Texas Shootout Pt.2 at DV.com

[John Trent]

Think this is news, guys. I'ts the first I've seen or heard of it. Adam Wilt's further examination of the four affordable HD cams. Enjoy.

 

[Pascal Parvex]

The HVX gets a good rating for that the reviewer hates it. I was left nonplussed with the gain test. The reviewer said, that the HVX at 12 dB looks like high ISO seventies 16mm film stock, but I could not see any noise, is it the wrong picture? And the motion still of the HVX looket like interlaced...

 

[Cees Mutsaers]

Barry, what is you opinio about this test ?

Barry, what is you opinio about this test ?

Looking at the quality of the images (and this is what counts at the end) for my eyes the HVX200 stay way behind any of the other competitors especially resolution wise (image looks very softy) and the colours are not very vivid. Also the fact that HVX codec should have less compression artifacts is not visible at all in the shoot of the stone in the water picture. Also the magnifying option in the EVF/LCD to be able to focus well was not very appreciated by the test panel. Focus is "very difficults" accoording to the test !!! I am now very confused about the HVX. I am/was on the edge of buying one this summer. Can someone convince me that the HVX is not that bad? I especcialy like the P2 tech. about the HVX (I hate tapes as recording media).

 

[Barry_Green]

Read the test. Adam says right up front that the HVX was not optimized properly and he'll be re-running tests with it. He says he had the HVX running at -7 detail in that test, when he should have had it at somewhere between -4 and 0 to make it comparable.

Nate doesn't like the focus assist, and that's fine, that's his opinion and he's certainly well entitled to it, he's a very accomplished director and AC. But not all will agree. He likes his HD100 very much, and that's fine. I find the HVX focus assist the most useful of the bunch.

Just look at the features of the cameras, and look at the footage that they make.

 

[rgdfilms]

Now that I have a Marshall, I like the focus assist when its absolutley necessary - it's great for setup shots but running and gunning is tough as nails if you're wide open..

 

[Cees Mutsaers]

Barry I hope he will re-runn the test with optimal setting for the HVX soon (I do not understand that results are published from this shoot-out and 1 cam is not setup properly, not very scientific !!!!). What was he thinking when he set the detail to -7 !!!!! Do you think the soft image will disappear (when detail is set at -4 to 0 ) to such an extent that is more comparable with the others. To which of the other competitors do you expect the HVX will be close with respect to image resolution after setting up the HVX as it shoot be? What about the fact that the HVX should have less compression artifacts than HDV. Can you point me to a picture in the test where I can see that?

 

[evinsky]

This test really has nothing more to offer us than any of the others we have had in the last 6 months. They have all broken down the same...
Canon XL-H1- Highest Rez but hardest to work with, edit and afford.
JVC HD100- Great for doc, best DR but has inconsistent performance (SS, Highlight shift)
HVX200, Best codec, most versitile, most reliable.

BTW the HVX and JVX both resolve about the same actual lines.

 

[izoneguy]

I guess that's why my dealer sold 20 HVX-200 vs. the 2 Canon XL-H1 during the same time period. Those 20 HVX buyers must be real idiots and should have read the DV review before making such a terrible choice.

 

[Tom Lowe]

link?

 

[Pascal Parvex]

I forgot to mention the skate footage shot in bright Califonian sun shown in the forum here, that was terribly noisy. The 12 dB from this test are way, way, WAY better.

Also the fact that HVX codec should have less compression artifacts is not visible at all in the shoot of the stone in the water picture.

That were also my thoughts when I saw HDV footage compared to the HVX DVCProHD footage on some other review: Why use an expensive codec, when the picture almost looks the same, even sharper? Where is that dreaded MPEG blockiness of the 25 MBit compression?

Edit: I know, for the ease of editing and so on, but I'm talking about perceived image quality.

link?

http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?category=Archive&articleId=189500064

But you need to be logged in.

 

[AshG]

I am not a fan of HDV but the Canon exhibits almost NO artifacting under most every scenario. Nobody should be upset, each camera has an achilles heel.



ash =o)

 

[icicle22]

I guess that's why my dealer sold 20 HVX-200 vs. the 2 Canon XL-H1 during the same time period. Those 20 HVX buyers must be real idiots and should have read the DV review before making such a terrible choice.

Why so much sarcasm? Just because the HVX200 outsold the XL-H1 10:1 doesn't make the H1 any less of a camera. I know. I owned the HVX200 and was not satisfied with the image. I loved the colors and loved the codec but I hated the image from the CCDs. Just overall too soft for my taste. But I don't buy my cameras based on what sells either. I buy it on what meets my needs. I don't really care if there are 10 HVX users to every 1 XL-H1 user. That affects the projects I am working on how exactly?

 

[AshG]

I am sure there have been 10 Sony HDV cams sold for every HVX... like I said in another thread. Sales do not indicate quality or performance, they are more an indication of price point, convenience and MARKETING!


ash =o)

 

[SPZ]

Even though I can't doubt the reviewers credibility, having myself an HVX, and having shot in low light, I can't understand how they could get that terrible colourless picture seen in those screen grabs... Give me those models, the same lighting setup and an HVX and I would show them how its done... The closest thing to an acceptable and believable HVX image is from the outdoor near the bridge stills- and even those look below the cameras capabilities!

 

[Barry_Green]

I am sure there have been 10 Sony HDV cams sold for every HVX...

Prior to the HVX being released, that's obvious.

Since its release? Not likely. I mean, they do have a wide variety of product at various price points, but I'd still argue that the HVX is outselling the Z1 and the FX1's apparently been discontinued so that's not really relevant.

The interesting thing will be to see if the FX2 (if that's what it's called) will be HDV, or if they'll jump to AVC-HD. If they do, that should be the gong sounding for HDV as a format...

 

[ShannonRawls]

Well, I guess that's what AshG was trying to point out. What good is saying "my dealer sold 20 HVX-200 vs. the 2 Canon XL-H1 during the same time period"... when his dealer probably had the XL-H1 in stock and for sale in 2005 about 3 solid months before the HVX ever made it to his dealers store in 2006! Hell, he had already sold a bunch of XL-H1's by the time the Panasonic got there and people were waiting on the HVX, so NATURALLY he sold 10:1 when it arrived. So what's the point in even saying that.....It's misleading, I think.

As far as the Texas shootout. *shrungs* I mean, I don't know what to think. Barry, you know I have my thoughts on the numbers & stuff *smile* I kinda think Adam was being a bit political in some areas. I think he scored the XL-H1 higher in some tests then it really should have received and the HVX200 lower in areas that I know damn well it should have been higher. And vice versa, ya feel me?

The point is, the Texas shootout, to me, is an end-all-be all summation of these cameras and I'm glad they did such a great test. For the most part, indecisive buyers can safely use that report to base their camera decisions on in reference to their particular needs of shooting I suppose. Couple that with footage comparison of the cameras that match their shooting requirements, and the rest should be a no-brainer.

I wonder what Mike thinks. Is his report coming soon?

 

[dregenthal]

Well, I guess that's what AshG was trying to point out. What good is saying "my dealer sold 20 HVX-200 vs. the 2 Canon XL-H1 during the same time period"... when his dealer probably had the XL-H1 in stock and for sale in 2005 about 3 solid months before the HVX ever made it to his dealers store in 2006! Hell, he had already sold a bunch of XL-H1's by the time the Panasonic got there and people were waiting on the HVX, so NATURALLY he sold 10:1 when it arrived. So what's the point in even saying that.....It's misleading, I think.

Shannon- I think that when he specified "during the same period" (if we accept this remark as being valid) then it makes a legitimate statement. I am supposing this was his point--I can only guess that, at the present time, this would be a consistant finding at larger pro-camera houses.

Down the road when something new is released all bets are off because this is subject to change (over and over). Then again, the DVX enjoyed a pretty good run.

 

[harddrive]

The interesting thing will be to see if the FX2 (if that's what it's called) will be HDV, or if they'll jump to AVC-HD. If they do, that should be the gong sounding for HDV as a format...

And, I suspect, for DVCProHD and it's very high bitrate! More interesting will be what Sony decide to record the signal on, and I'd guess the choice would be between an 8cm optical disc or some form of solid state like Compact Flash. At this point, they become freed from the 25Mbs limit of the tape deck, so it will also be interesting to see whether the camera has variable bitrate/quality, and especially an AVC I frame only mode.

I found the write up on the shoot out as good as anybody can realistically hope for, and got the impression that they were at least trying to be objective. Their conclusions more or less mirror those I'd personally come to. That there just is not one out and out winner overall. There ARE differences, but none of the models are consistently better or worse than the others. And all of the 1/3" models are nowhere near up to the standard of the 2/3" cameras - given the price difference that really shouldn't come as a surprise.

Nothing I've seen or read would put me off buying an HVX on grounds of quality, but I could say the same about the other 3 models. It really is down to which works best for you. Where Panasonic do really need to pull their socks up for the next generation is (as the test emphasises) physical handling, and to a lesser degree the same can be said for Sony. Both manufacturers would do well to try handholding their own products, then try an HD100........

 

[Illya Friedman]

I am not a fan of HDV but the Canon exhibits almost NO artifacting under most every scenario. Nobody should be upset, each camera has an achilles heel.

I went to the Canon XLH1 Paramount event two weeks ago, and there was artifacting both chromatic and 24F temporal. The camera that was hooked up to the 24" Sony BVM. The XLH1 also had 8 lit pixels. When I pointed this out to the other people looking on and the Canon rep they took the camera away from me.

The manual knee selection on that cam seemed next to useless, which is a real pitty because there's real potentional for powerful image improvements with a manual knee. Can't argue with the sharpness, 60i looks fantastic on the XLH1. A great choice if you are planning on originating in 60i.

I.

 

[Barry_Green]

More interesting will be what Sony decide to record the signal on, and I'd guess the choice would be between an 8cm optical disc or some form of solid state like Compact Flash.

Sony is choosing 8cm mini-DVDs. Panasonic is choosing SD cards. Both are joint developers of AVC-HD, but they've already stated what their preferred recording formats will be.

At this point, they become freed from the 25Mbs limit of the tape deck, so it will also be interesting to see whether the camera has variable bitrate/quality,

If it's AVC-HD, it will have variable bitrates for variable quality, with a max of 18mbps.

and especially an AVC I frame only mode.

If it's AVC-HD, no I-frame-only will be included. Panasonic is adding that to their larger cameras (called AVC-Intra) but Sony hasn't made any similar announcement.