This GY-HD100U is SWEET ! ! !

[reservoir]

Well not to be platform specific, but DVDSP4 supports both HD-DVD & Blu-Ray formats.

Says who?

And how can this be since no exact specifications for either format have been finalized / released (to my knowledge)!!

~reservoir~

 

[Phooey]

Apple's press conference today introduced HD-DVD. But they didn't say anything about Blu-Ray. My guess is that either it will have upcoming support, or they'll be introducing the hardware tomorrow, then indicate support for both.

 

[reservoir]

What the hell? HD-DVD....they must be going to support both formats. I mean....wtf?....they just recently joined the Blu-ray consortium!!

Actually...from what I'm reading on their website about finalcutpro studio....they are saying you can encode h.264 video onto *exisiting* DVD's. I didn't read ANYTHING about supporting full-fledged HD-DVD.

~reservoir~

 

[Rezzie]

What Apple is doing is having HD encoded onto normal DVDs, but so far they can only be played back on Apple's DVD player program...maybe DVD players released in the near future will be able to play them.

 

[reservoir]

That would be kinda cool. I don't see it as a *major* obstacle because alot of dvd players can already play encoded formats like Mp3's and stuff.

~reservoir~

 

[Phooey]

Yeah. Why the hell not?

I've been reading all over Apple's website trying to figure out why in the hell you'd want to record HD to regular DVD's. Only to play on Apple computers? I checked out the new DVD Player 4.5 that comes with Tiger and it didn't say anything about playing HD. But I'm sure it just uses QT anyway. So, I'm cornfused. Seems you could just output an HD project with the H.264 codec, burn that to dvd and play on any computer with QT7. No menus of course, but whatever.

I'm still leaning to the HVX, but I have to admit that Apple's demo of editing HDV footage has my interest peaked. I'm really curious to see some of the new JVC 24p footage shot and edited with FCP5. What sucks is I have a big shoot coming up in August and I would love to shoot HD. Only problem is, I don't rent cameras. It's a waste of money, which I don't have a lot of. And the HVX won't be out.

 

[lebroz]

I told people a long time ago that DVD will be here for a long time, It was a argument about Playstation 3 and XBOX 2 (Microsoft chose going with a DVD drive)

Jan why am I still not an integral employee of Panasonic?

I said it and wow It holds up JVC is ... read the title

JVC $5000 street + External Harddrive (HDV, no dropout) = $6000? 80 Gigs + HDV

 

[Sureshot]

Back on topic... My biggest problem with the HVX is the lens. Working with these prosumer cameras is such a pain because the lenses suck. The iris closes when you zoom which makes matching two cameras difficult if one's picking up master shots while the other is getting closeups. You can match 'em in post of course, or I could just shoot on a HD100 and save myself the trouble. I've used the same lens on the HD100 on the DV5000U and I can tell you it's a breeze. 1080p is nice though, and so is the 4:2:2. Nevertheless, I have been drooling over the prospect of having a real lens on an affordable HD cam since I started working with the FX-1 a few months ago.

 

[Aaron Koolen]

I think the answer is pretty simple for you then, you'd be better served by the HD100. I've never used a pro lens, and so maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but solid state recording, along with the insance resolutions, 4:2:2, TRUE slow motion is probably going to be more than enough for what I do.


Aaron

 

[thisiswells]

Back on topic... My biggest problem with the HVX is the lens. Working with these prosumer cameras is such a pain because the lenses suck.

I've never used the HVX lens.

The iris closes when you zoom which makes matching two cameras difficult if one's picking up master shots while the other is getting closeups. You can match 'em in post of course, or I could just shoot on a HD100 and save myself the trouble.

What do you mean? I've never had the iris close when zooming in, that is unless
the lens was at open aperture and closed a few stops while zooming to full telephoto--
like most all zoom lenses--including the finest Fujinon and Canon zooms.

I've used the same lens on the HD100 on the DV5000U and I can tell you it's a breeze. 1080p is nice though, and so is the 4:2:2.

So, then what you're saying is:
"The lens on the HD100 is the same SD lens from the DV5000."

Nevertheless, I have been drooling over the prospect of having a real lens on an affordable HD cam since I started working with the FX-1 a few months ago.

Cool. Me, too. Some of the finest interviews I have ever shot were with the DV500.
That was a really good camera. Totally dig it. But come on, with HD, you have only
two options in HDV: 1080i with four times the resolution of 480i or 720p with
two times the resolution of 480i.. Let's examine how those larger images are handled.

In 720p60 HDV it always records 60 frames a second to tape. Now, when the HD100
is recording 24p, it is actually recording a padded 24 with duplicate frames to tape for
a total of 60, hence the term 720p60. So, you've got twice the resolution of 480i.

In 1080i60 HDV it always records 60 fields a second to tape. Now, when the FX1/Z!
is recording faux CineFrame 24, it is actually recording 24 with a pulldown for a total
of 60 fields, hence the term 1080i60. So, you've got four times the resolution of 480i.

The interesting thing about both formats is they are recording both audio and video
on the same portion of tape that MiniDV normally reserves for only video. That
space if 19mbps. So, when they say 25mbps that isn't really true. There is nothing
on the audio portion of the tape, except the HD100, but it still records compressed
audio in the video portion of tape, in addition to uncompressed in the audio portion.

So, in 720p60 you've got 60 full frames being recorded to a 19mbps stream. Well,
suppose you're only wanting 24 of them, well you still have to record 60. This means
that 24p on the HD100 is actually only 24/60 of 19mbps--or about 8mbps, less than
half that of regular DV. So, twice the resolution and one-half the bandwidth. You know,
that just doesn't seem like a very good tradeoff. Oh, and that's 8mbps WITH AUDIO.

There is alot more I could write about the dishonest tactics used to market HDV,
but I'm tired and just don't feel up to it. Point is: Yeah, maybe you could put a much
more expensive lens on that camera, but the compression would ruin any potential
benefit derived from it. And, you're not going to convince me that iris ring is worth it.

brian wells

 

[Barry_Green]

The iris closes when you zoom which makes matching two cameras difficult if one's picking up master shots while the other is getting closeups.

As Brian said, basically all lenses do this, and if you find one with a consistent T-stop throughout the zoom range, it's MEGA expensive.

The solution is very simple -- just use f/2.8 on both cameras as your maximum aperture. That way it'll stay consistent throughout the zoom range.

I've used the same lens on the HD100 on the DV5000U and I can tell you it's a breeze.

Not likely -- the HD100 is using a newly-designed 1/3" lens. The DV5000U is a 1/2" camera. You may have used the same style of lens, but it's very unlikely that you used this same lens.

 

[Sureshot]

It's essentially the same lens. The bayonet size might be different, but the focal length and specs are the same.

I'd still rather keep the iris as open as possible for a really shallow depth of field.

The fact remains, I'd rather have a pro, interchangable lens that doesn't close the iris when you zoom.

The main reason I'm not happy with the HVX is because it only records DV to tape. You can't record HD to tape. If you're recording HD you need to use P2 which costs $100/min. Hard drive recording is nice and it does have less hassle than using tape, but there is no method of archiving without going to tape eventually anyway.

 

[redindian]

What do you mean? I've never had the iris close when zooming in, that is unless
the lens was at open aperture and closed a few stops while zooming to full telephoto--
like most all zoom lenses--including the finest Fujinon and Canon zooms.

brian wells

no, fixed aperture lenses dont - from wide to full zoom they MAINTAIN the aperture, thats what is wonderful about pro lenses (canon zooms)

ex: canon slr lenses -
70-300/4-5.6 is ~$120 (70 at 4 - 300 at 5.6) while a PRO 70-200/2.8 (70 at 2.8 - 200 also at 2.8) is ~$1700

 

[icicle22]

I can't speak to the exact specs of the Canon manual 16x lens for the XL series, but I can say this. On my XL2,when I open the iris all the way at the wide end and zoom to the maximum telephoto end, I see no shift in the iris at all. The numbers in the viewfinder stay at 1.6 all the way through the zoom range and I visually can see that the image does not get darker. The Canon 20x lens drops from 1.6 to 3.2 at the maximum telephoto end. The DVX did this also but maybe not quite as much. I see absolutely no sign of this with the 16x manual. I am not saying that it isn't occurring to some degree but the camera does not report a change and my exposure appears to be constant across the range. I know that lenses is this price range are not supposed to behave this way but this lens is defying that trend. At least for me so far....knock on wood.

FWIW.

 

[Shaw]

It happens, or should happen with every zoom lens. Telephoto lenses (which you are effectively creating by zooming) are generally slower than normal/wide angle. The iris doens't change whatsoever but the amount of light actually making it through the lens does. None of these lenses in the DVX class or above adjust the iris when zooming.

 

[icicle22]

It happens, or should happen with every zoom lens. Telephoto lenses (which you are effectively creating by zooming) are generally slower than normal/wide angle. The iris doens't change whatsoever but the amount of light actually making it through the lens does. None of these lenses in the DVX class or above adjust the iris when zooming.

I am not sure what you are saying in that last line.
" None of these lenses in the DVX class or above adjust the iris when zooming"?

can you clarify? Because while it may not adjust the iris the numbers in the readout do change to reflect the decreased exposure at the tele side on the DVX and on the Servo XL2 lenses. But on the manual 16x lens the f-stop, as reported by the camera readout, does not change even at max telephoto. And to my eye it does not appear to change the exposure either. On the DVX and the Canon 20x if you expose a subject at wide and zoom all the way in you can visually see the image go darker, without having to look at the readout to tell you, you know it has stopped down. On the 16x manual I just do not see that. If it is indeed slower at the tele end then it is not reporting the proper numbers and I cannot perceive the loss of light with my naked eyes. Which I have to say I like a lot.

 

[Shaw]

First we need to make sure that we separate iris from f-stop. The two are related but not the same thing. Iris being the physical aperture size and f-stop being the measure of light that actually makes it to the sensor. While changing the aperture size is the most common and often used means of changing the amount of light hitting the sensor it is not the only means. Changing focal length will have an effect as well. That said,

The f-number will usually change on the body of the camera but the iris itself does not open or close (with the DVX at least). We simply loose light by going telephoto and the camera detects that loss of light and reads it out as a drop in f# (which consequently is taken to be the iris). Does the 16x lens have a manual iris? If so, the XL2 may not have full capability to read the manual settings.

The 16x may very well change little over the entire zoom range but it will change if only slightly. You can optimize a lens, in the design process, for any number of factors. Each design has trade offs. I'm guessing that making a 20x zoom lens for a 1/3" CCD is hard to do well and have consistent results with regard to distortion, aberration etc over the entire zoom range. Because of this it is probably impossible to optimize the lens to maintain maximum light without causing one of the other aspects to become unacceptable. A 16x lens would be a lot easier to make (even though it doesn't sound like that much on paper) and retain a minimal loss of light at telephoto.

 

[thisiswells]

what is wonderful about pro lenses . . . a PRO 70-200/2.8 (70 at 2.8 - 200 also at 2.8) is ~$1700

Show me a single wide angle zoom lens with a consistent open aperture throughout the zoom range,
for a price less than $40,000.00 with specs that match that of HD.

Wide angle zoom lenses are more difficult to make than short range medium-telephoto to telephoto zooms.
As video uses such a smaller sensor than film it is necessary to use wider focal lengths than on film.
Because of short focal lengths lenses are more complicated and expensive.

Or, prove me wrong and find that lens.
Zeiss DigiPrimes don't count; they're not Canon or Fuji.

 

[icicle22]

The iris is not a manual ring on the lens. It is controlled via the electronic iris switch on the body of the XL2. I agree with what you are saying. I do however remember seeing the loss of light on the old Canon 16x servo of the XL1. I also see it on the DVX and with that being a 10x zoom I would expect it to be less than the 16x manual by Canon. When we cut out all of the specs and technical garbage it can be said that to the casual user the 16x manual lens for the XL2 does not appear to suffer from the loss of light associated with zoom lenses. If this one behaves like this it is quite possible that higher end ENG glass does too. That would give a person the impression that the "consumer lenses" are inferior because they appear to lose a full stop or more at telephoto. In all fairness we have no idea how the HVX200 will react....and unless the person who stated that this behavior is absent on the 16x JVC glass has actually tried it we don't know for sure there either.

I am simply pointing out that the 16x manual lens on the Canon appears to "not" be affected at all (very little) in the exposure department when zooming. So it is fair to say that the 16x Fujinon glass for the JVC could potentially behave the same. And although it is not a big issue, I must admit that I hate exposing a subject, zooming in and finding out it is now underexposed. I guess this only happens in lower light or when you are trying to create a very shallow DOF....which can be frequently if you are looking for the film look.

 

[thisiswells]

Probably what you guys are seeing is a vingette of the black internal lens mounts
that hold individual lens elements and probably not an exposure difference.

Maybe someone more adept with lenses could help explain this better than me.