In his article he states he preordered a hvx, yet it seemed to be the poorest performer . I'm wondering if he still plans on buying it and , if so , what are his reasons ? Kurth

He'll probably be owning both an XL H1 and an HVX, he is a connoisseur of cameras. =)

In his article he states he preordered a hvx, yet it seemed to be the poorest performer . I'm wondering if he still plans on buying it and , if so , what are his reasons ? Good point! Maybe HVX will be the best in something or not?

Or maybe the noise issue can be avoid...BTW, is there any post-production prescription to take away that horrible chroma noise?

Adam is not an active member here (or at any other message board that I'm aware of). Please direct questions to him via email. His address is located on his site at www.adamwilt.com -- hope this helps,

And then post your answers from him here.

Only if you have his prior permission to do so.

Because otherwise, public posting of private email is a huge no-no. That's netiquette 101.

sorry Chris , I thought the whole world were members here . Well , he should be .Maybe he sneaks in and out like a kind of Zorro , lurking about. No. Well , I thought a public response would be better. I'll try over at dv.com. He's got to be a member there , you'd think. I'm just wondering if he agrees with my other thread that resolution isn't everything and still sees some imperative reasons to get it. I don't think he would just whip out 10k 'cause it's the "next" coolest toy. He might be successful and well paid but I doubt he's that rich so he's probably weighing info that might be useful Then again , he might have personal or professional reasons to not want to share those thoughts. We might have to wait for a review. I mean , he does get PAID for sharing those very thoughts , why would he give them away. Worth a try - but I just hate posting somewhere else. thanks -Kurth

Thanks Kurth, but I don't think AJW posts much at the dv.com boards either. Why not send him an email and ask in advance if you can publicly share his answer to you. Hope this helps,

hey chris,
if it is at all possible, i was wondering if you could find or rent the 13x wide angle for the jvc and conduct the test with that particular lens on it.

Thanks Maurice, that is an excellent suggestion. I'll try to make that happen.

Thanks Maurice, that is an excellent suggestion. I'll try to make that happen.

thanks buddy. i'm in the process of getting the jvc and was just wondering if the wide angle could make the camera stand out more in the test.

Chris - I got his response but I'm such a computer dork - how can I copy out of my email into your "reply to thread" box. I'd prefer to COPY rather than just copy- I might make a mistake - it's a good additional paragraph to his article.Please help. thanks Kurth

"Adam is not an active member here (or at any other message board that I'm aware of). Please direct questions to him via email. His address is located on his site at www.adamwilt.com -- hope this helps"

Hope I'm not spilling any beans here, but Adam is a regular contributor to the HDV-list, which admittedly is a Yahoo group, so you have to join to even read the messages (but it's free). It was originally started by Gary of Videoguys.com and was slow in getting started, but in recent months it's become an interesting mix of folks from all over the world. Adam's postings there are as always, informed and invaluable.
The group's webpage is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HDV-list/

Bob England

ok - stop laughing , I never copied email to post before and at first it didn't work. Mr. Wilt responded promptly and supports my point about resolution not being the deciding factor, I think. Read for yourselves. Mr. Wilt please...

"By my account, the HVX200 falls down in raw resolution and in the visual appearance of its noise (although Barry preferred the look of the HVX's noise over the others; this is strictly one of those personal preferences). If it's such a loser, why do I still have one on order? Mightn't it be the case that other factors offset the numbers? Might the phrase "variable frame rates" have some resonance? Remember that we looked at only a very few factors determining the image quality and usability of these cameras--no ergonomics; no practicality for a given situation; no frame-rate flexibility; no how-wide-does-the-lens-go; no audio quality tests; no can-I-handhold-it-steadily-for-90-minutes; no low light tests; no complex motion rendering; no flare levels; no how easily can a 1st AC pull focus on it; no how easily can I pull focus on it while running 'n' gunning; no codec quality--so how can one say that resolution numbers or noise levels or a stop more or less sensitivity makes or breaks a camera? That's silly. We captured four or five data points out of the hundreds one needs to think about. There are still hundreds of data points to go.

Cheers,
Adam Wilt"

Well, I think that says what alot of people have been thinking and if Adam Wilt is still in line then you other guys/girls waiting should be patient.This camera is all about framerates and until someone else does it better , then the hvx is the coolest camera on the block from my point of view. Not knocking the canon and I own the sony so nothing to grind. thanks - Kurth

By the way Chris , he gave me permission to share " this part " of his email. I , at his request edited down to just this portion. If you'd like I can send you the full email so you could confer. thanks - Kurth
ps - I was pleasantly surprised at his response- both prompt and professional esp. to a stranger.

I've gotten the same question, and here's how I look at it. Yes the charts were puzzling, yes the XLH1 showed the highest res, but -- the F900 was way higher than the VariCam, yet if you read Adam's article he says "which one did we all want to take home at the end of the day? The VariCam." (almost all of us, that is -- Jay still preferred the F900).

There's more to the cameras than just res charts; the bigger questions that Adam points out are all things that should be factored into one's decision. So how did those of us who were there feel about 'em, who saw the footage and the live feeds and who used the products? Where will we vote when it comes to buying one of these four?

I polled most everyone there; I missed the ProMax guys and I didn't get Aaron's opinion. But as for those of us who were there and who saw the tests and went through the whole process, who's buying what?

Adam: (has an FX1, has been testing an HD100 for several weeks): is buying an HVX.

Barry: (bought an early HD100, sent it back): got the HVX

Jay: (has an FX1): bought the HVX

Shannon: (has an XLH1 and a Z1, and was considering buying the HVX): bought another XLH1 instead

Evin: bought an HVX

Nate: (has an HD100, was considering selling it for an HVX): decided to keep the HD100

Rush: buying an HVX

So, take that for what it's worth. Some people changed their minds, some were happy with their current choices, but when it comes down to where the dollars are going, this is what the people who were there decided.

Good post, but I have one question.

Most people you cited decided to buy the HVX.

But why? Picture quality? Frame-rate flexibility? Price? Or something else.

The target group might not have economic and workflow considerations that those of us contemplating a purchase have.

So, while I certainly appreciate the information, invariably the devil is in the details.

Why did most elect the Panny?

I can't speak for exactly why they chose which. I know why I choose it, and that's listed in a massive post on DVXUser. Adam gave reasons as to why he chose it. Jay, Rush, Evin, and the rest should speak for themselves as to what they prefer; I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths.

Actually, Jay Nemeth just made a post that sums up some of his reasoning:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.php?p=417630&postcount=315

In his article he states he preordered a hvx, yet it seemed to be the poorest performer . I'm wondering if he still plans on buying it and , if so , what are his reasons ? Kurth

I must not be looking in the right place, but I can't find any reference to the HVX on his site.

I did see a great example of color spaces, and why the HDV 4:2:0 color space is inferior to DVCPRO-50/HD's 4:2:2. That alone makes the arguement in favor of the HVX and, backs up what I've always said about digital imaging: Color is much more important than resolution - who wants high definition mud?

Robert - it's from an article at www.dv.com

Thanks Kurth.

Adams experience notwithstanding, I still consider the HVX a *near-perfect* sub-$10K body. Considering it is the ONLY body to use the 4:2:2 color space, true progressive 16:9 chips and a native-to-the-system tapeless workflow there's absolutely nothing else out there - for less than $10k - that has it's capabilities and versatility.

Barry - I think , more than any other time , that these cameras must be in our hands , to make the decision. However , even if I flew to NYC and spent the day at B&H, I still couldn't have the experience/time /different viewpoints that a group test like this can offer. First , thanks for doing it , and sharing freely. Second , we need more ! I hope the Texas test materializes . Being Texan , I'm a bit partial to how texans view the universe ( ha ) so I know those guys will give it at least more time . And being from Austin , I KNOW they will. Hey Chris , how about some footage from Barton springs. I still miss BS alot ! OK , back on topic. I guess , my opinion of the test is you guys didn't have near enough time to do anywhere near the justice required to evaluate thes babies . The sonys' have been out and are street proven , but the other 3 need some serious feedback. And the hvx is still in this limbo state , which to most minds means they're still working on problems. This might not mean problems of how the cameras work, but problems associated with manufacturing it. Regardless , getting these personal feelings of how you guys feel , after spending real testing time with all at once , is invaluable , esp. to those of us who live in the boondocks ( probably more of us than you might think ! ) Anyway thanks again for sharing .
What I'd really like to hear from these tests are , how does the footage looks projected in it's hd state on an large venue 1080 projector. I think "filmout" might be useful but the truth is the future is digital. Patience is required by all , but I'm sure enough info will be in our hands/computers/minds to make a decision . Kurth

Considering it is the ONLY body to use the 4:2:2 color space, true progressive 16:9 chips and a native-to-the-system tapeless workflow there's absolutely nothing else out there - for less than $10k - that has it's capabilities and versatility.

The issue that prompted my question to Mr. Green, however, is that it isn't "out there" yet. There are very isolated reports, and virtually no real world comparisons.

So on paper it looks good, and I hope it performs. For me, I'm concerned with workflow. If the Cineporter can capture 24PN to a hard drive, that that's a good first step.

At this point, the Cineporter is more of an unknown than the HVX is, especially since Kaku's footage solidified my decision to buy the body.

One of the people from Spec-Comm does monitor this HVX board and can easily answer that question or, send them an email directly and I'm sure they'll tell you exactly what the Cineporter can and can't do.

Color is much more important than resolution - who wants high definition mud?
But still you are saying that 4:2:2 color (chroma) _resolution_ is somehow better than different color resolution (4:2:0).
I think people like panny's colors because they are more saturated than the others. You can add saturation in the post to all others and have the same visual result.

Where do you need more chroma resolution in one dimension than the other with progressive imaging?

Toke,
You can add more color in the camera as well. No need to wait till post.

However, it's undisputable.......4:2:2 is much MUCH better then 4:2:0. Wouldn't you agree? it has everythig 4:2:0 has...PLUS!

More Chroma Resolution is bette the NO chroma resolution, yes?

- ShannonRawls.com

More Chroma Resolution is bette the NO chroma resolution, yes?
I'd say that I'd take 4:2:0 with 10bit colors before 4:2:2 8bit, any given day...

Where would better vert chroma rez than horiz chroma rez needed?
Chroma key with lots of vertical movement?

which codec is working in 10 bit 4:2:0 ?

Yes, but Toke....
Where on earth can you get 10bit 4:2:0 footage from?

Ok...so lets talk reality here.....would you rather have 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 (both 8-bit)? I think the answer is obvious.

Now if we are comparing DVCPROHD 4:2:2 to HDV 4:2:0 and talking colors....well, I don't know. Too many factors to involve, beginning with the lens, then the chips, then the dsp, etc....

- ShannonRawls.com

which codec is working in 10 bit 4:2:0 ?
Maybe infinity will have this as an option.
Funny thing is that 4:2:2 codecs are designed for interlaced picture, where vert rez is more important than horz rez. In progressive picture they are equally important, so when human vision is more accurate for luminance than for chrominance, having same vert luminnance & chrominance rez is waste of data. Much more important would be getting more tones for color correction.

4:2:2 codecs are designed for interlaced picture, where vert rez is more important than horz rez. In progressive picture they are equally important
Is that right? Well hot diggity. I wonder why everybody is so hellbent on "verticle" resolution when it comes to these cameras? I was under the impression horizontal rez is not all that important based on the way humans view images.

If this is the case, then that's good news for cameras with high horizontal rez that wish to do a film-out or one day be recorded to HD-DVD/BLURAY

- ShannonRawls.com

I was under the impression horizontal rez is not all that important based on the way humans view images.
Human eye's fovea's center, where the sharpest vision is, is a round thing with equal amount of horizontal and vertical cells. BTW, there are only couple of hundreds of them per dimension, so it is quite funny how much resolution we need to reproduce natural view. If we could just nail all audineces eyes on one point of picture all else could be just blurred. But everybody's eyes seem to wonder through the pictures with their own path and pace...

Of course for chroma keying and compositing 4:4:4 is always the best and it gets worse when you go further from that, but with natural image, there should be no way to separate progressive 4:2:2 picture from progressive 4:2:0 picture.

Of course for chroma keying and compositing 4:4:4 is always the best and it gets worse when you go further from that, but with natural image, there should be no way to separate progressive 4:2:2 picture from progressive 4:2:0 picture.

Oh !!!!

Here i completely disagree.

I mean, i can easily "see" the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0
and i can easily "see" the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:1:1

Even watching the footage at a good distance from the monitor, i can actually see that 4:2:2 looks more "solid", but smoother (more natural) at the same time.

...but with natural image, there should be no way to separate progressive 4:2:2 picture from progressive 4:2:0 picture.

If you think that's true, take a look at Adams site and look at the direct color comparison he shows on the site. While 4:4:4 is king, there is a huge difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. The difference is not only noticeable, it's downright ugly!

While 4:4:4 is king, there is a huge difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. The difference is not only noticeable, it's downright ugly!
Just shot some stuff in 4:2:2 and 4:1:1; I think the difference is noticeable enough (and ugly enough!) that it deserves its own thread...

Just shot some stuff in 4:2:2 and 4:1:1; I think the difference is noticeable enough (and ugly enough!) that it deserves its own thread...
I wasn't talking about 4:1:1.
That is about ugliest chroma resolution for progressive picture.
So are you guys seeing differences with 4:1:1 or 4:2:0?
Or just between 4:4:4 and everything else?

If you are seeing difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 progressive natural images with full framerate playback, I'd guess that you are looking from too short distance, so that you are able to separate single luminance pixels.

Otherwise you guys have just trashed the theory behind component video and our perception has evolved in couple of decades.

I still haven't heard a single argument, why human eye should not notice lower chroma resolution horizontally, but should notice it vertically.

Toke,

4:2:2 is twice the color resolution of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1, twice !

It's not about satuation level, the 4:2:2 color will always appear smoother, richer, more natural than 4:2:0 and 4:1:1.

Yes, even at a good distance from the monitor, you can see the difference.

4:2:2 is twice the color resolution of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1, twice!
So you are saying that your eyes resolve chroma as sharply as luminance?
Or that your eyes can see the difference vertically but not horizontally?

Well, maybe this old story about component chroma resolution compression is just a legend. Maybe I'll have to do some tests with my own eyes.
Some of these old "laws of nature", that you learn very early, you just take for granted. Should question everything...

Maybe I'll have to do some tests with my own eyes.

Yes Toke !

I'd like to give Toke some support. In principle, the most desirable system would call for chroma to have the same resolution as luminance - 4:4:4. For many systems it is unfortunately necessary to use techniques to achieve bitrate reductions, compression is obviously one, reducing the chroma resolution relative to luminance is another.

If the latter technique is employed, it makes sense to do it symmetrically in the vertical and horizontal directions for all the reasons Toke says - it suits the way the eye works. Hence 4:2:0 seems a far more logical choice than 4:1:1, and I believe the latter originates from when digital recordings were seen as 'islands' in an analogue world - it was reckoned to survive repeated A-D conversions better than 4:2:0, especially true when interlace is taken into account.

It may be argued that extra chroma res can't do any harm, so 4:2:2 must be better than 4:2:0, mustn't it? I can see the reasoning there, but the bitrate to allow it must come from somewhere, and in 4:2:2 systems where bitrate is constrained that has to mean that the whole image is more highly compressed than if 4:2:0 was used. Hence, is it not conceivable that a better compromise may result from less vertical chroma resolution if it allows lower overall compression, or even 10 bit working?

I've been working with the FX1 and Z1 for a year now, and the 4:2:0 color space is really nice. I am looking forward to using the HVX soon and see how the 4:2:2 looks. Until then, I'll wait to pass judgment, but until then, I like the Z1's color space, and the HD100 has a nice image, too.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to put a camera through its paces then look at footage on my HDTV and a calibrated HD monitor before I decide what's right.

heath

I've been working with the FX1 and Z1 for a year now, and the 4:2:0 color space is really nice. I am looking forward to using the HVX soon and see how the 4:2:2 looks. Until then, I'll wait to pass judgment, ...........
Whatever your final conclusion is, the differing colour spaces are only one aspect of the differing recording systems and codecs. With one an intraframe 100Mbs system, the other 25Mbs interframe, and differing luminance resolutions, all those alone may make more difference than the differing colourspaces. And that's before we even start thinking of the cameras having different lenses, chips, processing.......

Practically though, I'll agree with your second paragraph!

I'll know more shortly.

heath

I'd say that hvx is just the first step out of chains of locked tape formats.
With this camera you can choose two resolutions and variable frame rate.
Maybe in next model, you could choose different codec, adjust compression ratio, color depth and sampling.
1280x720@10bit@4:2:0 would need only 25% more with same compression ratio than today's 960x720@8bit@4:2:2.
So 10bit colors with 24pN and bitrate of dvcpro50. Doesn't that sound good?

It may be argued that extra chroma res can't do any harm, so 4:2:2 must be better than 4:2:0, mustn't it? I can see the reasoning there, but the bitrate to allow it must come from somewhere, and in 4:2:2 systems where bitrate is constrained that has to mean that the whole image is more highly compressed than if 4:2:0 was used. Hence, is it not conceivable that a better compromise may result from less vertical chroma resolution if it allows lower overall compression, ...?

Finally some sense injected into the non-sense about this topic. The move to progressive means a re-look at the role of horizontal and vertical resolution for both luma and chroma.


Moreover, the claims about the DVCPRO HD codec being better than HDV because ... need to consider the significant differences between 1080i and 720p HDV. They have very few performance areas in common. For example, we read about the need to "paint out artifacts in HDV" yet no mention is made of which HDV.

Didn't we all go through this nonsense when Sony and Panasonic introduced HDCAM and DVCPRO HD?

I've just got one thing to say. You guys are smart! I am amazed and impressed. Keep up the discussions.

Finally some sense injected into the non-sense about this topic. The move to progressive means a re-look at the role of horizontal and vertical resolution for both luma and chroma.
A colleague has compared the colour space issue to buying an apartment. Imagine a developer has constructed a block, the overall floor area per apartment is fixed, but that internal space can be divided up any way desired. One estate agent boldly advertises his sales as having a bigger living room, you go and check it out, and his claims are true. But then you realise that it comes at the expense of smaller bedrooms and less storage area. Bringing this up with the agent gets a response of "well sir, you don't want to make too much of the measurements, that's not what's important, it's the overall living experience that counts". Well, yes, he's right, but..... it was the agents who made the biggest fuss about measurements in the first place!

In a way that's all just marketing, and I may do the same if I was selling apartments (or video equipment). In the case of the latter I just find it unfortunate that it can lead to wide technical misconceptions, and I can think of examples where it may be applicable to each of the main manufacturers. I'd rather live in Tokes apartment: "1280x720@10bit@4:2:0" (would need only 25% more with same compression ratio than today's 960x720@8bit@4:2:2) - if I could get the builder to give that extra 25% of floorspace!!

But coming back to the more specifics of colour space, it seems to be much more of an issue within the States than in Europe, and I can't help wondering whether it's because the choice is the States tends to have been 4:1:1 v 4:2:2, whereas in Europe it's been 4:2:0 v 4:2:2. Hence, can it be that what we're seeing is that 4:1:1 is bad v the other two, rather than 4:2:2 is good v the other two? (All else equal, and obviously 4:2:2 should be the best - it's a question of by how much.)

In another thread Barry Green posted some excellent comparisons of the 25, 50, and 100Mbs modes of the HVX. Whilst some obvious comparisons can be drawn between the modes, several factors change between the modes, not just colour space. I asked:

"It's left me thinking that an interesting comparison along the same lines would be to use a Z1 to shoot the same scene as Barry has done, but both in NTSC and PAL SD DV25, all else kept the same. Obviously the vertical resolution will differ, but the big difference between the two examples will be 4:1:1 for NTSC, 4:2:0 for PAL. The compression applied should be the same in each case as both have the same number of samples/second (720*480*30 = 720*576*25 = 10368000 for luminance), so any significant differences in artifacting should be due to colour space, and how the codec handles them.

Any takers?"

If you have a Z1 Steve, I still think that would be a revealing test. It's only with cameras now able to work in more than one mode that these sort of comparisons can be performed.

Am I wrong or is the term color space being bandied about incorrectly here, as if it is the same thing as chroma resolution? Doesn't color space have more to do with the gamut and bit depth, etc.?

And as for 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2, the comparison is not always as simple as it looks. For example the 4:2:0 JVC HD100 has significantly more than half the color resolution as the 4:2:2 Varicam.

How so? Because the Varicam downrezzes the 720x1280 spec to 720x960 while the HD100 uses the full horizontal spec.

This means the overall horizontal rez of the HD100 is actually 25% better for both luma and chroma. To put it another way, the JVC has 4 horizontal samples for every 3 the Varicam has. So the more crucial element of resolution, luma, completely favors the JVC over the Varicam.

Now let's get back to chroma, and see if the Varicam really doubles the JVC's chroma resolution. To do that let's calculate total chroma samples in both pictures.

The JVC has 360(V)x640(H)=230,400 chroma samples per frame.

The Varicam has 720(V)x480(H)=345,600 chroma samples per frame.

Turns out that the JVC has 2/3, not half, the chroma rez.

And the JVC also has 25% better luma rez 921,600 samples per frame versus the Varicam's 691,200 -- and we all know that due to the physiology of the eye, that luma resolution is more important.

Of course to put this chroma situation in perspective, people (and networks) have been pleased with SD DV images, say from the DVX100, that only have 86,400 chroma samples per frame, so the JVC's 230,400 may not be so bad since it's, uh, a mere 260% better!

Thanks for flagging the problems in this thread, Steve.

Tip

I'm sorry, but all this over-the-top techno-comparison between formats is very educational (not being sarcastic), but it's also pretty silly do delve into such an academic debate on format choices.

I don't care if it's SD, DV25, DV50, HD, HDV, DVCPRO or even S-VHS.. every format/codec has it's place and a match-to-job requirement that can be fulfilled and used.

You know what really matters? Output. If you want to know firsthand what these format differences really mean or more importantly, what these various cameras actually look like when you shoot them, get to a local pro-video shop, put up the cameras on a test scene with a video switcher and flip between the bodies and look at the outputs.

I'm impressed with the level of technical knowledge being exchanged, but if the point is to really show which is "better" from any single perspective, then the only way you can discern that is to get your eyeballs looking at side-by-side footage comparisons, and not at pages of specs.

And let's not forget one very important aspect of being a "measurbator": You can have the most expensive, technically impressive equipment on the planet but if you don't know how to use it properly and take advantage of what you've got then tech specs become meaningless, don't they?