Got a chance to put EX1 up against HVX

1 more thing - start up and pause record stop etc were all superfast - so critical when you need to get the moment - i couldnt believe how real time camera operation was - another big tick for the HVX! I cant wait till mine gets here!
 
Barry_Green said:
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention -- yes, I am certain that the HD-SDI output of the EX1 is a full 10 bits.
Click to expand...

Hmm, seems like there was some truth in the rumours I heard, then...


So, in theory, it would be the CF HD-SDI recording camera of choice, no?

Barry, the main problem with this camera, for motion rendering and detail loss in motion, is due to the XDCAM EX codec, right? Wouldn't cineform's capture device resolve this issue? I know it is a workaround, but in theory it would bring the EX to HDCAM performance. ( Resolution and color wise- I know the lens is still way cheap compared to interchangeable lens solutions.)

Actually, I tried one in Tokyo two days ago. I did find the 24p very unpleasing in motion, but tought it was something I did with the settings, like doing a slow shutter, etc. I always shoot 25p with my HVX, so am quite used to 25p motion rendering. There was just something going on funky on that 24p effect. I couldn't switch the camera to 25p or 50i. Seems like it is locked for ntsc in Japan.

The camera is lightweight and smaller than the HVX. The lens handling is very good. I was just with the camera for 20 minutes, and was seeing the output to a Victor (JVC over there, I believe) 20" monitor, and it was fantastic in 60i. Way sharper than HVX. This was of course trough component out, and not HD-SDI. Depth of field was also a significant improvement from the HVX. The on camera monitor is fantastic, and more than enough for accurate focus.

I was relatively impressed with the camera, I must admit. Enough to jump for a purchase? No. I'm waiting for Panasonic's answer. But if in 6 months I do not see anything coming from the competition, the EX does seem like an upgrade from the HVX, taking into account adding the Convergent Designs or the Cineform capture box.

Upgrading to HPX brings the problem of buying completelly new support gear and selling old equipment. I hope the HVX's successor comes soon.
 
SPZ said:
I did find the 24p very unpleasing in motion, but tought it was something I did with the settings, like doing a slow shutter, etc.
Click to expand...

I will say that after shooting with some Sony cameras I always think there is something strange with the way motion is rendered in 24p with them. Maybe it is the powerful hold DVX user has over me :))) but when shooting on the F350 it always looks weird to my eye. I much prefer the look of my DVX in motion. I even remember seeing it on the F900 on a shoot a little while ago. I don't know what it is, but to me it's there and I am always a little weary of Sony cams because of it.

That said, overall I do like very much shooting with the F350. The work flow is great and it does make pretty pictures.
 
More interesting info

More interesting info

The difference in the chips is what interests me. The Panasonic chips are standard definition where "smoke and mirrors" turn the image into HD. This is why it is better in low light but has a softer image.

I stumbled upon this article a few weeks ago. The reviewer is admittedly a Sony rep or somehow affiliated with them but issues about lens shades and this "chip stuff" is mentioned.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0711/camera-corner-the-sony-xd-cam-tapeless-camcorder.html
 
OgdenStudios said:
The Panasonic chips are standard definition where "smoke and mirrors" turn the image into HD.
Click to expand...


The panasonic chipset is not standard definition.
It is 960 x 540

And 'smoke and mirrors' seems like an oversimplification.
But - like you allude to - its always a compromise between resolution, dynamic range, sensitivity and noise.
 
Thanks.

I did come accross this in the article:

"However, it is worth noting that these are native 1/2" HD 1920x1080 CMOS chips with a serious amount of pixels on them. Because of all those tiny pixels they don't absorb light quite as well as standard definition CCDs that are only 720x576. It is for this reason the Panasonic's HPX500 camcorder has better low-light capabilities, because it basically has standard definition CCDs (960 X 540) in it. An in-camera Pixel Shifting technology is then used to force a HD resolution of 1280x720."
 
I still don't know that it's fair to say "basically standard definition," but at least he qualified it in some way (and listed the actual dimensions).
It would be just wrong to say the HVX uses standard definition chips.

Might seem like nitpicking, but I just didn't want anyone to who wasn't familiar with the details to get the wrong idea.
 
I'm not throwing out my HVX. But this new ex1 does have some exciting features and the amount of footage you get per Gig........Borat- "is nice!"
 
OgdenStudios said:
...

I stumbled upon this article a few weeks ago. The reviewer is admittedly a Sony rep or somehow affiliated with them but issues about lens shades and this "chip stuff" is mentioned.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0711/camera-corner-the-sony-xd-cam-tapeless-camcorder.html
Click to expand...

?????

Sorry OgdenStudios.

I wasn't able to find where he said that he was affiliated with Sony in any way.


His credits say:

"Nigel Cooper has been a professional video producer and freelance lighting cameraman since 1997. His production company specializes in SIVs (special interest videos), training DVDs, educational programs, corporate videos, music videos and the odd bit of TV broadcast work. As a freelance lighting cameraman he covers ENG work, Events, Corporate, Documentary and Commercial undertakings. Nigel's personal Web site is http://www.genericpool.co.uk. Nigel is also the founder/editor of DVuser magazine: http://www.dvuser.co.uk."


Perhaps you can point out his affiliation.

Thanks.
 
Looks like he's wearing an EX shirt. Not sure how much that says, but I've got better things to do than try to figure it out…

Like going out and actually shooting something. :D

--SM
 
SPZ said:
So, in theory, it would be the CF HD-SDI recording camera of choice, no?
Click to expand...
Well, that would get past the 4:2:0 and long-GOP situation, but it wouldn't do anything to minimize rolling shutter issues. So if the EX1 works for you already, the CF HD-SDI solution would make it even better (at a $5,000 price increase, so compare apples to apples). But if the rolling shutter makes it not work for you, the CF HD-SDI recorder won't do a thing about that.

Barry, the main problem with this camera, for motion rendering and detail loss in motion, is due to the XDCAM EX codec, right?
Click to expand...
No, the codec didn't have anything to do with the detail loss issue, that happens long before the codec gets ahold of it. I didn't torture test the codec to find out what circumstances it can and can't handle so I have no comment on that yet.

I did find the 24p very unpleasing in motion, but tought it was something I did with the settings, like doing a slow shutter, etc. I always shoot 25p with my HVX, so am quite used to 25p motion rendering. There was just something going on funky on that 24p effect.
Click to expand...
I would suspect you're probably seeing the 2:3 pulldown effect, and objecting to that. The actual 24p performance should be identical, motion-wise, among any 24p camcorder (as long as you're not doing something manipulative like JVC's "motion smoothing" which actually blends frames together). But on the HD-SDI output, it embeds the 24p with 2:3 pulldown to comply with a 60i transmission. Most cameras, and I believe all cameras in this price range, do that so it's not anything I'd "blame" the EX1 for.

But, with that said, I can't guarantee it until testing it for specific performance. There may very well be something there that you were seeing, that i didn't test for, but I doubt it.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I still don't know that it's fair to say "basically standard definition," but at least he qualified it in some way (and listed the actual dimensions).
Click to expand...
Granted he listed dimensions, but they're wrong. The HPX500 is 620,000 pixels per chip, whereas 960x540 is around 520,000.

Regardless, just look at the images. Saying it's "standard-def" chips is marketing spin. It's a high-def chip block that delivers a high-def image.
 
Ooops....
Sorry, read that quickly and thought it was in reference to the HVX.
Not the HPX.

Thanks for the correction, Barry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top