Was considering this camera but ....

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

I disagree with this. Currently all my work is SD. I currently own an SD camera. I do not like the HVX as an HD camera. I want to expand my client base to HD clients as well as move a portion of my current clients to HD.

...

Craig,

Your points reveal an inbuilt assumption in my thinking. I am replacing my SD cameras. The EX1 is stopping me from renting HD cams- so its a full replacement for me. The EX1 is a stop gap for me until I can get my grubby paws on a RED.

It seems to me that you have the same goals I do but your clients are a bit behind where mine are on the adoption curve.

My question to you is this: how are you planning on servicing SD clients who don't want HD?

Will you be keeping your current SD cams? Are you going to service them with the EX1 SD workflow?

Why aren't you considering the disc based XDCAMs?

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

I can actually ingest AND archive from cards faster than a tape ingest and even introduce a redundent archive in that time and still be able to use that computer for other tasks.

Good point. I still don't see tape capture being a big deal unless you have a very large amount of footage to process, but if solid state recording improves your workflow that's obviously a good thing.

[Craig Seeman]

For the time being I'm keeping my SD gear. I'll have the option of offering SD, HD downconverted to SD if the client sees/likes the quality improvement, HD if they want to go that route.

I'm one of those who have been hoping for 1/2" chips in a small form factor. XDCAM disc might push my budget too high for some clients. EX1 means the cost to move an SD to HD is within their (and my) range.

I am thinking about HD to SD workflows. I've done local cable spots and delivered with DG/Fast channel. They'll soon be accepting HD delivery.

VNRs will be delivered via Pathfire. They'll soon be accepting HD delivery.

I've been told the broadcasters receiving from the above may be doing the downconvert on their end so I'll be able to deliver HD regardless. It wil depend on the broadaster (cablecaster) though.

With the appearance of HDTVs in corporate conference rooms and/or HD projection it may not be difficult to move those clients to HD delivery.

I even see a large number of lower end clients moving to HD given what I'm seeing. I can offer faster turnaround (and better quality IMHO) with the EX1 than those working in HDV.

Originally Posted by Alexander Ibrahim

Craig,

Your points reveal an inbuilt assumption in my thinking. I am replacing my SD cameras. The EX1 is stopping me from renting HD cams- so its a full replacement for me. The EX1 is a stop gap for me until I can get my grubby paws on a RED.

It seems to me that you have the same goals I do but your clients are a bit behind where mine are on the adoption curve.

My question to you is this: how are you planning on servicing SD clients who don't want HD?

Will you be keeping your current SD cams? Are you going to service them with the EX1 SD workflow?

I've also done a fair number of multi-camera shoots. 3 EX1s (own one rent or hire two additional) seem more cost effective than owning an F355 for example too. EX1 exceeds many of the abilities of the F335.

Why aren't you considering the disc based XDCAMs?

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

Many, but not myself. I pulled out of my preorder after we ran various tests.
Don't get me wrong, the HVX200 can produce nice stuff, but plan on lighting well, as you should.

The HVX200 is a bit soft, especially wide and is a bit on the noisy side under low light conditions. The noise was a surprise. I would of thought it would of faired better since its use of pixel shift.

The HVX200's glass and CCD support SD a lot better than HD.
SD using DVCPRO50 looks nice on this cam.
Our rez tests had the HX200 around 550 lines. If the EX comes close to 1000 as were hearing, it should look real sweet.

Well, I am certainly not going to argue that the HVX200 is a better camera. It isn't. To wit, I am buying an EX1- well that's the plan at least. I have to test before I order.

I argue that the HVX200 is better suited as a tool for studios whose primary output is SD.

As far as lighting goes, I find the HVX200 noisy under most conditions. Even well lit footage shows noise in black areas- especially if you stretch.

I attribute any softness in HD footage to the HVX's sensors and pixel shift. As an SD camera though its razor sharp.

If you are working in SD and plan on using EX1 footage for SD, then criticizing the HVX200's HD performance isn't useful.

What I am hearing from the objector's is that they plan on transitioning rapidly to HD.

Well then, you aren't disagreeing with me at all. That is where the EX1 shines in the market right now- I see no camera that challenges its specifications near the price.

Of course, like those "disagreeing" with me, I plan on doing almost no SD work going forward.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Yes, that's what I was trying to say: the HVX starts with 518,400 pixels before processing for recording, and the EX1 ends up with 518,400 color samples per frame after processing. So anyone concerned about the EX1 not having 4:2:2 color should compare it to what the alternatives are first.

I've seen this point before, and the compositor in me finds it specious.

If I am pulling a key or doing a grade what I care about is the number of chroma samples relative the number of luma samples. That's why we never state these as raw numbers, but rather as ratios: 4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4:4 etc. Its the ratio that matters.

Say I am pulling a key... I am interesting in how many color samples lie along the edge of the key region relative to the total length of the key region.

So, looking at what you are saying- its a bad thing. The EX1 will have nearly four times as many pixels in 1080p as the HVX200. It will have the same number of color samples though. This is very bad.

The larger numbers of pixels on the EX will definitely help me out though when I have to scope the project because I can't pull a key.

That said, from a color perspective it isn't THAT bad- its only about as bad as DV at 4:1:1.

Besides... the real selling point there is that I can shoot effects over HD-SDI at 4:2:2, and ostensibly at 10 bit color depth. Since I have yet to shoot an effect that requires 4:2:2 or better color untethered from a monitor etc, I figure what the hell. An ioHD, an external disk and a laptop won't add much to my troubles.

[Steven Thomas]

Originally Posted by Alexander Ibrahim

If you are working in SD and plan on using EX1 footage for SD, then criticizing the HVX200's HD performance isn't useful.

Well, to each is own.
I seriously doubt Panasonic's intention was to have the HVX200 known for only its SD performance. After all, their selling campaign was 1080 24P.

I like the idea of recording HD even when the client may want SD. The HD version will be ready for a possible future sale. For me, It does not take that much more time to render SD from the HD master.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

It does not take that much more time to render SD from the HD master.

Well, that interests me. Despite having some decent hardware, I still think of rendering out SD video as a painstaking process. Call it scars from starting this business with Premiere on a P2. I forget how far we've come.

What kinds of relative performance are people getting on DVD renders with XDCAM HD versus DV as source footage?

Actually thinking a little more about it, if I am going to SD tape output, there is no hit at all is there? I mean I will be using an ioHD on my laptop... so the hardware will handle all SD downconversion in realtime as I playback from the timeline. Post & archive HD, output SD done. The desktops will get an SDI i/o card too (AJA or BM, I am undecided.), so no issue there either.

Maybe the EX1 for SD workflow won't hurt as much as I've been thinking.

You still have the issues of reframing for 4:3- pan and scan or crop. If its crop all the way then its easy... but if you frame for best use of the 16:9 frame you may have to do a little pan and scan for SD delivery at 4:3

[John Bosco Jr.]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Makes no difference. The number of pixels on the image sensor is a complete non-issue. Like all other three-chip camcorders, the HVX 200 gets a significant boost in resolution from Pixel Shift. Remember, an image sensor is an analog device...

Chris,
I think you misunderstood my reply. I was not being critical of the HVX 200; I was defending it. Kevin Shaw claimed that the HVX 200 had less color information than the EX 1 by alluding that both cameras had the same pixel count. I was only correcting this fallacy.

I continued on to say that in some areas the EX 1 will outshine the HVX 200, and that's a no-brainer because mainly of its sensor size. If you read my comment again, you will also see that I was the one who said that HVX 200 owners would not jump to the EX 1.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by John Bosco Jr.

Kevin Shaw claimed that the HVX 200 had less color information than the EX 1 by alluding that both cameras had the same pixel count. I was only correcting this fallacy.

Again what I was trying to say is that the EX1 has as much color information after processing as the HVX has before processing, suggesting that the difference between these two cameras isn't much in terms of color detail. But as Chris said there isn't much point in debating this further: let's see what the EX1 can do once it starts shipping and leave it at that.

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Good point. I still don't see tape capture being a big deal unless you have a very large amount of footage to process, but if solid state recording improves your workflow that's obviously a good thing.

I don't think it is just the amount of footage, it can also be a timing issue - when you are editing as much material as my company does on a one - four day turnaround from camera to on air, then tape capture is a real problem. Having hard disk capture and now newer solid state formats saves us money because I don't have to hire someone to come in at night and ingest tapes for the next days edit.

I imagine for news organisations these newer formats (XDCAM disk, Hard drive and solid state) are actually money savers as well.

I agree we're not quite up to the last rites on tape yet, but the patient is starting to come down with a bad cold.