HVX questions

H

happysnapz

Member
Hi All,
I need to buy a new camera but need to know more about panasonics hd and dvcpro formats.
My sony camera has likely bit the dust as it requires an expensive fix to replace the lens due to mould! Other than that its perfect but a bit out of date. I have used the dvx 100, 102A, 102B and have experienced some issues, including quite a major one but as I am in the market for a new camera this is probably at the top of my list. I dont like the look of the sony z1, the jvc or the canon mostly for the compression issues.

My questions here will concern the PAL version. Although dv has been my format I would like to shoot higher quality images for broadcast and cinema. My work has been varied including television, TVC's, weddings and shorts. Lots of run and gun 1 man band doco type stuff.

1. I shoot mostly dv so here is my first question. How does this camera perform compared to the DVX102 when using the hvx in dv mode? Light sensitivity, picture quality, chipset, lense? I have heard it looks pretty much the same and if I was only going to shoot dv then why bother with the hvx because its exactly the same image. Is this true?

2. Shooting in any other format other than dv requires using a P2 card I believe. So does this mean that all the compression issues found in hdv are fixed making this camera much better for fast action sports, fast pans, slow motion with no noticeable strobing and hdv mpeg2 artifacts, if so how has panasonic done this - is it not mpeg2 gop. Is speed ramping possible in post and is altering individual frames possible which can not be done in some other hd formats? Is there artifacts and strobing with the hvx?

3. I've seen discussions saying this camera is not true HD image size. Can anyone explain this issue please? I see there are about 20 hd formats in use and I am confused

4. Other than P2 cards, what else do I need for importing into FCP. Is firestore all that is required to transfer footage via firewire800.

5. Is this the first generation of the HVX200? Any idea when the next model is due for release?

Wow thats a lot of questions so if anyone can help, A big thanks.

Cheers
Happysnapz
 
I have not shot with the DVX102. I've shot the DVX100a and the HVX200 side by side in DV mode. I think that the HVX200 is optimized for HD, and that the DV it produces is very similar to, but not of the same quality as the DV produced by the DVX series, which is optimized for SD. Just my opinion. I found the images in side by side comparrisons to be a little bit flatter, a little noisier, and to have a little poorer low light performance than the DVX. I was trying to use settings on the HVX to make it as comparable as possible with the DVX. Its all a matter of taste and sensitivity. The DV picture out of the HVX is certainly good enough and easily matched with the DVX.

I haven't shot action with the HVX200, so I can't speak about motion artifacts. However, the HVX200 records in 13 different formats. It uses the DVXPRO-HD codec. In 720p mode the images is compressed from 1280x720 to 960x720 and has to be expanded in post. HOWEVER... when compared with HDV, the color sampling is 4:2:2 instead of 4:1:1. So you've got 1/3rd less horizontal detail, but double the color information. Again, all a matter of taste, but the HVX200 shooting in either DVCPRO50 mode (SD, but 4:2:2 color) or in any of the HD modes produces gorgeous images. The additional color information, in my opinion, more than makes up for the detail.

I believe that when people say that DVCPRO-HD is not "True HD" they are referring to this compression technique. But you must remember that the final image is 1280x720. And resolution is not the only factor that defines an image. Technically, DVCPRO-HD conforms to the standard and is an HD format. Some people may be comparing DVCPRO-HD to some of the higher resolution formats in the HD standard. Those are HD as well, even though they have more pixels and perhaps less compression. I finally decided that its a literary technicality and unimportant. The final image is the right size and it looks great.

I haven't shot in HDV, so I can't speak from experience. But I've heard from people shooting in both, the because of the group encoding format, HDV tends to burn CPU time and slow down the editing process. I've edited 720p DVCPRO-HD in a variety of frame rates on a Mac G5 and found no delays. It gives me the about same performance as if I were editing SD DV.

No word on a follow-up HVX200 as far as I know from what I've read.

The Variable Frame Rate recording enables in-camera slow motion and fast motion effects that are glass smooth, when compared with effects created in post, because there are no "artificial" frames created and no "real" frames dropped. When you record in VFR you lose the ability to record sound. If you want sound and you want to be able to perform quality speed changes in post, then you can record in the 720p60p format for full 60-frames per second. That's on the NTSC version. I don't have the PAL so I don't know the equivalent. Also, 720p60p records sound.

You can shoot in HD to the P2 card and then dub in the camera to tape. That means that all of the features in HD are at least accessbile to you in SD/DV in a DV widescreen image.

I think that working with the HVX, and learning to use the P2 card means defining a workflow. There are so many ways to get information out of the P2 that you really have to sit down and figure out what techniques work for your application.

I have read that the direct-to-disk recorders don't work in all formats, and that for such things as VFR you must still record to P2. Check the forums for advice from those with experience.

I've recorded live events in DV to tape with a DVX and an HVX. And I've shot short films using the HVX. I think if you shoot the HVX with the P2 card for a day and then take a look at the footage, you'll find that what it produces is so beautiful, that the camera works so well, and that the P2 card is so different from tape, that you will not want to go back to SD/tape after the experience.

If you can rent an HVX200 to try it, and then test out some of the situations that you've seen that create motion artifacts, it might be a good idea. That way you'll see what the camera produces rather than relying on so many opinions.

a votre service,

Andy
 
Last edited:
Thanks Andy, thats really good info you posted.

"You can shoot in HD to the P2 card and then dub in the camera to tape. That means that all of the features in HD are at least accessbile to you in SD/DV in a DV widescreen image."

I have 2 questions regarding the quote above.

1. is 4:3 and 16:9 available in all formats in both HD and SD?
2. I understand from what I read that I can record HD onto the P2 cards - and then dub that image to tape which I can then transfer to a NLE system via firewire in dv format at a data rate of 3.6 Mb per second. I will retain all the information other than the image size which would shrink to 720 * 576 (PAL).
And does this mean that shooting HD to P2 and downconverting to DV looks better than shooting direct to tape in SD DV format? Improved colour, detail etc.
I understand I will lose quality compared to HD but all my output in the near future will be SD. I just would like to know how good the image looks after down-converting.

Thanks again,
Happysnapz
 
1. HD is only 16:9. SD is 4:3 or 16:9. Downconverting HD to SD will always be done in 16:9.

2. No, downconverted HD-to-DV looks about the same, maybe a little softer, than the native SD DV.
 
Thanks Barry,

In your opinion how suitable is the HD camera for SD/DV.
I am reading that the image quality is not as good and you say softer yourself. While that makes perfect sense that the camera is optimized for HD, are people viewing the footage going to see the quality loss or are we really getting technical here and being nerds. I would like to buy HD but theres not much use for it where I am YET! but I am sure it will soon. We dont have HD tv where I am and most tv's are still 4:3
The HD will still have its uses outside of TV but most people I work for want 4:3.

cheers
 
In SD mode the HVX enjoys some advantages over the DVX (specifically in dynamic range and in 16:9 mode). But the DVX has its own advantages, especially in that it's twice as sensitive (and if you're shooting interlaced, it's 4x as sensitive!)

If all you need is an SD camera and 4:3, the DVX is an excellent choice and I'm continually amazed by how good the footage looks (I think almost all of the HeroFest entries were DVX-shot, and some of them look fantastic).

When I said softer, that was for footage that was recorded in HD and then downconverted to DV. What I'm saying is: HVX SD is sharper than downconverted HD that gets in-camera downconverted to DV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top