Greenscreen example
 

I found this post at DVXUSER.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.p...2&postcount=12

Steve

I have to say that I am very dissappointed in the actual resolution of this camera. The blocking from undersampling is easily noticable, and there is just a general lack of detail. That said, it keys relatively well considering.

I thought it looked soft too.

It's hard to know, since we don't know the settings selected.

Well, we'll know a lot more once the rez comparison test comes soon.

Steve

Look around. Rez charts have been shot, and the results are not encouraging. They confirm what we've been seeing in test shots ... the "true" resolving power of the camera (CCD, lens, et. all) is pretty poor ... almost half what 1080 is capabable of.

Maybe one of you (or someone else) could post a reference to a greenscreen example so we can compare how the HVX200 still compares to how it "should" look. I'd like to see a nice example of " 'true' resolving power," an image that does not look "too soft," and one that you feel does not exhibit:
I'm planning on doing greenscreen work with the HVX200, so this topic is very important to me. If there is a camera out there that may provide a better solution (and none of the problems that were mentioned above) that is within the $6,000 to $10,000 range, I'd like to know about it before I buy the HVX.

Thanks.

Well, I must say this is much easier than DV. Big Time.

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx20...s_Keylight.mov

And that's not delving deeper in Keylight at all. With DV, I had to Color Smooth in FCP, export Uncompressed, tweak for a long time in Keylight, then do more custom matte work with Tinderbox.

Anyone still majorly disappointed? Sure, maybe if you're used to HDCAM, uncompressed capture or film scans. ;)

It does key cleanly ... that isn't my problem. The problem is with the lack of real detail in the shot, and the obvious color sub-sampling (especially around the edges) that seems to be exacerbated by the interpolation of the real resolution to the recorded resolution.

I clicked on your "Public Profile" to see the type of camera that you were using, as I was thinking that may be a good solution. It just says N/A. Do you mind letting me know the camera you have found and are using that does not have the problems above?

Heh heh.. man, if I tried to explain to any average viewer that this doesn't look good because it has a lack of real detail and color subsampling issues exacerbated by interpolation of real resolution to recorded resolution, they would put their hand up in my face, shake their head, and say, "Dude step away from the computer for awhile, it looks awesome."

I see what you're disappointed by, but is it going to hinder your ability to create what you want to create?

-steev

If someone gave me the camera ... I wouldn't complain! ;-)

But since it's my $10,000 that I have to spend, if what I wanted was a camera in that price range for studio work, well the Canon XL H1 via the SDI outputs is the clear winner. The CCD has appreciably more real resolution and going out via SDI eliminates compression artifacts.

Well, Joseph - right there is the nut.
Studio - no choice.
But for other situations ? ... think this is where the HVX will make a lot of sales.

How much would one need to spend to edit in "uncompressed" and then store that footage?

Rob,
We are discussing keying, which doesn't seem to be done in the field too much! ;-)

Derek,
I assume that you don't want a real answer and are just trying to make a point? (It's very easy to compute how much storage you need.) Regardless, capturing to a codec like Cineform (or using Apple's AIC after the fact) are very viable solutions for even low budget NLE's.

Joseph, I'm sorry if you see it that way. I just sold my XL2 and related gear last Saturday, so I have no camera and no loyalty to one brand over the other. The H1 is available and the HVX soon will be. I've read all kinds of posts with a varrying range of price tags associated with what you would need to shoot and store uncompressed. Most of those prices would prevent me from being able to afford shooting in that format. I have to consider how everything will work together and the overall workflow from shooting to distributing, not just the camera price.

Can you just let me know a price range of what would need to be spent to do so? It sounds like you've done your homework on the subject.

Even a low price range would be fine, as I'm not making documentary's or anything like that. Or, if there's a recent link within this forum that might be a good reference on the subject, no need to re-explain it if it's already been covered elsewhere. That's one of the great things about this forum - the huge archive of information it stores. Thank you Joseph.

Sorry, Derek, I thought you were being facetious. My apologies.

it is true that an "end-to-end" uncompressed workflow is going to be fairly expensive. (Check out http://www.hdforindies.com for good info.)

The reality is that the bulk of the average project doesn't need to be handled this way, though. In my experience you can use a very high quality an "intermediate" codec for the bulk of your work.

My day-to-day is on the Mac. I know that I can do simple (mostly just cuts) edits on even a PowerBook. My main machine is a dual G5, and it performs well under almost any condition.

On the Windows side, many people are very happy with the performance of Cineform based systems.

Either way, you should be able to get into either for under $5k, and then add storage as needed.

I know that in theory the HVX should have the advantage with the DVCPROHD codec, but real world images are revealing that the imaging chain (lens, ccd, processing) isn't using a fraction of that potential. My guess is you could pull a better key from the XL H1 even using HDV recording.