DP of "24" hit tv show does a adapter and camera shootout

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimagine said:
It's more than good enough.
Click to expand...

I think that is quite an interesting point.

IMO ProHD is good enough, in fact, pretty much perfect, for the camera in which it is used.

It is not good enough for a F950 (for example) as the camera can out-rez the codec. However, none of these 1/3" cameras are F950s.

What I like about the JVC is that it has choosen good compromises for this level in the market. I can see very little real world difference between 720p HDV and DVCPROHD, and find more pros in the cheap, easy tape based format. Others have different opinions and so will buy different cameras.

I would pay more for a better lens, but I think that if you take the time to ensure you don't get a real dud, they aren't too bad. It is a consistency issue as far as I can tell. It is a shame that the 13x is so expensive.
 
Last edited:
come on people! the hvx image looks really soft. every footage i`ve seen so far shows clearly, that the hvx doesn`t produce a crisp and sharp image as we all would like it to do. i shot a short last year with the jvc and have to say, that it doesn`t seem that soft to me.
don`t get me wrong, i am still waiting for the pal hvx to come out and i hope it improves. i really want to buy a pal hvx for my next short, but i think we should accept, that the hvx isn`t the holy grail and far from flawless.

peace
MAS
 
I've seen some sharp HVX footage but must admit that most of the footage I've seen is soft looking, but not always in a bad way. Some of it looks very filmic. When we do our tests we're going to have a go at sharpening the HVX footage in post with the high-end Davinci.

Ps, so is there a good chance that the PAL HVX is going to be higher res/improved? I'm in PAL land ya see :)
 
Rhydon said:
Common guys. The HVX is soft compared to the HD100. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Not buyin' that. Not at all.

Here's the HVX and the HD100 shooting the same scene. I tried to match the framing as exactly as possible, and the settings used on the HD100 were Tim Dashwood's DVX Cine-D emulation setting file, and the HVX was Cine-D. Matching settings is *not* easy. Until HD Rack comes out, I don't have easy access to a live HD waveform or vectorscope and so I pretty much have to eyeball it. So don't expect them exactly matched. But the HD100 was using the best example of a scene file that I could find on the web to make it as HVX-like as I could get it, so at least I tried.

HVX was shot in 1080 mode, scaled down to 720 for comparison with the JVC. Detail is detail, and the HVX captures the most detail in 1080 mode, so I didn't feel like tying one hand behind its back, sorry.

If you can see more detail in the HD100 shot, you've got better eyes than I do. Only thing I see more of in the HD100 shot is noise.

This is a pixel-for-pixel extraction of both at 720p res:
HVX-HD100-AF-Poster.JPG


These are the original raw frames, as captured by FCP and exported as BMP's:
HD100: http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/HDV-D.bmp
HVX: http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/HVX-D2.bmp
 
Last edited:
Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but we also found the same as Barry Green and I can't help but back him up on this. And this isn't just me on my pc at home fiddling with photoshop on a cheap LCD monitor - we checked the footage out on high end equipment, in a broadcast post-facility with industry professionals working in the film and television industry.

People are thinking that because a camera has a certain spec it's recording a certain amount of lines, and in those certain amount of lines there's going to be more detail. We found that even though there seems to be more resolution on the HD100, the detail in that extra resolution just doesn't exist. Whether that would change with a $15,000 lens I don't know.

Now there's another can of worms with those comparison pics - (and bear in mind up till last week I was trying to get my company to aquire the HD100, I have no bias I just want the best tool for the job) - the noise on the HD100 looks electronic to me, much more so than the HVX200. Then again it's a very subjective thing.

Another can of worms... :) Would the HDV codec deal with this that was shot on the HVX200 - http://motivitypictures.com/hvx200/motivity_snow_day.mov
 
Last edited:
Yes, there is a good chance that the codecs will have increased horizontal resolution 1440x1080 and just maybe 1280x720. But because of the resolution of the CCD's you should not expect any gain in Luma res. But increased Chroma res (100 extra horisontal pixels in 1080) is pretty nice....
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Joel I hope you get that sorted out. I just don't want any users to come to any rash conclusions about your stills.
Click to expand...

Hey man, I don't either. I'm not telling anyone to do anything other than pick a reputable retailer and try to test the cameras in advance as much as they can.

Jan has PM'd me that this is some of the worst HVX stuff she's seen and I'm sure it is...

Isaac_Brody said:
It sounds like the camera is a little wonky, but sometimes it comes down to operator error. People need to realize that HD is not as forgiving for focusing as SD.
Click to expand...

Sure - That's why side by side is so helpful. That JVC is sharp in a lot of places and it's sitting right next to my camera. And that's also why tough case scenarios are such good tests.

For all would be analysts out there - I managed a camera shop for about 5 years. I've seen thousands of photos and helped many amateur photographers with their focus problems. SOMETHING in the frame is almost always in focus. They'd say "my camera is blurry" and I'd say "See that lamp? It's sharp... let me show you how to aim the autofocus."

You can't say what's sharp about almost any of my frame-by-frame-compressed-by-Panasonic-wizardry shots. STILLS should be a Panny advantage, right? Bright light and brilliant colors should be a Panny advantage, right?

And that's not something I screwed up in a menu unless I dialed max minus detail... which I didn't. Somehow I got higher contrast and less sharp. Those two don't typically hang out together. Higher contrast usually gives an illusion of sharper. All the "crushed black" stuff looks so... mojo.

A monitor out there wouldn't change anything. I always used the focus assist in B&W viewfinder with EFV Detail on. Since I got LASIK my eyes are 20/15... but I was watching the peaking anyhow. I'm not saying I hit the gnat's ass every time... but I was close.
 
Last edited:
Neopics said:
Ultimately, the only fair comparisons would be of the same subject matter. Joelnet's have been the most appropriate so far, though even I am suprised at how soft the HVX was. Perhaps the iris was stopped down enough that diffraction was the problem. (Do you recall the f-stop, Joelnet?)

If any HVX owners in the Vancouver BC area are up for a day of comparison shooting, I can bring the HD100.
Click to expand...

Hiya Neopics.

My HVX came a couple of days ago.

If you want go get together and do comparos I'll be happy to.

Be warned I don't have a P2 card, or software available for capturing. It may just be a subjective eyeball test.

I'm not too familiar with which settings on the HVX are best..... if anyone has suggestions I'll take them.
 
SalaTar, what are you talking about? Jan saw some bad pics and took the time to write to a customer to tell 'em that something must be wrong (I'm presuming that's what that was about) -- how is that a "foul"? Sounds like customer service to me.
 
With regards to Barry's test I would suggest he should do a wide shot at zero zoom. I have noticed that the HVX seems to go soft on the wide angle zero zoom point of the lens. I just can't get as sharp as the HD100 footage I shot. The details such as bricks in buildings several blocks away in the background are sharper. This is the only place I have had trouble. I wonder if others have had the same experience with the HVX or if my lens may be "off" due to shipping or manufacturing errors. I had hoped to get more wide shots with this camera than I could with the DVX but this softness is causing the image to fall apart on me. On zooms and close-ups the stuff looks razor sharp though so I think it has to be a lens issue. Any insight?
 
Barry_Green said:
If you can see more detail in the HD100 shot, you've got better eyes than I do.
Click to expand...
Excellent comparison, Barry. Resolution wise, it appears both cameras are spot-on the same. It's too bad the HD100 shot has so much noise -- I've seen better from it. It may have been the lighting (though that in itself is a plus for the HVX because it handled the same lighting with less noise).
 
stabwound said:
If you want go get together and do comparos I'll be happy to.
Be warned I don't have a P2 card, or software available for capturing. It may just be a subjective eyeball test.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the offer. I think we'd want to capture HD footage to compare later and to post the results. Planning on getting a P2 card eventually?
 
Canon rep,
"Everything on this site that makes us look bad is a lousy shot , buy a Canon ignore it"


JVC rep,
"Everything on this site that makes us look bad is a lousy shot, buy a JVC ignore it"

Book rep
“The pages extracted are incorrect assumption of what I meant”


DO NOT PM ME IF YOU ARE A REP!!!!
 
SalaTar, WHAT are you talking about?

I would be delighted if JVC or Canon reps would stop by here, and if they saw a customer having a problem with their gear that they would make special efforts to contact that customer on a one-on-one basis and help them.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You're implying that there's something nefarious going on. Joel just confirmed -- it's customer service. Start making some sense please. Otherwise I have no choice but to assume you're trolling.

What exactly is it that Jan did wrong?
 
holditnowfilms said:
With regards to Barry's test I would suggest he should do a wide shot at zero zoom.
Click to expand...
I'll try that too. Have to head out to a gig here tonight so I don't have time to set it all up again.

I chose a fairly-tele because I wanted there to be no question about focus at all. It wasn't full tele though, it was 40mm on the JVC and 45mm or 46mm on the HVX. Weird how two 1/3" cameras use different focal lengths to get the same field of view... guess the chip dimensions aren't exactly the same or something...
 
SalaTar said:
In public?
PM,I wont accept that and think its a full violation of policy
Click to expand...
How I've wished in the past that someone would rescue me from 'expensive defective product' hell and spent weeks trying to get some help from the company who manufactured it - and sometimes that's when it's been IN warranty.

Personally I thought it was good customer service. Please if I get a defective Panasonic product, do get in touch via PM, telephone, telegram :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top