Where does the HVX200 fit into Filmmaking?

[thisiswells]

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.

Barry, Steve:

While not my intent to be the middle of your public discussion here, I would like to state my views. I gather from your earlier post, Steve, you would be able to provide Barry with images that had already been shot (perhaps years ago?) to go along with more recent footage shot with the newer slew of cameras. If I misinterpreted your post, please forgive me. It would be best for all cameras to be lab tested/field tested in the same environments for relevant comparison. I don't see how that would be possible mixing older footage with newer footage from completely different environments. This would "slant" the perceived "results" for me and I could not view them as "credible" in light of the circumstances.

With that said, I think it would be wonderful to have other, credible sources for comparison besides Barry's. Steve, if you wish to do this, I would greatly thank you for it.. I believe folks would respect your independent conclusions as much as they would Barry's, provided the same level of detail about testing environments were included. You state your keen interest in the value of "field testing" instead of "lab testing" I agree. I can see value in both. Perhaps yours would be more in the interest of field testing and Barry's more in the interest of lab testing.

I think Barry did a pretty good job the first time around and after having used all the cameras in the original 3-way camera tests, I tend to agree with his conclusions. I believe you, Steve, would be given the same benefit of doubt considering your credentials and experience. I would like to see comparison results from you as well. But, I don't think they need to be mixed up with someone else's independent review.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

I like how you defined the structure of your tests. What do we have to fear from a blind test?

Only those who are emotionally (or fiscally) invested in the "losing" product will have anything to fear from it!

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 know what you mean... so let me clarify. The point there was, MPEG-2 is variable compression, and under some circumstances it can perform spectacularly well. Under other circumstances it can fail quite miserably. It depends on what came before it and what comes after it, within each GOP. The other cameras (from DV to DigiBeta to DVCPRO50 to DVCPRO-HD to MPEG-IMX to HDCAM) all use frame-independent compression, which won't "break" under any circumstances. It will always deliver the same results, per frame, regardless of what came before or after it. That is not the case with MPEG-2, which one can easily verify by watching any HDTV broadcast of any sporting event (but most notably in basketball and horse racing). BetaSX was subject to similar "breaking", but didn't happen so much because a) nobody uses it, and b) it had a much higher data rate, per pixel, than HDV does, so it was less prone to show such artifacting.

So far with DV and DVCPRO-HD, all I've seen that raises any eyebrows is some mosquito noise. DVCPRO-HD seems to have a little more mosquito noise than DV does, but when viewed at equivalent frame sizes the noise is 1/3 to 1/6 the size on DVCPRO-HD vs. DV, so nobody really notices it.

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.

Well, there are two components, of course -- there's objective and subjective. My goal is to produce objective test results that can be duplicated by anyone who cares to, which should irretrievably and forever demonstrate their neutrality and validity. But when it comes to subjective, that's an opinion, and is as non-neutral as it comes. I will present the pictures and the results and say "make up your own mind". I did that with the DVX/XL2/FX1 test, and some people said "wow, the FX1 stinks" and others said "the FX1 is clearly producing the best video of the three." And that's fine. Both users got out of the comparison exactly what they needed to. Nobody has to agree with my interpretation of the results, when it comes to the subjective "which looks better" part.

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?

Sorry, meant to, but got lost in the shuffle. I very much appreciate the offer, but it wouldn't work for the type of testing I do. I like to keep the variables as controlled as possible. I want the same shooter shooting the same scene under the same conditions, so the only variable is the camera itself. Different scenes shot by different shooters under different conditions make it impossible for me to judge between the cameras (which is one of the areas where Jarred and I would probably disagree!)

Lab tests are an objective part of the quality evaluation equation. Field tests, and the subjective analysis of experienced shooters are equally valuable.

Agreed. Charts and waveforms only tell part of the equation. Real-world circumstances are much more valuable. But for me to feel like I present an accurate overview, I need to make the footage as similar as possible -- ideally the same operator shooting the same scene, so the only difference between the shots is the camera itself. On our prior 3-way camera comparison we rigged the three cameras to the same tripod, so we were capturing the exact same moment in time on each, under the exact same weather/lighting conditions, etc. No variables, just the cameras themselves. I would do something similar this time, except that I want to have biased camera proponents configuring/setting up each camera specifically to extract the best results possible for each camera. That was something we simply couldn't do last time, so we just set all the cameras on neutral/middle settings.

This time I want to make sure that each camera is delivering the very best that it can for the given shooting circumstance, as determined by its most vocal and most competent proponent. With such a wide variety of "looks" possible from each camera, I think that's the only way to make sure we address anyone's question of how the cameras were set up/optimized, etc.

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.

Love to see it! Please consider posting actual .m2t's from the HD100, so those with native HDV editing programs can see it in its 100% glory. Might be more difficult for the HVX, since its file sizes will be 5x as large.

 

[Solaam]

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

Yea, same here. I asked the question and I wasn't trying to bash any camera. I'm just trying to figure out "hypothetically" what should be better. The HD100/HVX200 vs. the SDX.

Thanks again Barry. Look forward to the 30 page comparision analysis.


Peace

 

[Gibby]

thisiswells:

Thanks for your insight and comments. Since I have a Z1, some HD100's on the way, and will be buying an HVX when its available, perhaps I can do some side-by shooting with all three when I get a chance, in multiple environments, indoor and outdoor, noting the camera setting, and post my comparative results. It would obviously be December before I could side-by test all three cameras, but as of July I could side-by the Z1 and HD100.

Barry:

I now understand your views and test parameters better. I'll look forward to seeing the results of your tests. I push cameras to their performance limits in getting the footage I need for the type TV shows to do. When I get shooting with each of these new cameras, I'll Firewire of some representative footage for you to analyze. I need to know the exact limitations of each camera to more accurately match it to each production situation.

Cheers,

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

 

[thisiswells]

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.

Well, we know intra-frame codecs (to the uninitated: almost everything besides HDV and a few select, newer Sony formats) do not suffer from the same circumstance that makes HDV fall apart: motion artifacts and resolution artifacts.

I want the most vocal, most outspoken proponents of each camera to participate... I want each camera represented by the most zealous, most biased, and most technically competent operator I can find.

Bringing in proponents of other cameras/manufacturers is critical to the veracity of the results. Relying on the experience of others, and the tests of others, is a prime shortcut to vicarious experience.... Thank goodness people like you and me are able to have this kind of dialog.

Sounds like Steve is applying for the position. I'm ill informed to speak on who would be the "most vocal, most outspoken proponent" on the entire internet for the HD100, as of course the camera is unavailable and hence there are no users of it, but Steve here appears to be the "most vocal, most outspoken proponent" on this forum on topics related to / in defense of JVC. I'm unaware of any forums besides this one, but I think if Steve has the camera then he'd make a good candidate. I understand participation would be pro bono and at the user's expense.

I, for one, would not want to be present when you guys have a high definition mixer with blind results. For one, the difference between a VariCam and a Z1 would be obvious and the "zealots" as they say would still vote for their camera regardless.

Double blind subjective opinions would be better concluded/discussed by forum members rather than by the people who provided the footage. The idea of having the "biggest proponent" shoot the footage still makes perfect sense, of course. But, I really don't care what they think. I just want to see the best looking images each camera can produce, side by side, and under the same conditions.

Subjective opinions, that's silly idea anyway! :thumbsup:

 

[Solaam]

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.

Please do.

I've learned alot from the posters here (ie Barry, NoahK) and would love to see more veterans in video and film, such as yourself, post more.

And Barry, if you happen to be performing these tests in the Atlanta area and need a couple of PA's look me up.


Peace

 

[Gibby]

thisiswells-

I guess I have defended JVC a lot. I've had great results form my JVC DV500U over the years. I've also had great results from my Panasonic cameras. I own a DVX100a, and I regularly rent SDX900's and a Varicam's for my productions. I've also had excellent results from my Sony cameras. I own a Z1, a PD170, and a VX2000. I rent F900's regularly and get excellent results from them. I guess I'm a "cameraholic"!

I'm not lobbying to be Barry's specific brand emphasis shooter, but I'll help in any way I can...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

 

[thisiswells]

Steve,
I love the DV500 as well. Send me a PM and I'll send you a link to my work.

Best,
Brian

 

[Gibby]

Solaam-

Glad to help any way I can...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

 

[xray]

This time I want to make sure that each camera is delivering the very best that it can for the given shooting circumstance, as determined by its most vocal and most competent proponent. With such a wide variety of "looks" possible from each camera, I think that's the only way to make sure we address anyone's question of how the cameras were set up/optimized, etc.

I´m very pleased that you go this way as you promised last time after the BIG THREE TEST. To combine the technical test -under the same circumstances with the same presets- with a more aesthetic test. I´m sure you can find some fine people to work with.

 

[dachimaster]

HI Mike ,
tried to email you through your member listing, but wasn't able to , so have instad posted a reply to one of your posts, hope that is ok .anwyays
read in a pervious post in jan this year, that you were interested in buying a second hand DVX 100 in July this year, just checking if you are still intersted, as i may be selling my camera, its only a month old, done less than 5 hours filming on it, includes extra battery, Kata 103 case and Audio Technica 4073 shotgun mic. . let me know . . thanks!

Derrick