Mihai Meda
Carbonite Member
OK, here are a few thoughts on the HVX200 against the Andromeda from Reel-Stream. I hope this won't develop into a negative debate. I just want to get people's opinion on the two systems, specs, portability, image quality, affordability and so on. What would people consider buying if they had to choose between the two?
First, both are amazing tools. Who would have thought a few years ago that quality like that will become available so soon, and so cheap (so to speak)! I think you can't go wrong with either system, but for the sake of the argument let's try to pit them against each other here. And, most importantly, let's not forget that your needs are the key - choose the system that fits your workflow. (Note: I am basing this on specs and on-line samples, not on actual use of the two systems - just tried the HVX for a few hours that's it). OK, so in short (just in case you start to think I'm biased, let me say I'm starting with the Andromeda advantages, then I'll go to the HVX advantages):
- Andromeda offers all the formats that the HVX offers (except 1080). But 1080 is a disappointing feature on the HVX. Almost everyone agrees on that; the resolution gain is insignificant. Back to Andromeda, through Sculptor, you can save to any quicktime codec you want, be it DVCPRO50, DVCPRO HD720 or more or less everyone except 1080. Because you end up with a (roughly) 1500x900 frame, you have the added flexibility of reframing your shots considerably if you go to 720 with the Andromeda. So, if we forget about the 1080 feature on the HVX, I think Andromeda offers more options as formats go.
- Andromeda offers 4:4:4 footage in 10bits or 8bits, uncompressed, full RGB. That's amazing. Not available in the HVX. Color correction, keys, greescreens, all of that should be (theoretically) much better with Andromeda. Based only on the specs, even if you go HD through component with the HVX, and still the Andromeda would still deliver better HD. Attention, I said only based on specs! But still, uncompressed at this price range, that's a big step.
- Andromeda offers a much wider dynamic range and sensitivity. DVX BY ITSELF is already much sensitive and offers better dynamic range than the HVX. Juan claims that Andromeda increases the tonal range from 7 stops to 9.5 stops! This would be an incredible feature as everyone probably agrees! Andromeda (through the DVX alone) is 1 stop faster than the HVX also, which means better low light performance.
- Andromeda probably delivers footage with less (or "better"
)noise. The HVX performs wonderfully in balanced conditions where there is plenty of light, but once you go away from that, the HVX loses it pretty quickly, in my opinion. Noise is definitely worse in the HVX in less than ideal conditions, compared with the DVX. You can't cram so many pixels in a same size senzor and not affect the other things. To conclude, I think because it has less pixels spread out over the same size, the DVX has clearly the advantage in tonal range, sensitivity, low light performance and signal-to-noise ratio. And Andromeda even improves on some of those features. True, the HVX offers incredible pixel count, but there is a rather heavy cost to pay, we all know that.
- ok. The HVX is a clear winner in pixel count. No doubt about that. It is, after all, an HD native camera and the DVX is a SD native camera.
- the HVX has (or should have) a much better lens. it also has 16:9 chips, offering native wide-screen. Andromeda will always be limited by the 4:3 aspect ratio and the SD lens, no matter what they do after the light goes through the lens and hits the chips.
- the HVX has true variable frame rates. That's amazing for people who need fast/slow motion. Andromeda doesn't (and never will) offer this truly great feature.
In terms of portability, I think (people might argue) things are pretty equal. You need a laptop for Andromeda, but you need a firestore, the P2 store or HDDs in the field to dump the footage from the P2 cards in the HVX's case. In either case, you are pretty limited by the amount of footage you can get in the field with both systems. Things will probably change over time for both configurations, but for now I would say no one is MUCH more portable than the other one. To be truthful, maybe the HVX has a small advantages because while the laptop is connected PERMANENTLY to Andromeda, at least you can move freely while you shoot on the P2 card.
Now, finally, RESOLUTION. Again, the numbers are pretty equal. HVX has been put anywhere from 500-550 to 700 lines. Let's say 600 lines, for a safe bet. You can challenge that. Andromeda has been put at 800 lines (!), but here's the catch: this is in 4x3 mode. In 16:9, it would lose some lines, and the prediction would be also at around 600 lines in widescreen. So, equal. Theoretically. BUT what footage looks sharper, crisper, more detailed to the eye? Because that's what matters, not stupid numbers. Lines is one thing, what we see is another.
As far as i'm concerned, HVX shows better details, and a crisper image. But that's my subjective opinion looking at the demos. And in fact, there are tons of HVX demos while only a few Andromeda ones. I wish I saw more uncompressed footage from the Andromeda to judge better. But while the HVX looks so sharp and very pleasing to the eye, Andromeda looks a bit softer - definitely much, much better than uprezzed SD, but not as amazingly crisp as HVX. Both cameras use pixel shifting to achieve a HD image, so it is a question of what gives better results: in-camera pixel shifting in the case of HVX or post-processing pixel shifting in the case of Andromeda.
To end my not-so-structured rambling, I think this is the key in deciding which way to go. Image quality as far as PERCEIVED resolution goes. In all the other aspects of image quality, I think Andromeda is the clear winner, clearly: 4:4:4 uncompressed 10bit, almost 3 more stops of latitude, better sensitivity, better noise. You cannot beat that. These features are generally more important than resolution.
Yet can the resolution of the Andromeda (to the eye) match the resolution of the HVX or the other cameras? Can Andromeda offer true HD quality? Because all the other major advatanges mentioned above, no matter how important, will mean much less if the Andromeda cannot deliver on its HD promise. Sure, even uncompressed SD is amazing and a great step forward, but the market is moving rapidly towards HD and an only SD Andromeda would not do too good now. But with equally sharp HD images plus all the other benefits, Andromeda would be the winner hands down.
Any take on that, Barry?
First, both are amazing tools. Who would have thought a few years ago that quality like that will become available so soon, and so cheap (so to speak)! I think you can't go wrong with either system, but for the sake of the argument let's try to pit them against each other here. And, most importantly, let's not forget that your needs are the key - choose the system that fits your workflow. (Note: I am basing this on specs and on-line samples, not on actual use of the two systems - just tried the HVX for a few hours that's it). OK, so in short (just in case you start to think I'm biased, let me say I'm starting with the Andromeda advantages, then I'll go to the HVX advantages):
- Andromeda offers all the formats that the HVX offers (except 1080). But 1080 is a disappointing feature on the HVX. Almost everyone agrees on that; the resolution gain is insignificant. Back to Andromeda, through Sculptor, you can save to any quicktime codec you want, be it DVCPRO50, DVCPRO HD720 or more or less everyone except 1080. Because you end up with a (roughly) 1500x900 frame, you have the added flexibility of reframing your shots considerably if you go to 720 with the Andromeda. So, if we forget about the 1080 feature on the HVX, I think Andromeda offers more options as formats go.
- Andromeda offers 4:4:4 footage in 10bits or 8bits, uncompressed, full RGB. That's amazing. Not available in the HVX. Color correction, keys, greescreens, all of that should be (theoretically) much better with Andromeda. Based only on the specs, even if you go HD through component with the HVX, and still the Andromeda would still deliver better HD. Attention, I said only based on specs! But still, uncompressed at this price range, that's a big step.
- Andromeda offers a much wider dynamic range and sensitivity. DVX BY ITSELF is already much sensitive and offers better dynamic range than the HVX. Juan claims that Andromeda increases the tonal range from 7 stops to 9.5 stops! This would be an incredible feature as everyone probably agrees! Andromeda (through the DVX alone) is 1 stop faster than the HVX also, which means better low light performance.
- Andromeda probably delivers footage with less (or "better"
)noise. The HVX performs wonderfully in balanced conditions where there is plenty of light, but once you go away from that, the HVX loses it pretty quickly, in my opinion. Noise is definitely worse in the HVX in less than ideal conditions, compared with the DVX. You can't cram so many pixels in a same size senzor and not affect the other things. To conclude, I think because it has less pixels spread out over the same size, the DVX has clearly the advantage in tonal range, sensitivity, low light performance and signal-to-noise ratio. And Andromeda even improves on some of those features. True, the HVX offers incredible pixel count, but there is a rather heavy cost to pay, we all know that.- ok. The HVX is a clear winner in pixel count. No doubt about that. It is, after all, an HD native camera and the DVX is a SD native camera.
- the HVX has (or should have) a much better lens. it also has 16:9 chips, offering native wide-screen. Andromeda will always be limited by the 4:3 aspect ratio and the SD lens, no matter what they do after the light goes through the lens and hits the chips.
- the HVX has true variable frame rates. That's amazing for people who need fast/slow motion. Andromeda doesn't (and never will) offer this truly great feature.
In terms of portability, I think (people might argue) things are pretty equal. You need a laptop for Andromeda, but you need a firestore, the P2 store or HDDs in the field to dump the footage from the P2 cards in the HVX's case. In either case, you are pretty limited by the amount of footage you can get in the field with both systems. Things will probably change over time for both configurations, but for now I would say no one is MUCH more portable than the other one. To be truthful, maybe the HVX has a small advantages because while the laptop is connected PERMANENTLY to Andromeda, at least you can move freely while you shoot on the P2 card.
Now, finally, RESOLUTION. Again, the numbers are pretty equal. HVX has been put anywhere from 500-550 to 700 lines. Let's say 600 lines, for a safe bet. You can challenge that. Andromeda has been put at 800 lines (!), but here's the catch: this is in 4x3 mode. In 16:9, it would lose some lines, and the prediction would be also at around 600 lines in widescreen. So, equal. Theoretically. BUT what footage looks sharper, crisper, more detailed to the eye? Because that's what matters, not stupid numbers. Lines is one thing, what we see is another.
As far as i'm concerned, HVX shows better details, and a crisper image. But that's my subjective opinion looking at the demos. And in fact, there are tons of HVX demos while only a few Andromeda ones. I wish I saw more uncompressed footage from the Andromeda to judge better. But while the HVX looks so sharp and very pleasing to the eye, Andromeda looks a bit softer - definitely much, much better than uprezzed SD, but not as amazingly crisp as HVX. Both cameras use pixel shifting to achieve a HD image, so it is a question of what gives better results: in-camera pixel shifting in the case of HVX or post-processing pixel shifting in the case of Andromeda.
To end my not-so-structured rambling, I think this is the key in deciding which way to go. Image quality as far as PERCEIVED resolution goes. In all the other aspects of image quality, I think Andromeda is the clear winner, clearly: 4:4:4 uncompressed 10bit, almost 3 more stops of latitude, better sensitivity, better noise. You cannot beat that. These features are generally more important than resolution.
Yet can the resolution of the Andromeda (to the eye) match the resolution of the HVX or the other cameras? Can Andromeda offer true HD quality? Because all the other major advatanges mentioned above, no matter how important, will mean much less if the Andromeda cannot deliver on its HD promise. Sure, even uncompressed SD is amazing and a great step forward, but the market is moving rapidly towards HD and an only SD Andromeda would not do too good now. But with equally sharp HD images plus all the other benefits, Andromeda would be the winner hands down.
Any take on that, Barry?
