what to do with the low-resolution LCD screen on HVX200???

[Nicholas Natteau]

Hello everyone,

Having been lucky enough to use the HVX200 for a weekend. I can say that I am madly in love with this camera. The picture quality was nothing short of stunning. P2 is a dream. And I envy everyone who is lucky enough to own one.

But I have one major gripe. The low-resolution LCD screen. It makes it so difficult to focus, I always have to use the focus-assist. What I don't understand is, Panasonic did such a great job giving us everything we could want in one camera, but why did they cut corners and give us such a low-res LCD screen? Focusing is one of the most important parts of filming, surely. The quality of the LCD screen should have been a priority.

Panasonic, please, please, please give us a high-res LCD screen on your next version of this camera. The one thing I love about my Sony Z1U is the hi-res LCD screen, it makes it so easy focus quickly, I never have to use the focus-assist.

Now that said, can anyone tell me whether Panasonic makes a small portable HIGH-RESOLUTION LCD screen you can mount on top of the HVX200 that could help you focus precisely and quickly???

- Nicholas

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I haven't personally got my hands on an HVX200 just yet, so can't comment there. But most people seem to think the Focus Assist is excellent and more than makes up for the LCD shortcomings. In comparison to the Z1, I've found it's not always easy to focus off its LCD either... I don't own a Z1, but have used one on several occasions. IIRC, the LCD on the Z1 only has about 15% more pixel density than the LCD on the HVX, so does it really make that much difference? I suppose the HVX also loses some additional detail since the video is typically letterboxed on the 4:3 LCD too. Hmmm...

There are compact, high-res monitors out there that will connect to the D4/component output of the camera. Expensive though.

[Keith Wakeham]

Its actually quite simple the way I understand it. Cost. These small low res LCD's (along with minidv tape transports) are manufactured in very high quantities, so I would guess each screen costs them 20-30 dollars, so thats about 50-60 for the viewfinder and filp out.

HMD's are much simpler so the majority of their cost is in the screens. An SVGA one is around 800-1000 dollars, so I would guess that each screen in them is around 200 dollars.

So it would be a 4 times price increase on build cost plus you need more memory for frame buffers and a faster dsp to deal with the extra data. By the time it got to the consumer it would probably be another 500-1000 dollars for the camera.

This is only a guess based on pricing stuff that I've seen. But as soon as start using new stuff that isn't common price increases a lot. Why do you think HDV uses the minidv tape transport. Exsisting infrastructure for both tapes and transport mechanisms. Same with screens, theirs a huge infrastructure already in place.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

IIRC, the LCD on the Z1 only has about 15% more pixel density than the LCD on the HVX, so does it really make that much difference?

That's not true unfortunately. Remember that the image is letterboxed on the HVX. The 4:3 LCD on the HVX has 210,000 pixels. The black bars in the letterbox will use about 25% of those, so .75 x 210,000 = 157,500 pixels available for the 16:9 image. The Z1 has a native 16:9 LCD with 252,000 pixels. Now 252,000-157,500=94,500, and 94,500/157,500=.60, so the HVX has 60% fewer pixels than the Z1 available for the 16:9 image.

[Steev Dinkins]

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=45717

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43363

[Guy Bruner]

http://www.fullcompass.com/Products/...411/index.html

[Barry Werger]

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

That's not true unfortunately. Remember that the image is letterboxed on the HVX. The 4:3 LCD on the HVX has 210,000 pixels. The black bars in the letterbox will use about 25% of those, so .75 x 210,000 = 157,500 pixels available for the 16:9 image. The Z1 has a native 16:9 LCD with 252,000 pixels. Now 252,000-157,500=94,500, and 94,500/157,500=.60, so the HVX has 60% fewer pixels than the Z1 available for the 16:9 image.

Just for the record, your math is a bit screwy. 157,500/252,000 = .625, or that the HVX screen has 62% of the resolution of the Sony - NOT 60% less. 38% less! Still not so great...

[Barry Green]

Are you guys using the EVF DTL function?

None of these cameras' LCD's are up to the task of focusing a high-def image without some sort of focus assist. It's just not practical. The Sony LCD has 252000 pixels, but its HD frame has 1.56 million pixels. How can you expect to sharply focus on a screen that's 1/6 the resolution of the frame it's representing? You can't. Same with the HVX, same with the JVC, same with the Canon.

You have to use EVF DTL at a bare minimum ("peaking"), and use the magnified focus assist. Doing so will yield the ability to get 100% accurate focus in the field even without an external monitor. But not using those features will almost certainly result in blurry out-of-focus images on any of the low-cost HD cameras.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Barry Werger

Just for the record, your math is a bit screwy. 157,500/252,000 = .625, or that the HVX screen has 62% of the resolution of the Sony - NOT 60% less. 38% less!

Sorry, I can't agree with your math there. Let me put it a little more clearly.... the Z1 screen has 60% more pixels then the HVX screen. 157,500 x 1.60 = 252,000. You are correct that the HVX's LCD resolution is 62% of the Z1's however. It might be easier to grasp if we used simpler numbers. If you have $100 and I have $160, then I have 60% more money than you, and your net worth is 62.5% of mine.

And I certainly agree with Barry Green that 252,000 pixels isn't showing an HD image!

[Barry Werger]

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Now 252,000-157,500=94,500, and 94,500/157,500=.60, so the HVX has 60% fewer pixels than the Z1 available for the 16:9 image.

and

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

the Z1 screen has 60% more pixels then the HVX screen.

Well, you can't interchange "more" and "fewer" like that because you change the frame of reference! If you have $160, and I have $100, I have $60 less than you, which is $60/160 or 37.5% less than you. $60/100 (or 94,500/157,500) is a meaningless sum for comparison; it says nothing about your money or about the Sony.

It's all nitpicking. You're right in your second statement (Sony has 60% more res. than HVX) but not in your first (that HVX has 60% less than Sony, which would be .4 x 252000, or 100,800 pixels).

[Phil Bloom]

I need to shoot SD currently with my hvx200 but it seems I cannot use focus assist in that mode, is that correct? I need it as I am using the Brevis 35 DOF adaptor and focus is critical

[Mike Schrengohst]

Nope no focus assist in SD. With any adaptor I would use at least a 7"
external monitor.

[Andy Nickless]

Of course, to focus correctly, you need a monitor . . .

But having just traded my Sony Z1 for an HVX200, I have to say that although the actual LCD and Viewfinder resolution of the Z1 is higher than the HVX, my first impression after playing with the HVX suggests the focus system is far more precise and accurate.

We'll see what happens when I start shooting for real!

Andy

[Andy Nickless]

I'm really sorry to have posted this twice.

Every time I submit a post to this forum, Safari comes up with an error message, saying it can't find the server (or something similar) so the natural reaction is to try again - only to find the first submission worked after all!

Very frustrating.
I presume there's no way to delete a duplicated post?

Andy