Discussion of dv.com results

My DVX100 had CA too! I remember people coming up with the red filter trick to counter it.

I am surprised that after all the DVX100, DVX100A, and DVX100B manufacturing experience that they haven't gained the knowledge that we look for this.

However, this could be just a QC issue. I am leaning heavily towards buying ( 90% in favor ) the HVX200, however I am not buying until the production line goes through some more deliveries.

Today we are conducting film lab tests on HVX and H1 frames and even ones from the four camera shoot.

I will say again that Res is only one factor. I used to own the Fuji S1 SLR based on the nikon N80 body I believe. This was my sharpest contender. Fuji does all this willy whack things inside to make an image that looks very sharp. What's funny when printed to film 8x10 plus, it looks great, however when you started to examine that print under a loop it had strange artifacts. The same when looking at it 100% + on the monitor.

My 10D and D60 Canon DSLR's didn't have that same kind of punch, however under scrutiny the images were better and much more artifact free. Gorgeous and organic compared to the Fuji DSLR. I could do more lab work with the Canon, then the Fuji too.

This is also the same situation with these 8 megapixel consumer cameras. The Canon D30 even at a 3.4 CMOS is better than many of those 8MP's. Yet they are 8MP vs 3MP. Again, res is only one factor.

You can have a car that has more core Horsepower, however if it isn't utilized in many areas or the gearing isn't designed to spring you off the line better, it's waisted.

More isn't always better.



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }


XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
 
I agree Michael,

...and i bet the true HVX res is WAY higher than 550H X 540V

When i look at some clips, it is obvious the camcorder is very capable of producing sharp, well defined images. no doubt.
 
I agree, although the CA exhibited by the HD100 or XL-H1 is far beyond any CA seen on cameras such as the DVX, HVX or Z1.

I couldn't wholeheartedly agree more with the "resolution isn't everything" statement.

As far as achieving a filmic look, I would say "latitude is everything". Even if somebody made a standard definition or 720P camera with 18 stops of latitude, I think the images from that would be spectacular beyond anything we have seen..i believe it could be made to be indistinguishable from 35mm on broadcast applications, even if it needed a 35mm adapter.

I'm seeing a lot of 4K cameras which haven't yet pushed the dynamic range to where modern film stocks really are.

How about some actual, strict dynamic range tests of the HVX and other cameras? Backlit neutral density gel scale and a light meter. I think it might bring to light other qualities of the HVX that arise from the lower-resolution chips.
 
Stevet, this takes me back to the article I wrote on the HVX200 almost a year ago on fixed lens issues. It's funny to look back at it now!

DO AG-HVX200'S DREAM OF OPTICAL ENLIGHTENMENT
WELL , MAYBE NOT YET. BUT.............

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/do_hvx200s_dream_of_lenses




Stevet said:
If it turns out the len is questionable, they should of listed it at 7K and gave us a lens that can cut HD.

Although from what little I've been seeing, it looks good
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone given any thought to where the zoom lens was set at for the res chart test? Was it at the wide end or was it zoomed in on the chart? Being a still photographer, I have done res chart tests over the years on a lot of 35mm film lenses and there is a great deal of difference in the resolving power of some zoom lenses depending on their focal length. Some do great at the long end but fall apart at the wide end and vise versa. This is true when shooting film and when using a digital camera body.

All of this variation and speculation may be less about the ccd then about the lens. Does Barry or anyone have an opinion on this? Did anyone take note of this information in testing? To give a true idea of the resolving power of the HVX it would have to be tested both at wide and long settings moving closer or further away from the chart as needed to fill the frame.

Just a thought...
 
I'd love to hear Pappas' bottom line.

Forget all of the tests, forget resolution, yadda yadda...

I'd love to hear which camera you're honestly thinking of picking up and the cold hard reasons why.
 
Didnt really read every single thread but let me say that the CA and lack of latitude in the XLH is easily overcome with a couple adjustments, first being a low knee. In low light the XLH does great, in areas of high contrast the HVX does great but for MOST situations they seem to perform very close.


ash =o)
 
AshG said:
Didnt really read every single thread but let me say that the CA and lack of latitude in the XLH is easily overcome with a couple adjustments, first being a low knee. In low light the XLH does great, in areas of high contrast the HVX does great but for MOST situations they seem to perform very close.


ash =o)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ash.

I think I know what my own issue is:

I don't want to see either camera turn out to be a "loser". I want both to be equal, honestly. And nobody's really viewing the situation as such.

How many times must it be stated that there wasn't anyone available at the time DURING these tests that knew much about the Canon XLH1. That means a LOT could be corrected on that camera.

Nobody's taking into consideration that with that knowledge, and the results of this test, which they didn't have to do in the first place but everyone should be thanking them for it, the Canon performed close to, and better than in an aspect or two, the HVX200 on nearly out-of-the-box settings. What would've happened had someone been there to tune it?

Just keep that in mind. It's all subjective, but let's be realistic about it.
 
I would say neither are the loser... IMHO they all won and after using them I am less excited about the HD-XDAM (still intrigued). The tests also showed that the F900 creamed the Varicam in resolution but if I have a choice between the 2 I will pick the Vari every time. I just like it better, I might be biased because I am more familiar with it (thank you Mr. Goodman) but NOBODY every says anything but WOW with the results. Wel...except for the day I forgot to turn the lav on for an interview...



ash =o)
 
AshG said:
I would say neither are the loser... IMHO they all won and after using them I am less excited about the HD-XDAM (still intrigued). The tests also showed that the F900 creamed the Varicam in resolution but if I have a choice between the 2 I will pick the Vari every time. I just like it better, I might be biased because I am more familiar with it (thank you Mr. Goodman) but NOBODY every says anything but WOW with the results. Wel...except for the day I forgot to turn the lav on for an interview...



ash =o)
Click to expand...


Oh gheeeezzzzz....heh heh...

It happened to me once...

I always carry my headphones now.

yep, i saw some extraordinary Nature footage from the Varicam...unbelievable, wide and closeups...
 
kevinM said:
Has anyone given any thought to where the zoom lens was set at for the res chart test? Was it at the wide end or was it zoomed in on the chart? Being a still photographer, I have done res chart tests over the years on a lot of 35mm film lenses and there is a great deal of difference in the resolving power of some zoom lenses depending on their focal length. Some do great at the long end but fall apart at the wide end and vise versa. This is true when shooting film and when using a digital camera body.

All of this variation and speculation may be less about the ccd then about the lens. Does Barry or anyone have an opinion on this? Did anyone take note of this information in testing? To give a true idea of the resolving power of the HVX it would have to be tested both at wide and long settings moving closer or further away from the chart as needed to fill the frame.

Just a thought...
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this last night. The focal length and f-stop can impact the res results. I'm going to reshoot the DSC chart tonight with the HVX at different distances and brightness, and see if anything changes. Someone posted that they saw 750 lines of horizontal res during their own test.

Jay
 
Jay - I'll be interested to see what you find. Also, since you mentioned f-stop, is the HVX f1.6 all the way through the range?
 
kevinM said:
Jay - I'll be interested to see what you find. Also, since you mentioned f-stop, is the HVX f1.6 all the way through the range?
Click to expand...

t stop yes, but not the lens, the lens goes out to 3.4 i think on the end.
 
Jay Nemeth said:
I was thinking about this last night. The focal length and f-stop can impact the res results. I'm going to reshoot the DSC chart tonight with the HVX at different distances and brightness, and see if anything changes. Someone posted that they saw 750 lines of horizontal res during their own test.

Jay
Click to expand...

its funny.. cause i had to correct someone who was trying to do this years ago.

Believe it or not.. i think it would of been a great advantage to have a 1st and 2nd AC there to do these tests. From the stills i can gurantee that the charts where not mounted in an ideal fashion for testing, and the focal plane on all the cameras obviously where all different.
 
Jarred Land said:
its funny.. cause i had to correct someone who was trying to do this years ago.

Believe it or not.. i think it would of been a great advantage to have a 1st and 2nd AC there to do these tests. From the stills i can gurantee that the charts where not mounted in an ideal fashion for testing, and the focal plane on all the cameras obviously where all different.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's impossible for a zoom lens to focus the three primary colors at the same distance throughout the entire zoom range. Usually a point somewhere in the middle towards wide end is picked by the lens manufacturer, and this is what DPs call the "sweet spot". At that focal length, the red, blue, and green portions of the image are hitting exactly where they should after going through the prism and to the imager. As you zoom out or in, chromatic abberations start to show up as the glass just isn't able to keep all the colors tightly wound up at all focal lengths.

And then there is the stop. Checked my notes and the HVX was at a 5.6 during the resolution test. According to Barry, 4 or 2.8 would probably be better. Again, this is another "sweet spot" for the lens, aperture instead of focal length.

As far as the chart setup, I spent a great deal of time making sure all the cameras were at the same height, the chart was the same height as the lenses, the chart was perpindicular top to bottom, and we re-aimed the chart to each individual camera so there would be no keystoning. All the chart framings were checked in underscan to make sure the carrots just reached the edge of the raster. Of course there was the wiggle test that Adam was doing, so they did get off from time to time, BUT the size of the chart relative to the field of view was not affected by this. I also made sure the area behind the cameras was dark so there would be no reflections or flare in the chart.

Had to setup a Gyron tonight, so I didn't get a chance to reshoot with the HVX. I'll post as soon as I do.

Jay
 
kevinM said:
Jay - I'll be interested to see what you find. Also, since you mentioned f-stop, is the HVX f1.6 all the way through the range?
Click to expand...
No, none of these cameras has a constant t-stop. The HVX and Z1 are 1.6 on wide, 2.8 on tele. The H1 is (I think) 1.6 wide, 3.5 tele. The HD100 doesn't list what happens, but it loses about a stop over the course of its zoom.
 
Jay Nemeth said:
As far as the chart setup, I spent a great deal of time making sure all the cameras were at the same height, the chart was the same height as the lenses, the chart was perpindicular top to bottom, and we re-aimed the chart to each individual camera so there would be no keystoning. All the chart framings were checked in underscan to make sure the carrots just reached the edge of the raster. Of course there was the wiggle test that Adam was doing, so they did get off from time to time, BUT the size of the chart relative to the field of view was not affected by this. I also made sure the area behind the cameras was dark so there would be no reflections or flare in the chart.

Jay
Click to expand...

ha ha didnt mean to question the plane of the charts.. im just going by the photo of barry holding the charts, it looked like he just stood there and twisted them towards the camera.

Im just used to preping cameras at places like panavision and clairmont, where you have a pedastal and the chart is on a fly track always perfectly perpendicular to the lens. maybe i have just been spoiled, but i wouldnt think of shooting a rez chart any other way.
 
Please help. Can someone please save me the time of going throught the various threads looking for links to short clips taken by each camera. I am only on the phone line right now but I'm going to the local library to look at them in broadband and I need to be organized to maximize my one hour? Thanks. Deciding on which camera within the week so the pressure is on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top