Discussion of dv.com results

Terence Lehane said:
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...)
Click to expand...
This is a good point, however, I'm currently editing HDV using AspectHD an intermediate 10bit codec. It enables me to get all of the resolution and headroom that I can from the HD100 or FX1. From there [once I've post produced] I can choose how to encode to get the best image to the consumer. Like I mentioned previously I beleive the DVCProHD codec is the gating factor for the HVX-200 which is why I think using the same codec for post is a bad idea. There's nothing to prevent capturing the DVCProHD content and converting it to an intermediate codec for post but it appears that this workflow would have limited headroom even compared to some of the HDV camera's.
 
PappasArts said:
Time for Panny to fully exploit the SW firmware upgrade option to its fullest if possible. IMHO
Click to expand...


Agreed!

This is one good difference between the DVX and HVX.
At least the HVX is capable of a flash firmware upgrade!

Steve
 
Makes you wonder why Panasonic couldn't better this since the HVX is a HD camera built up from the ground and not a SD camera like the DVX100B

The CCD's alone are HD level in the HVX200, so this doesn't make sense. Unless the HVX is using like Pal ccds or etc and it's not HD. Who knows, however I don't get how a third party company can take a DVX100b camera and do this while the Panny can't with a HD level camera....

pertierr said:
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...
Click to expand...
 
I was just thinknig this, if the can make a SD DVX100b a hd level performer, then if the tap the HVX will it become a mini "viper"......

Antoine_Fabi said:
pertierr,

...just imagine what you could do with 16:9 native HVX's CCDs and Andromeda...
Click to expand...
 
I have had my DSLR's all firmware upgraded over time and they all have improved because of it on some level. So I know it can be done. My friends Nikon many years ago would get Frimware upgrades that improved its performance as well. So it can be done IMHO!


Stevet said:
Agreed!

This is one good difference between the DVX and HVX.
At least the HVX is capable of a flash firmware upgrade!

Steve
Click to expand...
 
All the nifty features aside, I'm truly worried about the resolution of the HVX. As far as DVCPRO HD being better, here is post from Cineform regarding the two formats.

QUOTE:

There are good comparisons of codec solutions at http://codecs.onerivermedia.com/ -- the site many deals with Apple based codecs yet it does show some of the quality issues DVCPRO-HD (when used as a post-production format.) DVCPRO-HD is an OK aquistion but it has its limitations, just like HDV.

But HDV vs DVCPRO-HD (both are HD varients) here are the basics

Bitrate for 720p
HDV 19Mb/s (for all frame rates)
DVCPRO-HD 40/50/100Mb/s (for frame rates 24, 30 & 60p.)

Resolution at 720p
HDV 1280x720
DVCPRO-HD 960x720

Bitrate for 1080i/p
HDV 25Mb/s (for all frame rates)
DVCPRO-HD 100Mb/s for 60i -- (unsure how 24p is being encoded, likely only 80Mb/s will be used.)

Resolution at 1080i/p
HDV 1440x1080
DVCPRO-HD 1280x1080

Compression
Motion compensated MPEG2
I-Frames only DCT.

Conclusions:
Neither is superior to the other. MPEG2 is a more efficient compression so it compensates for its lower bit-rate. For moderate motion MPEG2 averages 2 to 3+ times more efficiency than I-frame DCTs (at the same PSNR quality -- PSNR explained here : http://www.cineform.com/technology/H...ology10bit.htm.) For 720p24 I believe HDV will have the superior quality, for 720p30 they are equivelent (although HDV as the edge in resolution) and for 720p60 DVCPRO-HD is the only player today (and would be a clear winner.) For 1080i60 DVCPRO-HD has the edge in quality, HDV higher resolution isn't quite enough to overcome DVCPRO-HDs bit-rate advantage at 1080i60. At 1080p24 (which doesn't truely exist today is either format) they will be much closer with the edge to DVCPRO-HD.

END QUOTE:
 
I was just thinknig this, if the can make a SD DVX100b a hd level performer, then if the tap the HVX will it become a mini "viper"......
Click to expand...

There would be advantages but also disadvantages. The pixel elements on the HVX are no doubt smaller than those on the DVX, so it is likely that we wouldn't get the 9.5 stops of dynamic range we get with the DVX's sensors. Also, the reason why this is even possible with the DVX is because 28Mbyte/sec is barely manageable with current consumer computer technology. If you addup the bandwidth for 60 fps RAW, you'll get what i mean :)

We'll know more when we can perform an autopsy on one. [mad scientist laugh]
 
FullRez said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have done a film transfer using ProHD (HDV1). I know first hand....:thumbsup:

I extend an invitation to you to come and discuss workflow in Chicago. Hope to see some of you guys here on Feb 2.
 
How many people here are trying to justify purchasing either of these cameras souly for the price factor?

If the Canon were the same price as the HVX200... how many would run out and snatch it up right now?

Just a thought.
 
I will.

If Canon was 6K - I guess I would sacrifice variable framerates/codec for interchangeable lenses...!
 
redindian said:
I will.

If Canon was 6K - I guess I would sacrifice variable framerates/codec for interchangeable lenses...!
Click to expand...

Why? I'm not being sarcastic or snooty, hey I own an XL2... I'm honestly curious why you would do that, especially regarding the codec?

Matt
 
PappasArts said:
HDV codec was written many years later after the DVC codec, standing on the shoulders of previous technology.

DVCpro was written and designed in the early 90's. HDV was finalized after 2002 or so.
Click to expand...

HDV is MPEG-2, first used in 1995...
DVCPro, first used in... guess when... 1995.
 
I'm in a "wait and see" mode. I really hope that the resolution is much more than Adam's testing says. I still want to see with my eyes how each camera looks. I'm surprised that Panny didn't go all out with the resolution. I mean I still want the HVX but I also want to know that I got the best deal in purchasing a camera.
 
Barry did you contact Jan for any comments on the resolution results of the HVX????

Barry_Green said:
Nobody felt that it was "as good as it gets" -- we thought it looked curious and incorrect. I expect more from it than that, and I want to see a second unit tested to know for sure.
Click to expand...
 
That's how it was explained to me Alex.

Alex,
So are you saying the HDV that was agreed on around 2002, and that is used in the H1 is 100% mpeg 2 as it was in 1995? No improvements at all?


Alex Leith said:
HDV is MPEG-2, first used in 1995...
DVCPro, first used in... guess when... 1995.
Click to expand...
 
PappasArts said:
That's how it was explained to me Alex.

Alex,
So are you saying the HDV that was agreed on around 2002, and that is used in the H1 is 100% mpeg 2 as it was in 1995? No improvements at all?
Click to expand...

Hee! Hee! I was only saying that if you were saying that there have been no improvements to DVCPro HD over DVCPro.

:grin:

I do agree with you, thought, that people were very skeptical about HDV's ability to stand against DVCProHD, but indeed the quality gap in the codec is actually pretty marginal.

... Now if we could just get someone to make an H.264 camcorder...
 
I ask because it seems like the Canon, when placed in the hands of those who are willing to really work with their footage instead of wanting out of the box miracles, will produce more than agreeable results.

I'm wondering if it's just the Ten-thousand dollar price that's got people justifying the HVX's known shortcomings, or proported short-comings.

I'm probably wrong, but it's a thought.

I still haven't chosen a camera my damned self--

And by the way: Andromeda, now that I've remembered that it's being sold now, IS looking VERY tastey. Mmmn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top