HVX 1/3 HD vs SDX 800/900 2/3 SD?

[KnockOutFilms]

I have seen some discussions on this comparison, but down to brass tacks.

As I understand it.

The 800/900 2/3" ccds have better low light, dynamic range, less depth of field, less nosie.

Is it substantially better?

The HVX is HD with more pixels, but what about the above?

To be completely (or at least mostly) realistic, if one were to shoot a feature film, it would be highly unlikely to release it in HD. You would hope for DVD sales and most TV would be SD.

The other possiblility would be a film-out, we always hope for that, but that's huge money. Lots of fests will play digital.

On top of that, maybe the HVX would not be any better to film-out than the SDX 2/3".

With a reasonably funded fetaure, would it be better to shoot with a bigger chip, even if it was just SD. I really would miss the option of 60p, but the more I consider the format for my next project, I am starting to think that parts, of the HDX upside, or even the HD on 1/3 vs HDV on 1/3 are moot because of the 1/3" chips.

I'm not trying to bash the HDX, I will in all likely hood, buy one. And if I move from it, it will be to another Panasonic product.

I know that if you work it hard, you can get great images from a 1/3" chip. We consistently get wonderful stuff from the DVX, but I was amazed how well the SDX900 looked without as much effort in working the shot.

I also understand the benifit of owning your own camera vs renting a 2/3" camera, most of us after all, are indie and love the freedoms that carrys.

But i gotta beleive we all aspire to make films that have production values that are "mainstream" in that our stuff looks as good as anything else, and then we can live and die on our story, edit, etc.

When I think of the difference between 5-10 grand and 20 grand, I always look back and think of the money I've pissed away on crap. Someone mentioned it would be great to see the SDX800 P2 as an HD camera, even at 20 grand, I think I would try and scrape it together.

Anyway, Thoughts?

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, keep in mind that an SPX, at 20 grand, is just the start -- you also have to put a lens on it. Probably better off budgeting $30,000 for a complete package.

There is no doubt in my mind that as an SD camera, the SPX/SDX would be far superior to anything that Panasonic could do with the HVX. There are reasons that the SPX will still cost 3x as much as the HVX.

For film transfer, I don't know. Interesting question. If you were facing the question of 720p HVX vs. 480p SPX, that would be a really interesting question -- might be very competitive indeed. But 1080 HVX vs. 480 SPX... maybe the additional resolution would tip the balance to the HVX, even though the SPX would likely have better-looking video in all ways except resolution.

For DVD release, the SPX will undoubtedly look better. Don't know how much better though, as the HVX does offer DVCPRO50 as well.

It's all theoretical until we get the cam and look at the footage...

 

[stephenlnoe]

No contest hombre. Different leagues altogether.

I'm in it for the SD 422 for sure but I will not expect to get the results of an SDX especially when you can select whatever lens you want for an SDX. I'm not inferring that the results will be bad but you've got much bigger light gathering chips in the SDX and a completely different aparature with those bolt on lenses.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

The [Panasonic SDX] 800/900 2/3" CCDs have better low light, dynamic range, less depth of field, less noise . . . Is it substantially better? I am starting to think that parts, of the HDX upside, or even the HD on 1/3 vs HDV on 1/3 are moot because of the 1/3" chips.

Chris--THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME THINKING I'VE PONDERING LATELY AS WELL!

Yup, as beautiful as the HD100 is, and as pretty as the HVX' 100-mbit signal may be . . . they're still both only 1/3" CHIP CAMERAS! In the DVX Cafe, I mused that I've been seriously thinking of biting the 2/3" CCD bullet and going with a broadcast-level SD product instead of these fancy, "up-rezed" Handycams. Thankfully, Sony was kind enough to just introduce their DSR500/570 replacement models--the DSR400/450. The DSR450WSL is of particular interest to those of us aspiring to digital filmmaking. It's an 800-line, 65dB, 2/3", f/11 @ 2000 lux, 16:9 DVCAM camcorder, AND IT DOES 24P! And it's posted at B+H for only $15K for the body (including VF)! This is the cheapest 2/3" wide-screen camera of this quality EVER! Slap on the cheap Canon 19:1 or Fuji 20:1 2/3" lens for $3K, and buy the cheap Canon wide-angle for $5K and you're all set! Heck, the PAL version of the DSR450 is on the internet for about $14K USD WHICH INCLUDES A 17:1 LENS!!!

Oh, so you say 4:1:1 sucks? Have you seen DSR500/570 footage properly shot on a good monitor? That camera ROCKS! And the new DSR450 has these megapixel HAD "EX" CCDs which I'm sure are even BETTER! As you stated above, my expected distribution medium for my little digital cinema feature will be SD DVD. So, given that, I think the DSR450WSL is the PERFECT camera for my needs. Check it out--it's $10K LESS than an SDX900!

As I've said in many previous posts here, and elsewhere on the net concerning the HD100's final image quality on tape--IT'S SUPER NOISY!!! The problem I've been facing with all my crappy 1/3" cameras (VX1000/VX2000/DVX100) is NOISE! Plus, with the 2/3" wide-screen CCD, you'll have all that film-like selective-focus capability so your stuff will look even MORE "filmy!" Extended dynamic range, quiet, noise-free pictures, shallow depth-of-field capability, great light sensitivity--THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT THOSE BIG 2/3" CCDs FOR! To re-state your argument, I've spent a lot of cash on a lot of sub-standard DV cameras--I think it's time I spend the money where it will really count!

Sorry, DVXUSER--got off-topic again here. It's just I'm so darned excited about the affordability of this new camera! You'll probably move this to the Cafe thread again!

 

[stephenlnoe]

Noisy image quality is a function of gain and the use of gain in a 1/3 CCD camera. Take some footage and crank up the luma if you want to test the noise level visually and then have your engineer check the various scopes to see how far out the black is and the percentage of black in the frame. In NTSC-M standard (US) black IRE is 7.5 so there is no real black black in NTSC-M like there is in NTSC-MJ (Japan) or PAL, which are both 0 IRE.

411 does suck, that is a fact in broadcast. The reason being that 411 can not stand the heavy recompress needed to send information to the satellite for broadcast. Plus 411 can't handle a color correction well. 411 is more suited for DVD delivery, not broadcast. At least 50Mb and 422 for broadcast.

What is your intention with the camera?

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

[4:1:1] does suck, that is a fact in broadcast.

I beg to differ . . . the 4:1:1 footage I've shot with DSR500/570s look great. For the broadcast news magazine show I shoot, we use BVW400A and BVW600 BetacamSP cameras (switching to XDCAMs soon), and although still analog, BetacamSP is still capable of recording a very clean, noise-free image with these camera heads. Compared with the BVW600 footage, the DSR500/570 footage holds up great.

Several years ago, a television trade magazine ran a side-by-side comparison of the two formats using a Sony D30 camera head mated, in turn, to both a BetacamSP, and DVCAM dockable recorders. In the quantitative comparison data they published, as I recall, the 4:1:1 DVCAM footage bested the analog BetacamSP chroma specs. This was the first and only quantitative test I've read between equivalent (in this case, identical) camera heads, so that the only difference was between the two encoding formats.

Although, I agree, 4:1:1 quantization at 5:1 compression may not be robust enough to survive recompression and will limit your color correction gamut slightly, but if maintained in the native CODEC, and used as the source footage for DVD mastering (which is 4:2:0 P@ML anyway), I believe the format is quite adequate. My intended application is to shoot feature-length, and short "films" (in native 16:9/24P mode), for distribution on both, one-off DVD-Rs, and possibly replicated DVDs as well.

By the way, have you actually seen any DSR500/570 source footage after being Avid'ed, Vyvyx'ed, microwaved, mulitplexed, uplinked, downlinked, DDR'ed and then sent out through your master control (or even back through a cable head-end)?

 

[mmm]

If you only want to do SD DVDs, the Sony DSR 450 should be great. I haven't used it, but the DSR 570 is damn good - very clean - and the 450 also has the 25p recording. I very much doubt the HD100 or HVX would beat the SD DVD output of a 450. My last project was shot on a 570, with several pick ups on a VX2000. Luckily the pickups are very brief, as it really demonstrated the difference in the two cameras!

As far as Beta SP and DVCAM, I would pick DVCAM any day. I have had to do a few projects with mixed Beta SP/DVCAM footage, and IMHO the DVCAM was clearly superior. That was also for DVD output. I only work in 4:2:0 PAL, so that makes a difference though. DV just has a bad name because it is strapped to the back of a load of crappy cameras in the consumer market!

I find DVCAM compresses to DVD really well, as you can capture, edit & CC in FCP and render straight out to compressor from the original footage. In PAL land it is already 4:2:0 as well. For big screen projection, I don't think DVCAM is good enough. I think the extra resolution of the HD100 or HVX could tip the balance for cinema projection... but we don't know yet! I am considering using HD100s for my next project, if they ever get released!

 

[Barry_Green]

Curious why you wouldn't consider the SPX800. It's only $1500 more than the DSR450WSL, but it adds DVCPRO50 recording, for 4:2:2 and lower compression. Basically DigiBeta quality, but at well under half the cost of the cheapest DigiBeta camera.

2/3", 16:9 CCDs, double the color resolution, almost half the compression, plus it offers 24P and 30p and 60i, native 16:9 and 4:3, plus DV 4:1:1 5:1 mode in 24p/30p/60i, plus Panasonic's CineGamma and all those other wonderful features...

Plus, the DSR450's 24p mode is only 2-3. It doesn't have 2-3-3-2, which means it doesn't allow you to edit on a 24p timeline losslessly; you *have* to uncompress/recombine fields, which means it'll take a guaranteed recompression hit. 2-3-3-2 lets you edit 24p losslessly, but the Sony doesn't offer that.

I've used the DSR500 many times, and for a 4-1-1 camera it can indeed produce some gorgeous imagery. But to get so much more for just $1500 more, I would find it very difficult to settle for the 450 when the SPX is so affordable...

 

[icicle22]

doesn't the SPX800 require P2 cards to record in DVCPro? That adds to the cost right there doesn't it?

 

[stephenlnoe]

I know the DSR500 is a dynamite camera but I wondered what your intent was with the camera. There are some trade offs for sure, particularly the 422 color space. The datarate is not in question for DVCam, it is the colorspace. The SDX900 is much more money but then it is much more camera and still there are much more hidden cost with the SDX900.

I'm pretty sure the HVX200 will not hold a candle to a 2/3" CCD camera no matter what, particularly in SD.

We'll all see soon....

 

[Barry_Green]

doesn't the SPX800 require P2 cards to record in DVCPro? That adds to the cost right there doesn't it?

It doesn't REQUIRE P2 cards, no -- you could record it on the new CitiDisk or a forthcoming FireStore.

Consider that the SPX is $7,000 less than the SDX. $7,000 would buy a lot of P2 cards and you'd still be way ahead of the game, because the SPX doesn't have a firewire port, so you'd need a $7,000 deck too.

I'm just saying that for $1500 more you'd have a much more capable camera. If you absolutely needed to record on tape, you could go so far as to strap a $299 handycam to it and firewire into it to record the DV 4:1:1 signal! :laugh:

But as long as you're going $18,000, why not go $19,500 and get a camera that can record images that rival the $48,500 DigiBeta cams?

 

[KnockOutFilms]

I'm pretty sure the HVX200 will not hold a candle to a 2/3" CCD camera no matter what, particularly in SD.

I wonder about film-out. I fully understand that HD has more lines and pixels, but at image quality price on a 1/3 " chip.

Would a 2/3" chip outperform a 1/3" HD chip under all curcumstances?

Even, say, blown up to 720?

Or what about straight digital projection. Would the more pixel HD signal screen better even if aquired on a 1/3" chip?

Noise, f-stop latitude, and shallow depth of field are all much better on a bigger chip. I think the narrow latitude is the most difficult to overcome. I think it is still one of the biggest differences between video and film. You can work hard to "help" depth of field, and although I have had sucess with lighting to give the impresssion of latitude, this is still a tough one on a 1/3 " chip.

I'm not nearly as tech savy as others around here, so I'm always interested in what other people think.

 

[hopalongmedia]

Is the SPX just like the SDX minus the tape mechanism? I was wondering about this because frankly I think P2 would be cooler anyhow. Are there any other features that are lacking from the SPX? I'm wondering why Panasonic doesnt have it on their "cinema" page.

 

[gcaus]

Jan, the DVX project manager said in a post that the 900 will outperform the the HD cam because it has greater latitude, etc... If you want HD, you can up-rez it. the 900 has better chip and optics.

That put this discussion to rest for me.

-Jerry

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

But as long as you're going $18,000, why not go $19,500 and get a camera that can record images that rival the $48,500 DigiBeta cams?

But Barry, the DSR450 isn't $18K, it's selling for $14,999 (only $12,700 for PAL version for some reason). I understand your argument, but I have to stop somewhere. I've just sunk $6K into a Steadicam Flyer, $1K in an Anton Bauer charger, plus another $1K I'll spend in bricks. I'm trying to keep the camera package at $24K, max, including both the Fuji 20:1 and Fuji 13:1 wide-angle lenses!

 

[stephenlnoe]

Seems like you've made your commitment already. With what you've written about your needs and your price point you've got exactly what you needed.

best of luck..

 

[thisiswells]

If you absolutely needed to record on tape, you could go so far as to strap a $299 handycam to it and firewire into it to record the DV 4:1:1 signal! :laugh:

heh. heh. good point. hadn't thought about that! So, basically, for another $1000 over the Sony, you get a camera that records to less expensive media (MiniDV vs. Full Size DV) which easily covers the price difference between cameras over a year or less time. Not to mention the ability of recording in 4:2:2 if the right project comes along to pay for hard drives or P2 cards. Interesting way to think about it, I think.

 

[Bart_Boge]

There is no way to judge any of this until the HVX actually shows up. 1080p might mean squat if the lens can't resolve the image sufficiently enough. Or, under certain conditions, it might capture VariCam-rivaling footage.

Exposure latitude and DOF will take hits for its 1/3" chips--that much is certain. Whether these things can be worked around effectively is another matter.

Again, I can't wait for Barry's shoot-out comparisons later this year.

 

[Barry_Green]

But Barry, the DSR450 isn't $18K, it's selling for $14,999 (only $12,700 for PAL version for some reason).

Ah -- yes -- the $18k was for MSRP. I don't know what street price is, which is obviously the only price that really matters!

 

[Barry_Green]

Exposure latitude and DOF will take hits for its 1/3" chips--that much is certain. Whether these things can be worked around effectively is another matter.

That seems likely as well. I wonder if CMOS would overcome some of that -- I don't think anybody's made a 3-CMOS camera yet...

Again, I can't wait for Barry's shoot-out comparisons later this year.

Me neither! :laugh:

If I can find the time, I think I'll throw a DVX in there as well. 480/24p uprezzed via PhotoZoom Pro was surprisingly competitive with the JVC HD1... I wonder how uprezzed DVX footage would fare, after having been up-rezzed via Nattress? Something to think about, certainly... it'd be nice to know how much we really gain with these HD cameras on 1/3" chips!