Also excited about HVX200 and DVCPRO-50

[Stevet]

I realize we're all looking forward to HVX200's DVCPRO-HD (1080i/24p & 720P/24P), but I am also really interested in seeing how good the HVX200's DVCPRO-50 looks.

I bet it looks dang good! When it comes time for strictly the the best SD (short of uncompressed), no doubt DVCPRO-50 is the way to go. Of course, if you're going for HD, I imagine down-rez should look good, but I wonder if it will be as good as the DVCPRO-50 stuff.

Probably not since the HD will be more compressed; although the DVCPRO-50 still has the same color space.

Any thoughts on this?

So many options!

Steve

 

[brianluce]

I realize we're all looking forward to HVX200's DVCPRO-HD (1080i/24p & 720P/24P), but I am also really interested in seeing how good the HVX200's DVCPRO-50 looks.

Any thoughts on this?

So many options!

Steve

This topic has been discussed extensively and in detail in the thread titled "dvcpro 50 on mini DV"

 

[Barry_Green]

With that low-compression/high-color-sampling DVCPRO50 mode, especially with native 16:9 and 24p, the HVX is lining itself up to be capable of delivering the best-quality direct-to-DVD work of any under-$19,000 camera. It sounds like it's nearly perfectly optimized to deliver the best that a DVD is capable of. Jan's said a few times that they're positioning this as the camera of the future, but with a transition path for those who still need to work in the reality of today, and I think they probably hit the nail pretty firmly on the head as regards that. DVD is still going to be the dominant form of distribution for several years to come, and the HVX looks like it could make some spectacular DVD content, maximizing what the DVD format is capable of.

Let's just hope that the actual footage delivers on the promises the specs are making -- if so, this would really show some solid thinking behind the engineering/design/feature set.

 

[brianluce]

And if I could just make one small request to Jan, please please please please please pretty please with sugar, don't give us a split screen? please?

 

[wabbit]

Not having gotten any solid info on the JVC split screen but isn't the issue about the compression for HDV needing 2 chips instead of one? An issue that would not effect DVCPROHD.

Please someone correct or enlighten me if this is wrong.

 

[Stevet]

This topic has been discussed extensively and in detail in the thread titled "dvcpro 50 on mini DV"

Yes, read it many times...
Actually that topic was about someone thinking you can put DVCPRO50 on the HVX's MiniDV drive, which you can't.

As I mentioned in my post, I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on how down-rez HD DVCPRO-HD will stack up against DVCPRO-50 SD?

Thanks Barry, I hear ya. If this camera gives us great quality with all it offers, it's going to be one hell of a hit! At this time, my work will be focused on DVD, but as soon as HDDVD or Blueray players hit, I want to be ready to offer HD.

Steve

 

[tomtv]

i am really interested to see how the hd and the 50 look when downconverted to the mini dv tape in the hvx. this could be very interesting and will be especially interesting to compare to hdv. any thoughts guys?

 

[Barry_Green]

Not having gotten any solid info on the JVC split screen but isn't the issue about the compression for HDV needing 2 chips instead of one?

No no no no no...

The split-screen is utterly unrelated to HDV. It shows up in DV mode, in SD mode, in HDV mode, in live video.

The split-screen is due to the native pixel resolution of the chip, the size of the chip, and the speed it gets read at. The 1/3" chip, with 1280 pixels across, and running at 60 progressive frames per second, makes for some extreme heat issues -- JVC says one processor cannot read that many pixels off that small of a chip that quickly, or it'll burn itself up. So they came up with the idea of using two different processors, one for the left half and one for the right half, to keep the workload light enough that it's practical.

The splitscreen comes from calibration mismatches between those two different processors.

 

[Barry_Green]

As I mentioned in my post, I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on how down-rez HD DVCPRO-HD will stack up against DVCPRO-50 SD?

If you have FCP 5, or Avid Express Pro HD, or you download the Avid codec pack, you can run experiments right now and see what you think. The codecs are available. My inclination is to think that for standard-def delivery, the original DV50 file is going to look better than downrezzed DV100, but we won't know for sure until we try it.

 

[wabbit]

No no no no no...

The split-screen is utterly unrelated to HDV. It shows up in DV mode, in SD mode, in HDV mode, in live video.

The split-screen is due to the native pixel resolution of the chip, the size of the chip, and the speed it gets read at. The 1/3" chip, with 1280 pixels across, and running at 60 progressive frames per second, makes for some extreme heat issues -- JVC says one processor cannot read that many pixels off that small of a chip that quickly, or it'll burn itself up. So they came up with the idea of using two different processors, one for the left half and one for the right half, to keep the workload light enough that it's practical.

The splitscreen comes from calibration mismatches between those two different processors.

Ahh, once again a little info is a...well not dangerous, but ignorant thing.

 

[Spartacus]

Finally someone else pointing out the DV50 capability of the HVX!
I´m exited about HD. Sure. Filmouts will get better.
For everything else, I will be more than happy to give DV a last kiss goodbye and embrace the colorspace and data rate of DVCpro50.
I want a Canon, since I´m a XL2 guy, but I´ll take the HVX, mainly because it´s an out of the box digi-beta basher...
And I hope there´ll be a lot of bashing going on...
DVCproHD and component out will help me dreaming, DV50 will earn the food.

 

[Bob Diesso]

The split-screen is due to the native pixel resolution of the chip, the size of the chip, and the speed it gets read at. The 1/3" chip, with 1280 pixels across, and running at 60 progressive frames per second, makes for some extreme heat issues.

Barry - Thanks. You've been really helpful in getting to the bottom of this split screen thing. You seem to have more information than JVC themselves makes available! Amazing!

This is the first time to hear the HD100 has 1280 pixels across. Since the camera is 720p, I assume the chips have 1280x720 native resolution. Not bad in a camera at this price range.

I'm sure the HVX will run circles around the HD100, though. What's the native resolution of the HVX200? I have one on order but have been unable to find this information.

Thanks again for your really great insights! Keep up the good work!

 

[Barry_Green]

Due to the issues I went through with the HD100, I have had the opportunity to talk to several very high-up JVC personnel, and have consistently gotten the same info from them. I've talked to service techs and executive vice presidents and sales managers and others, and they always say the same things about the issue, so I'm relaying what I've been told.

I assume the chips have 1280x720 native resolution. Not bad in a camera at this price range.

Well, yes, it is bad. That's what's causing the problem. Had they gone with a less-dense chip we wouldn't be experiencing the SSE. They said that the "magic number" appears to be 1,000 -- if they'd kept the chip to 1,000 pixels or less, they could sample it with one processor, therefore completely eliminating the SSE. But they chose to go with native pixels, and that's led to the problem. They said that they felt that's why Sony chose 960 pixels across -- to stay below the 1,000 "magic number".

What's the native resolution of the HVX200?

Panasonic has not revealed what the pixel count is of the HVX200 chip. They've shown some footage that looked absolutely stunning, extremely high detail but with none of the smear or SSE or noise that the HD100 has, so whatever the pixel count is, it looks like they made a good choice.