Which would look better? (sharper, better color, etc)

A) HD shot on the HVX200 and then downconverted to SD

B) SD shot on the HVX200

C) SD shot on the DVX100b

Can the HVX200 somehow "downconvert" from HD to the SD tape in the camera? Or would you need to record HD to P2 or Firestore, and then downconvert in post?

And am I right that the CineSwitch technology for variable frame rate is ONLY available in 720p mode, not SD?


Thanks.

A, HD to SD down convert. Do this with your NLE to a uncompressed format and the quality is stunning.

B) HVX DVCPro50 SD the DVCPro 50 is superior for SD results and no crossconvert needed. So it is easy to handle with lower compression than the DVCproHD.

the HVX can record the DVCPro50 SD to tape? If so, that would be great!

the Panasonic website says

Q. What signals and frame rates does the HVX200 support on Mini-DV tape?

A. While recording with the tape drive portion of the camera, you record in 25Mbps Mini-DV mode and in 30 frames per second. 24p and 24pA are available in NTSC models. :(

Q. What signals does the HVX200 record?

A. This camera handles standard-definition in 3 modes: DV and DVCPRO (which are 25 Mbps) and DVCPRO50, which as the name implies, is 50 Mbps, which is also 4:2:2 and has been compared favorably with DigiBeta. It also handles DVCPRO HD high definition at 100 Mbps in 1080i or 720p, recording onto P2 cards.
You can also record variable frame rate footage in 720p mode and internally dub this footage to DV, offering a unique function and effect to your DV productions.

I take it this means records 720p to P2, and then from P2 you can "internally" dub to the DV tape in the camera?

No, DVCpro 50 goes only to P2 media unfortunately. So since you've to do a re-render of your material anyways, I still suggest my option ;-)

B) HVX DVCPro50 SD the DVCPro 50 is superior for SD results and no crossconvert needed. So it is easy to handle with lower compression than the DVCproHD.

I agree to some degree as there are more bits allocated per pixel for DVCPRO 50, however, my testing was showing a crisper image from downconverting HD to SD.

@ Steev: And just to be completely informed (;-)) what do you mean with SD? DV or better (like uncompressed)?

@ Steev: And just to be completely informed (;-)) what do you mean with SD? DV or better (like uncompressed)?

Downconverted to uncompressed. I'd hate to have to downconvert to DV from HD. So in my workflow, I'd edit in 720p, then for my master, downconvert to SD uncompressed and out to tape like DigiBeta, or encode straight from 720p to Mpeg2 for DVD, etc. But yes, uncompressed master for sure.

To be clear, when people are talking about downconverting delivering superior results, they are not talking about downconverting to DV. Downconverting high-def to DV results in images that are softer than if you'd just shot DV in the first place.

But if you downconvert in post to an uncompressed 720x480 image, that will be sharper with better color sampling than if you'd just shot in DV in the first place. It's the recompression to DV that's raining on the downconversion parade.

Barry / Steev:

Would it be better downconverting 720p/1080p HD in post (FCP) to output to DVCPro50 tape via FireWire (Master Tape) instead to the uncompressed SD option DigiBeta, specially for broadcasting?

Not sure what you're asking. Are you saying that you'd have an HD project, and you want to know whether it'd be better to downconvert to DV50 or to DigiBeta for broadcast?

The answer to that would be -- depends on the station you're broadcasting at. If they have DigiBeta decks, go DigiBeta. If they have DV50 decks, go DV50.

If you're talking about getting your own deck, go DV50 -- it's much less expensive (you can get decks for under $7,000 I believe) and you can output via firewire to them because FCP supports firewire deck control for DV50. Again though, it depends on what your stations are expecting to receive; if they're equally happy with DigiBeta and DV50, you'll find it a lot less expensive to go DV50, plus you'll have firewire compatibility between your deck, your camera, and your editing program.

Barry Green writes: "To be clear, when people are talking about downconverting delivering superior results, they are not talking about downconverting to DV. Downconverting high-def to DV results in images that are softer than if you'd just shot DV in the first place."

So I guess my original question should then have been:

Which would look better? (sharper, better color, etc)

A) HD shot on the HVX200 and then downconverted to DV

B) DV shot on the HVX200

C) DV shot on the DVX100b

If you're talking about getting your own deck, go DV50 -- it's much less expensive (you can get decks for under $7,000 I believe) and you can output via firewire to them because FCP supports firewire deck control for DV50. Again though, it depends on what your stations are expecting to receive; if they're equally happy with DigiBeta and DV50, you'll find it a lot less expensive to go DV50, plus you'll have firewire compatibility between your deck, your camera, and your editing program.

Barry, thank you so much... This was the answer I was expecting!

I'm not ready to switch over to HD, but using the HDV200 to record DVCPRO50 on firestore is the best SD solution around for the price?

4:2:2, no need to import from tape, no DV codec....

And no other DVCPRO50 cameras in that price range that I've seen...

Which would look better? (sharper, better color, etc)

A) HD shot on the HVX200 and then downconverted to DV

B) DV shot on the HVX200

C) DV shot on the DVX100b

I ran this test. In my opinion, of those options, shooting DV on the HVX beats the others. But shooting DV50 on the HVX is way better than the others.
http://www.icexpo.com/HVX200/Composite.jpg