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

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..

How so?!

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

Sorry, not looking any "crappier"!

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

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

;-)

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..

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.

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..:)

<< 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.

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

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.

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

<<<-- 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.

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

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

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas :

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

-->>>

36.2Kg? Damn, that's a heavy camera! ;)
They really do mean 3.6kg

I can see Obin's point.
While the varicam is fantastic in my opinion...it is essentially the DV of the HD world.

The compression is actually higher than DV (6 point something to 1).

So, I suspect we can expect the same amount of artifacting that we get in DV. Now when it comes to color correction, while there is higher compression, there is also more color information (4:2:2 vs. 4:1:1). So, there may be a bit more
room to maneurver there.


Either way, for my applications DVCProHD footage is more than good enough.

I could see where it could be a problem if you are doing heavy compositing, but I think for most people it will do just fine.

444 12bit? Uhhh, excuse me.... Just exactly where are you delivering this format?

no broadcasters will accept that...

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen L. Noe : 444 12bit? Uhhh, excuse me.... Just exactly where are you delivering this format?

no broadcasters will accept that... -->>>

Hello Stephen,

Besides output to film via Cineon files, the prime application for 4:4:4 12-bit images is during the compositing process. From years of practical experience I know first hand that those extra bits are a life saver when it comes to color correction, keying, integrating cg with live action, and other post-production processes.

OK, we're in different arena's

What app are you using to process that timeline? Nothing that would normally send content up to a satellite.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen L. Noe : OK, we're in different arena's

What app are you using to process that timeline? Nothing that would normally send content up to a satellite. -->>>

I use both Digital Fusion and Combustion for most of my post-processing. They have great tools for dealing with higher bit depths.

Combustion. hmmnn. OK. I don't mean what compositing and effect program. I'm asking what editing software has that kind of timeline that can accomodate a native 444 12 bit source file. Do you work on Smoke????

The workflow with 4:4:4 12-bit calls for an offline format for the editing process.

Doesn't Final Cut Pro support 10, 12, and 16 bit video?

<<<-- Originally posted by Thomas Smet : Doesn't Final Cut Pro support 10, 12, and 16 bit video? -->>>

You'd need one hell of a RAID array to edit uncompressed 4:4:4 12-bit HD in realtime.

<<<-- Originally posted by Thomas Smet : Doesn't Final Cut Pro support 10, 12, and 16 bit video? -->>>
Actually, I think it supports up to 32-bit floating-point.

Brad hit the nail on the head here:

Hello Stephen,

Besides output to film via Cineon files, the prime application for 4:4:4 12-bit images is during the compositing process. From years of practical experience I know first hand that those extra bits are a life saver when it comes to color correction, keying, integrating cg with live action, and other post-production processes. -->>>

What brad says is what I am saying

Brad and Obin,

(damn this thread got off on a tangent)

I was talking to a friend recently who was hoping to use 'the drake' or 'kinetta' or something along those lines. Point is, he wants to capture log files.

Could you walk me through your work flow.
What do you convert those log files to for editing?
I realize you need to do an offline... what do you use for your offline, and how do you then do your online? Do the log files contain timecode just like linear files do?

I know very little about log files, and haven't had a chance to work with them. Just trying to get a handle on it, as hopefully someday that's what we'll all be dealing with.
:)

Thanks,

-Luis
If we should start a new thread, just let me know.

10-bit log files work in Final Cut Pro using either an AJA Kona 2 or a Blackmagic HD Pro with the dual-link option.

AJA also now supports DPX file sequences.

For higher-end editing beyond Final Cut Pro, you options are AVID/DS, Smoke, Quantel, Assimilate, Nucoda, etc.

Also you can edit 10-bit (but only in 4:2:2 YUV) using Cineform's Prospect HD and Premiere Pro system and/or an AVID Adrenaline with the 10-bit DNxHD codec. The files would have to be ingested from somewhere else though, because both Cineform and DNxHD do not support 4:4:4 RGB right now unlike the Blackmagic and AJA codecs.

A final option that doesn't require a huge hard-drive array (just a two-drive SATA RAID) is to use Bitjazz's SheerVideo 10-bit RGB format in Final Cut Pro.

So as you can see, there are a number of options available to you.

The main difficulty is ingesting the source of these RGB files. Typically they're on a film-scanner, or a HDCAM-SR deck. In the case of the Kinetta, Drake, Obin's camera, etc., though, the files are already digitized on the hard-drive of these cameras, so you don't have to worry about that. The only issue is to have them in a Quicktime or AVI file format that can support 10-bit or greater RGB 4:4:4.

Working in this manner isn't so pie-in-the-sky as one might believe.

You forgot Chrome HD

oops :)

I also forgot Bluefish4:4:4 too. Their cards also directly support input and output of DPX files.

Jason, thanks for the response.

"In the case of the Kinetta, Drake, Obin's camera, etc., though, the files are already digitized on the hard-drive of these cameras, so you don't have to worry about that. The only issue is to have them in a Quicktime or AVI file format that can support 10-bit or greater RGB 4:4:4."

That is the part where I really get lost.

If I were to use one of those cameras, I wind up with a hard drive with 10bit log files on it. What do I use to then transcode those log files into an AVI or Quicktime format which I can edit in FCP or Avid?

Once they are transcoded, is there any need to go back to those log files for an 'online,' or are my Quicktimes treated as the 'masters' from that point on (for color correction, etc)?


I'm just trying to understand the workflow, before I find myself in a position where I may have to use it.

Thanks.

In the case of Drake and Obin's camera there should be software with the
camera that facilities transforming the original files to other file formats etc.

From what I understand the Drake camera is still 8 bit though... Just a higher
resolution / uncompressed (not sure if it is "true" uncompressed with Drake).

Thanks for the reply Rob.

I also found out in the meantime, according to a friend of mine, that AE can read DPX files...which means in theory I guess you could use AE to render out Quicktimes (although that would be pretty time intensive).

For higher-end editing beyond Final Cut Pro, you options are AVID/DS, Smoke, Quantel, Assimilate, Nucoda, etc.

I'm not really familiar with all this, but I know that Cinegy Extreme can work wit 2K, 4K and Cineon in 32bit files as well. It also fully supports Bluefish4:4:4.