Barry_Green said:
I think it already does rock.
:2vrolijk_08:
Finally! CCD specs and DSP released!
- Thread starter Jarred Land
- Start date
I think it already does rock.
:2vrolijk_08:
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
Now I know why the people at HDNet and Voom have cautiously warned against the HVX -in that their engineers have not yet had the opportunity to determine whether the pixxel count is acceptable to them from a technical POV. They are very particular about resolution and while subjectively many of us love the look of the HVX, it does mean those who might actually license a film (dramatic or documentary) might pass because we shot the piece with the HVX. Hands down, they prefer acquisition and delivery on CineAlta or even 35mm transferred to HD.
Could this be part of the reason why these threads have gone so rampant over pixel count? Maybe I'm wrong. Then of course we could go in circles and say, 'well, it is the content that is really important.' Or one could ask: what would something like Murderball look like upconverted, and would it be acceptable to an HD viewing audience? Certainly it is an entertaining film, only it was shot in SD. Thoughts? Comments?
Could this be part of the reason why these threads have gone so rampant over pixel count? Maybe I'm wrong. Then of course we could go in circles and say, 'well, it is the content that is really important.' Or one could ask: what would something like Murderball look like upconverted, and would it be acceptable to an HD viewing audience? Certainly it is an entertaining film, only it was shot in SD. Thoughts? Comments?
I agree StMad. In order of importance, I'm 1) and engineer 2) a cinephile 3) a video hobbyist. Everyone has a different approach. My advice to anyone is to put all 1/3inch cameras in the same category from the technical point of view and not waste time in specs, marketing talk, opinions on technical matters etc. People sometimes are confused on the subject. Even people that are well respected on the net and have a background in the video business. Try the camera yourself since it's quite an investment for the average guy, and watch for serious quality/workflow drawbacks. If engineering is not your job, don't waste time on tech talk.
Joe_Digital said:
Well considering the resolution a problem when we shot the pickups with the HVX for transfer to 35mm for Spielberg's Munich, I dont think its as big of a deal as you think.
HDNet and Voom have played the same warnings about every other camera minus the CineAlta.. even the Varicam.
No, she also said, "and the numbers suggested are not correct," which was in response to a discussion of 960 x 540, and in particular Luis Caffesse's post, "Hmm, 960x540? I suppose that means they could be using the same exact chips that are in the XL2. Didn't Panasonic's parent company provide those? And if I'm not mistaken they are 960x720." I suppose she could've been referring to the 960 x 720, but that is indeed the pixel count of the XL2's CCDs (of which 960 x 480 is used for 16:9 and 720 x 480 for 4:3). And while the mystery is over and there's no point in harping about the pixel count, what little Jan said about the issue sort of stood out.limo991 said:
Last edited:
Neopics
Well-known member
I'm glad to see Panasonic finally decided to release this information. Not that it was essential, but it shows they have nothing to hide. The technique they used is perfectly valid and the camera generates beautiful images because of it. Now, hopefully, the whole ugly debate about CCD specs will finally come to rest.
Yes, it was nothing to hide. It is a common practice in SD cameras and Sony does that on an HD camera. After all the native 1080p talk though, it wasn't the easiest thing to release. The low res talk actually prepared the release and reduced the damage.
I believe anyone that preordered an HVX had the right to know the camera would be kinda soft, (nothing close to 1080 lines) and he wouldn't be getting the 4:2:2 chroma he was promised. But people that preorder something are certainly adventurous personalities and don't care much about the details, so no harm done.
I believe anyone that preordered an HVX had the right to know the camera would be kinda soft, (nothing close to 1080 lines) and he wouldn't be getting the 4:2:2 chroma he was promised. But people that preorder something are certainly adventurous personalities and don't care much about the details, so no harm done.
I find that somebody prefers CineAlta or 35mm-transferred-to-HD over HVX material pretty amusing...
OF COURSE THEY DO
But if we'd have the money for a CineAlta would we be here complaining about the price of P2?
This network doesn't want HDV because of the motion artifacts, the other one won't take HVX material because of the pixel count in the CCD:s... let's just all start painting and forget about this video stuff.
And limo, I don't think ANYONE expected it to deliver 1080 lines. I don't even know what lines mean. But I've looked at HVX material on big-ass LCD screens (from my laptop through DVI-D -> HDMI) and it blew me away. Better than the WMVHD stuff they played on the screen next to it. That's the test. What it looks like. And it looks better than the JVC, looks better than Sony, don't know about Canon. And stop with the engineering bullsh... It's 4:2:2. Try keying it on AE.
My 2c...
OF COURSE THEY DO
But if we'd have the money for a CineAlta would we be here complaining about the price of P2?
This network doesn't want HDV because of the motion artifacts, the other one won't take HVX material because of the pixel count in the CCD:s... let's just all start painting and forget about this video stuff.
And limo, I don't think ANYONE expected it to deliver 1080 lines. I don't even know what lines mean. But I've looked at HVX material on big-ass LCD screens (from my laptop through DVI-D -> HDMI) and it blew me away. Better than the WMVHD stuff they played on the screen next to it. That's the test. What it looks like. And it looks better than the JVC, looks better than Sony, don't know about Canon. And stop with the engineering bullsh... It's 4:2:2. Try keying it on AE.
My 2c...
Last edited:
remember limo.. dont confuse the codec with the capture. DVCproHD lives in an accurate 4:2:2 color space.. you cant argue that the format is claiming anything, because the format, the codec, is accurate. What happens from the CCD to DSP to the final write is another story, but the "format" is not trying to pretend its something that its not.. DVCproHD is the superior "common" format in the HD realm.. which is why JVC, Canon etc. all show thier HD footage at demonstations right off of a DVCproHD tape.
Last edited by a moderator:
aquafox said:Of course if we'd all start painting somebody would start a forum where people would argue about the pros and cons of different brushes.
"Squirrel fur has far better definition!"
Most great painters were very picky about the materials they used for their colors and bruches
But luckily internet was slow in the past centuries and they got more time to think and paint. These days they would be browsing online color catalogs all day long, calibrate their monitors, test colors and brushes, publish their results online etc.Jarred Land said:
Yes, the format is just a container. In this case it is better than the camera.
Why doesn't Panasonic produce little portable P2 recorders with component input and an LCD for GUI? Some people might pay more that HVX buyers pay for the entire HVX for that part of HVX
limo991 said:Yes, the format is just a container. In this case it is better than the camera.
Why doesn't Panasonic produce little portable P2 recorders with component input and an LCD for GUI? Some people might pay more that HVX buyers pay for the entire HVX for that part of HVX
correct.. The format is the king.. but remember, its a professional codec. No other camera is using a professional codec. HDV sure in the hell isnt, and i hate to admit it DV never was a professional codec either.
About the deck.. there are already a few devices that do this.. expensive as hell yes but they do exist. And we never know what panasonic, focus or others are upto, i expect NAB to be a pretty fruitful year for product announcements in the HD arena.
redindian said:
well both.. but i meant HVX's.. shipments are starting to hit dealers in the dozens, not in the singles.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
limo991 said:
You should go back and read the document again. All of the discussions over the 6 months have said that the signal coming off of the CCd is analog. The document gives you the pixel count impact of the pixel offset but even that is an analog signal. The document then says that there is a 1080P signal that is scanned from that analog signal and then is generating a 1080P/60 signal. From there the 14 Bit A/D conversion into 19Bit DSP tranform to whichever format du jour. So please, stop a moment and try to understand what the article really says.
Oh and one last thing, take a look at the images that the camera produces in green screen, there have been a good number on this site, they all seem to be missing the HDV cartoon effect of the outline. So if it is 4:2:0, which it is not, how come the green screen work looks so much better.
Thanks,
Jan
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Jan.. the Green screen comment is very important, and i've shot almost 20 hours of greenscreen footage on the HVX already and its definately not 4:2:0.
