Very good HVX vs HD100 article

[booth]

I have to say the comments about color space in that article really had me shaking my head.

"4:2:2 isn't all that much noticably different to 4:2:2..." - what is that all about??? For me that's an absurd statement.

Has he tried color correcting 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 one after the other?

And I was a little confused that he said he was recording direct to hard drive with the HD100 which isn't like-for-like let's face it, and would provide a 4:2:2 image from the HD100 anyway (???)

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Also in reading Walter's article, he did not use 24P as the workflow for 24P becomes even more challenging. To my eye, the extra resolution he claims for the the HD100 really looks more like edge enhancement or sharpness than resolution.

Workflow on DVCPRO HD is very easy and takes very little processer power, HDV on the other hand takes about 7 X the processer power over DVCPRO HD.

I have to say that I still fail to understand why is it that when people do these tests they do nothing that would stress the codec and then say there is no difference. I had one guy in the booth at NAB who insisted that I was so totally "old school" because I thought that 4:2:2 was better than 4:2:0, and that 19mbs could really be better than 100mbs. Of course he already had purchased the HD100. Sometimes you just have to wonder at the motivation on such an article.

 

[booth]

To my eye, the extra resolution he claims for the the HD100 really looks more like edge enhancement or sharpness than resolution.

I actually just remarked to a friend that he's mistaking aliasing for extra resolution.

I've been banging on about this for ages, and I'll repeat myself again. Try putting the images through a high-end Davinci2k like we did and you will find very little extra detail recorded by both cameras and any extra detail we found from the HVX not the HD100. But that was with a Davinci2k with a £25,000 CRT monitor.

 

[izoneguy]

Sometimes you just have to wonder at the motivation on such an article.

Hmmmmm???? I agree. It is the same thing I was ranting about with all these "Shoot-offs". Any camera in these price ranges will make a decent image. It's the post workflow that they never follow through on. They should do a post analysis and produce an SD DVD and WMV HD. That would really tell the story!

 

[icicle22]

All this talk of edge enhancement may be great in technical circles. But the facts are to the average Joe it looks higher res. MAybe not ideal for effects work or massive post but I can verify that the 6-7 people who I have shown footage to from my HVX and then shown footage to of downloaded hd100 clips, they all feel the HD100 looks more like the HD they see on broadcast television. My HVX looks better than SD but it doesn't seem to wow them.....or me sometimes.

I am not denying edge enhancement is or isn't applied. I only wish the HVX gave me the option to add it "if" I wanted to. If it is just a gimmick to give more perceived res then why not add it? You could turn it off if you like.

I'd just like to shoot some beautiful scenery outside and play it for folks and have them say "holy crap!" That looks amazingly clean and clear. As it is with my HVX200 at detail of +7 (just as a test) it doesn't look near as sharp as the HD100 clips I have seen.

I am not saying it's a bad camera....but perception is 1/2 the equation when trying to impress viewers. I mean....if they expect HD footage they are expecting something really HD.......Some of the stuff I have shot in HD on the HVX just looks like really good clean ED (extended definition) with better colors.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I think that the JVC camera footage looks very video ish, and so it is a matter of subjectivity and then and only if there is not a problem in the motion will it continue to look good. If there is a lot of motion in the trees, I can assure you that from the footage that we shot of trees and reeds and movement the JVC didn't look that good in comparison.

Most of the footage we were showing at NAB stopped traffic, like the wolves footage from Kevin Railsbach, or the music video or the footage from the History channel project or even the fountains at Bellagio, it all looked good. I personally don't care for the white outline that I see in most of the examples of the HD100, to me this is enhancement and will only become uglier through the post process.

Keep in mind that you have a couple of menus that will help define the image and reduce noise. Detail coring is a good choice for reducing noise but if you have made your detail below 0, it will not have a lot of effect. It may be just working with your camera a bit more in the menus will get you closer to what you are looking for.

Also you want to be very clear on focus. to try and focus the camera without the focus assist and the peaking adjustment would be foolhardy, and while I am not saying that you did, it will take a bit of practice to understand what the camera is doing. As with all tools it does take a couple of times to get it. I know it has taken me a bit of practice as well.

Anyhow hope this helps,

Jan

 

[Johny]

Forgive me for what might be a dumb question to some but, it was stated hdv takes 7 times the processing power of hdpro. Isn't what is recorded on tape out of the hd100 Mpeg2? Isn't that the same mpeg2 that can go without rendering to a dvd? If this turns out to be a real dumb question, please don't gang up on me. I"m afraid of some of the bullies in this forum.

 

[DavidBeier]

I've been banging on about this for ages, and I'll repeat myself again. Try putting the images through a high-end Davinci2k like we did and you will find very little extra detail recorded by both cameras and any extra detail we found from the HVX not the HD100. But that was with a Davinci2k with a £25,000 CRT monitor.

Well, if this is accurate, you may have well sold me. If all the extra detail is actually just edge enhancment then this deals a pretty signifigant blow to the JVC argument. I'd love see some 2k stills to verify this (not that I don't trust you simply that, like anyone, I need to see things with my own eyes).

All this talk of edge enhancement may be great in technical circles. But the facts are to the average Joe it looks higher res. MAybe not ideal for effects work or massive post but I can verify that the 6-7 people who I have shown footage to from my HVX and then shown footage to of downloaded hd100 clips, they all feel the HD100 looks more like the HD they see on broadcast television. My HVX looks better than SD but it doesn't seem to wow them.....or me sometimes.

However, if all we are seeing is some good edge enhancment then one can do that in post and control it there. On the other hand, once the edge ehancment is in it's going to be harder to take out in post than to put in.

I am not denying edge enhancement is or isn't applied. I only wish the HVX gave me the option to add it "if" I wanted to. If it is just a gimmick to give more perceived res then why not add it? You could turn it off if you like.

You have the option to do some in camera, just not to the rather insane extent that the JVC does. I think they figure that if you really want that much more then you'll do it in post.

I'd just like to shoot some beautiful scenery outside and play it for folks and have them say "holy crap!" That looks amazingly clean and clear. As it is with my HVX200 at detail of +7 (just as a test) it doesn't look near as sharp as the HD100 clips I have seen.

I am not saying it's a bad camera....but perception is 1/2 the equation when trying to impress viewers. I mean....if they expect HD footage they are expecting something really HD.......Some of the stuff I have shot in HD on the HVX just looks like really good clean ED (extended definition) with better colors.

But resolution isn't 1/2 the equation my friend. I'd argue it isn't even 1/3. I know what you mean though. There are a lot of people that are suddenly REALLY excited about HD and thus all they look for is how sharp it is. However, this I believe is a temporary thing caused mostly by the more affordible HD cameras that will soon die down in a few months.

Things like color, motion, and gamma tend to be much more important.

Look at 28 Days Later. People weren't wowed that it was digital because it happened to be really high resolution. They were wowed because it was converted to 24p (motion), and had both the color and gamma corrected in post to look more like film. I think motion, color, and gamma (which the HVX200) all does better are much more important than fake resolution.

I've used this analogy before and I'll use it again. Look at computer games. Every few months the resolution gets higher and for a few months everyone is nuts for that resolution. Then a higher one comes out and the older one never seems sharp again. I tend to forget about the resolution after about five minutes. I can see something in 640-480 and get used to it fast just as easily as I will with something in 960-720. On the other hand, games with impressive lighting and colors still blow me away. Doom 3 is several years old but the lights and colors are still awe-inspiring and they are no matter what resolution you play on.

As I said, I think the "plain folks" obsession with sharper images (which has sadly spread to most supposed professionals) will die down pretty soon and people will start to care about what gives the best image. Honestly, before HD became affordible, most were far more concerved with gamma, color, and motion than they were with sharpness. Most people I new who shot on the DVX100 or the Canon XL1/2 tended to lower their detail levels. Resolution is great but it's becoming a flavor of the month affair. Other things are more important.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Forgive me for what might be a dumb question to some but, it was stated hdv takes 7 times the processing power of hdpro. Isn't what is recorded on tape out of the hd100 Mpeg2? Isn't that the same mpeg2 that can go without rendering to a dvd? If this turns out to be a real dumb question, please don't gang up on me. I"m afraid of some of the bullies in this forum.

Actually HDV is not DVCPRO HD and is DVCPRO HD is not HDPro, which is what JVC has named their HDV derivative. Any of the HDV derivatives take much more processing power than DVCPRO HD. And no HDV is not the same mpeg that records to DVD. HDV ranges from 19 mbps to 25 mbps and then the top end of an DVD not Blue-ray or HD-DVD is 9mbps. Most movies are around 5 mbps.

Hopes that helps,

Jan

 

[Johny]

Thanks for clearing that up Jan. Much of what I plan on doing with my camera is going direct to dvd. I had a feeling it was to good to be true getting those hdv tapes direct to dvd without rendering. So editing with hdv is going to be a long slow process compared to hvx?

 

[icicle22]

Thanks for clearing that up Jan. Much of what I plan on doing with my camera is going direct to dvd. I had a feeling it was to good to be true getting those hdv tapes direct to dvd without rendering. So editing with hdv is going to be a long slow process compared to hvx?

It doesn't have to be a long slow process. Yes HDV is mpg2 based and that is hard on your CPU to transcode in realtime, thus making working with it on any timeline editor a bit of a struggle. Most HDV users are captruing to an intermediary codec such as cineform. This is much more robust and much faster to edit in and you can stay in this codec through many generations without much of a quality hit. If you were to render in HDV through many generatioins you are likely to see a crappy output. HDV is probably OK for the first generation acquisition.....but not for multiple generations.

DVCPRO-HD is faster than native HDV. But it has limitations too. Very limited PC support and a real pain to swap P2 cards on a long shoot. There are solutions that help like the upcoming CIneporter and FS-100 as well as the P2 store. But those can add thousands and thousands of dollars to your kit.

HDV is not the greatest but it is also not bad if you learn how to work it.

 

[Johny]

Thanks much icicle

 

[brianluce]

Secondly I don;t trust a hard drive solutiion yet. I can honestly say I have had more hard drive failures in the 10 years of video than tape problems. I hate hard drives.

Either way. If P2 was less expensive and larger in capacity I would be all over it.

!

this is why got the JVC. if i was just making features or music videos, the hvx makes sense. but the jvc with the idx battery and long form recording ability, all for 5200 bucks is a very competitive package.

some guy in this forum covered a wedding with his hvx, i calculated about 8000 worth in p2 and p2 store.

i really think the hvx is more fairly compared to the canon or the forthcoming jvc hd250.

 

[brianluce]

i don't see how you can say that when the point of the article, mentioned repeatedly, is that the cameras are more alike than different and that both yield a good image.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

i don't see how you can say that when the point of the article, mentioned repeatedly, is that the cameras are more alike than different and that both yield a good image.

But Brian that is their motivation. To make people believe that the two cameras perform similarly and therefore buy the JVC instead of the HVX. So okay, perhaps I asked a rhetorical question because the motivation is not well disquised. The reality is that the two cameras do not perform the same at all. Only in the author's mind.

Best,

Jan

 

[icicle22]

Depending on your needs the HD100 performs close enough in a lot of these scenarios that the price makes it more attractive to some. When you invest in the camera at less than the HVX barebones, you have a working system with no need to buy P2 and P2 stores or Cineporters and FS-100's or be tethered to a laptop or capture system.

As it was stated above, the HVX with the needed accesories is really better compared to the H1 and not the HD100. What is the old saying.....apples tp apples?

For the money the JVC seems to be a good option for some.

I think there is some frustration for a lot of people who have read all the propaganda over the superiority of DVCPRO-HD and we hear horror stories of HDV falling apart, then there seems to be a lot of people posting footage of HDV that doesn't represent this.

I understand that it is a scientific fact that HDV is mpg2 and can have problems with fast motiion and lots of changes in scenes. But truthfully I haven't seen anyone post any broken footage to back it up. In fact most seem surprised how robust it actually is considering all of the potential issues. The second problem is that I have been using the HVX200 with P2 cards for 3 months now and cannot really see some gi-normously superior picture as a result of the codec. Maybe the camera CCDs and lens are the limiting factor here....I don't know.

I think we'd all like to see a review with images and movies that show the problems with the HDV of the HD100 vs. the HVX DVCPRO-HD codec. Then it would be a lot easier to swallow all the hype that has preceeded the HVX.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I would say in response to why haven't the clips been shown where the HDV codec falls apart, is most people don't seem to take the time to tear down their own camera, only someone elses. However if you look at the footage posted here by Barry Green you can see very clearly where the footage falls apart. These are the ones taken out on the LV strip at night. In comparing it to the HVX200, there is no question where the HVX is a clear winner with the DVCPRO HD codec and 4:2:2 color space.

I would say even the images that are in Walter's article tell me that the HVX is the clear winner as the artifacting on all of the edges that the JVC displayed is not resolution but rather enhancement. None of what he showed taxes the codec for HDV and certainly in many situations the codec doesn't even need to be taxed to cause problems. Take a look at the motion shots from the JVC on Walter's article or in some of the dropout pictures that Barry posted from the very first outing with it, or the footage that Nate Weaver shot with the P & S adapter at night. There are problems.

I will agree that the JVC has its place and for some it is a better solution but that is not based on the image quality nor the recording codec.

Best regards,

Jan

Best,

Jan

 

[booth]

Well, if this is accurate, you may have well sold me. If all the extra detail is actually just edge enhancment then this deals a pretty signifigant blow to the JVC argument. I'd love see some 2k stills to verify this (not that I don't trust you simply that, like anyone, I need to see things with my own eyes).

And you know if I had a Davinci at home I would rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Seriously, I wish I could get some stills from the Davinci showing this but when we were testing we didn't think we would have to justify the results to anyone else. At one point we did take the stills from the 4-way shoot out (DV.com) and put them through the Davinci. It yielded the same results - so someone else might want to try that too.

And also note that looking at the images through a totally uncompromising £25,000 CRT monitor made particularly our colorist (and he's the most difficult to please) notice that the HD100 images wasn't recording any more detail despite to the eye it looking sharper (but to all of our eyes more video-like). Edge-enhancement and aliasing were the two things thought to be the cause of this - both of which can be emulated with the HVX footage in the Davinci if necessary- so something we didn't think of as a good thing of the HD100.

At first glance, using the still from the four-way-shoot-out (DV.com) we thought the HVX200 looked a bit soft and smudged. However in the Davinci our colorist got it looking absolutely superb.

The resolution winner our colorist tells us, was the XLH1. He reckons that's some camera - but note at that point it wasn't hardware deinterlaced and our colorist later said he'd rather have the 4:2:2 color space than extra resolution anyway.

Final note ~ our colorist said they were all brilliant cameras and all when put through his post-process can be made to look extremely good. He showed us footage from the Z1 that he'd 'colored' and to us it looked like it had originated on 16mm. The footage he showed us was from Funland a British BBC show = http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/852137/Funland/Product.html

 

[harddrive]

But Brian that is their motivation. To make people believe that the two cameras perform similarly and therefore buy the JVC instead of the HVX.

Well, what their motivation may be I wouldn't like to second guess, but I find your above remark interesting after some comparisons done by myself and some colleagues recently.

You say that the article aims to "make people believe that the two cameras perform similarly and therefore buy the JVC instead of the HVX", which begs the question of why, if the two behave similarly, then buy the JVC? JVC are somewhat the new kid on the block, Panasonic have the success of the DVX to build on, shouldn't this still give Panasonic the edge?

I can only go by the conclusions we all came to. In "picture quality" respects we would generally go along with the findings of the article - more similarities than differences. Not the same, but both easily in the same ballpark, and largely coming down to personal preferences. The workflow caused more debate, and the only conclusions we could agree on here were "depends what you use it for."

But where we did unanimously agree on a real, definable difference was concerning ease of hand holding, and the general ergonomics of the camera. In this respect the HD100 was a delight for the price, and it's easy to believe JVCs claims that they heavily consulted with pro cameramen prior to finalising the design. None of us would like to handhold an HVX200 for any length of time.

The reality is that the two cameras do not perform the same at all. Only in the author's mind.

It depends what you mean by performance. "Picture quality" (however that may be defined), or more general aspects, workflow, ergonomics etc etc. From my reading of that article, the author may have found picture quality comparable between the two, but did find significant differences between the two in other respects, some benefitting one camera, some the other, and some dependent on requirement.

 

[xray]

In "picture quality" respects we would generally go along with the findings of the article - more similarities than differences. Not the same, but both easily in the same ballpark, and largely coming down to personal preferences. The workflow caused more debate, and the only conclusions we could agree on here were "depends what you use it for."

1. Agreed
2. I see more resolution on JVC, why? There is more resolution. Look at the fence.
3. The Walter's article shows you with and without detail enhancement.

But where we did unanimously agree on a real, definable difference was concerning ease of hand holding, and the general ergonomics of the camera. In this respect the HD100 was a delight for the price, and it's easy to believe JVCs claims that they heavily consulted with pro cameramen prior to finalising the design. None of us would like to handhold an HVX200 for any length of time.

4. Agreed.
5. No walking around with harddisks and portable pc.
6. Both cams are acceptable.
7. If a panasonic rep would say "the panasonic is better" I would understand.

-