HVX vs H1, THE CCD WAR

Alexander Nikishin · January 5th, 2006, 01:58 AM

Lol, all I meant by saying you'd want to do everything in-camera is that you would want to obtain an image as clean as possible during shooting. Sure color correcting is a must, but still you'd want that image to be originated as clean and true as possible in most cases. Sharpening via an NLE or un-sharpening is not a good idea, that is an in-camera job.

Barlow Elton · January 5th, 2006, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

That would be true in a 10-bit system and both HDCAM and Varicam can record 10 bit into Sony CineAlta SR or Panasonic D5 recorders, but the 8 bit pro HD systems are quite compressed so you need to color correct in the field as much as possible.

Not true. And there is a fair amount of room to CC even from H1 HDV files, provided you transcode to another format. First of all, if I were making a low budget film (what else would they be?) with the H1, and was trying to maximize quality and minimize cost, I would record SDI 10bit into a Wafian, or build a little Shuttle PC with a Decklink card and record into Cineform 10bit, while also recording HDV. This would make a nice DI from the H1. All kinds of flexibility from there, with higher precision math, and full raster too. I love my G5/FCP combo, but this format would be very tempting when considering all that if offers. You could essentially be working with your online files all the way through.

Ash Greyson · January 5th, 2006, 02:18 AM

It is not always about resolution but sometimes it is.... even though people prefer the look of a Varicam, most choose the F900 for film out... As to the XL2 looking like video? Uhhh... maybe in the hands of someone who doesnt have a clue. I shoot DVX and XL2 almost daily and while I love them both, the DVX is noisier and has less resolution... colors are more saturated and the cine settings are nice. You cannot add resolution in post, you CAN tweak colors, etc. It is also a lot harder to get noise OUT in post than to record clean.

Your ultimate point may be true, but your example is just wrong. DVX won out because it was first to the market, easy to use and priced lower. The HVX and XLH are similar and aimed at seperate markets...

ash =o)

Petr Marusek · January 5th, 2006, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

First of all, if I were making a low budget film (what else would they be?) with the H1, and was trying to maximize quality and minimize cost, I would record SDI 10bit into a Wafian

H1 HDSDI has 8 bit accuracy

Bob Grant · January 5th, 2006, 03:24 AM

Ash,
I couldn't agree more, my goodness, when was less resolution a good thing?
If it's such a good idea why don't we all use $10 plastic lenses?
I've seen the results of a film out from the Varicam and it to me looked horrible, I think my projected native DV in the cinema next door looked better. As to even the F900, it's way, way lower quality than the real deal, the F950 is getting close but still short of what the best 35mm can offer.
We are talking about an acqusition medium good for 8K lines res, that's roughly 16K pixels. Sure you'd be lucky to hold that on a release print but remember what happens to a film neg also happens to a film out, the resolution of all of them goes downhill and the more you have to start with the better it looks on the big screen.
And what's the one thing all the labs say to NOT do if you're planning on a film out? Don't try to make it LOOK like film.

Of course if you're simply trying to make video that looks like film at SD res on a TV then that's a different story. Then again all the stuff from the USA that's shot on film looks razor sharp on my PAL TV, can't say it looks quite so good when I watch the same programs in the USA, hm, could that be because I'm watching it with 100 lines less resolution?

Alexander Nikishin · January 5th, 2006, 04:16 AM

The argument that the 800 line H1 is a better camera for filmout than the 750 line HVX is ridiculous. You also have to take into account that the HDV codec will do harm to your overall image when comparing it to DVCPRO HD. Many have already stated as well that they notice a greater latitude with the HVX vs. the H1.

If you plan for "uncompressed" which in reality is still compressed, 8bit HD-SDI output, you're talking about spending a LARGE chunk of change to be able to capture such footage. You also have to carry with you or setup your recording unit which makes outdoor HD-SDI capture and moving shots a true pain in the...The HVX can also be captured "uncompressed" via its component outs so squash that advantage. The HD-SDI out will be somewhat cleaner I'd assume but not by much. So let's quit the 800 line superiority talk and wait for what really counts....once again I'll say it...THE FOOTAGE.

Alexander Nikishin · January 5th, 2006, 04:36 AM

Bob, you say that you saw Varicam footage at a filmout and your DV footage looked better, what does that tell you? RESOLUTION isn't everything.

Barlow Elton · January 5th, 2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Nikishin

The HD-SDI out will be somewhat cleaner I'd assume but not by much. So let's quit the 800 line superiority talk and wait for what really counts....once again I'll say it...THE FOOTAGE.

Are you completely ignoring my point about the H1? The entire advantage is to have a clean SDI output and utilize it in whatever codec suits you, not just mere HDV...which unfairly gets a bad rap.

You are right though, footage talks.

Barlow Elton · January 5th, 2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petr Marusek

H1 HDSDI has 8 bit accuracy

It is actually a SMPTE compliant 10 bit output, but supposedly the signal has been quantized to 8 bit. Still doesn't hurt to capture and edit 10bit though...particularly if you are going to process the material extensively.

Petr Marusek · January 5th, 2006, 11:39 AM

2 bits in the 10 bit stream are set to zero.

Mathieu Ghekiere · January 5th, 2006, 11:47 AM

Alexander, I also think you were wrong in your initial post where you said many indie moviemakers hated the XL cams from Canon because they looked all like video...

1. An XL2 can be tweaked to look like film too. And yes, you have a cleaner signal.

2. You are forgetting the XL1 and the XL1s. They were much prefered cams in their days, just because they looked more filmic then the rest...

And I don't really agree with what you said about the F-950 and such, and the Varicam.
I haven't worked with neither one, but I've seen both in theatrical prints (Korean movie named Be With Me, shot in Varicam, and Star Wars Episode III)... I think both looked very fine, but I also think extra resolution and sharpness is very welcome if you are planning to do a film blowup... I thought Star Wars III on moments looked a little bit soft, surely not overly sharp...

I agree though that resolution isn't all what matters. Color, latitude, controls,... are far more important.

Mark Grant · January 5th, 2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

We are talking about an acqusition medium good for 8K lines res, that's roughly 16K pixels.

Since when?

Given that I've heard people from IMAX claiming only a 12k pixel resolution for an IMAX frame, I have a real hard time believing anyone who says that a 35mm frame -- which is absolutely minute in comparison -- can give you anything like 16k pixels resolution... unless, maybe, you chose some uber slow, low-grain film that you'd never be able to use in the real world.

And, in any case, you'll be lucky to have 2k resolution by the time it hits your local multiplex screen.

Petr Marusek · January 5th, 2006, 12:51 PM

That's correct. You will get 2K at most.

Bryon Akerman · January 5th, 2006, 01:08 PM

This is great.

My camera is better than your camera.
is not.
is too.
is not
is too.

Funny Stuff.

I wonder how many on one side or the other would change their opinion if they owned the other camera. Hmmmm. Something to think about.

Actually, I picture a gang fight between all of you to go something like the gang war in AnchorMan. All of you meeting in an alley with your Canon's or your HVX or your sonys or whatever and bringing the heat at each other.

If any of you want to get together for that, I could film it on my XL1-s. ( I like the retro feel of it. It's like driving a classic car!)

Bryon <><

Stephan Loehr · January 5th, 2006, 02:32 PM

Dont discuss about technical waste, hear my words:

1:LIGHTNING IS EVERYTHING !!!
You have to be the lightbringer, then you are god!
Set up good light and you can shoot with an old canon xl1 and people will
say: "thats great"

2: The Story, the Story!!!
Tell a great story and NO ONE will ask "is that hd or dv?"

January 5th, 2006, 01:08 PM	#29
Bryon Akerman Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Posts: 175	Gang Wars This is great. My camera is better than your camera. is not. is too. is not is too. Funny Stuff. I wonder how many on one side or the other would change their opinion if they owned the other camera. Hmmmm. Something to think about. Actually, I picture a gang fight between all of you to go something like the gang war in AnchorMan. All of you meeting in an alley with your Canon's or your HVX or your sonys or whatever and bringing the heat at each other. If any of you want to get together for that, I could film it on my XL1-s. ( I like the retro feel of it. It's like driving a classic car!) Bryon <><

January 5th, 2006, 01:58 AM	#16
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	Lol, all I meant by saying you'd want to do everything in-camera is that you would want to obtain an image as clean as possible during shooting. Sure color correcting is a must, but still you'd want that image to be originated as clean and true as possible in most cases. Sharpening via an NLE or un-sharpening is not a good idea, that is an in-camera job.

January 5th, 2006, 02:18 AM	#18
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	It is not always about resolution but sometimes it is.... even though people prefer the look of a Varicam, most choose the F900 for film out... As to the XL2 looking like video? Uhhh... maybe in the hands of someone who doesnt have a clue. I shoot DVX and XL2 almost daily and while I love them both, the DVX is noisier and has less resolution... colors are more saturated and the cine settings are nice. You cannot add resolution in post, you CAN tweak colors, etc. It is also a lot harder to get noise OUT in post than to record clean. Your ultimate point may be true, but your example is just wrong. DVX won out because it was first to the market, easy to use and priced lower. The HVX and XLH are similar and aimed at seperate markets... ash =o)

January 5th, 2006, 03:24 AM	#20
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	Ash, I couldn't agree more, my goodness, when was less resolution a good thing? If it's such a good idea why don't we all use $10 plastic lenses? I've seen the results of a film out from the Varicam and it to me looked horrible, I think my projected native DV in the cinema next door looked better. As to even the F900, it's way, way lower quality than the real deal, the F950 is getting close but still short of what the best 35mm can offer. We are talking about an acqusition medium good for 8K lines res, that's roughly 16K pixels. Sure you'd be lucky to hold that on a release print but remember what happens to a film neg also happens to a film out, the resolution of all of them goes downhill and the more you have to start with the better it looks on the big screen. And what's the one thing all the labs say to NOT do if you're planning on a film out? Don't try to make it LOOK like film. Of course if you're simply trying to make video that looks like film at SD res on a TV then that's a different story. Then again all the stuff from the USA that's shot on film looks razor sharp on my PAL TV, can't say it looks quite so good when I watch the same programs in the USA, hm, could that be because I'm watching it with 100 lines less resolution?

January 5th, 2006, 04:16 AM	#21
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	The argument that the 800 line H1 is a better camera for filmout than the 750 line HVX is ridiculous. You also have to take into account that the HDV codec will do harm to your overall image when comparing it to DVCPRO HD. Many have already stated as well that they notice a greater latitude with the HVX vs. the H1. If you plan for "uncompressed" which in reality is still compressed, 8bit HD-SDI output, you're talking about spending a LARGE chunk of change to be able to capture such footage. You also have to carry with you or setup your recording unit which makes outdoor HD-SDI capture and moving shots a true pain in the...The HVX can also be captured "uncompressed" via its component outs so squash that advantage. The HD-SDI out will be somewhat cleaner I'd assume but not by much. So let's quit the 800 line superiority talk and wait for what really counts....once again I'll say it...THE FOOTAGE.

January 5th, 2006, 04:36 AM	#22
Alexander Nikishin Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 47	Bob, you say that you saw Varicam footage at a filmout and your DV footage looked better, what does that tell you? RESOLUTION isn't everything.

January 5th, 2006, 11:39 AM	#25
Petr Marusek Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 155	2 bits in the 10 bit stream are set to zero.

January 5th, 2006, 11:47 AM	#26
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Alexander, I also think you were wrong in your initial post where you said many indie moviemakers hated the XL cams from Canon because they looked all like video... 1. An XL2 can be tweaked to look like film too. And yes, you have a cleaner signal. 2. You are forgetting the XL1 and the XL1s. They were much prefered cams in their days, just because they looked more filmic then the rest... And I don't really agree with what you said about the F-950 and such, and the Varicam. I haven't worked with neither one, but I've seen both in theatrical prints (Korean movie named Be With Me, shot in Varicam, and Star Wars Episode III)... I think both looked very fine, but I also think extra resolution and sharpness is very welcome if you are planning to do a film blowup... I thought Star Wars III on moments looked a little bit soft, surely not overly sharp... I agree though that resolution isn't all what matters. Color, latitude, controls,... are far more important.

January 5th, 2006, 12:51 PM	#28
Petr Marusek Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 155	That's correct. You will get 2K at most.

January 5th, 2006, 02:32 PM	#30
Stephan Loehr New Boot Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 14	Dont discuss about technical waste, hear my words: 1:LIGHTNING IS EVERYTHING !!! You have to be the lightbringer, then you are god! Set up good light and you can shoot with an old canon xl1 and people will say: "thats great" 2: The Story, the Story!!! Tell a great story and NO ONE will ask "is that hd or dv?"