Where does the HVX200 fit into Filmmaking?

I picture it like this:

A whole buncha people are trapped in this tiny room waiting for an awesome camera to come out. They talk and talk and soon enough one person can't take it any more and snaps, since there is stilll quite some time before the camera's release.

All I can say is:

Leave the room for a while and you will see its not so bad, the camera will come and you can argue the good and the bad when the time comes.

-Edalgo
 
I think there’s a bit of cabin fever going on, yes. But in another month, the HD100 will be out and people will have something new and tangible to talk about.
 
I'm confused.

How can a SD camera (SDX) look better than HD cameras (HD100 and HVX200)? Especially if the HD cameras have interchangable lens or great color gamma controls.

You would think that 720x480 would look worse than 720p and 1080p.


Barry? Anyone?


Peace
 
2/3 chips blow 1/3 chips away. The SDX looks approximately like super16mm - and who knows what the HVX200 looks like.
 
The SDX has one major advantage over the HD100 and the HVX, that leaves them standing...

...it is a real camera that you can shoot on today.
 
Solaam said:
I'm confused.

How can a SD camera (SDX) look better than HD cameras (HD100 and HVX200)?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you're viewing it on, for one thing. A great SD camera will make a better looking SD picture than any HD camera. An SDX900 would make a better-looking standard-def picture than a VariCam, all other things being equal.

Now, if you're talking about making a high-def picture, well, there things change. A great HD camera will obviously make a better high-def picture than a great SD camera would. The VariCam will deliver a much better high-def picture than an up-rezzed SDX900 would. Of course, the lens on the VariCam will cost twice as much as the SDX900 as well.

So the question comes down to: would the very lowest HD camera perform better than the very best SD camera. Would a $6,000 camera produce a better image than a $40,000 SD camera ($40,000 being an SDX+lens, etc). And the answer is: I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what you're shooting and how you're displaying it.

Especially if the HD cameras have interchangable lens or great color gamma controls.
Click to expand...
Interchangeable lens means nothing unless you actually interchange the lens, something that most HD100 users will likely never do (considering XL1 & XL2 users rarely change lenses, and if they do, XL2 lenses cost around $800 to $1400. HD100's optional lens costs $12,000!)

Regarding great color/gamma controls -- the SDX has better color & gamma controls than any 1/3" camera has or will have.

You would think that 720x480 would look worse than 720p and 1080p.
Click to expand...
Not if you're displaying it on a standard-def display. If you're displaying it on a high-def display, your assumption makes sense, *if* all other things are equal. Which they rarely are.

On the SDX/VariCam comparison, we can get things pretty much equal: we can use the same lens, and both cameras are 2/3" chips, etc. So making a high-def image vs. an up-rezzed SD image is easy to do, and obviously the VariCam is going to stomp the up-rezzed SDX.

But you're talking about comparing a $6,000 camera with a 1/3" chip, with a $1200 lens, and comparing that against a $27,000 camera with a $12,000 lens and 2/3" chips... and the 1/3" camera is either going to be using HDV (with its 4:2:0 color sampling and extreme compression) or the HVX (with 4:2:2, but still compressing 6.7:1) vs. the SDX, with 4:2:2 and nearly non-existent compression of just 3.3:1. Plus the SDX's much shallower depth of field, and the great dynamic range and light sensitivity and low noise possible with those 2/3" chips... vs. the tiny pixels of the 1/3" cameras (but oh so many more of them!) To tell you the truth, I don't know quite how that battle would shake out. But I'm sure it wouldn't be nearly as lopsided as you might assume. There's much more to making a beautiful image than just simple pixel dimensions.
 
Barry_Green said:
But you're talking about comparing a $6,000 camera with a 1/3" chip, with a $1200 lens, and comparing that against a $27,000 camera with a $12,000 lens and 2/3" chips... and the 1/3" camera is either going to be using HDV (with its 4:2:0 color sampling and extreme compression) or the HVX (with 4:2:2, but still compressing 6.7:1) vs. the SDX, with 4:2:2 and nearly non-existent compression of just 3.3:1. Plus the SDX's much shallower depth of field, and the great dynamic range and light sensitivity and low noise possible with those 2/3" chips... vs. the tiny pixels of the 1/3" cameras (but oh so many more of them!) To tell you the truth, I don't know quite how that battle would shake out. But I'm sure it wouldn't be nearly as lopsided as you might assume. There's much more to making a beautiful image than just simple pixel dimensions.
Click to expand...

I hope this means you and/or Jared will be doing lots of A/B testing with the HVX, SDX, HD100, et. al., displayed on HD and SD systems, uprezzing SD vs. native HD. Comared to the big boys (CineAltas, VariCams, etc) as a baseline.

I would LOVE to see what kind of conclusions you'll be drawing--when 1/3 chips doing HD works, and when 2/3 SD uprezzed does it better, etc.

That kind of information "gold" is why I love it here @ DVXUser.com.
 
Bart_Boge said:
I hope this means you and/or Jared will be doing lots of A/B testing with the HVX, SDX, HD100, et. al., displayed on HD and SD systems, uprezzing SD vs. native HD. Comared to the big boys (CineAltas, VariCams, etc) as a baseline.
Click to expand...

Poor old Barry. Always treated like the *****...

... you know we love you for it though...

...it a manly kinda way! :embarasse
 
Bart_Boge said:
I hope this means you and/or Jared will be doing lots of A/B testing with the HVX, SDX, HD100, et. al., displayed on HD and SD systems, uprezzing SD vs. native HD. Comared to the big boys (CineAltas, VariCams, etc) as a baseline.
Click to expand...
Oh, you can count on it. The HVX DVD will include all sorts of comparisons. I think people benefit when they know what the tool can do, and what it cannot do, and how to optimize it for the conditions they're encountering, etc. There will be an HVX Book/DVD which will have all the comparisons and examples that I can think of and shoot by publication time. I'll definitely get a VariCam and a CineAlta and an HD100 and a Z1 for the comparisons as well, and I'd love to get ahold of an SPX or SDX for some DVCPRO50 comparisons too.
 
Barry thanks so much, I know you were answering someone else, but this has been the same issue I've been trying to wrap my head around, but I feel if I ask the question it will be thought that I'm just trying to bash a camera, when in fact all I'm trying to do is get a better understanding of how these things work.

Matt
 
Celluloid Dream said:
Now this,


This is a classic cleverly insulting DVXuser response. I see this kind of thing on here all the time and it perfectly illustrates why I don't care for the behavior of this community. Jubal, I use Vegas 6 and actually purchased your Celluloid and Reelpack 1 for it. I wonder if I will ever make a purchase from vasst again? Hmm, what do you think? Keep it coming fellas, you are spreading all kinds of goodwill.
Click to expand...



...you sure are dragging your feet on your way out the door.
if you dont like this community so much, and have no intention of buying a panasonic camera i dont see why you feel inclined to stick around. unless your just here to cause trouble by spurring on people who spread incorrect information trying to rock the boat and insulting all of us. so shape up or ship out. because you were at least right about one thing in your two magnificent posts.. nobody cares.
 
Barry_Green said:
Oh, you can count on it. The HVX DVD will include all sorts of comparisons. I think people benefit when they know what the tool can do, and what it cannot do, and how to optimize it for the conditions they're encountering, etc. There will be an HVX Book/DVD which will have all the comparisons and examples that I can think of and shoot by publication time. I'll definitely get a VariCam and a CineAlta and an HD100 and a Z1 for the comparisons as well, and I'd love to get ahold of an SPX or SDX for some DVCPRO50 comparisons too.
Click to expand...

Excellent Barry. I have a request for you. In your testing and reporting please let the chips (no pun intended!) fall the way they will - no spin, no bias. You have a strong connection to Panasonic. I'm asking you to set that aside and be a neutral journalist and technician as you analyze and report your findings. I've owned and shot with a Z1 for about a month now, I'll have two HD100's probably before you get yours, and I'll have an HVX200 as soon as they are available. As you know, I do a massive amount of field production in various "real world" conditions and environments. I am truly independent - I have no connection with any equipment manufacturer, and I use each of their equipment depending on my project demands.

We've known each other for a while. I'd like to volunteer copies of my footage from the Z1, HD100, and HVX200 for your testing. I'm also making the same offer to Graeme Edge. You guys are set up for technical testing and I'm not. My FCP and Media100 bays are constantly tied up doing television program editing. If we team up, we can define the positive and negative attributes of each of these cameras. Knowledge is power, and I want to empower my production process with all the possibilities available.

When you and me sat at the same table together and both recieves Emmy Awards two years ago, the production I recieved that directing Emmy for was all shot in DVCPRO50. For that Pro Rodeo event, my crew used eight DVCPRO50 camcorders, 2 lifts, a jib, a mini-helicopter (DV), and two POV helmetcam rigs (DV). I have 60 hours of top-quality raw DVCPRO50 footage from that show. I'd be glad to loan you some of it to help you in your testing.

Call or e-mail me and I'll start getting footage to you to help in your testing...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
It's a little extreme, but I would be curious to see a "blind taste test" of these tests. Someone sets up the tests and then the observations are submitted by a pannel that is unaware of which format they are viewing. Could offer some surprises and help with the objectivity question, although I think Barry has shown himself to be fair in the posts I've read.

David C. Smith
LA / OC D.P.
 
Gibby said:
I'm also making the same offer to Graeme Edge.
Click to expand...

Sorry Graeme Nattress! I meant to write Grame Nattress. I saw the Moody Blues in concert this past week, and their drummer is named Graeme Edge. The concert was awesome, and his last name was on my mind...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Steve, I understand what you're saying, and while I might be justified to take offense that you'd imply that I would spin or twist the data to force an undeserved outcome (in effect, lie about the results), I will choose to believe that that's not how you meant it.

Neutrality is what I strive for. I like to find out what the tools can do, and what they can't do, and keep emotion out of the process. I drove Jarred crazy when we did the 3-way comparison test, because I insisted on keeping things as scientific as possible -- he was more inclined to judge based on what "looked better", whereas I had to measure IRE and pixel brightness, etc. Both viewpoints are equally valid, but I figure it's my job to find out what's actually happening and report that. It's up to the user to decide which they prefer, and by what criteria they will judge.

However, I've found that people like to say "bias" whenever their pre-disposed favorite tool doesn't "win." I don't care which "wins", I just want to know what's what. And I expect that each contendor will have decided advantages over the others in certain areas, and it is my intention to find out what those advantages are, and report them accurately.

But, I recognize people will chant "bias" whenever they don't like the outcome of a test. That's why it's my intention this time to go in with the most biased crew I can find. I want the most vocal, most outspoken proponents of each camera to participate. If I can find someone that the worldwide web community recognizes as an expert on any particular camera, I want that person to be involved, operating that camera (like Chris Hurd on the XL2, for example, or Douglas Spotted Eagle on the Z1). I want each camera represented by the most zealous, most biased, and most technically competent operator I can find. Maybe I can talk David Mullen into being the cinematographer for a scene, and he can operate the VariCam and F900 as well... hmmm... thinking out loud...

And then I want the results judged blind. Played back on a 1080 monitor, and a 720 monitor. And judged by that same group. And the results, and the footage, made public so the potential buyers can make up their own minds.

And yes, I will design tests that will "break" the MPEG cameras, because I think it's important to people to know what can happen to their footage, and the circumstances under which it happens, so they can be prepared and know how to minimize the "damage". And that's not "bias", that's responsible journalism -- an operator who is misled as to how the tool performs is likely to get "bitten", whereas if the full spectrum of potential results is displayed, the operator can then make an informed choice as to whether the MPEG solution will work for their circumstance, or if they need to modify what they're doing to make sure to get the best quality footage.

As always, I will make the methodology and testing procedures available, so anyone will be free to duplicate the testing and verify the results. I have no hidden agenda other than figuring out what's what.

And, as always, I encourage others to test and report their findings as well.
 
Barry_Green said:
I like to find out what the tools can do, and what they can't do
Click to expand...

Knowing what your tools can't do is key to produce the best images you can. We have to shoot around our camera's limitations, just as we shoot around our small budget limitations. That is so obvious and so widely ignored...

Beautiful, Barry, I want an HVX even more, knowing there will be the HVX book...
 
Barry_Green said:
Steve, I understand what you're saying, and while I might be justified to take offense that you'd imply that I would spin or twist the data to force an undeserved outcome (in effect, lie about the results), I will choose to believe that that's not how you meant it.

Neutrality is what I strive for. I like to find out what the tools can do, and what they can't do, and keep emotion out of the process. I drove Jarred crazy when we did the 3-way comparison test, because I insisted on keeping things as scientific as possible -- he was more inclined to judge based on what "looked better", whereas I had to measure IRE and pixel brightness, etc. Both viewpoints are equally valid, but I figure it's my job to find out what's actually happening and report that. It's up to the user to decide which they prefer, and by what criteria they will judge.

However, I've found that people like to say "bias" whenever their pre-disposed favorite tool doesn't "win." I don't care which "wins", I just want to know what's what. And I expect that each contendor will have decided advantages over the others in certain areas, and it is my intention to find out what those advantages are, and report them accurately.

But, I recognize people will chant "bias" whenever they don't like the outcome of a test. That's why it's my intention this time to go in with the most biased crew I can find. I want the most vocal, most outspoken proponents of each camera to participate. If I can find someone that the worldwide web community recognizes as an expert on any particular camera, I want that person to be involved, operating that camera (like Chris Hurd on the XL2, for example, or Douglas Spotted Eagle on the Z1). I want each camera represented by the most zealous, most biased, and most technically competent operator I can find. Maybe I can talk David Mullen into being the cinematographer for a scene, and he can operate the VariCam and F900 as well... hmmm... thinking out loud...

And then I want the results judged blind. Played back on a 1080 monitor, and a 720 monitor. And judged by that same group. And the results, and the footage, made public so the potential buyers can make up their own minds.

And yes, I will design tests that will "break" the MPEG cameras, because I think it's important to people to know what can happen to their footage, and the circumstances under which it happens, so they can be prepared and know how to minimize the "damage". And that's not "bias", that's responsible journalism -- an operator who is misled as to how the tool performs is likely to get "bitten", whereas if the full spectrum of potential results is displayed, the operator can then make an informed choice as to whether the MPEG solution will work for their circumstance, or if they need to modify what they're doing to make sure to get the best quality footage.

As always, I will make the methodology and testing procedures available, so anyone will be free to duplicate the testing and verify the results. I have no hidden agenda other than figuring out what's what.

And, as always, I encourage others to test and report their findings as well.
Click to expand...

My intention was not to imply that you would spin the results. My intention was to emphasize that percieved neutrality was critical to how the reported results are believed by readers of the reported results. I like your tests and I know you are thorough. Bringing in proponents of other cameras/manufacturers is critical to the veracity of the results. As for bias, in this industry, a synonym for bias might be experience. Nobody has used every camera, every format, every editing system, etc. Each professional filters his/her opinions through their collective experience. Is that bias? Not necessarily. It can simply be an educated opinion. Relying on the experience of others, and the tests of others, is a prime shortcut to vicarious experience. Indeed, networking in the form of forums like DVX User is one of the best ways to build knowledge and experience - even if it isn't first-hand experience. Networking is the core basis of any industry, and this industry is no exception. In this day of limited budgets, it is absolutely critical to maximize technology and minimize overhead. This industry today requires professionals to be equal parts artist, techie, manager, and journalist. Forums like DVX User can help everyone achieve a solid balance in all four of those skill areas, although online forums are heavily weighted on the tech and artist functions. Thank goodness people like you and me are able to have this kind of dialog. Otherwise the industry would stagnate quickly.

I like how you defined the structure of your tests. What do we have to fear from a blind test? If you're going to design tests to "break" MPEG cameras, perhaps you should also design tests to also "break" all other cameras you test. I have a keen interest in that. I use cameras from each of the major manufacturers regularly.

I never call "bias" on a test that I know was neutral. If I know your tests were neutral, I'll be the first to support the results. If I detect any aroma of non-neutrality the results lose their credibility in my mind.

You didn't address my offer of my footage shot on the cameras you're planning to test. Was that an oversight, or do you not want footage from outside sources? Lab tests are an objective part of the quality evaluation equation. Field tests, and the subjective analysis of experienced shooters are equally valuable. When I start shooting with my HD100's next month I'll post my artistic and subjective inmpressions of the footage on the HD100 forum of DVX User. When I get my HVX200, I'll do the same.

I don't write books, but I do mentor a lot of other people in the TV industry. I get no fiscal benefit from doing so - I'm just the kind of person that enjoys sharing the knowledge gained from thirty years of national television experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top