DVCPro50 WMV from the HVX200

Never said they didn't. I said they're lousy clips. Anybody can shoot lousy footage with any camera.

I am saying they are completely not representative of what HVX DV50 can do. They in no way are representative. Heck, I could go stick an XLH1 in a toilet and shoot down the sewer pipe and say "hey, here you go, here's XLH1 footage". Sure it was XLH1 footage. Sure it came off the tape.

But it ain't what XLH1 footage looks like.

And those clips have no bearing on actual reality.

And if you do want to compare them, again the only fair way would be to get the other cameras and put 'em in the same circumstances. And I can almost guarantee that the XLH1 and FX1 and HD100 would show as much noise, and probably be darker too.

So -- what's the point in posting 'em? To spread FUD? Let's keep it real. Let's get some actual comparisons. But to say that this is representative of DV50 footage is misleading at the very least.
 
hehehe...

Man, this forum is great!

Barry, speaking of DVCPRO50, also as one of the test, could we
also do some SD comparisons with the cameras?

thxs, Steve
 
Frankly I doubt there'd be time, and I don't think most people would care. I'd like to do it, because I think SD is here for a long time to come. And the HVX is bringing something we've never had in an under-$20,000 camera; DV50. But, people are going to be tuning in for the res charts and the well-lit examples in high-def.

Working with two cameras, it's easy. With three it gets inordinately more complex. Four will be a nightmare. Six is just insane, I expect we'll probably spend all day and come back with maybe three res charts per, and two scenes, and that's about all we'd be able to get out of a full day. To double that for SD would probably make it unwieldly.

But hey, if there's time, I'll do it.
 
Stevet,

you're right !

This forum is great !

I learn a lot here.

...and yes, the XLH1 can make noise ...ALL camcorders can make noise.
just have a look at Kaku's night footage filming the motorcycle...man...if this is not noise...then it is snow...

I truely believe that all the 4 camcorders will perform great, and that all will have their own strenghts and weaknesses.
 
I think even moreso than the comparison between the HVX and the XL H1 (does the Z1U really even count? No 24p = not interested), I think what initially got me concerned about the HVX was comparing it to the DVX. I've been a DVX user for several years, and looked at the HVX as a fantastic opportunity to dive into a tapeless workflow. Like Barry said, HD isn't quite ready for prime time yet, so it was less a reason to upgrade at the beginning. I do think you're right that the HVX will be comparable to the Canon and JVC HDV offerings, but frankly, that doesn't mean a whole lot to me. None of these 1/3" HD cameras has performed exceptionally well in my eyes - at least compared to the world of difference the DVX and XL2 brought to SD. For me, adding resolution or variable framerates at the expense of noise or weird abberations is not an acceptable tradeoff. I expect that this camera will perform as well or better than the DVX does, otherwise what's the point? What I'm really hoping is that in a controlled, professional environment, Barry's test will show that these problems are really not that big of problems after all. Again, we will have to wait to see how that turns out...
 
Barry_Green said:
So -- what's the point in posting 'em? To spread FUD? Let's keep it real. Let's get some actual comparisons. But to say that this is representative of DV50 footage is misleading at the very least.
Click to expand...
I would post it whether it's good or bad. It doesn't matter to me either way. If someone else offers more DVCPro50 MXF's I'll download and encode them. I have the luxury of using an NLE that reads DVCPro50 MXF natively. It is very easy for me to look at the raw footage and encode it.



Can anyone else offer low light DVCPro50 MXF's?
 
It's not just that it was posted, it's that it was posted with a proclamation of "look how noisy this is, look how unusable this will be for keying, etc." That's called FUD. Had it been posted with a note of "if you guys want to see how bad it can look of you totally push it way too far and you crank the gain up to 12dB, well, here it is... but of course nobody would ever shoot that way, so this is just for entertainment purposes only" well, then, I wouldn't have said a word.

If you want to see how it looks for keying, let's wait until we get a properly-shot greenscreen key from a released model. Should be able to do something tomorrow if all goes well. Then we can make a declaration as to how it works for keying from an actual factual basis, not from some worst-case-example clip where it's obviously not representative of anything any competent operator would ever shoot.
 
Barry_Green said:
. . . If you want to see how it looks for keying, let's wait until we get a properly-shot greenscreen key from a released model. Should be able to do something tomorrow if all goes well. Then we can make a declaration as to how it works for keying from an actual factual basis, not from some worst-case-example clip where it's obviously not representative of anything any competent operator would ever shoot.
Click to expand...

Here, Here! I'm looking forward to that -- thanks Barry.

If possible, will you be able to post a result for both windows & mac users?
 
stephenlnoe said:
These encodes were done directly from the MXF's. The encoding method was with WME 9 using the Quality VBR routine set to 100%. What you'll see is exactly what I see on my timeline. I compared the encodes with the raw footage very carefully and what you see is what it is.

Server is UP.

Click here for progressive WMV (97MB)

Here is the accompanying frame grab. The frame grab is a raw native frame uncompressed and lifted from the sequence.

hvx200.bmp






Next is an interalaced sequence (60i). DVCPro50
Click here for the interlaced DVCPro50 clip(31MB)

The low light performance is very poor from these clips. I was afraid of it for this camera because the chips are very small and something had to suffer. This may destroy chromakey altogether. The camera will need very ample light and I don't see any way from the supplied clips to salvage the images. Turning detail down doesn't help much. The noise is still evident. The images sent from my timeline out to broadcast monitor and to a regular TV are... well... I just can't believe my eyes they are so noisy.

Noise is very dissapointing after all the hype but the images do not lie.
Click to expand...


First the clip does NOT play very well on my system, it's a slower Windows 98 system. Still, I can tell by the clip that the gain must be AT LEAST +12dB and it would not surprise me it the gain wasn't +18dB. High gain = High noise, no surprise here.)

In playing the clip I see no information about the gain setting. So we have something, BUT without any key context to the information. Nor we we have any side by side compairson shots to better judge this information compaired to the other cameras.

What I do know for a fact is at 0dB gain the image can be very clean. (If someone wants to set the camera wrong, you can produce a messed up image too.)

+3dB and +6dB Gain introduce some slight noise, BUT the degree is subjective and what is slight to me may not be seen the same by someone else.


Noise is very dissapointing after all the hype but the images do not lie.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, when something is presented WITHOUT any context, it is as bad as a lie. Everyone, please understand, I an not trying to put anyone down or insult anyone, but a "fact" given in a vacuum is not very useful and can mislead.


Bob Diaz
 
Hey guys, you don't want to know what FUD means in Scotland....... well ok I'll tell you in case you ever go there, em, I'll intimate what it means.... actually it's real serendipity coz I just found out what it means this evening and then see the word posted here. FUD in Scotland means the most vulgar word in English for the female genitals...... yeah BAD word, so if you're ever in Scotland and someone calls you a FUD it's not funny.... I wonder how funny it is though when the kids are watching Disney cartoons with the character called Elmar Fud
 
BobDiaz said:
Bob Diaz
Click to expand...

I updated the very first post. You now have everything I do. I invite you to log on to Kaku's website, download the raw clips and place them in your editor and push them out to a broadcast monitor. Once you've seen each of them on monitor then please let me know what you think.

take care fellows...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top