Question for Adam Wilt (and his response).

[Barry Green]

I've gotten the same question, and here's how I look at it. Yes the charts were puzzling, yes the XLH1 showed the highest res, but -- the F900 was way higher than the VariCam, yet if you read Adam's article he says "which one did we all want to take home at the end of the day? The VariCam." (almost all of us, that is -- Jay still preferred the F900).

There's more to the cameras than just res charts; the bigger questions that Adam points out are all things that should be factored into one's decision. So how did those of us who were there feel about 'em, who saw the footage and the live feeds and who used the products? Where will we vote when it comes to buying one of these four?

I polled most everyone there; I missed the ProMax guys and I didn't get Aaron's opinion. But as for those of us who were there and who saw the tests and went through the whole process, who's buying what?

Adam: (has an FX1, has been testing an HD100 for several weeks): is buying an HVX.

Barry: (bought an early HD100, sent it back): got the HVX

Jay: (has an FX1): bought the HVX

Shannon: (has an XLH1 and a Z1, and was considering buying the HVX): bought another XLH1 instead

Evin: bought an HVX

Nate: (has an HD100, was considering selling it for an HVX): decided to keep the HD100

Rush: buying an HVX

So, take that for what it's worth. Some people changed their minds, some were happy with their current choices, but when it comes down to where the dollars are going, this is what the people who were there decided.

[David Saraceno]

Good post, but I have one question.

Most people you cited decided to buy the HVX.

But why? Picture quality? Frame-rate flexibility? Price? Or something else.

The target group might not have economic and workflow considerations that those of us contemplating a purchase have.

So, while I certainly appreciate the information, invariably the devil is in the details.

Why did most elect the Panny?

[Barry Green]

I can't speak for exactly why they chose which. I know why I choose it, and that's listed in a massive post on DVXUser. Adam gave reasons as to why he chose it. Jay, Rush, Evin, and the rest should speak for themselves as to what they prefer; I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths.

[Barry Green]

Actually, Jay Nemeth just made a post that sums up some of his reasoning:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.p...&postcount=315

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman

In his article he states he preordered a hvx, yet it seemed to be the poorest performer . I'm wondering if he still plans on buying it and , if so , what are his reasons ? Kurth

I must not be looking in the right place, but I can't find any reference to the HVX on his site.

I did see a great example of color spaces, and why the HDV 4:2:0 color space is inferior to DVCPRO-50/HD's 4:2:2. That alone makes the arguement in favor of the HVX and, backs up what I've always said about digital imaging: Color is much more important than resolution - who wants high definition mud?

[Kurth Bousman]

Robert - it's from an article at www.dv.com

[Robert Lane]

Thanks Kurth.

Adams experience notwithstanding, I still consider the HVX a *near-perfect* sub-$10K body. Considering it is the ONLY body to use the 4:2:2 color space, true progressive 16:9 chips and a native-to-the-system tapeless workflow there's absolutely nothing else out there - for less than $10k - that has it's capabilities and versatility.

[Kurth Bousman]

Barry - I think , more than any other time , that these cameras must be in our hands , to make the decision. However , even if I flew to NYC and spent the day at B&H, I still couldn't have the experience/time /different viewpoints that a group test like this can offer. First , thanks for doing it , and sharing freely. Second , we need more ! I hope the Texas test materializes . Being Texan , I'm a bit partial to how texans view the universe ( ha ) so I know those guys will give it at least more time . And being from Austin , I KNOW they will. Hey Chris , how about some footage from Barton springs. I still miss BS alot ! OK , back on topic. I guess , my opinion of the test is you guys didn't have near enough time to do anywhere near the justice required to evaluate thes babies . The sonys' have been out and are street proven , but the other 3 need some serious feedback. And the hvx is still in this limbo state , which to most minds means they're still working on problems. This might not mean problems of how the cameras work, but problems associated with manufacturing it. Regardless , getting these personal feelings of how you guys feel , after spending real testing time with all at once , is invaluable , esp. to those of us who live in the boondocks ( probably more of us than you might think ! ) Anyway thanks again for sharing .
What I'd really like to hear from these tests are , how does the footage looks projected in it's hd state on an large venue 1080 projector. I think "filmout" might be useful but the truth is the future is digital. Patience is required by all , but I'm sure enough info will be in our hands/computers/minds to make a decision . Kurth

[David Saraceno]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Considering it is the ONLY body to use the 4:2:2 color space, true progressive 16:9 chips and a native-to-the-system tapeless workflow there's absolutely nothing else out there - for less than $10k - that has it's capabilities and versatility.

The issue that prompted my question to Mr. Green, however, is that it isn't "out there" yet. There are very isolated reports, and virtually no real world comparisons.

So on paper it looks good, and I hope it performs. For me, I'm concerned with workflow. If the Cineporter can capture 24PN to a hard drive, that that's a good first step.

[Robert Lane]

At this point, the Cineporter is more of an unknown than the HVX is, especially since Kaku's footage solidified my decision to buy the body.

One of the people from Spec-Comm does monitor this HVX board and can easily answer that question or, send them an email directly and I'm sure they'll tell you exactly what the Cineporter can and can't do.

[Toke Lahti]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Color is much more important than resolution - who wants high definition mud?

But still you are saying that 4:2:2 color (chroma) _resolution_ is somehow better than different color resolution (4:2:0).
I think people like panny's colors because they are more saturated than the others. You can add saturation in the post to all others and have the same visual result.

Where do you need more chroma resolution in one dimension than the other with progressive imaging?

[Shannon Rawls]

Toke,
You can add more color in the camera as well. No need to wait till post.

However, it's undisputable.......4:2:2 is much MUCH better then 4:2:0. Wouldn't you agree? it has everythig 4:2:0 has...PLUS!

More Chroma Resolution is bette the NO chroma resolution, yes?

- ShannonRawls.com

[Toke Lahti]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

More Chroma Resolution is bette the NO chroma resolution, yes?

I'd say that I'd take 4:2:0 with 10bit colors before 4:2:2 8bit, any given day...

Where would better vert chroma rez than horiz chroma rez needed?
Chroma key with lots of vertical movement?

[Antoine Fabi]

which codec is working in 10 bit 4:2:0 ?

[Shannon Rawls]

Yes, but Toke....
Where on earth can you get 10bit 4:2:0 footage from?

Ok...so lets talk reality here.....would you rather have 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 (both 8-bit)? I think the answer is obvious.

Now if we are comparing DVCPROHD 4:2:2 to HDV 4:2:0 and talking colors....well, I don't know. Too many factors to involve, beginning with the lens, then the chips, then the dsp, etc....

- ShannonRawls.com