Best image?

D

DVXDaddyO

Active member
This site is overwhelmingly complete -- yet I cannot find the answer to this question:

Which of the "affordable" high def cameras (the HVX, the H1/A1/G1 or the HD100) will yield the absolute sharpest, highest resolution image in "filmic" mode (24P or 24F) in what I will assume is 1080p or equivalent?

Put differently: holding everything else aside (like variable frame rates), which camera/lens combination will yield the best large (movie theater screen) image?

Thanks in advance, and apologies in advance, too, if my searching capabilities aren't up to the challenge of finding the answer on my own.

DaddyO
 
There is no "one" camera that will outperform the others. Each has it's good points and weaknesses. Image quality to go to a full screen theater? Again, I think it's not as cut and dry as you may think. Many factors go into it. Recording medium, CCDs, compression, NLE used, etc. And we're only talking about image quality at this point.

I'm sure Barry or Jarred could explain way better than I could. But, your question is not going to be as black and white as you think.
 
Well, it depends on where you set your threshold of affordability. If you're after the most discrete pixels, and your affordability level stretches to $9,000, then the XLH1 is going to offer the most detailed image.

But when you say the term "best" you enter a very gray area, as pixels are only one component of the image; dynamic range and highlight handling and colorimetry and noise and all sorts of things enter into the equation.

But if you want the absolute most highest resolved image, the XLH1 has it.
 
Thanks, gents.

Thanks, gents.

Barry, you answered my question.

I shoot a one hour documentary for TV later this month using a DVX 100b with Arri Softbank IV lighting kit (interviews). I'm sure the image will look great.

if the A1 has the same -- perhaps even tweaked -- imaging system as the H1, it may be our next purchase.
 
^
You're screwing yourself over if you just look at resolution and pixel counts. The DVX100 didn't have vastly better resolution than competeing cameras but gained popularity because of a bunch of other important things such as color, motion, and gamma. You really need to research this stuff before plunking 5-9k down on a camera. Also, if you are so adverse to research then really the XLH1 isn't going to be the best choice as it takes the most finese of the under 10k cameras.
 
David, I appreciate the spirit of your candor...

David, I appreciate the spirit of your candor...

DavidBeier said:
^
You're screwing yourself over if you just look at resolution and pixel counts. The DVX100 didn't have vastly better resolution than competeing cameras but gained popularity because of a bunch of other important things such as color, motion, and gamma. You really need to research this stuff before plunking 5-9k down on a camera. Also, if you are so adverse to research then really the XLH1 isn't going to be the best choice as it takes the most finese of the under 10k cameras.
Click to expand...

I come from a still photography background, and my basic approach over 30 years has been to capture the highest resolution/sharpest focus/best contrast possible at the camera (at my price points) and then tweak things like color and saturation as necessary after the fact (now much more easily down with computers and Photoshop). You can't do it the other way around.

This was the rationale for my question, as I've concluded the basic operating principle is the same for DV film making.

But, by the way, when resolution, pixel counts and dynamic range are relatively equal, then I of course agree that other factors come into play. This is why my first purchase was a Panny DVX100B, rather than a Canon XL1, for example. I first rented the DVX for two years after having previously used the Sony 150, and loved it for the reasons you mentioned (these were used for filming dance productions in 24p). The edits were plain vanilla, then output to DVD, which we then sold. The filmic look of 24P beautifully matched the lyrical quality of the dancers themselves.

My sense of the three major competitors in the sub-$10K range -- the Canon H1/A1/G1 (with 24F); the Panasonic HVX200; and the JVC HD 100 -- is that the Panny is the most cutting edge while the Canon (especially the A1) may give me all I need at half the price (recognizing the cost of P2 vs. tape). The incremental value -- to me -- of interchangeable lenses is not at all clear. I do know that the Canon L zooms designed for their SLRs approach the resolution and contrast of their primes. I can work around the lack of SDI out.

Having written this, it is equally clear to me that the HVX/DVX community is by far the richest, warmest out there.

My next two productions will be filmed on the DVX, so I have time to see how the new cams shake out.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

With humility,

DaddyO
 
wrong outlook - still photography is very different then video. Have you thought about motion rendition and the other aspects of video that come into play?
 
smelni, my thoughts about motion rendition...

smelni, my thoughts about motion rendition...

smelni said:
wrong outlook - still photography is very different then video. Have you thought about motion rendition and the other aspects of video that come into play?
Click to expand...

...have been limited to:

1) Strobing - I think I understand this and am not concerned, as my subjects for my next two projects are relatively stationary (or else I will observe the rule of thumb for speed of pan)

2) Slow motion - will rarely use, except perhaps when I return to dance. For the most part, I am not concerned about overcranking (this is the correct term?) at faster than 24fps

3) Time lapse - this IS interesting to me, and I confess I have not looked at intervalometer functionality on any of the machines under discussion.

Of course, you may mean something completely different, and I wouldn't know any better.

I imagine you'd find that what I don't know about motion rendering is staggering. I'm happy to read, if you want to point me in the right direction.

DaddyO
 
I was using motion rendition as an example of something that video has that still photography doesnt. You cant judge a video camera using the same criteria as a still camera. So if you just look for resolution you will be missing the boat.

Other things effect the image, motion rendition, MTF, color space - and then on top of all that there is feature sets.

If you judge only on resolution you are likely to make a misinformed decision no matter what criteria makes sense in the still world.
 
Smelni, what I was trying to convey...

Smelni, what I was trying to convey...

smelni said:
...If you judge only on resolution you are likely to make a misinformed decision no matter what criteria makes sense in the still world.
Click to expand...

...is my sense that for what I want to film (i.e., given the utility of certain features or the price/benefit ratio of such features TO ME), these cameras are roughly comparable EXCEPT for resolution (where Canon apparently wins) and price (where, because of my near-term focus on documentaries and inherent shooting ratio, P2 becomes prohibitively expensive).

I well understand dynamic range; I understand and have adopted 24P "filmic" imagery. But the more I read on this forum, the more I wonder if the Canon H1 and Panasonic HVX200 are in fact much closer in price than base configurations indicate -- and the more curious I am to see the A1.

The net of it is this: I understand and appreciate your basic point. For the moment, however, I don't see where my logic is flawed.

Heck, though, I'm a newbie and this is still all theory.

I WILL write, though, that I am quite concerned about post-processing and work flow. I prefer FCP, but I am not clear on what it can and cannot handle. If, for example, it doesn't have a Universal version that handles 1080 24P(F), I have a whole other set of problems...
 
Your logic is flawed. I havn't done still photography but I know a hell of a lot of professionals who aren't nearly as resolution focused as you seem to be.

Regaurdless of you still photography preference, moving images are quite a bit different.

A large part of it is that a still image is going to be uncompressed and unmoving. With completly uncompressed color and no motion, you can achieve ALOT more in post that simply aren't possible when you're dealing with other formats.

First off all, the filmic colors and gamma are important. That's why you got the DVX you said. You may have come close to replciating the look from something like an XL1 but I doubt you would have been perfect or you wouldn't have gotten a DVX. Part of this is that panasonic simply does it really well and another part of it is the difference bewteen having it done IN CAMERA before the image is highly compressed to a DV image or trying to do it in post where you are having to deal with a highly compressed image. It's a big difference plain and simple.

But lets pretend that somehow you're are able to get the perfect film gamma and colors out of any camera you want (I doubt it but I'll go with that for argument's sake). Lets also say you have no use for variable frame rates.

The HVX200 still has a lot to offer over the XLH1 technically. The biggest thing is that it uses DVCProHD over HDV. It's the differents between having 100mbs of info a second and 25mbs. It means that the HVX200 is going to have twice the color depth. Just as you say you can't gain resolution in post you can't get color info back once it's been compressed. It also means that all the post production CC that you're going to be doing to try to get that film look is going to be a lot harder since you only have half the color space to work in. HDV also means interframe encoding. Frames aren't pure but are rather guessed (something that isn't true in DVCProHD or even in regular old DV in the DVX). These leads to motion artifacts and you sure as hell can't make those disapear with a little CC. Finally, the HVX200 contains true progressive CCDs rather than interlaced ones that are mushed together to make a fake progressive that costs resolution.

These are just a couple things that the HVX200 wins in and are incredibly important in the world of moving images (I'd say more important than resolution). Do some real research because trying to evaluate these cameras based on still photography standards is just plain silly.
 
^
ditto.

Good luck with your stuff. I'm sure you'll eventually find there is a great deal of difference between still photography and cinematography.
 
MovieSwede, please help me understand the implication of what you've written.

MovieSwede, please help me understand the implication of what you've written.

MovieSwede said:
Remember film resolution on the avarage cinema screen is just 700-800 lines of resolution.
Click to expand...

Are you asserting that because there is a limit of 700-800 lines of resolution, theatre-goers cannot to tell the difference between a film originally shot in 35mm and one shot in 1080?

Are you asserting that any difference between the H1 and the HVX will not be visible to the same theatre-goers?

Thanks in advance.
 
Once again you are missing the point - resolution is only one aspect of the moving image.

35mm has other aspects that set it apart - latitude, greater control over depth of field, different grain etc etc.

So viewers can tell the difference -BUT if you simply projected a resolution chart they likely would not be able to. But who is going to project that.

Resolution is only one aspect and its not even the most important aspect - there is no simpler way to say it.

Yes - SOME savvy theater goers might be able to tell the diff betweeen the H1 and the HVX - but they will not say - wow the H1 has more lines of rez. In fact they might say - wow the HVX LOOKs better becaus, again, resolution is not the only factor and its not even the most important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top