Comparison footage of four cams

I bet SJUser would be shocked to discover that movies are projected in a psuedo 48 'p'.

Or that 1.35 is actually 1.39.

Perhaps he would be interested to know that most 35mm film images are in no dimension 35mm?
 
im.thatoneguy said:
I bet SJUser would be shocked to discover that movies are projected in a psuedo 48 'p'.

Or that 1.35 is actually 1.39.

Perhaps he would be interested to know that most 35mm film images are in no dimension 35mm?
Click to expand...
I know that before but it is good to repeat again. A basic info about 35mm film format you can get it at

SMPTE - A subject index of Motion-Picture documents is listed here.
http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/pdf/SubjIndex_Motion-Picture.pdf
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_film
Super 35mm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35_film
or more about the famous films pan & scan at
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/PictureFormats/Pan_And_Scan/
or from Kodak
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq2110.shtml
or Image formats for HDTV
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CVJ/is_11_46/ai_n6361229
 
Very soon a brand new 1080i raw P2 MXF HVX200 clips from Michael Pappas will be included in the next 3 camera footage update.

Stay tuned.
 
The latest UPDATE of the Film Style comparison footage between the three cameras Sony FX1E, Canon XL H1 and Panasonic HVX200.

Footage format: H.264
Color: Millions of color
Size: 1920x1080 pixel
FPS: 24
Data Size: 80.21 MB
Data Rate: 105.79 mbits/sec
Duration: 00:00:06.36 sec

Footage credits:
1. Canon XL H1 - Kaku Ito
2. Panasonic HVX200 - Michael Pappas
3. Sony FX1E - Sanjin Jukic

THE BEST PLAYED AS A LOOP IN A FULL SCREEN MODE
AT THE HD SIZE 1920x1200 PIXELS COMPUTER MONITOR.

This consecutive sequence from the comparison
footage is not a scientific test or any accurate
analysis about the camcorders. It is just a simple
information that leads us to an answer on the often
consumer question: What could be possible
to get from each of the camcoder in 1080p?
The footage consists the clips that were available
to me at the moment. All basic files were in the cam's
native formats like HDV or DVCPRO HD.
Also these are not the best clips from each cam.


Download footage from

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_3Cams_1080p.html
 
Emanuel said:
Indeed!...however, I liked your FX-1E's film-look footage.
Click to expand...
Actually Canon XL H1 and Panasonic HVX200 are 2-3 times more expensive than Sony FX1E but they are not able to deliver "revolutionary!" 2-3 times better picture. Who is the winner in low budget HD race only consumers going to decide. Let us wait the next 6 months and see who is who and where. Or even wait four months till NAB in Las Vegas. I am always repeating my opinion that is still better to spent additional money for example on buying 35mm lens adapter (RedRockMicro or else) and a bunch of vintage Nikon primes than to pay for new HD camcorder that is not so much better than your previous HD(V)camera.
 
Still growing number of views, more than 10.800 counts. Also they are still downloading the 3 cam film style comparison footage like a hell...
 
I probably will stay SD for at least another year because I'm on a mac G4 dual 1gig . I do plan to get the HVX one day but for now I believe the Sony will be my first purchase simply based on the fact that the 1TB drive I want can only hold about 15 - 17 hours of DVCPro HD footage and about 90 hours of HDV footage (70 hours of DV). For me to fully enjoy HD I'll need to upgrade to a G5. ($700 worth of upgrades versus $2000 - $3000 for a G5 Quad)

I think this is all the same silliness that took place before the DVx dropped. The naysayers said the DVX was jerky, didn't look like film, blah blah blah but infact cooler heads prevailed. We looked at the footage and bought based on what we saw. No muss no fuss.

Either this camera will produce an HD image or not. If HDV can produce an HD image, which it does even if it's super compressed there's no doubt in my mind the HVX can too. DVCProHD is a proven format and it all comes down to this, either the camera can produce the image or not. End of story. If it doesn't don't buy, but much of the talk in this thread seems to be FUD with Barry hanging around to pick up the pieces.

-Nate
 
One day in a year or two when the prices of P2 cards will hopefully start to falling down and will increase GB capacity it would make a sense to get HVX. Till then I would suggest ANDROMEDA solution to gaining uncompressed digital HD video from your old camcorder like DVX100A or B. It allows for output up to 1540x990 from the DVX100 by utilizing the pixel shift between the CCD's. Active sensor pixels is amazing 1540x990. As we know now story about the HIDDEN native pixels from HVX it sounds pretty good. It is better to get something you surely know than something you do not or you could guess only. I do not want to calculate the CCDs size of HVX but something is funny with that sort of hiding. Also and the most important thing with ANDROMEDA records UNCOMPRESSED FULL BANDWIDTH RGB (4:4:4) direct from the Analog-to-Digital converters of the camera, before any processing is done. AND INTERFACE is USB 2.0 High Speed. What format does Andromeda save the video data in?
The original uncompressed data files can be exported in a multitude of formats (compressed or uncompressed) using the included sculptorHD software.
The full Andromeda upgrade is $3,000 USD. Cost you less than new HVX with all that expensive, small capacity P2 cards or Firestore. Do not forget that with ANDROMEDA you get 4:4:4 color sampling something like Viper, CineAlta, Genesis or Arri D20 all high end HD camcorders.

More about ANDROMEDA
http://www.reel-stream.com/index.php

More about sculptorHD
http://www.reel-stream.com/sculptor.php
 
SJUSER said:
It allows for output up to 1540x990 from the DVX100 by utilizing the pixel shift between the CCD's. Active sensor pixels is amazing 1540x990. As we know now story about the HIDDEN native pixels from HVX it sounds pretty good. It is better to get something you surely know than something you do not or you could guess only.


Hi,

What we do know is that the CCDs that are being used are the ones that Panasonic put in there in the first place. They are using the pixel offset that we put in there, the ccd is 380,000 active, 410,000 total. They are using a summing concept to come up with the number that you post here. This is all part of the problem with pixel count numbers, people can say whatever they want. Nobody gets paid for the pixel count, they get paid for the pictures they produce.

And while I don't want to discount the engineering that the Reel-Stream guys have done here, as it is a feat to get HD quality images out of an SD camera, working with the acquired footage is more cumbersome than that of the HVX. The difference is the HVX is viable on three popular edit platforms today, and more in the near future and on a PC or a MAC.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...
 
Hi Jan,

everybody owning a DVX 100, as me, knows that at the end of the day the eventual picture quality and the resolving power of that marvelous piece of engineering is way better than any other videocamera in the same league.
This is probably the reason why many people in this forum just want to judge first hand the picture quality of the new HVX 200, and don't stick with the mumbo-jumbo and speculation about the native pixel count of the CCD that a few hobbists are spreading.
Anyway, the waiting will take a few months longer here in Europe then in the US and people budgeting for a new camera want to know by someone like you that have worked in the production of both the DVX 100 and the HVX 200 whether the new "baby" will have in true HD terms the same quality and resolving power that the DVX has in SD terms. Just to be more clear, if I shoot a scene with several moving little spheres with both the DVX 100 and the HVX 200 and if each individual sphere occupies the same area in the frame, will I have the same precision in tracking the spheres trajectories with both cameras, with the additional benefit of the HVX 200 allowing to include more spheres in the frame?
This is what I mean by the eventual resolving power of the system and this is one of the most challenging task that people working in Science are facing when using digital videocameras for tracking the movement of particles.

Best,

Piero
 
Jan Crittenden Livingston said:
Nobody gets paid for the pixel count, they get paid for the pictures they produce.

Hi Jan,

I am very sure that the picture quality of HVX is very good. I saw it here in Vienna at the Panasonic presentation this month. My mentioning of ANDROMEDA was more about one alternative. You pay for ANDROMEDA about $/€ 3000 and you get 4:4:4 uncompressed with DVX 100 picture quality. The price of HVX that is about $/€ 6000 that is very OK. But the price of P2 cards are not OK because you get not enough storage capacity wich you pay a lot. In a year you would be forced to buy a pair of new one. Never ending costs. That is a real HVX200 problem at the moment of launch and maybe not at all the CCDs active sensor pixels "secret".

Regards

SJUSER
Click to expand...
 
About the 24p VS 25p.
PAL is better for transfer to film because it has 20% more resolution then NTSC. Thats all. Both are not 100% 24fps but in the end no one notice it. I say go for PAL if you care about the res factor. Well, I do !
 
SJUSER said:
You pay for ANDROMEDA about $/€ 3000 and you get 4:4:4 uncompressed with DVX 100 picture quality. The price of HVX that is about $/€ 6000 that is very OK. But the price of P2 cards are not OK because you get not enough storage capacity wich you pay a lot. In a year you would be forced to buy a pair of new one. Never ending costs.
Click to expand...


Actually the cost of the Andromeda is the DVX100 and $3000. The cost of the P2 cards continue to go down every time you use them. If you are comparing to DV tape the price goes down more slowly, but if you compare against DVCPRO HD tape the price amortizes fairly quickly. You don't need to buy new ones each year, you can use them thousands of times. So it really depends on how you look at it. You have to look at the workflow and see for yourself that the cost of the cards can actually be the cost of all the tape you will use over the course of the years you will have the camera.

Merry Christmas to all,

Jan
 
But with thousends of tapes, I have thousends of hours storage. That would cost a lot to storage that on hard drives.
 
Maybe I'm missing something here, but we all know that uncompressed will offer the best video quality.

But if we're talking about cost........
Do you know how much storage space is needed for uncompressed video.
It will bow your mind, not to mention the beast computer and drive array
you will need to edit and view it.

ONE hour of video at 1920x1080 @24 (uncompressed) aprrox. = 720GB !
Man, that's only ONE hour

Man, take a look at Canon showing off their XLH1. They transferred it to DVCPRO100 just to show it off. Apparently, they trusted the DVCPRO100 to advertise their camera.

I'm sticking with DVCPRO until a better solution is available. Hopefully DVCPRO100 V2 :)

Steve
 
DVCPRO HD is of course very attractive option included 4:2:2 that I cannot get it with HDV even "deartifacting" the clips to DigiBeta 4:2:2 using Magic Bullet in AE. I tested it and no doubts DVCPRO HD is more powerfull (more colors) and also I could edit with my old PowerBook 15" 1.25 Ghz on the road last summer. Actually I did all my summer DVDs on the road transferring m2t to DVCPRO HD to edit. And to say at the end I am in Europe and could wait about 6-8 months till US/Japan customers slash P2 cards on reasonably affordable prices. Lucky European PAL guy.


Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top