Question about artifacts at DVinfo.net

Brandon Freeman · June 30th, 2007, 02:13 PM

So, with the HD200 camera, even though it has 19.7 Mbps as opposed to 25 Mbps like all the other HDV cameras, is it less prone to artifacts because of the progressive, smaller resolution? Especially with the HD200, which is supposed to have an improved codec, how does its compression compare with the Sony HVR-Z1U (my current camera)?

Moreover, how does it compare with the Panasonic HVX200? This might be an unfair comparison in terms of artifacting (I wouldn't know, I've never used an HVX200), but I'm wondering if the difference is noticeable. (This question is regarding the HVX's 100 Mbps compression rate.)

I'm also reading that the JVC cameras have great latitude, whereas I've read many complaints from HVX users that highlights are terrible.

Thoughts?

Adam Grunseth · June 30th, 2007, 03:37 PM

19.7 Mbps is for 720p HD where 35 Mbps is for 1080i. A progressive scan picture is able to undergo much greater compression than an interlaced signal- its difficult to explain, but basically because of the two fields need to be remain seperated for interlaced scanning, compression can really only take place horizontally and not make too much use of the verticle information when compressing the image. So even though 720p HDV has a lower data rate, it can compress much, much more efficiently than 1080i HDV.

As for HD200 vs HVX I have only compared my HD110 vs an HVX. I will admit, for my very non-scientific comparisons when shooting extremely fast moving, highly saturated, high contrast objects could I tell a difference between the two cameras. Than, upon frame by frame analysis it is revealed that yes, the HD110 has more visible artifacts than the HVX. However, these artifacts were much less than what I got shooting the same thing on standard DV, and only visible upon a frame by frame analysis.... it should also be noted that the HVX was not artifact free either.

When comparing latitute, both cameras offer an extreme amount of control over the gamma curve and falloff knees. I think both cameras tend to handle highlights extremely well- however, out of the box I think the HVX has more pleasing highlight and shadow handling, however, when tweaked to optimal settings for greatest dynamic range, the JVC seems to have greater lattitude, with more detail visible in the highlights and in the shadows than the HVX.

I compared the two cameras very carfully, as well as the Canon XL-H1, and I decided on the JVC. However I'm going to echo what many people have been saying on these boards for a long time- All of these cameras can produce absolutely stunning results, and are much more similar than different in terms of quality. Go with the camera that feels right in your hands, has the form factor you want, and is easiest for you to use. No matter which camera you choose, you'll be able to produce an excellent looking product.

Brandon Freeman · June 30th, 2007, 06:22 PM

"As for HD200 vs HVX I have only compared my HD110 vs an HVX. I will admit, for my very non-scientific comparisons when shooting extremely fast moving, highly saturated, high contrast objects could I tell a difference between the two cameras. Than, upon frame by frame analysis it is revealed that yes, the HD110 has more visible artifacts than the HVX. However, these artifacts were much less than what I got shooting the same thing on standard DV, and only visible upon a frame by frame analysis.... it should also be noted that the HVX was not artifact free either."

Interesting. Perhaps the HD200 has resolved these artifact issues with their improved encoding?

Thank you for the reply. Trying to decide on a new personal HD/V camera that will take care of my personal projects as well as short films in the community.

Features are another story, as I hope to shoot on RED...but I won't be owning those. But I digress...

June 30th, 2007, 02:13 PM	#1
Brandon Freeman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 226	Question about artifacts So, with the HD200 camera, even though it has 19.7 Mbps as opposed to 25 Mbps like all the other HDV cameras, is it less prone to artifacts because of the progressive, smaller resolution? Especially with the HD200, which is supposed to have an improved codec, how does its compression compare with the Sony HVR-Z1U (my current camera)? Moreover, how does it compare with the Panasonic HVX200? This might be an unfair comparison in terms of artifacting (I wouldn't know, I've never used an HVX200), but I'm wondering if the difference is noticeable. (This question is regarding the HVX's 100 Mbps compression rate.) I'm also reading that the JVC cameras have great latitude, whereas I've read many complaints from HVX users that highlights are terrible. Thoughts?

June 30th, 2007, 03:37 PM	#2
Adam Grunseth Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Eugene Oregon Posts: 393	19.7 Mbps is for 720p HD where 35 Mbps is for 1080i. A progressive scan picture is able to undergo much greater compression than an interlaced signal- its difficult to explain, but basically because of the two fields need to be remain seperated for interlaced scanning, compression can really only take place horizontally and not make too much use of the verticle information when compressing the image. So even though 720p HDV has a lower data rate, it can compress much, much more efficiently than 1080i HDV. As for HD200 vs HVX I have only compared my HD110 vs an HVX. I will admit, for my very non-scientific comparisons when shooting extremely fast moving, highly saturated, high contrast objects could I tell a difference between the two cameras. Than, upon frame by frame analysis it is revealed that yes, the HD110 has more visible artifacts than the HVX. However, these artifacts were much less than what I got shooting the same thing on standard DV, and only visible upon a frame by frame analysis.... it should also be noted that the HVX was not artifact free either. When comparing latitute, both cameras offer an extreme amount of control over the gamma curve and falloff knees. I think both cameras tend to handle highlights extremely well- however, out of the box I think the HVX has more pleasing highlight and shadow handling, however, when tweaked to optimal settings for greatest dynamic range, the JVC seems to have greater lattitude, with more detail visible in the highlights and in the shadows than the HVX. I compared the two cameras very carfully, as well as the Canon XL-H1, and I decided on the JVC. However I'm going to echo what many people have been saying on these boards for a long time- All of these cameras can produce absolutely stunning results, and are much more similar than different in terms of quality. Go with the camera that feels right in your hands, has the form factor you want, and is easiest for you to use. No matter which camera you choose, you'll be able to produce an excellent looking product.

June 30th, 2007, 06:22 PM	#3
Brandon Freeman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 226	"As for HD200 vs HVX I have only compared my HD110 vs an HVX. I will admit, for my very non-scientific comparisons when shooting extremely fast moving, highly saturated, high contrast objects could I tell a difference between the two cameras. Than, upon frame by frame analysis it is revealed that yes, the HD110 has more visible artifacts than the HVX. However, these artifacts were much less than what I got shooting the same thing on standard DV, and only visible upon a frame by frame analysis.... it should also be noted that the HVX was not artifact free either." Interesting. Perhaps the HD200 has resolved these artifact issues with their improved encoding? Thank you for the reply. Trying to decide on a new personal HD/V camera that will take care of my personal projects as well as short films in the community. Features are another story, as I hope to shoot on RED...but I won't be owning those. But I digress...