HD100 vs HVX200 noise & compression artifacts

[Stevet]

Well,

I have to admit I believe the HVX200 produces a very colorful image.

I am a bit worried about compression artifacts and noise.

I know this is the JVC forum, but I'm hoping to get a good idea on how these cameras compare in low light to moderate light conditions.

Some of the HVX footage I've seen has a very busy background that has me worried.

What do you all think?



Also, has anyone heard any news about a next generation HD100?
specs, features ?

 

[stephenlnoe]

Steve,

I wish you could have been in Chicago at the JVC event (35mm film transfer). The blacks were excellent in the transfer. If you downloaded any of my supplied m2t's, there was plenty of fodder for you to check over. The blacks on the HD-100 are very very good. Do you have any of the posted m2t's?

S.Noe

Here, I'm in the projection room with the film on the platter.

 

[Emanuel]

Well,

I have to admit I believe the HVX200 produces a very colorful image.

I am a bit worried about compression artifacts and noise.

I know this is the JVC forum, but I'm hoping to get a good idea on how these cameras compare in low light to moderate light conditions.

Some of the HVX footage I've seen has a very busy background that has me worried.

What do you all think?



Also, has anyone heard any news about a next generation HD100?
specs, features ?

I have precisely the same POV than you. That is no news regarding your posts and mine. As well, Danilo or Haakon. BTW, the silence of these dvxuser.com members is not a good sign to HVX. HD100 is more acceptable luma noise. The point is the lower 720p resolution. Specially to 35mm film-out or even to the future 1080 (already present) crown. If 1080, HD100 would be my unique option.

Regarding any noise & compression artifacts killer, what about that?...
http://www.pluginz.com/product/12124?from=rlist&

 

[Emanuel]

Steve,

I wish you could have been in Chicago at the JVC event (35mm film transfer). The blacks were excellent in the transfer. If you downloaded any of my supplied m2t's, there was plenty of fodder for you to check over. The blacks on the HD-100 are very very good. Do you have any of the posted m2t's?

S.Noe

Good look Stephen!

How I would like to have been there!

I know that you already post a fair (as usual) report. But I'd like hear you more about the subject related pros & cons.

Otherwise, it appears some stuff like this one:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=424830&postcount=32
«2. All displays manufactured since January 05 are 1080, and so why shoot in a smaller resolution than native to the display?
3. 720p demonstrates artifacts on a display larger than 46"»

...or many others that are saying if we have 1080 available why to go to lower rez? And it makes sense, as I said, specially to big screen. But it's true that your footage, Stephen, it's the most near 35mm that I saw from a 1/3" CCD device. Better than any film-out screening from any 1/3" CCD camcorder that I could experienced before. Including@movie_theater. BTW, when will it be available more stuff? As well, those oriental ones that I never couldn't downloaded.

Thanks as always!

 

[stephenlnoe]

Emanuel,

The difference is HDTV. There are two broadcast standards for HDTV. 720p and 1080i. This does not currently include 1080p. I don't know what type of electronic stores you have in your country (PAL?) but in the US, 95% of the HDTV's in the stores (projection, LCD-DLP, plasma) are 720p sets (my calculation over the holidays). That's not to say that 1080p will not be coming, however, 1080p does not exist as a broadcast format because it will not fit in the 19Mb pipe that broadcasters are allowed even under heavy recompression. The only way to get 1080p is by upconverting 1080i with a very expensive set top converter box.

If you are talking about going to film, then yes the 720p is upconverted to 1080p in order to do the transfer and 1080p is better. The problem is that you'd have to go way up the food chain in order to get 1080p (1920x1080) native chips in a camera. The HD-100 is native 720p (1280x720) so in essence you are working at HDTV resolution, however, there is enough detail and information in the full rez 720p output the HD-100 provides to upconvert nicely. Also the option to capture 720p full rez at 60fps 422 from the YPbPr connectors put's the HD-100 ahead of the Varicam in resolution (960x720). Of course the Varicam is a much more expensive, bigger nicer camera but still the HD-100 is very close behind.

The HD-100 is very well thought out...

 

[KeithW]

Just to clarify, Stephen is not quite correct about the U.S. broadcast standard. The high-definition ATSC broadcast formats are 1080i60, 1080i48, 1080p30, 1080p24, 720p60, 720p30, 720p24, and the "1000/1001"-speed versions of each of the above, e.g., 29.97 fps instead of 30. As far as I know, no broadcaster is currently sending 1080p24 content labeled as such in the MPEG sequence header, but NBC does try, for its 24 fps prime-time shows, to send 24 progressive frames per second within a 1080i60 sequence, allowing the receiver to perform the 3:2 pulldown. In that sense, NBC's feed of something like Law and Order or The West Wing is already "1080p24", because, for the most part, they're sending 24 progressive frames per second and letting the receiver turn it into 60 interlaced fields per second.

 

[jdv]

Does uprezzing equals quality loss?

Does uprezzing equals quality loss?

If you are talking about going to film, then yes the 720p is upconverted to 1080p in order to do the transfer and 1080p is better...

The HD-100 is very well thought out...

Why do you have to up-rez to do a film out Stephen? It it just a matter of film scanner/printer needing 1080p?

How much, if any quality is lost when an uprez happens, either for a 1080i Hi-def television, or for a film out?

My impression was that as long the gear handling the uprez is good, there is little noise added - true?

John

PS- And Stephen has it right on the money - the JVC is an amazingly well laid camera for its size (menus are pretty easy to navigate as well).

 

[mmm]

I think that 720p is a good match for the rest of the camera at this budget.

The 720p of the JVC appears to beat the 1080i of the Sony HDV cams and be a pretty good match for Panasonics 1080i/p too, if you can believe what you read.

 

[stephenlnoe]

Just to clarify, Stephen is not quite correct about the U.S. broadcast standard. The high-definition ATSC broadcast formats are 1080i60, 1080i48, 1080p30, 1080p24, 720p60, 720p30, 720p24, and the "1000/1001"-speed versions of each of the above, e.g., 29.97 fps instead of 30. As far as I know, no broadcaster is currently sending 1080p24 content labeled as such in the MPEG sequence header, but NBC does try, for its 24 fps prime-time shows, to send 24 progressive frames per second within a 1080i60 sequence, allowing the receiver to perform the 3:2 pulldown. In that sense, NBC's feed of something like Law and Order or The West Wing is already "1080p24", because, for the most part, they're sending 24 progressive frames per second and letting the receiver turn it into 60 interlaced fields per second.

Very true Keith, I generalized without the framerates. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[stephenlnoe]

Why do you have to up-rez to do a film out Stephen? It it just a matter of film scanner/printer needing 1080p?

How much, if any quality is lost when an uprez happens, either for a 1080i Hi-def television, or for a film out?

My impression was that as long the gear handling the uprez is good, there is little noise added - true?

John

PS- And Stephen has it right on the money - the JVC is an amazingly well laid camera for its size (menus are pretty easy to navigate as well).

Yes the printer needs 1080p.

For HDTV 1080i a person can easily convert the 720p to 1080i without issue. The BR-50 deck has that ability in it's codec and if 1080i is needed, the BR50 deck is a good option.

Your impression is correct. It should not introduce noise.

keep shooting!