Discussion of dv.com results
- Thread starter smelni
- Start date
JanBee
Active member
Time to throw in my own two cents:
Actually I am happy about the results. It means, we have four camcorders, all capable of doing a great job shooting a short or low-budget feature film. That's great news!
I doubt that the differences mentioned in performance will ever be noticed by an audience. So it is time for me to focus (<- ha!) on the different capabilites these camcorders have:
- How much do I need variable frame rates? (REALLY nice to have - though not a must)
- How much bothers me P2 recording? (Pretty much to be honest - I don't like the additional work of making two footage copies on different hardrives [and keep em forever!] to be SAFE)
- How much more inferior is HDV compared to DVCPRO-HD? (less than sometimes stated here, I am convinced, but still there...)
- How much do I need interchangeable lenses? (Nice to have again - still not a must)
- How much do I need uncompressed audio compared over compressed? (I can live with compressed)
- How much do I want an uncompressed HD output? (Uhm... I don't know. Don't need it now - but maybe in the future? But then - if I wait for every feature that I MIGHT need in the future, I'd wait forever)
So, what's the bottom line?
I still don't know which camera to buy! Muaharharhar! That's so funny... But I'm going to keep thinking about the points above. Not about resolution, latitude, noise. These differences seem marginal to me now.
But to make matters worse - another thing that makes a decision even MORE difficult is this: In the good old days of Betacam there was a decent seperation of the two market segments: Prosumer cams and professional cams. The "gap" between a prosumer cam and a pro cam (suitable for film-look video) was very, very high.
This has changed and is about to change even more dramatically. With the new Sony XDCAM-HD PDW-F330 to arrive in March, we're going to have a cam surpassing all prosumer cams here by far - at a reasonable price tag of $13K (1/2" lens included!). I know - there are many filmmakers out there who do not have the budget to buy this cam, but there are also enough who will think about XDCAM-HD an try to cut the additional cost at another end. It's not like before that the next cam suitable would cost $50K (like the F900).
Wow!
Guess I have to throw some dice at some point
Actually I am happy about the results. It means, we have four camcorders, all capable of doing a great job shooting a short or low-budget feature film. That's great news!
I doubt that the differences mentioned in performance will ever be noticed by an audience. So it is time for me to focus (<- ha!) on the different capabilites these camcorders have:
- How much do I need variable frame rates? (REALLY nice to have - though not a must)
- How much bothers me P2 recording? (Pretty much to be honest - I don't like the additional work of making two footage copies on different hardrives [and keep em forever!] to be SAFE)
- How much more inferior is HDV compared to DVCPRO-HD? (less than sometimes stated here, I am convinced, but still there...)
- How much do I need interchangeable lenses? (Nice to have again - still not a must)
- How much do I need uncompressed audio compared over compressed? (I can live with compressed)
- How much do I want an uncompressed HD output? (Uhm... I don't know. Don't need it now - but maybe in the future? But then - if I wait for every feature that I MIGHT need in the future, I'd wait forever)
So, what's the bottom line?
I still don't know which camera to buy! Muaharharhar! That's so funny... But I'm going to keep thinking about the points above. Not about resolution, latitude, noise. These differences seem marginal to me now.
But to make matters worse - another thing that makes a decision even MORE difficult is this: In the good old days of Betacam there was a decent seperation of the two market segments: Prosumer cams and professional cams. The "gap" between a prosumer cam and a pro cam (suitable for film-look video) was very, very high.
This has changed and is about to change even more dramatically. With the new Sony XDCAM-HD PDW-F330 to arrive in March, we're going to have a cam surpassing all prosumer cams here by far - at a reasonable price tag of $13K (1/2" lens included!). I know - there are many filmmakers out there who do not have the budget to buy this cam, but there are also enough who will think about XDCAM-HD an try to cut the additional cost at another end. It's not like before that the next cam suitable would cost $50K (like the F900).
Wow!
Guess I have to throw some dice at some point
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
That's the stock lens and not the CCD's or the codec. With the 13x lens the HD-100 does not have the CA and the resolution is right there with the XL-H1.evinsky said:
Handling highlights is one of the HD-100's strong suits.
Steve Roark
Member
delaro said:
Heretic!:grin:
I keep reading things like "imagine if they shot 28 Days Later on a XXXXXX."
Well for one thing, we'd still be waiting for a pretty good scare.
As others have tried to point out, the most important part of the test was not that one has 10 more lines of resolving power over another, but that they all get the job done (in slightly different ways).
I'd like to see a zombie movie where the zombies are so busy arguing over which part of the brain is the best, they forget to eat the victim.:evil:
MattC
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
I would agree John, after all that was my point of telling another poster to get a visceral response. But this time around we can go by more than "mojo". Look, if the impossible had occurred and Panny licensed it's codec to Canon and the XLH1 used DVCProHD and P2 technology and if the Canon shot true 24p, then the mojo argument would come into play (although I still think your "mojo" can be quantified in more real terms, such as gamma curve, no artificial sharpening, handling of highlights, etc.). But this is NOT the case this time. As far as I'm concerned, we don't even NEED to go to mojo. HDV is a non-starter (for me). It precludes mojo. It is anti mojo. 24f, well that I don't really know. I'd want to play with it, but it gives me a weird feeling (at least it did when announced) but maybe that's me.
I think each manufacturer has really understood their audience and staked out their turf. If you are going for the ultimate in film look, go panny, if you are going for the ultimate video look (and many are) go canon.
And yes, res is not everything - it's why for still work I shoot Nikon. I can give you a lot of reasons why the canon is better on paper, and for many applications it is. But for what I do (and you've seen that) I prefer Nikon. It has less noise at lower ISO settings, and I like how it handles the color better. It has a certain, shall we say, mojo. But, if I were shooting the NFL for SI, I'd get a canon.
Matt
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
John_Hudson 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.
MattC
Veteran
Stephen,
I agree, but (and I'm asking here) don't you feel that it's ALL the information that gives you a better transfer, not just lines of resolution? What I'm suggesting/asking is that, while more lines of resolution will definitely give you a better transfer, so will more information in general such as better color space. I think this is why the SDX makes such nice film transfers even though it is an SD camera. Because of the totality of the information transfered. If I'm right (and I may not be) then the added information contained in the DVCProHD codec will offer a better transfer on balance than an HDV transfer that has a few more lines of res. Am I wrong on this? I do agree that something is wrong with resolution/findings of the HVX. Either something was up with the test, something was up with that particular camera, or something is up with the HVX in general (which could be a good thing if they've figured out a way to increase "perceived resolution" - although I don't know what that could be). In any case, if you're looking at the HVX vs. the XLHD, you're not talking much of a difference in lines of resolution, but you're talking a huge difference in color space - no?
Matt
I agree, but (and I'm asking here) don't you feel that it's ALL the information that gives you a better transfer, not just lines of resolution? What I'm suggesting/asking is that, while more lines of resolution will definitely give you a better transfer, so will more information in general such as better color space. I think this is why the SDX makes such nice film transfers even though it is an SD camera. Because of the totality of the information transfered. If I'm right (and I may not be) then the added information contained in the DVCProHD codec will offer a better transfer on balance than an HDV transfer that has a few more lines of res. Am I wrong on this? I do agree that something is wrong with resolution/findings of the HVX. Either something was up with the test, something was up with that particular camera, or something is up with the HVX in general (which could be a good thing if they've figured out a way to increase "perceived resolution" - although I don't know what that could be). In any case, if you're looking at the HVX vs. the XLHD, you're not talking much of a difference in lines of resolution, but you're talking a huge difference in color space - no?
Matt
My personal opinion about this test is that it doesnt enormously help the average user (and when I say average I mean average profesional user) since I never felt that those cameras are made with special care for their uncompressed signal ruther for what they deliver with their respected codecs. And most of us those codecs are going to use in the first place. The HVX orizontal resolution bothers me but if I dont see the DVCPRO-HD signal tested I am not going to loose my sleep over it. I to agree that this is great results compared to Vari and Alta, so regardless wich camera one will buy all will end up with a good tool in their hands. But I really needed HDV VS DVCPRO-HD results, for me this would be the only reason to make such trouble. Anyhow gongratulations and many thanks to all that made this test possible. All above are just observations and not bad critic about the proccedure, I personaly would just do things diferently.
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
MattC 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. Acquiring the highest resolution and the highest color information and best motion characteristics is important. If the image is clean then it is clean, no matter what the acquisition format. When the transfer house get's the uncompressed targa sequence and sends it out to the lab, the lab tech will color correct against an LUT (look up table) as a reference. If the image is clean and close to the reference then there is not much work for the technician to do other than quality control.
Try this, on your timeline export a small targa sequence. Now open up the files individually and take a look at them. Are they clean? Are they even? You'll may find banding. All 8 bit formats (HDV, DVCPorHD, DV25 etc) have banding because there are only 256 shades of gray.
I don't want to go on and on so I offer this; higher resolution is better, clean and even frames are better, good motion characteristics are better.
In all things critical focus and quality audio are PARAMOUNT.
MattC
Veteran
Well, think of all the post processing that you would do for a "film". I don't know about you, but even for the little stuff I do it's a lot, and if I were doing something more serious it would be even more extensive. How will HDV hold up to that? I think it won't. DVCProHD should hold up to that very, very well.
Then there's Hudson's mojo... You cannot turn off Canon's edge sharpening, just reduce it. I think this is a major reasons for folks saying the XL2 still looks somewhat "videoy"... Color rendition is less important to me, as I've said before, look at the high-end cameras, or film for that matter - most look like crap before the color correction. And I do believe in shooting "flat" to capture as much detail as possible for future CC in post. That said, there is a difference between color and gamma curve. You can get the XL2 to match any colors as individual colors- even the DVX's, what you can't do is get it to capture information with the same gamma curve, and I think Panny's gamma curve is more filmlike. This translates (to my eye at least) into not a specific color (the theoretical) but how the colors work together with shadows and highlights (the practical).
Then there's Hudson's mojo... You cannot turn off Canon's edge sharpening, just reduce it. I think this is a major reasons for folks saying the XL2 still looks somewhat "videoy"... Color rendition is less important to me, as I've said before, look at the high-end cameras, or film for that matter - most look like crap before the color correction. And I do believe in shooting "flat" to capture as much detail as possible for future CC in post. That said, there is a difference between color and gamma curve. You can get the XL2 to match any colors as individual colors- even the DVX's, what you can't do is get it to capture information with the same gamma curve, and I think Panny's gamma curve is more filmlike. This translates (to my eye at least) into not a specific color (the theoretical) but how the colors work together with shadows and highlights (the practical).
MattC said:
Ah, I get you.
That's why I didn't want to shoot my short on an XL2, though I could very well get one to shoot with for free. I hunted for a DVX after I saw a few shorts shot with it. Basically, it just looked closer to film to me and obviously, to others as well.
If I see the XLH1 performing the same way as the XL2, in the realm of sharpness... I'll be hesitant to shoot anything on it, even if it doesn't cost me anything. I can't stand the video look.
If the sharpness can be turned down to near-to-nothing and the image looks good to me, then okay.
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
MattC said:
It's funny you'd ask that. How about meeting me here in Chicago on Feb 2 to see how well the HD-100 does in a 35mm film transfer?
Click here to register for JVC event
Hope to see some of you there!
Well I will report back my opinion of how the HD100 looks this Tuesday when put to film. Hopefully it will help. However, it bothers me that the film out test is only based on uncompressed images. We need to see that plus what it looks like when captured to native format.
I'll let you all know.
I'll let you all know.
OK guys, just got thru messing with both cameras some more... The motion is definitely identical but the increases resolution of the XLH actually makes it more video like to some people. It loses some of the natural feel to some, especially at full wide. When you start using the XLH with a long lens (10X -20X) it is stunning and this perception goes away.
After taking some XLH footage into an HD1200A deck, it is MORE noisy than HDV??? I still need to mess with that before there are any conclusions but I am convinced it is the DVCproHD codec that is adding this noise to the HVX. It is an amazing codec but very compressed. I am a DP, not a technogeek but it seems very odd that HDV would have less noise than DVCproHD.
I also did a sample cut of the HVX/XLH together and they cut nice. I am still learning the XLH menu system which is extremely deep. Even though I have 100% mastered the XL2 I feel like I need a Goodmans guide to get into the XLH more!
ash =o)
After taking some XLH footage into an HD1200A deck, it is MORE noisy than HDV??? I still need to mess with that before there are any conclusions but I am convinced it is the DVCproHD codec that is adding this noise to the HVX. It is an amazing codec but very compressed. I am a DP, not a technogeek but it seems very odd that HDV would have less noise than DVCproHD.
I also did a sample cut of the HVX/XLH together and they cut nice. I am still learning the XLH menu system which is extremely deep. Even though I have 100% mastered the XL2 I feel like I need a Goodmans guide to get into the XLH more!
ash =o)