DVX v. HX1
- Thread starter ccroo
- Start date
BrianAWells
Active member
Re: DVX v. HX1
I think most people here already own a DVX100 or DVX100a. That being said, I'm interested in the Sony, too. HDV as a format, though higher in lines of resolution, is not as good on paper as MiniDV in terms of color depth and exposure latitude. So, it's a toss up. I think I would opt for the Sony in a New York minute, IF, I could find a suitable uncompressed portable hard disc recorder for it. At the present time, I would have to take a G5 iMac, an AJA I/O la, and still could only get SD quality uncompressed. My opinion is that a great looking SD image leaves a heathier impression on me than a heavily compressed but high resolution Hi-Def image. That is my opinion. So, I only would seek a MiniDV with component outputs, which since none exist at the present time, I would opt for the Sony since it (most likely, but I am not certain) would have 1080i and NTSC switchable component outputs and would fit my application well. If Panasonic improved the DVX to include component outputs and Quickstream would release a device to record uncompressed 23.98fps 8 bit 4:2:2 video, which comes out to 16MB/second plus audio, then I'd be shooting "miniDV" for a long time to come. And, I'd still be using Panasonic over Sony any day of the week. (very opinionated statement)
Brian
I think most people here already own a DVX100 or DVX100a. That being said, I'm interested in the Sony, too. HDV as a format, though higher in lines of resolution, is not as good on paper as MiniDV in terms of color depth and exposure latitude. So, it's a toss up. I think I would opt for the Sony in a New York minute, IF, I could find a suitable uncompressed portable hard disc recorder for it. At the present time, I would have to take a G5 iMac, an AJA I/O la, and still could only get SD quality uncompressed. My opinion is that a great looking SD image leaves a heathier impression on me than a heavily compressed but high resolution Hi-Def image. That is my opinion. So, I only would seek a MiniDV with component outputs, which since none exist at the present time, I would opt for the Sony since it (most likely, but I am not certain) would have 1080i and NTSC switchable component outputs and would fit my application well. If Panasonic improved the DVX to include component outputs and Quickstream would release a device to record uncompressed 23.98fps 8 bit 4:2:2 video, which comes out to 16MB/second plus audio, then I'd be shooting "miniDV" for a long time to come. And, I'd still be using Panasonic over Sony any day of the week. (very opinionated statement)
Brian
BrianAWells
Active member
Re: DVX v. HX1
Optimally, they would just lose the tape mechanism and give us SDI outputs only. Then, some enterprising indiviual would create the aforementioned uncompressed HD 4:4:4 using a small stack of 500GB microdrives (HA!) and the entire thing would weigh six pounds and look better than a 900.
Actually, to make it one step better, they could lose the lens as well and add a PL-mount so we could use prime lenses of our own choosing. Heck, Arri primes are made by Zeiss, so we'd still get Zeiss optics for those who must have their Zeiss.... Then, the camera should be priced much lower since there is no recording mechanism and no lens and we would get excellent picture quality. This is not too far off when one ponders the the entire universe and the small part of it we fill in terms of time. Even five years would be amazing. Fact is, that is about all it would take for a six pound 1080p with a 35MM sized image sensor, mount for traditional motion picture film lenses, and a highly compact disc based recorder.. maybe even bluray dvd media instead of hard disc... doesn't really matter. I think it'll be here within five years, whether Sony makes it all, or aftermarket products. Doesn't matter. It's only a matter of time.
This sort of thing has happened in every other industry.. the idea of the average guy being able to afford the equipment that only the professionals once could.. Remember when desktop PC's were introduced with software that allowed "the average guy" to embark in desktop publishing? Print shops were worried they wouldn't survive. In reality though, if you can't make a good layout on paper, then you can't do it with software either. Hence, when I need business cards I have it done by a professional. I don't use those tacky inkjet-perforated cards. I know I'm not the only one. Kinko's was not around much when PC's were introduced with Photoshop, but they sure do a lot of business now.
Same goes with photography. It is widely known that a good wedding photographer used medium format film with 2 1/4" square negatives or 2.7 times the size of 35MM. Now all I see are top notch photographers ($3,000/Day sitting fee and up) in town using Canon EOS-1, a $4500 digital camera. NO film to develop, instant gratification, and even the clients prefer it now. And, even with the EOS Rebel whose greatest fault is the 1.6x magnification of EOS lenses costs under a grand for 6 Mexapixel images. This is a far cry from the first Casio VGA quality (0.6 Megapixel) digital camera I saw in 1996 for $1,000.00. Simple math: ten times the quality in less than eight years.
We'll see this as time goes on and faster than ever before. Camera technology will become more affordable and image capturing quality will become better.
Some things will never change, IMHO. Renting a Fisher 10 Dolly will always cost $350/day and will require a million dollar liability insurance policy. (At $300/year for most small businesses it's actually less than the rental, but you get the idea!) Having used Fisher stuff extensively it's worth every last penny. And, if you use it often enough ya might as well get the yearly lease... it's only, you know, $700.00 a month, or $100.00 a month if you are an accredited film school. Or, at least convince them you are. Just kidding that won't work.
On the comment about framing pictures wider without having them pixelate... have you ever seen a great uncompressed image or even a DV50 format such as DigiBeta on a great monitor? SD looks awesome but I think most think it sucks because of the advent of HD. Delivery method's remain the same. DVD's are standard def. How does anyone plan on delivering their material in an HD format? Does anyone plan on sending their home movies to digital theatre's expecting it to be projected or something? What am I missing? Will HBO accept HDV tapes now? DigiBeta, on a good, large monitor, through component cables or SDI, look absolutely awesome. HD looks great, too. But, so much of it on local tv, here in my town, locally, is unconverted to 1080i, except one station which (*may be*) 720p. I'm not sure. It looks awesome, too. But, the local NBC and FOX affiliates (owned by the same guy and share the same website.. how funny is that) are using standard def news camera's and yet the film at eleven always looks awesome. Remember, HD isn't ten times the quality but only two. 720x480NTSC vs. 1440x980, which is generally upconverted to full HD. Actually, to date not a single offering by Sony or Panasonic or Ikegami, etc. etc. even natively captures full HD. They are all highly compressed formats (except Sony's brand spanking new 800Mbps format... woohoo!!) with only double the native resolution. Not terribly impressive IMHO. It's only the difference between VGA and XVGA or so. Was there this much of a stir when our computer monitors doubled their resolution? Not that I can remember. Is that what the entire world is all worked up about? Double the resolution? Give me a break. My only interest is preserving/and or making the best of what the camera technology has to offer and the recording medium throws away. HDV is what, someone help here, 4:2:0 color definition? Worse than DV! I have a hard enough time color timing DV to look decent with it's 4:1:1 color sampling. I understand MPEG2 can be more and definately is more efficient than DV's MJPEG-based compression technique, but any time I can record direct to disc, uncompressed, well then I will. I have and I will.
Brian
Optimally, they would just lose the tape mechanism and give us SDI outputs only. Then, some enterprising indiviual would create the aforementioned uncompressed HD 4:4:4 using a small stack of 500GB microdrives (HA!) and the entire thing would weigh six pounds and look better than a 900.
Actually, to make it one step better, they could lose the lens as well and add a PL-mount so we could use prime lenses of our own choosing. Heck, Arri primes are made by Zeiss, so we'd still get Zeiss optics for those who must have their Zeiss.... Then, the camera should be priced much lower since there is no recording mechanism and no lens and we would get excellent picture quality. This is not too far off when one ponders the the entire universe and the small part of it we fill in terms of time. Even five years would be amazing. Fact is, that is about all it would take for a six pound 1080p with a 35MM sized image sensor, mount for traditional motion picture film lenses, and a highly compact disc based recorder.. maybe even bluray dvd media instead of hard disc... doesn't really matter. I think it'll be here within five years, whether Sony makes it all, or aftermarket products. Doesn't matter. It's only a matter of time.
This sort of thing has happened in every other industry.. the idea of the average guy being able to afford the equipment that only the professionals once could.. Remember when desktop PC's were introduced with software that allowed "the average guy" to embark in desktop publishing? Print shops were worried they wouldn't survive. In reality though, if you can't make a good layout on paper, then you can't do it with software either. Hence, when I need business cards I have it done by a professional. I don't use those tacky inkjet-perforated cards. I know I'm not the only one. Kinko's was not around much when PC's were introduced with Photoshop, but they sure do a lot of business now.
Same goes with photography. It is widely known that a good wedding photographer used medium format film with 2 1/4" square negatives or 2.7 times the size of 35MM. Now all I see are top notch photographers ($3,000/Day sitting fee and up) in town using Canon EOS-1, a $4500 digital camera. NO film to develop, instant gratification, and even the clients prefer it now. And, even with the EOS Rebel whose greatest fault is the 1.6x magnification of EOS lenses costs under a grand for 6 Mexapixel images. This is a far cry from the first Casio VGA quality (0.6 Megapixel) digital camera I saw in 1996 for $1,000.00. Simple math: ten times the quality in less than eight years.
We'll see this as time goes on and faster than ever before. Camera technology will become more affordable and image capturing quality will become better.
Some things will never change, IMHO. Renting a Fisher 10 Dolly will always cost $350/day and will require a million dollar liability insurance policy. (At $300/year for most small businesses it's actually less than the rental, but you get the idea!) Having used Fisher stuff extensively it's worth every last penny. And, if you use it often enough ya might as well get the yearly lease... it's only, you know, $700.00 a month, or $100.00 a month if you are an accredited film school. Or, at least convince them you are. Just kidding that won't work.
On the comment about framing pictures wider without having them pixelate... have you ever seen a great uncompressed image or even a DV50 format such as DigiBeta on a great monitor? SD looks awesome but I think most think it sucks because of the advent of HD. Delivery method's remain the same. DVD's are standard def. How does anyone plan on delivering their material in an HD format? Does anyone plan on sending their home movies to digital theatre's expecting it to be projected or something? What am I missing? Will HBO accept HDV tapes now? DigiBeta, on a good, large monitor, through component cables or SDI, look absolutely awesome. HD looks great, too. But, so much of it on local tv, here in my town, locally, is unconverted to 1080i, except one station which (*may be*) 720p. I'm not sure. It looks awesome, too. But, the local NBC and FOX affiliates (owned by the same guy and share the same website.. how funny is that) are using standard def news camera's and yet the film at eleven always looks awesome. Remember, HD isn't ten times the quality but only two. 720x480NTSC vs. 1440x980, which is generally upconverted to full HD. Actually, to date not a single offering by Sony or Panasonic or Ikegami, etc. etc. even natively captures full HD. They are all highly compressed formats (except Sony's brand spanking new 800Mbps format... woohoo!!) with only double the native resolution. Not terribly impressive IMHO. It's only the difference between VGA and XVGA or so. Was there this much of a stir when our computer monitors doubled their resolution? Not that I can remember. Is that what the entire world is all worked up about? Double the resolution? Give me a break. My only interest is preserving/and or making the best of what the camera technology has to offer and the recording medium throws away. HDV is what, someone help here, 4:2:0 color definition? Worse than DV! I have a hard enough time color timing DV to look decent with it's 4:1:1 color sampling. I understand MPEG2 can be more and definately is more efficient than DV's MJPEG-based compression technique, but any time I can record direct to disc, uncompressed, well then I will. I have and I will.
Brian
Richard__Knight
Member
Re: DVX v. HX1
So...between the two cameras, preference is to be determined by a dvd standard?
So...between the two cameras, preference is to be determined by a dvd standard?
Re: DVX v. HX1
aside from quality... you can always downres your HD footage and it'll look better than the DVX as far as resolution goes. There has only been one sample so far... this question is pointless until we see some real reviews and clips. If you need a cam now, get the DVX. If not, wait for the reviews.
aside from quality... you can always downres your HD footage and it'll look better than the DVX as far as resolution goes. There has only been one sample so far... this question is pointless until we see some real reviews and clips. If you need a cam now, get the DVX. If not, wait for the reviews.
Re: DVX v. HX1
I think, at the moment, choice between the DVX abd HX1 ( or for that matter any other HD cam) is just like choosing between 'Information Technology' and 'space engineering' as possible careers. Both should be considered as 'profitable' careers. First is one of the most common choices of the day, the other is a future investment...roughly speaking.
But how many would go for the second option and why?....I am sure each one of them 'must' have a valid reason to choose to specialise in that field. However whatever the raison d'eter for the decison, I am sure it must relate to the space engineering itself, not the IT.
The ongoing debate of DVX vs HD cams nonetheless shows the strong imprint DVX has had on the minds of the people. DVX HAS set some standards, which, though not impossible to beat, are invariably considred before a decison to OVERSTEP it.
Just a thought
I think, at the moment, choice between the DVX abd HX1 ( or for that matter any other HD cam) is just like choosing between 'Information Technology' and 'space engineering' as possible careers. Both should be considered as 'profitable' careers. First is one of the most common choices of the day, the other is a future investment...roughly speaking.
But how many would go for the second option and why?....I am sure each one of them 'must' have a valid reason to choose to specialise in that field. However whatever the raison d'eter for the decison, I am sure it must relate to the space engineering itself, not the IT.
The ongoing debate of DVX vs HD cams nonetheless shows the strong imprint DVX has had on the minds of the people. DVX HAS set some standards, which, though not impossible to beat, are invariably considred before a decison to OVERSTEP it.
Just a thought
XCheck
Veteran
Re: DVX v. HX1
[quote author=BrianAWells link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=0#4 date=09/21/04 at 21:54:35]HDV is what, someone help here, 4:2:0 color definition? Worse than DV! I have a hard enough time color timing DV to look decent with it's 4:1:1 color sampling.[/quote]
Do I misunderstand? I thought that 4:2:0 has better color rendition than 4:1:1 because it samples Cr or Cb for every two pixels on alternate lines, whereas 4:1:1 samples Cr and Cb for every four pixels. That's why in SD, PAL looks better than NTSC. With HD resolution roughly twice that of SD, that actually translates to four times more color information for the same image area.
I understand your concern with compression and the rest of your post, but unless I am missing something, HD with 4:2:0 will definitely look better than SD with 4:1:1. Then you have other issues, of course, like the number/size of chips, etc...
[quote author=BrianAWells link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=0#4 date=09/21/04 at 21:54:35]HDV is what, someone help here, 4:2:0 color definition? Worse than DV! I have a hard enough time color timing DV to look decent with it's 4:1:1 color sampling.[/quote]
Do I misunderstand? I thought that 4:2:0 has better color rendition than 4:1:1 because it samples Cr or Cb for every two pixels on alternate lines, whereas 4:1:1 samples Cr and Cb for every four pixels. That's why in SD, PAL looks better than NTSC. With HD resolution roughly twice that of SD, that actually translates to four times more color information for the same image area.
I understand your concern with compression and the rest of your post, but unless I am missing something, HD with 4:2:0 will definitely look better than SD with 4:1:1. Then you have other issues, of course, like the number/size of chips, etc...
Re: DVX v. HX1
You're both not exactly right about 4:2:0 versus 4:1:1 but you're close.
Think of 4:2:0 as having 360X240 pixels of color information and 4:1:1 as sampling 180X480 pixels. 4:2:0 is half resolution in both dimensions; 4:1:1 is 1/4 resolution in one dimension. It's the same amount of color, but, imo, 4:2:0 looks better because the artifacts "look" smaller, though at 4X1 pixels they are technically the same size as 4X2 pixels in PAL.
You're both not exactly right about 4:2:0 versus 4:1:1 but you're close.
Think of 4:2:0 as having 360X240 pixels of color information and 4:1:1 as sampling 180X480 pixels. 4:2:0 is half resolution in both dimensions; 4:1:1 is 1/4 resolution in one dimension. It's the same amount of color, but, imo, 4:2:0 looks better because the artifacts "look" smaller, though at 4X1 pixels they are technically the same size as 4X2 pixels in PAL.
BrianAWells
Active member
Re: DVX v. HX1
I appreciate the correction. Thank you.
Brian
I appreciate the correction. Thank you.
Brian
XCheck
Veteran
Re: DVX v. HX1
Yes, that's how I understand it - but I was referring to 4:2:0 in HD vs. 4:1:1 in SD. With vertical resolution of HD roughly twice of SD, that's how I came up with approximately four times color information... Otherwise we are talking about the same thing.
BTW, Policar: your explanation is very good - in simple terms. I like it.
Yes, that's how I understand it - but I was referring to 4:2:0 in HD vs. 4:1:1 in SD. With vertical resolution of HD roughly twice of SD, that's how I came up with approximately four times color information... Otherwise we are talking about the same thing.
BTW, Policar: your explanation is very good - in simple terms. I like it.
magicdavek
Well-known member
Re: DVX v. HX1
I understand there is some broadcasting in high def, and there are high def DVDs on the horizon, but really, don't you think it will be quite a while before High Def TVs, players, etc. are in most homes? Right now, for the average videographer, it seems high def would be lost on the bulk of their potential viewers. Yes, we'll all be there some day, but why all the extra cost and hassle in the meantime when current SD technology is still the norm, even in network broadcasting? This DVX vs HX1 question will be more relevant next year and even more relevant still in the year after that. But right now, for someone whose actually producing video on a regular basis, SD is fine. Unless you have some special needs, types of clients, or other nitch market, I just don't see high def as being there (YET!).
I understand there is some broadcasting in high def, and there are high def DVDs on the horizon, but really, don't you think it will be quite a while before High Def TVs, players, etc. are in most homes? Right now, for the average videographer, it seems high def would be lost on the bulk of their potential viewers. Yes, we'll all be there some day, but why all the extra cost and hassle in the meantime when current SD technology is still the norm, even in network broadcasting? This DVX vs HX1 question will be more relevant next year and even more relevant still in the year after that. But right now, for someone whose actually producing video on a regular basis, SD is fine. Unless you have some special needs, types of clients, or other nitch market, I just don't see high def as being there (YET!).
Ranger
Well-known member
Re: DVX v. HX1
[quote author=ccroo link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=0#0 date=09/21/04 at 20:04:06]Anyone here hesitating to buy a DVX because of the impending hidef Sony? I am. What should we do?[/quote]
Hesitation? You bet!
Between the DVX, XL2 and the now the FX1, it has felt like Russian roulette. When I first started doing research into video cameras, the choice was pretty obvious – the DVX100A. From the example footage I saw, I liked the look, feel and color of the DVX with its signature 24p. However, the lack of a native 16:9 chip concerned me a lot (enough so that it prevented me from purchasing the camera). Then the XL2 comes along with its pseudo native 16:9 and 24p. After seeing Johnnie's video clips I'm psyched. Yet, like the DVX before it, I was concerned about certain aspects of the camera - chromatic aberration being one of them. Additionally, the viewfinder had me concerned. Would its small size be adequate for the job (early user reports are starting to bear fruit to such concerns)? I’m a huge fan of Canon’s digital SLR cameras and lens, but unfortunately the XL2 failed to convert me. After much anticipation, its arrival was a big let down for many of us. Now, with a Mike Tyson sucker punch to Canon’s gut, Sony announces the FX1. First generation technology, but with the potential to blow SD video out of the water. And like the two cameras before it, it too has its perceived limitations.
Which one will I choose? I guess it depends on each person’s needs and requirements. So far, I am leaning towards the FX1. For me personally, I’m not a filmmaker (in the classic sense) and have no desire to be one. 24p is nice, but not a deal breaker in my book. What is important to me is higher resolution and a true 16:9 chip (among other things). So far, most initial reports have been very favorable toward the Sony, but it’s far too soon to tell. Too bad it will not have 24p; it would’ve been a HUGE success with the Indie crowd much like the DVX is now. Eventually, the market will give the consumers what they want, but until then the FX1 has enough features that I am looking for in a camera.
[quote author=ccroo link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=0#0 date=09/21/04 at 20:04:06]Anyone here hesitating to buy a DVX because of the impending hidef Sony? I am. What should we do?[/quote]
Hesitation? You bet!
Between the DVX, XL2 and the now the FX1, it has felt like Russian roulette. When I first started doing research into video cameras, the choice was pretty obvious – the DVX100A. From the example footage I saw, I liked the look, feel and color of the DVX with its signature 24p. However, the lack of a native 16:9 chip concerned me a lot (enough so that it prevented me from purchasing the camera). Then the XL2 comes along with its pseudo native 16:9 and 24p. After seeing Johnnie's video clips I'm psyched. Yet, like the DVX before it, I was concerned about certain aspects of the camera - chromatic aberration being one of them. Additionally, the viewfinder had me concerned. Would its small size be adequate for the job (early user reports are starting to bear fruit to such concerns)? I’m a huge fan of Canon’s digital SLR cameras and lens, but unfortunately the XL2 failed to convert me. After much anticipation, its arrival was a big let down for many of us. Now, with a Mike Tyson sucker punch to Canon’s gut, Sony announces the FX1. First generation technology, but with the potential to blow SD video out of the water. And like the two cameras before it, it too has its perceived limitations.
Which one will I choose? I guess it depends on each person’s needs and requirements. So far, I am leaning towards the FX1. For me personally, I’m not a filmmaker (in the classic sense) and have no desire to be one. 24p is nice, but not a deal breaker in my book. What is important to me is higher resolution and a true 16:9 chip (among other things). So far, most initial reports have been very favorable toward the Sony, but it’s far too soon to tell. Too bad it will not have 24p; it would’ve been a HUGE success with the Indie crowd much like the DVX is now. Eventually, the market will give the consumers what they want, but until then the FX1 has enough features that I am looking for in a camera.
Ranger
Well-known member
Re: DVX v. HX1
[quote author=magicdavek link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=0#12 date=09/22/04 at 09:25:50]I understand there is some broadcasting in high def, and there are high def DVDs on the horizon, but really, don't you think it will be quite a while before High Def TVs, players, etc. are in most homes? Right now, for the average videographer, it seems high def would be lost on the bulk of their potential viewers. Yes, we'll all be there some day, but why all the extra cost and hassle in the meantime when current SD technology is still the norm, even in network broadcasting? This DVX vs HX1 question will be more relevant next year and even more relevant still in the year after that. But right now, for someone whose actually producing video on a regular basis, SD is fine. Unless you have some special needs, types of clients, or other nitch market, I just don't see high def as being there (YET!).[/quote]
Yes, HDV development and acceptance into mainstream consumer homes is a major hurdle, but it doesn't have to be a deal breaker either. Many feel that an image captured on a HDV camera and then converted down to SD will (may) have a higher resolution than footage shot directly from a SD source.
Is it enough for someone to put down their current DVX and replace it with the FX1? Probably not, but for someone (like myself) that does not own a camera yet, it's worth a least some consideration.
[quote author=magicdavek link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=0#12 date=09/22/04 at 09:25:50]I understand there is some broadcasting in high def, and there are high def DVDs on the horizon, but really, don't you think it will be quite a while before High Def TVs, players, etc. are in most homes? Right now, for the average videographer, it seems high def would be lost on the bulk of their potential viewers. Yes, we'll all be there some day, but why all the extra cost and hassle in the meantime when current SD technology is still the norm, even in network broadcasting? This DVX vs HX1 question will be more relevant next year and even more relevant still in the year after that. But right now, for someone whose actually producing video on a regular basis, SD is fine. Unless you have some special needs, types of clients, or other nitch market, I just don't see high def as being there (YET!).[/quote]
Yes, HDV development and acceptance into mainstream consumer homes is a major hurdle, but it doesn't have to be a deal breaker either. Many feel that an image captured on a HDV camera and then converted down to SD will (may) have a higher resolution than footage shot directly from a SD source.
Is it enough for someone to put down their current DVX and replace it with the FX1? Probably not, but for someone (like myself) that does not own a camera yet, it's worth a least some consideration.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: DVX v. HX1
Regarding 4:2:0 vs. 4:1:1... they have the exact same amount of color information, just in a different pattern.
For every 4x2 block of pixels, they have two color samples. 4:2:0 has two samples every other line, 4:1:1 has one sample every line. 4:1:1 has 100% resolution on the vertical axis, 25% resolution on the horizontal. 4:2:0 has 50% resolution on the vertical, and 50% on the horizontal.
It all adds up to the same, it's just in a different pattern.
The 4:2:0 of HDV might look great considering that there are 4x as many pixels on the frame.
Regarding 4:2:0 vs. 4:1:1... they have the exact same amount of color information, just in a different pattern.
For every 4x2 block of pixels, they have two color samples. 4:2:0 has two samples every other line, 4:1:1 has one sample every line. 4:1:1 has 100% resolution on the vertical axis, 25% resolution on the horizontal. 4:2:0 has 50% resolution on the vertical, and 50% on the horizontal.
It all adds up to the same, it's just in a different pattern.
The 4:2:0 of HDV might look great considering that there are 4x as many pixels on the frame.
magicdavek
Well-known member
Re: DVX v. HX1
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=15#15 date=09/22/04 at 10:20:07] 4:2:0 has two samples every other line, 4:1:1 has one sample every line. 4:1:1 has 100% resolution on the vertical axis, 25% resolution on the horizontal. 4:2:0 has 50% resolution on the vertical, and 50% on the horizontal.[/quote]
Barry, could you please help a real dullard. Define exactly what you mean by resolution along the vertical or horizontal axis. You you mean resolution along the vertical lines of the picture?
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=15#15 date=09/22/04 at 10:20:07] 4:2:0 has two samples every other line, 4:1:1 has one sample every line. 4:1:1 has 100% resolution on the vertical axis, 25% resolution on the horizontal. 4:2:0 has 50% resolution on the vertical, and 50% on the horizontal.[/quote]
Barry, could you please help a real dullard. Define exactly what you mean by resolution along the vertical or horizontal axis. You you mean resolution along the vertical lines of the picture?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: DVX v. HX1
Well, think of the picture in terms of 4x2 grids. In both systems there will be two color samples. They'll be different shapes: in 4:1:1 the color sample is wide and one pixel high, in 4:2:0 the color sample is a square.
Like this:
1111 = four pixels wide, 1 = color sample 1
2222 = 2 = color sample 2
In 4:2:0, it looks like this:
1122
1122
Put another way, in 4:1:1 the color samples bleed over horizontally, whereas in 4:2:0 they bleed down vertically.
Well, think of the picture in terms of 4x2 grids. In both systems there will be two color samples. They'll be different shapes: in 4:1:1 the color sample is wide and one pixel high, in 4:2:0 the color sample is a square.
Like this:
1111 = four pixels wide, 1 = color sample 1
2222 = 2 = color sample 2
In 4:2:0, it looks like this:
1122
1122
Put another way, in 4:1:1 the color samples bleed over horizontally, whereas in 4:2:0 they bleed down vertically.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: DVX v. HX1
I don't know if that made much sense.
Another way to look at it is that in 4:1:1 sampling you have a color grid of 180 x 480.
In 4:2:2 sampling you have a grid of 360 x 240.
In 4:1:1 you get 1/4 the resolution horizontally, but full resolution vertically.
In 4:2:0 you get half the resoltuion horizontally and half the resolution vertically.
It all adds up the same: 180 x 480 = 86,400 color samples per frame, and 360 x 240 = 86,400 color samples per frame.
I don't know if that made much sense.
Another way to look at it is that in 4:1:1 sampling you have a color grid of 180 x 480.
In 4:2:2 sampling you have a grid of 360 x 240.
In 4:1:1 you get 1/4 the resolution horizontally, but full resolution vertically.
In 4:2:0 you get half the resoltuion horizontally and half the resolution vertically.
It all adds up the same: 180 x 480 = 86,400 color samples per frame, and 360 x 240 = 86,400 color samples per frame.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: DVX v. HX1
Hi folks. This is a good discussion and I think very much on the minds of many folks around here.
I recently attended the Canadian launch of XL2 in Toronto and admit coming away let down - as let down in the summer when speculation XL2 might have been HDV didn't pan out.
I love my DVX100 but am very interested in the FX1 - the fact that the JVC HDV-type cams weren't 3-CCD discounted them immediately.
In my research on the various Sony-FX1-related sites around the web, I've come to realize that Sony is positioning this new cam as a bona-fide entry level to HD, not just some pseudo-HD format like some claim. There's a tiny bit of footage that impresses me despite being "web-filtered" when I compare it to my XL1/DVX100 footage converted for the internet. So I have high hopes.
Would Sony be stealing Canon's thunder right now if HDV wasn't the real deal? Can they really afford egg on their faces right now? I am optimistic that HDV will deliver. Sony wouldn't be touting it the way they are if it didin't.
I'm going FX1 as soon as I can get it if it offers significant obvious advantage to SD. Who cares if Matsushita (JVC/Panasonic) counter with something in time or if Canon one year joins HDV fray - you can always wait for something better... The FX1 now seems "better" enough to warrant serious consideration.
Poor Canon - this has certainly affected them the most.
Now DVX not having truly native 16:9 nor JVC not having 3-CCD HDV... will be most interesting to see how Matsushita cares to respond to FX1 in (hopefully-near) future.
Hi folks. This is a good discussion and I think very much on the minds of many folks around here.
I recently attended the Canadian launch of XL2 in Toronto and admit coming away let down - as let down in the summer when speculation XL2 might have been HDV didn't pan out.
I love my DVX100 but am very interested in the FX1 - the fact that the JVC HDV-type cams weren't 3-CCD discounted them immediately.
In my research on the various Sony-FX1-related sites around the web, I've come to realize that Sony is positioning this new cam as a bona-fide entry level to HD, not just some pseudo-HD format like some claim. There's a tiny bit of footage that impresses me despite being "web-filtered" when I compare it to my XL1/DVX100 footage converted for the internet. So I have high hopes.
Would Sony be stealing Canon's thunder right now if HDV wasn't the real deal? Can they really afford egg on their faces right now? I am optimistic that HDV will deliver. Sony wouldn't be touting it the way they are if it didin't.
I'm going FX1 as soon as I can get it if it offers significant obvious advantage to SD. Who cares if Matsushita (JVC/Panasonic) counter with something in time or if Canon one year joins HDV fray - you can always wait for something better... The FX1 now seems "better" enough to warrant serious consideration.
Poor Canon - this has certainly affected them the most.
Now DVX not having truly native 16:9 nor JVC not having 3-CCD HDV... will be most interesting to see how Matsushita cares to respond to FX1 in (hopefully-near) future.