with them and so has everyone I know that has used them regularly. I find them a great backup to tape, but not a replacement.

Now this doesn't mean I don't like the HVX... it just means I'm not oblivious to the revised workflow of memory stick type devices. Ask any photographer who went all digital... there are a lot of changes in your life and losing media occurs, even when trying to be careful. When we can get P2 cards in the 64GB size for $800 then we'll be buying HVX's in six-packs.

In the meantime, while the JVC has been bashed pretty well on this forum, I've been reviewing one for two months and I reached many of the conclusions that your camera test seems to have finally uncovered... namely that I find it a much better camera than this forums posts would indicate. No disprespect to Barry or Adam, but I haven't had the issues they spoke of and I've flogged it in both HDV and DV in a great many shooting environments. I'm a hare's breath away from buying one and I'm sure I'll be a member of a very large group... people who own a JVC and an HVX...

 

[Mitch_Ives]

Also.....P2 is a revolution. While your capturing your 5 hours of footage from HDV (hoping you don't have dropouts), I'll be importing my 5 hours of hvx footage into FCP in 25 minutes. OH, 5 hours from hvx you say??? IMPOSSIBLE. Surprise!!! I'll be just fine using P2 and/or a firestore for my corp gigs and personal projects.:thumbsup:

Wow, you must be a trust fund baby! Five hours (300 minutes) of P2 at 8 minutes per card, equals 38 cards at what $2,700 each? Call it $2k... so that's $76,000. Damn, any openings on your team?

Now if you were talking about a Firestore, then I guess we could all do that since they make those for the JVC HDV as well... although I believe they're out already...

Seriously, if you're investing 76 large in P2 sticks, I want to hang around you... the parties must be unbelievable!

 

[Mitch_Ives]

. . . from a fellow Mac user:

Can you try to test the workflow problems comparing dvcprohd and HDV on an out of the box Powermac g5? Something on the line of realtime tracks and render times for both formats? And how do both survive color correction and keying? (probably am asking too specific and subjective questions...

Also, which of these cameras might give me the best dv image? I'd like the option of still shooting and editing in dv mode but have a good cross-over camera which I could also use in hd/hdv mode for projects where the budget can support the cost of the added hardware, accessories, etc. How does the JVC HD100 get along with the mac and dv type of workflow option?

I can give you some partial info with regard to the JVC. First, I have been working with the HDV in native, not the intermediate codec. I have ZERO interest in any intermediate codecs. I find the performance and realtime on par with the DV work we do, but we have fast disk arrays, fast video cards, tons of ram, etc. Naturally, the tradeoff to native, is the conforming before output... but then we're in this for the improved quality, right?

Second, I shot the JVC in 16:9 DV (yes DV, not HDV) and got the best keying I've ever gotten fro a DV format. Now, I do bring all my DV in through SDI into an uncompressed 10 bit timeline, but the results are better than my large Sony DVCAM cameras and all the other DV I've worked with. If I wasn't the one doing it, I'd argue with myself over this...

Third, what I really want to do is the 480/60p mode of the JVC. As soon as we can edit it, we're going there. The slo-mo should be nice...

 

[Blaine]

I realize that many of you are hanging your hat on these HD recorders, but as someone with a fair amount of experience, they are not the panacea everyone seems to want to think. I've lost footage with them and so has everyone I know that has used them regularly. I find them a great backup to tape, but not a replacement.

I see the tape as the backup to the HD. I like the idea of redundant systems when I'm doing something I feel is important. But I can see where the P2 cards, being an integral part of the camera, might be less prone to the failures an external HD can experience due mainly to connection problems. I can see the capacity growing fairly quickly. I can still remember buying my first 20MB hard drive for $600. A month ago I got a 1 GB memory stick for $39 with a $20 mail in rebate. Memory is becoming so cheap, it only makes sense that the P2 cards will follow suit.

 

[Mitch_Ives]

In my opinion, as far as the one to buy and the one to use in general use: the HVX spanks the other cameras like they've been very bad boys. Not necessarily in terms of test charts, because the test charts all came out basically six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other... I'm talking about living with it day to day. Here are the main issues for me:

Wow, and I thought I was paying attention to your test results? I didn't come to that conclusion at all.

The JVC's lens is the worst, as far as I'm concerned. It's sharp in the center, but loses edge-to-edge sharpness as you zoom in, it breathes like Darth Vader, and its chromatic aberration can be abhorrent. None of the other cameras fringe like the JVC does.

Stay tuned for that opinion to change...

On the plus side, the zoom is very nice and smooth, even if the servo speed is too slow for my taste.

One of my favorite features of the lens...

The focus is smooth and fully manual and nice, but the breathing makes it look like you're zooming rather than focusing. It is, unquestionably, the worst lens ever issued on a professional camera; I doubt even JVC would argue against that. It is interchangeable -- but interchange it with what? There is only one other high-def lens in the world that will fit it, and that lens carries a retail price of $11,995.

Stay tuned...

No, if you use the JVC, it means you're going to be using that particular lens, and you better like purple and green because you'll be seeing it.

Stay tuned...

The HD100 would be a strong competitor if it wasn't for the breathing.

Stay tuned...

 

[FullRez]

You know, the more I think about this P2/Hard Drive workflow the less I like it. Sure tape based systems are prone to dropouts but HDV to tape uses a ton of error correction and with decent tape you should be fine. After all how long have we been shooting on tape?

What if you have a glitch while recordind to a remote hard drive? Imagine shooting an action sequence with bumps, etc. One little hickup in the line from the camera to the hard drive and who knows.

Mitch brings up a good point about the P2 cards. How much will it really cost to have any decent "realistic" amount of recording time? Is the HVX camera only designed to do film work where changing cards in between takes every so many minutes is ok? What about other events, sporting events, races, etc. Hmm, sorry I missed your shot I was changing a card. Oh you have two cards you say? Ok true, but what about the 1 man shooter? He can't hand off the 2nd card to an assistant to transfer the data while he keeps his eye in the viewfinder if he is all alone.

Don't get me wrong, I think the potential of the HVX is great and so far the footage looks great. The quality of the image does give the 70K camera a little heat, especially for the price difference. However, I really think Panasonic dropped the ball on this one. I'm probably going to get hate mail now, but seriously what were they thinking? One of the great things about these little cameras is being able to shoot and run. Having to offload data, using an external recorder which means cables, bulk and weight... not good. Unless those P2 cards starting coming in larger numbers 20gig, 40 gig, etc. I see the hype on this camera falling fast, especially after they are finally available in numbers.