HVX200 PAL vs. DVX102 in SD

[LuisReggiardo]

Hi,
I was wondering these two scenarios and how both cameras would compare based on preliminary technical data:

SCENARIO 1:

HVX200 PAL 1080 @ 25p on P2 cards --> downconverted to 625 @ 25P
VS.
DVX102 PAL 625 @ 25P

SCENARIO 2:

HVX200 PAL 625 @ 25P on MiniDV tape
VS.
DVX102 PAL 625 @ 25P


My point is:
-Anybody knows if the HVX200 has "better" optics / colour processor / compression algorithms / GOP / etc. in order to archive a more "film-like" image at 25P and SD than that from the latest DVX102?

-If not: Could the HD->SD downconversion improve this?

Take in mind that the DVX102 had many improvements over the DVX100 regarding image controls, so I guess they builded up the HVX200 based on the same electronics.

Luis

 

[mmm]

The best way to record SD on the HVX would be using the 4:2:2 DVCPRO 50 SD codec, which records ONLY to P2.

That way, the codec is certainly superior to DV on the DVX but as far as the camera output, we simply don't know yet.

There are quite a few threads about this topic, so have a browse through those for more details... People have been bashing the subject out for a while.

BTW, neither camera uses a interframe GOP compression. DV, DVCPRO HD&50 are all intraframe.

 

[khmuse]

Thankfully, neither the DVX nor the HVX is a MPEG based device so the concern over the GOP (Group Of Pictures) dose not apply.

To answer the rest of your post would require speculation, but I would be willing to bet that the HVX would be an advantage even if your final project will be a 625 PAL SD video one. If you want 16:9 aspect ratio, that alone could be justification for the HVX.

 

[Barry_Green]

My point is:
-Anybody knows if the HVX200 has "better" optics / colour processor / compression algorithms / GOP / etc. in order to archive a more "film-like" image at 25P and SD than that from the latest DVX102?

Nobody knows. However, it seems reasonable to expect that the HVX will be at least as capable as the DVX, regarding color processing etc.

The main advantage, for SD, is the DVCPRO50 mode with mild compression and 4:2:2 color. If you want SD work, that's a huge advantage. HUGE. And, if you want 16:9, the HVX has native 16:9 chips.

It remains to be seen how the camera performs regarding sensitivity, dynamic range, and signal-to-noise. We don't know any of those answers yet.

-If not: Could the HD->SD downconversion improve this?

HD converted to SD will not yield an image superior to a comparable product shooting native SD. So assuming the optics and chips and processing are all delivering comparable performance, downconversion in and of itself isn't going to gain you anything.

 

[Policar]

To be honest, I'm a bit worried about the hvx's sensors. I'm honestly hoping they are lower resolution than I fear they may be (1280X720 tops, please!).

If the dvx has one serious flaw, it's that it produces VERY grainy footage and seems to have terrible gain circuitry. Heck, even outdoors scenes with 0db of gain can get irritatingly grainy, and dark purples look awful sometimes, even when decently lit. While Sony managed to produce the fx1 without introducing tons of video noise, they did it at the expense of sensetivity. So either the hvx will be INCREDIBLY grainy due to smaller photosites, or it will have bad sensetivity. I wish they'd just admit that f10@2000 lux or whatever is marketing garbage and release a camera (unlike the dvx) without absurd amounts of built in gain. The JVC is supposed to have good sensetivity, but lots of video noise. Same with the dvx. Both the XL2 and FX1 are less sensetive, but much cleaner in terms of video noise. It's not hard to figure out what's going on. Gain is a relative measure, because +12db only equals +12db if you start from the same place! I applaud Sony for allowing us to choose a cleaner image if we want. (Heck, release the hvx with a -6db gain option, I think the gl2 has something like it. Low light sensetivity is not everything!)

The one thing that makes me feel a little safer is that my digirebel xt is quite noisy at 1600ISO but only at full resolution. A 720X480 crop would be pretty unacceptable for tv, especially when underexposed. An image scaled down to DV resolution looks clean, though. Not perfect, but MUCH cleaner. Plus, fine grain can look nice. I love the look of film grain when it's fine and not overdone. Furthermore, I saw a print of a movie shot on 35mm and edited on what looked like DV projected (from film) on the bigscreen. It looks pretty awful. The noise had that blue/yellow blocky look indicitive of the 4:1:1 color space.

So, theoretically, 4:2:2 could help reduce the effects of color noise, which is the ugliest kind anyhow.

I'm still crossing my fingers, though for a less sensetive, but less noisy camera....