HVX200 Reviews are not focusing on what's important

Antoine Fabi · January 5th, 2006, 02:37 PM

Ah !

thanks Michael,

I am in a very uncomfortable position now...

I like the H1 low noise, but i prefer the HVX200 color richness...

Ah...I is not funny...

could we see a few second of the clip that has a lot of shadows in ?
I see some noise in the H1 stills (very dark areas like hairs), but i dont know if it comes from the jpeg compression...

thanks

Michael Pappas · January 5th, 2006, 02:44 PM

Everything is working here. Try to clean out your history and cache.

LINK to XLH1 frames etc: http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

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 Rob McCardle

Hey Michael - images are not loading on Mac or on PC. If I click the image placeholder I get 404.

Anything we can do ?

Michael Pappas · January 5th, 2006, 02:51 PM

The H1 can be rich too in color. You can adjust all this internally. The H1 comes to you pretty flat, so do Canons D-SLR's which I use.

That's a good thing though.

You make the camera what you want.

File sizes are way to be big for me and yes the Jpeg capture induces noise as well. If you want the most clean HD camera under 10K it's the H1. The Z1u is clean too, just no where as sharp as the H1.

LINK to XLH1 frames etc: http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

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 Antoine Fabi

Ah !

thanks Michael,

I am in a very uncomfortable position now...

I like the H1 low noise, but i prefer the HVX200 color richness...

Ah...I is not funny...

could we see a few second of the clip that has a lot of shadows in ?
I see some noise in the H1 stills (very dark areas like hairs), but i dont know if it comes from the jpeg compression...

thanks

Steve Roark · January 5th, 2006, 02:57 PM

Its probably been pointed out before, but the comparison shots between the two cameras have such vastly different lighting that I wouldn't want to make a judgement on which has better colors. Still, I really enjoyed looking at the H1 stills, they look pretty good considering the lighting would have been a real nightmare on a lesser camera.

Michael Pappas · January 5th, 2006, 03:17 PM

Steve,

I have a disclamer there. ''' Don't judge these cameras from these examples. They were shot at different times. There just here for you to see''"

Just imagine that, lighting would have made the H1 really shine. But if you can get good shots in basic lighting situations, that says a lot about the XLH1

LINK to XLH1 frames etc: http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Roark

Its probably been pointed out before, but the comparison shots between the two cameras have such vastly different lighting that I wouldn't want to make a judgement on which has better colors. Still, I really enjoyed looking at the H1 stills, they look pretty good considering the lighting would have been a real nightmare on a lesser camera.

Steve Roark · January 5th, 2006, 03:35 PM

Forgive me, I'm from broadcast journalism and never learned to read.

I guess I got too wrapped up in the images and missed the fine print.

Like you said, I can't wait to see the output when someone builds the lighting around this camera.

Michael Pappas · January 5th, 2006, 03:54 PM

Hi, Steve

I come from a family of print journalist. I was raised from day one on watching 60 minutes, Night-line, 20/20, Front-line, Charles Kuralt Sunday Morning and much more. Broadcast Journalism is in my blood, the only unfortunate is that industry has cheapened itself to tabloid level of investigation and has thrown journalism ethics 101 out the door.

Oops, sorry for the soapbox, this is one of those subjects I get passionate over...

You can't read, well I can't spell to save my life.. Thank god for spell checker....

LINK TO XLH1 MATERIAL: http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

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 Steve Roark

Forgive me, I'm from broadcast journalism and never learned to read.

Toke Lahti · January 5th, 2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

The main limitation of these cameras is not the ccd block, but the lens.

Cheap lens leads to soft resolution, small imager leads to noise. Both are problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

About the reason they are hiding the CCD specs, reading your post I got the impression you agree it may be inferior pixel count, even though you started saying it may not be so.

Panny is in trouble with these specs. People want big numbers for proof of resolution, but small pixels causes noise. Which way to go?
I'd prefer less resolution & noise.

Stephen L. Noe · January 5th, 2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

The H1 can be rich too in color. You can adjust all this internally. The H1 comes to you pretty flat, so do Canons D-SLR's which I use.

That's a good thing though.

You make the camera what you want.

File sizes are way to be big for me and yes the Jpeg capture induces noise as well. If you want the most clean HD camera under 10K it's the H1. The Z1u is clean too, just no where as sharp as the H1.

I'm still waiting to see rich color from the H1. The watch maker sequence was very nice but the "up and down the street" stuff I've seen is off the chart when it comes to highlights.

You're right. I'd like to see the H1 mate with the HVX200. With the Canon they clearly concentrated on low light characteristics and with the HVX it seems they abandoned the notion of low light shooting.

I still maintain that of the new HD(V) camera's the HD-100 is the all around champ not in any one category but overall it is the best balanced in all areas.

Michael Pappas · January 5th, 2006, 05:01 PM

It's not low light, it's low key to medium key lighting they went to support.

The reason is most films and tv dramas are made in low to medium key. Canon works closely with us in the film industry so they have gotten a lot of feed back about this. Many years ago we did the same with Sony on the Hdcams.

LINK TO XLH1 MATERIAL: http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

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 Stephen L. Noe

I'm still waiting to see rich color from the H1. The watch maker sequence was very nice but the "up and down the street" stuff I've seen is off the chart when it comes to highlights.

You're right. I'd like to see the H1 mate with the HVX200. With the Canon they clearly concentrated on low light characteristics and with the HVX it seems they abandoned the notion of low light shooting.

I still maintain that of the new HD(V) camera's the HD-100 is the all around champ not in any one category but overall it is the best balanced in all areas.

Steve Roark · January 5th, 2006, 05:29 PM

Hey, Mike! Don't get me started on how journalism has gone down hill. After watching every major TV news outlet reporting rumours as facts yesterday, I'm ready to go back to Tarot cards. What's the first rule of journalism? VERIFY! What's the first rule of broadcast journalism? Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Stephen L. Noe · January 5th, 2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

It's not low light, it's low key to medium key lighting they went to support.

The reason is most films and tv dramas are made in low to medium key. Canon works closely with us in the film industry so they have gotten a lot of feed back about this. Many years ago we did the same with Sony on the Hdcams.

All good info. In my time with the XL-H1 I didn't really dig into the menu's to see what I could really do with it. I do know the highlights were severely blown out even under auto exposure and further under manual exposure settings. I'd like to get another crack at it one of these days.

About the HVX noise. I notice some people are rationalizing it but from the stuff I've edited so far it is very real and very bad. I hope the engineers can get some adjustments in place but with that much 'colored snow' it seems very difficult to imagine they can get it cleaned up. Ouch! Low light is a NO GO. As it turns out so far the hype was just that, Hype.

Michael Maier · January 5th, 2006, 08:57 PM

The noise in the HVX200 it's sure reason to worry, but I haven't seen enough low light or low key footage yet. My feeling is that we will see a HVX200A not very far in the future though, ala DVX.
The H1 looks very sharp, but the turn off for me is that it looks like video. The 24f gimmick just doesn't cut it for me. I haven't seen anything in 24f that looked as filmic as the HD100 or DVX100 24p yet. Another turn off in the H1 is the auto lens. I know there may be a manual option in the future, but I need it now.
The color in the HVX200 for some reason looks like DSP enhanced to me. I’m not saying it is, as I know it’s 4:2:2. But for some reason it doesn’t look any better than color corrected HDV. It may look better in a HD monitor playing the original files though. But my feeling is that if one shoots with a H1 or HD100 and color correct it, then show it to an average Joe or even some video people, they will never tell the difference between that and the color in the HVX200. Maybe it’s because of the smaller chips, but the 4:2:2 from the HVX doesn’t look far from 4:2:0 as the 2/3” 4:2:2 does.
All in perspective I really think it’s about the right tool for the right job. The Z1 is mainly for broadcast, weddings and documentary stuff. The H1 the same, plus studio. The HD00 is more for filmmaking and the HVX200 should be as well, but we have yet to see how much of a problem the excess noise will be for filmmaking style shooting. Not saying you can’t do it all with any of them, but that’s how I would break them down.

Michael Maier · January 5th, 2006, 09:11 PM

Michael, is that fourth picture on that HVX200 filmout at LASER
PACIFIC HOLLYWOOD article a picture of a projecting screen or a monitor? I’m talking the one with the beautiful Asian girl. I think I understood it was from the projecting screen, but I wanted to make sure. In case it’s a picture of the screen, how big was it and what mode 720p or 1080p?

Walter Graff · January 5th, 2006, 09:47 PM

"We shouldn't have DV noise levels on and HD camera...... "

in a retail 6k camera you aren't going to have the best picture in the world. Even the Varicam is known to be very noisy in the blacks. And the DVX too. Heck every Panasonic camera is. What that is all the Panasonic cameras. Seriously noise is something one can deal with. Most all of these folks testing cameras have no real knowledge of the intricacies of video or even a serious background in video to say they are testing. Someday someone (I am about to) will do tests where they first try to make the cameras look the best they can and not simply turn the camera on and say wow what a piece of Sh*t.

January 5th, 2006, 02:57 PM	#64
Steve Roark Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vilseck, Germany Posts: 89	links work here, too Its probably been pointed out before, but the comparison shots between the two cameras have such vastly different lighting that I wouldn't want to make a judgement on which has better colors. Still, I really enjoyed looking at the H1 stills, they look pretty good considering the lighting would have been a real nightmare on a lesser camera.

January 5th, 2006, 03:35 PM	#66
Steve Roark Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vilseck, Germany Posts: 89	oops, so that's what those sqiggly things are for Forgive me, I'm from broadcast journalism and never learned to read. I guess I got too wrapped up in the images and missed the fine print. Like you said, I can't wait to see the output when someone builds the lighting around this camera.

January 5th, 2006, 02:37 PM	#61
Antoine Fabi Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada Posts: 108	Ah ! thanks Michael, I am in a very uncomfortable position now... I like the H1 low noise, but i prefer the HVX200 color richness... Ah...I is not funny... could we see a few second of the clip that has a lot of shadows in ? I see some noise in the H1 stills (very dark areas like hairs), but i dont know if it comes from the jpeg compression... thanks

January 5th, 2006, 05:29 PM	#71
Steve Roark Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vilseck, Germany Posts: 89	Hey, Mike! Don't get me started on how journalism has gone down hill. After watching every major TV news outlet reporting rumours as facts yesterday, I'm ready to go back to Tarot cards. What's the first rule of journalism? VERIFY! What's the first rule of broadcast journalism? Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

January 5th, 2006, 08:57 PM	#73
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	The noise in the HVX200 it's sure reason to worry, but I haven't seen enough low light or low key footage yet. My feeling is that we will see a HVX200A not very far in the future though, ala DVX. The H1 looks very sharp, but the turn off for me is that it looks like video. The 24f gimmick just doesn't cut it for me. I haven't seen anything in 24f that looked as filmic as the HD100 or DVX100 24p yet. Another turn off in the H1 is the auto lens. I know there may be a manual option in the future, but I need it now. The color in the HVX200 for some reason looks like DSP enhanced to me. I’m not saying it is, as I know it’s 4:2:2. But for some reason it doesn’t look any better than color corrected HDV. It may look better in a HD monitor playing the original files though. But my feeling is that if one shoots with a H1 or HD100 and color correct it, then show it to an average Joe or even some video people, they will never tell the difference between that and the color in the HVX200. Maybe it’s because of the smaller chips, but the 4:2:2 from the HVX doesn’t look far from 4:2:0 as the 2/3” 4:2:2 does. All in perspective I really think it’s about the right tool for the right job. The Z1 is mainly for broadcast, weddings and documentary stuff. The H1 the same, plus studio. The HD00 is more for filmmaking and the HVX200 should be as well, but we have yet to see how much of a problem the excess noise will be for filmmaking style shooting. Not saying you can’t do it all with any of them, but that’s how I would break them down.

January 5th, 2006, 09:11 PM	#74
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Michael, is that fourth picture on that HVX200 filmout at LASER PACIFIC HOLLYWOOD article a picture of a projecting screen or a monitor? I’m talking the one with the beautiful Asian girl. I think I understood it was from the projecting screen, but I wanted to make sure. In case it’s a picture of the screen, how big was it and what mode 720p or 1080p?

January 5th, 2006, 09:47 PM	#75
Walter Graff Hellgate Pictures, Inc. Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 124	"We shouldn't have DV noise levels on and HD camera...... " in a retail 6k camera you aren't going to have the best picture in the world. Even the Varicam is known to be very noisy in the blacks. And the DVX too. Heck every Panasonic camera is. What that is all the Panasonic cameras. Seriously noise is something one can deal with. Most all of these folks testing cameras have no real knowledge of the intricacies of video or even a serious background in video to say they are testing. Someday someone (I am about to) will do tests where they first try to make the cameras look the best they can and not simply turn the camera on and say wow what a piece of Sh*t.