PLEASE EXPLAIN THE TECHI SIDE OF THIS Hvx vs. an HD cam

... and you still wouldn't match it, because you wouldn't have 1080p, and you wouldn't have the variable frame rates in 720, and you wouldn't have DVCPRO50 mode, etc.
 
The JVC is not in the same class as the HVX nor is itreally in the same price range if you want to actually shoot HD with it. The HVX requires that you either invest in some P2 cards or a Hard Drive solution or whatever other options Barry listed earlier. It is going to cost more...I think significantly more than the JVC. The JVC you can buy and stick a plain ol DV tape in it and it shots HD. Not a high quality but HD.

That alone will make a lot of lower end purchasers buy it even though the image qulaity and format are inferior to the HVX.

I want the HVX myself so there is no arguing which I prefer. BUt I have to think of the people out there who need HD but not to the leel of the HVX. HDV will work quite well for some.
 
icicle22 said:
I realized that when I was on my way to the store to buy some bread......my bad. But I think you get my point. We don't have to put down one format to make ours look better do we?
Click to expand...

Very true. And for the record, I resisted the desire to say it in a condescending way, I figured I would say it plain and first to avoid that blowing up. I do get what you're saying. Not saying I did you a favor, just saying I resisted being snooty. :evil:

My uneducated diagnosis is that since the capture format seems to be the last thing compared from anyone dogging the HVX or trying to prove that the JVC is better, some of us feel it's nesesary to keep bringing it up. At least for myself, the codec(s) are the main draw of interest to me. If the HD100 had a comparable codec or a better one, I would probably be singing the praises of JVC. Most everything else about that camera seems pretty good so far.

I personally like to get the best quality original form I can and go from there. There is of course better cameras, but both the cost of the camera and the equiptment required to use them is way out of my league. The HVX is right on the fence from professional from what I see. It will be quite a step up for HD, but lets not forget the 3 SD modes it has.
 
icicle22 said:
BUt I have to think of the people out there who need HD but not to the level of the HVX. HDV will work quite well for some.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The sheer form factor alone will attract some buyers. Certain specialized situations that require interchangeable lenses will make the JVC the preferable camera for those jobs. And there's no denying that for someone wanting to make a documentary backpacking through sub-Saharan Africa, it would probably be more cost-efficient and practical to do so on tapes.

The question of whether HDV is the appropriate format is one that each customer can answer for themselves, obviously. But it should be clear that no one tool is perfect for all jobs.

However, I do think that the backpacker-through-sub-Saharan Africa scenario will be applicable to maybe 0.002% of the camera buyers. I think the P2/HD solution will work just fine for almost all who are willing to try it -- in fact, I predict that once they try it, they will be most *unwilling* to go back to a tape-based camera. Granted, there are those who won't be willing to try it. And nobody's forcing them to.
 
...yeah , ive got a freind like that.. completely unwilling to try vegetables. he wont eat anything with them in there, even if he cant taste them.. it just knowing they are in there. ..doesnt know whats good for him.

..oh well.. you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make them drink.
 
Barry_Green said:
Absolutely. The sheer form factor alone will attract some buyers. Certain specialized situations that require interchangeable lenses will make the JVC the preferable camera for those jobs. And there's no denying that for someone wanting to make a documentary backpacking through sub-Saharan Africa, it would probably be more cost-efficient and practical to do so on tapes.

The question of whether HDV is the appropriate format is one that each customer can answer for themselves, obviously. But it should be clear that no one tool is perfect for all jobs.

However, I do think that the backpacker-through-sub-Saharan Africa scenario will be applicable to maybe 0.002% of the camera buyers. I think the P2/HD solution will work just fine for almost all who are willing to try it -- in fact, I predict that once they try it, they will be most *unwilling* to go back to a tape-based camera. Granted, there are those who won't be willing to try it. And nobody's forcing them to.
Click to expand...

Barry.....I am really not trying to be a jerk but.... have you actually used P2 cards in your real workflow? I am not being sarcastic but I am wondering if you have first hand experience working with this new age workflow or if you just feel strongly that it is the way to go. You are so adamant about it that it seems you have used it. Just asking. Not being attacking... but inquisitive.

Peace
 
So a large and fast enough harddisk that handles 12,5 or 5 MB/s (depending on what format you want to shoot in) makes the HVX _much more expensive_ than the JVC HDV cam?

And yes sorry but I'm mostly with Barry here.. HDV or more exactly MPEG2 with intraframe compression is a format that was concieved for delivery and not for first generation recording! And it clearly shows - mostly of course because of the low data rate of a normal DV tape... I used the Z1 myself and you can have beautiful shots but if you've got lots of movement in the picture and than try to CC it or look at it frame by frame or slomo.. it gets ugly. And this is something that eg. MiniDV never had - although it is highly compressed each and every frame gets the same number of bits from the bit reservoir to be compressed to.
You don't even need much movement... take a shot with plenty of blue sky in it with a subtle gradient in the sky and many details in the non-sky part of the frame and you end up with a sky that is - at first very subtle of course - blocky. And if you now try to CC the sky part a bit more heavily... or add more contrast.. you quickly start to see ugly MPEG blocking artefacts...

It's not about bashing a format to feel better about another... this would be childish and quite unprofessional!
 
SoerenM said:
So a large and fast enough harddisk that handles 12,5 or 5 MB/s (depending on what format you want to shoot in) makes the HVX _much more expensive_ than the JVC HDV cam?

And yes sorry but I'm mostly with Barry here.. HDV or more exactly MPEG2 with intraframe compression is a format that was concieved for delivery and not for first generation recording! And it clearly shows - mostly of course because of the low data rate of a normal DV tape... I used the Z1 myself and you can have beautiful shots but if you've got lots of movement in the picture and than try to CC it or look at it frame by frame or slomo.. it gets ugly. And this is something that eg. MiniDV never had - although it is highly compressed each and every frame gets the same number of bits from the bit reservoir to be compressed to.
You don't even need much movement... take a shot with plenty of blue sky in it with a subtle gradient in the sky and many details in the non-sky part of the frame and you end up with a sky that is - at first very subtle of course - blocky. And if you now try to CC the sky part a bit more heavily... or add more contrast.. you quickly start to see ugly MPEG blocking artefacts...

It's not about bashing a format to feel better about another... this would be childish and quite unprofessional!
Click to expand...

I think the DVCPRO HD codec is far superior. And you pointed out in a clear concise way that the HDV codec has flaws. That is fine. I was only referring to comments like "let see you try to make a movie with HDV...it'll look like crap and fall apart on you....ha ha ha..."......stuff like that. HDV is definitely limited because of the mpg2 compression scheme. DVCPRO HD is far superior.

As far as cost.....I still stand by that unless....unless it is determined that off the shelf drives will work with the hVX. Here is a simple scenario.

Budget:$6000
Get a discount on the HD100 and maybe get it for $5900. Buy some tapes and shipping and you are ready to go. now.

Budget:$6000
Get a discount on the HVX and maybe pay $5600. Buy some tapes....oh wait.....I have to buy a P2 card to get HD.....can't afford that yet. I better buy a removable hard drive.....if there are off the shelf models I may be alright. But if I have to buy a firestore.......not in my budget. Forget a DVCPRO deck to dub to. Forget a laptop.....All I have is a workstation. I simply can't afford any more as $6K was my budget for a cam. (not me really.....this is an example)

The bottome line is that the HD100 will be way easier for a low low budget guy to get started with HD. IT won't be the best option but it will happen. Many will go this way because $6000 is a lot to spend..... a lot. To others it is a drop in the bucket.

SO it is all relative. As I have said....I prefer the HVX hands down. But I am not so blinded that I cannot see the issues that would force some to choose the HD 100.
 
Yes I have had the opportunity to use the P2 system, on an SPX800.

I'm not blowing smoke here -- this is a flat-out revolution. It's night and day. This is NLE versus tape-to-tape editing. It's word-processor vs. typewriter.

If you want to know what it's like, it's like having DV Rack built into the camera. If you haven't used DV Rack on a project, download it and try it out. You'll never want to be without it. I wrote up a big report here a month or so ago on using DV Rack on a feature we're producing right now, and the director has now declared he will never shoot without it again. P2 is like that, but in many ways better, because it's in-camera -- no need to be tethered to a laptop, etc.
 
I didn't think you were blowing smoke. Just wondered if you had used it before. As you know sometimes great ideas on paper and in theory don't always translate into the real world as easily and sometimes other issues arise that make the workflow not so simple.

thanks for the input.
 
Definition of "Media"

Definition of "Media"

Barry_Green said:
P2 is not media. It's a part of the camera. What you dub the P2 card to is the media; and that's hard disks, and they're dirt cheap and getting cheaper every day. And infinitely more usable than tape. It's a whole different workflow.
Click to expand...
Barry,

I understand the point you are making about P2 cards, but I'd like to suggest that P2 cards are indeed "digital media."

According to TechEncyclopedia, "media" is defined as:
Materials that hold data in any form or that allow data to pass through them, including paper, transparencies, multipart forms, hard, floppy and optical disks, magnetic tape, wire, cable and fiber. Media is the plural of "medium."
Click to expand...
So, although P2 cards are not specifically mentioned, I believe they clearly fit the definition.

Another way of defining "digital media" is any physical material that will retain storage of electronic information without power, and is designed to be easily removed from the main device by the end-user.

And I agree with your thought that we need to look at P2 in a completely different light than tape.
 
Yes it can be thought of as media, by that definition. But that only serves to confuse the argument, rather than clear it up. As long as people think "a P2 card = a tape", they'll never "get it". Whether it's technically definable as "media" is basically irrelevant, because you don't use it like you would any other type of media, so lumping it in the same category just causes confusion, and slows down people's ability to make the quantum leap in thinking necessary to understand the P2 workflow.
 
Right. P2 Cards are like compact flash memory--they're temporary storage.
I don't care if a dictionary defines "compact flash" as media.

You don't use it like tape and that's what matters.
 
We can clearly distinguish the differences between various media. All of the following are media:
-- Compact Flash cards
-- Secure digital cards
-- floppy disks
-- CDs
-- DVDs
-- magnetic tape
-- iomega zip disks
-- USB Thumbnail "drives"
and
-- P2 cards

All of these media offer different access methods, rates, benefits, and limitations.

I agree with you Barry that using solid state P2 cards are a great improvement over tape. But it hurts your credibility when you try to convince someone that P2 is better "because it is not media, it is part of the camera". Anyone who has been around computers for a while would know this is not true.

A P2 card no more = tape than CD = zip disk. In fact tape is different from all other media in that it may only be accessed in a linear fashion while the other may be accessed in a random fashion.

I'm just trying to help. :-)

There are lots of examples of storing video output on media other than tape. This is not a new idea. Check out the Canon site. They are promoting Firestore as a great way to get away from the problems of tape.

It will take some people a while to give up their tape security blanket. :-) I had a boss years ago when eMail first became very popular in our company. It was the main form of communication. But at the end of each day, he would print out all of his eMail to read. He just had to have a hard copy in his hand, or it wasn't real for him.

People fear change, and fear the unknown. Until we actually have our hands on a HVX100 and can demonstrate the quality and workflow, there will be many who will have difficulty accepting it. But I for one, am convinced it will be a great camera.
 
Friend, It's semantics. The futile line of thought comes from comparing "tape media" to "P2 media"
From that P-O-V, the P2 card looks like a $2000 videotape.. since that's the way we're
used to thinking about media here in video village.

Saying it's part of the camera or saying that it's like "ram" is only a way to explain the
way you would use it and that it is a temporary medium.

That doesn't hurt anyone's credibility one bit.
 
Thanks for the excellent example -- the FireStore. The FireStore Pro costs $1600. Is it "media"?

Well, technically, yes I guess it is. But that's not how you use it. You don't equate a FireStore with a DV tape, do you? Yes you could record on each, but a DV tape is a cheap, non-re-usable thing that you stick on a shelf, or give to someone else. A FireStore most definitely is not. It's something that you use for a job, and then you empty the footage off of it and wipe it clean, and then use it for the next job.

Like part of the camera. Not like "media".

I'm trying to help people understand the different way of thinking they need to employ when looking at the workflow. I stand by my intention of trying to make a distinction between what people think of when they hear the word media (which is, typically, a blank CD or a blank tape or a floppy disk) and what you think of, and use, as a P2 card or a FireStore. One is "disposable", and one most definitely is not.

I had a Jaz drive, and in my entire Jaz career I think I had three cartridges. At the same time, I must have gone through thousands of floppy discs, and recently I've gone through several hundred DV tapes and hundreds of CD-ROMs. But only three Jaz cartridges. And, I contend, people will be able to get through their entire HVX career without ever buying more than two or three P2 cards.

They may fit some dictionary definition of "media", but they are not the same, even though some functions do overlap. There's an entirely different mindset at work when you're using something like a FireStore, vs. tape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top