HD100 compared to HVX200

[Scott Jaco]

I didn't think the HVX200 looked as good as the HD100 when it came to the night shots and the shots in the park. The HD100 has a photographic look which I love, where the HVX200 just looks like a video "still".

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Benner

In the article, the tester mentioned that no system handles native HDV editing well, but I thought that FCP does this well? I am in this very boat about the HVX/HD100 debate, and this is a large concern of mine.

I think his primary point was that he felt that it was "better" to convert to 4:2:2 uncompressed. Now in two situations that is definitely true: you edit on an Avid/Premiere where Temp Renders are "reused" AND if you are moving source in and out of other applications like AE.

But with FCP, every time a frame of HDV is needed, it is decoded to 4:4:4 YUV before anything is done to it. In short, the conversion he does at the beginning for ALL his source material (resulting in the need for a huge RAID) is done by FCP on a per-frame basis. (In fact, his 4:2:2 uncompressed is also converted to 4:4:4 on a frame-by-frame basis.)

After any, and all, FX are rendered on the 4:4:4 data -- the result is sent to your monitor. When you are done, the export is done using fresh HDV frames so native is decoded ONLY once. It makes NO difference if you decoded them during capture, after capture in an application, or in the Timeline. Once is once. (In fact, it may be better to go from 4:2:0 directly to 4:4:4.)

Thus, the only re-compression or re-coding is done from the uncompressed YUV 4:4:4 data -- no matter what the source files are. If you need a movie as an Intermediate, you should export to Apple's 4:2:2 10-bit. This can be done to a FireWire drive -- no need for a RAID.

In all his wonderful myth busting -- he left this one still alive for FCP users.

[Simon Antoniou]

whats the best way to soften the image in post?

A basic setting in an NLE? or using Magic Bullet?

[Chad Terpstra]

Originally Posted by Simon Antoniou

whats the best way to soften the image in post?

A basic setting in an NLE? or using Magic Bullet?

Depends on your intention. If you're trying to get rid of the "video look," I don't think you'll completely succeed. From what I've seen & heard electronic in-camera edge enhancement creates little black lines around the subject to increase perceived sharpness. This is when it is set pretty high. A simple blur filter will just blur the image & leave the lines in. Best bet is to leave detail or sharpening low on the camera.

Try Nattress Film Effects before Magic Bullet. (about 1/8 the cost & still a great product). He has some diffusion filters which when set creatively can soften the image in a pleasing way. Along the lines of color-correction I pretty much use his curves filter exclusively for adjusting luminance levels. Great results. http://www.nattress.com/

I'd agree that the "Film Look" is basically just creating the most pleasing picture possible. It's not about mimicking the way actual film responds to light (though many tend to think so). So much is done in post, you really can't compare your raw video capture to a fully CC'd film production.

For CC I have found this book very helpful:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157...Fencoding=UTF8

[Gary L Childress]

Steve, you have some info there I had not heard before so I would just like to clarify since I use both Avid and FCP but the HD stuff is new for me.

In summary, you are saying that the live "in the NLE" image in FCP is always 4:4:4, converted from the HDV source footage. FCP treats the HDV footage as 4:4:4 all the way through the editing process. If you were editing HDV and using a Kona or Blackmagic card, would that mean you would be sending 4:4:4 to your tape machine during mastering to a high end deck?

Also, if you are sending proxy sequences out of FCP to AE or Combustion etc,
does the footage come into AE as 4:4:4 as well or do proxy sequences with HDV footage not work in AE? Would you be forced to use an intermediate codec for effects work?

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

The essential differences to concern yourself with in these two cameras is ergonomics, lens and recording codec/medium. Other than that, I would bet you could easily achieve equal results in colour response and latitude.

key points here. i went 'round and 'round hvx or hd100? my conclusion was the the decision should not be based on image quality. why? 1) very subjective 2) not that much difference between the two.

take a very close look at the p2 medium, i won't say if it's a blessing or a curse, but one thing for sure, it ain't cheap. in my case, i do long interviews, p2 is just not suited for that, and i don't trust hard drives. but, if you want to do features or music videos, the case for the hvx is much stronger as it's probably better for fx work and then the variable frame rate thing.