It seems to me that there is only one [big] advantage that HVX200 has over HD100 - the DVCproHD 4:2:2 codec compared to JVC's HDV 4:2:0. Don't forget that it's possible only by using P2 cards - it's not only inconvenient it might seriously affect your workflow [not mentioning their much discussed price]. Now, I consider these to be the big adventages on the side of JVC: changeable lens, native [!!!] 1280x720 sensor, uncompressed output, support for on-camera hardisk. HVX is supposed to recordord 1920x1080p which seems pretty impressive BUT as it seems it will neither have full-resolution sensor [Barry wrote somewhere it will most likely be 1280x1080] nor does DVCproHD support full resolution 1920x1080p. So I think it's better to record it with quality lens and native 1280x720p sensor and THEN possibly strech it to 1080p in the post - I think that should be superior to whatever HVX does to stretch it in realtime.
Why HVX when there is JVC HD100?
- Thread starter daniel r
- Start date
- Status
Ryan_W
Active member
Allow me to step in and play devil's advocate. :evil:
It seems to me that there is only one [big] advantage that HVX200 has over HD100 - the DVCproHD 4:2:2 codec compared to JVC's HDV 4:2:0. Don't forget that it's possible only by using P2 cards
"Only"? Hardly. You could capture directly to a laptop that has FinalCutHD.
- it's not only inconvenient it might seriously affect your workflow [not mentioning their much discussed price].
People keep saying this. Like I just said, I think most people will be bypassing the whole P2/tape recording pipeline for the time being. If P2 is too expensive for you, don't buy it. You don't need to. The HVX gives you other options, most notably FireWire to a computer for on-the-fly capture. P2 is Panasonic's preparation for the future. Today P2 is rather expensive, but in a few years they will likely be cheap as DV tapes. At that point it will be nice to just plug in a little card and record to it, and dump to your computer later. I don't see what you mean when you say "inconvenient" and that it might "seriously affect your workflow". As compared to what? Tapes? If anything, it's more convenient.
HVX is supposed to recordord 1920x1080p which seems pretty impressive BUT as it seems it will neither have full-resolution sensor [Barry wrote somewhere it will most likely be 1280x1080] nor does DVCproHD support full resolution 1920x1080p.
From what I've heard, DVCproHD does support it. It just has to store the information in a funky interlaced fashion, which you un-do later to get your full-res progressive video.
So I think it's better to record it with quality lens and native 1280x720p sensor and THEN possibly strech it to 1080p in the post - I think that should be superior to whatever HVX does to stretch it in realtime.
Obviously we have no real way to compare, but I doubt that.
It seems to me that there is only one [big] advantage that HVX200 has over HD100 - the DVCproHD 4:2:2 codec compared to JVC's HDV 4:2:0. Don't forget that it's possible only by using P2 cards
"Only"? Hardly. You could capture directly to a laptop that has FinalCutHD.
- it's not only inconvenient it might seriously affect your workflow [not mentioning their much discussed price].
People keep saying this. Like I just said, I think most people will be bypassing the whole P2/tape recording pipeline for the time being. If P2 is too expensive for you, don't buy it. You don't need to. The HVX gives you other options, most notably FireWire to a computer for on-the-fly capture. P2 is Panasonic's preparation for the future. Today P2 is rather expensive, but in a few years they will likely be cheap as DV tapes. At that point it will be nice to just plug in a little card and record to it, and dump to your computer later. I don't see what you mean when you say "inconvenient" and that it might "seriously affect your workflow". As compared to what? Tapes? If anything, it's more convenient.
HVX is supposed to recordord 1920x1080p which seems pretty impressive BUT as it seems it will neither have full-resolution sensor [Barry wrote somewhere it will most likely be 1280x1080] nor does DVCproHD support full resolution 1920x1080p.
From what I've heard, DVCproHD does support it. It just has to store the information in a funky interlaced fashion, which you un-do later to get your full-res progressive video.
So I think it's better to record it with quality lens and native 1280x720p sensor and THEN possibly strech it to 1080p in the post - I think that should be superior to whatever HVX does to stretch it in realtime.
Obviously we have no real way to compare, but I doubt that.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Hardly. If you think that's the only real difference, you haven't been reading the specs. Here's a few of the advantages the HVX has over the JVC:daniel r said:
1080/24p
1080/60i
1080/30p
720/60p
Variable frame rates from 4 to 60p
4:2:2 color across the board, vs. 4:2:0
NO MPEG ARTIFACTS! This is a huge advantage!
Dropout-free recording -- no 1/2-second freezeups ever
Autofocus, if you want it
Optical image stabilization
DVCPRO50 mode for the most superb standard-def recording you could hope for
Longer battery life -- the JVC draws 17 watts of power, so will go through batteries about twice as fast as the HVX will.
Agreed, that is an advantage for the JVC. Although it remains to be seen if anyone will ever change the lens, seeing as the only announced optional lens for it is $12,000 by itself... just as it remains to be seen whether the included lens is competitive with the HVX's (or better, or worse).
Is that actually an advantage? Let's look at the footage before deciding. But if the lens can't deliver enough resolution to take advantage of the pixel size, then it's possible the native[!!!] sensor could actually be a drawback -- by unnecessarily hindering low light performance, dynamic range, and adding noise. Again, let's look at the footage before deciding whether either camera excels or trails.
How is that an advantage for the JVC? The HVX does it too. Of course, the HVX does it twice as well, since it supports native uncompressed 1080 and native uncompressed 720, whereas the JVC only supports native uncompressed 720.
How is that an advantage? The "on-camera harddisk" for the JVC is just a rebadged Firestore FS-4 (with some integration to show status in the viewfinder). Firestore will be developing an on-camera harddisk for the HVX as well.
I have no idea what the sensor will be. I just can't imagine why they would bother with making it more densely-packed than 1280x1080; it may be more, it may be less. But just keep this in mind: there is no "free lunch". Adding pixels to the sensor means compromising the video quality in other ways. More pixels = less sensitivity, less latitude, and more noise, in exchange for potentially higher resolution. Less pixels = better overall video in all ways except potentially lower resolution. Pixel Shift can be used to overcome that resolution loss while still giving all the other benefits. So while my knowledge in camera engineering is quite limited, I would expect to see something like 960x1080 (same as FX1) with pixel-shift up to 1280x1080, something like that... I think that would likely deliver the best of all worlds and make for the overall best-looking footage.
Neither does HDV, neither does HDCAM.
Obviously a quality lens is best. Let's just wait and test the products to see which has the better lens -- it's entirely possible that the glass on the HVX will be superior to the glass on the JVC (and it's possible that it may go the other way, too).
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, only miniDV on the miniDV tape.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
wabbit said:....waiting to see if daniel is just a troll or will return.
Is this rhetorical?
Ws a fascinating first post though; stylish, well-thought out and thought provoking. Well, not really. Mainly just sound bites from the boards.
Loki
Veteran
oh man...
close this thread before it becomes stupid and redundant..
oops... too late..
remember, I said this thread may be a little redundant... people just might post this same freakin type of message almost everyday... oops..
there I go again.
did I mention this thread was redundant? Oh I didn't? oh sorry let me enlighten..
geez... it is like a time warp.. or a loop.. or rift.. or something..
:huh:
PS: Did I mention the redundancy of posting redundant messages about the redundancy of certain redundant topics?
PPS: Arguing for the sake of arguing has never been higher in this particular forum.
close this thread before it becomes stupid and redundant..
oops... too late..
remember, I said this thread may be a little redundant... people just might post this same freakin type of message almost everyday... oops..
there I go again.
did I mention this thread was redundant? Oh I didn't? oh sorry let me enlighten..
geez... it is like a time warp.. or a loop.. or rift.. or something..
:huh:
PS: Did I mention the redundancy of posting redundant messages about the redundancy of certain redundant topics?
PPS: Arguing for the sake of arguing has never been higher in this particular forum.
thisiswells
Retired
lol.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Don't like it? Why would you think that?mmm said:
Someone asked what the advantages were between the two, and I pointed them out. That doesn't mean the JVC isn't a valid tool, but hey, a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog, and while you can pet them and they both have four legs, a dog is still a dog and not a cat. And a cat isn't a dog. You don't have to like one more than the other in order to appreciate each for what it is.
The JVC has one overwhelming advantage over the HVX: it will be on the market four months sooner. I have two projects in mind that would be suitable for the HD100, so that is the tool I will use. Either project will hopefully pay for the camera outright -- definitely between the two of them it should be paid for outright. So whether it's as good a camera as the HVX or not, the question is simple economics: why WOULDN'T I order it?
Furthermore, even if it isn't better at its principle mission (recording high-def video), it still is DIFFERENT: interchangeable lenses, shoulder-mount form factor, recording an hour on a $4 tape, etc. There are places and ways where those features may come in handy, where the HVX wouldn't be the most suitable choice.
There's not a chance that the HD100 will provide better footage than the HVX, of that I am 100% sure. But that doesn't mean it's worthless, or to be hated, or anything like that. It's a tool to be used, and it has unique capabilities that may make it more suitable than other tools. And it'll be on the market now, four months before the HVX. And it'll be paid for within a month. Those are all compelling reasons to order it, whether it's "better" or not. I never got a Z1 because I can't find a way to make it work in my business, and I believe the HVX will forever negate any reason one might have wanted a Z1. But the HD100 is substantially different, indeed different enough that in my business plan, it's worth buying.
- Status