xdcam VS hv10
 

all three camera looks good but hv10 is pretty amazing.

HV10

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0145477.jpg

xdcam

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0152271.jpg


fx1
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...315_016186.jpg

Interesting comparison, considering the big difference in prices.

Not very relevant really, picture quality from my HC3 in daylight cuts very well with the 350 however clients wouldn't be happy if I turned up on a job with one!

All the new HD cameras blur the line between pro and domestic quality.

The XDCAM clearly has the best dynamic range, even though it looks to be set with the flat factory gamma. The FX1 is soft, particularly at the edges. The HV 10 certainly produces a nice image.

As soon as there is any movement the XDCAM HDs leave HDV cameras in their wake. A still only tells part of the story.

Credit where credit is due though.

TT

XDCAM vs Panasonic HPX-2000
 

Has anyone seen/compared footage from either these cameras. I am trying to decide between these. I know differences in specification, but the important part is the quality of images produced. Please don't start a battle between brands, just trying to see some samples. Thank you.

HPX isn't out yet. At DV Expo, they only had a non-working mockup of it.

I believe the panasonic only has a 720 front end so 1080i is up-rezzed from that, much like the HVX. I would expect it to produce good images, but I for one am not convinced that the P2 workflow is a serious option for most users. Sure solid state is the future but we don't live in the future.

I've compared images from a beta F350 and a release HDX900. I got these images from nice people at Digital Magic, HK. Both tests in 1080 res.

To be honest, F350 is sharper. The HDX is somewhat as sharp as Z1, less sharp than F350. BUT, color-wise, HDX900 may be a tiny bit ahead.

I also notice the HDX900 has a bit more compression artefacts. Some people argues that 100Mbps DVCPROHD is superior than 35Mbps Mpeg2. I have seen the fact that it is not so. Yet test footages i've compared are all stationary or slow moving. Can't say for fast moving scene.

Sorry i can't post frame grabs here as these footages are not mine.

Very interesting... I wish somebody could post links to a comparison between Sony 350 vs. Panasonic HDX-900. Thanks.

I've shot with the Z1 a lot, and have to say, whenever I transcode any HDV footage (or even completely computer fabricated graphics done at 1920x1080 in AE) to DVCPROHD, that it reduces the resolution. I'm not impressed with that codec - at 100MB/sec, yes, it should be better, but it isn't. Yes, I just said that the HDV codec appears to retain better sharpness on low movement frames than DVCPROHD. At first glance of the specs (4:2:2 and 100Mb/sec) it looked like it could be a good archival codec, but no dice now.

The other day, Carlos, I was pulling focus as a favor for someone on a 900 and the question arose as to whether or not I hit the marks. Summarilly I asked him to just bring it up on the monitor and see. Oops. And therein lies one of the main differences between the two; the disk management system. Sure, there are a ton of others that separate the two but as I've written so many times, comparing the two cameras 2/3 for 1/2, by choosing the right glass and the lighting correctly, the XDCAM is simply a better value and performer as evidenced by the footage. It's been a long time since I really looked forward to NAB but being asked to showcase El Papel's footage and effects on the big stage for Adobe and the smaller stage for Sony, I can't wait to hear everyon's opinion in a side-by-side comparison of the cameras shot-for-shot. I hope you find it the answer to your question as well.

Back to the camera comparison...
 

I love the little Sony cameras, in fact I just bought the HVR-V1U as a B-camera to my 350. But this comparison, while displaying a rather impressive picture from the HV10 really underscores the differences between them rather than amazing me with the closeness in quality.

Alister's comment about dynamic range points toward the huge difference. After seeing how differently the somewhat "hot" areas of the roofs are handled, take a look at the two renditions of the sky. One is a deep, rich blue, the other almost white. Now please don't rain on my parade and tell me that there was a polarizing filter on the 350, but the difference is like that.

Given that dynamic range is the big difference between the "big" and the "little" here, and the V1U while of manageable size, does have great dynamic range, I would love to see such a comparison that also includes it.

From my experience shooting a demo, it did an extraordinary job of preserving detail and color saturation both inside a car and outside in full sunlight. Certainly better than most cameras which would give you a blown out exterior or alternatively shadow people inside.

Tip

The advantages and possibilities of the XDCAM HD are enormous. Even though the still picture of the small camera looks pretty damn sharp and good, I think "still life" is not what it´s all about. For me it´s important how a camera like the F-350 performs out there in the field, while recording under difficult circumstances. It´s important that your camera is a reliable partner. As soon as you have challenging demands, the small one will almost certainly leave you alone - even though these small cameras get better and better every day. But for me a still picture doesn´t tell me anything about the camera´s performance. It´s just a still picture and for still pictures I normally use my SLR camera:-)

the hv10 footage looks over exposed.. i think those hotspots could be removed with a ndf or something..