So, here's the thing ...

I'll take that bet and raise you $500!

Lord have mercy I'LL TAKE IT!!!!!!!!

When will you be in L.A. Barry?? We can meet and go eat and cruise around and have some fun in sunny california. We'll shoot some beautiful girls and mansions and cars or maybe even do the Beach. or even better...I'll schedule a Music Video from one of my boy's artists. it'll be a 1-day shoot, in a closed set. Something simple. Perfect lighting, etc.... That way, it wont be wasted footage on someting unproductive. Whoever loses pays for the rental of Studio A at IT Studios ( www.it-studios.com ). That's where I shoot some of my videos at. This way if I lose, you get your point across, and I have to pay you $1000 AND cover the studio rental. If you lose, at least I got a free studio day that I would have otherwise had to pay for.

We'll shoot the cameras side by side, with you employing the BEST SETTINGS on your camera you can muster up...I'll put the Z1 in the BEST SETTINGS and downconvert. Additionally, I'll see if my other buddy wants to bring his F900 and shoot with us too, I'll tell him that you said your DVX picture can stack up to his f900 picture after downconverting to DVD. Dude, after I tell him THAT.....that should be motivation enough for him to get fired up and donate his time. *smile*

No after effects, no color correction, no post-production tricks.

We'll burn straight to DVD and show some people the footage and see who says what. cool? *smile*

easy money for you, right?

- ShannonRawls.com
 
I don't think Barry was saying the DVX would match the f900. That's entirely different class of camera. I believe he meant when comparing comparable SD and HD cams.
 
Shannon, please don't read something into what I said that I didn't -- obviously the DVX is no match for an F900. Not on this planet, or on any other. And it isn't the resolution issue, it's the 2/3" CCD's, the better color sampling, the better DSP, and everything else. Now, if you want to compare an F900 against an SDX900, when both are going to DVD, that'd be a fair comparison. I said an HD camera against a comparable SD camera, so SDX900 vs. F900, or Z1 against DVX. Not F900 against DVX.

So yeah, bet's on. I don't know when I'll be in L.A. next, but if you're coming to NAB we can definitely do it here. Or, I'll be in CA next weekend and the following weekend, but up in a tiny town called Boron (I think that's the name of it, I don't have the specifics yet, don't even really know where it's at). I'll also have a lot of gear with me, lights and stands and monitor and stuff... we're shooting a friend's short film, so if you want to come out for that it's sort of halfway between L.A. and L.V. I'll have a laptop there, with DV Rack and Vegas on it as well, and I can bring an external DVD burner so we can even finish the job right there.

To be clear, if the SD camera "wins", I'm not asking for anything -- no $500 from you, and definitely not any $1000. Just acknowledgement of the test results.

And if the SD camera "loses", well, I'll fork over $500 because I'll be glad for the knowledge of what happened, and how it was possible.

If the Boron thing doesn't work out for you, let me know when you have a real music video gig scheduled, as that would also be an excellent test case.
 
What have I done? :cheesy:

OK - game on - I hope! Just remember if this does come to a show-down, that the work flow may have a major part to play in the results. Which encoder for example: Mainconcept, TMPGEnc, Procoder ...?
 
I guess that needs to be determined. My vote is for Vegas, since DSE (perhaps the #1 proponent of HDV/Z1) uses it and recommends it, saying that vegas downsampling of HDV footage provides the best results.

Also, what determines a "win"? By my book, whoever picks the better-looking footage will determine the winner, but -- the claims of "night and day" should be factored in too, right? Maybe we have a scale where people rate the overall impact of the image, 1-10. If the results end up with people picking the HDV footage on DVD as being a "10", and the DVX footage as being a "3", well, I'd say that qualifies as "night and day". Personally I think it'll be more like Z1=8, DVX=9. I don't think there'll be any "night and day" difference, and I think there'll be a small edge to the DVX.

Also, if we do this at NAB, I'm certain I could talk Chris Hurd into coming along with his XL2, then we'd have the best of all worlds -- SD electronic stretch, SD native 16:9, HD native 16:9 all on the same DVD...
 
Ok, now to slide in my personal experiance of the FX1.

A while ago i remember i downloaded a clip (from VASST website) it was a .wmv HD compressed and played it on my laptop and had it S-Videoed to my SD PAL TV, P.S i set the laptop rez to 640*480. All i can say was that it looked like *wow*, i still remeber my friend turning his head and saying something on the lines "wow, whats that?"

Any way thats just my experiance of HD to SD downrez.
 
Trust me, with the proper tools, the HDV's Footage will look a zillion times better on DVD than the DVX.

Think about hollywood films?

35mm to DVD looks better as far as raw resolution goes, than does DV to DVD, simply because of the quality of the original source.
 
John_Moore said:
Trust me, with the proper tools, the HDV's Footage will look a zillion times better on DVD than the DVX.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the whole point -- we don't want to trust someone, we just want to see the results. And nobody has shown it. And the only guys who've tried (Jarred and me) failed to come up with any method for demonstrating HDV's supposed superiority on DVD.

We're not looking for trust, or theory. We want results. If it's actually, genuinely better, we all want to know it.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, that's the whole point -- we don't want to trust someone, we just want to see the results. And nobody has shown it.
Click to expand...

The first sentence I wholly understand. The second is silly. By saying nobody's shown it, Barry implies that it should be "shown" by now and hasn't been. Thus he casts doubt on the claim that it's true. But that's a BS argument.

Given that we're necessarily talking about full SD resolution (ie not downsized for web) and specifically delivered on DVD, *of course* no one has "shown it" yet -- it's impossible to show without sending someone an actual DVD! Why is that silly? Because it's not in anyone's best interests to shell out the dough to burn and mail discs just to prove a point on a BBS! And Barry knows this. That's why I don't like his implication here.

How long did it take for the DVX DVD to come out again? And how much did it cost?

I consider Barry a master debater (har har), and I have no doubt that he'll come out denying my interpretation of what he was implying. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. :)
 
THis gets better every moment. Still...

...after all is said and done; without 24p, the HD is still going to be 60i. And it's going to look lilke a really good looking reality show or soap opera.

And as far as the SOny or XL2 go's? I still have yet to see anything that rivals it; subjectively speaking of course.
 
I'll debate that implication, certainly. Why would someone have to send a DVD? Obviously you could post a short DVD-quality MPEG-2 that anyone anywhere could download. At the bare minimum you could make the DVD-quality MPEG-2's and then post stills just to demonstrate the superiority. That's what we did in the three-camera article.

Nobody (other than ProMax) is going to produce and distribute DVDs just to make a point. But you wouldn't have to. Anyone could download the MPG and burn their own DVD if they wanted to see it on a TV.

And as far as nobody showing it, Jarred and I tried to. We shot all three cameras, we split-screened the results, and we posted it to the world. And since then people have complained and cried that it was "biased" because the mathematical impossibility of superior HDV resolution on DVD was proven to be just that -- an impossibility. Yet they still claim it happens. So I ask for evidence. I've posted the pictures, and the methodology used, just so people could point out where the errors in the testing process are. Nobody ever has, and nobody has ever shown better results (that I know of).

That's why I want to see the three-camera comparison (but I'll settle for two). And I'm glad Shannon has chosen to participate -- I think it'd be difficult to find anyone more enthusiastic (and yes, more biased) towards the Z1 than Shannon. If we can get Chris Hurd on the XL2, then we'll have three operators getting the very best from their chosen cameras, in controlled circumstances. I would be flabbergasted if anyone would chant "bias" or "rigged results" or any of that nonsense at the end of that test.

Shannon's attitude is exactly what I was hoping to find -- someone who says "bring your best, let's settle it on the field, and let the chips fall where they may."
 
You guys need to film this clash of the digital gladiators, I bet some magazine would love it...they might even sponsor it! Maybe DV magazine.

A real western Shoot out in the desert...it's comforting to know the American spirit is still strong.

ready - fire - aim.
 
Actually I asked some magazines about doing it, and they shied away. Seems the manufacturers apparently don't enjoy comparisons like that. Don't know why, 'cause they do it in car magazines all the time, but...
 
Well, i can understand them being shy...they don't want to kill their meal ticket, products come & go but clients are few & far between....wimps. :thumbsup:

But we can highlight it here...

It would be fun to do this with all the new cameras, HDX, JVC HD PRO, etc... afterall, it will happen sometime soon no matter how much they protest and shy away. It's better to be 1st and say it as you see it.

Leaders go to dangerous places 1st and make it safe for others to follow.
 
Hyperbolic said:
The first sentence I wholly understand. The second is silly. By saying nobody's shown it, Barry implies that it should be "shown" by now and hasn't been. Thus he casts doubt on the claim that it's true. But that's a BS argument.
Click to expand...

What, are you kidding me? This is what you're saying:

"I say X is true."

"There is not yet any sceintific evidence that X is true."

"That's a BS argument."

So, in essence, you're saying that Barry has to prove someone's unsupported argument wrong for it not to be BS.


Given that we're necessarily talking about full SD resolution (ie not downsized for web) and specifically delivered on DVD, *of course* no one has "shown it" yet -- it's impossible to show without sending someone an actual DVD! Why is that silly? Because it's not in anyone's best interests to shell out the dough to burn and mail discs just to prove a point on a BBS! And Barry knows this. That's why I don't like his implication here.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You don't have a screen that you might be looking at, say, right now that's capable of displaying 720x480? You do not have to "downsize" for the web.

Granted, viewing from a DVD would be best, but the idea that sending a DVD is the only way to do it is preposterous. Why coudln't you download an MPEG and burn it yourself?


How long did it take for the DVX DVD to come out again? And how much did it cost?
Click to expand...

The tests Barry described can be done in an afternoon and need not cost all that much.


I consider Barry a master debater (har har), and I have no doubt that he'll come out denying my interpretation of what he was implying. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how someone as new to our shores as you are comes off questioning Barry's (or any other member's for that matter) integrity in this insulting way. Knowing Barry, he'll no doubt respond with the utmost magnanimity and civility, but this really is out of line.


EDIT: He already did. Dang my slow-typing fingers.
 
"It's understanding; what makes it possible for people like us to tolerate a person like yourself"

I love that line from Ferris Bueller.
 
Jubal28 said:
I'm not sure how someone as new to our shores as you are comes off questioning Barry's (or any other member's for that matter) integrity in this insulting way. Knowing Barry, he'll no doubt respond with the utmost magnanimity and civility, but this really is out of line.
Click to expand...


Sweet! My first hate bomb on DVXUser. I may not have posted a lot, Jubal, but I've had an FX1 since November of last year and I've posted about it several times in here. I've used a DVX enough to not be in the dark when it comes to a comparison, as well. In other words, in this corner of the board, I'm not so wet behind the ears. But I also know it's not the same as 5000+ posts.

I don't think my post is insulting or out of line. My assertion was that a specific argument put forth by Barry came off as misleading, and that I suspected he knew it. He's incredibly convincing, and people look up to him. I do. But I felt he deserved to be called out on this specific point.

Barry usually goes into great detail when making a point, so when he glosses over something like he did in the post I originally questioned, I get suspicious. At the very least, I find it unsettling as it's often taken as gospel around here. He of all people knows you can't just go out and shoot any old thing (as you seem to suggest) and rip it right to DVD. You need to shoot something that actually looks good, that has interesting movement. It needs to be color corrected and treated with care and attention to detail. If you're trying to make a disc that demonstrates the max potential of a camera, or you're making a DVD that's going to be compared with truly professional DVX work, *of course* it's going to be time consuming and cost money! Because there's a lot of expensive,really pro DVX work to compare it against. And since Barry obviously put a lot of work into the DVX DVD (which I own), I think he knows all of this. Thus, when he says "no one's shown it," I feel he's creating the expectation that it should have been shown by now. I think this is unreasonable, and my suspicion is that at some level he thinks that, too, but still made the assertion.

All apologies if I came off as imflammatory, though, seriously. Barry and I were actually complimented for a very gentlemanly debate about a month ago in here, but, um, I guess you missed that, Jubal.
 
John_Hudson said:
...after all is said and done; without 24p, the HD is still going to be 60i.
Click to expand...
Heh. What about a DV Film or even a regular old NLE conversion to 24p? I mean, we're going down to SD DVD, anyway, so converting to progressive frames is totally doable.

All in all, it's just one of those things. I believe that the math backs up the argument that there's no difference. But I have seen it, been blown away, with mine own eyes. And I see other people posting the same thing, that once someone sees FX1/Z1 footage downconverted to SD, they're really impressed and ask about it once they see it.

But it's all anecdotal for sure. And subjective. But I haven't heard too many anecdotal or subjective opinions from people who've seen both that believe there's no visual difference. I know Barry and John don't see it, but I'm definitely curious about others seeing it on DVD and honestly not noticing that it's different (and IMHO better) than SD-originated footage from any sub-$10k cam...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top