Hi

I am still working out whether to buy the HD100 or wait for the new Panasonic. I am particularly doing Green screen / chroma key work. So as I understand it the Panasonic would be better due to the date rate (100mbps).But:

(1) How much difference does anyone think the Panny would make to chroma key work over the JVC? Is it marginal? Because I really like the look and feel of the JVC and would go that way if the benefit is negligible.

(2) Would my laptop that I use for the first phase of editing be up to DVCPRO HD? It's a 2.8 ghz windows based with 2gb RAM (will be soon anyway!). I can'tr afford to buy the Panny if it means upgrading my hardware to cope with it.

Thanks!

Trevor

In theory the Panasonic should have a substantial edge over the JVC when it comes to chroma key work, due to its 4:2:2 color sampling.

As far as a computer goes, DVCPRO-HD is less processor-intensive than HDV. Check with the minimum specs that are recommended by your NLE manufacturer to decide whether your current hardware would be adequate to the task.

That is it. The format is better suited for that work, but the camera-head well (only) be of comparable quality (seen the price range)

Why is DVCPRO-HD less processor-intensive than HDV? Because it is not so much compressed?

If you take in consideration only color space, the HVX200 will give you the edge. But keep in mind a camera is not only a recorder. If it's electronics and specially lens are not up to the task, you can be recording to HDCAM SR and it won't look good.
It's too early to tell how good the HVX200 will be. It's all only in the paper for now. Everybody criticized the CA on the HD100 lens. Then the Canon H1 has it too. My guess is that the HVX200 may have it too. In this price range of HD, my guess is that every camera will have their share of problems/limitations. The HD100 and H1 have CA, but you can change the lens. If the HVX200 has too, what are you going to do?
To make a long post short, I would wait and see how good the real HVX200 is. As far as we are concerned, it may even have the split screen design limitation of the JVC. We don't know how Panasonic is getting around this problem or if they are even getting around it at all, or will only use JVC's solution of a scanning the chips separately. It might be the only way for now.
So I would just wait and not go by a sheet of paper alone.

Why is DVCPRO-HD less processor-intensive than HDV? Because it is not so much compressed?
The more compressed, the harder the CPU works.
The less compressed, the less the CPU works.

On the other side of the coin.

More compressed files (HDV) require less hard drive throughput speed.
Less compressed or uncompressed files (HD-SDI) requires mucho hard drive throughput speed.

I think going and getting your hands on the camera's you're interested in and making a judgement for yourself is best.

This is why I plan on using Cineform which puts everything into 8bit 4:2:2 color space and significantly reduces cpu overhead. I hope to avoid using mpeg anything for editing. I believe they are ready for the DVHDPro files coming from the HVX200 too. Worth a download and test if you are on a PC based system. They have a version included with Sony Vegas.

To be honest, I don't know how well they do with green screen since I haven't had a need for that yet. They seem to be shaping up as a defacto standard 3rd party tool for Premier and Vegas users, at least for the short term.

Cineform works with ProHD already?

Version 2.0 seems to support the JVC completely...

This is why I plan on using Cineform which puts everything into 8bit 4:2:2 color space and significantly reduces cpu overhead. I hope to avoid using mpeg anything for editing. ...

Yes, however, if the camera captures/coverts in HDV, your in 4:1:1 or 4:2:0 and have already lost much of the information needed for a good key. If your going out via SDI or uncompressed where the source is 4:2:2 then it's fine. However, if the image that resolves is not sharp enough due to internals or substand quality lens, then you lose any advantage (esp with the fixed pany).
It will require a personal review of the image quality in a side-by-side.

I'd rent both and put them through their paces in your own pipeline.

Why is DVCPRO-HD less processor-intensive than HDV? Because it is not so much compressed?
HDV compresses pictures in groups of 6 or 12 or 15, depending on which flavor you're using (720p, 1080/50i, or 1080/60i). In order to get at any particular frame, the processor may have to decompress every frame leading up to it (within the group).

So, in a group of 15 frames, only the first frame can be individually uncompressed. To get at the second frame, you'd first have to decompress the first frame, and then uncompress the second frame. All frames (except the first) in the group of pictures (GOP) record only the changes between frames. So to get to frame 15 in the group, you'd have to decompress all fourteen frames that come before it.

As opposed to frame-discrete compression (like DVCPRO-HD, DV, MJPG, etc) where each and every frame can be accessed individually. If you want to get to frame 15, you just uncompress frame 15; in 1080/60i HDV you'd have to uncompress frames 1 through 14 before you could get to frame 15.

Version 2.0 seems to support the JVC completely...

I thought that wasn't out yet.

Thanks for all your help. Another couple of considerations are whether the Panasonic has auto focus or manual only, and if it has manual only does it stop at infinity? And does it have any focus assist?

The last thing is on the much discussed direct record to thrid party disk option. As I understand it, firwire will transfer at a maximum rate of about 70mbps. If DVCPRO HD is running at 100mbps wouldn't this be a problem for live capture? I am probably showing my ignornace more than anything else, but...

Thanks

Trevor

I thought that wasn't out yet.
... downloadable already it seems...

Thanks for all your help. Another couple of considerations are whether the Panasonic has auto focus or manual only
It offers both.
And does it have any focus assist?
Yes, it has two focus assist devices. The first is peaking (aka electronic viewfinder detail, or "EVF DTL"). The other is a magnified 1:1 extraction shown as an overlay on the LCD. You can see a pixel-for-pixel representation of the center of the screen, and use that for precise focus.

As I understand it, firwire will transfer at a maximum rate of about 70mbps. If DVCPRO HD is running at 100mbps wouldn't this be a problem for live capture? I am probably showing my ignornace more than anything else, but...
There are three different speed implementations of firewire; the original was 100-megabit, the current is 400 megabit, and the latest is FW800 (which is, of course, 800 megabit). The HVX uses the 400-megabit standard, plenty fast enough. It's a proven system that's already working for live capture in Avid and Apple systems; the AJ-HD1200A deck uses firewire to transport DVCPRO-HD data to the computer.

It offers both.

There are three different speed implementations of firewire; the original was 100-megabit, the current is 400 megabit, and the latest is FW800 (which is, of course, 800 megabit). The HVX uses the 400-megabit standard, plenty fast enough. It's a proven system that's already working for live capture in Avid and Apple systems; the AJ-HD1200A deck uses firewire to transport DVCPRO-HD data to the computer.

Barry - I've never seen the DVCProHD codec in action but I was a big fan of DVCPro50 which to my eye was always superior to Digibeta, especially in PAL where digibeta could often exhibit cross-luminance errors. Wondered if you had much experience with the HD codec and how good it is?

BTW I wish Panny had updated their codecs (especially HD) to support all the frame rates natively - would have made more sense to me, than persisting with a pulldown system.

Barry - I've never seen the DVCProHD codec in action but I was a big fan of DVCPro50 which to my eye was always superior to Digibeta, especially in PAL where digibeta could often exhibit cross-luminance errors. Wondered if you had much experience with the HD codec and how good it is?
DVCPRO50 is superb, no doubt about it. Not quite to the same level as DigiBeta, as DigiBeta is 10-bit and DVCPRO50 is 8-bit, but considering the price difference, DVCPRO50 rocks!

DVCPRO-HD is pretty darn good. I know I'll get yelled at for this, but DVCPRO-HD blows the doors off of HDV. It is not, however, as "clean" as DVCPRO50. DVCPRO50 uses compression that's milder than DV (the DCT phase is about 3.3:1 for DVCPRO50, 5:1 for DV). DVCPRO-HD's DCT stage is about 6.7:1. So you do get mosquito noise here and there, but the double color resolution makes up for it. In 720p HDV, under ideal circumstances (i.e., shooting a static shot), HDV can actually render less mosquito noise than DVCPRO-HD, although DVCPRO-HD still delivers the better-looking picture because of the color resolution; under less-than-ideal conditions for HDV (i.e., moving shots), DVCPRO-HD spanks it. In 1080 there's never a question, DVCPRO-HD is always far superior.

You can experiment with the codec yourself by downloading the Avid Codec Pack and using their DV100 codec; it works within quicktime applications on PCs.

BTW I wish Panny had updated their codecs (especially HD) to support all the frame rates natively - would have made more sense to me, than persisting with a pulldown system.
There's no pulldown when working with progressive. In interlaced there is, but they did it to keep it compatible with the existing DVCPRO-HD equipment out there. They've had decks and cameras and editing equipment on the market using this codec for over 4 years now; wouldn't have necessarily been the best move to change that and make it incompatible. As it is, the HVX can firewire directly to an AJ-HD1200A tape deck, or to Avid Express Pro HD or FCP5 or Canopus Edius; couldn't have done that if they'd changed the codec.

In comparing the HVX200 to the JVC HD100 for chroma work, is probably only worth comparing the 1080p modes of the HVX to the JVC 720p format.

At 720p, the HDV format has the same amount of data per frame (do the math: 1280x720 4:2:0 has exactly the same number of bits of information as 960x720 4:2:2), and in many situations the HDV signal will be cleaner thanks to the efficiency of the MPEG-2 coding. This efficiency disappears when comparing to 100 Mbps DVCPRO-HD - in which case the 1080 modes of the DVCPRO-HD should kick HDV's petutie.

Of course - there's a lot of other factors that will affect chroma work - namely lens, lattitude, gamma, split-screen errors etc. Given the number of problems reported with HD100s, one might suggest waiting for the HVX to see if it's any better.

-Steve

A couple of months ago there was an m2t file of a blue screen and a hand waiving in the scene. I used: Primatte, Boris Red 3 and Liquid 6 YUV keyer against it and it came out clean in all three without using spill supression or a composite choker. That was on an HDV timeline. I also used the HDV m2t on a DVCPro50 SD timeline and fit the aspect (it rendered) then performed a bluescreen key on the fused file the key was terrific.

Either way it turned out well with that clip.

CA from the lens could be a huge pain as well. Imagine shooting green screen and your subject has a green glow and bleed on the edge or shooting blue screen and having the magenta flare on the edge. Not fun to key at all. This would be even worse if you were doing a complex green screen shoot where the focus changes. At one point there would be a huge green edge and then it would go away. This will cause your key edges to pulse in and out.

Hi Barry..From an old post..
I am actually thinking of getting a SDX-900E and shooting my film in 16:9 PAL 25p instead of HD..Much easier workflow too

However, the DVCPro50 SDX900e advertises 12-bit processing..If DVCPro50 is only 8-bit is there any use for the extra precision..Seems a bit of a waste..

I was going to use Algolith Algosuite software or the Terranex Mini h/w for upscaling if needed..

The HPX500 is supposed to use the same sensor as this anyway. And from what I have gathered the native res of the sensor is still not 1080 - it in interpolated within camera to HD res..

DVCPRO50 is superb, no doubt about it. Not quite to the same level as DigiBeta, as DigiBeta is 10-bit and DVCPRO50 is 8-bit, but considering the price difference, DVCPRO50 rocks!

DVCPRO-HD is pretty darn good. I know I'll get yelled at for this, but DVCPRO-HD blows the doors off of HDV. It is not, however, as "clean" as DVCPRO50. DVCPRO50 uses compression that's milder than DV (the DCT phase is about 3.3:1 for DVCPRO50, 5:1 for DV). DVCPRO-HD's DCT stage is about 6.7:1. So you do get mosquito noise here and there, but the double color resolution makes up for it. In 720p HDV, under ideal circumstances (i.e., shooting a static shot), HDV can actually render less mosquito noise than DVCPRO-HD, although DVCPRO-HD still delivers the better-looking picture because of the color resolution; under less-than-ideal conditions for HDV (i.e., moving shots), DVCPRO-HD spanks it. In 1080 there's never a question, DVCPRO-HD is always far superior.

You can experiment with the codec yourself by downloading the Avid Codec Pack and using their DV100 codec; it works within quicktime applications on PCs.


There's no pulldown when working with progressive. In interlaced there is, but they did it to keep it compatible with the existing DVCPRO-HD equipment out there. They've had decks and cameras and editing equipment on the market using this codec for over 4 years now; wouldn't have necessarily been the best move to change that and make it incompatible. As it is, the HVX can firewire directly to an AJ-HD1200A tape deck, or to Avid Express Pro HD or FCP5 or Canopus Edius; couldn't have done that if they'd changed the codec.

something else to consider. if you are doing green screen work, you will be at home or the studio. why not take the JVC 60p live outputs that are uncompressed and capture via component HD into your tower with a decent $500 card? That would be 10,000 times better (mild exaggeration). I havn't used the Panasonic HVX200, but I thought it had live output as well? If so, then you should use live uncompressed output capture via componenet HD card in your tower for the HVX200 as well.

This way the only limiting factor is the sensor and the lens. the uncompressed video output then capture via a HD component card in uncompressed HD or often a card propriety format will be better than HDV or even DVCPRO-HD.

quote Barry "DVCPRO-HD is pretty darn good. I know I'll get yelled at for this, but DVCPRO-HD blows the doors off of HDV."

Don't worry Barry, your still our friend and we respect what you have to say.

I agree with you on the DVCPRO-HD, it rocks pretty good. if I could have afforded a HPX500 and p2 cards for 3 hours of footage at a time I would be right there with you. I ended up with a HD110 and HD100DTE firestore. It works good and is solid. Occasionally I do see macroblocking and garbage on 720p HDV however. If anyone wants to see 720p macroblocking I can post it, but in general HDV is pretty good.

I wish DVCPRO-HD was as good as DVCPRO-50 and full real 1980x1080p. Now that would be awsome. It would also require a RAID for casual use, but heck, RAIDS are cheap now.