|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 13th, 2003, 05:29 PM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
|
NEW GR-HD1 HDDV vs SD-MiniDV Example tests
These new images are the best yet in showing the difference between HDDV and SD miniDV from the GR-HD1.
Go to gallery #3. The Link: http://www.pbase.com/PappasArts9 Michael Pappas http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms http://www.pbase.com/PappasArts1 www.PappasArts.com Arrfilms@hotmail.com |
|
|
June 13th, 2003, 06:19 PM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 991
|
Re: NEW GR-HD1 HDDV vs SD-MiniDV Example tests
You gotta be kiddin' me, that example was straight from JVC Japan's website, is it any wonder how bad the "fake" DV frame is?
http://www.sonyshop.c-tec.co.jp/main/vcam/gr-hd1_info1.htm scroll down, pfft weak I say. Now this comparison is turning into a biased to prop-up of the HD1. At least give JVC credit for the shots. I'm surprised anyone even take that comparison seriously. I willing to bet that's the image produced by HD1 in SD mode. |
|
|
|
June 13th, 2003, 07:41 PM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
|
I had already put it on my site where the material is from. I sourced it from JVC. I had also put the link too! I was sent an email with this material before it was on their site, but could not post it because I was asked not to until they had it up.
Michael Pappas |
|
|
|
June 13th, 2003, 07:44 PM
|
#4 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
|
By the way your link is old!
The new link is: http://www.jvc.com/promotions/grhd1/what/index.html |
|
|
|
June 13th, 2003, 10:26 PM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 991
|
Michael, thanks for adding the JVC credit. Anyways... I question the purpose for putting that picture up. I would assume anyone visiting this forum, would know that DV frame was purposely degrated on JVC's part. Any site that uses those image as real-world comparision really put their credibility on the line. It's a shame that marketing over there actually believe their HD1 target consumer can be fooled by that comparison. It's a sign that some companies are truly oblivious.
|
|
|
|
June 13th, 2003, 11:54 PM
|
#6 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
|
I uploaded some DVX100 pics along with one GL2. I did a uprez on one pic to 1280x720. SD still comes short when compared to this new HD. As far as the edge artifacts on these images, that's a quicktime codec problem. I have links below that I made showing this issue last year. Also an example from the 24p.com site showing the same issue.
The images were exported out of AE pro as 32bit files. Then converted to jpeg. Go to gallery #4. for DV images The Link: http://www.pbase.com/PappasArts9 Apple Codec issue info just incase you wonder what the edge artifacts are. http://new.dvinfo.net/media/pappas/14.jpg http://new.dvinfo.net/media/pappas/15.jpg http://www.24p.com/codecs.htm Michael Pappas http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms http://www.pbase.com/PappasArts1 www.PappasArts.com Arrfilms@hotmail.com |
|
|
|
June 14th, 2003, 02:55 AM
|
#7 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 569
|
O come on, not that flower thing again. It's everywhere in JVC Jap site and catalogues.
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2003, 03:37 AM
|
#8 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
In 1997, Michael Pappas provided the spark that eventually developed into the XL1 Watchdog site. He was the first person I knew to have a GL1, a VX2000, a GL2, a DVX100, just about every new camcorder that comes out, Michael gets his hands on it. And then he graciously provides me with content for the site. I have no doubt that since the JVC HD-cam is finally shipping, he'll have one of those as well. Please go a little easier on him. If it wasn't for his original enthusiasm for this message board back when it first started in September 2001, a lot of you guys never would have found it. He made the initial announcements about this board which attracted a core body of users in late 2001 which really gave life to this thing. So don't hang the guy for what he's doing here, please. I for one am anxious to see what Michael does with this camera and can't wait to see his own material. Hope this helps,
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2003, 08:21 AM
|
#9 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 991
|
The Quicktime codec may have failings but you have to admit that flower image comparison is a purposed marketing strategy. JVC using the faults in the apple DV codec to make their product look better. I dn't think anyone would argue that the HD1 has "less" res than any SD cam, but the higher res doesn't mean better overall image
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2003, 07:32 PM
|
#10 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: San Francisco CA
Posts: 386
|
I would beg to disagree with you, if viewed and compared on an HD monitor, just about all of the uploaded footage from the HD1 would appear to have a better overall image quality than any SD camcorder I've seen up to the $5,000 range. I have a much higher end SD camera than that , and I can tell you I am getting scared to do a comparison. When I get my HD1OU I will compare and let you know.
__________________
Paul |
|
|
|
June 14th, 2003, 07:50 PM
|
#11 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Paul, when you get your HD10U, please be sure to let me know. Thanks,
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
