Panasonic comparison

[Uri Blumenthal]

Choices, choices...

My problem with HDV is that it suffers from compression artifacts in dynamic scenes. On the other hand, it's editable on my PC under Premiere Pro (and Ulead MSP).

My problem with DVCPro HD is that Premiere Pro isn't handling it now, unclear when it will, if at all - and I''m not anxious to replace video editor again (expenses, convenience, dumping the entire Video Collection). On the other hand, it's the cleanest format to consider.

From all the HDV cameras, JVC HD100 seems the best choice - because of its shorter GOP and native 1280x720p, presumably true progressive capability. Hopefully its lens will be up to the task, and its electronics too...

[Luis Caffesse]

"I don't think I've heard of anyone being unhappy they were owning a Z1"

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to slam the Z1 and I can see how it came off that way. I just meant that I had considered it at one time, and then changed my mind, and now I'm glad I did. It wound up being the right choice for me to wait(and it sounded like the poster I responded to felt the same way).

I"m sure it's a great camera, and I know many people are happy with it. It just wasn't the right camera for me.
That's all I meant.

[Kurth Bousman]

Luis - I wasn't trying to get on your case amigo. I was just pointing out that maybe there's a nice marriage between all of these cameras esp. between the sony and the pany. It's like owning a nikon 8400 and a canon 1ds or 20d. They would be used in completely different enviroments and compliment each other in very nice ways. And I'm sure down the line , we'll see a production using both. The JVC also is destined for it's own niche. We'll have to see how it performs but the form factor reminds me more of shooting with a 16mm aaton or eclair rather than an eng type because of it's lower center of gravity. What's great is the choices we are now faced with versus from whence we came. I've got a half a dozen super8s', a couple of 16mms, that were virtually put to bed with my sony dvcam. I say virtually because dv didn't quite reach 16mm quality. Maybe this year we can hope film will be replaced by digital in the moving image as it already is , in the still world. The worst problem most of us will be faced with this year is, we can only afford one of these beauties, hence the discussion! saludos kurth

[Luis Caffesse]

Kurth,

Glad we're on the same page.

maybe there's a nice marriage between all of these cameras esp. between the sony and the pany. It's like owning a nikon 8400 and a canon 1ds or 20d.

While that sounds like a beautiful thing...I think they may be destined for divorce.

I see your point... and in fact I've kept both a PD150 and a DVX around for just that reason. Sometimes it's great to have the low light capability, and sometimes it's nice to have 24p... etc. By using both at select times, you can use each one for its strengths, and hopefully get around its weaknessess.

And that's great when we're talking about DV cameras. In post, it's all DV... and my system doesn't care what camera it came from.

But here we're talking about not only different cameras, but as Chris pointed out at the beginning of the thread, different formats. I think it's going to be hard make a 'happy marriage' out of that.


WOW, this thread sure has gotten long considering it began with many of us saying it was too early to talk about anything.
:)

At least we have less than 2 weeks left now!
The wait is almost over.

[Kurth Bousman]

>>>But here we're talking about not only different cameras, but as Chris pointed out at the beginning of the thread, different formats. I think it's going to be hard make a 'happy marriage' out of that.<<<

Luis - no , man , it's pixels all the way -
it's like the story of a searcher meeting a wise man and asking how the world was supported, and the wise man said "It rests on the shoulders of a giant" , and the searcher says " and what does the giant rest on ? " and the wise man says "it stands on the back of a huge buffalo" and the searcher says " and what does the buffalo rest on ? " and the wise man says " it's standing on the back of a giant turtle" and the searcher says " and what is the turtle standing on? " and the wise man says " son , it's turtles all the way down !"- kurth

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

The JVC HD100 might be the marriage camera, so to speak. I don't mean a camera for weddings <grin>.

It uses a lot of compression but includes the capability to do some kind of non-tape aquisition. Plus it's shoulder-mount but very small and light and has a real lens mount. It's the most versatile of them both (the FX1/Z1 and the HDX200), allthough rigging it up for less-compressed capture might end up costing more than with the Panny.

[Michael Maier]

It seems it will be a really hard decision and Panasonic sure didn't seem to want to make it easier on us. If the HVX200 had an interchangeable lens, it would be a whole full game ahead of the bunch.

[Barry Green]

The more dissimilar the cameras are, the easier it should be to choose between them.

If you NEED interchangeable lenses, get the JVC.

If you NEED 1080i or the "reality" look, get the Sony or the Panasonic.

If you NEED 720p, get the Panasonic or the JVC.

If you NEED 1080p, or 4:2:2, get the Panasonic.

If you NEED to record HD on tape, get the JVC or the Sony.

If you NEED progressive-scan, get the JVC or the Panasonic.


The thing is, now the buyers have to decide what it is that they actually need. Once you narrow that down, the choice between the cameras should be pretty simple.

[Michael Maier]

Not that easy. At least not for me. I want a camera for dramatic narrative. So it would be good to have the best quality format, progressive scan 24fps and a manual lens. The format needs to be good enough for green screen work. The lens needs to allow precise and repeatable focus. If the use of a follow focus would be possible it would be the best. It would also be nice to have other frame rates like 50p or 60p for slow motion effects and other applications. So the HVX200 with interchangeable lens would be my camera. Or the HD100 recording real HD instead of HDV. So I have features I need spread out between the 2. But none of them have all I need. It will sure be a hard one.

[Kevin Dooley]

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Maier : Or the HD100 recording real HD instead of HDV. -->>>

Okay, I hate to nitpick, but I feel this mentality is one we have to nip in the bud...

HDV, by all definitions laid out in the ATSC standards, is High Definition footage. It's just compressed differently than any other form of HD. To say it's not is as crazy as saying that you won't shoot with an XL2, because it shoots DV, not SD.

Sorry about the nitpick, but I think we need to be careful that we don't discount something simply because it's a "lower" standard--especially something that will, whether we like it or not, revolutionize the video world. And with all the offerings that will apparently be available in a few short days (or at least officially announced), affordable HD is set to do exactly that.

[Graeme Nattress]

But if you dubbed a VHS tape to HDCAM, then surely it would meet the HD definitions?? Pixel dimensions just don't do it for me anymore on defining what is and what is not HD. Surely it's got to do with the level of real detail at a pixel level defined by an HD format?

Graeme

[Kevin Dooley]

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : But if you dubbed a VHS tape to HDCAM, then surely it would meet the HD definitions?? Pixel dimensions just don't do it for me anymore on defining what is and what is not HD. Surely it's got to do with the level of real detail at a pixel level defined by an HD format?

Graeme -->>>

Graeme,

There has to be a standard definition somewhere. Is HDV up to the standard of DVCPRO HD or HDCAM in technical terms? No, it's bitrate and color space are much lesser than the other two formats, but does that make it not HD? No. It is HD footage. The same as VHS was SD footage, and so was DigiBeta. Does VHS look horrible? Yes. Is it SD footage? Yes. Does HDV footage look pretty damn good (especially given the cost/quality ratio)? Yes. Is it HD? Yes. Is VHS, uprezzed to HD, HD? Ummm... the final size of the footage is HD... but it clearly began as SD VHS. There's a big difference between saying that uprezzed VHS is HD and that a new format of HD is HD.

All I'm saying is, people from the get-go have been saying that HDV is not HD. Why? Because you narrowly define HD as being only those codecs/tape formats that have gone before? Certain forums that I frequent less and less and t shall go nameless, have a seperate forum for HDV, because the "video elite" that hang out in the HD forum couldn't be bothered by their "lowly bastard siblings". Well guess what, people are still pitching it to clients as HD and it still looks good (provided the videographer/production company knows what they're doing) on HDTVs. Why? Because it is HD.

People tried to do the same thing with DV when it came out--they said it would never be broadcast, and that professionals would never even consider it, blah, blah, blah. Looks like there were many. many people in this industry eating their words in short order.

[Graeme Nattress]

Kevin, I certainly see exactly where you're coming from. But, for instance, I'm working on a fabulous new algorithm for uprezzing DV to HD dimensions. The algorithm basically goes in and does a good degree of sensibly guessed detail reconstruction and manipulation to make the DV appear as if it has the visual look of HD at HD resolution. It's all quite clever, but is the final result HD? I'd say it is, because if you were to take a pristine full resolution HD image, drop it's resolution down to DV rez, even putting it through the DV codec, and then used my algorithm to take it back up to HD, you'd need to have some very keen eyes and a better HDTV than consumers can buy in the shops to be able to tell.

I fully understand abou the HDV bashing going on, and an awful lot of it is based upon unfounded supposition, rumour and spec-sheet comparisons. However, on the HDV supporters side, there's also an afull lot of comments that rather un-scientifically use the phrase "blown away" when it comes to describing the quality they see (not picking on anyone here, but that phrase has become endemic in internet video forums). "Balanced" opinions are few and far between, as people set up in their favoured camps and battle it out for "best".

An interesting point is that every new television transmission format was higher definition than the one previous, and they've all used the phrase High Definition to describe themselves. We started with 30 lines, then 405, 525, 625, and now 720 and 1080. Each and every one of them has called itself high definition at some point. Certainly makes you think!

HDV absolutely looks great on a cost basis comparison. They certainly have the cost / quality equation in the right spot!!! But as we all found out with SD, that DV has about 90% of the quality of Digital Betacam at < 10% of the cost. But DV had the same measured luma resolution as that of Digital Betacam and the same pixel dimensions as Digital Betacam. It has half the chroma rez, but you can't really see that unless you really look for it, and the compression, although much greater, was not too bad when we got used to it, and the end result was certainly better quality video that can be broadcast and viewed in our homes. The differences bigger chips and better lenses make are subtle, but there, and quite hard to see, even if you're looking for them.

So, is HDV "HD". Certainly. But is being "HD" a measure of quality - no, it's a measure of pixel resolution that has no direct relationship to quality, other than an "expectation" that something of higher pixel resolution should have higher quality - "I mean - it's obvious, isn't it, bigger = more = better" :-)

That's why I we need a better way to describe the "definition" of video than pixel dimensions. I could certainly do with such a metric to help with refining my algorithm.

Graeme

[Kevin Dooley]

I fully understand where you're coming from now. But in reference to the original post, what we really need to do then is acknowledge that different formats are HD (in the sense that that is the standard name for those pixels size, in the same way that SD implies a certain size frame and really, not much else), and admit that HDV, while HD, is not nearly as beefy, detailed, full of chroma, whatever, and basically any other flavor of HD footage. Does that make it bad footage? Not necissarily. It definately has it's place.

I agree, balance is the key. I would say that the HDV footage I've seen "blows away" alot of SD footage I've seen, but the Varicam and F900 footage I've seen leaves HDV, "in the dust". The flip side of that is that a skilled DP could make HDV from JVC's original HDV cams look better than footage from HDCAM SR (or a Dalsa, Genesis, etc.), in the hands of some chump who took some community college courses in video... There's so much more to all of this than the camera, or the compression scheme, or the ability to use different lenses...

[Steve Gibby]

I really feel that technical advances are making this an unbelievably exciting time to be in the TV/video production business! Comparing the Z1, HD100, and HVC200 is fascinating. As Barry has accurately stated, each has its pluses and minuses. I feel the purchase choice all boils down to what kind of production you usually work on - and how you can cost-effectively integrate the format into a viable work flow in post.

I believe that percieved quality while viewing footage is largely subjective. In many respects I'd much rather view DV footage shot by a master videographer, than HD shot by a mediocre videographer. Tech advances have democratized the production process. Because you hand someone a new pen, do they automatically become Shakespeare? Because you hand someone a new paintbrush, do they automatically become Picasso? There are three elements to acquiring (and editing) exceptional footage: 1) talent 2) experience 3) technology. Combining all three is the formula for the best product. Technology is now very affordable. Talent you are simply born with. Experience you have to acquire over a period of years working in the field.

My entire TV/video career has been built around "Maximize technology, minimize overhead". It's included over 700 national TV programs that aired on 12 different networks. It also includes a healthy mix of business video production. My niche has been "run and gun", ENG-style adventure travel, alternative sports, music, lifestyle and documentaries. With routinely small budgets, it was critical to stay on the cutting edge of technology. I've been through all the transitions: 3/4" to Beta, Beta to Beta SP, adding in Hi8, adding in DV, DVCPro, DVCAM, DigiBeta, and the various forms of HD. In the mid-90's I immediately embraced 3-chip DV (VX1000) as a cost-effective tool to intercut with my Beta SP productions - when the ego-driven in this industry wouldn't lower themselves to do likewise. I enjoyed budgetary balck ink while they were wallowing in red ink trying to outbid me for projects for the same TV networks! I'm now ready to the Z1, HD100, and HVC200 in the same way: cost-effective tools for appropriate productions. For my mobile, ENG-style TV productions, and many business video productions, they are ideal! Some like crowing that "Well, Discovery Networks doesn't allow HDV to be used". The same thing happened with DV at first. We all know how that changed...and it will change quickly with the footage from the Z1, HD100, and HVC200. When Hawaiians surf, they simply choose the best board for what the waves are doing that particular day. I do the same in my approach to producing television and video. Just two months ago I produced, directed, and was primary cameraman for a reality documentary at the Super Bowl that was televised nationally about five weeks after the game. The entire program was shot with just two cameras: a Sony VX2000 and a Canon XL1s, both highly-accessorized. The format and equipment made sense! I chuckled to myself at the hordes of monster camera wielding crews that couldn't get the super-creative shots because of the limitations of their rigs.

I am brand, codec, and format agnostic. I check my ego at the door and always try to keep an open mind as technology evolves. Dividing up into "Sony camps", "DVCPro camps", makes no sense to me. I'll be at NAB checking technology closely - with an open mind. Clients and TV networks want a certain level of quality for a reasonable price. How we achieve that, and beat the competition, is entirely dependent on how we "Maximize technology - and minimize overhead". Otherwise we program ourselves for professional extinction...