DVX100b + Adorama

B

Benton

Well-known member
Whoops, I meant ANDROMEDA,
DVX100b + Andromeda

Barry,
You have experience with this , no?
it gives you all the beauty of the DVX plus a 1540x984 image !


Given we all are hoping Juan will introduce an Adorama (EDIT : Andromeda) for the HVX -
I have heard -don't remember where -this is probably unlikely

Alas,
 
yeah Joe,
I live down the street from Adorama
and I do this all the time
esp. on Valentines day, I get into trouble
"Honey, I Adorama you"
Pisses her off.

Yes Andromeda!
 
I have no experience with the Andromeda.

I think it's amazing technology, and I really think Juan should pursue the HVX. One problem with the Andromeda is that it's supposed to be high-def, and all US and European high-def standards are 16:9, but andromeda is trying to make high-def from a 4:3 chipset. Which means you have to use the anamorphic adapter.

Adapting an HVX should allow high-def 4:4:4 with no anamorphic adapter necessary.

Plus, marketing-wise, I think he'd find a much higher percentage of willing buyers among HVX buyers. I think a $3,000 accessory for a $3,000 camera is a little hard to justify in a lot of buyers' minds. But a $3,000 accessory for a $6,000 camera goes down a whole lot easier.

On the other side, a claim can be made that the HVX doesn't really need an Andromeda, because it's already 4:2:2 and it's already high-def. But man... if he could extract the results he's getting from the standard-def DVX through its standard-def lens, how much more awesome could an Andromeda-ized HVX be? Uncompressed 4:4:4 variable-frame-rate high-def, for less than the cost of an XLH1?

Heck, I think I'm gonna send an e-mail to Juan and suggest it! :)
 
Amen.
The Andromeda now, for someone who owns a DVX, is a Great Solution,
for 3k you get more res than the HVX and the software, Sculptor, let's you extract a 16:9 image that is still higher than the HVX in Res.

However, for someone like me, who doesn't own a DVX the Andromeda solution is the same money that the HVX is.
I can only pray that Juan can/will attempt this.
Then we easily will see The Best under 10k camera

J
 
Seriously, think about it. Uncompressed 1920x1080x60P at 4:2:2? 1920x1080 uncompressed HD with variable frame rates? How is this not an out-of-the-park winner?

We'd hear the end of the pixel-count discussion too. Juan can deliver more resolution out of a 770x492 DVX than JVC gets out of their 1280x720 HD100, and more than a 960x1080 Sony Z1 does. Both of those have 3x as many pixels as the DVX, but he gets better res-chart performance out of a 350,000-pixel DVX than they do with their million-pixel sensors. The HVX is already competitive with the HD100 and Z1, so just imagine what Juan could get out of it.

I dunno, the more I think about it the more I think the HVX is the camera the Andromeda was made for. Now I just hope he'll make an Andromeda for the HVX! :)
 
Barry_Green said:
I have no experience with the Andromeda.

I think it's amazing technology, and I really think Juan should pursue the HVX. One problem with the Andromeda is that it's supposed to be high-def, and all US and European high-def standards are 16:9, but andromeda is trying to make high-def from a 4:3 chipset. Which means you have to use the anamorphic adapter.

Barry, you can shoot letterboxed, crop in post and you have 16:9 to deliver, isn't it?
Click to expand...
 
The andromeda is 1540x984 output, but it can't really have an actual luma resolution higher than 1155x738 due to pixel shifting limitations. Chroma is also limited by the sensor to 770x492. On a 4:3 chart that would still appear as 738 vertical lines and 866 horizontal ines. The chart we have seen so far is a 4:3 chart. The Andromeda outresolves a 4:3 chart in horizontal resolution and is close to the 800 lines limit in vertical.

So, Andromeda 16:9 with anamorphic using full frame is max 1155x738 luma with 770x492 chroma. That is 650 horizontal and 738 vertical lines.

Without anamorphic (cropped) it is max 1155x553 with 770x369 chroma. That is 650 horizontal and 553 vertical lines.

Either way is very competitive to the cheap HD cameras and it is uncompressed without the hassle of raid, so it is a fantastic product.
 
Barry_Green said:
We'd hear the end of the pixel-count discussion too. Juan can deliver more resolution out of a 770x492 DVX than JVC gets out of their 1280x720 HD100, and more than a 960x1080 Sony Z1 does. Both of those have 3x as many pixels as the DVX, but he gets better res-chart performance out of a 350,000-pixel DVX than they do with their million-pixel sensors. The HVX is already competitive with the HD100 and Z1, so just imagine what Juan could get out of it.
Click to expand...

Isn't Andromeda the same as uprezzing the footage to HD? It's hard to believe that the footage from a DVX using the Andromeda can be sharper and have more resolution than that from a native HD camera... Does the compression hurt the camera that much? I'm probably wrong; it's probably different than uprezzing -- but still, that's hard to believe! Did November go through a similar process, or did they just uprez the footage?

limo991 said:
Either way is very competitive to the cheap HD cameras and it is uncompressed without the hassle of raid, so it is a fantastic product.
Click to expand...

What do you mean when you say, "without the hassle of raid"? Shouldn't the uncompressed footage require something like raid?

Jack_Felis said:
Just need a Mac laptop though... *looks over at Alienware 51m 766* darn!
Click to expand...

Any plans for them to support PC's in the future?
 
The uncompressed footage off the DVX sensors is only 28mb/sec since it comes from SD sensors. The fastest laptop hard drives can do 28mb/sec.

The resolution advantage of Andromeda over plain DVX is real since it the DVX sensors are pixel shifted and Andromeda uses that to improve luma resolution. The difference to HD cameras is not that much. 770 horizontal pixels for dvx/Andromeda. 960 for Sony FX1, something between those for HVX200 I guess. Starting with SD and resampling to HD does not improve resolution, but using pixel shifting that exists on the sensors gives a true resolution advantage. Typically 50% more.

The resolution advantage in chroma is of course huge because there is no compression and no color sampling (770 horizontal compared to 180 for an NTSC DVX). Luma resolution advantage is also amplified due to lack of compression artifacts.

I think they are working on a windows version.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top