Anders Holck
Well-known member
Still the page is in German, and the DVX-200E will record 25 fps in the 1080i50 codec as well, and that is 1440x1080 4:2:2 100mbps. What should that be called then? 4.5:2.25:2.25?
Wind against HVX
- Thread starter alpi69
- Start date
Dudes, what kind of BS is all this with the official released camera just nine days away!
I don't give a damn about the chip size, the keying capabilities will be tested and documented shortly and all sorts of footage will be available.
Here in belgium panasonic isn't a big broadcast player either. And I don't think that will change soon. It doesn't have to for me. I get stunning pictures out of my dvx because it leaves you the ability to tweak it like no other 'handycam' before it.
Over here Sony rules, wich is why they are so unpleasantly arrogant. Allmost like you should be glad they sell you a camera.
The HVX will be a DVX all over. Probably a bit noisier then the rest out there; but packed with a few features that will enable a inspired filmer to do things that blow the others away.
I do this every week with my dvx and I will surely do this with my HVX.
I don't give a damn about the chip size, the keying capabilities will be tested and documented shortly and all sorts of footage will be available.
Here in belgium panasonic isn't a big broadcast player either. And I don't think that will change soon. It doesn't have to for me. I get stunning pictures out of my dvx because it leaves you the ability to tweak it like no other 'handycam' before it.
Over here Sony rules, wich is why they are so unpleasantly arrogant. Allmost like you should be glad they sell you a camera.
The HVX will be a DVX all over. Probably a bit noisier then the rest out there; but packed with a few features that will enable a inspired filmer to do things that blow the others away.
I do this every week with my dvx and I will surely do this with my HVX.
Amen to that. What does irritate me is Panasonic (anybody for that matter) saying "numbers don't matter" when it suits (eg no of pixels on chip) yet making a big deal of figures when they perceive it does. And in this case they are being used in a very misleading way by Tosh and others.Luis Caffesse said:
Having said all that, a lower resolution isn't necessarily a bad thing. High resolution may be bad if it makes the sensitivity too low - better to have a "balanced" camera - reasonably sensitive, reasonably sharp. Unless the laws of physics get reinvented a 2/3" sensor will inevitably have a big edge on a 1/3" one - I do believe the HVX200 will prove good, especially considering the price, but a sense of realism does need to be kept.
How the DVCPRO HD and HDV codecs stand up side by side is obviously of interest. I'd certainly expect the former to perform much better in a scene with much movement, but all the above shouldn't blind us to it not being a totally one way street. ALL ELSE EQUAL HDV should be capable of resolving more detail in a static scene, and especially in a progressive system 4:2:0 evens out the chrominance resolution better than 4:2:2 (or even 3:1.5:1.5.......) - DVCPRO HD may give an unnecessarily high level of chroma resolution vertically, at the expense of the horizontal.
Finally, resolution isn't everything anyway. The Varicam has been applauded more for features such as highlight handling etc - the "nicest" picture need not necessarily be absolutely the sharpest.
Nope - the first digit must be 3 (1440 is 3/4 of 1920 - the "square pixel" rule, just as 3:1:1 for HDCAM), so if 2:1 chroma sub-sampling the ratio should be 3:1.5:1.5. Your figures would be true only for a 720 system with horizontal luminance resolution of 1440.Anders Holck said:
Indeed. JVC use "HDV1" - 720p/25 recorded to tape, and a square pixel matrix of 1280x720 for luminance. Sony use "HDV2" - 1080i/25 and a non square pixel matrix of 1440x1080.OliverM said:
These are recording matrices - overall performance will obviously depend on what gets delivered to them by the chips, lens, processing etc!
I believe the resolution figures for DVCPRO HD may differ in the horizontal direction between 50 and 60 Hz versions? (50Hz being higher.)
Anders Holck
Well-known member
So what would you call the color sampling of 1080i HDV 25 mbps?
Barry_Green
Moderator
By what definition? The HVX produces a sharper picture in a better format than any of the competition (with the possible exception of 60i vs. 60i with the XLH1, but in 24P the HVX is noticeably substantially sharper than the XLH1's 24F). And in all modes it has substantially better color resolution. So what do they consider "HD"?alpi69 said:
Let me guess -- they're not a Panasonic reseller, are they?
Which is, of course, ridiculous. And the ratio is the same, regardless of the counterarguments. The "4" was standardized as notation specifically to avoid decimal-point arguments. The "4" is a lowest-common-denominator.
Nobody knows this, and Jan has already said that they're not. And regardless of what the chip dimensions are, the HVX produces a sharper image than the competition -- so where's the beef?
Er -- not from looking at the footage...
Ah. Well. That would seem to answer the questions, wouldn't it?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Sanjin, I would caution you to watch your language. At DVXUser we do not tolerate name-calling, and calling Jan a "remote-controlled representative" you're getting close to the line.SJUSER said:
Steve Mullen has no inside info and no facts whatsoever about what the HVX's chips are. He is openly speculating, and his speculation is only that -- speculation. Read in his quotes where he says "possible", "may", "could", etc. He is not giving any information whatsoever -- he's openly speculating. And he's speculating on numbers that have already been confirmed as being inaccurate.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Really? Panasonic has shared every bit as much information as Canon has. Panasonic has reserved one spec: the chip pixel count. Canon has reserved one spec: how they make their "24F" footage. Ask Canon how they do it, and they'll say "we're not saying." The two companies are on equal standing as far as sharing info.Danilo Del Tufo said:
Nothing to fear, as they do provide true HD technology, something that can be easily seen by looking at the footage.
Okay, this is either funny, or you're trolling. Depending on how you answer next will let me know which.
You want to talk about selling footage? Why not ask HDV owners who can't sell their footage to Discovery, etc., because they've specifically said that NO HDV FOOTAGE is acceptable.
Please. Please please please. If they're lying about what's inside, they would be guilty of so many fraud statutes that it wouldn't even be funny. I don't know what your motives are in trying to imply this, but let's keep a modicum of civility around here, shall we?
Have you seen the footage? Thousands of us have. I don't think they have anything to be embarrassed about.
Anders Holck
Well-known member
harddrive said:
What you misunderstand is what resolution is chroma subsampled. It's not the original 1920x1080 SDI resolution, it's the reduced resolution.
HDCAM:
The incoming SDI is 1920x1080. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 960x1080.
The full frame is reduced to 1440x1080 to get to 1.33:1 pixel aspect.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a third (3:1:1) to 480x1080.
DVCPRO (720p59.94):
The incoming SDI is 1280x720. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 640x720.
The full frame is reduced to 960x720 to get to 1.33:1 pixel aspect.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a half (4:2:2) to 480x720.
DVCPRO (1080i59.94):
The incoming SDI is 1920x1080. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 960x1080.
The full frame is reduced to 1280x1080 to get to 1.33:1 pixel aspect.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a half (4:2:2) to 640x1080.
DVCPRO (1080i50):
The incoming SDI is 1920x1080. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 960x1080.
The full frame is reduced to 1440x1080 to get to 1.33:1 pixel aspect.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a half (4:2:2) to 720x1080.
Anders Holck
Well-known member
And
HDV 1080i:
The incoming SDI is 1920x1080. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 960x1080.
The full frame is reduced to 1440x1080 to get to 1.33:1 pixel aspect.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a half XY (4:2:0) to 720x540.
HDV 720p:
The incoming SDI is 1280x720. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 640x720.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a half XY (4:2:0) to 640x360.
HDV 1080i:
The incoming SDI is 1920x1080. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 960x1080.
The full frame is reduced to 1440x1080 to get to 1.33:1 pixel aspect.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a half XY (4:2:0) to 720x540.
HDV 720p:
The incoming SDI is 1280x720. 4:2:2 eg Chroma resolution is 640x720.
Color is sub-sampled from this resolution by a half XY (4:2:0) to 640x360.
Barry_Green
Moderator
First of all, because there's twice as much vertical chroma detail, something you conveniently left out of your comparison. Secondly, because you're totally ignoring the 1080 mode, which has much, much less horizontal undersampling and still has twice as much vertical chroma res.harddrive said:
The only leg HDV has to stand on, in a comparison against DVCPRO-HD, is that in the 720p mode (and only the 720p mode) it has 33% more horizontal luma. That's it. That's the entire argument for HDV. And that ignores that DVCPRO-HD has 50% more chroma per frame, and frame-discrete compression.
But 720p is only one format, and so far it's proven to be the least popular HDV format by far -- the JVC cameras aren't selling, and the 1080 cameras are the only HDV ones that are. So if you want to compare DVCPRO-HD against HDV, why not compare it in the aspect that actually matters more -- 1080 vs 1080?
In that comparison, in European territories you'll find that both are 1440x1080, and that DVCPRO-HD has exactly twice as much color information as HDV does. And I think even Tosh's eyes would see that difference, yes.
And in the US, DVCPRO-HD undersamples slightly as compared to HDV -- it has 89% as many horizontal pixels, but has twice as much vertical chroma resolution. Do you really think that someone will discern an extra 12% of horizontal luma but they won't see an additional 90% of chroma? Seriously?
And, if you want to really compare HDV to DVCPRO-HD, let's just ask this simple question: when Canon spent big bucks to make their world-class "Watchmaker" footage, which was going to be the highest-quality, best-looking footage that they could make, which they were going to introduce the camera to the world with, they had a choice: should they record it on their internal HDV deck (with it's "superior" resolution) or should they go out and spend the money to rent a DVCPRO-HD deck and record it there? When the footage counts, what do you think they did? Yeah, that's right -- they chose to record to DVCPRO-HD rather than to HDV.
Doesn't that tell you something?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not really. Read Poynton. Originally with HD they were going to call it 22:11:11, but everyone pretty much decided that was silly and standardized on 4:x:x as the lowest common denominator.MarcusX said:
Stevet
Veteran
Dang... It sounds like a few here couldn't wait for the HVX and bought the Sony 
This rant is so blown out of reality it's become funny.
Why is it that a company HAS to give away every engineering design?
Most companies that have confidential engineering information, is just that - confidential.
Isn't Panasonic the company that made the DVX? The DVX was a hit, and still is.
The HVX will also be a hit.
This rant is so blown out of reality it's become funny.
Why is it that a company HAS to give away every engineering design?
Most companies that have confidential engineering information, is just that - confidential.
Isn't Panasonic the company that made the DVX? The DVX was a hit, and still is.
The HVX will also be a hit.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Only if the chips and lens are capable of resolving that detail. Which they're not.harddrive said:
Okay, forgive me for being flabbergasted, but are you saying that a system with 1/4 the chroma resolution would be better than one with 1/2 the chroma resolution?
I think you would find very few takers for that argument.
I was all fired up when HDV came out. I was ready to run out and get the Sony. I saw some guys travel video and said dang, that HDV camera is sumthin else!!
I am glad I waited. I have the DVX and the HVX from all accounts is like a DVX on steroids (hope I don't get banned), but really all this talk of tech stuff is just that, talk. We will let the video tell the stories, by the way, did you all order your HDV DVD?? I got my yesterday and I must say, the videos were truly underwhelming.
I am glad I waited. I have the DVX and the HVX from all accounts is like a DVX on steroids (hope I don't get banned), but really all this talk of tech stuff is just that, talk. We will let the video tell the stories, by the way, did you all order your HDV DVD?? I got my yesterday and I must say, the videos were truly underwhelming.