HVX200 vs HVX200a -- a side-by-side low-light comparison

Barry, how likely/UN-likely do you think might be that the 170 ends up being a little more sensitive and/or having wider dynamic range than the 200a?
170 being "more" sensitive? Not likely at all. In fact, if there's a difference (and that's an IF) I'd say the 200A is more likely to be the more sensitive, just because it has bigger glass (82mm vs. 72mm).

For dynamic range, I bet they'll be identical. It's the same chipset.
 
170 being "more" sensitive? Not likely at all. In fact, if there's a difference (and that's an IF) I'd say the 200A is more likely to be the more sensitive, just because it has bigger glass (82mm vs. 72mm).

For dynamic range, I bet they'll be identical. It's the same chipset.

Yes, that's what I saw you saying and others mentioning... 72mm means either less light or a more expensive lens... maybe Pana is making enough with the P2 lineup that they might give us that included in the price?

I'll get some tomorrow (saturday) when I actually have a free moment. =\

I'll he waiting, thank you!
 
* There was a few requests for still shots prior to compression. I don't have time to post stills from each scene file right now, but here are shots from scene file 5 (Cine D), which we all seem to agree looks the worst as far as noise is concerned:
HVX-200 -- Scene File 5 / HVX-200a -- Scene File 5

i'm really curious about the hvx200a. people who are owning it - or have been trying it - seem to be astonished by the noise improvment. but when i match color and levels for these 2 pics in photoshop i don't see a huge difference in noise. is the noise improved for all the gammas equally? is it really night and day in comparison with the hvx200 or is it a slight improvment (for noise only i mean)?
 
i'm really curious about the hvx200a. people who are owning it - or have been trying it - seem to be astonished by the noise improvment. but when i match color and levels for these 2 pics in photoshop i don't see a huge difference in noise. is the noise improved for all the gammas equally? is it really night and day in comparison with the hvx200 or is it a slight improvment (for noise only i mean)?

Not sure what it is about those two pictures but I do agree that they look almost equally "noisey" from the get-go. I can attest to, however, the immediate and completely visible difference in image clarity.

It may really be a matter of real-world vs real-world, although you should be able to tell from a still alone.

I would rate, on a scale of one to ten (1 - 10) the image improvement at about 7 or 8 over the 200. That's a pretty high number.

I seriously will make at getting some stills tomorrow, although I wanted to wait to post something up with controlled lighting and an interesting setup.
 
do it right then Kholi, whatever you can get to us is great

All I am asking for is dynamic camera, skin tones and sunlight... adding controlled lighting as a fourth point would be a great idea
 
Patience! I really don't wanna post up run-of-the-mill footages. I'd rather do some controlled fun and at least a few 200-to-200A comparison shots.

Must wait must wait.
 
Patience! I really don't wanna post up run-of-the-mill footages. I'd rather do some controlled fun and at least a few 200-to-200A comparison shots.

Must wait must wait.

I have no patience and you said Saturday. :tongue:
 
i'm really curious about the hvx200a. people who are owning it - or have been trying it - seem to be astonished by the noise improvment. but when i match color and levels for these 2 pics in photoshop i don't see a huge difference in noise. is the noise improved for all the gammas equally? is it really night and day in comparison with the hvx200 or is it a slight improvment (for noise only i mean)?

I did the same thing, and the noise difference did seem less, but there's almost no chroma information in the shots so it's hard to judge those levels. On the other hand, when I completely desaturated both images the noise advantage for the 200a was dramatically better.

So, while these images and the movie are extremely encouraging where the 200a's low light/noise perfomance are concerned, I'd love to see some shots in similarly low light that have a good variety of color information in them. Perhaps someone with both cams could try that. I am seriously considering trading up to a 200a, so it would be very much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I shed a tear cause I am missing the footage,
but still alright to smile,
170 I think about you eve'ry day now.

There was a time when I wasn't sure,
but 170, you set my mind at ease,
there is no doubt you are in my heart now.

Said Pana take it slow,
it will work itself out fine,
all we need is just a little less noise.

Said sugar take it slow,
it will come together fine,
though we could use a 32 P2 card.
 
I shed a tear cause I am missing the footage,
but still alright to smile,
170 I think about you eve'ry day now.

There was a time when I wasn't sure,
but 170, you set my mind at ease,
there is no doubt you are in my heart now.

Said Pana take it slow,
it will work itself out fine,
all we need is just a little less noise.

Said sugar take it slow,
it will come together fine,
though we could use a 32 P2 card.

Dude!
 
Very hot and dusty. We will shoot in a big town, in Santo Domingo, where it´s even worse. We will get really fried there. At night it´s MUCH better. So the 170 will safe us!:smile:

And yes, Kholi, if it´s 9-12 db that would be almost too much to stay sane.


Ah Santo Domingo. I'll be heading down there to visit family in about 2 weeks. I'm very interested in the film industry down there. I think there is a lot of potential--my goal is to try to make a film or two down there myself. What type of project will you guys be working on?
 
OK Kholi, one more day without your 'report' and we're commin to get you. :furious3: ............................ :-Laugh(DBG):
 
Back
Top