red vs. hvx

DavidBeier said:
Majority of what? HD sets? Maybe. I don't know the UK market well but even the majority of HD sets in the UK would still probably mean something like 3% of the whole UK market.
Click to expand...
I think it's only about 2 years ago that the definition of requirements for a set to be officially labelled "HDReady" (as according to the EBU spec) was defined. At that point plasmas and LCDs were in a minority, and most didn't have vertical resolutions more than 480, let alone HDMI.

But go in to any large retailer now and the change couldn't be more dramatic. It's hard to find a CRT nowadays, and the few that are on sale seem relegated to a small corner. And all of the flat screens now do seem to be "HDReady". If you browse any of the consumer mags, then 1920x1080 screens are now seen as the "next big thing", and as I said, these same magazines are prophesying that in another year they will be in the majority. There is a strong chance that in two years virtually ALL screens will be 1920x1080.

I don't really want to start guessing precise figures, but by year end it's pretty certain that 3% won't even be in the right ballpark. More like 10 or more times that.
Once again, I'll defer to you on the UK. I work in the US however. Here, we have people battling between 1080i and 720p. I support 720p since personally I don't mind losing a bit or resolution for a pure, progressive signal (why would anyone ever want to deal with interlace again?).
Click to expand...
It should be the same in the US, and talk of a battle between 1080i and 720p completely ignores 1080p - certainly at 24 or 30fps, if not 60. You can't look at these forums and not be aware of the interest in 24p and film look. And whilst 1080p/60 is currently effectively beyond current technology, 1080p/24 most certainly isn't. If you want a pure, progressive signal, and if 24Hz motion is OK (as for most drama) you don't have to lose any resolution. 720p is not the only way to get progressive.

And with a 1080i transmission chain, that quality makes it all the way through. Then the signal is more properly called 1080psf/24. A decent receiver should be able to resurrect the original progressive sequence without scaling or de-interlacing.
 
harddrive said:
I don't really want to start guessing precise figures, but by year end it's pretty certain that 3% won't even be in the right ballpark. More like 10 or more times that.
Click to expand...

You honestly think that 30% or more of Europe is going to have 1080p HDTVs at full 1920x1080 resolution? I'll leave someone who knows more about the European market to argue that number with you but I sure as hell don't see that happening any time soon in the US. Magazines can call 1080p "the next big thing" all they want but it won't change the fact that it's still too expensive for a lot of people.

In the US, the last number I heard for HDTV penitration was about 10%. The majority of these are 1024x768 which isn't even full 720p resolution. Most of the ones I see on store shelves are either this resolution or 1366x768 which is slightly over 720p but no where near the pixels for 1080p. The fact is that most of the people who have already bought HD TVs have gone with these resolutions and aren't likely to shell out a ton of cash to upgrade to true 1080p. Especially since the average American seems more concerned about the size of the TV then the resolution which is why Plasmas have done so well. There are a few cheap 1080p TVs but to get one at a decent size which gives one an appreciable difference over 720p will tend to cost around $1800 minimum That's just not a mass market price point.
 
TimurCivan said:
but david isnt 720 60p much sharper than 1080i?
Click to expand...

No but I like it more. Because of the interlaced image, 720p will probably give you about the same vertical resolution as 1080i when there is movement but still will give less vertical resolution. Personally, I dont' mind that loss when it means having a true progressive image. 60p blows 60i away.
 
DavidBeier said:
You honestly think that 30% or more of Europe is going to have 1080p HDTVs at full 1920x1080 resolution? ........Magazines can call 1080p "the next big thing" all they want but it won't change the fact that it's still too expensive for a lot of people.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think that, (at least, not by the end of the year) and that's not what I'm claiming. Firstly, I'm only talking about the UK, not Europe in general, and secondly the "much-more-than-3%" figure was relating to ongoing SALES, not penetration. As for the second point, the interviews with manufacturers indicate that they are moving wholesale to 1920x1080 screens. Soon it won't be a case of "do you want "TrueHD?" " - there will be little choice. In the meantime, the higher res screens seem to come together with other higher spec features, multiple HDMI etc.
In the US, the last number I heard for HDTV penitration was about 10%. The majority of these are 1024x768 which isn't even full 720p resolution.
Click to expand...
To qualify for the "HDReady" badge in Europe, one of the requirements is "a screen with pixel dimensions of 1280x720, or above". What you desribe could not legally be sold in Europe with the "HDReady" badge. Up until roughly six months ago, the vast majority in UK stores were 1366x768. They still make up the majority, but "TrueHD" is gaining fast.
There are a few cheap 1080p TVs but to get one at a decent size which gives one an appreciable difference over 720p will tend to cost around $1800 minimum That's just not a mass market price point.
Click to expand...
Exactly that was said about "HDReady" in the UK only 18 months ago. Now, virtually nothing but is being bought. The same is expected to happen with the 1080 screens, and I predict a similar timescale.
 
No, I don't think that, (at least, not by the end of the year) and that's not what I'm claiming. Firstly, I'm only talking about the UK, not Europe in general, and secondly the "much-more-than-3%" figure was relating to ongoing SALES, not penetration.
Click to expand...

That's great but what I care about is penatration. I recall hearing that Europe had the smaller HD TV penatration than both Japan and the US. Even with increased sales, I would assume it would take a while before having sharper 1080p is all that important.

To qualify for the "HDReady" badge in Europe, one of the requirements is "a screen with pixel dimensions of 1280x720, or above". What you desribe could not legally be sold in Europe with the "HDReady" badge. Up until roughly six months ago, the vast majority in UK stores were 1366x768. They still make up the majority, but "TrueHD" is gaining fast.
Click to expand...

That's great but that's not how it is in the US which is where my market is. Europe tends to have it's act much more together in a lot of HD things, especially with their desire not to bother with interlaced. The sad fact is that most of those who have HD TVs in the US can't even muster full 720p. The elite who can afford full 1080p probably won't even make up 1% of the market by the end of the year. Is giving them a slightly sharper image really worth three times the price?

Believe me I'd love for the USto be in a similar position to Europe. Especially so I can stop talking my relatives out of trying to get a 60 inch screen with only 1024x768 resolution.

Exactly that was said about "HDReady" in the UK only 18 months ago. Now, virtually nothing but is being bought. The same is expected to happen with the 1080 screens, and I predict a similar timescale.
Click to expand...

Once again, sales are great but penatration is what matters. We're talking about shooting NOW. Perhaps if sales trends indicated that 20% of UK households would have 1080p TVs in a year or two than this would be a bigger deal.
 
I downloaded a Red clip and viewed it on my Toshiba 26" monitor.Very impressive.
Then I looked at some of my own footage from the HVX. About 95% as impressive.
I would love to see the same shot, Red on one side, HVX on the other. I can assure
you that you won't see 10K or 20K difference.

Recently I saw a movie in the theater, "Facing the Giants", that was shot on the Varicam at 720P. I was looking for lack of resolution and did not find it - it was very sharp and the color was incredible. An average moviegoer could never, ever tell the difference between it and 35mm.The HVX is considered the ideal B camera for the Varicam, yet it is about 1/10 the price. Which camera makes the most sense for anyone short of Hollywood?
 
mainstreetprod said:
I downloaded a Red clip and viewed it on my Toshiba 26" monitor.Very impressive.
Then I looked at some of my own footage from the HVX. About 95% as impressive.
I would love to see the same shot, Red on one side, HVX on the other. I can assure
you that you won't see 10K or 20K difference.

Recently I saw a movie in the theater, "Facing the Giants", that was shot on the Varicam at 720P. I was looking for lack of resolution and did not find it - it was very sharp and the color was incredible. An average moviegoer could never, ever tell the difference between it and 35mm.The HVX is considered the ideal B camera for the Varicam, yet it is about 1/10 the price. Which camera makes the most sense for anyone short of Hollywood?
Click to expand...

Good point. And, once again, lets not forget- if you have a good DP, good lighting, good production team, and you have support equipment to help tell your story- like dolly, tripods, steadicam etc- and, of course, believable actors (those that can actuallty act), an HVX is more than enough for your picture to be successful. You can get all this with the budget of buying the RED body alone.
 
Reminds me of the ol' saying:

"If you know how to light - it doesn't matter what format you shoot on,
and if you don't know how to light - it doesn't matter what format you shoot on"
 
mainstreetprod said:
I downloaded a Red clip and viewed it on my Toshiba 26" monitor.Very impressive.
Then I looked at some of my own footage from the HVX. About 95% as impressive.
I would love to see the same shot, Red on one side, HVX on the other. I can assure
you that you won't see 10K or 20K difference.

Recently I saw a movie in the theater, "Facing the Giants", that was shot on the Varicam at 720P. I was looking for lack of resolution and did not find it - it was very sharp and the color was incredible. An average moviegoer could never, ever tell the difference between it and 35mm.The HVX is considered the ideal B camera for the Varicam, yet it is about 1/10 the price. Which camera makes the most sense for anyone short of Hollywood?
Click to expand...



SPZ said:
Good point. And, once again, lets not forget- if you have a good DP, good lighting, good production team, and you have support equipment to help tell your story- like dolly, tripods, steadicam etc- and, of course, believable actors (those that can actuallty act), an HVX is more than enough for your picture to be successful. You can get all this with the budget of buying the RED body alone.
Click to expand...

Yea...... but give the same DP, the same high quality lights, and grip tools, and the RED will look Better. Cleaner, sharper, native DOF, with 3 more stops of Dynamic range. Visually thats what makes the difference. Dont get me wrong. I LOVE my HVX. but Cmon... be serious. that s a whole new class of camera. IT can just do things the other one cant.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Reminds me of the ol' saying:

"If you know how to light - it doesn't matter what format you shoot on,
and if you don't know how to light - it doesn't matter what format you shoot on"
Click to expand...


Whic means........... Learn to light. Whic is what all of us are doing here.... :)
 
TimurCivan said:
Yea...... but give the same DP, the same high quality lights, and grip tools, and the RED will look Better. Cleaner, sharper, native DOF, with 3 more stops of Dynamic range. Visually thats what makes the difference. Dont get me wrong. I LOVE my HVX. but Cmon... be serious. that s a whole new class of camera. IT can just do things the other one cant.
Click to expand...

Of course. I think it's silly to deny that. However, if you light well (thus no needing the extra 3 stops) and don't care about super shallow DoF, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference in just about anything but projection or a 1080p bigscreen.

It's very true the RED is in a different class which is why it's silly to debate between the two. If you need RED, you wouldn't be looking at an HVX200 in the first place.
 
TimurCivan said:
WElll........ the argument for 2k and 4K is that the higher quality will down res Perfectly into a RAZOR sharp 1080P. And 4k into a RAZOR sharp 2k.... And if you need it, and can afford you will always have the 4K originals if theres ever a film out option/ or 4k Projection.

Like the way we now shoot 720P to make GREAT looking SD.......

but i mean, thecamera is just the first 1/3 of the purchase. Then you need Lenses, and trust me while nikon will work, the are not built to be usd like a real cine lens, the lens barrels telescope, the lenses breathe, and the arent quite bult to the kind of optical precision that Cookes are. For example at full wide open, most 35mm photo lenses suck. CA, distortion, Etc. They really only work well when stopped down into the middle of the Fstop range.
Click to expand...

Well, so much for my idea of asking you to shoot something with me with my RED and Nikon set. :) I guess I'll have to rent some Ziess or Cooke lenses. :)

I guess we'll all have to wait and see how it shakes out. I'm a director, with no reason to buy a RED, buying a RED, but if I can raise the money in time, I'm willing to give it a try just to have it around for gifted DP's (like Timur and others) to take it and run it out to see how it works.

I hold no belief that it will be the holy grail, but if it is... that would be icing on the cake.

Seeing what people are doing with the HVX and a 35mm adapter gives me hope that RED "might" be a big step forward.

Only time will tell.

jason
 
oh wow, jason that was creepy..... Our minds are connected....

Wh yyes i will use your camera.... lol


If i make a significant amount of money, whether lottery, Dping, old fashioned 9-5, i will invest in a set of Cooke Primes. and one Red Zoom. MAily because they will work with any camera, from my SGpro/HVX combo up to a RED, up to an Arri.... i twill never hurt ot have lenses that are camera interchangeable.
 
you're the only one that knows how much $$ you pull in with your DVX ...
if you were planning to move up to HVX (720/1080) and you are re-thinking because of RED - will your income remain the same ? can you market the 2/4k ? or start off just using RED with 2/3 zoom lens or older 35mm cine lens (they worked good in the 70/80's ) .. you don't need to get computer that can handle 2/4k if all you plan is 720/1080 projects ...

35mm lens adaptor with HVX you'd be using nikor lens ? so if you can accept nikor on the adaptor they would be better image on red ( image doesn't focus on ground glass) ... RED does give you the 35mm DoP scaling 35mm sensor to 1080 ...IMO bottom line is you get what you pay for - RED will have the better image and if you ever need 2k/4k you have it - BUT can you afford it ? is it going to put you in debt ? will you get more work ? perhaps better projects ?

figure if you went HVX for now- you could sell it down the line and move into RED with your still lens - by that time the still lens issue will be tested out and you'll know the up/down work arounds of using them ....

buy what you can afford ... you can always move up as your income grows..
 
exactly. if i grow and i can afford it i will go red. but for now im happy in 1080 land.
 
Red will definetly look better if under the same circunstances as the HVX. But for Red to be under the same circunstances as the HVX, you have to invest DOuble or TRIPLE the money. Example- GLidecam smooth shooter + gc4000- 1400 USD; Tripod manfroto 755bb + 503 head- aprox 500 USD; Macintosh Macpro for DVCPRO HD editing 3400 USD; Arri basic lighting kit 1200 USD; Dolly system 1500 USD- This is all prosumer level gear. The lights you can use for both systems, tough. Add all that money to an HVX + Firestore 7500 Dollars. In the US it comes with an extra 8gb card, where you can shoot your variable frame rates clips for your movie, and use the firestore for the regular stuff. Add also a 35mm adapter to the amount- 1100 dollars, and a flip monitor 1300 USD. Grand Total 14700. With this stuff you can have the basic gear of having a very good looking film/commercial for broadcast or filmout.

Try getting all this supporting gear for the RED plus the camera+ Lens. How much would it cost?
 
just like i said, the RED is only the first 1/3 of the purchase. youre totally right man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top