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

NBCshooter said:
If this is the kind of "information" the forum thinks is valid and not worth any clarification or discussion (or god forbid, any disagreement), then suspend my account right now, ban my posting priviledges, and call me any names you like . . . sheesh!
Click to expand...
Later, I'm out....
 
NBC, I get what you are saying. I have no experience with the DRS-500, only the 300, and I have to admit, clarity and detail is much better than any miniDV I've seen. I don't know, and that may be from my own lack of skill, I can't get as nice looking footage with the 300 than I can with my DVX, even in 60i. I also am suspect to talk about the small form factor, lightweight of the prosumer cams since the VX1000. I really hate carring that old DRS around.

I'm not sure about the 11 stop thing. I believe there are two notations, because some people say the eye can see 7 stops, and no camera should have more latitude than a human eye, or there would be very little work for us to do. So I guess there are two ways of measuring it.

I also think I won't touch HD in a while. Nothing I have is HD ready for editing and mastering, so just getting an HD capable camera is a waste of money. But the HVX does DVCPro50. I guess it will be nice to compare great DVCAM aggainst HVX DVCPro50, and see who wins, in this world of post and color grading, DVCPro50 might me a real blessing. I was grading some DSR DV footage, and it was a real pain. Of course, if the HVX image is as noisy as the DVX, 50Mbit might do us no actual good... But looking at andromeda footage, I think that all that noise is not coming straight from the 1/3" CCDs. We have to remember that 50Mbit in the prosumer 1/3"CCD form factor is something completely new, and we really have no basis for comparisson. It could be awesome, or meaningless.

Either way, I would wait for the HD-100 and HVX to arrive to make any purchase decisions. I'm sure you are not in a hurry to get a DVCAM package, otherwise you'd be 10 years late... And the prices won't get any higher.

PS: Cool that Sony lauched a DSR that does 24p. Maybe it's going to implement it in other product lines...
 
Okay, without everyone getting offended or upset, can I just discuss this dynamic range thing in a bit more detail here? Hey, maybe I'm wrong, who knows? Any tech-savvy DPs or engineers out there who can check my math, please do so. Okay, look . . . an 11-stop contrast ratio would be equivalent to doubling the light value 11 times, right? So, say your base aperture of f/"x" equals a unit value of "1." If you double that unit value 11 times, you end up with 1,024 units (however, I know that "2" to the 11th power equals 2,048, and not 1,024--so, someone please check my math). Anyway, if the first calculation is correct, both in theory and arithmatically, that would mean that an 11-stop dynamic range-capable camera would be able to expose, say a gray card, with exactly 1 footcandle of illumination on one portion of the card, and exactly 1,024 footcandles of illumination on another portion of the card, resulting in both a scene contrast and lighting ratio (in this case, both being identical) of 1,024:1, right? (By using a gray card in this example, we eliminate subject contrast and only evaluate lighting ratio.) At least as far as I've seen, nothing can hold detail in an exposure range of this magnitude.

Now granted, my exposure tests with the F900 weren't extensive, but I instructed Plus 8 Digital's DIT (Plus 8 is the leading supplier of HDW-F900s to Hollywood studios shooting on HD) to set up the camera profile in the manner in which it would be able to achieve its maximum dynamic range. I shot both lit interiors and daylight exteriors with a model. With both DCC on, and with whatever the DIT did to the knee, once I exposed for my caucasian subject, the highlights blew out solid white (without any visible detail) within a couple of stops. I don't remember the exact number of stops, but I seem to remember something like 1.5-2.0 stops of overexposure. Experienced DP friends have told me that 35mm negative blows out white after 2-3 stops of overexposure over subject key. So, can you see why I'm a bit incredulous at these claims of latitude that I've just never seen with my own eyes, and that experienced Hollywood DPs confirm that even film negative can't hold more than 2-3 stops of overexposure?
 
For one thing, digital has more dynamic range in shadows and film has more in highlights. For another, it's pretty hard to measure. Just as long as it's not 110IRE or 0IRE there's something, after all.
 
Yes, Policar, it's widely agreed that video tends to have much more "latitude" in the toe of the curve (shadows) and blows out like reveral film does (fast) in the highlights. Film negative tends to have much more "latitude" in the shoulder of the curve (highlights), than in the shadows, when compared to video.
 
taubkin said:
We have to remember that 50Mbit in the prosumer 1/3"CCD form factor is something completely new, and we really have no basis for comparison. It could be awesome, or meaningless.
Click to expand...
Good point, taubkin. I'm DYING to see how "good" or how "bad" 50-mbit, 1/3" chip video looks like, too!
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...
I did NOT know that about the DSR450! Thanks, Barry! I've been wondering if the DSR450 did 2:3:3:2 or not. Damn! Looks like I might have to take another look at the Panasonic 24P solutions again. A "guaranteed recompression hit" certainly is NOT good! But, dang! The 450's ONLY $15K! How can I resist???
 
NBC-

I'm glad you're interested in this kind of stuff. I think cameras are really cool. So far as "how" they are achieving 11 stops of latitude in an 8 bit recorded signal is beyond my scope of knowledge. My "hunch" involves a theory of 2-3 stop underexposure built-in the camera, high amounts of gain in the toe of the curve, combined with high amounts of compression in the upper part of the curve. Somehow it works. What is unclear to me is whether 11 shades of gray are visible and measurable on playback, as that would seem nothing short of magical to me, as we're dealing with an 8 bit format. My belief is the is information recorded that "covers" an 11 stop range, but essentially "squashes" the extremes of the curve to fit into 8 stops. So, while it doesn't burn out highlights, they are visually compressed in vertain instances.

... FWIW, I have met the VariCam designers and this is one topic they do not readily discuss. It's a trade secret, after all. No other video camera available for purchase has the sophistication of software capabilities as the VariCam (that I know of) and Panasonic isn't just giving the keys away, if you know what I mean. Hope this helps!

best-
Brian Wells
 
another thought...

another thought...

I am curious to hear your views on this, NBC. I thought about it some more and postulate this theory for the group. Perhaps the biggest advantage of a 2/3" vs. a 1/3" chip is not the directly related to the inherant latitude "possible" from the larger chip, but in the amount of gain that can be cranked into the larger chip without distracting noise. Interesting.

That being the case, along with a rudimentary understanding of CineGamma would easily explain to my contentment how exactly a 2/3" is at an advantage. I don't think the size of the imager makes so much of a difference in perceived latitude as does the gain before noise level spec.

Maybe this is old thought for some experienced technicians but for me, it's an epiphany.
 
Wells, just to clarify, 8 bit just means 256 shades of gray. That's the limit of the human eye's ability to dicern specific shades, in other words a seamless grey scale. A curve (Cinegamma, photoshop or other) is how your image information, regardless of how many stops it is, is mapped into thoes 256 shades. Theoretically there is no limit to how many stops culd be mapped into 256 shades it's just how much information you lose doing the conversion that matters. However it does seem that most DSPs are 14 bit these days so the image information is being manipulated in a superior bit rate and then down converted once the curve is applied. That should make for a relatively seamless image on screen.
 
thisiswells said:
I am curious to hear your views on this, NBC. I thought about it some more and postulate this theory for the group. Perhaps the biggest advantage of a 2/3" vs. a 1/3" chip is not the directly related to the inherant latitude "possible" from the larger chip, but in the amount of gain that can be cranked into the larger chip without distracting noise.
Click to expand...
Wells--it's funny you mention the noise issue, since that is my NUMBER ONE complaint with all of the 1/3"-CCD prosumer camcorders I've bought over the years.

Again, I'm not an engineer, I'm just a camera guy, but as I said before, "quiet," noise-free pictures appear to be a function of the quality of the sensor, size of sensor pixels, and, possibly most importantly, the camera's signal processing electronics. Although the encoding method (recording format) is also certainly a contributing factor to picture quality, I'm not sure that low-bandwidth recording in and of itself generates "noise"--perhaps it's just called something else--any engineers here--feel free to chime in--Barry, comments? Wait a second, I'm pretty sure encoding method DOES contribute to "noise" (at least in analog recording--I guess in digital, they're just called "artifacts?") In fact, sensor size may only be indirectly related to the noise equation simply by the fact that larger sensors tend to be of the "high quality" type, or simply may have larger pixels, and therefore, possess greater inherent light-gathering capability, again, I don't know. As far as the dynamic range issue and sensor size, that was just a guess on my part--I don't know for a fact that a larger CCD inherently has more dynamic range--that assumption may have become popular for the reason I just stated (2/3" CCDs tend to be of higher quality anyway since they go into much more expensive cameras). Anyway, my whole point to this admittedly wandering thread was to reply to the original post written by Chris, in which I was following the exact same purchase decision challenges, and it was comforting to know someone else was thinking the exact same thing.

By the way, I did NOT mean to turn this into a HVX200-bashing thread, or 1/3" CCD-bashing thread, it's just that I've spent so much money on 1/3" CCD cameras over the years (VX1000/VX2000/DVX100), and have NEVER been even remotely satisfied with the noise level that they produce, even in broad daylight at 0 dB, that I've finally come to the conclusion that I've got to go to a larger CCD size to attain the picture quality I can find minimally acceptable.
 
Evinsky, Thank you.

NBC, We're just guys talking 'bout cameras. I never thought you were bashing anything. It sounds like you are toiling over a very large purchase for your business; naturally you want the right tool for the job. :)
 
thisiswells said:
NBC, We're just guys talking 'bout cameras. I never thought you were bashing anything. It sounds like you are toiling over a very large purchase for your business; naturally you want the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Wells. True. This is the largest single purchase other than a car I will have ever made. Just over-compensating I guess now--trying to be politically-correct in the forum, since I have NEVER been accused of "trolling." Some people--sheesh! I agree, Wells, we're just guys talking 'bout cameras!
 
NBCshooter said:
it's just that I've spent so much money on 1/3" CCD cameras over the years (VX1000/VX2000/DVX100), and have NEVER been even remotely satisfied with the noise level that they produce, even in broad daylight at 0 dB, that I've finally come to the conclusion that I've got to go to a larger CCD size to attain the picture quality I can find minimally acceptable.
Click to expand...

I've used 2/3", 1/2", and 1/3" CCD cameras from each manufacturer extensively, in formats that include HDCAM, DVCProHD, DVCPro50/25, DVCAM, DigiBeta, Beta SP, HDV, and DV. My background is over 700 national television programs that aired on NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, Fox Sports Net, OLN, A&E, TLC, UPN, Speed, Dish Network, Prime Sports Network, and Comcast. Usual genres are adventure travel, alternative sports, music, lifestyle, and documentaries. My contributions to those programs was as a cameraman, editor, scriptwriter, director, producer, and executive producer. About 100 of those programs were hardlined into a truck, the remainder being ENG-style, and edited in post. Since you're an NBC shooter, you'll be curious about my NBC background. I was a cameraman in the late'90's for each of the Van's Triple Crown series that aired nationally on NBC (surfing, snowboarding, freestyle motocross). I don't share your opinion of 1/3" cameras. When the VX1000 started shipping in the mid '90's, we immediately started using it in custom water housings for our nationally-airing water sports programs. We also shot from helicopters with it, and used it extensively as a second unit camera. We intercut the VX1000 footage seemlessly with Beta SP. Likewise with the later VX2000, DVX100 & 100A, PD150 & 170 - we've used each of those cameras extensively for our nationally-airing mobile adventure travel and alternative sports programs. Footage from each was intercut well with footage from our 1/2" and 2/3" cameras. While all the "purists" were vowing to never use 1/3" DV cameras, we were winning Emmys and making good money with them! Our style of production has been to simply match the paint brushes to what we're trying to paint. Purists can debate endlessly about technical aspects of cameras and formats, but unless you're in a non-profit effort, the bottom line is creating a good program that viewers like, that then pans out in terms of profit margin. In the stark reality of today's fiscal climate, everyone from large organizations to boutique shops must maximize technology and minimize overhead. That involves using 1/3" cameras where possible. Each of the above mentioned networks have found the picture quality of our 1/3" camera footage acceptable. I've recieved over 50 national awards and multiple Emmy Awards for my nationally-airing television programs - and each of them either had 1/3" camera footage intercut with 1/2" and 2/3" camera footage, or was produced entirely with 1/3" cameras. You may not find 1/3" camera picture quality acceptable, but television networks, television viewers, and other producers and shooters do. The bottom line is creating a good story within a program, and sometimes a 1/3" camera is the most logical way to tell a particular story. Do I love the greater resolution and lattitude of my 1/2" and 2/3" cameras? Yes! Are there applications where a 1/3" camera just doesn't cut it? Yes! Are 1/3" cameras a great tool for certain broadcast television applications? Without question.

Case in point: I produced, directed, and was primary cameraman for a fast-paced, one hour, reality/documentary featuring the NFL Super Bowl week in Jacksonville. We had all-access passes, but a limited number of them. Besides myself, I had a talent person, and a second unit camera man - a total crew of three. Covering events all week, plus on-field after the game, and in the Patriot's locker room after the game, full-sized cameras were out of the question. Our cameras needed to be the "viewers eyes", essentially POV cameras, although we also needed to shoot tons of quick interviews. Gigantic hordes of crews using bulky 2/3" cameras were tripping all over each other in a rugby scrum, each trying to get the best shot. And who was getting the most creative "run and gun" shots? My crew. What were we shooting with? I used a VX2000, accessorized with a .65 wide converter, servozoom pistol grip, mini sungun, L bracket with a mini shotgun, and a small wireless mic system. My B cameraman used an XL1 accessorized in a similar way. We got 30 hours of high-quality footage. We easily met the tech specs of the producer's guidelines for each airing outlet. Our one-hour special, that I self-syndicated via time buy and barter to over 30 million homes across the country, aired on Dish Network (Men's Channel), and various network affiliate stations. The program has already won a a national Telly Award and will undoubtedly win others.

One week we're shooting with an F900 or Varicam - and the next week with a VX2000. We Check our egos at the door and simply match the tool to the job. By the way, several times at the Super Bowl we had shooters with bulky 2/3" rigs compliment us on having the perfect rigs for those crwoded, hectic shooting conditions. Resolution, grain, lattitude, etc., are definately prime considerations for certain end uses, but for other applications, mobility, utilitarian value, budget, reality-look, etc., are actually more important considerations. Since we are in the business to make a living at it, ratings and viewer appeal determine the bottom line. Are viewers nitpicking grain when you are telling a good story with your production? No. Us technophiles love to hash over the specs, but viewers just want to be entertained...

To tie back into the thread, I will use 1/3" DVCProHD (HVX200) and HDV (HD100) cameras extensively in my 1080i and 720p productions. Sometimes they will be second unit cameras, and other times the primary cameras. History is cyclical. In the '90's a large portion of pro shooters overlooked the fiscal and logistical possibilities of using 1/3" DV cameras - and now an equally large portion of pro shooters are insisting on overlooking the fiscal and logistical possibilities of using the HVX200 and HD100. Those of us who swallowed our egos and milked the possibilities of the 1/3" DV cameras are licking our chops at doing it again with the new 1/3" DVCProHD and HDV cameras. While we're out making lots of money and winning Emmys with them, the doubters will be on Internet tech boards endlessly debating why they shouldn't be used, or their technical shortcomings.

NBC Shooter, please don't take offense at what I've posted. My intention was not to flame anyone, but to give an experienced counter-perspective on 1/3" cameras. You sound like you have a real good television shooting background. I see you're based in L.A. Contact me offline if you're able to freelance. I hire experienced freelance shooters regularly and I have three new television series in development - 39 programs. All will be acquired with 1/3" HVX200, HD100, and DV equipment. SD airings will be down-rezzed from DVCProHD and HDV.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Gibby said:
Are viewers nitpicking grain when you are telling a good story with your production? No. Us technophiles love to hash over the specs, but viewers just want to be entertained...
Click to expand...

Ahhh. What a breath of fresh air! :thumbsup:
 
Gibby, there is no doubt that 1/3" cameras have their uses. I don't think anybody here suggested that they didn't. Certainly in a run and gun situation such as those you mentioned with a lot of running around a 1/3" camera would be very nice to have.

What you have mainly hit upon is that one needs to use the right camera for the job. For corporate productions, and stuff where there is time to set up shots given the choice I would rather use a 2/3".

Although I will say that using that shoulder strap that came with the 2/3" camera means that carrying it around isn't so much of a chore. In fact most of the time I find that its the tripods weight and size that annoys me more when carrying the equipment around rather than the camera!
 
Simon,

No doubt, when a budget or production values call for a 2/3" camera, I use one. About 15% of my overall production each year is for national business media clients. In pre-production, I analyze the budget, get on the same page with the client on the "look and feel" of the piece, and then make a determination on the format and camera best suited for that particular project. For my business media productions, that will usually be a 2/3" or 1/2" camera, although sometimes a 1/3" camera will achieve the "look" we're after.

You mentioned tripods. I remember well the pre-3 chip DV days of hiking up mountains and across beaches with a 30 lb. Betacam (or before that a heavy 3/4" rig), including a backpack full of Anton Bauer bricks, and a 30 lb tripod - about 85 lbs of equipment. And no production assistant. Whew! I like to call that the "packmule stage"! To get excellent images with today's lighter camera packages is a shooters dream. For my type of mobile production, the HVX200, DVX100A, HD100, Z1, VX2000, PD170, and XL2 are a dream come true - the benefits far outweigh the liabilities. I own several 2/3" and 1/2" camera systems, and rent what I don't have on an as needed per project basis.

I think it's important not to pre-judge the quality and application of the HVX200 and HD100. In the right professional hands they could very well make serious inroads into the 1/2" and 2/3" camera workspace. I would much rather watch footage shot by a master shooter in 1/3", than footage shot with an average shooter in 2/3" - and TV/video viewers will probably feel the same way, though they won't feel the need to go though mental gynastics to figure out why they like it.

The technology and options provided by today's camera and editing technology have me more excited about production than at any time in my 27 year career!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Absolutely, content and technical ability is king. The lightness of these cameras is great. Unfortunately with regards to tripods, a good sturdy tripod, especially one that holds a good shot on telephoto, even with a 1/3" camera, will still weigh a bit. I use the Miller DS25, which is considered lightweight. It has a convenient carrying handle. But after carrying it for a while its still a pain.

For the vast majority of my shooting career I used a trusty old Canon XM1 (GL1) as well as a few assorted others such as the DVX100. Its ease of use and control that makes me stick with 2/3" now for most stuff (as well as the better quality). I cannot for example imagine being able to do a steady handheld shot with a 1/3" camera while performing an iris pull and manually focussing at the same time.

If 1/3" camera manufacturers made all their camera layouts the same, and ergonmically correct, like they are with the 2/3" cameras, as well as making properly positioned lens control actions available, all on the lens barrel, I would probably move back again. The JVC HD100 looks very good, and I will be keeping an eye on both that and the HVX200.

I will say however that since I upgraded to the 2/3" camera, even people who know nothing about cameras, and who haven't seen me actually shooting (and so didn't know which camera I used) have commented that the picture quality has suddenly become so much more detailed.

But like you say right camera for the right job. I still charge the same for my services regardless however as my time is worth the same money whether I'm being paid to video with a webcam or a full size shoulder mount.
 
No offense Gibby, but my own original thoughts about camera formats had nothing to do with ego. Do you think I really want to triple my rental expense and lug around a bulky rig because of ego? And of course one would choose different rigs for different jobs. If I was running and gunning I wouldn't even remotely want a bigger rig. I have shot lots of Rock Doc stuff, and a small camera (my DVX) is the only way to go.

Also, I am sure we could find great shooters that could make 1/3 inch look better than how less-than-great shooters make 2/3 inch look. I bet Andretti could kick my ass in a Neon, even if I was driving a Vette, on a tight course.

I was simply interested in the possibilities of moving up the food chain on camera rigs, especially for feature work. There are still a tonne of distributors that will not touch a "DV" film, mostly because they don't know how to approach the market. I also suspect that most of us can't find a big name to be in our DV features. I have read recently that most of the studios who tried to distribute dramatic DV features, Tadpole, etc, have never made a cent. The production folks, i.e director, producer, etc, made line items from the 5 million dollar budget, but that's it.

The indie adage that it's all about story and quality may be true at the viewer level, but good luck with the process of trying to get a distributor on board so can get the film to the viewer level. Plus if Story and Quality was the only thing then why even bother trying to fight for a certain level of production quality.

Although I consider myself an Indie artist thru and thru, I would love to eventually work on bigger budget stuff. Projects that will make their way to lots of people.

In the end, if the HVX was released by the time I get into production on my next feature, I would probably shoot my film with it (All things being equal in relation to Panasonic's track record) I could at least couch my film as being High Definition, regardless of the chip size. The distributors are a fickle bunch. As it is now, I say I'm shooting a 24p project. Even from the DVX, this sounds more intriging then DV.

As far as getting my hands on a bigger chipped camera, well I was just exploring the possibilities, and the potential gains.

Cheers,
Chris.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top