dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[Flintstone]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=Jan_Crittenden link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=0#11 date=02/16/05 at 10:53:01]I am assuming what you meant is that HDV is no match for DVCPROHD.  Right?

Jan[/quote]
Yes, you are correct.  My bad.  And for the record, just to make things much clearer:  DVCProHD = Awesome!    HDV = Crap!

Braw: Perhaps it's the language barrier?

Funny!  But you have a point!  Although I am bilingual, French being my native tongue, I do have some slip ups; and for that I apologize.

 

[braw]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=Flintstone link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=15#20 date=02/17/05 at 11:36:21]Funny!  But you have a point!  Although I am bilingual, French being my native tongue, I do have some slip ups; and for that I apologize.[/quote]

I did mean that as a joke. I saw that you have a Canadian flag next to your name. No offense. ;D

 

[Flintstone]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=braw link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=15#21 date=02/17/05 at 13:14:56]I did mean that as a joke. I saw that you have a Canadian flag next to your name. No offense.  ;D[/quote]
None taken whatsoever!   And I did have a good laugh at it too!

 

[geffy]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

iv added another choice for those that want to buy an xl2 or other hdv camera etce,
Just read on uk site that the filmic motion on tv is an american thing something to do with ntsc, which you dont see with pal, this could explain the disproportionate number of users on your side of the pond, pd150 was very popular here along with the canons, indeed trainspottings director danny boyle shot 28 days later with xl1s, and a great filmsuffered in some ways through lack of definition, if you view the extra material on dv he explains that ironic backgrounds just couldnt be defined at a distance. great film though, behind the scenes material shows cutting edge small format, with a big budget!

 

[braw]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=geffy link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=15#23 date=02/17/05 at 16:49:19]Just read on uk site that the filmic motion on tv is an american thing something to do with ntsc...[/quote]

I am definitely no expert on either PAL or NTSC, but something just doesn't sound right about that. 25p is exactly half the rate of 50 which is PAL right? I think it would be more an aligning frame rate/evenly divided rate thing.

Can anyone help me out on this?

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

I don't know what they're referring to.

In America, film is shot at 24 frames per second, and transferred to NTSC video using 3:2 pulldown (which means that every two frames of film get transferred to 5 frames of video; even frames go to 2 video fields, odd frames go to 3 video fields). So two film frames = 5 video fields, and if you do that 12 times per second, you end up with (2x12)=24 frames of film become (5x12)=60 fields of video.

In PAL, film gets shot at 25 frames per second. Each frame of film gets transferred to two fields of video.

So 25p on PAL looks more like projected film than 24p displayed on NTSC, but both look like film on video.

 

[geffy]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=braw link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=15#24 date=02/17/05 at 17:36:51]

I am definitely no expert on either PAL or NTSC, but something just doesn't sound right about that. 25p is exactlyhalf the rate of 50 which is PAL right? I think it would be more an aligning frame rate/evenly divided rate thing.

Can anyone help me out on this?[/quote]
hi ill just quote site:
Beware of transatlantic comparisons, the starting point is different. The review is a valid comparison, but only from a US point of view. When an American talks of "film-look" or "film-motion" he'll be talking of something we rarely see in the UK. Film motion, to an American, is largely due to the "2:3 pull-down operation that is done to get 59.94 fields from 24 frames in a second, scanning frames alternately twice or thrice. This gives a jerkiness to motion at both 24Hz and 12Hz, rather than at the 25Hz that we're used to in the UK. The 25Hz jerkiness that stems from the "2:2 pull-down" process is relatively smooth and is exactly the same process as is seen in all cinemas world-wide, but the 2:3 process is peculiar to NTSC. So any comparison of cameras and systems using NTSC as a base will give different opinions from those derived using a 50Hz system such as PAL
i dont understand technical video, i have a photography background, i sold my xl1s to buy a panasonic though ;D ;D

 

[braw]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=15#25 date=02/17/05 at 18:18:48]In PAL, film gets shot at 25 frames per second.  Each frame of film gets transferred to two fields of video.

So 25p on PAL looks more like projected film than 24p displayed on NTSC, but both look like film on video.[/quote]

So that's why I'm thinking that 25p on PAL looks similar to 30p on NTSC. Mathematically speaking. 24 probably looks a little more noticeable on 60i land where 25 doesn't look wierd at all in 50i land.

Isn't film usually shot at 24 pretty standardly across the world?

What about on a progressive tv that can display the 24p on a DVD through composite video? Would that look significantly cleaner motion wise?

 

[geffy]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

i think we are talking about film perception, obviously the jerkiness, but also a psycological and physiological thing, the still frame at 24 can be processed by us and more  information understood than from a constant stream, ie our brains bandwidth copes better! allows it to appreciate it more :-/

 

[geffy]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

more brain food from the same site:
As an example, I recently saw a film on Channel 5 ("One of our spies is missing") that as clearly shown from a standards-conversion of a tape, recorded from film in NTSC. So it exhibited both the nasty 2:3 pulldown for US TV and the 6:5 effects of the standards-conversion for UK showing. It looked awful. But it's nothing to do with the film itself, only to the peculiar processing chain that delivered it to me.

This may seem to be nit-picking, but when a video camera shoots at 24 frames/second and does the 2:3 pull-down effect to generate a film-look in NTSC, the results are grossly different from a camera running at 25 frames/second to get a film-look at 50Hz for PAL. That difference alone can conceal other problems by distracting the eye. ???

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

I would say that the folks that did the conversion of the NTSC with 2:3 pull down to PAL, should have extracted the 24P and then converted to 25P/50i with a small speed up. This way would have been vastly cleaner and would only require a small pitch change. Sort of the reverse of what folks do when they shoot in PAL and then go to film, they just make it a slo-PAL.

Best,

Jan

 

[Flintstone]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

Hey geffy, can I ask a favor?  Can you avoid red text?  I find it very difficult to read, and hard for the eyes . Thanks

 

[geffy]

ea mr Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

ea mr Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=Flintstone link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=30#31 date=02/18/05 at 06:17:38]Hey geffy, can I ask a favor?  Can you avoid red text?  I find it very difficult to read, and hard for the eyes . Thanks [/quote] sorted now in bold  
The world according to a mr sid........: now for the info gained from a drunken sales person in the pub, sid:
1)the sony is the choice of pros :-/
2)most people wanted canons cos they used to have canon stills and the xlses attract attention and impress people :-[
3) xl2 is murdering the opposition
4)tv companies in uk now have 16:9 in their guidelines to contributers :
5)hdv cameras are the only long term cameras :'(
6)hed only buy a dvx if it was a good kisser (anna karina. bande a part)

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

I think what you're saying is that the XL2 is enjoying good success in Europe? Is that what you meant? Because in Europe, yes, some broadcasters are specifying 16:9 delivery requirements. So I can see why some users would be drawn to the XL2 (even though the DVX in squeeze mode delivers an image that's just as high-resolution, in 16:9, as the XL2 when it's set in "low" vertical detail, which is the appropriate setting to use for display/broadcast on interlaced televisions).

 

[Flintstone]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=30#33 date=02/18/05 at 13:52:15](even though the DVX in squeeze mode delivers an image that's just as high-resolution, in 16:9, as the XL2  when it's set in "low" vertical detail).[/quote]
Hey Barry, I'm sure that you have that somewhere; do you have resolution chart pictures (and other comparative shots) showing that?

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

Somewhere, yes, but I don't know where.

I just posted here a week or two ago showing the FX1 against the DVX/Squeeze, and they're the same vertical resolution. The XL2 was shot in "norm" detail so it was a lot higher, but in "low" (which they specifically note should be used for interlaced televisions) it's about the same as the DVX in 24p/squeeze/thin.

 

[Flintstone]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

Are you serious? If it's the case, and I'm sure it is, then what would be the discriminator between a DVX in squeeze mode and a DVX with an anamorphic adapter, detail wise?

 

[geffy]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=30#35 date=02/18/05 at 15:22:23]Somewhere, yes,  but I don't know where.

I just posted here a week or two ago showing the FX1 against the DVX/Squeeze, and they're the same vertical resolution.  The XL2 was shot in "norm" detail so it was a lot higher, but in "low" (which they specifically note should be used for interlaced televisions) it's about the same as the DVX in 24p/squeeze/thin.[/quote]
for the tests click here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=Events;action=display;num=1108111339;start=0#0

 

[geffy]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

1)im not good on technical video but with regard the comparison, bigger must mean better ( so an amamorphic would give similar benefits?)your point seems to be theres no way to make use of the larger format at the present but what about film transfer, i allude back to 28 days later which needed the speed of shooting but suffered in far background  resolution, and "grain". i would have thought there would have been advantage from gradation if not resolution from the larger format?Resulting in a higher quality image?
As a footnote the xl1s was famous for blobing at a distance, new ones been mentioned also as its pixels are so small :-/

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: dvx 100 prices moniter: blame the hdx100

[quote author=Flintstone link=board=HDV;num=1108567176;start=30#36 date=02/18/05 at 15:50:32]what would be the discriminator between a DVX in squeeze mode and a DVX with an anamorphic adapter, detail wise?[/quote]
Used properly, the anamorphic adapter would give about 33% more resolution vs. squeeze mode.

Look at the pictures geffy kindly linked to: imagine that instead of it saying "XL2" on that first shot, imagine that it said "DVX/Anamorphic". Because that's about what the resolution would be, so you could compare that against the last picture (DVX/squeeze) to see the difference.