Mr. Kazuo Okamura's test shoot for Mac & Win at DVinfo.net

Chosei Funahara · December 31st, 2005, 09:32 PM

http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/bridge_h264.zip
http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/bridge.wmv

Data: Zoom out 55mm~4.2mm
Original File: Over 400MB
Compresss to H264
Manual Focus Fixed
Aut iris
Cinelike Gamma D

my comment:
Mr. Okamura missed few more detail of his camera mode, but he will shoot more tests also today.
When I see the result of his camera test, the focusing of tele-mode: very sharp and I can see really well.
But when it comes wide, it loses sharpness a bit.

One thing, I’ve noticed HVX’s lens that is not same as DVX’s characteristic behavior. HVX has strong tele-side effect and weaker wide side (it could be a first LOT out model). DVX and anamorphic has wider effects, (HVX -35mm equivalence: 16:9 32.5mm~423mm) I uses a lot of 80mm~100mm for 35mm Film camera for interior shot for dialogue setting, according to Okamura that he said HVX’s 11.1mm(80mm/7.2) or 13.8mm(100/7.2), neither one will not get enough depth of field.
I guess that I should get wide-angle attachment from Century that makes 0.6 and 0.75 wide converters.
1/3 ccd is native 16:9.
4:2:2 is not 4:4:4 which loses 540 line of chrominance compare to 4:4:4.
But I heard from Panasonic Engineer in Japan who said there is 4:4:4 SD-HDI signal internally but for the post environment is not ready for 4:4:4 yet,

Also please check JAPANESE DVX/HVX fan site:
http://www.geocities.jp/sumi653/

Michael Pappas · December 31st, 2005, 10:35 PM

Thank you for coming by....

It was DVX fan that helped make the final decesion to buy the DVX100 way back when it came out. The tests you did were very helpful, I look forward and hope you do the same with the HVX...

Kaku Ito · December 31st, 2005, 11:17 PM

It seems I'm out of all the responsibility to do everything by myself :).

Now I'm going to do what I do decent. If other colleagues miss something and we can do whatever comes up.

It's been very educating for me to involve in this community and this is the way internet should be used, I really want to thank Chris and others for making this happen.

Spread the wave.

Michael Pappas · January 1st, 2006, 01:32 AM

Well, Kaku you have been amazing.

No one has gone as far as you have is offering footage from these HD cams online.. I have your footage spread all over my machines. PC and Mac...

The problem with the above clip is it's H.264 they posted. These are distribution codecs and should not be used to judge image quality. Those codecs soften out noise and artifacts. This is a Big ( NO NO )!

Raw clips only, like you have given us whether from a FX1 or H1 to the HVX200 allow us to microscope the image to evaluate it and see if it can hold up and if it deserves merit.

Kaku do you know when you will have the night footage up. That's very important to see... There was a bay shot you did with the H1, I would love to see that done with the HVX.

Also is there a chance you could get a close up in 1080p 24 like the one of Barlows daughter. Same kind of lighting , no harsh sunlight. But an outdoor shot as well with close ups to mediums shots of people just talking or anything so we can see how well details in the faces hold up.

As always, and never can say too much......Thanks Kaku.

Pappas

Kaku Ito · January 1st, 2006, 06:15 AM

I hope they do the same, I'm not much of shooting various scenes especially subtle ones. I'm very much performance oriented.

I did take some night ones today. Gain on and off. Also the detail down and regular version.

Off the topic here, so I will explain in the other thread.

Steve Mullen · January 1st, 2006, 07:02 AM

OK -- I don't read Japanese, but having lived in Japan I'm familiar with reading CCD specs from a Japanese brouchure.

But, I don't see any CCD specifications. Only that the chips are 1/3-inch.

Likewise, I see no lux specifucation -- the second most important CCD spec.

Guy Bruner · January 1st, 2006, 07:23 AM

Steve,
Panasonic is not providing the pixel dimensions of its CCDs. They will only say the CCDs are scanned in 1080P, are 16:9 aspect ratio, and have a minimum sensitivity of 3 Lux (no IRE given).

Shannon Rawls · January 1st, 2006, 12:14 PM

If Sony or Canon or JVC did that, they would be burned at the stake and talked-about so extensively, it would borderline racism.
Panasonic does it, and it's all good. lol

- ShannonRawls.com

Chris Hurd · January 1st, 2006, 12:17 PM

To be fair and to equally spread the blame, Panasonic is not the only manufacturer to withold certain specs. Canon, for instance, refuses to reveal the bit depth of the DSP in the XL H1, which is a pretty important thing. Just to cite one specific example out of many.

Michael Pappas · January 1st, 2006, 01:30 PM

It's wrong not to tell us those "major" specs not unlike a car manufacture not revealing to us how many cylinders, valves, engine block size or gas mileage a car you have just purchased has.

Simple, I don't agree with it, but what choice do we have. All we can do is call them on it. Tell them it's BS as well.

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

To be fair and to equally spread the blame, Panasonic is not the only manufacturer to withold certain specs. Canon, for instance, refuses to reveal the bit depth of the DSP in the XL H1, which is a pretty important thing. Just to cite one specific example out of many.

Guy Bruner · January 1st, 2006, 03:46 PM

Jan basically told me that she would "lose the opportunity to educate" on the quality of the HVX200 if those pixel dimensions were published. I think maybe we should evaluate the picture quality as a combination of the whole (CCD, lens, DSP) rather than try to focus on any one factor in creating the image. If the image looks and is good, who cares how it was created?

Les Dit · January 1st, 2006, 04:00 PM

It all comes out in the wash.
For cars: they are 0-60mph and 0-100mph times. Who cares if the engine has 3 cylinders!

When someone posts *any*res charts for the HVX200 camera, they won't be able to hide the numbers any longer.
The pathetic video edge enhancements fool uninformed 'TV people', but they just can't bring back *actual* resolving ability.

Someone please post still images of a chart or other sharp edged content, with the sharpness setting turned as low as possible!
Even using a dollar bill works, and most people can get one of those to shoot.
-Les

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

It's wrong not to tell us those "major" specs not unlike a car manufacture not revealing to us how many cylinders, valves, engine block size or gas mileage a car you have just purchased has.

Simple, I don't agree with it, but what choice do we have. All we can do is call them on it. Tell them it's BS as well.

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com

Les Dit · January 1st, 2006, 04:04 PM

I can't help but comment on this, but coming from sales, I would read this as:

" lose the ability to trick " rather than the " lose the ability to educate "

-Les

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Bruner

Jan basically told me that she would "lose the opportunity to educate" on the quality of the HVX200 if those pixel dimensions were published. I think maybe we should evaluate the picture quality as a combination of the whole (CCD, lens, DSP) rather than try to focus on any one factor in creating the image. If the image looks and is good, who cares how it was created?

Chris Hurd · January 1st, 2006, 04:13 PM

I think that's an overly harsh judgement. How is it wrong, to suggest that yoiu need to consider the entire chain, the lens plus chips plus DSP etc., instead of concentrating on only one aspect. I think it's very good advice actually.

Michael Pappas · January 1st, 2006, 04:32 PM

Well, I respectfully disagree with you Chris!

It's wrong X's ten in my opinion! I been at this longer that you at the high-end level, and I have never experienced that lack of trust at the professional level of production equipment sold to professionals. But then again, just my opinion.......

>pappas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I think that's an overly harsh judgement. How is it wrong, to suggest that yoiu need to consider the entire chain, the lens plus chips plus DSP etc., instead of concentrating on only one aspect. I think it's very good advice actually.

December 31st, 2005, 09:32 PM	#1
Chosei Funahara Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: N.Y.C. USA / Kobe, JAPAN / Posts: 49	Mr. Kazuo Okamura's test shoot for Mac & Win http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/bridge_h264.zip http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/bridge.wmv Data: Zoom out 55mm~4.2mm Original File: Over 400MB Compresss to H264 Manual Focus Fixed Aut iris Cinelike Gamma D my comment: Mr. Okamura missed few more detail of his camera mode, but he will shoot more tests also today. When I see the result of his camera test, the focusing of tele-mode: very sharp and I can see really well. But when it comes wide, it loses sharpness a bit. One thing, I’ve noticed HVX’s lens that is not same as DVX’s characteristic behavior. HVX has strong tele-side effect and weaker wide side (it could be a first LOT out model). DVX and anamorphic has wider effects, (HVX -35mm equivalence: 16:9 32.5mm~423mm) I uses a lot of 80mm~100mm for 35mm Film camera for interior shot for dialogue setting, according to Okamura that he said HVX’s 11.1mm(80mm/7.2) or 13.8mm(100/7.2), neither one will not get enough depth of field. I guess that I should get wide-angle attachment from Century that makes 0.6 and 0.75 wide converters. 1/3 ccd is native 16:9. 4:2:2 is not 4:4:4 which loses 540 line of chrominance compare to 4:4:4. But I heard from Panasonic Engineer in Japan who said there is 4:4:4 SD-HDI signal internally but for the post environment is not ready for 4:4:4 yet, Also please check JAPANESE DVX/HVX fan site: http://www.geocities.jp/sumi653/ Last edited by Chosei Funahara; December 31st, 2005 at 10:36 PM.

January 1st, 2006, 07:02 AM	#6
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	What resolution CCDs? OK -- I don't read Japanese, but having lived in Japan I'm familiar with reading CCD specs from a Japanese brouchure. But, I don't see any CCD specifications. Only that the chips are 1/3-inch. Likewise, I see no lux specifucation -- the second most important CCD spec. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

January 1st, 2006, 12:14 PM	#8
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	If Sony or Canon or JVC did that, they would be burned at the stake and talked-about so extensively, it would borderline racism. Panasonic does it, and it's all good. lol - ShannonRawls.com __________________ Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.

January 1st, 2006, 12:17 PM	#9
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	To be fair and to equally spread the blame, Panasonic is not the only manufacturer to withold certain specs. Canon, for instance, refuses to reveal the bit depth of the DSP in the XL H1, which is a pretty important thing. Just to cite one specific example out of many. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 1st, 2006, 04:13 PM	#14
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I think that's an overly harsh judgement. How is it wrong, to suggest that yoiu need to consider the entire chain, the lens plus chips plus DSP etc., instead of concentrating on only one aspect. I think it's very good advice actually. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 31st, 2005, 10:35 PM	#2
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	Thank you for coming by.... It was DVX fan that helped make the final decesion to buy the DVX100 way back when it came out. The tests you did were very helpful, I look forward and hope you do the same with the HVX...

December 31st, 2005, 11:17 PM	#3
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	It seems I'm out of all the responsibility to do everything by myself :). Now I'm going to do what I do decent. If other colleagues miss something and we can do whatever comes up. It's been very educating for me to involve in this community and this is the way internet should be used, I really want to thank Chris and others for making this happen. Spread the wave.

January 1st, 2006, 01:32 AM	#4
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	Well, Kaku you have been amazing. No one has gone as far as you have is offering footage from these HD cams online.. I have your footage spread all over my machines. PC and Mac... The problem with the above clip is it's H.264 they posted. These are distribution codecs and should not be used to judge image quality. Those codecs soften out noise and artifacts. This is a Big ( NO NO )! Raw clips only, like you have given us whether from a FX1 or H1 to the HVX200 allow us to microscope the image to evaluate it and see if it can hold up and if it deserves merit. Kaku do you know when you will have the night footage up. That's very important to see... There was a bay shot you did with the H1, I would love to see that done with the HVX. Also is there a chance you could get a close up in 1080p 24 like the one of Barlows daughter. Same kind of lighting , no harsh sunlight. But an outdoor shot as well with close ups to mediums shots of people just talking or anything so we can see how well details in the faces hold up. As always, and never can say too much......Thanks Kaku. Pappas

January 1st, 2006, 06:15 AM	#5
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	I hope they do the same, I'm not much of shooting various scenes especially subtle ones. I'm very much performance oriented. I did take some night ones today. Gain on and off. Also the detail down and regular version. Off the topic here, so I will explain in the other thread.

January 1st, 2006, 07:23 AM	#7
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Steve, Panasonic is not providing the pixel dimensions of its CCDs. They will only say the CCDs are scanned in 1080P, are 16:9 aspect ratio, and have a minimum sensitivity of 3 Lux (no IRE given).

January 1st, 2006, 03:46 PM	#11
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	Jan basically told me that she would "lose the opportunity to educate" on the quality of the HVX200 if those pixel dimensions were published. I think maybe we should evaluate the picture quality as a combination of the whole (CCD, lens, DSP) rather than try to focus on any one factor in creating the image. If the image looks and is good, who cares how it was created?