Res Fest-LA Comparison of HVX, Canon, JVC, and Sony!

That is the thing that i'm trying to understand myself. Does it shoot native 1080i/24p? or does it shoot 720, and then has to be pushed to 1080i/24p????? Also, just wanted to thank everyone in this forum for their help.

The HVX also does variable frame rates...Does this work like a film camera? Also, how's the depth of field of the HVX as compared to the other cameras?
 
I understand it fine. This is semantics now, but the HVX is outputting 1080P @ 24fps however it is recording this information to P2 just like a DVX. You can extract the native 23.98 progressive 1080 frames using a 2332 (Advanced) pulldown or you can choose to edit in a 1080i 60Fps frame rate by recording a standard 32 pulldown. But even this could be later extracted to 23.98 if needed by Cine Tools.
 
NBCshooter said:
Uhh, no it doesn't. Actually, nothing records 1080P right now. The camera records 1080i at a 24-frames progressive. Don't ask me to explain, 'cause I don't quite understand this myself!
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. I lost the ability to do long division at a Pink Floyd concert and all these numbers give me a head ache. :grin: :grin:
 
Come on, now. It's no different than calling the DVX a "24p" camera. It IS 24p, for sure. Although, it is true the way its' recorded to tape is by embedding progressive into interlaced. To get the 24p back, the user performs a simple extraction process during post production. In fact, all editing systems do this automatically. So, it's seamless.
 
BTW these are all implemented at the clip level as there is no real impoorting like with tape.

Yes the variable frame rate works much like a film camera does, the HVX will also let you shoot a scene to the P2 in 720 60P (Or any other FR) and do a down-convert in camera that preserves the slowmo effecct and then lay that off to the DV tape. COOL!

The DOF will seem a little better than the DVX because of the COC (Circle of Confusion) being of necessity much smaller. But it won't look like 2/3" HD. Probably closer to 1/2" SD.
 
It shoots native 1080/24p. There is no "scaling" or "uprezzing" going on. It samples 1080/24p (or 1080/30p or 1080/60i) off the chips.

The fact that the 24p gets recorded within a 60i data stream means nothing, as far as the legitimacy of its 24p goes. The DVX, SDX, SPX, XL2, they all do it the same way.
 
Barry_Green said:
It shoots native 1080/24p. There is no "scaling" or "uprezzing" going on. It samples 1080/24p (or 1080/30p or 1080/60i) off the chips.
Click to expand...

No uprezzing? Are the specs available already? If nothing proves me wrong there, the "native 1080" will be as "native" as 16/9 from a 4/3 camcorder.... (Better call it just 1080 then...)
 
What I'm about to say would be better explained with an illustration, but I don't have one handy. The camera does sample natively at 1080p. It simply pulls two half resolution color samples from each full resolution pixel instead of a full color resolution sample from each pixel. This works well considering the full resolution color samples would be reduced to half anyways by the compression algorithm. Hence, the 2's in 4:2:2. It actually does sample 1080p. That's why "sampling" it is a good choice of words. It's possible to have more samples than pixels this way. The samples are what is important, not the means of obtaining them.

Native 16x9 is real, too. The pixels simply have a different shape, that's all. It makes perfect sense now.
 
recording on a cassette needs same space for e.g. 1 minute of any framerate (tape speed stays the same and shutter speed changes) - 100 frames with 12fps = 50 frames with 24 fps (so says the panasonic manual about variable frame rate on tape for VariCam)


BUT

how does that look on a P2 card with space and variable frame rates? Do 4fps need the same space as 24fps? Is the card filled up then with the same frame over and over again (6 times more frames at 4fps as at fps) - wouldn't it be enough for 4fps to record just 4fps plus a command (*6) and not 6 times the same frame as tape does?

This is my personal no-loss low fps compression formula:
A(*6) B(*6) C(*6)

What does the P2 card content look like with e.g. 24fps vs. 12fps ?
 
I don't think your understanding of how the Varicam works is correct... the VariCam always records 60p no matter what frame rate you shoot at. If you shoot at a slower frame rate, it will "duplicate" frames to fill out the sequence to become 60 frames per second (i.e., if you're shooting 30P, each frame gets written to the tape twice).

The HVX ignores all that. If you shoot 24p, 24 frames get written to the card each second. If you shoot 60p, sixty frames get written to the card each second. If you shoot 48p, 48 frames get written to the card.

A 48p sequence would take up twice as much room on the card as a 24p sequence of equivalent duration.
 
cici- that's covered in the P2 Article in the Articles portion of this website. I suggest reading it.
It only records the frames you need, there are no duplicates in 720p...
 
thisiswells said:
What I'm about to say would be better explained with an illustration, but I don't have one handy. The camera does sample natively at 1080p. It simply pulls two half resolution color samples from each full resolution pixel instead of a full color resolution sample from each pixel. This works well considering the full resolution color samples would be reduced to half anyways by the compression algorithm. Hence, the 2's in 4:2:2. It actually does sample 1080p. That's why "sampling" it is a good choice of words. It's possible to have more samples than pixels this way. The samples are what is important, not the means of obtaining them.

Native 16x9 is real, too. The pixels simply have a different shape, that's all. It makes perfect sense now.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I know, but until we know the number of pixels on the CCD's, we can't state a "native", was what I meant.
I haven't seen anything yet I have to admit, but all I read are comments on 720p footage... (which doesn't bother me at all, actually. Nice 720P will do... But perhaps I would like it better if (in that case) it was advertised like that...)
 
Well, I have seen footage, and I can tell you "Natively" it records more detail than the 1080x960 Z1u. Whatever the nubers are.
 
Well there is a difference between looking good and having native resolution. That's why I like 720P HDV of the JVC encoding. Much cleaner then the 1080i from sony (artifact-wise).

But I've got it right when I hear they only showed 720P?
 
If you're going to bank on what may be available a year from now, maybe you should also start thinking about the HVX300.
 
I hate the sony HDV look... too poor in my opinion... And I ain't talking about the artifacts in fast pans...
I am just tallking about the resolution (it is far from resolving the 1080 lines), the poor color rendition, the crappy latitude and the smearing in the shadows.... I couldn't be more unimpressed...

I like the JVC tho'
 
I was also at the Res Fest presentation Sunday - good speaker - very well prepared and accurate info on all the cameras. He also had Jan from Panny and 2 Canon reps to help out. I agree with one point he made, who cares about specs - what matters are results and all the footage looked better than the best DV or SD I've ever seen. Even the tiny Sony CMOS camera looked amazing through the Panasonic DLP projector. Based on all the posts here and other places I expected artifacts, fringing, unusable footage etc. All of it looked fantastic.

Thinking back to DV features I've seen in the theater like Celebration (1 chip Sony consumer camera) and Pieces of April (PD-150), or November (DVX) the filmmakers just made their movies, more concerned with telling their story than technical superiority. Shooting today, with even the tiny Sony CMOS and a good gaffer would yield a far better looking movie than any of the DV cameras.

As far as which looked best on the big screen - it seems that the HVX - although very disappointing demo footage - has the cleanest HD images with no artifacts on fast pans etc. The Z1 footage of Mexico City looked fantastic and as good as any HD 1080i footage I see at home on my 110" screen via HD projector. I've heard Discovery and some of the other HD channels are not accepting HDV originated shows, but I can't see why not. The tiny Sony CMOS which also has a consumer version under 2 grand also looked way better than I ever expected - daytime footage of San Francisco and a "family" playing in the park looked like the best "home movies" I've ever seen. I could see this camera being used a lot for doc's where you need to look like a tourist or even indie filmmakers out stealing shots on subways etc. - great image. Both Sony's are 1080i only - so those wanting a film look would have to use software like Magic Bullet to get there.

Canon was the only company that went out and shot a professional demo - cranes, aerials, camera cars etc. All shot in 24f mode and most of it look outstanding - I could not see any loss of quality in this mode. There was however some severe strobing on the first panning shot of a bicycle rider which Canon attributed to the post process and not the camera - don't know if this is the case, but the rest of the footage was feature film quality. They shot all of it using the HD SDI out to an HDCAM deck and it showed! The lens looked fantastic on a long range rack and wide vista's were pristine. I would not hesitate to use this camera on any shoot.

The last demo shots were from the HVX and taken in 1080i of a set at IBC I believe. The footage looked flawless from edge to edge with great color and insane detail. Quick pans showed no artifacts at all. Too bad the footage was limited and there was no progressive shots as the camera is still a prototype. Panasonic looks like it will end up winning the first round in the under 10 grand HD market though it is the only camera with no HD tape built-in and your stuck with the focal length of the fixed lens. Canon was the clear winner as far as the lens goes - those who can take advantage of the HD SDI out and the 20x zoom will get great images from the Canon.

The real choice comes down to budget and the needs of the production. Those with very tight budget can go buy the new compact Sony for well under 3 grand and shoot their HD feature today! Shows needing long lens shots and more dramatic depth of field may want to wait for the Canon. Those not wanting to deal with HDV compression and who, like me, desire a tapeless HD post workflow should wait for the HVX.

Lance
 
Thanks for the update!

I'm curious why canon didnt shoot in HDV for it's demo. Most users of the H1 will go to tape HDV...its not fair to the average consumer who cant afford a HDCAM deck..as most of the potential customers won't be able to afford anything but dv tapes with HDV.

I hope when panasonic releases its DVX footage..it will be P2 footage instead of going out uncompressed to an edit system, or HDCAM SR deck. We want to see what the camera systems will do.
 
Nice writeup Lance. I was at RESFest SF. I would have liked to see two things:

1) Panasonic: Better Demo footage of the Pana HVX....Not just a room with detailed print fabric and objects, but natural light shots, low light and other environmental settings which show a wider latitude of shooting possibilities. Jan admittedly knows that she is no filmmaker but getting a good demo reel of the HVX I am sure will be on its way.

2) Canon: To the contrary of the was indeed very polished as you pointed out Lance. However, I am not sure how many will be in a real life situation (i.e. not broadcast) which will use the HD SDI out. In essense, the demo footage which was very polished and looked great (although some serious jeddering in sequences and pans) was not a true representative of the what more real life shooting scenarios might be...i.e. I would have liked to see what the HDV footage looked like and not the HD SDI out to Pana deck. The lens/optics looked good. All HD cameras were intraframe except the HVX which was interframe. Canon was not true progressive.

I still prefer the HVX, the fact it is not HDV, and many other reasons including the form factor, still looks the best. I am looking forward to seeing other results from this camera. The detail shown on a big screen were amazing.

Jan mentioned that the lux rating is still being determined so it will be interesting to see how it does in low light compared to the DVX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top