Uncompressed signal out .. what does it mean ?

[fomoDVXpal]

I just don't know if the consumer will see what your saying. No matter how logical. Some of the best pros keep it so simple that the see an image they like, see that it's an interchangeable lens, uncompressed out, easy to tape and the say BUY!

But that's not say that what you say is super relevant.

 

[xray]

Hello Barry,
First , when the Z1 arrived you said: 'O, this cam shoots 60i it is almost reality, so it is only usable for news shoot and sport. You need progressive for a real magic image feeling.' Now with the JVC HD100 you say ' O, this cam can't shoot reality it can only shoot progressive so it is almost unusable for news, sport etc.'

You go with the wind, and the hurricane is named Panasonic.

A progressive shooting cam like the JVC ProHD100 with interchangeable lens is way superior to a semiautomatic consumer oriented lens system. Just for the possibility to rent a 12.000 $ lens for your shoot. Do you know that lots of movies have been shot with the Canon? Only DV but with powerful lenses? Do you think the automatic Leica lens is way better than the Fuji or Canon broadcastlenses? Really?

So how to think over an item like the shoulder mount and the rig system. With a camera like the HDX/DVX you have to - amateur oriented- shoot out of your hands or you have to buy an external rig. And it has a $600,- ? lens on it.

Sure we have to see the image, and with the JVC you can connect a good lens and say: 'he! this is possible with this cam, make up your choice. '

So if you want to advertise the mighty Pana as THE best in anything and even promotes that the fixed lens seems to be superior to a system where you can create your one image by adding a lens, go ahead. But some documentary and cinema people will think HUHH?

Now you are saying that the auto-lens is practical the same as a real lens but with some extra like image stabilisation and autofocus?

Lets give the two cams to a DOP and let him decide what he likes best, and find most truthfull to handle. And let it be an independent filmmaker!

 

[Mediacre]

I have been wanting to say it for a while already on these boards, but I didn't because I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. But I think this boards is incredibly biased towards Panasonic. At least that's the impression I get. Well, I guest it's expectable, since it's called DVXuser and just look which camera is pictured at the top of the main page. :grin:
Not particularly talking about Barry by the way. He seems not to be biased. But I still get the feeling from many.


Now, I don't say the JVC is better, or the HVX is better. I want to see footage first. All I do is discuss the available specs. I'm actually a little more excited over the HVX for 108024p and variable frame rates with 4:2:2. As long as the lens will be an improvement over the DVX, it should be a workable solution for the price. But if it can't record straight to a firewire drive, I probably won't buy one.
But regardless of all the features the HVX may have, in one department the HD100 is running miles around it, and that is the lens department. I really can't see the HVX lens being better quality for that price. I think they will be pretty much the same quality, but....the HD100 is a manual lens and gives me options. Enough said for me.

 

[Barry_Green]

First , when the Z1 arrived you said: 'O, this cam shoots 60i it is almost reality, so it is only usable for news shoot and sport. You need progressive for a real magic image feeling.' Now with the JVC HD100 you say ' O, this cam can't shoot reality it can only shoot progressive so it is almost unusable for news, sport etc.'

When the Z1 arrived, I said "great for shooting reality. Not good for drama." With the HD100, I'm saying "suitable for drama. Not good for reality." Are you implying there's any inconsistency in that?

You go with the wind, and the hurricane is named Panasonic.

Instead of accusing me of "going with the wind", why don't you just examine the statements and see that they're true. With the DVX and with the XL2, Panasonic and Canon are giving you both. You don't have to choose one or the other, you can shoot whichever one you want. What's hard to understand about that? You put it in 60i for the "realilty" look, or 24p for the "drama" look. JVC and Sony don't give you that choice, they limit you to either/or. And those framerates that they do offer are suitable for certain tasks, and not suitable for others.

Do you think the automatic Leica lens is way better than the Fuji or Canon broadcastlenses? Really?

Did I ever say anything even remotely like that? I mean, anything that anyone, anywhere, on any planet speaking any language, could possibly interpret to mean that I said something like that? I don't think so.

The point of the writeup was to call into question the notion that only an interchangeable, fully-manual lens is the only viable way to work. I never said that a fixed lens was better than interchangeable -- to say so would be stupid. What I said was, this lens isn't like the auto-only lens on an XL1 -- this can do just about all the jobs that need to be done. You can focus with it, you can use a follow focus, it has true manual zoom and repeatable focus, etc. Is it "better" than a broadcast lens? Probably not. But a) make sure you're talking about an ACTUAL broadcast lens, I'm not sold on the idea that the included $1200 lens is one; and b) compare what you're gaining vs. what you're giving up.
Like I said, if both cameras included the exact same lens, the question between the two would be ridiculous -- of course everyone would get the Panasonic; 1080/24p is worth it alone. But because the lenses aren't the same, then you have to compare: is the extra capability of the Panasonic worth putting up with the fixed lens, vs. is the interchangeability of the JVC worth the HDV compromises you have to make for it.

That's an open question. That's for the user to decide. All I'm spelling out is that the decision isn't as simple as saying "oh, this lens is removable, therefore this is the camera I want" -- someone thinking that way would be ... well, misinformed, at the least.

Lets give the two cams to a DOP and let him decide what he likes best, and find most truthfull to handle. And let it be an independent filmmaker!

I was talking with Adam Wilt today, and we're talking about putting together the ultimate camera comparison when the HVX and HD100 are both on the market and available... Z1, HVX, HD100, CineAlta, and VariCam. And this comparison will feature owner-operators handling their own cameras, so there won't be any chants of "bias". And I'll probably bring in some DP's to a) view the footage, not knowing which camera shot which, so there won't be any bias at all. Then we'll let them use the cameras themselves, and write up their report.

 

[joelnet]

JVC and Sony don't give you that choice, they limit you to either/or. And those framerates that they do offer are suitable for certain tasks, and not suitable for others.

Well, there was that guy around here with 27 years of experience who's done tons of news that said the JVC smoothing looked terrific and he'd have no problem airing it for news or reality. I'm trusting his opinion - he saw the footage being edited and he felt good about it. Unless he's an impostor - but we'll know when the unit comes out.

I think people are going to plug in, turn on, edit and make up their mind.

The one GIANT thing you left out of your analysis is P2 vs. miniDV tape. There are probably a lot of people NOT buying into P2 as being worth $4k just to get 20 minutes of recording time. And we really don't know much about JVC's implementation of HDV. Their reps seemed to want to say they weren't like Sony to me.

Back to P2 - Imagine paying $4k for those 2 8gig cards so you can swap cards every 8 minutes at an event. Dump one card at 1gig per minute while you're recording on the other. Panasonic isn't getting any of those people. Well, maybe a few hardcore Panny fans. The Panny argument seems to be "just wait, prices will come down". Wait how long? 2 years? JVC, Canon and Sony might have their new thing with 4:4:4 raw out, variable fps, 20 gig memory stick raids and the kitchen sink by then. (I really am betting the next cycle will be faster than the last cycle because it's not a quantum leap like last cycle). Also, if I was a marketer (ok, I am) I'd realize there's a unique opportunity here to steal market share because it's a format change - IMHO. So they should be going balls to the walls for the next couple of years - overtime, loss leaders, paying off industry leaders to rep their unit. The HD gold rush is on.

Panasonic are well behind Sony and a little behind JVC at the prosumer end of the market and are trying all they can to keep people from buying now buy "promising" a lot tomorrow.

Mediacre does have a point. Some folks give Panny every benefit of the doubt despite the fact that they showed up with a camera full of sand (apparently) but those same people assume the worst about HDV, Sony and JVC - who actually had working products at NAB.

I'm brand agnostic. I want the best color range, clarity and keying potential. On paper that's the Panasonic, but when's it going to be here and do they really deserve my benefit of the doubt?

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, there was that guy around here with 27 years of experience who's done tons of news that said the JVC smoothing looked terrific and he'd have no problem airing it for news or reality. I'm trusting his opinion - he saw the footage being edited and he felt good about it. Unless he's an impostor - but we'll know when the unit comes out.

That's Steve Gibby. He's no impostor, we sat together at the Emmy awards a couple of years ago, and each won one. He's since relocated to California. Definitely not an impostor.

I don't know how he saw the motion smoothing, unless either the JVC rep that told him he was watching motion smoothing was wrong, or the JVC rep that told me I *wasn't* watching motion smoothing, was wrong. Or he was shown some different footage that wasn't available on the show floor, footage that I didn't get to see.

Frankly, I'm hoping that what I saw *was* motion-smoothing, and was just mis-labeled. I was told initially that it was motion-smoothed, then the guy I was talking to went and checked and came back and said that he was wrong, and that it *wasn't* motion-smoothed. If it was, then that would explain a lot, about why it looked blurry, etc.

The live output was sharp enough that you'd cut yourself if you touched the screen. On tape, that was another story entirely. If Steve saw something that none of the rest of us saw, I'll defer to his judgement. But if we were looking at the same footage, all I can say is that several of us would disagree. BUT -- I still say, what I saw on that plasma monitor is not necessarily indicative of what final footage will look like, so judgement must be withheld until the finished product is shipping.

The one GIANT thing you left out of your analysis is P2 vs. miniDV tape. There are probably a lot of people NOT buying into P2 as being worth $4k just to get 20 minutes of recording time. And we really don't know much about JVC's implementation of HDV. Their reps seemed to want to say they weren't like Sony to me.

I left P2 out because frankly, people don't understand it, and it's one of those things that as soon as you use it, a light bulb goes off in your head and you say "oh, now I get it" -- and you'll never go back. But apparently it can't be explained adequately -- I've tried, others have tried, and still people come back and say "but a tape is $4."

As far as JVC not talking about their HDV, I'm not sure that's really a concern -- JVC's been pretty open about it, haven't they? What questions did you have that they didn't answer?

Mediacre does have a point. Some folks give Panny every benefit of the doubt despite the fact that they showed up with a camera full of sand (apparently) but those same people assume the worst about HDV, Sony and JVC - who actually had working products at NAB.

Yes, but the reason why is -- because they have working products, we've been able to see the footage. Fanboys want to argue specs all day long, but like I've said a million times, I don't care what the specs are, I only care what the footage looks like. I don't care if the CCDs have 40 x 30 pixels, if the footage looks better than the competition (and the camera's workable) then that's all that matters. We've had a chance now to work with the JVC HD1 and the Sony FX1/Z1, and I don't really care that much for the workflow. I like the FX1 okay, but not HDV, there's really nothing very good about it, it's like a stopgap format. So yeah, I'm amped about the prospect of what Panasonic's promising -- on paper, it looks like it will be far superior.

But if the footage doesn't keep the promises that the specs are making, then forget it.

And I still say, the jury's out on the JVC until I see footage from a working, finished, production model. The live output is great -- what does it *really* look like once it hits the tape? That's what counts. And that footage I saw was definitely not good enough to qualify as "HD", but in my opinion that is *not* a fair test case, because things can change a lot between now and July.

 

[redindian]

I left P2 out because frankly, people don't understand it, and it's one of those things that as soon as you use it, a light bulb goes off in your head and you say "oh, now I get it" -- and you'll never go back. But apparently it can't be explained adequately -- I've tried, others have tried, and still people come back and say "but a tape is $4."
.

In SLR film camera anology
Tape - Like Kodak film, you delevop it, print it, scan it, then edit it in computer
P2 - CF card - shoot then you plug it in computer, and there u have it. The image is developed and scanned straight ONE STEP process.

Then you can just use the compact flash card over and over. Life is simple - my 2GB card was $400, now its $200 - but the convinence it offers is 'priceless' I think 8GB p2 will be around $1000 when the camera is eventually released.

Barry is right - once you get it - its hard to go back.

I *wish* really wish Panasonic had built interchangeable lens in HVX - they seem to know the pulse of the market, but somehow fudged it. I wud gladly pay 1K more for that feature alone.

 

[thisiswells]

These will be my final comments on why having a lens on the camera is a good idea.
Even if I could pay extra to have a camera without a lens, I could not afford to buy
a lens with the same, useful focal lengths of the 4.5-57mm as the HVX comes with.
That type of lens would cost about the same as the camera itself and I can't afford that.
I make purchases based on what a product does for me now, not some magical point in
the future when I'll be able to upgrade or whatever. Because it has an lens mount and
thus exchangeable lenses is selling me on an idea--the idea that one day I will strike gold
and purchase a high quality lens to match the camera. If that were to happen, I would
probably buy a different camera altogether. The only thing the JVC offers is like a mirage,
a hope that having that camera somehow makes me better off because dangling right in
front of me is the hope that I could have something different, something better. But, it's
not real. It's one singular feature on a sourly performing camera that makes some people
think it might create sharper images. There's a point at which sharper just isn't as relevant
as other aspects of imaging, such as response curves which Panny owns the market on, or
variable framerates, or IT-based workflow. Those are features that matter to me. As I've said,
the one thing HD100 offers is like a mirage, it looks good on the surface until you get close,
then it's gone. I only mention this in case you didn't know what a mirage is. lol. ;-)
night.

brian wells

 

[xray]

When the Z1 arrived, I said "great for shooting reality. Not good for drama." With the HD100, I'm saying "suitable for drama. Not good for reality." Are you implying there's any inconsistency in that?/QUOTE]

Yes it is, you said 'it is like looking out the window' Nowhere the feeling of progressive shoot. You take the side with comes you best. Why don't you say the JVC is great for shooting drama and suitable for reality too? We shoot newsitems with an DVX 25P.
[ Please wait a moment I have a message: CARD FULL ]

Instead of accusing me of "going with the wind", why don't you just examine the statements and see that they're true./QUOTE]

Accusing? ;>) Well, I say the hurricane you go is named Pana, and that is the wind you go, You do not agree? I think you bring it up in a way it promotes Panasonic.
[ can you hold on? I have a message: SWITCH CARDS ]

Not so long ago you said that JVC could sell tons of the HD100 because people who are buying the JVC do not read specs, or do not know the system at all- sure that would then go for any cam-, but as you noticed, I don't believe that.

You can focus with it, you can use a follow focus, it has true manual zoom and repeatable focus, etc. Is it "better" than a broadcast lens? Probably not. But a) make sure you're talking about an ACTUAL broadcast lens, I'm not sold on the idea that the included $1200 lens is one; and b) compare what you're gaining vs. what you're giving up./QUOTE]

It does not feel like a real lens is a`ll that matters.
And no one is buying a cam with a manual lens without looking specs. And I like the possibillity to rent a lens if I need it. You think the DVX lens has better optics?
[ Do you have a moment? I have to dump the P2 cards to my external drive ]

Like I said, if both cameras included the exact same lens, the question between the two would be ridiculous -- of course everyone would get the Panasonic; 1080/24p is worth it alone./QUOTE]

Dont think so, if the choice is a system which uses tape and/or hard drive with HD quallity image with a good shoulder mount and professional feel against expensive short memorycards and the looks of a computer with a fixed lens.

[ please can you smash that car again? I was dumping my last 4 minutes shoot ]

I was talking with Adam Wilt today, and we're talking about putting together the ultimate camera comparison when the HVX and HD100 are both on the market and available.../QUOTE]

You are right, only the Z1 is available, the HD100 in july, the HDX not in the next 6 months.
[ where is my drive? Who's stolen my drive? ]

And this comparison will feature owner-operators handling their own cameras, so there won't be any chants of "bias". And I'll probably bring in some DP's to a) view the footage, not knowing which camera shot which, so there won't be any bias at all. Then we'll let them use the cameras themselves, and write up their report/QUOTE]

That I realy like, specially to bring in unbiassd DP's, they know it is worth sometimes to rent a $6000,- lens.

 

[joelnet]

I agree with most everything you say in your previous response and I'm with you, I'll look at real world performance. If the JVC tape thing is horrible then that product will be cooked. Regarding JVC's HDV I think their sales reps were trying to imply their version was somehow better than Sony's. I really don't have any questions that can be answered other than real world testing. Again, that's only attitude a reasonable person can take. Specs give a hint but does it really work?

I left P2 out because frankly, people don't understand it, and it's one of those things that as soon as you use it,

I do take a little exception to this. We don't "get it"? I think you're being a little presumptuous there. I really haven't seen much criticism of the idea. Mostly it's just the outrageous price.

I certainly get the convenience and I MUCH prefer a digital solution to tape. And in my case, the short recording times don't bug me at all. I've been shooting 100 and 400 foot rolls of film. It doesn't get less convenient than that. In reality, you can do an awful lot of damage in 8 minutes. And the Panny clearly provides easy deletion of takes. Also, no time code breaks, right? Lotsa great stuff there.

BUT with such short recording times and such expensive media people who need longer continuous recording times will have to find another solution. That solution will probably be to get the Sony or the JVC. I don't think Panny has a hope in hell of getting those people unless something like a Firestore gets developed for the HVX. Imagine a Firestore loaded with replaceable compact flash cards or SD cards in a raid for a fraction of the P2 price. At that point P2 is done and over. Even if the Firestore used a hard drive people would prefer it to P2 at P2's price.

Also, the second someone builds an external recording device that converts raw input to a nice HD codec like Avid's then EVERYONE has solid state recording and the P2 edge is gone. I think that'll happen before P2 prices get reasonable.

I have to say, the more I think about the more I think P2 will have A LOT of competition. Even if they give it away.

Also, the Panny is pretty ugly. It seems near unananimous. If I was them I'd hit the drawing board again and streamline that thing somehow.

I think Panasonic got TERRIFIC feedback at NAB and here that they can really use to their advantage.

 

[thisiswells]

P2 is the only solution that fits inside the camera with out cables, HDD's, and more batteries.
There is benefit there for me having it inside the camera as opposed to being tethered to something
else in a backback. That doesn't really appeal to me much. To each his own. 40 minutes on 2-8GB
P2 cards in 720p24 HD in a package around 10K seems ridiculously reasonable to me. Offload the
cards to something when they're full then start over. The cards aren't cheap, but they enable
cheaper and smaller and lighter camcorders that don't require a DVCPRO-HD tape system. : )

 

[Neil Rowe]

..yeah, ive got to agree with barry as far as people understanding of p2.. theres alot of misunderstanding and plain lack of understanding concerning the P2 workflow and how the HVX works with it in general.. and all the skepticism associated seems to all roll back to .. " well i cant afford it ...so its not good" .. whatever.
..so much rationalizing trying to make HDV or HDV pro cameras stand up to the HVX and its all really rediculous.. just buy the best camera you can afford to work with and dont try to convince yourself or anyone else that its as good , or any better than the ones you cant afford the workflow with.. because its not. end of story.

P2 makes perfect sense. if you dont get it.. it doesnt mean that it doesnt make sense.. it just means you dont get it. ..people didnt grasp the DVX and 24p when it came out either.. why.. i dont know. becuase im not one of those people. but its simply a case of : if you know you stuff.. its going to look awsome.. if not.. its going to confuse you, and seem complicated and too much trouble. when in fact its very simple, and makes alot of sense.
the problem lies in those that are know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be any help. .. anyway . fact of the matter is that the P2 workflow is the most reliable and affordable way to record in a high quality professional format like DVCPRO HD that is available... you cannot have you cake and eat it too. you can t have uncompressed, and stick it on a mini dv tape or your i-pod, and you cant get high quality HD like DVCPRO-HD without a great solution like P2 in a camera at this cost. ...people dont have to understand it, but they should at least respect the facts in the matter. people want HD , and then they complain that they might not be able to use it now.. .. whatever.. they want uncomprimised high quality HD and then they dont want to pay for it even though its at breakthrough pricing from costst they could never afford before.. lets get real people. the HVX isnt a toy .. its alot more "PRO".. and less "SUMER"... its for serious people. serious people pay for what they want. and understand how to use it.

rant over.. sorry. had that built up.

 

[thisiswells]

yah, i'm about to bust a cap, too.

 

[Barry_Green]

Xray, your points are taken. You hate the idea. Fine. I wish you the best with your tape-based solution.

I will freely admit being biased towards the best product. I am not biased towards any particular brand or manufacturer, but I am biased towards the best solution. I do have to ask -- do you have a DVX? If so, do you notice any difference between 60i and 30p? Any difference between 60i and 24p? And if so, do you not agree that one is vastly more appropriate than the other, for certain shooting circumstances?

And, assuming that you do, do you at least acknowledge that the Sony shoots interlaced ("reality") but not slower-frame-rate progressive ("drama"), and the JVC shoots 24p and 30p, but not 60p. If we can't agree on that, then there's no point in continuing any sort of discussion.

 

[Mediacre]

Somebody suggested a Mac Mini as an more portable alternative to a laptop in order to record uncompressed direct to HDD in another board. His idea was to use the Mac Mini with Andromeda. I have no idea if it would work, but if it would really work with Andromeda, couldn't it work with the HD100 and HVX200 as well? So we could record uncompressed 4:2:2 720 60p to HDD without the huge weight of a laptop.

 

[Barry_Green]

A Mac Mini isn't a portable computer. It's small, yes, but it's not portable like a laptop -- its hard drive isn't designed for portability, its power supply is a cord, not a battery, it needs a keyboard and a monitor attached to it...

A Mac Mini would be easier to carry from one location to another than a desktop computer would, but short of that, it *is* a desktop computer...

 

[David Jimerson]

Don't you need a . . . monitor? Keyboard?

 

[Mediacre]

But would it work?

 

[David Jimerson]

If it could, I don't see the advantage over the laptop, and in fact, I see a considerable disadvantage.

 

[Barry_Green]

With the Andromeda he's using a USB2 or Firewire800 bus to transfer the data, right? If so, it seems like a Mac Mini would work, but then again so would any desktop computer, right?

The difference with the HVX and JVC is that you're talking about digitizing component analog high-def video, at a rate of 166 megabytes per second. To get that kind of data stream into a computer you'll need some sort of card to capture it (which may not work in a Mac Mini) and you'd need a RAID to support the data rate, again something the Mac Mini doesn't have.

I haven't really kept up on this, because last time I looked at uncompressed HD capture it was wildly impractical. Have things changed? What does it take to handle a 166-megabyte per second data stream, captured from Y/Pr/Pb, nowadays?