Comparison footage of four cams

Barry_Green said:
Equal?
XLH1 footage looked dynamite. If all you want to shoot is 1080i, the XLH1 looks like it could compete very strongly against the HVX, and easily trumps the Sony. Of course, you'd need a $30,000 DVCPRO-HD deck to go with the XLH1 to get the kind of results they were showing! They didn't show their footage off HDV, and they didn't record their "Watchmaker" stuff on HDV, so it's hard to judge.

Eventually we'll get all four cams and do a big side-by-side of the same subjects, judged by various pros in a double-blind situation so no bias will be possible.
Click to expand...

No suprise that Canon put it's best foot forward. I hope once the version 1 production HVX models hit the streets that lots of folks engage in shoot out tests.

Really? You need a $30K deck. A PC with an HD-SDI capture card and a decent RAID that can be built for less than the cost of one 8GB P2 won't get the same results?

I sure hope when you do your four camera test (which I eagerly await) that direct capture is included so as not to lean the test towards the HVX.
 
I agree with Jim.
Like I mentioned in another thread, the HVX is not the original DVCPRO-HD footage, so it makes it a tough comparison.
On the other hand, non of the other camera samples look good in the example either.
 
Konrad said:
I sure hope when you do your four camera test (which I eagerly await) that direct capture is included so as not to lean the test towards the HVX.
Click to expand...

But is that the most fair test? Isn't the most fair test to see how the camera's do standing on their own, using the recording device/method they carry on board? Of course that is where HDV falls flat compared to DVCPRO 100.

Very, very few users yet do direct to HD recording of full rez HD. Virtually everyone who owns the Canon, Sony or JCV will record to tape, and that is where a fair test is at, IMO.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
 
Stevet said:
On the other hand, non of the other camera samples look good in the example either.
Click to expand...

Good point! I agree right back at 'ya. If I was shopping for a camera and if I had to choose based off of that particular encoding, I don't think I'd buy any of them.

Jim Arthurs
 
SJUSER said:
Loki said:
you must make a lot of money... to just throw it away on whatever camera peaks your interest next...

wanna buy me an HVX? or donate your FX1 to me?
Click to expand...
I am making enough money with all these gadgets combined... (...) Also have a look at the picture of my studio at

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/

SJUSER
Click to expand...
I can confirm it. This man is a good/interesting pro, a kind of info guru regarding HD tech. We - @europe - follow his useful info from his website where he shares all that he knows concerning HD subject prior my contact with our forum. :thumbsup:

<PS>

SJUSER said:
Emanuel said:
I've tried SJUSER but I couldn't download it after several attempts without to know why. Even in the past, I downloaded always with success @sanjinjukic.com
Click to expand...
I just download it, this server is in the south-west part of Austria, in Villach a far away about 400km from Vienna. So it works. Check it out your Quicktime 7 settings once more.

FTP download of on old file is OVER by Saturday Night at 23.30 PM.

SJUSER
Click to expand...
I was referring that I couldn't do it [the FTP download of that one old file that you're saying is OVER by Saturday Night at 23:30 and I know that you extended it after my request here. Thanks anyway! As I said before, I tried without to be succeed during yesterday's night]. I'd like to know if there is any chance you to extend until monday? [when I will return to university]

Thanks in advance and for all of your work here and before.
 
Konrad said:
I sure hope when you do your four camera test (which I eagerly await) that direct capture is included so as not to lean the test towards the HVX.
Click to expand...
Well, that begs the question then -- what should the parameters be?

Does the $9,000 Canon get a $30,000 deck or a $15,000 desktop direct-capture computer system to go with it? And how does that reflect on the $3,000 FX1 or the $5,000 Z1 or the $7500 (with cards) HVX?

Using the native format would lean the test towards the HVX inherently, because the native format of the HVX is substantially superior to the native format of the other cams.

Using a non-native format would artificially skew the results towards the Canon, because you'd be giving it a $15,000 to $30,000 advantage. That doesn't sound fair.

So then we could use the same capture medium, and add AJA component-to-HDSDI adapters to the other cams, at which point it would at least allow all the systems to capture to the same format -- but then you're comparing something that nobody is ever gonna use. So is that a reasonable comparison?

And if you're willing to let the Canon have the $30,000 deck to go with it, would we then be allowed to spend $30,000 in other ways on the other cams? How do you determine what's fair?

To me the only fair way is to price them out comparably and use what comes in the box.

But, I'm open to suggestions...
 
Barry, what do you think about a portable device like this one HD/SD SDI FLASH-RAM RECORDER for shooting field? OK, it's more $4,800 but if it works...maybe also for HVX200 (why not? if there is an analogue uncompressed port, isn't it?)

34400223718.jpg


LINK

It's open a thread in the HVX hardware sub-forum here.

All that can and wish, please, contribute there. Thanks in advance.
 
Not to be a downer on the HVX forum but...

I was over on the DvInfo forum where that H1 footage was shot, and it was all off of HDV. Mind you, I thought the HVX footage on here was better, although the HVX did have professional DPs shoot the test footage, the H1 footage was from some guy over a weekend.

Anyway, a little nugget that I got from that forum was that the Discovery Channel is accepting H1 HDV footage. So while we've seen some abysmal HDV compression over the last year, the H1 might have just figure out a way to actually produce some quality HDV. This fight just got interesting folks.


Add/Edit: I wouldn't trust something like that Solid State drive, they claim they have 330 MB/s transfer rates. No way in hell they can actually pull that off for 4800 bucks.
 
The download took a whole night to finish even with cable; and when I finally got to play it, it read: "this file is not a movie file." Did something go wrong during the download?
 
Emanuel said:
I can confirm it. This man is a good/interesting pro, a kind of info guru regarding HD tech. We - @europe - follow his useful info from his website where he shares all that he knows concerning HD subject prior my contact with our forum. :thumbsup:

<PS>

I was referring that I couldn't do it [the FTP download of that one old file that you're saying is OVER by Saturday Night at 23:30 and I know that you extended it after my request here. Thanks anyway! As I said before, I tried without to be succeed during yesterday's night]. I'd like to know if there is any chance you to extend until monday? [when I will return to university]

Thanks in advance and for all of your work here and before.
Click to expand...
Download the new shorter 3 cams comparison footage 1080p at

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_3Cams_1080p.html

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
What we would need?

A neutral and independent four camera test done by a professional crew and also published on the independent web site would be something very good. So that means any kind of "doctoring" and censorship from the forums or camera vendors is too far away. Their fingers could not reach the final result of the test analysis. The sites something like hdforindies.com or an independent video magazine online could do it. For sure that is coming in time when all the cams will be available in the next months. I can not do it at the moment but could maybe organize it later...

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
The comparison footage is not a scientific test or any sort of a good or a bad conclusion or a technical analysis about the camcorders. It is just a simple information that try to answer on the question: What could be a possible picture quality to get from each of the camcoder. The footage consists the clips that were available to me at the moment. The 1080p resources were limited.
Also there were not the best clips from each cam.

The active sensor pixels (native camera chip size) of all these cam-corders is too small to produce a better picture quality. It is about 1/3 " (inch) CCDs
and they are still far away from high end HD camera standard. And a picture of 35 mm film camera quality will never been acheived by 1/3 " CCD. But don't worry, we could get a quality near super 16 mm film. Great! If somebody could provide a low budget HD cameras side by side TEST sometimes next year we would appreciate of course. Something like a test "The Master Class 'The High End of Digital Capturing' ". It is just to give an idea. Find more about it at
http://www.arri.de/news/newsletter/articles/267485/d-20_masterclass.htm
http://www.cinegearexpo.com/cg2004px/index.htm

And people like to look what is going on with this little comparison, for example since December 8 the tread hit over 5.900 views!!! Still growing. Number of the footage downloads is also very high, about this figure I'll post it later.


SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Barry, can I implore you to do the side by side comparison of the various cameras with properly set up and lit resolution, colour, and greyscale charts? Can any of these cameras output a test SAW signal so that the gamma curves can be properly examined?

As well as testing 'out of the box' performance, if it is possible to turn the detail circuits off in these cameras, or at least reduce them to absolute minimum, that would give a better idea of the overall sharpness and clarity of the image.

Anything to make the comparison as rigourous and as scientifically plausible as possible. I've read a lot of camera comparisons over the years, and many of them compromise in one way or another. Most often the tests do not compare the cameras using charts at all!

Will you be testing the JVC as well? I know SJUSERS site didn't include it because of being 720p only. However there is more than resolution at stake so this camera should be included in the test.

It might be worth doing a base comparison with the DVX100 too. Alan Roberts has made some very interesting findings with this camera!

http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=36420
 
I plan on doing exactly this with all four cameras (HVX, Z1, HD100, and XLH1). And I always go for the scientific approach. However, people still try to paint the "bias" label on us, so this time I plan on approaching it differently -- I plan on getting a group to view the footage and make their comments, without having any idea which camera the footage is coming from. Hopefully I can get some of the most outspoken proponents of each to agree to sit in, or, barring that, some obviously well-experienced and respected names (such as Adam Wilt, Graeme Nattress, guys like that).

Might be worth having Alan Roberts come out and perform his wizardry on them too!
 
Barry_Green said:
I plan on getting a group to view the footage and make their comments, without having any idea which camera the footage is coming from.
Click to expand...


Damn, that sounds like a good idea! I'm looking forward to adding my 2 cents. Well, assuming I have that much left after buying all the HVX goods! :)
 
The things are heating up about the quality of a blown up film transfer image with HVX200. For the rest of us who will not be soon able to see something of upcoming side by side scientific test about four camcorder I can offer now again one simulation of a film style look from the three major camcorders that can provide 1080i recording.

The next footage consists the clips done in Apple Shake 4
using the two filters to achieve a basic film simulation.

1. TrueLight 2.1, Film Light
Profile: Kodak Vision Primer
Display: digital Projector
Colour space: video

2. Film Grain
Film Stock: Kodak 5279
Grain size: 0.5

Download at
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_3Cams_1080p.html
 
The forum Name is DVXuser that may be a bias
Click to expand...
Which is why, again, I want the absolutely most biased people I can find -- the biggest JVC proponent, the biggest Sony proponent, the biggest Canon proponent -- and make 'em watch the footage and comment and hopefully agree, all while having no idea which cam the footage came from. Surely THAT would remove all claims of bias, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top