What are people thinking about the comparison of the newly announced Panasonic HD P2 camera as compared to the new JVC?
Thanks so much,
Stephen

Rather than comparing cameras, I think you need to compare formats.

HDV and P2 involve two completely different kinds of workflow in both the production and postproduction stages. There are much larger issues at stake for you than the camera, so this question really isn't about cameras but about formats.

Choose your format first, then pick your camera.

Plus, it's really early -- we know barely anything about the Panasonic, and while we know more about the JVC, I'm betting both companies will spring some surprises on us at NAB. Any sort of comparison at this point would be random speculation.

Obviously the point has already been made...but I do enjoy beating a dead horse.

Regardless of camera, format, and any other suprises that might be sprung on us at NAB (all very valid points), the most important point to me is that we have yet to see what these cameras are capable of. Until we have footage, there isn't much to compare.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Keeping in mind that we really don't have enough information on either cam to make a reliable comparison at this point. I've got to put the JVC in front so far.

1. CCD Resolution. The CCD's put out the full 720p frame size rather than scaling to fit as both panasonic and sony do. Seeing as how even the high-end HDCAMS don't offer the full 1080 resolution, I think its safe to say the new Panny won't have native 1080 chips either. I predict that the panasonic cam will have a native resolution less than the JVC, and all of the 1080 frame rates will be "scaled up" in camera. Which makes the whole 1080 advantage moot, as you can also scale up the images off the JVC in post with maybe even a better result?

2. MPG vs. HDVC PRO. Having used MPG encoding extensively in our Sony IMX machines, I am very impressed with the quality of the MPG image. (Of course the IMX format is I-frame only and 4:2:2 sampling, where HDV has a GOP and only 4:2:0). I've also seen the footage out of the Z1, and been suitably impressed with it. However all said and done, the DVCPRO codec seems to be more robust, (and ironically originally designed by JVC as Digital-S if i beleive correctly?). So while I think the Panasonic does have the better codec, the HDV codec is certainly not anything approaching awful.

3. PRO Features. The JVC has a real lens, CRT viewfinder, and an uncluttered surface with what looks like real buttons and toggle switches. For me, the lack of these features, and the difficulty of manually adjusting settings has been my main complaint with the smaller format cameras, not lack of picture quality. The Panasonic looks to be the same old kind of small format camera.

So for these reasons, I think the JVC is in front at the moment, at least for me. But all this could change once the official specs come out, and I can actually get my hands on these cameras and try them out. Still I am very glad I resisted the urge to walk out of the camera shop with a Z1 last month, and decided to wait for NAB. But man it was hard to do at the time :)

The CCD's put out the full 720p frame size rather than scaling to fit as both panasonic and sony do.

If I'm not mistaken, the details on the CCD block haven't been released yet on the Panasonic.

Seeing as how even the high-end HDCAMS don't offer the full 1080 resolution, I think its safe to say the new Panny won't have native 1080 chips either."

The JVC won't have native 1080 chips either, I believe.

The Panasonic looks to be the same old kind of small format camera.

I suppose it looks that way from under a shower curtain... but we should probably wait to actually see the camera (as well as the footage) before jumping to conclusions.

"I am very glad I resisted the urge to walk out of the camera shop with a Z1 last month

Well, that's one thing we can definitely agree on!
:)
Unless you absolutely have to purchase, I really thing right now is one of the worst times to buy a camera in as long as I can remember.

Just my 2 cents.

>>1. CCD Resolution. The CCD's put out the full 720p frame size rather than scaling to fit as both panasonic and sony do. Seeing as how even the high-end HDCAMS don't offer the full 1080 resolution, I think its safe to say the new Panny won't have native 1080 chips either. I predict that the panasonic cam will have a native resolution less than the JVC, and all of the 1080 frame rates will be "scaled up" in camera. Which makes the whole 1080 advantage moot, as you can also scale up the images off the JVC in post with maybe even a better result?
<<

John, all the formats hd, digital, sd are 4:3. Either regular 4:3 or 4:3 anamorphic when recorded to what ever (P2,tape,HD...).

What JVC is doing is collecting more info to sqeeze into the 4:3:anamorphic space. Doesn't mean you can't get good quality form Pixel shift, but in theory the JVC can concentrate more on capturing the image with true 1280x720 chips, without adding a special manipulation (Pixel shift) to make it fit a specific format. Remeber though, JVC is offering 1080x60i out through it's component connections. I wonder how that will look.

When you capture, it's your NLE that unsqueezes it and make it look wide.

So the proof will definitely be in the recording part as to who has a better picture and who uprezes better.

Remeber though, JVC is offering 1080x60i out through it's component connections. I wonder how that will look.
Depends on whether it's camera-based, or tape-playback-based. What I mean is, this is an HDV camera, compatible with HDV, so that means it has to be able to play back HDV tapes. And HDV includes 1080i. So is the 1080i output of the camera merely the displaying of content that's been recorded on a 1080i HDV tape (i.e., someone records on a Z1, and plays back the tape on a JVC HD100)? Or is it some sort of up-rezzing/interleaving process?

I'd bet it's just the playback from the Z1/FX1 tapes. The Z1 and FX1 also have "720p output", but you can't get that from the live camera feed, you only get it when playing back 720p HDV tapes. I'd bet that the JVC HD100 would behave similarly.

Also, the JVC doesn't have a CRT viewfinder. Nobody makes CRTs any more, remember.

As for looking at resolutions of the chips etc. Apart from that we don't know what Panasonic are doing yet, the limiting factor is more likely to be the lens than the chips. And just because the JVC lens looks "pro" doesn't mean it measures good and has an appropriately good MTF.

720p vertical resolution >= 1080i interlaced vertical resolution due to the fact that the interlace video must be filtered to stop line twitter. A 720p sensor used without filtering should have more than enough rez to make a great 1080i vertical. Obviously, if you want real 1080p, then 720p vertical rez is insufficient.

Cameras, at least affordable ones, are all about compromises. You pays your money, you picks your compromise. There is no "best" camera, only a "best" camera for you and your budget.

Graeme

<<<"I am very glad I resisted the urge to walk out of the camera shop with a Z1 last month

Well, that's one thing we can definitely agree on!>>>

- I don't think I've heard of anyone being unhappy they were owning a Z1- They'll be alot of folks w/ the desire for both,( or all three ) just as there were alot of folks with a pd150 and a dvx. The choice will be between buying a sony or jvc because of size. The people that want the options that the panasonic will offer , will be doing a different style shoot( studio and narrative) But , you are right to say this is waiting time. Even if I could be making money shooting today , I'd rent, until the panasonic and JVC were fully devulged . It will probably be six months before the Panasonic and JVC are really shipping - not just a few hundred to select buyers but available online. I think a case could be made for going with a sony now because you can probably add another 6 months to that before you've got a decent workflow(w/the pany). And then there's the card issue which will probably limit the shooting ratio considerably.My point is a fx1/z1 will always be a nice camera even if you later own the JVC and the HDX !Kurth

The choice will be between buying a sony or jvc because of size.
Actually, both cameras will probably be the same size. Maybe the JVC will appear a little longer because of the lens, but in general camera size the Z1 and the JVC HD100 will be about the same.

Barry _ I was really trying to say between a handheld size and a shoulder supported size even though the body sizes might be about the same. Living in mexico and having to cross borders regularly. I'd chose a sony just for that reason. Every customs agent in the world is going to point to the jvc as a pro camera and , with the sony , one could still bs their way across, all things being equal. Kurth

What JVC is doing is collecting more info to sqeeze into the 4:3:anamorphic space

I was under the impression that the HDV spec for 720p recorded to a true 1280x720 image (i.e., square pixels), and that this 3CCD JVC will therefore be happily devoid of interpolation.

However, we should be reminded that even if the CCD has 1280*720, and the codec records 1280*720 without squashing it, there's no guarantee that the actual detail in the recorded image will do justice to such a resolution figure. You've got to figure in what the codec does to fine detail, and the MTF of the lens.

It's arguably better to go the DVCproHD route of recording 960x720 at a higher quality (downsampled from 1280x720) with less compression, than recording a higher compressed 1280x720. Either way is a compromise though.

Graeme

Well, like I said, it's still too early to really tell.

The reason I'm glad I didn't buy the Z1 is not that it is a bad camera, but with the upcoming competition there is more opportunity to comparison shop. I still might buy a Z1 after all the dust settles after NAB, but it won't have been my only choice.

I understand that the lens on the JVC is not going to be a pristine piece of glass. But when I said it had a real lens, I meant it functioned like a broadcast lens:

1. focus controls that have a relation to actual distance printed on the lens, with hard stops, that allow you to do follow focus, and rack focus much easier. I hate having to try to "nudge" the focus on these smaller cams that have the infinite rotation. Do you need to move it clockwise? Counter clockwise? How far?

2. A smooth iris control, marked in fstops.

3. Removable so you can slap on a wide angle, or ultra telephoto depending on your needs.

This observation was meant to be more from a usability standpoint than a quality standpoint. Probably all things considered the lenses from all these manufactureres will be pretty similar quality wise. I just feel the JVC's lens will be easier for me to use.

Choices, choices...

My problem with HDV is that it suffers from compression artifacts in dynamic scenes. On the other hand, it's editable on my PC under Premiere Pro (and Ulead MSP).

My problem with DVCPro HD is that Premiere Pro isn't handling it now, unclear when it will, if at all - and I''m not anxious to replace video editor again (expenses, convenience, dumping the entire Video Collection). On the other hand, it's the cleanest format to consider.

From all the HDV cameras, JVC HD100 seems the best choice - because of its shorter GOP and native 1280x720p, presumably true progressive capability. Hopefully its lens will be up to the task, and its electronics too...

"I don't think I've heard of anyone being unhappy they were owning a Z1"

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to slam the Z1 and I can see how it came off that way. I just meant that I had considered it at one time, and then changed my mind, and now I'm glad I did. It wound up being the right choice for me to wait(and it sounded like the poster I responded to felt the same way).

I"m sure it's a great camera, and I know many people are happy with it. It just wasn't the right camera for me.
That's all I meant.

Luis - I wasn't trying to get on your case amigo. I was just pointing out that maybe there's a nice marriage between all of these cameras esp. between the sony and the pany. It's like owning a nikon 8400 and a canon 1ds or 20d. They would be used in completely different enviroments and compliment each other in very nice ways. And I'm sure down the line , we'll see a production using both. The JVC also is destined for it's own niche. We'll have to see how it performs but the form factor reminds me more of shooting with a 16mm aaton or eclair rather than an eng type because of it's lower center of gravity. What's great is the choices we are now faced with versus from whence we came. I've got a half a dozen super8s', a couple of 16mms, that were virtually put to bed with my sony dvcam. I say virtually because dv didn't quite reach 16mm quality. Maybe this year we can hope film will be replaced by digital in the moving image as it already is , in the still world. The worst problem most of us will be faced with this year is, we can only afford one of these beauties, hence the discussion! saludos kurth

Kurth,

Glad we're on the same page.

maybe there's a nice marriage between all of these cameras esp. between the sony and the pany. It's like owning a nikon 8400 and a canon 1ds or 20d.

While that sounds like a beautiful thing...I think they may be destined for divorce.

I see your point... and in fact I've kept both a PD150 and a DVX around for just that reason. Sometimes it's great to have the low light capability, and sometimes it's nice to have 24p... etc. By using both at select times, you can use each one for its strengths, and hopefully get around its weaknessess.

And that's great when we're talking about DV cameras. In post, it's all DV... and my system doesn't care what camera it came from.

But here we're talking about not only different cameras, but as Chris pointed out at the beginning of the thread, different formats. I think it's going to be hard make a 'happy marriage' out of that.


WOW, this thread sure has gotten long considering it began with many of us saying it was too early to talk about anything.
:)

At least we have less than 2 weeks left now!
The wait is almost over.

>>>But here we're talking about not only different cameras, but as Chris pointed out at the beginning of the thread, different formats. I think it's going to be hard make a 'happy marriage' out of that.<<<

Luis - no , man , it's pixels all the way -
it's like the story of a searcher meeting a wise man and asking how the world was supported, and the wise man said "It rests on the shoulders of a giant" , and the searcher says " and what does the giant rest on ? " and the wise man says "it stands on the back of a huge buffalo" and the searcher says " and what does the buffalo rest on ? " and the wise man says " it's standing on the back of a giant turtle" and the searcher says " and what is the turtle standing on? " and the wise man says " son , it's turtles all the way down !"- kurth

The JVC HD100 might be the marriage camera, so to speak. I don't mean a camera for weddings <grin>.

It uses a lot of compression but includes the capability to do some kind of non-tape aquisition. Plus it's shoulder-mount but very small and light and has a real lens mount. It's the most versatile of them both (the FX1/Z1 and the HDX200), allthough rigging it up for less-compressed capture might end up costing more than with the Panny.

It seems it will be a really hard decision and Panasonic sure didn't seem to want to make it easier on us. If the HVX200 had an interchangeable lens, it would be a whole full game ahead of the bunch.

The more dissimilar the cameras are, the easier it should be to choose between them.

If you NEED interchangeable lenses, get the JVC.

If you NEED 1080i or the "reality" look, get the Sony or the Panasonic.

If you NEED 720p, get the Panasonic or the JVC.

If you NEED 1080p, or 4:2:2, get the Panasonic.

If you NEED to record HD on tape, get the JVC or the Sony.

If you NEED progressive-scan, get the JVC or the Panasonic.


The thing is, now the buyers have to decide what it is that they actually need. Once you narrow that down, the choice between the cameras should be pretty simple.

Not that easy. At least not for me. I want a camera for dramatic narrative. So it would be good to have the best quality format, progressive scan 24fps and a manual lens. The format needs to be good enough for green screen work. The lens needs to allow precise and repeatable focus. If the use of a follow focus would be possible it would be the best. It would also be nice to have other frame rates like 50p or 60p for slow motion effects and other applications. So the HVX200 with interchangeable lens would be my camera. Or the HD100 recording real HD instead of HDV. So I have features I need spread out between the 2. But none of them have all I need. It will sure be a hard one.

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Maier : Or the HD100 recording real HD instead of HDV. -->>>

Okay, I hate to nitpick, but I feel this mentality is one we have to nip in the bud...

HDV, by all definitions laid out in the ATSC standards, is High Definition footage. It's just compressed differently than any other form of HD. To say it's not is as crazy as saying that you won't shoot with an XL2, because it shoots DV, not SD.

Sorry about the nitpick, but I think we need to be careful that we don't discount something simply because it's a "lower" standard--especially something that will, whether we like it or not, revolutionize the video world. And with all the offerings that will apparently be available in a few short days (or at least officially announced), affordable HD is set to do exactly that.

But if you dubbed a VHS tape to HDCAM, then surely it would meet the HD definitions?? Pixel dimensions just don't do it for me anymore on defining what is and what is not HD. Surely it's got to do with the level of real detail at a pixel level defined by an HD format?

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : But if you dubbed a VHS tape to HDCAM, then surely it would meet the HD definitions?? Pixel dimensions just don't do it for me anymore on defining what is and what is not HD. Surely it's got to do with the level of real detail at a pixel level defined by an HD format?

Graeme -->>>

Graeme,

There has to be a standard definition somewhere. Is HDV up to the standard of DVCPRO HD or HDCAM in technical terms? No, it's bitrate and color space are much lesser than the other two formats, but does that make it not HD? No. It is HD footage. The same as VHS was SD footage, and so was DigiBeta. Does VHS look horrible? Yes. Is it SD footage? Yes. Does HDV footage look pretty damn good (especially given the cost/quality ratio)? Yes. Is it HD? Yes. Is VHS, uprezzed to HD, HD? Ummm... the final size of the footage is HD... but it clearly began as SD VHS. There's a big difference between saying that uprezzed VHS is HD and that a new format of HD is HD.

All I'm saying is, people from the get-go have been saying that HDV is not HD. Why? Because you narrowly define HD as being only those codecs/tape formats that have gone before? Certain forums that I frequent less and less and t shall go nameless, have a seperate forum for HDV, because the "video elite" that hang out in the HD forum couldn't be bothered by their "lowly bastard siblings". Well guess what, people are still pitching it to clients as HD and it still looks good (provided the videographer/production company knows what they're doing) on HDTVs. Why? Because it is HD.

People tried to do the same thing with DV when it came out--they said it would never be broadcast, and that professionals would never even consider it, blah, blah, blah. Looks like there were many. many people in this industry eating their words in short order.

Kevin, I certainly see exactly where you're coming from. But, for instance, I'm working on a fabulous new algorithm for uprezzing DV to HD dimensions. The algorithm basically goes in and does a good degree of sensibly guessed detail reconstruction and manipulation to make the DV appear as if it has the visual look of HD at HD resolution. It's all quite clever, but is the final result HD? I'd say it is, because if you were to take a pristine full resolution HD image, drop it's resolution down to DV rez, even putting it through the DV codec, and then used my algorithm to take it back up to HD, you'd need to have some very keen eyes and a better HDTV than consumers can buy in the shops to be able to tell.

I fully understand abou the HDV bashing going on, and an awful lot of it is based upon unfounded supposition, rumour and spec-sheet comparisons. However, on the HDV supporters side, there's also an afull lot of comments that rather un-scientifically use the phrase "blown away" when it comes to describing the quality they see (not picking on anyone here, but that phrase has become endemic in internet video forums). "Balanced" opinions are few and far between, as people set up in their favoured camps and battle it out for "best".

An interesting point is that every new television transmission format was higher definition than the one previous, and they've all used the phrase High Definition to describe themselves. We started with 30 lines, then 405, 525, 625, and now 720 and 1080. Each and every one of them has called itself high definition at some point. Certainly makes you think!

HDV absolutely looks great on a cost basis comparison. They certainly have the cost / quality equation in the right spot!!! But as we all found out with SD, that DV has about 90% of the quality of Digital Betacam at < 10% of the cost. But DV had the same measured luma resolution as that of Digital Betacam and the same pixel dimensions as Digital Betacam. It has half the chroma rez, but you can't really see that unless you really look for it, and the compression, although much greater, was not too bad when we got used to it, and the end result was certainly better quality video that can be broadcast and viewed in our homes. The differences bigger chips and better lenses make are subtle, but there, and quite hard to see, even if you're looking for them.

So, is HDV "HD". Certainly. But is being "HD" a measure of quality - no, it's a measure of pixel resolution that has no direct relationship to quality, other than an "expectation" that something of higher pixel resolution should have higher quality - "I mean - it's obvious, isn't it, bigger = more = better" :-)

That's why I we need a better way to describe the "definition" of video than pixel dimensions. I could certainly do with such a metric to help with refining my algorithm.

Graeme

I fully understand where you're coming from now. But in reference to the original post, what we really need to do then is acknowledge that different formats are HD (in the sense that that is the standard name for those pixels size, in the same way that SD implies a certain size frame and really, not much else), and admit that HDV, while HD, is not nearly as beefy, detailed, full of chroma, whatever, and basically any other flavor of HD footage. Does that make it bad footage? Not necissarily. It definately has it's place.

I agree, balance is the key. I would say that the HDV footage I've seen "blows away" alot of SD footage I've seen, but the Varicam and F900 footage I've seen leaves HDV, "in the dust". The flip side of that is that a skilled DP could make HDV from JVC's original HDV cams look better than footage from HDCAM SR (or a Dalsa, Genesis, etc.), in the hands of some chump who took some community college courses in video... There's so much more to all of this than the camera, or the compression scheme, or the ability to use different lenses...

I really feel that technical advances are making this an unbelievably exciting time to be in the TV/video production business! Comparing the Z1, HD100, and HVC200 is fascinating. As Barry has accurately stated, each has its pluses and minuses. I feel the purchase choice all boils down to what kind of production you usually work on - and how you can cost-effectively integrate the format into a viable work flow in post.

I believe that percieved quality while viewing footage is largely subjective. In many respects I'd much rather view DV footage shot by a master videographer, than HD shot by a mediocre videographer. Tech advances have democratized the production process. Because you hand someone a new pen, do they automatically become Shakespeare? Because you hand someone a new paintbrush, do they automatically become Picasso? There are three elements to acquiring (and editing) exceptional footage: 1) talent 2) experience 3) technology. Combining all three is the formula for the best product. Technology is now very affordable. Talent you are simply born with. Experience you have to acquire over a period of years working in the field.

My entire TV/video career has been built around "Maximize technology, minimize overhead". It's included over 700 national TV programs that aired on 12 different networks. It also includes a healthy mix of business video production. My niche has been "run and gun", ENG-style adventure travel, alternative sports, music, lifestyle and documentaries. With routinely small budgets, it was critical to stay on the cutting edge of technology. I've been through all the transitions: 3/4" to Beta, Beta to Beta SP, adding in Hi8, adding in DV, DVCPro, DVCAM, DigiBeta, and the various forms of HD. In the mid-90's I immediately embraced 3-chip DV (VX1000) as a cost-effective tool to intercut with my Beta SP productions - when the ego-driven in this industry wouldn't lower themselves to do likewise. I enjoyed budgetary balck ink while they were wallowing in red ink trying to outbid me for projects for the same TV networks! I'm now ready to the Z1, HD100, and HVC200 in the same way: cost-effective tools for appropriate productions. For my mobile, ENG-style TV productions, and many business video productions, they are ideal! Some like crowing that "Well, Discovery Networks doesn't allow HDV to be used". The same thing happened with DV at first. We all know how that changed...and it will change quickly with the footage from the Z1, HD100, and HVC200. When Hawaiians surf, they simply choose the best board for what the waves are doing that particular day. I do the same in my approach to producing television and video. Just two months ago I produced, directed, and was primary cameraman for a reality documentary at the Super Bowl that was televised nationally about five weeks after the game. The entire program was shot with just two cameras: a Sony VX2000 and a Canon XL1s, both highly-accessorized. The format and equipment made sense! I chuckled to myself at the hordes of monster camera wielding crews that couldn't get the super-creative shots because of the limitations of their rigs.

I am brand, codec, and format agnostic. I check my ego at the door and always try to keep an open mind as technology evolves. Dividing up into "Sony camps", "DVCPro camps", makes no sense to me. I'll be at NAB checking technology closely - with an open mind. Clients and TV networks want a certain level of quality for a reasonable price. How we achieve that, and beat the competition, is entirely dependent on how we "Maximize technology - and minimize overhead". Otherwise we program ourselves for professional extinction...

I want a camera for dramatic narrative. So it would be good to have the best quality format, progressive scan 24fps and a manual lens. The format needs to be good enough for green screen work. The lens needs to allow precise and repeatable focus. If the use of a follow focus would be possible it would be the best. It would also be nice to have other frame rates like 50p or 60p for slow motion effects and other applications.
Okay, that's an easy one then: HVX200. It does everything you're asking for. The lens may not be interchangeable (that remains to be seen) but the focus is precise and repeatable on the DVX, and can be used with a follow focus, so if the HVX is at least as good, then it will address everything you asked for. As for greenscreen, the 4:2:2 will be much better than the 4:2:0 of the other cameras. For the best quality format for dramatic narrative, 1080/24p is going to be the best of the best of the best.

So the way I see it, you have really three choices for cameras that do all that you need: the CineAlta at $100,000; the VariCam at $67,000, or the HVX at ? $8,000? If interchangeable lenses are worth $59,000 or more to you, you know where to spend that cash. But if you can live with the type of lens the HVX will (likely) have, you can probably get everything you want in one camera.

My company goal is to provide the tools to let my users get the best out of affordably video formats. That's why I code up stuff to vastly improve the chroma coming off DV, and I'm working on fascinating algorithms that take DV up to HD with fantastic quality.

There's something rather special about maximising the quality out of "value" video equipment. I really like to be able to make people's eyes boggle at what quality they can get out of cheap gear.

Graeme

Way to go, Graeme. Then again... I wonder about what you will be able to do with 4:2:2 coming from the panny...

That'd be telling, but probably quite a bit....

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Okay, that's an easy one then: HVX200. It does everything you're asking for. The lens may not be interchangeable (that remains to be seen) but the focus is precise and repeatable on the DVX, and can be used with a follow focus, so if the HVX is at least as good, then it will address everything you asked for. As for greenscreen, the 4:2:2 will be much better than the 4:2:0 of the other cameras. For the best quality format for dramatic narrative, 1080/24p is going to be the best of the best of the best.

So the way I see it, you have really three choices for cameras that do all that you need: the CineAlta at $100,000; the VariCam at $67,000, or the HVX at ? $8,000? If interchangeable lenses are worth $59,000 or more to you, you know where to spend that cash. But if you can live with the type of lens the HVX will (likely) have, you can probably get everything you want in one camera. -->>>

Yeah, I feel you. But still, a manual lens ranks pretty high on my list. It's just not the same. Besides if you need a wider angle, you are stuck with added distortion from an adapter if you have a fixed lens. I know the HVX200 will be a fixed lens. I just know it. It would be too good to be true if it was an interchangeable. Just like the JVC would if it wasn't HDV. LOL. I might get the JVC and use the uncompressed component out it is supposed to have to record to a Betacam SP deck and get around HDV, like this other guy suggested in another board, so much I wanted an interchangeable lens. Hehehe.

"a manual lens ranks pretty high on my list....
.... I know the HVX200 will be a fixed lens. I just know it. It would be too good to be true if it was an interchangeable."

There is still a compromise that might be possible, which I haven't seen anyone mention.

Panasonic at least had the forethought to give us a 'real' manual zoom lens on the DVX, whose to say they won't up that functionality again with the HVX and give us true manual controls over focus, zoom...and hopefully the iris.

While I doubt that it will happen, it would be fantastic to see that if we have to make due with a fixed lens, that it at least have manual controls.

Does a 'fixed' lens automatically have to mean 'non-manual'?
I know it has in the past...but who knows?

I might get the JVC and use the uncompressed component out it is supposed to have to record to a Betacam SP deck and get around HDV,
What would that get you? You'd be recording standard-def video, on an analog tape format. Seems completely counterproductive as to why you'd want an HD camera in the first place.

Yeah, I know. I was just joking. Just to show how much I want an interchangeble lens. I'm desperate., hehehe.

Although I think, not because Betacam is an analog and SD format, it wouldn't still look better than if it was SD originated. The detail would still be there. Kind of like the detail and resolution is still in a film DVD even though it's mpeg2 SD NTSC. If the uncompressed was 4:4:4 or even 4:2:2, I think it would look better than the recorded HDV and you could digitaze the footage and up-rez to HD and it would uprez maybe even better than SDX900 origiated footage. If you are working in PAL, the Beta deck would record 576 lines. At least in theory, it could actually work. Because the detail, color depth and resolution would be that from the start. Sounds crazy and impractical workflow wise, but doesn't mean it would work. It's hard to say without testing IMO.
Anyway, anything to avoid HDV and get my mitts on a interchangeable HD camera for cheap. LOL. J/K.

Without testing, you can pretty easily confirm it wouldn't work. Do you not know that BetaSP has less resolution in the luma than DV, and although very slightly more chroma than NTSC DV, it's not an appreciably better format, and indeed, for any uprezzing process it would be worse. DVCPro50, which the SDX900 uses is a much, much superior format to BetaSP. It's best to remember that although many people digitise BetaSP as uncompressed, BetaSP is not in itself uncompressed, but actually very compressed in an analogue fashion and best avoided for any modern digital post production workflow.

Graeme

That's why I said maybe would look better than the SDX. But I still think it wouldn't look bad. At least better than the compressed HDV. Beta is not all that bad as you seem to put when compared to digital. Sony Hi-Def center did a test once between footage from a DVW700 DigiBeta and BVW D600 Betas SP. They trasnferred btoth to 35mm film and projcted it.Guess which one looked better, more filmic and smoother?

Come on! BetaSP has about 3/4 the luma rez of Digital Betacam, and about 3/4 of the chroma rez of DB too. BetaSP is noiser than DB, DV, DVCpro50.

"filmic", "smoother" - those words are subjective nonsense. I'm talking verifiable measured facts that show BetaSP is inferior to just about every digital format there is in resolution and noise levels.

If you care to believe that BetaSP is this wonder analogue format, then there's nothing I can say to dissuade you, but if you remove the rose tinted glasses and measure, it's very much inferior to DVCpro50, vastly beneath Digital Betacam, and only it's chroma resolution is slightly better than DV, it's luma resolution and noise levels inferior.

There's no "maybe" for it looking better than an SDX900 - there's a definate that it will not and cannot look anywhere close to that quality.

Graeme - writing in utter bemusement!

"Graeme - writing in utter bemusement!"

You've been bemused a lot lately Graeme
:)

Hopefully a lot of these discussions will turn to more concrete matters once NAB rolls around.

Indeed.

And before I get my head bitten off, I must point out that I love analogue. I love the feel of quad 2"video tape shot with old tube studio cameras. I love the smoothness of the video and the comet trails on lights - that's what I grew up watching, and it's beautiful - but accurate it is not!

Similarly with audio, I listen to vinyl records on tube amplifiers feeding horn loudspeakers' who design goes back to the birth of electronic audio itself. I enjoy music from this setup, but I'd be the first to admit it's not accurate. I'm listening for pure enjoyment, not for analysis or technical nuances. I don't use such gear for monitoring audio on my edit suite - I use proper modern studio monitors instead.

Graeme

Graeme, don't bit my head off fo it :)

It seems that Sony themselves have got to that conclusion when they did the test. Maybe if you measure the signal, you would see all the weak points of Beta you are talking about, but on naked eye, it looked better. Which is what matter here I guess. What the audience sees. I think one of the reasons mentioned for the Beta looking better was that film itself is an analog medium, so the Beta transferred better. Also remember we are talking about interlaced video. But since you didn't comment on it, I think you at least agree that uncompressed 720p on Beta would looked better than 720p HDV. For sure it would beat HDV for chroma key and artifacts.

Michael, you do have actual professional production experience with HDV in order to judge the artifacts, right? Can you tell us more about that? Oh and there is a chance that chroma key on 720p HDV might not be that bad at all, because it seems that when the image is not interlaced 4:2:0 does really well. Oh and BTW., you can't 720p on beta because beta is NTSC or PAL, remember?

"I think you at least agree that uncompressed 720p on Beta would looked better than 720p HDV"

I've been trying to stay out of this tangent...but I really feel someone should pipe up and state the obvious again, because it seems to be getting lost in the shuffle.

You can't record uncompressed 720P onto Beta.
Beta is an SD format.

So, you would downcovert the signal, add a pulldown, and record it onto Beta SP?



Sound like a big hassle for really no good reason.
If you're going to do something like go out of the uncompressed outputs, why not run it through an RGB - HDSDI converter and go into a DVCProHD deck?

Either way, seems like a lot of work for not much reward.

I don't agree about betaSP being better for anything! Neither subjective or measured results show it has any use in a modern digital workflow. And as Luis points out, it doesn't do HD and it doesn't even do anamorphic widescreen. All it will do is take a lovely pristine digital image, add analogue noise and reduce it's resolution, and probably add some ringing artifacts on edges.

Graeme

Ok, it all started as a joke I made to show how much I want a interchangeable HD camera, that I would record it to a beta sp deck. It was actually somebody else's idea I read on another board as I said.
But then people put Beta down because it's analog. I was trying to show that not because it's analog, it means it will always be worse than digital in every case scenario. I mentioned the Sony Hi-Def Center test between the BVW D600 and DVW700. It was ignored and then discredited as if I was lying. All I'm saying is, not because it's digital, it's better. When you say beta is not HD, then you can't record HD on it, you do realize DVDs are not HD and there are HD shot films available in DVDS, right? You say I can't record 720p to Beta because it's NTSC. Is 35mm film NTSC? We can watch them on a NTSC VHS can't we? The signal is digital, but if it's coming out as analog component , a conversion has been done already. You could lay it on anything you want, VHS, U-matic or DVCAM, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50 or whatever. As long as you have a deck with some sort of analog IN, you can record. It’s analog now.
I understand one saying it would look bad, that could be one’s opinion at least. But saying it's no possible to record it on Beta is just wrong.

But it doesn't matter. As I said I started it joking. I picked Beta because it's cheap. Somebody asked why not DVCPROHD. If one can afford a DVCPROHD deck, he can probably shoot Varicam, so what’s the point? I could have said dump the uncompressed component to DVCAM. It's also affordable. But it would compress it to 5.1. I picked Beta because it is "uncompressed". I wish I could do the test, because I could swear that this set up would get better results than HDV, specially for green screen. Beta keys very well and many think it keys better than DV.
Another point is, I just don't see why a DVD can keep all the detail and "resolution" from a 35mm print when you are watching a film DVD and Beta couldn't keep all the detail and "resolution" from the uncompressed 720p. I mean, when we watch a movie in DVD, it doesn't look like it was filmed in NTSC does it? But we are watching NTSC. That was the line of thinking I used about it looking good or not. Remember that many people have shot 16mm and transferred to Beta SP for editing back in the day. It still looked like film and would look better if blown up to 35mm than if it was originated on Beta in the first place. Same could be said about shooting uncompressed HD and transferring to Beta for editing. Just in this case, the transfer would be real time. I think it would look much better if you up-rez it to HD than it would if it was shoot in SD to begin with. It would transfer much better to film than it would if it was shot in SD or used the compressed HDV tapes. Specially if the uncompressed is 4:4:4 rather than 4:2:0. Is it that hard to see what I mean? If I'm missing something, please point it. Because till now, all that was said only makes me think that or you don't understand what I'm saying or I'm just getting picked at.

Michael, the idea of recording the component out as high quality standard definition is not completely daft at all. The component out will, if an SD downconvert from the HD chips and DSP, be likely 4:2:2 of pretty high quality. It will most likely have a measured horizontal resolution of over 500 lines and look very nice.

Now, any recording of that analogue signal, should if you wish to do it justice, preserve that signal coming of the camera best, and be most accurate and faithful to that sourse. Ok so far?

Now we can look at which tape format will preserve that signal best. You have suggested BetaSP, and I have said it's not too good an idea. That is because, and we assume we're starting with a pristine analogue component signal here, BetaSP is a rather poor video format. I know it was the broadcast favourite for many a while, but we can measure how well it reproduces an analogue signal it is asked to record, and see how it does.

When we talk about component video, be it digital or analogue, we may say it's 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, or 4:1:1 or whatever. It's very easy to get these numbers for digital standard definition formats. Digital Betacam, which is arguably the best standard def tape format there is, is 4:2:2, which means it records luma at full rez and both chroma components at half horizontal rez. In this case, full rez is 720 horizontal pixels.

Now for analogue: you can't measure analogue in pixels, as it has none, but you can look at the frequency response of an analogue format, and directly convert that into a resolution in pixels figure so you can compare it directly with a digital format. If we were to do that, you'd measure your BetaSP and find that it's digital equivalent figure would be 3:1.5:1.5, so that's about 3/4 of the resolution of Digital Betacam in both luma and chroma. That means, any image it records will bel blurier.

Now, for noise levels. Digital video does not have noise as such, but it has quantisation errors as rounding errors as the video gets made into 8bits or 10bits. Again, you can mathematically equate noise levels to bits of digital video, and we find you can accurately represent a BetaSP noise level analogue signal with 8bits of digital video. 10bits, like Digital Betacam uses is nicer, but 8bits is just about good enough. If you look at lowly DV, it's noise levels are very similar to BetaSP in luma, and I think one of the chroma channels in BetaSP appears to be a bit noisier. There's not much in it though. Compression also comes into this too. Compression in digital is easy to think about, but you've got to remember that this too will act like noise, and look like noise in any measurement of the video. Digital Betacam is very lightly compressed, and indeed is visually lossless over many many generations.

Analogue video also suffers from artifacts, just as compressed digital video does too. BetaSP suffers from edge ringing, noise, and instability in the picture due to it being analogue. You can equate all of these to compression artifacts / noise levels too, and therefore you can see that BetaSP is most definately not 4:2:2 nor is it uncompressed.

If your goal is to preserve the analogue output of the camera in an SD format, record to these formats in order of quality:

Digital Betacam,
DVCPro50,
DVCpro/DVCAM/DV
MII,
BetaSP,
Hi8/S-VHS
VHS
Fisher Price Pixelvision ;-)

Graeme

Fair enough. Now at least we are talking :)
But it is possible to record it to Beta, regardless of it being 720p, opposite to what somebody said.
But one thing you got me lost on. Whe you say:

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : The component out will, if an SD downconvert from the HD chips and DSP, be likely 4:2:2 of pretty high quality. It will most likely have a measured horizontal resolution of over 500 lines and look very nice. -->>>

I thought the uncompressed would be HD 720 lines, not SD 500 lines.