Why doesn't the HVX do HDV?

[stephenlnoe]

Thanks!
Barry's nightmare with the split screen is just too prominent in my mind to really consider the camera. The fact that even a camera you have tested out before buying may later drift so that the split screen issue arises just makes it too much of a gamble for me... I'll hold my horses and wait for the opportunity to test the HVX!



M.

You're welcome.

Barry is a respected figure across the various video sites and it's unfortunate that he had issues, however, he had one camera of the thousands produced. We all had our first experience with the HD-100 about the same time. In my case with 2 HD-100's I've had excellent luck with not only no SSE but also CA is not extrodinarily bad. Now the SSE has mysteriously vanished from the web sites and people talk about the incredible flexibility of the camera's settings and possibilities with the component outs.

anyway, we're all waiting to see what the HVX200 brings to the table and then after that we'll wait for the JVC7000U and then the replacment for the Sony Z1 and then back to Panasonic etc. etc...

 

[Barry_Green]

I read elsewhere from someone who claimed to have talked to a JVC representative that the split-screening effect only occured when theHD100's gain was cranked up to 12db. Did you find this to be true in your experience?

That's absolutely not true. Split-screen happens at 0db; I never had to go to gain to get the SSE. But it usually happened in very low light conditions.

Also what other problems did you notice with the camera?

Well, you have to separate out the issues that happend with my particular one, vs. the issues that are endemic in every HD100. Those primarily concern lens aberrations/edge-to-edge sharpness, dead pixels, and SSE. My particular unit had extraordinarily low resolution and a weird nasty slow-shutter speckle effect, but I tried to get other owners to duplicate those issues and they couldn't, so those appear to be isolated defects in that one particular unit.

I'm looking for a rentable HD solution while i wait for the horses to come in before making a final purchase, and have been looking to rent an HD100 to give it a test drive. I've already used the Z1 and was not very impressed by its handling of simple camera movements.

By all means try it. Some people are thrilled with it. Some have been pretty vocal about their disapproval of it too, but hey, only you can determine whether it's suitable for your use. If you're using controlled lighting circumstances, the SSE can usually be worked around. The chromatic aberrations are something that's just going to happen, and about the only thing you can do is stick to the wider angle of the lens -- that'll eliminate the edge-to-edge sharpness issue, and the chromatic aberrations will be much milder. As for dead pixels, that one's pretty easy, there's a masking routine in the camera for that and any decent rental house should make sure that the process has been performed before you ever see the camera.

 

[Barry_Green]

Thanks!
Barry's nightmare with the split screen is just too prominent in my mind to really consider the camera.

Hey, let's be clear -- what was a problem for me may not be a problem for someone else! There are many shooters (like Stephen, and Nate, and Tim, and Sonisfear) who seem very, very happy with the HD100 and are well able to work within its capabilities. My usage didn't allow for the risk, but that's the particular usage I had intended the product for. Your mileage may vary, and may vary significantly. And I also don't discount that my cam appeared to be a lemon on several fronts.

The fact that even a camera you have tested out before buying may later drift so that the split screen issue arises just makes it too much of a gamble for me... I'll hold my horses and wait for the opportunity to test the HVX!

I'm not sure I'm aware of situations where it drifts so that SSE can appear -- is that a new development people are talking about? Because AFAIK, every one of them will exhibit the SSE under the same circumstances, and as the camera warms up the SSE is supposed to actually minimize, not get worse.

I think it's more of a case of people having not noticed it before, and then at some point they do notice it. That's what happened with us at the mini35 shoot; none of us saw the SSE during the shoot, but Charles noticed it in a shot when he was reviewing the footage in post. We went through that whole shoot having no idea that there was any such thing as the SSE. Now, in retrospect we recognize that the potential was there the whole time, we just didn't see it until later. So I'm guessing that's what's happening here -- it's not that the camera is actually drifting towards producing SSE, it's just that either a) the shooter's eyes become more discerning, or b) the camera gets used in an SSE-prone circumstance, and at that point the issue becomes visible.

 

[Barry_Green]

however, he had one camera of the thousands produced.

And, it had issues that other cameras didn't. It was a lemon.

(however, I'm certain that all HD100s have SSE -- JVC has as much said so, that it's endemic in the design and cannot be "fixed"). It just comes down to how you use it and whether you experience it.

but also CA is not extrodinarily bad.

Now, that's surprising. I've used several HD100s (I think I'm up to four now, at various shows and such) and every one of them has the same level of CA. Are you saying that maybe the newer lenses are performing better?

 

[harddrive]

It is simple: everything about the HVX points to cater to the expectations of users with professional, higher-end needs.

Everything? Form factor? There is a lot good to say about the HVX, but if you do hand held work the HD100 is a far better design ergonomically, and the Z1 comes off badly against the HD100 as well, certainly in this respect at least.

But I guess some people just need to complain.
You just need to figure out what you really want. If you want HDV, there are plenty of cameras out there for you...

Sigh. Before making your first post I really wish you could bother to read what I've said before (several times), or is this just an attempt to be provocative? If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and if you can't be bothered. I'll requote yet one more time:

"ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

I don’t have enmity for the HVX200. Far from it. It has much to commend it, and what is really, truly irritating is that it could so easily be so much better, so much more universal, without making it any worse for any of it’s current admirers. The truth is that none of the models you refer to is without fault, none is ideal for me and many others.

Why should I therefore just go away and buy another model with it’s own set of problems, rather than try and debate the matter through logically?"

As I've also said many times before, I don't "want HDV", period. I would prefer the good features of such as the HVX200 some of the time, but be able to fall back on HDV when workflow issues meant P2 wasn't suitable. Is that point really so difficult to grasp?

Sure, but how long do you think people are going to ask for HDV? P2 is going to drop radically in price over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 50 percent drop within the first year or two. Once that is under way, why would you even be thinking about HDV anymore?

Not many people are actually "asking for HDV" as such. What they may well be asking for is consumable media, for extremely valid workflow reasons. In the case of my main client, then the calculations I've heard indicate that P2 may be considered as such for 100Mb HD in about six years, with reasonable estimates made for loss, recycling of cards, and assuming a year on year halving of memory prices (or doubling of capacity for the same price). The requirement for HD is likely to ramp up in one or two, so the question is what to do in the meantime.

For everyone who thinks like you, there will always be someone like me (or two) who will think: why did I have to pay for the rights to the format and the encoding chip when I have no use for HDV whatsoever?

Earlier in this thread, I asked: "Would HDV really drive up the price of the camera? Given that a DV tape deck is already there?" to which Barry Green replied back:

When did price enter the equation? Nobody said anything about price being the reason why. I would assume it'd be quite inexpensive for them to add it (other than the licensing fee to the consortium and the cost of the MPEG-2 encoder chip).

And later on he gave the impression that he thought it would probably be under $200. There's no reason why that need even be passed on, at least in full. If it made the camera appeal to a far greater user base, economies of scale could absorb the cost, higher sales leading to higher profits for Panasonic. With no disadvantage to those customers who are currently satisfied. Any problems with that?

Wabbit - "2 years ago the idea of any form of HD for under $80,000 much less $10,000 was a revolution. If we are lucky 2 years from now the HVX will seem pretty average." is very, very true, and puts much of this in perspective. I don't believe the debates are futile though - why otherwise bother to come to forums such as this? I don't see myself as "beating P2 into the ground", if that comment is aimed at me. I see P2 as having many pluses, whilst some workflow negatives - for a few years at least. It just irritates me when I see people trying to brush these under the carpet, rather than debate them openly. (That last sentence is not aimed at you.)

 

[stephenlnoe]

Now, that's surprising. I've used several HD100s (I think I'm up to four now, at various shows and such) and every one of them has the same level of CA. Are you saying that maybe the newer lenses are performing better?

Barry, It's there but not extrodinarily bad and making itself self evident all the time. Do you remember the picture of the swans? That's extrodinarily bad. I'd say, when the footage is burned to SD or output SD that it's not very evident. Wouldn't you?

 

[harddrive]

From what I've seen of the lens, a bigger issue is coverage angle - it's only 5.5mm at the wide end, equating to 11mm on a 2/3" camera. It may have some CA, but I wouldn't call it too excessive given the overall price of the camera.

More to the point, it's interchangeable. Quite good enough for run of the mill work, then maybe a better one could be hired for that big feature that your name may be made by? I believe they are talking of an alternative, with a better (much wider) range of focal lengths and higher quality - and with a price tag several times that of the basic camera. But for most people, to be able to hire one when it most mattered........

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry, It's there but not extrodinarily bad and making itself self evident all the time. Do you remember the picture of the swans? That's extrodinarily bad. I'd say, when the footage is burned to SD or output SD that it's not very evident. Wouldn't you?

Didn't try. I would guess that downrezzing would tend to mask it in many instances, inherently.

In what I've seen from the camera though, I would call the aberrations extraordinarily bad, and I'm surprised that more people don't. There's a purple tint to most things. The swan itself photo, that was an extreme example, but on any black/white surface you're going to see excessive and noticeable green and purple. Look at the photo here:
http://files.photojerk.com/yusufwings/Fuj1.jpg

That's from DVInfo.net, from the guy who was comparing the HD100 lens against his Nikon adapted Tamron zoom. Look at the chain on Daffy -- the whole thing's purple. Look at the silver thing in the right 1/3 -- it's all purple. Look at the black and white chart on the right edge -- it shouild be solid black and solid white. What's with all the green and purple? Look at the bleed of the left edge of that chart -- there's got to be a dozen pixels worth of ghost shadow there.

Obviously at full telephoto the thing's worse, way worse than it would be at wide angle. So some people would ask: why didn't they just limit the zoom range and avoid all this whole debate? What if JVC had made it a 12x zoom, instead of 16x, and avoided so much of the CA issue -- would they have been better off for it? Is there anyone who can honestly think otherwise? Not to mention the edge-to-edge sharpness that totally falls apart at the extreme telephoto end -- they could have missed out on all that criticism too.

I think that if they had it to do over again, it's probably a no-brainer -- they would have made it a 10x or 12x lens, and ditched the overly-problematic long end of the lens, and all the flack and hassle they've taken from people because of pictures like this. And I think that very clearly summarizes this whole thread. Panasonic chose to avoid all the hassle they'd get from people complaining about HDV. Yes, there are some JVC users who would lament the loss of ultimate telephoto reach, even though it means the compromises they'd have to put up with. Just like there are some HVX prospective users who are currently lamenting the lack of a cheap HDV tape recording mechanism. But I think the C.A. issue and lens sharpness issues exactly crystallize why Panasonic chose not to include HDV at all, just so they could avoid all that headache that JVC is currently sifting through.

 

[stephenlnoe]

In what I've seen from the camera though, I would call the aberrations extraordinarily bad, and I'm surprised that more people don't. There's a purple tint to most things. The swan itself photo, that was an extreme example, but on any black/white surface you're going to see excessive and noticeable green and purple. Look at the photo here:
http://files.photojerk.com/yusufwings/Fuj1.jpg

Tang makes fruit cocktail now? I'll have to try that!

We did a shot across the water ripples in Lake Michigan at the very long end of the lens and it was a purple mess, but then we pulled zoom back 40% and it looked OK. We are waiting and waiting for the 13x lens to make it's arrival and it will be available at SMS here in Chicago for rent probably next month. It should be a drastic change to the camera.

Here's some new things to look at. This is the HD-100 mounted to a mobile crane. These pics are linked from JVC's site. See more of the moble crane setup here at the bottom of the page.

Today I delivered part of the uncompressed HDV 24p footage for 35mm filmout. We'll see how that turns out soon.

anyway, it's all good (or at least about 100x better than last year!).

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Yeah, I guess that rig's okay.

 

[Barry_Green]

Stephen, that's stylin'! That's hawt! That's the nizzle! Okay, is it obvious that I'm a 40+ white guy yet?

Okay, so we're in basic agreement about the lens then. Full telephoto is where most of the issues are; at equivalent focal lengths to the Sony, it seems to have CA about the same as the Sony does (which is more than I may want, but certainly workable in most circumstances, and probably completely maskable through a downrez process to SD).

 

[Malcolm Wright]

Sigh. Before making your first post I really wish you could bother to read what I've said before (several times), or is this just an attempt to be provocative? If I give you the benefit of the doubt, and if you can't be bothered. I'll requote yet one more time:

"ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

Hey Harddrive: I certainly don't mean to be provocative... I just have never, in any of the lines of work I have been in, found a tool that allows me to do everything I would like it to. And I don't see it as reasonable to expect to be able to get all the types of jobs one faces done, in ANY given trade, with the one tool.

I've been working in VFX over the last decade and it never crosses my mind, or the mind of my colleagues, to demand one software package that can do it all. You just pick various packages for their strengths, in function of the needs of the job... and customize them to cover any bases that still aren't covered.

It is from this perspective that I get a little irritated to find people accusing Panasonic of pride or what-not because their new product doesn't do everything you want it to by including a lesser format when the target market for the tool doesn't want or need that format.

Panasonic wants to make money. I'd wager their market research supports their not including HDV recording.

Barry said it very well: when you turn down a project offered to you because you don't feel it is going to meet your standards of quality, and that it is not going to help you get where you are heading in your career, should people accuse you of foolish pride? Of course not? Astute observers will say you have a sense of direction, and that you are choosing your projects strategically.

If 200 bucks is a good estimate of what it would cost to add HDV to the HVX, those are still 200 bucks I personally don't want to pay for something I will never use. And if by some strange twist of fate I need to shoot HDV for some reason, I'll buy an HDV camera.

So to conclude: I did not mean to offend - I'm just speaking my mind... We're professionals - we choose our tools and use them to the best of our ability. I don't see anything productive in expecting one tool to replace another - the people who need 4.2.2 and intraframe compression will get what they need out of the HVX (fingers crossed) and won't give HDV a single thought. Those who have projects that can be satisfied with HDV and appreciate the disposable media will certainly be able to pay for an HDV camera if the need is real.

Peace,
M.

 

[icicle22]

Malcolm......$200 bucks to have the ability to shoot HDV would be great. I'd rather that than have to go rent/buy a dedicated HDV camera. Having said that I am still 100% for the HVX. But if forced to shoot something HDV I would rather do it with the HVX if I could ( I know you can't...this is theoretical). Remove DVCPRO-HD (in theory again) and make the camera an HDV camera and I still like the other features it offers over the competition.

 

[Malcolm Wright]

Hey, let's be clear -- what was a problem for me may not be a problem for someone else! There are many shooters (like Stephen, and Nate, and Tim, and Sonisfear) who seem very, very happy with the HD100 and are well able to work within its capabilities. My usage didn't allow for the risk, but that's the particular usage I had intended the product for. Your mileage may vary, and may vary significantly. And I also don't discount that my cam appeared to be a lemon on several fronts.

I hear you

I'm not sure I'm aware of situations where it drifts so that SSE can appear -- is that a new development people are talking about? Because AFAIK, every one of them will exhibit the SSE under the same circumstances, and as the camera warms up the SSE is supposed to actually minimize, not get worse.

This may be a case of me making an assumption based on faulty understanding of the technology. I am assuming that the performance of a CCD drifts over its lifetime for various reasons... if it doesn't, then I'm just being paranoid

M.

 

[Malcolm Wright]

Malcolm......$200 bucks to have the ability to shoot HDV would be great. I'd rather that than have to go rent/buy a dedicated HDV camera. Having said that I am still 100% for the HVX. But if forced to shoot something HDV I would rather do it with the HVX if I could ( I know you can't...this is theoretical). Remove DVCPRO-HD (in theory again) and make the camera an HDV camera and I still like the other features it offers over the competition.

Fair enough...
I guess that on top of having no need for HDV, there is nothing that bothers me about the workflow for shooting dvcpro-hd... and not having tapes as an intermediary stage is all bonus in my book.

M.

 

[Jarred Land]

Very well put Malcom.. I agree with your statements completely. I would rather put that "$200" somewhere else, as I am personally not a big fan of HDV. I don't understand the dual standard requests people are making. It would be nice if one tool did everything under the sun.. but its not the way it works, even more so in the Professional Arena. The Varicam doesn't record HDCam and the CineAlta doesn't record DVCpro-HD.

People need to decide which road they wanna take and follow it. Just remember, HDV is not a professional format, Just like Mini-DV never was. DVCpro-HD however is, along with DVCpro-50.

As a deliverable, people will, and I guarantee it on a distribution level, take you more seriously if your selling them DVCPro-HD material rather than HDV content.

 

[stabwound]

We're professionals - we choose our tools and use them to the best of our ability. I don't see anything productive in expecting one tool to replace another - the people who need 4.2.2 and intraframe compression will get what they need out of the HVX (fingers crossed) and won't give HDV a single thought. Those who have projects that can be satisfied with HDV and appreciate the disposable media will certainly be able to pay for an HDV camera if the need is real.

Peace,
M.

Nicely put, Malcolm. :thumbsup:

I for one is excited as hell with the HVX. It's specs are very appealing to those who want to do sfx intensive indie work like me.

Panasonic has clearly defined it's product and market strategy: Dvcpro HD and P2. They've declared war, and it's not just camera vs camera, it's also format vs format.

For Panasonic to include HDV is like Sony deciding to include HD DVD into its Blu-ray players.

For what I want to do, the HVX is tops. An HVX with HDV is like a DVD/VHS combo player I see in the Wal Mart.

Why isn't it December yet???

 

[harddrive]

Hey Harddrive: I certainly don't mean to be provocative... I just have never, in any of the lines of work I have been in, found a tool that allows me to do everything I would like it to. And I don't see it as reasonable to expect to be able to get all the types of jobs one faces done, in ANY given trade, with the one tool.

I've been working in VFX over the last decade ........

OK Malcolm, peace! My irritation was solely down to your not having been the first to say "just go away and buy an HDV camera, if that's what you want" when much of what I've already posted should make it abundantly clear that's not what I do want. (In fact, it probably won't be up to me anyway - I will be one of others who will have to toe the client line.)

In VFX I can well see that any tape requirement is probably unnecessary, same with any controlled environment, and in these circumstances solutions such as recording to laptop are sensible. But imagine doing documantary filming away from base, with much handheld work. Suddenly the laptop solution becomes a non starter, even a Firestore is far from ideal, with it's long delay between switch on and record ready. Eventually P2 (or a future solid state answer) will be the answer, of that there is little doubt, but the question is how to handle the next few years.

Regarding the analogy of tools, then I'll certainly agree that screws are certainly best dealt with by a screwdriver, nails with a hammer - I wouldn't expect a tool to handle both. But what about, say, opening bottles and cans? I've got just such a thing in my kitchen drawer which does an equally good job of opening both - I'd think it silly if I had to buy two separate tools then.

And so it is with video. I've already said that the main company I do business with is increasingly using HDCAM for high end work, but looking for alternatives for the lower end. They fully appreciate that one tool will not do everything. An HDV camera (chosen for workflow) will handle the lower end, but a 1/3" camera with HDV and DVCPRO HD would handle some of the middle as well, at little extra expense. And putting HDV onto the HVX is not like turning a hammer into a "screwhammer" - the DV deck is already there, physically there would be no change.

Stabwound - the DVD/VHS combis you talk about. Are they not actually a very sensible option? If you've had a VHS recorder for years, and built up a collection of tapes, then on a move to DVD are you suggesting that they should just be junked? A separate VHS machine is the alternative, but isn't that less convienient, ties up extra connectors on the TV etc? For many people the combis are an extremely sensible TRANSITIONAL product - just as an HVX with HDV would have been! In 5-6 years I won't saying it would be, and won't expect to see VHS around either, but transitions have to be managed.

You said: "For what I want to do, the HVX is tops." Good. I'm glad for you. Enjoy. But try and see other peoples problems.

 

[stephenlnoe]

It would be nice if there was a swiss army knife of cameras.

 

[stabwound]

Stabwound - the DVD/VHS combis you talk about. Are they not actually a very sensible option? If you've had a VHS recorder for years, and built up a collection of tapes, then on a move to DVD are you suggesting that they should just be junked? A separate VHS machine is the alternative, but isn't that less convienient, ties up extra connectors on the TV etc? For many people the combis are an extremely sensible TRANSITIONAL product - just as an HVX with HDV would have been! In 5-6 years I won't saying it would be, and won't expect to see VHS around either, but transitions have to be managed.

You said: "For what I want to do, the HVX is tops." Good. I'm glad for you. Enjoy. But try and see other peoples problems.

Hiya Harddrive:

I don't have any vhs tapes.

I used to have some fifteen years ago. They were only good for X number of showings. They disintegrated. They scratched. They shed flakes of iron oxide. They jammed. They clogged the head. They demagnetized with time, or just plain stopped working. I pity anybody with a large collection of tapes. I haaated vhs tape.

Tape is like the dead parrot in a Monty Python Skit, where the salesman tries to convince the customer it's "only sleeping."


Maybe that hatred unfairly spilled over to HDV, I dunno. There's no way I'd pay extra for the vhs portion. Fortunately, the market is saturated with product (DVD) choices, so everybody can get he needs.

Honestly, I can see your point of view... you want to have both... and I hope you do... in the next iteration of HVX.

Please don't misunderstand me though... I don't hate HVD. I actually owned the FX1 for about four months. I sold it because at that time I couldn't edit the footage... and Mainconcept wanted 600 smackers for the intermediate codec. While the picture is really nice... there were other aspects (I don't want to go into it... it's been discussed to death in this forum) which kind of limits HVD as a tool for me.

A quick observation, though:

I saw some footage from another FX1 user, who shot with a min1-35 in this forum. I took the pain to download the video, because it looked amazing... and the model (her name starts with an "A"... too pooped to look it up) was pretty and nude.

I noticed that the model held her pose... and didn't move... except slightly. Different shot... still no movement... the camera was locked down... no movement either.... the video ends.

My conclusion... but I could be wrong: I suspect the camera guy knew the limitations of HDV interframe compression... that movement would ruin the lovely resolution of his HD picture... and structured his shooting style around it. He's got other video samples, but I didn't download them due to my low bandwidth connection... so I'm open to the fact that I could be dead wrong. Mebbe his next clip has a great action sequence in it.

But that's my personal perspective. I wanna make a action-filled, smack-em sockem shootem up with lots of intraframe movement. HDV may not be suitable for that,, but would have made a fantastic wedding camera.

As for the TRANSITIONAL viewpoint you're advocating... it would make sense if we all had large libraries of HDV material which we want to add to and work with. But we don't... most of us are HD virgins whose first camera could be the HVX.

Panasonic wants no compromises with the HVX, and I agree. HDV would be luggage.

Peace, buddy.