Does anyone have a video comparison (moving image) or HC1 Cine24 and DVX24? at DVinfo.net

Leo Mandy · September 20th, 2005, 05:41 PM

Still looking into buying the HC1, but want to see the comparison of the 24progressive versus the HC1 Cine24. Anyone gots any?

Boyd Ostroff · September 20th, 2005, 06:12 PM

I guess some questions have been raised about whether the HC1 does cineframe the same way as the FX1 due to the different CCD.

But FWIW, Adam Wilt has a good article on the FX1 implementation here:

http://www.adamwilt.com/HDV/cineframe.html

Leo Mandy · September 20th, 2005, 07:50 PM

Thanks, that was a great article. Iam a little confused about what exactly 60i is? Can anyone give me a primer? Is 60i still a major factor in HD being that HD is just more vertical and hozintal lines? My assumption of course is that 60i is 60frame interlaced. If this is true, they are saying in the article that it is better to go with 60(interlaced) and bring it to 24p with a post production tool because cine24 doesn't do a great job. Also, he said it looks good for TV, but blown up to film, it does not - is that a correct assumption?

Boyd Ostroff · September 20th, 2005, 08:13 PM

60i just means that every other scan line is captured in an odd and even field 60 times per second. So in the first 1/60 second you capture lines 1-3-5-7-9-11-13... etc then in the next 1/60 second you capture lines 2-4-6-8-10-12... etc. Therefore you end up with 30 complete images containing all the scan lines each second.

With fast motion the odd and even fields don't quite line up since 1/60 second has passed between them. But true progressive scan (like the DVX-100 and XL-2, etc) can capture either 30 complete images per second (30p) or 24 complete images per second (24p). The result is sharper because you don't have the delay between capturing the odd and even lines.

But using software in post you can approximate this effect. The algorithm processes the parts of the image which have motion differently from the static parts of the image. It isn't perfect, but it should improve over the builtin cf 24 on the Sony Cameras.

Leo Mandy · September 20th, 2005, 08:34 PM

Thanks for the info. I have been seriously considering the HC1 now for a little while because I want to upgrade to HD. I really love the DVX100A and so there is the toss up. I know we are moving towards an HD world, so that is what is pushing me more towards the HC1, but still I wonder...

Ken Hodson · September 21st, 2005, 01:34 AM

It would be a trade off. The DV cam is feature and control rich, the HDV cam is minimal on both. The DV cam offers progressive and interlaced. The HDV cam interlaced. I think it would depend on what you are going to shoot. If you are just doing family/vacation type stuff and have a HD screen to enjoy, the HDV cam might fit the bill. There is a big differance in size between the two.
Have you checked out the FX1? It is more along the price of the DVX100 if that is your ballpark.

Leo Mandy · September 21st, 2005, 03:14 PM

I would love the fx1, but it is a little pricey for me just yet. I really want to go wit hthe technology and hit the HD side of things, but I still see the DVX100 as being a viable option. I also heard the the HC1 is not great in the lux category.

Ken Hodson · September 21st, 2005, 04:10 PM

The Fx1 and DVX100 are the same price.
Correct the HC1 being CMOS is not as good in low light. It also has minimal manual controlls and lesser lens.

September 20th, 2005, 05:41 PM	#1
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Does anyone have a video comparison (moving image) or HC1 Cine24 and DVX24? Still looking into buying the HC1, but want to see the comparison of the 24progressive versus the HC1 Cine24. Anyone gots any?

September 21st, 2005, 01:34 AM	#6
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	It would be a trade off. The DV cam is feature and control rich, the HDV cam is minimal on both. The DV cam offers progressive and interlaced. The HDV cam interlaced. I think it would depend on what you are going to shoot. If you are just doing family/vacation type stuff and have a HD screen to enjoy, the HDV cam might fit the bill. There is a big differance in size between the two. Have you checked out the FX1? It is more along the price of the DVX100 if that is your ballpark. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

September 21st, 2005, 04:10 PM	#8
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	The Fx1 and DVX100 are the same price. Correct the HC1 being CMOS is not as good in low light. It also has minimal manual controlls and lesser lens. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

September 20th, 2005, 06:12 PM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,794	I guess some questions have been raised about whether the HC1 does cineframe the same way as the FX1 due to the different CCD. But FWIW, Adam Wilt has a good article on the FX1 implementation here: http://www.adamwilt.com/HDV/cineframe.html

September 20th, 2005, 07:50 PM	#3
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Thanks, that was a great article. Iam a little confused about what exactly 60i is? Can anyone give me a primer? Is 60i still a major factor in HD being that HD is just more vertical and hozintal lines? My assumption of course is that 60i is 60frame interlaced. If this is true, they are saying in the article that it is better to go with 60(interlaced) and bring it to 24p with a post production tool because cine24 doesn't do a great job. Also, he said it looks good for TV, but blown up to film, it does not - is that a correct assumption?

September 20th, 2005, 08:13 PM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,794	60i just means that every other scan line is captured in an odd and even field 60 times per second. So in the first 1/60 second you capture lines 1-3-5-7-9-11-13... etc then in the next 1/60 second you capture lines 2-4-6-8-10-12... etc. Therefore you end up with 30 complete images containing all the scan lines each second. With fast motion the odd and even fields don't quite line up since 1/60 second has passed between them. But true progressive scan (like the DVX-100 and XL-2, etc) can capture either 30 complete images per second (30p) or 24 complete images per second (24p). The result is sharper because you don't have the delay between capturing the odd and even lines. But using software in post you can approximate this effect. The algorithm processes the parts of the image which have motion differently from the static parts of the image. It isn't perfect, but it should improve over the builtin cf 24 on the Sony Cameras.

September 20th, 2005, 08:34 PM	#5
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Thanks for the info. I have been seriously considering the HC1 now for a little while because I want to upgrade to HD. I really love the DVX100A and so there is the toss up. I know we are moving towards an HD world, so that is what is pushing me more towards the HC1, but still I wonder...

September 21st, 2005, 03:14 PM	#7
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	I would love the fx1, but it is a little pricey for me just yet. I really want to go wit hthe technology and hit the HD side of things, but I still see the DVX100 as being a viable option. I also heard the the HC1 is not great in the lux category.