DVX v. HX1

Re: DVX v. HX1

[quote author=Mark Kubat link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=15#19 date=09/22/04 at 21:05:12]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.[/quote]
Frankly, yes they would.  Just like they did with MicroMV, like with Digital8, and heck, they came out so proud about their new PD170... all left them with Ostrich egg on their face.

So the simple fact that Sony's the one launching it doesn't imbue it with any undue credibility; Sony fouls up as frequently as they get it right.  The days of "Sony can do no wrong" are long past... Sony definitely can do wrong.  Look at the TRV950's replacement, no manual controls and all touch-screen... ugh.

However, it sure seems like with this FX1, they did it right.  I think it looks like a dynamite camera, and I sure hope the image quality holds up, and I suspect it will.  Sure we all wish it was 24P, but it isn't... but it looks like a very good implementation of 1080/60i.  The only failing I can see in it is the lack of XLR's.  Sony can get it very, very right when they try: the VX1000 was an out-of-the-park home run, as was the PD150 and the DSR500.  
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

Okay, here's an interesting question: would you rather have a 720x540 progressive-scan 4:4:4 image?

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn on DVInfo.net posted that the Sony could do that, and after a bit of thinking, I think he's right.

If you take a 1440 x 1080 (as the Sony shoots) interlaced frame, at 4:2:0, and just discard one field, you're left with a 1440 x 540 4:2:2 progressive-scan image. Down-rez that by throwing away every other horizontal pixel, and ... yep, looks like 720 x 540 at 4:4:4. Quite interesting.
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=15#21 date=09/23/04 at 07:57:52]Okay, here's an interesting question: would you rather have a 720x540 progressive-scan 4:4:4 image?

<snip>

yep, looks like 720 x 540 at 4:4:4.  Quite interesting.[/quote]
Now all we need is manual zoom and manual focus!

Interesting indeed - I would love to see downrezzed images compared with a DVX or XL2... It would have to go through a very precise process, though - actually throwing away the exact unused (unsampled) pixels rather than just interpolate. But then again, the unsampled pixels have the same Cy,Cr,Cb values as their sampled predecessors on the scan line, no?

In any case, it would make for a great plug-in.
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

Panasonic should release a new DVX with real 16:9 chips and anamorphic in the LCD and viewfinder. Wouldn't that be nice?

Raoul
 
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? [/quote]

In part that may depend on where you live. In the Los Angeles area, it is increasingly difficult to walk into Best Buys or Good Guys and purchase a 4x3 CRT. They are being relegated to less and less shelf space. They are selling predominantly 16X9 LCD and Plasma screens.

As much as some of us might like to think that Sony is creating the new HDV camera for all of us “independent” film producers, by lowering the price barrier Sony is insuring a much faster acceptance of HD. When the consumers are showing off their new camera to their friends, I am sure the first thing out of their mouth will be “check out my new HD camera! For us this is a continuation of the format wars, for the average consumer the “V” does not mean anything.

There also seems to be a proliferation of HD channels coming on-line, I’m not sure what HD content they are showing – but that doesn’t seem to be stopping them. I think HD is being adopted at an astounding rate.

~chuck
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

[quote author=ChuckS link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=15#25 date=09/24/04 at 15:10:02]

In part that may depend on where you live.

 I think HD is being adopted at an astounding rate.

~chuck

[/quote]

I don't want my previous post to be misinterpreted. HD is here to stay, in fact, I've read that everything will be broadcast in HD and you'll need an adapter in order to use a traditional NTSC set. I've also read that the timetable for that is much slower than orignially projected. My point is that if you are looking to buy a camera TODAY, I don't think you're going to be left behind by buying a DVX or XL2. HD is not in most homes and will not be for a few more years. Of course stores want to promote TVs that cost thousands of dollars compared to $300 traditional sets. But buying for today doesn't mean you are stuck in SD for the next 10 years.

Also consider that by the time HD is in most homes and most of your client base will be using HD, there will be lots of cameras to choose from, many better the HX1 (and even less expensive).

I bought my DVX in May, and I wouldn't have purchased the HX1 even if it was available and cheaper. I like choosing between "video" and "film" with the DVX - the HX1 can't do that for me. For my projects and uses, it would create more complications. I won't be saying this in three years, but I have work to do between now and then. The DVX gives me a smooth ride for the next few years while the HX1 would be an uphill battle before it got easy. It is a rare client who needs HD right now. There are still some who (ugh) don't even have DVD players. I tell them they're getting a DVD anyway along with their VHS for future purposes. I cannot in good conscience take money from clients in exchange for VHS only. But HD? Not even close yet.
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

Thanks for the response, Barry. Too bad these posts couldn't include little graphics to illustrate the grids you mention. I "sort of" follow your explanation, but it's hard to know if I've really got it or not.
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

very true!, but i remember buying a 1 mega pixel digital still camera and thinking wow this pictures are pretty , then later getting a 2 mega pixel camera and thinking WOW these are even better and then getting a 6 mega pixel and thinging WOOOOW these are even greater still!

when i had the 1 MP cam i thought it would suffice, then when i got the 2 MP cam i never used the 1 MP cam, finally when i got the 6 MP cam i have never looked back at the 2 and 1 MP cams.

Now the same things happing with DV (when does it stop!) ;D
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

[quote author=Anhar_Miah link=board=nws;num=1095822246;start=15#28 date=09/25/04 at 20:25:34]
when i had the 1 MP cam i thought it would suffice, then when i got the 2 MP cam i never used the 1 MP cam, finally when i got the 6 MP cam i have never looked back at the 2 and 1 MP cams. ;D[/quote]

You are really comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they're both fruit because both involve digital imaging, but the difference in image between a 1 and 3 megapixel is much greater than the difference between high quality SD and HD. In fact, I get the impression that the consensus of this board is that high quality SD (e.g., DVX, PD170, XL1, XL2, etc.) is better than low quality HD (JVC's 1 CCD GR-HD1).

In the photography world, 35mm film has been standard. The progression from 1, 2, 3. and beyond megapixel cameras simply represents the attempt to get closer that standard of 35mm film. Now those cams 3-8 megapixel) are to the point that the naked eye can't tell the difference between digital and film, especially in 4x6 or 5x7 (or higher) photos. Video is a different story. SD has been the standard in video like film has been the standard in photography - these both represent the quality we've been used to. Now HD allows us to get a clearer picture on big TVs. And remember, it's only because of larger screens that there's been a move to HD. In SD, the same amount of information is being used on your 19 inch television as on the 42 inch large screen SD TV, so on the big screen it is stretched out and looks blurry - a really poor picture. So if you want a big TV, you need HD. If no one was interested in a TV beyond a 19" size, there would be little need for HD. When you are sitting across the room watching a 19" SD TV next to a 19" HD, you'd probably notice the HD is sharper. But do the same test with a 42" SD and 42" HD and the contrast between the two will be tremendous.

It doesn't seem fair to me to make an analogy comparing qood quality SD with those 1 megapixel photos. When you thought those were good pictures, I suspect you were thinking in comparison with the first digital still cameras which were 640x480, and not saying they look good in comparison to 35mm film.

The bottom line is that high quality SD is only going to look inadequate if either you are watching it on a large screen or standing too close to a small screen.
 
Re: DVX v. HX1

In theory, yes you are absolutely right, magicdavek.

However in practice, specially if it relates to professional work, there are factors other than mere resolution that are EQUALLY or even MORE important. You know it ...I need not elaborate.

Many people believe that in the overall comparison JVC Hd Cam GR-HD1 comes no way near DVX....despite its high resolution. Hence you are right ... the consensus is that "high end SD cams are better than low end HD cams". But I think the consensus does not end here. It goes a little further saying " it is also the application or usability or cost/benefit ratio of the HD cams which would determine an SD camera owner's decison to shift to the new technology....resolution of the camera is not the only deciding factor in this regard".

HD is a better technology than SD....who has a doubt about that? But how quickly everyone and related technologies realign with the new shift...that we will have to wait and see. Till then we can be comfortable with our SD cams....and try to do some good videography.

Just an opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top