Discussion of dv.com results
- Thread starter smelni
- Start date
Steve Shovlar
DVXuser Sponsor
Well that was a good read. And so the winner in the writers opinon is the Canon and JVC, which we can all go out and buy today.
I have played with the JVC for half a day and must say the results it gave were exceptionally good, bt I had nothing to compare it with so perhaps didn't believe they were as good as I had imagined.
A big well done to JVC. As an FX1 owner, this test has been a real eye opener and probably made the decision for me to not buy the HVX200 and wait a year or two. I for one am happy with the quality of image from the Sony so will continue to use and and make money, and rent something a lot better for my big shoot this summer.
Thanks to Adam Wilt for a great report which has saved me a wad of cash.
I have played with the JVC for half a day and must say the results it gave were exceptionally good, bt I had nothing to compare it with so perhaps didn't believe they were as good as I had imagined.
A big well done to JVC. As an FX1 owner, this test has been a real eye opener and probably made the decision for me to not buy the HVX200 and wait a year or two. I for one am happy with the quality of image from the Sony so will continue to use and and make money, and rent something a lot better for my big shoot this summer.
Thanks to Adam Wilt for a great report which has saved me a wad of cash.
mochouinard
Well-known member
proximity said:
Same here, BUT the image still look good
Who care about specs.. Also he said :[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]
So I guess this might not be the exact result.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
mochouinard
Well-known member
Alot of screenshot of the HVX200 seem out of focus ??? Or is it really that much lack of resolution ? I mean the images I saw barry shot didnt show those lack of sharpness.
Barry Help again
Barry Help again
mochouinard
Well-known member
Also the XL H1 seem more redish
ullanta
Veteran
Well, the big and sad problem is that this article doesn't address any recording format EXCEPT DVCProHD; everything else seems to be uncompressed... and some of the cameras are outputting uncompressed digital, while others are going through various D/A/D conversions. I find that unfortunate, and, unfortunately, unenlightening. What if the compnent out analog conversion of one camera is its weak point? And how many people will really be shooting uncompressed? We've waited since the Green Barry's report for discussion of RECORDED footage... and don't seem to have gotten that. Sniff. C'mon! We need to compare the codecs, and some motion!
thefilmaddict
Veteran
I was a bit confused about the resolution test. What do the many question marks in the HVX200 column mean (yes I read the article, but can someone explain the question marks in plain English -- the other cameras did not have them)?
1080-line camera limiting resolutions:
Camera Chip details H limit, TVl/ph V limit, TVl
HDW-F900/3 CineAlta 2/3"
1920x1080p 1000+ 1000+
Canon XLH1 1/3"
1440x1080i 800- 700+ (540)
Sony HVR-Z1U 1/3"
960x1080i 550 700+ (540)
Panasonic AG-HVX200
1/3" ???
x1080p 550? 540?
My initial response:
1. The HVX200 resolution seems very low. It's a shame if these numbers are accurate. Panasonic should have cleaned house with DVCPRO HD vs HDV. Where did they go wrong? I don't care much about the cost of these under 10k cameras, as the HVX is pretty costly when you add the P2 factor. Still, I ordered the camera months ago because it was advertised as a 1080 and 720 HD camera. You would think that the resolution would be at/closer to/above 720.
2. I was very pleased to hear that the HVX200 has a similar amount of noise as the other cameras. That puts an end to that discussion.
3. I was very pleased to hear that the camera was very sensitive.
4. I was very impressed with how the JVC HD100 tested. I've heard nothing but bad things about that camera in the past. I did well in most categories.
I'm sure this will be a fabulous SD camera (with DVCPRO 50). I also love variable frame rates (beautiful slow motion) and I'm sure I will like the P2 workflow as I am shooting film projects and I don't need a ton of recording time, but has Panasonic dropped the ball in the resolution department? Please tell me I'm over reacting.
Shooting 24p HD was the main reason I bought this camera (and still wait for it). I wonder if Panasonic will release a better version of this P2 camera (sort of like the Sony DSR DVCAM family)? I would pay around $12,000 for a better version of this camera. I'm sure the HD image will be very nice in the end using the HVX200, but will it have that pop and depth that a higher resolution camera would bring to the table? I don't think we can dismiss the resolution factor. I was lower than all of the other cameras.
Also, was it determined what the resolution of the XLH1 was in its 24 fps mode? Was it at least close the the HVX200 24p mode? Didn't the JVC do the best in progressive mode when discussing resolution? I didn't quite get that info. In the chart I pasted above, it says that the XLH1 resolution was 800 x 540 vs the HVX's 550 x 540. Is that accurate?
I need to get a life. I visit this site often. Thanks for putting up with me.
1080-line camera limiting resolutions:
Camera Chip details H limit, TVl/ph V limit, TVl
HDW-F900/3 CineAlta 2/3"
1920x1080p 1000+ 1000+
Canon XLH1 1/3"
1440x1080i 800- 700+ (540)
Sony HVR-Z1U 1/3"
960x1080i 550 700+ (540)
Panasonic AG-HVX200
1/3" ???
x1080p 550? 540?
My initial response:
1. The HVX200 resolution seems very low. It's a shame if these numbers are accurate. Panasonic should have cleaned house with DVCPRO HD vs HDV. Where did they go wrong? I don't care much about the cost of these under 10k cameras, as the HVX is pretty costly when you add the P2 factor. Still, I ordered the camera months ago because it was advertised as a 1080 and 720 HD camera. You would think that the resolution would be at/closer to/above 720.
2. I was very pleased to hear that the HVX200 has a similar amount of noise as the other cameras. That puts an end to that discussion.
3. I was very pleased to hear that the camera was very sensitive.
4. I was very impressed with how the JVC HD100 tested. I've heard nothing but bad things about that camera in the past. I did well in most categories.
I'm sure this will be a fabulous SD camera (with DVCPRO 50). I also love variable frame rates (beautiful slow motion) and I'm sure I will like the P2 workflow as I am shooting film projects and I don't need a ton of recording time, but has Panasonic dropped the ball in the resolution department? Please tell me I'm over reacting.
Shooting 24p HD was the main reason I bought this camera (and still wait for it). I wonder if Panasonic will release a better version of this P2 camera (sort of like the Sony DSR DVCAM family)? I would pay around $12,000 for a better version of this camera. I'm sure the HD image will be very nice in the end using the HVX200, but will it have that pop and depth that a higher resolution camera would bring to the table? I don't think we can dismiss the resolution factor. I was lower than all of the other cameras.
Also, was it determined what the resolution of the XLH1 was in its 24 fps mode? Was it at least close the the HVX200 24p mode? Didn't the JVC do the best in progressive mode when discussing resolution? I didn't quite get that info. In the chart I pasted above, it says that the XLH1 resolution was 800 x 540 vs the HVX's 550 x 540. Is that accurate?
I need to get a life. I visit this site often. Thanks for putting up with me.
Poi Boy
Well-known member
I think we need to keep in mind that the charts don't tell the whole story. The article states clearly that they are all very similar and compared well to the 2/3" cameras; in talented hands they all make beautiful pictures. So go for the feature set that makes the most sense for you. In my case, I want the slo mo capability and the 4.2.2 space.
Well I orderd my HVX today before reading this and now I'm wondering.....
This test is a huge dissapointment. First, you never test something under pressure, it's obvious they just started winging it towards the end. You couldn't get a hold of a facility to allow you to do a two day test?
Last time I checked these cameras are "camcorders", the majority of people will be recording to the media on board, not out of the camera to an uncompressed format. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing what the pure resolution is but I'd rather have seen some real world tests first. If the camera has a brilliant recording device and lens but gets squashed and hammered by the recording medium what good is it? What happens when you play back the native recorded footage? Does this extra resolution of the pickup device help lesser quality recording devices like HDV? Does the play back from DVCPRO HD give the Panasonic an edge even though it has less resolution?
The Canon still seemed to come out on top and they didn't even have a knowledable Canon DP there to max it out. That says something. If the Panasonic Guru is there and it came up last on the list I wouldn't buy any excuses from someone saying "well you just need to know how to setup the HVX correctly". Obviously that doesn't help and what happens to the normal user who doesn't know hot to max it out?
I was also suprised by the JVC. Wow, that is pretty impressive considering it doesnt' do 1080. There is a JVC film out next week I'm suppose to attend. Maybe I will definately go now.
I hope someone posts some better tests because this DV article does nothing for the Panasonic and they even had to add a disclaimer that there must have been a problem with the camera because the resolution was so poor. Is it just me or does this go against everything we have been hearing from Barry?
This test is a huge dissapointment. First, you never test something under pressure, it's obvious they just started winging it towards the end. You couldn't get a hold of a facility to allow you to do a two day test?
Last time I checked these cameras are "camcorders", the majority of people will be recording to the media on board, not out of the camera to an uncompressed format. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing what the pure resolution is but I'd rather have seen some real world tests first. If the camera has a brilliant recording device and lens but gets squashed and hammered by the recording medium what good is it? What happens when you play back the native recorded footage? Does this extra resolution of the pickup device help lesser quality recording devices like HDV? Does the play back from DVCPRO HD give the Panasonic an edge even though it has less resolution?
The Canon still seemed to come out on top and they didn't even have a knowledable Canon DP there to max it out. That says something. If the Panasonic Guru is there and it came up last on the list I wouldn't buy any excuses from someone saying "well you just need to know how to setup the HVX correctly". Obviously that doesn't help and what happens to the normal user who doesn't know hot to max it out?
I was also suprised by the JVC. Wow, that is pretty impressive considering it doesnt' do 1080. There is a JVC film out next week I'm suppose to attend. Maybe I will definately go now.
I hope someone posts some better tests because this DV article does nothing for the Panasonic and they even had to add a disclaimer that there must have been a problem with the camera because the resolution was so poor. Is it just me or does this go against everything we have been hearing from Barry?
wabbit
Evil has Ears
Impressive results from the Canon. Pop some good glass on it and record on a DVCPRO HD deck and you have yourself an amazing camera.
Numbers on the HVX do seem low considering what we have seen but still believable and doesn't kill my interest in the HVX. Ultimately, for us, it has always been about the codec and non-linear workflow. If those weren't the issue for us, the Canon would deserve a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th look.
Cheers
Numbers on the HVX do seem low considering what we have seen but still believable and doesn't kill my interest in the HVX. Ultimately, for us, it has always been about the codec and non-linear workflow. If those weren't the issue for us, the Canon would deserve a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th look.
Cheers
While the tests didn't deal with motion, it's impressive that these cams can yield comparative results to higher end cams like the Varicam and F900. In the right hands these tools will shine.
Geez....
I didn't expect that at all.
In fact... after reading so much about the HVX200 and then the Canon... I expected the Canon to drop below the HVX200.
But geez, I guess that's why my company wants to go with the XLH1 in the first place. I'm the one that suggested we do a shoot-out between the two.
I'm almost hesitant to even rent the cameras and do my own tests, now.
I didn't expect that at all.
In fact... after reading so much about the HVX200 and then the Canon... I expected the Canon to drop below the HVX200.
But geez, I guess that's why my company wants to go with the XLH1 in the first place. I'm the one that suggested we do a shoot-out between the two.
I'm almost hesitant to even rent the cameras and do my own tests, now.
I have to first give props, that must have been an incredible experience, that is an incredible amount of work to do in such a short time. I wish that people had been doing these kinds of comparisons all along so that y'all wouldn't have had to start from scratch. That said, I think that having results from the HDV tape would have served as better comparison than uncompressed HD, since I know I personally will not be carrying around a G5 quad with me. What matters to me is what I have with me in the editing suite, not the theoretical best image the camera can output uncompressed. I think you folks did an incredible job, but I'm going to wait and see until I can compare P2/Cineporter output with HDV tape.
doccutter said:
Hmm...
You'll have to be careful about that though. P2 is innate to the HVX200, but tapeless solutions WILL be available for the Canon as well, and at that, a larger amount of space right out of the door for a comparable price.
So you'll be comparing both tapeless options, right? Which means that you'll still be comparing uncompressed.
While it may not be out for the Canon just yet, it will be.
Anyway, no one was declared a WINNER. It says what everyone should be realizing by now: Each of these cameras can produce MORE than respectable material when CARE is taken. So, just go get the camera you want, now. Well, when the HVX is available, I mean.
The DV report says it was an unbiased test. I think the results should be looked at with unbiased appreciation for the technology. But, that won't happen with everyone.
In my opinion there was a very important missing player in the 4-cam comparison and that is the DVX+Andromeda. From what I've been able to gather this combination is able to record uncompresed at 4:4:4 color space 10 bits in HD resolutions to a laptop; its latitude has been rated at ~9.5 stops which puts it well above any HD-Camera in this price range and its resolution has been measured as being 700-750.
Does anybody know what the latitude of a Varicam is compared to the 9.5 stops of the DVX+Andromeda?
Does anybody know what the latitude of a Varicam is compared to the 9.5 stops of the DVX+Andromeda?