DVXuser.com exclusive hands on with the HVX200
- Thread starter Jarred Land
- Start date
foghound said:
If you definately want to shoot HD, then the HVX probably isn't the camera for you. I can't see how you can affordably shoot HD on it in the situation you describe. You could use an external hard drive, but it may all get very fiddly out at sea and compromise you filming. Better to have the best content on a slighty worse format IMO.
That leaves you with the Sony Z1/FX1 and the upcoming JVC HD100. We will have to see what the JVC is like though before we judge it. Like the Z1 it will record HD (720p) onto mini DV tape.
If you don't need HD, it is quite a different story.
mmm said:
I believe the Z1 shoots in 1080i...which is part of the problem I am facing: I feel that I should get far better quality pictures with what the Panasonic promises. I am a little nervous given a number of reports I have read about the Z1s lack of ability to handle large information changes within the frame which active sea conditions will provide. Also, slow mo will not be great.
Having said that, I am also very concerned with the cost implications of the Panasonic and you're right, one needs simplicity at sea.
I certainly need HD, but I also need to be able to shoot in DV. All three offerings (Sony, JVC and Panasonic) can do this, but JVC will be too difficult to handle under the conditions I expect, so it's between Sony and Panasonic.
Fortunately I can wait a while to make the decision, so we'll just see what Panasonic delivers.
http://dvestore.com/theatre/index.html
Here are some neat little video segments from NAB 2005. Check out the one on the Panasonic AG-HVX200 featuring Jan Crittenden!
The other video segments are pretty interesting, too.
Here are some neat little video segments from NAB 2005. Check out the one on the Panasonic AG-HVX200 featuring Jan Crittenden!
The other video segments are pretty interesting, too.
FogHound, it doesn't seem to me like the HVX will be the camera you will need for this trip. Quality-wise the HVX is poised to blow the Sony out of the water as soon as it is released, and there will probably be many more things about it that will make it a better camera for the documentary... but! How long are you going to be out at sea... if you are going to be filming a ton you will need a desktop to help you select takes at the end of the day or you'll need a ton of external hard-drives... (or both) wich will make the rig for the HVX more money, about $6000 more because of external HDDs and P2 cards. The sony will make your life a lot easier... bring a big box of tapes and shoot till you drop.
It all depends on how long you'll be out, and how much hardware you can buy AND bring with you.
IMHO the Panny will be worth the money and the extra effort, but then again how could anyone really know since there are no HVX screen grabs out there yet.
It all depends on how long you'll be out, and how much hardware you can buy AND bring with you.
IMHO the Panny will be worth the money and the extra effort, but then again how could anyone really know since there are no HVX screen grabs out there yet.
SantaCruzMichael
Well-known member
Okay,
Wow. I'm not trading in my dvx100a yet.
I'll do that when they add depth of field control.
We all know what that boils down to.......what is the technical limitation of making a CCD the size of a 35mm frame? It is really that wildly expensive?
-Michael
Wow. I'm not trading in my dvx100a yet.
I'll do that when they add depth of field control.
We all know what that boils down to.......what is the technical limitation of making a CCD the size of a 35mm frame? It is really that wildly expensive?
-Michael
evinsky
Well-known member
YES! but its also optics and data path and processing and form factor and readout and just about everything else that make the Arri 20D and Panavision Genesis over twice as much to rent as a full 35mm film package. But there may be some hope with the Guerilla 35 and Micro 35, just don't expect resolution like the big boys.
K
khina
Guest
oh buddha I just saw the 100 next to the hvx200 side by side picture. that hvx200 must had swallowed some fat. 
I guess it's not a fit in your pocket camera.
I guess it's not a fit in your pocket camera. Barry_Green
Moderator
The HVX should be available sometime around late November/early December.
Will there be a picture quality difference, in SD? Don't know. Probably. Hard to say. The DVX has the advantage of bigger pixels, but the HVX has the advantage of three years of technology advancement as well as native 16:9 chips, which do help when shooting 16:9. Only time will tell.
Will there be a picture quality difference, in SD? Don't know. Probably. Hard to say. The DVX has the advantage of bigger pixels, but the HVX has the advantage of three years of technology advancement as well as native 16:9 chips, which do help when shooting 16:9. Only time will tell.
What is the DVCPRO-HD format exactly? And how does it compare to HDV? Is it a lossy GOP based edit mode like HDV? Or, is it more akin to DV with higher resolution? Other than how to afford P2 cards in the near term and making sure my disks are fast enough to edit it, I'm concerned if my NLE will be able to edit it.
When you record DVC-Pro-50 on the HVX-200, do you have to do this on a P2 card, or does it record to DV tape? What about Pro-25? IF p2 for Pro-50, how many minutes per GB to you obtain in this format?
What are the pixel size of the HVX sensors? I guess the Sony's are 1440x1080 and this yields a vertical resolution that is not really true HD. How does the HVX stack up in this regard? When you import HVX footage in your NLE, do you use a specific pixel aspect ratio like you do with 4x3 (.9) and 16x9 (1.2) DV? Or are pixels in the HVX-200 1-1 width vs height?
I know that no one has seen footage yet, but theoretically if you were shooting in SD 4x3 mode, would you simply be chopping off side pixels? And since the CCD's are the same size as DVX-100 (1/3"), but more densely populated, wouldn't a large portion of the pixels have to be discarded and result in the equivalent resolution found with SD cameras with smaller, consumer sized 1/4" or smaller, CCD's? Or does Panasonic somehow use the extra pixels and then blend them before downconverting?
My thinking is to buy a HVX-200 when they come out, but without any P2 cards until I really NEED HD and the P2 prices comes down. But that I could start working the HVX into my SD projects if they matched up with my DVX-100's well. But I'm concerned that the HVX-200 may not look as good as the DVX does in SD. Are these concerns valid?
And one last question (for now), can we use the anamorphic adapters with the HVX to create a cini-scope type of aspect when shooting in 16x9 mode in either pro-HD or DV-25 format? Are these lenses able to resolve the additional detail that HD adds? Is the filter size still 72mm? Should existing DVX accessories such matte boxes, etc work with this camera?
When you record DVC-Pro-50 on the HVX-200, do you have to do this on a P2 card, or does it record to DV tape? What about Pro-25? IF p2 for Pro-50, how many minutes per GB to you obtain in this format?
What are the pixel size of the HVX sensors? I guess the Sony's are 1440x1080 and this yields a vertical resolution that is not really true HD. How does the HVX stack up in this regard? When you import HVX footage in your NLE, do you use a specific pixel aspect ratio like you do with 4x3 (.9) and 16x9 (1.2) DV? Or are pixels in the HVX-200 1-1 width vs height?
I know that no one has seen footage yet, but theoretically if you were shooting in SD 4x3 mode, would you simply be chopping off side pixels? And since the CCD's are the same size as DVX-100 (1/3"), but more densely populated, wouldn't a large portion of the pixels have to be discarded and result in the equivalent resolution found with SD cameras with smaller, consumer sized 1/4" or smaller, CCD's? Or does Panasonic somehow use the extra pixels and then blend them before downconverting?
My thinking is to buy a HVX-200 when they come out, but without any P2 cards until I really NEED HD and the P2 prices comes down. But that I could start working the HVX into my SD projects if they matched up with my DVX-100's well. But I'm concerned that the HVX-200 may not look as good as the DVX does in SD. Are these concerns valid?
And one last question (for now), can we use the anamorphic adapters with the HVX to create a cini-scope type of aspect when shooting in 16x9 mode in either pro-HD or DV-25 format? Are these lenses able to resolve the additional detail that HD adds? Is the filter size still 72mm? Should existing DVX accessories such matte boxes, etc work with this camera?
Did you read the article? You should start by reading the article compiled by Jarred and Barry. Then you should click to the very beginning threads of the HVX section and start reading. Every question you asked has been answered at least fifty times.
Or you could use the search feature to find the answer yourself.
Or you could use the search feature to find the answer yourself.
So I get it now
So I get it now
Isaac, yes I did read the article, perhaps I'm just an idiot and did not see the answers in the article. And no, I did not go through the plethora of posts in this thread, search or otherwise, to find an answer to each of the questions.
So, based on the fact that you are a frequent contributor to this site, I guess that I can determine that things are not too friendly around here.
Obviously, I know about search in forums. If the attitude in this forum is that regular posters would rather chastise than help, then I guess I won't bother sticking around and bothering to post here.
While I appreciate that in a thread this large, that some of these questions have likely been answered, I thought that someone who had been following the thread would be able to answer them for me quickly. It would take me a LOT longer to research everything than it would for someone who already knows to do so. Why should you have to make it easy for me when I can do something for myself? You should not have to and I do not expect anyone to do this. But often in some forums, people want to be nice and helpful to save time for others. Everything written in this entire forum could probably be researched elsewhere. But Isaac, with your attitude, there would then be no valid reason to make a post asking a question of any kind.
I am a frequent contributor to several internet forums. And forums are a lot more friendly and productive when members ignore posts that they do not wish to help with, instead of pointing out the obvious and not helping. There are several topics that have been discussed on other forums that I frequent where people continually ask the same questions. My response is usually just to tell the person what it is that they are looking for. If I feel that these posters are just being lazy or if I do not have time to help, I move on. But I do not choose to chastise and provide no help. So Isaac, if your attitude is representative of the regulars of this forum, it would appear that I have come to the wrong place. But since I have communicated with Barry on other forums and he has been very helpful and never chastise me :thumbup: , I'll keep my hopes up that your attitude over my post is simply an anomaly. :huh:
So I get it now
Isaac, yes I did read the article, perhaps I'm just an idiot and did not see the answers in the article. And no, I did not go through the plethora of posts in this thread, search or otherwise, to find an answer to each of the questions.
So, based on the fact that you are a frequent contributor to this site, I guess that I can determine that things are not too friendly around here.
Obviously, I know about search in forums. If the attitude in this forum is that regular posters would rather chastise than help, then I guess I won't bother sticking around and bothering to post here.While I appreciate that in a thread this large, that some of these questions have likely been answered, I thought that someone who had been following the thread would be able to answer them for me quickly. It would take me a LOT longer to research everything than it would for someone who already knows to do so. Why should you have to make it easy for me when I can do something for myself? You should not have to and I do not expect anyone to do this. But often in some forums, people want to be nice and helpful to save time for others. Everything written in this entire forum could probably be researched elsewhere. But Isaac, with your attitude, there would then be no valid reason to make a post asking a question of any kind.
I am a frequent contributor to several internet forums. And forums are a lot more friendly and productive when members ignore posts that they do not wish to help with, instead of pointing out the obvious and not helping. There are several topics that have been discussed on other forums that I frequent where people continually ask the same questions. My response is usually just to tell the person what it is that they are looking for. If I feel that these posters are just being lazy or if I do not have time to help, I move on. But I do not choose to chastise and provide no help. So Isaac, if your attitude is representative of the regulars of this forum, it would appear that I have come to the wrong place. But since I have communicated with Barry on other forums and he has been very helpful and never chastise me :thumbup: , I'll keep my hopes up that your attitude over my post is simply an anomaly. :huh:
Mike,
I think you took my post personally, and that wasn't my intention. DVXuser's a pretty helpful community, and I was trying to help by referring you to the answers that have been posted so many times. You wouldn't have to go far to find the answers, because literally they're answered once a week.
Everyone's pretty relaxed around here, but you have to understand that people get tired of answering basic questions over and over again. A lot of people share my "attitude."
I think you're being a little sensitive, but I hope you stick around.
I think you took my post personally, and that wasn't my intention. DVXuser's a pretty helpful community, and I was trying to help by referring you to the answers that have been posted so many times. You wouldn't have to go far to find the answers, because literally they're answered once a week.
Everyone's pretty relaxed around here, but you have to understand that people get tired of answering basic questions over and over again. A lot of people share my "attitude."
I think you're being a little sensitive, but I hope you stick around.
DVDmike said:Isaac, yes I did read the article, perhaps I'm just an idiot and did not see the answers in the article. And no, I did not go through the plethora of posts in this thread, search or otherwise, to find an answer to each of the questions.
So, based on the fact that you are a frequent contributor to this site, I guess that I can determine that things are not too friendly around here.
While I appreciate that in a thread this large, that some of these questions have likely been answered, I thought that someone who had been following the thread would be able to answer them for me quickly. It would take me a LOT longer to research everything than it would for someone who already knows to do so. Why should you have to make it easy for me when I can do something for myself? You should not have to and I do not expect anyone to do this. But often in some forums, people want to be nice and helpful to save time for others. Everything written in this entire forum could probably be researched elsewhere. But Isaac, with your attitude, there would then be no valid reason to make a post asking a question of any kind.
I am a frequent contributor to several internet forums. And forums are a lot more friendly and productive when members ignore posts that they do not wish to help with, instead of pointing out the obvious and not helping. There are several topics that have been discussed on other forums that I frequent where people continually ask the same questions. My response is usually just to tell the person what it is that they are looking for. If I feel that these posters are just being lazy or if I do not have time to help, I move on. But I do not choose to chastise and provide no help. So Isaac, if your attitude is representative of the regulars of this forum, it would appear that I have come to the wrong place. But since I have communicated with Barry on other forums and he has been very helpful and never chastise me :thumbup: , I'll keep my hopes up that your attitude over my post is simply an anomaly. :huh:
I think you just came to he table quite late really. This place is pretty chilled, so I would stick around and give it a chance. You just asked a real barrage of questions that have been thrashed to death over the last several months. I would go and read through a load of the old posts for details, but very briefly:
DVCPRO codecs are all INTRAframe, no GOP. HDV at its VERY BEST should be similar in quality to DVCPROHD but lacks DVCPRO's 4:2:2 colour sampling. DVCPRO HD is superior, but more pricy - a pro format!
DVCPRO 50 to P2 only - approx 2 minutes/GB
No info yet on CCD size.
A lot of people will use this camera for SD until P2 is cheaper... should still look as good as a DVX...hopefully... native 16x9 but no footage yet so all guess work!
Pro HD is JVC's format BTW...
Anamorphic will not fit, thread is bigger. Some other accesories will - like tripods, but still a grey area until it is tested.
ullanta
Veteran
DVDMike - chill dude! This is a friendly place, and Isaac pointed you exactly to the answers. I think the problem is that you didn't really ask a question that's been answered fifty times... you seem to have asked EVERY question that's been answered fifty times. If you had said, "Can you record DVCPRO50 to tape?", someone likely woulda said "No." But you must admit, that was a pretty relentless barrage of questions. But if you really want answers:
A codec. Much better. No. Yes.
Yes. DV25 to tape. ~26GB/hr.
1/3". Dunno, look it up. Dunno... why don't you see if resolutions reduce to 16:9 ratio?
Probably. not quite so bad. What good would that do for 4:3?
Sure, valid, onlytime will really tell.
No. Dunno. No - 82mm. No.
A codec. Much better. No. Yes.
Yes. DV25 to tape. ~26GB/hr.
1/3". Dunno, look it up. Dunno... why don't you see if resolutions reduce to 16:9 ratio?
Probably. not quite so bad. What good would that do for 4:3?
Sure, valid, onlytime will really tell.
No. Dunno. No - 82mm. No.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Man I do not even have the patience for this emotionally unstable dude. When did they start giving laptops to mental patients anyway? Is this where my tax dollars go?
That is one hell of a second post:
No sleep lost here.
Key Violins
Now he's insulting my boy Issac?
Impressive credentials.
Yes you did. **** this guy. He's gone.
That is one hell of a second post:
No sleep lost here.
Key Violins
Now he's insulting my boy Issac?
Impressive credentials.
Yes you did. **** this guy. He's gone.