Okay, that's an easy one then: HVX200. It does everything you're asking for. The lens may not be interchangeable (that remains to be seen) but the focus is precise and repeatable on the DVX, and can be used with a follow focus, so if the HVX is at least as good, then it will address everything you asked for. As for greenscreen, the 4:2:2 will be much better than the 4:2:0 of the other cameras. For the best quality format for dramatic narrative, 1080/24p is going to be the best of the best of the best.

So the way I see it, you have really three choices for cameras that do all that you need: the CineAlta at $100,000; the VariCam at $67,000, or the HVX at ? $8,000? If interchangeable lenses are worth $59,000 or more to you, you know where to spend that cash. But if you can live with the type of lens the HVX will (likely) have, you can probably get everything you want in one camera.

My company goal is to provide the tools to let my users get the best out of affordably video formats. That's why I code up stuff to vastly improve the chroma coming off DV, and I'm working on fascinating algorithms that take DV up to HD with fantastic quality.

There's something rather special about maximising the quality out of "value" video equipment. I really like to be able to make people's eyes boggle at what quality they can get out of cheap gear.

Graeme

Way to go, Graeme. Then again... I wonder about what you will be able to do with 4:2:2 coming from the panny...

That'd be telling, but probably quite a bit....

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Okay, that's an easy one then: HVX200. It does everything you're asking for. The lens may not be interchangeable (that remains to be seen) but the focus is precise and repeatable on the DVX, and can be used with a follow focus, so if the HVX is at least as good, then it will address everything you asked for. As for greenscreen, the 4:2:2 will be much better than the 4:2:0 of the other cameras. For the best quality format for dramatic narrative, 1080/24p is going to be the best of the best of the best.

So the way I see it, you have really three choices for cameras that do all that you need: the CineAlta at $100,000; the VariCam at $67,000, or the HVX at ? $8,000? If interchangeable lenses are worth $59,000 or more to you, you know where to spend that cash. But if you can live with the type of lens the HVX will (likely) have, you can probably get everything you want in one camera. -->>>

Yeah, I feel you. But still, a manual lens ranks pretty high on my list. It's just not the same. Besides if you need a wider angle, you are stuck with added distortion from an adapter if you have a fixed lens. I know the HVX200 will be a fixed lens. I just know it. It would be too good to be true if it was an interchangeable. Just like the JVC would if it wasn't HDV. LOL. I might get the JVC and use the uncompressed component out it is supposed to have to record to a Betacam SP deck and get around HDV, like this other guy suggested in another board, so much I wanted an interchangeable lens. Hehehe.

"a manual lens ranks pretty high on my list....
.... I know the HVX200 will be a fixed lens. I just know it. It would be too good to be true if it was an interchangeable."

There is still a compromise that might be possible, which I haven't seen anyone mention.

Panasonic at least had the forethought to give us a 'real' manual zoom lens on the DVX, whose to say they won't up that functionality again with the HVX and give us true manual controls over focus, zoom...and hopefully the iris.

While I doubt that it will happen, it would be fantastic to see that if we have to make due with a fixed lens, that it at least have manual controls.

Does a 'fixed' lens automatically have to mean 'non-manual'?
I know it has in the past...but who knows?

What would that get you? You'd be recording standard-def video, on an analog tape format. Seems completely counterproductive as to why you'd want an HD camera in the first place.

Yeah, I know. I was just joking. Just to show how much I want an interchangeble lens. I'm desperate., hehehe.

Although I think, not because Betacam is an analog and SD format, it wouldn't still look better than if it was SD originated. The detail would still be there. Kind of like the detail and resolution is still in a film DVD even though it's mpeg2 SD NTSC. If the uncompressed was 4:4:4 or even 4:2:2, I think it would look better than the recorded HDV and you could digitaze the footage and up-rez to HD and it would uprez maybe even better than SDX900 origiated footage. If you are working in PAL, the Beta deck would record 576 lines. At least in theory, it could actually work. Because the detail, color depth and resolution would be that from the start. Sounds crazy and impractical workflow wise, but doesn't mean it would work. It's hard to say without testing IMO.
Anyway, anything to avoid HDV and get my mitts on a interchangeable HD camera for cheap. LOL. J/K.

Without testing, you can pretty easily confirm it wouldn't work. Do you not know that BetaSP has less resolution in the luma than DV, and although very slightly more chroma than NTSC DV, it's not an appreciably better format, and indeed, for any uprezzing process it would be worse. DVCPro50, which the SDX900 uses is a much, much superior format to BetaSP. It's best to remember that although many people digitise BetaSP as uncompressed, BetaSP is not in itself uncompressed, but actually very compressed in an analogue fashion and best avoided for any modern digital post production workflow.

Graeme

That's why I said maybe would look better than the SDX. But I still think it wouldn't look bad. At least better than the compressed HDV. Beta is not all that bad as you seem to put when compared to digital. Sony Hi-Def center did a test once between footage from a DVW700 DigiBeta and BVW D600 Betas SP. They trasnferred btoth to 35mm film and projcted it.Guess which one looked better, more filmic and smoother?

Come on! BetaSP has about 3/4 the luma rez of Digital Betacam, and about 3/4 of the chroma rez of DB too. BetaSP is noiser than DB, DV, DVCpro50.

"filmic", "smoother" - those words are subjective nonsense. I'm talking verifiable measured facts that show BetaSP is inferior to just about every digital format there is in resolution and noise levels.

If you care to believe that BetaSP is this wonder analogue format, then there's nothing I can say to dissuade you, but if you remove the rose tinted glasses and measure, it's very much inferior to DVCpro50, vastly beneath Digital Betacam, and only it's chroma resolution is slightly better than DV, it's luma resolution and noise levels inferior.

There's no "maybe" for it looking better than an SDX900 - there's a definate that it will not and cannot look anywhere close to that quality.

Graeme - writing in utter bemusement!

"Graeme - writing in utter bemusement!"

You've been bemused a lot lately Graeme
:)

Hopefully a lot of these discussions will turn to more concrete matters once NAB rolls around.

Indeed.

And before I get my head bitten off, I must point out that I love analogue. I love the feel of quad 2"video tape shot with old tube studio cameras. I love the smoothness of the video and the comet trails on lights - that's what I grew up watching, and it's beautiful - but accurate it is not!

Similarly with audio, I listen to vinyl records on tube amplifiers feeding horn loudspeakers' who design goes back to the birth of electronic audio itself. I enjoy music from this setup, but I'd be the first to admit it's not accurate. I'm listening for pure enjoyment, not for analysis or technical nuances. I don't use such gear for monitoring audio on my edit suite - I use proper modern studio monitors instead.

Graeme

Graeme, don't bit my head off fo it :)

It seems that Sony themselves have got to that conclusion when they did the test. Maybe if you measure the signal, you would see all the weak points of Beta you are talking about, but on naked eye, it looked better. Which is what matter here I guess. What the audience sees. I think one of the reasons mentioned for the Beta looking better was that film itself is an analog medium, so the Beta transferred better. Also remember we are talking about interlaced video. But since you didn't comment on it, I think you at least agree that uncompressed 720p on Beta would looked better than 720p HDV. For sure it would beat HDV for chroma key and artifacts.

Michael, you do have actual professional production experience with HDV in order to judge the artifacts, right? Can you tell us more about that? Oh and there is a chance that chroma key on 720p HDV might not be that bad at all, because it seems that when the image is not interlaced 4:2:0 does really well. Oh and BTW., you can't 720p on beta because beta is NTSC or PAL, remember?