-DVX100b-

I don't think there's any 1080/50p gear out yet.

And you're right, they pretty much said "we recognize we'll likely have both 1080i and 720p in the marketplace at the same time." But at the same time, you could just tell that he was saying "please, please, don't use interlaced!" They said they won't do anything to try to prohibit 1080i, but they said specifically that they don't recommend interlaced, they instead recommend progressive.

I think 1080/50i will be the end of interlacing. I can't imagine anyone doing any further development on interlaced technology. As soon as someone develops 1080/50p and 1080/60p, interlace will finally be abandoned, and from then on it's all progressive, all the time!
 
Barry_Green said:
As soon as someone develops 1080/50p and 1080/60p, interlace will finally be abandoned, and from then on it's all progressive, all the time!
Click to expand...
:beer:

Lets just hope that one day it will just be one, simple format worldwide. I vote 1080p50 :laugh: smooth enough, and less compression than 60p.
 
I don't think that'll ever happen, because of the 600 million TV sets there are in the world, and the necessity to maintain backwards compatibility with them (plus the existing library of footage, millions of hours of it).

Hey, how about we meet in the middle: who could object to 1080/55p? :laugh:
 
Barry_Green said:
Can't speak for the BBC. Over here there are no 16:9 broadcasts in standard-def so it's a non-issue.

But I'm curious which part you can't believe. I stand by everything I said there...
Click to expand...

Sorry to take so long to reply...

I can't believe you said the 16/9 generated with a DVX is as good as true 16/9, that's what I meant. In this respect there is nothing to it but resolution - what the DVX lacks for 16/9...
 
...except in progressive mode it gains back enough resolution to make up for what squeeze takes away. The progressive/squeeze combo on the DVX puts it on par, as far as resolution goes, with true 16:9 interlaced cameras with 1/3" CCDs.
 
Horse said it correctly, yes.

I'm referring to the resolution loss incurred by interlaced cameras (such as the FX1), vs. the resolution gain offered by progressive/thin on the DVX.

And I'm not spouting theory either, I've tested it. Shoot a res chart with a native 16:9 camera like the FX1 in standard-def, and you'll get about 360 lines of res (talking NTSC here). Shoot a res chart in Squeeze/Thin on the DVX, and you'll get (you guessed it) 360 lines of resolution. But the DVX will have two stops more sensitivity, wider dynamic range, cinegamma, cinematrix, all that other stuff too -- which is why I say that a DVX/Squeeze can deliver a better 16:9 picture than even a native 16:9 camera can!

Of course, this DEPENDS on shooting 24p/25p or 30p. If shooting interlaced, the 16:9 camera has a big advantage over interlaced/squeeze on the DVX. But if shooting 24p/25p/30p on the DVX, it gives nothing back -- it matches the resolution of the native 16:9 camera toe-to-toe.

(and, of course, a native 16:9/progressive camera like the XL2 can of course exceed both of them in resolution -- but then you run into flicker issues on interlaced televisions).
 
Sorry - I wasn't aware you were comparing progressive letterbox to interlaced 16/9... I was thinking more along the lines of a reasonable comparison: interlaced versus interlaced and progressive versus progressive :)

Anyhow, as you say, in that case: the difference is obvious...
 
Nobody seems to be discussing here the picture that Mikko posted from IBC of the DVX 100B (E) which is what this thread is about. There is a least a version for Europe.
 
Yeah.. it seems like all the stuff here is European stuff (funny, the exibitor is Panny Europe.. considence?)
I'd presume there'll be a US version coming too.. I will check tomorrow and post int eh news from IBC thread.

- Mikko
 
yea, and wait a sec, can someone give us specs? does it have 16:9? line count? anything? price yet? release date? lets get back on topic...
 
are we still talking about this? for the last time... no change in function- just new composite material for the body because of some new electronic law that's passed....
 
I am posting all the news in the "news from IBC thread"
BUt i'll quickly repeate here: the DVX100B is basicaly the same as the 100A -it has the SAME ccds.
it has a few litle featurees added to it, which are described in teh other thread.
more soon once i get to the show.

- Mikko.
 
Just a question for people who allready have a 100 or 100A. Is the lack of 16x9 in the LCD really that much of a hassle? Although the firewire syncing function of the 100B sounds cool, I'd only have one camera for the time being, so it wouldn't be any advantage for me. As far as the color of the camera's body, i couldn't care less if it's "sexier" on the 100B. It seems like it all comes down to the LCD, and frankly, it sounds like i'm better off buying the 100A for $3,400 and getting a $500 rebate + other goods, than paying $3,900 for the 100B with no rebate and possibly no book/DVD/magic bullet.
 
revolution summer said:
Just a question for people who allready have a 100 or 100A. Is the lack of 16x9 in the LCD really that much of a hassle? Although the firewire syncing function of the 100B sounds cool, I'd only have one camera for the time being, so it wouldn't be any advantage for me. As far as the color of the camera's body, i couldn't care less if it's "sexier" on the 100B. It seems like it all comes down to the LCD, and frankly, it sounds like i'm better off buying the 100A for $3,400 and getting a $500 rebate + other goods, than paying $3,900 for the 100B with no rebate and possibly no book/DVD/magic bullet.
Click to expand...

100A w/ rebate without a doubt it's hard to pass up that price imho.
 
revolution summer said:
Just a question for people who allready have a 100 or 100A. Is the lack of 16x9 in the LCD really that much of a hassle?
Click to expand...

In my head, yes - in reality, no. As long as you stop WISHING you could see 16:9, it is not a practical problem in my experience. Once you commit yourself to the job of shooting, you tend to forget you're seeing a squeezed image.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top