HVX-200 info, might be new at DVinfo.net

Michael Pappas · April 12th, 2005, 10:49 PM

This link mentions two interesting things.

One is a shipping weight ( Shipping Weight: 8lbs US/ 36.2kg ) .

And this "" The HVX200 camcorder is an affordable tape-less (P2) High definition and standard definition camcorder. """" Tapeless they mention. This could mean nothing or it could mean what it says. My opinion is the HVX200 will not have tape which is better since this is the future. With 1394, there will be firestore options for longer recording needs.

Here is the link:

http://www.ear.net/cgi-bin/estatusp?p=1&mode=stp&q=PAN-AGHVX200

This link appears to have a place ready for manuals etc and a fourm that even Jan is at too!
http://ag-hvx200.com

Carmen Stern · April 13th, 2005, 09:34 AM

from hdforindies

The 1080 res will be 1280x1080 pixels to tape. The 720 formats will be 960x720 to tape. These are the resolutions recorded to tape, subsampled from their higher end source. This camera is expected to have a 1280x720 image sensor

and all of a sudden this camera looks a bit crappier..

Aaron Shaw · April 13th, 2005, 11:37 AM

How so?!

Barry Green · April 13th, 2005, 12:05 PM

Those are the same specifications used by the $70,000 VariCam.

Sorry, not looking any "crappier"!

Chris Hurd · April 13th, 2005, 12:09 PM

Thanks, Barry, for beating me to the punch on this!

Most F.U.D. is simply an opportunity to set the record straight.

;-)

Obin Olson · April 13th, 2005, 04:23 PM

um...yawn..yes that IS looking much "crappier" as I was under the impression that this camera would have TRUE 1080x1920 resolution...too bad...as that is a HUGE change in image quality from 720p to 1080p...

but then again I will never be happy till we have 12bit raw images like my Canon 10D still camera shoots..

Luis Caffesse · April 13th, 2005, 05:25 PM

um...yawn..yes that IS looking much "crappier"

Really?
So the Varicam isn't good enough for your applications?

Wow.

What are you shooting on now Obin?
Just curious.

Obin Olson · April 13th, 2005, 07:41 PM

well as soon as I get my raw 4:4:4 1080p camera done I will be shooting on it..no i don't care for the varicam at all way to much compression for post and color grading...but then again I treat every project as if it's a feature or a national commercial...I can't help it ..image quality is my thing... ;)

I do tend to go way beyond the norm with the things I/we do in post

untill you have seen full on un-compressed I can understand what your saying to me..wait till you see 4:4:4 12bit raw files..:)

Chris Hurd · April 13th, 2005, 08:28 PM

<< I treat every project as if it's a feature or a national commercial >>

Thing is though, there are actually quite a few features and national market commercials which are shot with the Varicam.

Obin Olson · April 13th, 2005, 09:32 PM

true- it's not a bad camera I just have a personal issue with heavy compression on such a "high" level camera system..

you can get a really really good image from the varicam just like you can from a dvx100 - IF you light well - you just can't change it as much in post

Aaron Shaw · April 13th, 2005, 09:36 PM

I don't think the compression is all that bad. Could it be better? Certainly! I'd love to get my hands on a 4:4:4 camera but it's just not practical in terms of workflow for me.

What sort of color grading are you doing that causes so many problems with the DVCproHD codec? I don't think I've ever had a situation where I couldn't make the adjustments I needed to SD DV footage using Color Finess. Now, you can't go fixing exposure as easily but if you shoot the footage well I really don't think this is a problem.

Chris Hurd · April 14th, 2005, 05:57 AM

Agreed. Frankly I have *never* witnessed any compression issues with Varicam material that was shot well to begin with.

Brad Abrahams · April 14th, 2005, 07:53 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Agreed. Frankly I have *never* witnessed any compression issues with Varicam material that was shot well to begin with. -->>>

Pulling clean keys from DVCPRO HD material is anything but fun.

Barry Goyette · April 14th, 2005, 08:14 AM

I have no personal experience with the Varicam, but a buddy of mine tested it at his studio and came to the conclusion that the compression was too great for what they do (which is a lot of keying, and virtual sets).

Barry

Bob Zimmerman · April 14th, 2005, 10:18 AM

and this ad at ear.com says official release April 18, 2005!! That would be a fast release...

April 12th, 2005, 10:49 PM	#1
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	HVX-200 info, might be new This link mentions two interesting things. One is a shipping weight ( Shipping Weight: 8lbs US/ 36.2kg ) . And this "" The HVX200 camcorder is an affordable tape-less (P2) High definition and standard definition camcorder. """" Tapeless they mention. This could mean nothing or it could mean what it says. My opinion is the HVX200 will not have tape which is better since this is the future. With 1394, there will be firestore options for longer recording needs. Here is the link: http://www.ear.net/cgi-bin/estatusp?p=1&mode=stp&q=PAN-AGHVX200 This link appears to have a place ready for manuals etc and a fourm that even Jan is at too! http://ag-hvx200.com

April 13th, 2005, 12:09 PM	#5
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Thanks, Barry, for beating me to the punch on this! Most F.U.D. is simply an opportunity to set the record straight. ;-) __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 13th, 2005, 05:25 PM	#7
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	um...yawn..yes that IS looking much "crappier" Really? So the Varicam isn't good enough for your applications? Wow. What are you shooting on now Obin? Just curious. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

April 13th, 2005, 08:28 PM	#9
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	<< I treat every project as if it's a feature or a national commercial >> Thing is though, there are actually quite a few features and national market commercials which are shot with the Varicam. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 14th, 2005, 05:57 AM	#12
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Agreed. Frankly I have never witnessed any compression issues with Varicam material that was shot well to begin with. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 13th, 2005, 09:34 AM	#2
Carmen Stern New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 14	from hdforindies The 1080 res will be 1280x1080 pixels to tape. The 720 formats will be 960x720 to tape. These are the resolutions recorded to tape, subsampled from their higher end source. This camera is expected to have a 1280x720 image sensor and all of a sudden this camera looks a bit crappier..

April 13th, 2005, 11:37 AM	#3
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	How so?!

April 13th, 2005, 12:05 PM	#4
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Those are the same specifications used by the $70,000 VariCam. Sorry, not looking any "crappier"!

April 13th, 2005, 04:23 PM	#6
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	um...yawn..yes that IS looking much "crappier" as I was under the impression that this camera would have TRUE 1080x1920 resolution...too bad...as that is a HUGE change in image quality from 720p to 1080p... but then again I will never be happy till we have 12bit raw images like my Canon 10D still camera shoots..

April 13th, 2005, 07:41 PM	#8
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	well as soon as I get my raw 4:4:4 1080p camera done I will be shooting on it..no i don't care for the varicam at all way to much compression for post and color grading...but then again I treat every project as if it's a feature or a national commercial...I can't help it ..image quality is my thing... ;) I do tend to go way beyond the norm with the things I/we do in post untill you have seen full on un-compressed I can understand what your saying to me..wait till you see 4:4:4 12bit raw files..:)

April 13th, 2005, 09:32 PM	#10
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	true- it's not a bad camera I just have a personal issue with heavy compression on such a "high" level camera system.. you can get a really really good image from the varicam just like you can from a dvx100 - IF you light well - you just can't change it as much in post

April 13th, 2005, 09:36 PM	#11
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	I don't think the compression is all that bad. Could it be better? Certainly! I'd love to get my hands on a 4:4:4 camera but it's just not practical in terms of workflow for me. What sort of color grading are you doing that causes so many problems with the DVCproHD codec? I don't think I've ever had a situation where I couldn't make the adjustments I needed to SD DV footage using Color Finess. Now, you can't go fixing exposure as easily but if you shoot the footage well I really don't think this is a problem.

April 14th, 2005, 07:53 AM	#13
Brad Abrahams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 65	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Agreed. Frankly I have never witnessed any compression issues with Varicam material that was shot well to begin with. -->>> Pulling clean keys from DVCPRO HD material is anything but fun.

April 14th, 2005, 08:14 AM	#14
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	I have no personal experience with the Varicam, but a buddy of mine tested it at his studio and came to the conclusion that the compression was too great for what they do (which is a lot of keying, and virtual sets). Barry

April 14th, 2005, 10:18 AM	#15
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	and this ad at ear.com says official release April 18, 2005!! That would be a fast release...