AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder
- Thread starter Screenforme
- Start date
Yes.... in terms of basic principles of what the terminology is about.
But a little knowledge can be very dangerous, and there are several facts that aren't covered there but are highly important. The first is to ask why (with 4:2:2) it was decided to reduce the chroma resolution horizontally - but not vertically? And coupled with that, why did 4:1:1 come about, where the chroma res is reduced to a quarter horizontally - but left untouched vertically?
The answer to both is because of interlace TV systems. Vertical subsampling (such as 4:2:0) is bad news with an interlace system, certainly as generations build up, for far bigger reasons than it simply reduces the vertical chrominance resolution. Hence (except for final distribution) it's to be avoided for interlace systems wherever possible - so that means both SD and 1080i.
But move to progressive and everything changes. (And 4K automatically does mean progressive - there is no 4K interlace system) If you are going to subsample by 2 horizontally, you may as well do it vertically as well and maintain the symmetry. And for the higher end applications where high chroma resolution is a must, it makes more sense to then have 4:4:4. In the progressive world, 4:2:2 is unnecessary.
Unfortunately, "I must have 4:2:2" has just been seen as an end in itself, with no understanding of why it was indeed important in the standard definition and interlace worlds.
And why it shouldn't be seen as a "must have" in the world of progressive and 4K.
joe 1008
Veteran
Technically this is 100% correct. But clients demand 4:2:2 and - more important - in the transmission chain of TV stations there could be a moment where the signal is stored/transmitted interlaced - hence there would be some quality loss. That's why most TV stations still demand a 4:2:2 codec. However, with the better codec you always are on the secure side.
In that case this cam is looking better and better. . .I've shot maybe one or two interlaced things in the last several years, as in one or two days, most things progressive. I certainly have very few clients demanding 4:2:2. Most of mine wouldn't even know what that was or why it was special.
joe 1008
Veteran
If your acquisition is in 4K you'll always have an excellent 2K broadcast image as a result. If that extra work step is worth your time/processing power, you'll be perfectly fine with the internal codec. 4K for delivery is still the exception - if they demand 4:2:2 for that format you are definitely interested in the wrong camera.
If you don't want to use an external recorder, of course.
If you don't want to use an external recorder, of course.
But not with 4K (QFHD to be precise). 4K/QFHD is progressive, end of story.
And the official advice from the EBU has changed for European broadcasters - see https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf page 10.
For UHD (highest end programmes) they are specifying as minimum 4:2:0 - 4:4:4 preferred. No mention of 4:2:2. But even for HD programmes the spec is now 4:2:0 for progressive acquisition, whilst still 4:2:2 for interlace.
(Note that's for acquisition. It may still be necessary to use 4:2:2 in the editing process if 1080i is the final format. And even when things like dramas are 25p, when things like rolling captions are added the result has to be 1080i/25 - the progressive footage utilised as psf.)
Bassman2003
Veteran
I think 10bit is more important than 4:2:2 when it comes to 1080p footage. But I don't think there is much 10bit 4:2:0, it is usually 10bit 4:2:2. So while the 4:2:2 might not be so important, they seem to go hand in hand.
Files with more information give you more options rather than look so much better straight off the card. They have more information so they might be a bit crisper, more vibrant but the main difference is that you can do more to the image without seeing signs of degradation. But in all honesty, it is not like the jump from an 8bit jpeg to a 14bit RAW file. Still, if you have the processing power to record more image information you want to, or at least I do.
Files with more information give you more options rather than look so much better straight off the card. They have more information so they might be a bit crisper, more vibrant but the main difference is that you can do more to the image without seeing signs of degradation. But in all honesty, it is not like the jump from an 8bit jpeg to a 14bit RAW file. Still, if you have the processing power to record more image information you want to, or at least I do.
joe 1008
Veteran
Have in mind that many of the artefacts associated with 8 bit, like banding and blockyness, are rather due to bad implemented consumer codecs. Many of these problems seem to be gone if you start with a 4k master, even if it's 8bit 4:2:0. Though 100mbps is a very low bitrate, it can be enough if compression is well done. Even more important, the different log modes implemented by the camera manufacturers and their corresponding LUTs today give us much more depth to 8bit grading.
KINOKS
Well-known member
Actually it's mostly because of low bitrate. A high bitrate 8 bit codec wont have much banding compared to a low 8 bit codec. Beyond this it has to do with codec implementation as you said.
Also what compes to play is noise. More noise needs more bitrate. A low noise picture needs less bitrate to encode it properly than a high one.
I do the exact same thing, but I'm 6'3.
I tend to do it no-mater what the camera size is, I would do it even if I had a camera that fit in the palm of my hand. It's the way I stand sturdiest. I even do it if I have the tripod to low, I can't pan as smoothly unless I'm standing that way and it really starts to hurt after a little while!
most of the time though, one thing has to be 'just good enough'
I like the dvx200 but for a fraction of its price, the rx100 or rx10 is 'good enough' for most work. (Though id like to get my hands on one and thoroughly test it first)
Thomas Smet
Veteran
It isn't always just about the video coming out of the camera but ergonomics as well. The DVX200 is a solid camera with a lot of external controls for fast operation. Not a tiny body with tiny controls and half the control in a menu. Something to keep in mind when comparing the prices. The DVX200 is designed to be easy to shoot with and throughout history a camera always cost more when it added a lot more precise manual control, especially with audio. Comparing these two cameras is like comparing a normal screw driver with a powered screw driver and needing to deal with 200 screws. Sure both get the job done and with equal precision and quality but the amount of effort to get there is very different.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
A couple of days ago I shot a little documentary/art film with my GH4. Yes, great image (all things considered)- the ergonomic issues make me want to cry to my momma. Under my breath, I swore I'd never use a GH4 in this context again. Oye.
Like others, I'm quite disappointed in some aspects of the DVX200... May the lens NOT transition from f2.8 until 100mm and 10 bit please. However, I'm warming up to it out of necessity and acquiescence. Changing lenses stinks, franken-rigs stink the joint up as well.
Ideally, investing in gear out due to acquiescence is not how I'd like to spend my money. I'm not yet convinced that the value proposition for this camera adds up for my purposes. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I'm now willing to consider it after writing it off a couple of months ago.
I suspect that using my GH4 one more time for run and gun may seal the deal :-0.
I'm all for less required effort to make images.
Absolutely.
A couple of days ago I shot a little documentary/art film with my GH4. Yes, great image (all things considered)- the ergonomic issues make me want to cry to my momma. Under my breath, I swore I'd never use a GH4 in this context again. Oye.
Like others, I'm quite disappointed in some aspects of the DVX200... May the lens NOT transition from f2.8 until 100mm and 10 bit please. However, I'm warming up to it out of necessity and acquiescence. Changing lenses stinks, franken-rigs stink the joint up as well.
Ideally, investing in gear out due to acquiescence is not how I'd like to spend my money. I'm not yet convinced that the value proposition for this camera adds up for my purposes. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but I'm now willing to consider it after writing it off a couple of months ago.
I suspect that using my GH4 one more time for run and gun may seal the deal :-0.
I'm all for less required effort to make images.
FWIW regarding the 420/422/4k thing.
Unscientific as it was, I had a chance to work with 4k 4:2:0, S-log2/s-gamut footage from the RX10 II this weekend.
I've graded so much work in Resolve and FCPX with LUTs and Filmconvert, and using multiple codecs I know when an image is "solid".
My base for comparison is dng raw and Prores HQ - what I work with exclusively at this point.
I already had an S-log2 to 709 LUT to start with and downloaded the Sony log package for Filmconvert to test.
Used to seeing film/log footage on set I was impressed just seeing the ungraded S-log footage down sampled to 1080.
The first LUT was OK after adjusting exposure (it was properly exposed about 2 stops over for S-log.)
But after about 5 minutes I created a really smooth 3D LUT in FC that looked absolutely gorgeous...and, to me at least, it put to bed any question regarding the weakness of 4:2:0 with 4k down sampled.
I didn't try and do any secondary corrections, HSL work etc. but again, unscientifically, it's obvious that 4k S-log footage down sampled, at least in this codec, looked really good. This is from someone who grabbed the original RX10 for a camera bag toy and sent it right back because of the uninspiring IQ.
The RX10 II 4k S-log is night and day in terms of DR and depth of color.
So if it looks this good coming out of the RX10 II, I'd say the DVX200 @ 4k will look solid too.
And again, if Panasonic clarifies that f/2.8 remains through 200mm then it could be the fantastic all-in-one production tool they're aiming it to be.
Live and learn.
Unscientific as it was, I had a chance to work with 4k 4:2:0, S-log2/s-gamut footage from the RX10 II this weekend.
I've graded so much work in Resolve and FCPX with LUTs and Filmconvert, and using multiple codecs I know when an image is "solid".
My base for comparison is dng raw and Prores HQ - what I work with exclusively at this point.
I already had an S-log2 to 709 LUT to start with and downloaded the Sony log package for Filmconvert to test.
Used to seeing film/log footage on set I was impressed just seeing the ungraded S-log footage down sampled to 1080.
The first LUT was OK after adjusting exposure (it was properly exposed about 2 stops over for S-log.)
But after about 5 minutes I created a really smooth 3D LUT in FC that looked absolutely gorgeous...and, to me at least, it put to bed any question regarding the weakness of 4:2:0 with 4k down sampled.
I didn't try and do any secondary corrections, HSL work etc. but again, unscientifically, it's obvious that 4k S-log footage down sampled, at least in this codec, looked really good. This is from someone who grabbed the original RX10 for a camera bag toy and sent it right back because of the uninspiring IQ.
The RX10 II 4k S-log is night and day in terms of DR and depth of color.
So if it looks this good coming out of the RX10 II, I'd say the DVX200 @ 4k will look solid too.
And again, if Panasonic clarifies that f/2.8 remains through 200mm then it could be the fantastic all-in-one production tool they're aiming it to be.
Live and learn.
Would be great if you also got a 4:2:2 4k from a external recorder.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Just to be clear again, the 4:2:0 codec for 4k was never the issue for me. I have always wanted a 10bit 4:2:2 1080p mode. No doubt the 4k footage will be killer from this camera. But 4k might not be used at all times.
philiplipetz
Veteran
Remember that when you shoot 4K you loose 5 axis stabilization, and have only 3 axis OIS. It is the same with both the DVX200 and Canon's XC10.
Barry_Green
Moderator
A-frickin'-men. I have been saying this since the first DSLR rig showed up. I have a GH2 for its tiny size and there are times where that tininess is necessary
But when it's time to work, I put the little camera away and reach for something purpose-built to do the job that I need done. I am looking forward to trying out the DVX200. As much as I have used the AF100 over the years, the big gaping gap with that camera has always been trying to use the Lumix lenses. For strictly cinema you can use manual lenses, and the 14-140 can technically do some of the job, but my experience with the PX270 and HC-X1000 recently has reminded me just how far stills-camera lenses are from proper video lenses.
If the DVX200 maintains f/2.8 over a decent range, it will completely replace the AF100 in my uses for anything that doesn't need a cinema lens. Even then, consider that the Lumix X lenses maintain f/2.8 over only a 3x zoom range (the 12-35 and 35-100). If the DVX holds even f/3.5 out to 100mm, I will be quite happy with that. For the tiny percentage of jobs that will need faster, I still have a GH for those few shots.