HVX200 vs HVX200A

[drdimento]

Wondering if anyone who has both (or had one then got the other ) could give me a "no bones" plain jane comparison to HOW MUCH improvement the image LIGHT and QUALITY is on this new image sensor?

In other words, to me the HVX200 has been a light hungry machine and yet the DVX100B has been a sweet spot in low light both from image capture ability and low grain. Does the HVX200A get the HVX within reach of THAT KIND of low light or is it marginally better?

Before I go dumping 5200 low value dollars on an A model to get better low light performance AND less grain, I'm asking the question - is it worth it to pay the additional $500 over a "non A" model when I'm not really pleased with the low light capacity of IT.

Dr D is wanting better pictures at low light with both 720 and 1080 HD on either tape OR solid state without giving up my individually controlled and set up A & B channel audio flexibilities (in other words were it not for these limitations on the XH-A1 I'd buy three of them tomorrow - well, really Monday or Tuesday )

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi,

I think off hand, from your commentary, you would be very pleased with the 200A. It does do a better job in low light and as seen from some of the clips on this board, there is less noise in the picture.

Hope this helps,

Jan

 

[drdimento]

. . . you would be very pleased with the 200A. It does do a better job in low light . . . there is less noise in the picture. Hope this helps, Jan

Thank you Jan for this input. I think what I'm really seeking without the necessary technical data is a reference or benchmark to draw from in this matter.

Is the HVX200A more like the DVX100B with regard to low light? While we'd obviously like way more low light capability (doesn't everyone ) we are quite pleased with the DVX100B in low light image and noise. Again, we'd love to see it way better but quite pleased and if the 200A were there we'd be very pleased.

Any benchmark/reference would be greatly appreciated . . by that I mean the specs are great but for a former industrial scientist, video specs to me are . . let's say . . boring? I just need to know how it does?

BTW, I'm not meaning to be disrespectful in this request at all, I just am struggling to find a way in which reference my wishes vs my needs ) Having been from the Nikon FM2 world with lots of gadgets and very expensive Gossen light meter I understand what Barry Green means when he says ISO500 or ISO200 and can reference that data in my mind but I just can't seem to translate that into looking at the LCD and saying "how do I get rid of the grain and poor image" when the light is too low and I can't fix it (because it's live OR uncorrectable because of client requirements) Therein, I'm normally A-OK with the DVX100B but we are hoping to elimiate ALL SD productions here which will mean we HAVE to have good light performance and are desperate to find that solution quickly as we rapidly need six cameras in our two unit capabilities.

To this end we have been reading, studying, and bugging everyone we know to get a handle on performance looking and searching through Panasonic (our preference by far) Canon, Red, Sony, and JVC in that order of likability by us but are hard pressed to find the benchmark comparison that "feels good" instead of looks good on paper. Producing 156 SD output videos last year we feel quite experienced with all six of our DVX100B's but very inexperienced with our HVX200 and its' respective 9 videos last year; however, we use the camera more and more and are committed to HD this year 100% and in this "push" we are discovering that it is light hungry (our untechnical term ) and seek either a fix or an alternative. Thus, the "A" is at an appropriate time for us but we seek a reference mark to the DVX100B with which to "feel" good about justifying the expense.

Thanks for your assistance and input. BTW, I do feel my mind going ;o)

 

[Ted Spencer]

Quick, before you mind goes completely, have a look at this thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=133576

The movie download is very...um...illuminating, and there is lots of goood info in the various posts. It's pretty much convinced me to sell my HVX200 and get a 200a. I think the combination of improved low light sensitivity and lower noise makes it look like it's around a full stop faster, even though it's not generally described that way by some of our esteemed colleagues like Barry Green. IIRC, he had it at about 500 asa, compared to 320 for the HVX200. The DVX is about 640, or a full stop better than the HVX200.

But again, in this linked video, the net improvement looks an awful lot like a whole stop, which would make it functionally equivalent to a DVX in low light.

For me, I'm pretty sure that will be worth the cost of the exchange.

YMMV

 

[drdimento]

Quick, before you mind goes completey, have a look at this thread: . . . . . The movie download is very...um...illuminating, and there is lots of goood info in the various posts. . . . YMMV

I actually had read this thread however the movie is in an .OCG format which precludes me from watching it simply because I avoid "installs" on our business computers AND from experience we've learned to keep anything and everything OFF the editing machines other than those absolutely necessary )

Thus, I haven't gotten to see the footage. How does the comparative look?

 

[jimpatro]

No offense to anyone but I still haven't seen a controlled comparison. We need to compare separate images taken at identical stops, focal lengths, scene file settings, with black and white balance.

I'm not yet convinced as to the radical improvement of the 200a over the 200.

 

[Ted Spencer]

I actually had read this thread however the movie is in an .OCG format which precludes me from watching it simply because I avoid "installs" on our business computers AND from experience we've learned to keep anything and everything OFF the editing machines other than those absolutely necessary )

Thus, I haven't gotten to see the footage. How does the comparative look?

Well, kinda like I described it in the post you're quoting : ) About a whole stop better.

I downloaded a QuickTime patch that let it run the .OCG format without incident (I forget the exact process). I think you have little to worry about there.

The footage makes for a very clear comparison, although it's nearly monochrome.

 

[John Godden]

I actually had read this thread however the movie is in an .OCG format which precludes me from watching it simply because I avoid "installs" on our business computers AND from experience we've learned to keep anything and everything OFF the editing machines other than those absolutely necessary )

Thus, I haven't gotten to see the footage. How does the comparative look?

I did the ocg install and checked out the vids.

I'd tell you what I thought of them ................... but you really need to see em yourself. :evil:.

.
.
.
.
.
.




LOL............ OK, the low light 200a clips look like a pretty substantial improvement (over the 200) to me.

ciao baby
JohnG

 

[drdimento]

No offense to anyone but I still haven't seen a controlled comparison. We need to compare separate images taken at identical stops, focal lengths, scene file settings, with black and white balance. I'm not yet convinced as to the radical improvement of the 200a over the 200.

hmmmm, glad someone else jumped in here with this thought i has having also ) and again, it's no offense or disrespect intended, but really, now about some nuts and bolts comparisons that folks can just talk about instead of speical video formats, different settings, tweaked set ups, etc. How about a comparison of the cameras side by side under the same low light, medium light, too much light, etc. and let it fall where it does. That's what we did with the Sony HDV and basically we could hardly tell the HDV material from the HVX .mxf material UNTIL we got to low light AND panning. The HDV failed miserably under both scenarios. Otherwise under proper lighting and slooooooow pans, it was basically a wash . . well almost . . as Barry Green pointed out in his technical write up on the comparison of the HVX200 and the "A" model while referencing the EX1 and some others . . the color was richer and more better (I just love that way of saying it . . more better) )

Well, kinda like I described it in the post you're quoting : ) About a whole stop better. I downloaded a QuickTime patch that let it run the .OCG format without incident (I forget the exact process). I think you have little to worry about there. The footage makes for a very clear comparison, although it's nearly monochrome.

Im downloading the movie and if it will play in my QT Pro then so be it but Im not a fan of plug ins or "odd" file names . . remember . . if you read many of my posts you will find that I'm the ONLY ONE who has ever had hard drives fail, SD cards fail, USB flash drives fail, and thus the only one worried about solid state media workflow and thus just as paranoid about "download anything" as I've gotten viruses, hard drive failures, and application corruptions, resulting from it. And yes I paid for my Apple QT Pro license ) See after all my Apple/Mac nightmares and mother board replacements and video card failures . . I still bought another Apple product )

BTW, why can't the movie just be a straight QT? I've played 1080 stuff in my player quite comfortably although I had to double click the player so it will reduce the image to full screen (wide screen) or only get to watch about 1/4 corner of the movie )

I did the ocg install and checked out the vids. I'd tell you what I thought of them ................... but you really need to see em yourself. :evil:. . . . . . LOL............ OK, the low light 200a clips look like a pretty substantial improvement (over the 200) to me. ciao baby JohnG

John Godden . . now your kewl. Finally someone with a sense of humor. All the seriousness and icey feet on the HMC150/HPX170 thread has had me walking on tip toes for fear that just the slightest of jokes might flare a flame war. Thanks for the humor dude . . and BTW . . I would love to see 'em ) That's what I been talking about all along . . but this OCG thing IS a shareware . . that's a no no here. Shareware = trouble. We three Avid/Edius/Premier Pro/Adobe Photoshop CS2 editing computers that NEVER see the internet, and one Cubase SL3 that never sees the internet, otherwise it's the business computer and it does see the internet but since it's BUSINESS and not shareware play stuff, no shareware . . that's how we lost 1 years Quick Books files once . . shareware that had a virus.

Any way to view that stuff in QT High Def? With all you Apple guys out there, geeez, your machines are native QT. Guys like me on the Avid side we actually have to down convert to get there. C'mon )

 

[Barry_Green]

Talk to Kholi, he's done probably the most extensive 200 to 200A testing so far. The 200A is about 1/2 stop faster, but as far as noise performance goes, I think Kholi's of the opinion that you can push the 200A to at least 9dB, if not 12dB, before the grain gets to the point where the 200 looks like at 0dB.

 

[Kholi]

And that's in CineD. Since I've purchased the 200A I haven't left CineD at all. That, my friends, is an amazing feat all it's own.

Just finished a weekend long shoot with the 200A and Ultimate and the DP himself (experienced with the 200) literally popped 6dB of gain on in CineD at will with NO remorse.

Barry's also pretty on about the light differences. His test was in HD Norm (I think?) and I still see that half-a-stop in CineD, man. Just now I can see detail in the shadows without an extensive amount of crawling artifacts. At least nowhere near as much as the 200 has.

I wish I had the time to grab another 200 to do a side-by-side for you guys but that stuff takes more time than one would think. It's hard as it is to get up stills but my verdict is that the 200A is absolutely fantastic. I haven't gone into the other gammas yet (and really just don't see a need to any longer) but it probably only gets better since I'm using the worst of the bunch and it's clleaaan clean clean.

Can't wait for the 170!

 

[Ted Spencer]

Like I said, it's apparently a half stop technically speaking, but that combined with the noise reduction seems to "net" a greater benefit. More like a whole stop, or more.

Being able to use 6db or more of gain and still be quieter than the 200 seems to me in effect like another stop of light efficiency.

However you parse the data, it seems like a very substantial improvement on what was arguably the camera's greatest weakness. Nice...

 

[dantewaters]

yea the 200A is clean clean. I have been shooting under exposed, and the grain I do see looks very natural something you'd probably see from a film camera (like in prison break). If you guys would like me to post some stills from inside this church just ask.

 

[roxynik]

yea the 200A is clean clean. I have been shooting under exposed, and the grain I do see looks very natural something you'd probably see from a film camera (like in prison break). If you guys would like me to post some stills from inside this church just ask.

Very nice if you post some stills thank you:2vrolijk_08:

 

[dantewaters]

Just screen grabs I see you guys like to scrutinize the footage huh : -) here you go:

Sorry for the delay would have had them up sooner, but the aspect ratio was all screwed up here are a few (keep checking back for updates):

(blurry because he was moving and I was hand held)

 

[drdimento]

yea the 200A is clean clean. I have been shooting under exposed, and the grain I do see looks very natural something you'd probably see from a film camera (like in prison break). If you guys would like me to post some stills from inside this church just ask.

Yes, I too would loooooove to see some ) Especially if you have "anything" that would comparative . . like as in the 200 setting beside the 200A with EXACTLY the same settings under low light and medium light ) hmmmmm, maybe I should also ask to be paid to view it ??? rogar-BigGrin(DBG) Just kidding )

 

[dantewaters]

Stills added guys...

 

[drdimento]

Stills added guys...

Nice "dantewaters" is that with the 200"A" ??

I'm especially looking at the podium shot and the girl praying and I can just imagine the darkness associated and there doesn't appear to be any grain at all.

Care to comment on what you might have expected with the 200 and not the "A"?

 

[dantewaters]

Yes it is the 200A from what I've seen at B&H and from the A1 (HD isn't great with low light mainly due to the 1/3 chips)... Once you under expose and areas become too dark (there is loads of noise).

I hadn't owned a 200 but I saw it countless times at B&H and yes the A is much cleaner.

 

[drdimento]

Wow, "dantewaters" I've been studying those pics a little closer and I'm guessing that definately that praying picture would have resulted in some edit noise. Hmmmm, looking good.

If anyone else has some side by side 200 x 200A I'd loooooove to see 'em and if they don't want to post 'em then they can email them to me and that would be fine.

Getting Anxious ! ! ! )