HVX200 with DVX100! Multicamera setup.

petelms

petelms

Well-known member
Hi!

We are planning of shooting a studio with at least 2 cameras. We would use my coming HVX200 and then rent DVX100(s).

So, my question: Can you see the difference when you switch from DVX100 to HVX200 in multicamera setup? Of course, we would use MiniDV format on every camera. Is there so much difference in the picture that you will notice it and it will look bad...? Has someone tested this with these cameras?

Thank you.
, Pete.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I've just the exact same thing on a music concert.

There HVX200 is better than the DVX in SD, by quite a substantial margin.

What I recommend you do is use the HVX for the wides, where you need the detail and the DVX for the close stuff, that way it's difficult to compare them from a veiwers POV.

The preset colour balances are also very similar, so you've got no worries if you can implement this.
 
ROne said:
Hi,

I've just the exact same thing on a music concert.

There HVX200 is better than the DVX in SD, by quite a substantial margin.

What I recommend you do is use the HVX for the wides, where you need the detail and the DVX for the close stuff, that way it's difficult to compare them from a veiwers POV.

The preset colour balances are also very similar, so you've got no worries if you can implement this.
Click to expand...

ROne,

Could you please elaborate on why the HVX-200 is better in Dv25 than the 100A ? Color fidelity, resolution etc...

I ask because although I'll use the HD on occassion, a lot of my client work is still SD, including the need to shoot DV25. If the HVX-200 is an improvement on Dv25, then it's just more fuel to the "get a new camera fire". I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Thanks
 
I

I

I have both the hvx and dvx. I feel like the hvx looks better too but i have no reason and explanation why. to my knowledge there shouldnt be any reason for this. in fact, the hvx in sd isnt using the whole chip if your not shooting in 16:9 (correct me if im wrong).

im not complaining though
 
I recently shot interviews with both HVX and DVX. Except I used the HVX for closeup and the DVX for wide. My logic is the closeup will get more screen time. And the HVX looks WAY better! For the same reason a SDX900 looks better than a DVX, more information per pixel.(?)

The colors didnt match perfectly but pretty close.
td
 
By right the resolution for dvx and hvx for sd mode should be the same
and the scene file is the same as well, except for the lense.
but for most hdv camera, its will be one f stop darker min.
have not try the hdv yet, saving up for one though
 
I've done four shoots using the DVX and HVX together in DV mode, and I can't see any real difference between them --- certainly not any "substantial margin" (I don't even understand how that could be as they're virtually identical cameras in DV mode). They match up beautifully --- only a little tweaking needed.
 
The big difference is that in 16:9 modes the HVX is recording much more resolution because the DVX only has a 4:3 chip. The lens on the HVX is a bit better too.
 
Last edited:
booth said:
The big difference is that in 16:9 modes the HVX is recording much more resolution because the DVX only has a 4:3 chip. The lens on the HVX is a bit better too.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct about 16:9 mode. But I haven't really noticed that much difference between the two lenses. I know theoretically it's better, but can you tell the difference? Maybe we should do a double-blind study.
 
I feel I should point out, though, that the DVX is a lot more sensitive than the HVX. I recently shot 24 hours of opera with complex lighting, with both DVX and HVX (HVX in 720p30, though) and there were many low-light scenes that the DVX handled beautifully that the HVX couldn't get anything from. Both were set to 0 gain; the HVX, even at 1/30th exposure, couldn't compete with the DVX (in 60i) in the darker scenes.

If I'm not mistaken, the HVX gets no sensitivity benefit when in interlaced mode, as the initial capture is always progressive....

In other ways, the HVX is indeed superior, and certainly resolves a lot more. But the light sensitivity may be a big issue in drastic-light situations!
 
When I frst got the DVX, I was quite disappointed with it's SD performance in interlace, it didn't look a patch on my beta camera - the progressive was however the real reason we got it.

I've now used the DVX and HVX several times together, and in 16:9 (which we shoot in 90% of the time) - the HVX looks much closer to the Beta. It is very apparent, the HVX looks subjectively much more alive. It is to be said I do have an anamorphic lens for the DVX, but have found it to be pain in the neck but does bring the resolution close to the HVX.

I've have used both cameras on the same jobs and while integration between the two is possible you've got to be careful how you use them.

Remember the DVX has only a 16:9 squeeze mode and this really shows when you put it next to the native 16:9 of the HVX.

The colour fidelity and response it much more accurate on the HVX, there is less bleeding and the saturation holds with much less noise.

It is subjective but I can easily tell the cameras apart just from the footage.

Sensitivity I would go along with, though the HVX is fine with only about half-a-stop between it. I have not witnessed any noise that I consider difficult, and I wouldn't hesitate in using my HVX for the beta replacement.

If I can I will put up some shots from both cameras, shot at the same time.
 
Last edited:
ROne said:
If I can I will put up some shots from both cameras, shot at the same time.
Click to expand...

Hey, Rone! I would love to see that!!! Please, send us some footage! :love4: Thanks.
 
Are you guys recording the HVX to tape or P2 in these situations? Just curious if that makes a difference or not.

Joe
 
I've done both, just to test work flow, though on a long-form live broadcast I don't think P2 is ready for that yet!

The main difference would be how you transfer the files, but working with P2 is great even in SD because you can delete rubbish you don't want and use features like the pre-record function.

I will try with the footage as soon as I can.
 
Okay clips are done, only 5 secs a piece.

Both shot on same day, within 10 mins of each other, one using DVX - digital SQUEEZE and one using HVX - native 16:9 (confusingly digital squeez).

Important: for true representation these are SD clips and should be played back on a component video monitor with PAL resolution, but the difference is marked enough even on a computer monitor to see. (Do bear in mind your computer monitor will probably be scaling them up if played within media player and look noisier than they are in native rez.)

They look much better on CRT.

Both progressive, both on cine-like V.

http://www.nfo.speedpipe.co.uk/clips/HVX.avi

http://www.nfo.speedpipe.co.uk/clips/DVX.avi

right click-save as.

both about 20 meg a piece.
 
Last edited:
My experience and that of a few others should be noted here.
While the HVX is much cleaner than a DVX100A and may have better highlight handling than 100A or 100B, I see serious problems with interlace artifacting at SD 60i only. You see it mostly on sharp straight diagonal lines as they move either from camera movement (try tilting up & down) or their movement on the shot.
This is goes away in Progressive. It is a normal part of interlace video in general , just seems particularely bad on the HVX and on the DVX it seemed about the same in SD or Progressive.

I am interested in whether other people see this. I have been trying to get Panny to respond and talked briefly to Barry at NAB yesterday. It may affect intercutting between the 2.
I have mostly looked at it in 4:3 , but have seen it in 16:9 as well though I don't know if its as bad in 16:9 or if DVX squeeze has comparable issues.






I am very intereswted in feedback from others
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top