What about the image? at DVinfo.net

Jay Dee · June 29th, 2005, 05:54 AM

This whole forum is buzzing with posts about P2 cards and HD-recording options and such but what I really want to know is: how is the image quality going to be?

How is this thing going to perform in low-light? Let's face it, this camera combined with a MovieTube or Mini35 is going to be incredible, unless the low-light performance is worse than the vx2k/pd150, FX1/Z1 and DVX100...

Does anybody know when image samples and low-light specs will be released?

JD

Radek Svoboda · June 29th, 2005, 07:21 AM

JVC HD100 rated 6 lux, PD170 rated 1 lux. As image quality, everyone expected JVC HD10 to be better than was and no one expected Sony FX1 to be as good as is. Just wait, see.

Radek

Barry Green · June 29th, 2005, 10:47 AM

Radek is correct, there's no way to predict, we just have to wait and see footage.

Chris Hurd · June 29th, 2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

How is this thing going to perform in low-light?

Why would low-light performance even matter? If you can afford to shoot with this camera plus a Mini-35, then certainly you can afford to properly light your scenes, right?

Barry Green · June 29th, 2005, 12:57 PM

Panasonic has stated that they intend to offer the best combination of resolution, low light sensitivity, and dynamic range that they can get.

As to what that means in real-world circumstances, that remains to be seen. Presumably it won't be as sensitive as a PD170 or DVX; those cameras have much bigger pixels that can really drink in the light. The FX1 is around two or two and a half stops slower than the PD170. I would expect the HVX should be in the same class as the FX1, or the HD100, as regards low-light sensitivity. If it's better, that would be quite an accomplishment. But I can't see how any of them could be as sensitive as the SD cameras, bigger pixels = more sensitivity, and the DVX and PD170 have pixels that are around 3x as big as the high-def cameras do.

Jacques Mersereau · June 29th, 2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Why would low-light performance even matter? If you can afford to shoot with this camera plus a Mini-35, then certainly you can afford to properly light your scenes, right?

Aloha Chris,

Even though I have something like 34 2K frezzies, 24 1Ks, 30 some odd
source 4s, and 24 PAR 64s available for use in the studio I run,
leave it to some dance professor to decide
that the human eye is more important than what the camera sees
for his/her performance. Most of 'em love dim lighting,
so having a camera that can come through when the foot candles and brainwaves are almost nil
can be a good thing ;)

Jay Dee · June 29th, 2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Why would low-light performance even matter? If you can afford to shoot with this camera plus a Mini-35, then certainly you can afford to properly light your scenes, right?

Because for some projects I absolutely love available light.
It's as simple as that.

As for the bigger pixels theory: although it does hold up to a certain extent it keeps on being proven to be less of a mathematical certainty than we'd like to believe, especially in the DSLR world where newer cameras keep on outperforming the previous generation (in the sensitivity area) even though they have smaller pixels. Plus, both the VX2000/PD150 and VX2100/PD170 have the same pixel density/size yet the 2100/170 is a stop better than the 2000/150.

But, indeed, guessing is just guessing... I was hoping someone would know when the samples are to be expected... but I guess we'll have to wait a few more months.

Anhar Miah · June 30th, 2005, 08:53 AM

Hmm but dont DSLR have "more" time to gather light since they are only taking one shot at a time? compared to a video, that has to capture an image upto 60 times a second.

Chris Hurd · June 30th, 2005, 09:28 AM

No, they don't have more time to gather light... common shutter speeds in still photography can be 1/60th sec. to 1/500th sec. or even higher... what they do have though is more time to process the image. Common maximum frame rates for D-SLR's are about 5fps or so, with a maximum burst of perhaps 20 to 30 images thereabouts.

Steven White · June 30th, 2005, 10:48 AM

DSLR's also have the advantage of flashes. Almost all the professional photographers I've seen take flashes and lighting as given. Show up with a video camera - and that's simply not the case.

-Steve

Chris Hurd · June 30th, 2005, 11:13 AM

That's right. Professional still photographers always add light where it's needed.

Jay Dee · June 30th, 2005, 11:51 AM

Hmmm

Just like in cinematography, lighting is an essential element of photography and NOT using extra lighting is as much of an artistic decision as anything else.

But the reason why i compared DSLR's sensitivity with camcorders is that people used to claim that a DSLR with smaller pixels could never be more sensitive and have less noise than one with bigger pixels but it keeps on being proven wrong just because a) sensors get better and b)processing chips are better.
So I'm hoping the sensor in the HVX is as sensitive as better SD camcorders even though the pixels are a lot smaller.

But we'll see.

Gints Klimanis · June 30th, 2005, 04:02 PM

To be fair, within the same process technology, smaller pixel areas receive less light and are therefore noisier. The latest crop of DSLRs boast better noise performance with on-board noise processing (e.g. Nikon D2H -> new D2Hs). I think this in-camera processing for JPEG images is ok, but for final pictures, I would rather have more control over the the noise reduction. Noise Ninja, Neat Image et al are fantastic programs, but applying the noise reduction to the entire image
gives the bright areas a plasticky look, smoothing out skin tones and hair.
So, I just don't see much of an overall improvement in full-image noise reduction if you are trading noise for detail.

Derek Serra · July 1st, 2005, 11:09 AM

Wait until the camera is available. Spec sheets and marketing blurbs always make out that a product is perfect in all ways. Anything can happen between dreaming up an amazing camera on paper and its actual manufacture and release. This could end up producing shit-hot images which blow our minds, or be a turkey which turns into a PR nightmare for Panasonic. Patience, fellow filmmakers, patience. My main concern is the hellish cost of the P2 cards...

Bogdan Apetri · July 4th, 2005, 01:18 AM

However Panasonic delivered with the DVX -- so why wouldn't they with the HVX200?... DVX owners probably began to trust/respect Panasonic ONLY because of that little wonderful camera.

BUT -- I see everyone is dreaming of a perfect HVX200 plus the mini35 as being the mother of all cameras. Honestly, I doubt that this set-up combination will produce perfectly acceptable large screen theatrical images - large screen being the key words here.

Yet, as of now, yes - we can only wait. Everything's possible.

June 29th, 2005, 05:54 AM	#1
Jay Dee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: europe Posts: 32	What about the image? This whole forum is buzzing with posts about P2 cards and HD-recording options and such but what I really want to know is: how is the image quality going to be? How is this thing going to perform in low-light? Let's face it, this camera combined with a MovieTube or Mini35 is going to be incredible, unless the low-light performance is worse than the vx2k/pd150, FX1/Z1 and DVX100... Does anybody know when image samples and low-light specs will be released? JD

June 30th, 2005, 09:28 AM	#9
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	No, they don't have more time to gather light... common shutter speeds in still photography can be 1/60th sec. to 1/500th sec. or even higher... what they do have though is more time to process the image. Common maximum frame rates for D-SLR's are about 5fps or so, with a maximum burst of perhaps 20 to 30 images thereabouts. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

June 30th, 2005, 11:13 AM	#11
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	That's right. Professional still photographers always add light where it's needed. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 1st, 2005, 11:09 AM	#14
Derek Serra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cape Town, South Africa Posts: 76	Wait until the camera is available. Spec sheets and marketing blurbs always make out that a product is perfect in all ways. Anything can happen between dreaming up an amazing camera on paper and its actual manufacture and release. This could end up producing shit-hot images which blow our minds, or be a turkey which turns into a PR nightmare for Panasonic. Patience, fellow filmmakers, patience. My main concern is the hellish cost of the P2 cards... __________________ Derek Antonio Serra Indie Filmmaker www.indv.co.za

June 29th, 2005, 07:21 AM	#2
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	JVC HD100 rated 6 lux, PD170 rated 1 lux. As image quality, everyone expected JVC HD10 to be better than was and no one expected Sony FX1 to be as good as is. Just wait, see. Radek

June 29th, 2005, 10:47 AM	#3
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Radek is correct, there's no way to predict, we just have to wait and see footage.

June 29th, 2005, 12:57 PM	#5
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Panasonic has stated that they intend to offer the best combination of resolution, low light sensitivity, and dynamic range that they can get. As to what that means in real-world circumstances, that remains to be seen. Presumably it won't be as sensitive as a PD170 or DVX; those cameras have much bigger pixels that can really drink in the light. The FX1 is around two or two and a half stops slower than the PD170. I would expect the HVX should be in the same class as the FX1, or the HD100, as regards low-light sensitivity. If it's better, that would be quite an accomplishment. But I can't see how any of them could be as sensitive as the SD cameras, bigger pixels = more sensitivity, and the DVX and PD170 have pixels that are around 3x as big as the high-def cameras do.

June 30th, 2005, 08:53 AM	#8
Anhar Miah Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: United Kindom, England Posts: 290	Hmm but dont DSLR have "more" time to gather light since they are only taking one shot at a time? compared to a video, that has to capture an image upto 60 times a second.

June 30th, 2005, 10:48 AM	#10
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	DSLR's also have the advantage of flashes. Almost all the professional photographers I've seen take flashes and lighting as given. Show up with a video camera - and that's simply not the case. -Steve

June 30th, 2005, 11:51 AM	#12
Jay Dee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: europe Posts: 32	Hmmm Just like in cinematography, lighting is an essential element of photography and NOT using extra lighting is as much of an artistic decision as anything else. But the reason why i compared DSLR's sensitivity with camcorders is that people used to claim that a DSLR with smaller pixels could never be more sensitive and have less noise than one with bigger pixels but it keeps on being proven wrong just because a) sensors get better and b)processing chips are better. So I'm hoping the sensor in the HVX is as sensitive as better SD camcorders even though the pixels are a lot smaller. But we'll see.

June 30th, 2005, 04:02 PM	#13
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	To be fair, within the same process technology, smaller pixel areas receive less light and are therefore noisier. The latest crop of DSLRs boast better noise performance with on-board noise processing (e.g. Nikon D2H -> new D2Hs). I think this in-camera processing for JPEG images is ok, but for final pictures, I would rather have more control over the the noise reduction. Noise Ninja, Neat Image et al are fantastic programs, but applying the noise reduction to the entire image gives the bright areas a plasticky look, smoothing out skin tones and hair. So, I just don't see much of an overall improvement in full-image noise reduction if you are trading noise for detail.

July 4th, 2005, 01:18 AM	#15
Bogdan Apetri Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: New York, USA Posts: 117	However Panasonic delivered with the DVX -- so why wouldn't they with the HVX200?... DVX owners probably began to trust/respect Panasonic ONLY because of that little wonderful camera. BUT -- I see everyone is dreaming of a perfect HVX200 plus the mini35 as being the mother of all cameras. Honestly, I doubt that this set-up combination will produce perfectly acceptable large screen theatrical images - large screen being the key words here. Yet, as of now, yes - we can only wait. Everything's possible.