Discussion of dv.com results

Reading carefully all of the stuff arownd here, I wonder whether the issues (1) Delay in deliveries and (2) resolution a-la-Wilt problem are not connected in a way. This might be a long shot but still: isn't it possible that Panny has some kind of problems with (some) of the HVXs and Barry-Wilt gang bumped on a such problematic sample of the camera; while the delays are, of course, because Panny wants to eliminate the thing and is working their asses off to do so. What I have as an intuition is that the camera in the comparison really had some trouble, hopefully it is an isolated case. That explains the res low results but still keeps the camcorder the one that we all here want it to be.
 
SIGH.
these test were pretty much just stills right?
no testing of motion, panning, zooming....having cars etc drive by right?
UNTIL you SHOOT motion on HDV and DVCPRO-HD.....not uncompressed out to some deck or a computer RAID......then you'll see why I like the HVX.
 
FullRez said:
"Not exactly. The film transfer uses uncompressed targa or tiff sequences in which case the transport stream (whether DV25, HDV or DVCProHD) is irrelevant."

- Guess I don't understand that. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
Hi FullRez,

The m2t's (raw HDV) are captured from tape and then they are uncompressed. It's like this; when you download a file from the internet that's zipped it is compressed. Once you unzip it you have the full contents of the zip. Zipped files are to save space just as transport streams are to save space. A captured video file can be uncompressed to the full frame by frame resolution and color sampling.

The lens/CCD's handle the resolution and the codec handles the motion estimation, color sampling, and compression for the storage media. The storage media does just that, store the compressed transport stream (compressed).

take care guys....
 
Went to bed last night, we were at 6 pages. Can't bring myself to read thru 6 more...so anyone have any interesting bullet points of what has been discussed? :grin: Did we learn anything new?
 
filmkid said:
My 2 cents.....

The Canon looks great, but there is NO DECK that works with the 24f mode. Since Canon does not manufacture decks, and has not announced a deck that they will manufacture in the future, that makes the Canon a definite NO. I refuse to use a camera as a deck - horrible idea.

.
Click to expand...

Those who know claim there is a deck coming, personally I'd just buy a second H1 and use that as a second camera/Deck - it has HD-SDi out from tape!

As for the Sony M10 deck - that is EXACTLY the same mechanism as the cameras but without the lens - what's the point in that, you may as well buy the second camera and get the extra use out of that!

As for the H1, I had my first shoot with one last night - I've been using the Z1 for the last few months and put it this way, I won't be using one again - the H1 blows it away it every respect, apart from the Sony picture is cleaner, but at a cost of resolution, the NR circuits obviously take their toll.

The flexibility of the lens, the quality of the 25F mode (UK Based!) and the sheer amount of control you can exert over the picture make this a winner for me.
 
wabbit said:
Went to bed last night, we were at 6 pages. Can't bring myself to read thru 6 more...so anyone have any interesting bullet points of what has been discussed? :grin: Did we learn anything new?
Click to expand...

Not a thing, we're all just bored....
 
HVXUser,

Great.. great.. great post. I'm really stoked about Bubble. Soderbergh is really on the edge with this stuff and I think it's a great model for filmmakers to use. I actually get more inspiration from rap producers and musicians. If there's a way to bypass the greedy middle man/distributors then I'm all for that. I think that shaking the filmout/print shackles is doing the artists a great service.

That's also such a good post HVXuser that it might require it's own thread. I have been converted, especially after the dedicated TI projector is here in town and whenever they have a movie showing there.. I will drive the extra distance to see the movie there. SWIII was so much better on the digital projection than the film projection IMHO.

I can't wait till I can get the HVX to shoot some shiznit and see how it looks on a big screen. Sure it won't film or a varicam or the Red camera, but then again who wants that friggin overhead. My buddy who has a cinealta and the full uncompressed suite and all that Jazz, has about 30K in overhead every month with all the leases and such. I'm not looking to compete with Hollywood.. just want to produce my products at a low cost and then turn a profit. My cousin has made 5 straight to video kungfu flicks and each one gets better.. more profitable and more rewarding. His first one went through a film distributor and he got SCREWED. All this inspiration is making me want to pick up that tell all Miramax book, it's called Low down dirty pictures, isn't it? Peter Biskind.. I think. My bro told me it's so sleezy and just really puts it all in perspective.

Once again.. great post HVX and if ya got more info send me a PM or post a link.
 
Steve Connor says:

"Those who know claim there is a deck coming, personally I'd just buy a second H1 and use that as a second camera/Deck - it has HD-SDi out from tape!"

Ouch!!! That is a very expensive deck!! The pont of all of this is lower cost HD solutions....plus I have heard nothing - from my inside, reliable sources - that Canon is planning a deck.

Then -

"As for the Sony M10 deck - that is EXACTLY the same mechanism as the cameras but without the lens - what's the point in that, you may as well buy the second camera and get the extra use out of that!"

Hmmmmm.......There are advantages of using a deck - it usually offers many more professional options for inputing and outputing audio and video. Not a good way of thinking, in my opinion.......
 
Justyn said:
HVXUser,

Great.. great.. great post. I'm really stoked about Bubble. Soderbergh is really on the edge with this stuff and I think it's a great model for filmmakers to use. I actually get more inspiration from rap producers and musicians. If there's a way to bypass the greedy middle man/distributors then I'm all for that. I think that shaking the filmout/print shackles is doing the artists a great service.

That's also such a good post HVXuser that it might require it's own thread. I have been converted, especially after the dedicated TI projector is here in town and whenever they have a movie showing there.. I will drive the extra distance to see the movie there. SWIII was so much better on the digital projection than the film projection IMHO.

I can't wait till I can get the HVX to shoot some shiznit and see how it looks on a big screen. Sure it won't film or a varicam or the Red camera, but then again who wants that friggin overhead. My buddy who has a cinealta and the full uncompressed suite and all that Jazz, has about 30K in overhead every month with all the leases and such. I'm not looking to compete with Hollywood.. just want to produce my products at a low cost and then turn a profit. My cousin has made 5 straight to video kungfu flicks and each one gets better.. more profitable and more rewarding. His first one went through a film distributor and he got SCREWED. All this inspiration is making me want to pick up that tell all Miramax book, it's called Low down dirty pictures, isn't it? Peter Biskind.. I think. My bro told me it's so sleezy and just really puts it all in perspective.

Once again.. great post HVX and if ya got more info send me a PM or post a link.
Click to expand...

Thanks, we should start another thread on this topic.
I am getting the HVX to shoot my own flicks. I have been doing corporate shoots for to looooong now. Most of the guys at the seminar today did not even know what an HVX was. Gary Adcock was holding it over his head and saying"HD is here and is not going away" I think Gary is on the Pana payroll and slamed the SOny down hard. He had a few demos to show how bad it was.
 
stephenlnoe said:
I do not want to get deeply into this discussion, however I'll add this. The higher the resolution the better the film transfer results. Sooooo, resolution has an important impact on the final delivery being 35mm film.
Click to expand...

Although I concur

My point being neglible beyond a certain point !

---

MattC

I got you. I think you're correct !
 
stephenlnoe said:
Hi FullRez,

The m2t's (raw HDV) are captured from tape and then they are uncompressed. It's like this; when you download a file from the internet that's zipped it is compressed. Once you unzip it you have the full contents of the zip. Zipped files are to save space just as transport streams are to save space. A captured video file can be uncompressed to the full frame by frame resolution and color sampling.

The lens/CCD's handle the resolution and the codec handles the motion estimation, color sampling, and compression for the storage media. The storage media does just that, store the compressed transport stream (compressed).

take care guys....
Click to expand...

Woah! What on earth are you talking about?

When I download a zip file that is 50% smaller than the files inside and I uncompress it I get all my files intact. That means that if there were 4 files in the zip, I have 4 files when unzipped and all the content of those 4 files are exactly as they were before being zipped.

When you record an HD signal from the camera to a compressed format like HDV you will never have the same HD singnal again. It throws away information and compresses it to a LOSSELY compression. So you can convert this to uncompressed tif or tga files all you want but you are not gaining anything at all.

Now if you record the raw signal out of the camera uncompressed to an uncompressed file format and spit out TGA's then you have true uncompressed images. If you zip up these TGA's and unzip them, you have true uncrompressed images.

I'm really not sure what you are talking about but I think you need to do a bit more research on what is actually being done for this JVC test.
 
well, i've been silently observing what people have been saying, it looks like the race is really neck and neck. i'm very torn but i will say this... after working with a DVX with a homemade mini35, anything will define a higher resolution than that, so for me it could be considered splitting hairs... that's totally subjective though.

for resolution there is a clear winner, i'll go out on a limb though and say if those images hold any type of credance to what actually goes on with the HVX and the Canon, the HVX looks a lot nicer... i'd point to the sony TV camera in the background, the image on that is just so much more pleasing to MY eye (again subjective) it's not even close.

the canon smokes on resolution though, like a mutha.
 
You don't need a deck. Your not getting a deck for the HVX either. If one is willing to invest into P2 or a Firestore type for the HVX ( atleast a thousand dollars in memory) why not do the same and get a firestore or the many that will arrive like it for the XLH1.

It's the same thing. Your spending roughly the same money on tapeless recording medium ( P2 or Firestore Or Cineporter etc. )

Most people are going to buy a Firestore type drive over P2. I know that if I go the HVX or the H1 I will be getting the drive. That's also why if I go HVX, i'm only getting the 4 gig card package for 5,600.

One advantage to the H1 while you use a Firestore type system is they record at the same time. HDV tape and firestore.

So instant backup to tape as you record to your firestore. That's cool...........


filmkid said:
My 2 cents.....

The Canon looks great, but there is NO DECK that works with the 24f mode. Since Canon does not manufacture decks, and has not announced a deck that they will manufacture in the future, that makes the Canon a definite NO. I refuse to use a camera as a deck - horrible idea.
Click to expand...
 
One quick observation after all this discussion.
In the long run the most important image is not the one you see in the viewfinder, or on the editing monitor, it's the one that people look at when they put their DVD in the player.

What I mean is the ability of a camera to maintain image quality during the editing process is essential and that's just where the HDV cameras and the HVX200 differ. Color resolution and intraframe editing will make a huge difference to the final image, the only one that counts! This just has to be taken into account when deciding on which camera to buy.

Camera critics will just look at the raw images and say wow!. The people who buy your film will look at the end images and say ... (well that depends on which camera you buy...)
 
after working with a DVX with a homemade mini35, anything will define a higher resolution than that, so for me it could be considered splitting hairs
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting point...because the reported HVX resolution even in 1080 mode is pretty much standard definition, no? Might as well just use it in DVCPRO50 mode and dedicate more bandwidth to the information that is actually there(i.e. captured from the CCD's), rather than the information that has been interpolated.

Maybe I'm wrong, but last time I checked the DV output from the DVX gave some pretty similar resolution results when tested with a rez chart. What's the point in using a format that sacrifices information content for more pixels, if the pixels aren't really there?

Just my 2 centavos.
 
Terence, capture aside editing in native HDV or the HVX's format is not going to do anything to the image unless you recompress them. In that case both formats are bad and doing any major layering, keying, color correcting, effects, etc. should be done in a better codec.
 
pertierr said:
This brings up an interesting point...because the reported HVX resolution even in 1080 mode is pretty much standard definition, no? Might as well just use it in DVCPRO50 mode and dedicate more bandwidth to the information that is actually there(i.e. captured from the CCD's), rather than the information that has been interpolated.

Maybe I'm wrong, but last time I checked the DV output from the DVX gave some pretty similar resolution results when tested with a rez chart. What's the point in using a format that sacrifices information content for more pixels, if the pixels aren't really there?

Just my 2 centavos.
Click to expand...


best post here.

...now i wonder if this particular HVX was defect...
 
Want to hear something even funnier?

With Andromeda on the DVX100B we are getting over 800 lines horizontally and about 750 vertically.

Trust me, these HVX results are VERY confusing, this is why I wish everyone who has an HVX would take the time to shot a chart. So far i've seen only two tests, Kaku's and the DV.com info, and they both confirm each other...
 
To be very honest the " A " crap pisses me off. Why can't they get the " A " version the first time. I can understand the DVX100, that was a big change for them. Before then all Panasonic's small camera's sucked IMHO. I owned the AGEZ1, " Hated it" Noisy cam compared to my VX1000 back in 1996.

So the A for DVX100 even though the DVX100 is my favorite of the small form cameras needed an " A ".

However this time Panasonic had almost a year of user feed back about what they wanted on this camera. As well the previous experience gained from the DVX years. There is no excuse for an "a " version so soon after a release.

You can bet the H1 won't be replace for at-least 3 to 4 years.

Time for Panny to fully exploit the SW firmware upgrade option to its fullest if possible. IMHO



FatBird19 said:
My big question; will they upgrade the resolution in the HVX200a? :laugh:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top