HD200 WOW!!!

[Walter Graff]

Hi Walter.

 

I take the occasion for thanking you on the great description for the portable lighting kit, I have a Kata "coffin" now and the kit served me well in several occasions.

I mostly agree with you when talking about HDV and 4:2:0, I have an HD100 and use the XDCAM regularly and I noticed a couple of situations were th 4:2:0 encoding seems to create the same problem with both cameras. Stairstepping in chromakeying is one, digital noise in dark semi-uniform backgrounds is the another. While I agree with you that most people would not notice the difference between material acquired in 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, the two above situations can create artifacts that are easily visible with a HD TV or 2K projector.

While the dark background situation can be fixed with creative lighting, a large, good monitor and maybe a gobo pattern to break the BG up, the chromakey issue is probably the one situation where you'd like to use the component out of the HD100/HD200.

 

Interestingly enough, I noticed some image improvement when converting the HDV footage to a better codec like Sheer video. The highly-saturated reds were rendered much better. I think this has more to do with the implementation of the HDV codec in programs like FCP or AfterEffects than with real quality of the original image. Did you notice anything like this with your footage?

 

TIA

 

All digital formats stair step. It's part of how a picture is made in digital land. But all are easily dealt with in post. As for blacks, I have seen that on lesser cameras like the HD10. My HD200 does not suffer from that. As you allude to, editing in a more robust format is the simple answer.

[Paolo Ciccone]

All digital formats stair step. It's part of how a picture is made in digital land.

Yes, I know, that's pretty obvious. What I'm referring to is the very visible starstepping revelealed when you pull a key. Curved lines, like the shoulders of the subject, display coarse steps that are clearly visible even at 100% magnification on a small monitor (17"). This is likely caused by the 2x2 pixel sampling of 4:2:0 and it's usually minimized when using 4:2:2. This was in response to one of the posters who was asking why not buy the HD250. I have a 250 with me and it exposes the same "grain" and stepping when recording to tape.

[Marquette Trishaun]

Hope its not too late, but anyone purchasing a camera that uses the 4:2:0 color space should be very weary when attempting to do green screen work.

 

I agree that to the human eye you can't tell the difference, but for edge detail in computer keying (even with Ultra 2) it can be a problem. Even after you up convert back to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, once the averaging is done its done.

 

The reason being is this. 4:2:2, means each two pixels across are represented by a 1 pixels average of the two, meaning you have two pixel values for the 4. Thus 4:4:4 represents 4 pixels with four pixes. When you have 4:2:0, this averaging is done across both the rows and columns of the pixel space resulting in even more averaging.

 

In lamens terms, your green edge gets blurred with your subject of interest producing a muddy texture that is difficult to key in any system without pain staking work. I love the hell out of the JVC camera, just be aware that you wil shed some tears due to this mathematical fact.

 

Now to avoid any blast from anyone seeing things in a different light, I have worked, designed, and made a living in digital image processing for the last 10 years, so yes this is a scientific fact.

 

-Marquette

[Matthew Buick]

The Canon HV20 uses the same compression system doesn't it? I suppose until I can afford a Panasonic HVX200 it'll have to do.

[Marquette Trishaun]

The Canon HV20 uses the same compression system doesn't it? I suppose until I can afford a Panasonic HVX200 it'll have to do.

 

It that's what the specs state, then that's the case. It's not the end of the world though, unless a camera is 4:4:4 which is rarely the case without spinning lots of dough, we all have to live with this to certain degree. In the end game it's all about your intended audience, for a lot of people could care less about the not so perfect keying. There things you can do with the background like using light backgrounds and particle effects around the hair to take away from the imperfections.

 

Me personally the best keying I've ever achieved has been with film transferred at a house with the 4:4:4 color space as a telecine option. Then again this post is about HD - well see you back on the film side, LOL.

[Joseph Carney]

For a possible answer to getting 4:2:2 out of your JVC HD component outputs without breaking the bank, Bill Ravens over

at dvinfo.net has an interesting solution...component to hdmi converter. Seems you could hook it up to a BM Intensity card if needed...

 

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=93406

 

Caveat...I personally havent' tried it yet.

[Walter Graff]

Why does anyone who makes video with this camera for anything but a film out need to transcode HDV? There is not a person on this board that can tell the difference from 4:2:2 color sampling from 4:1:1 by eye on a monitor. It's a technical spec. And its a technical spec that comes into play very rarely to the point that compared to say an HVX200 one would not notice the difference during a normal shoot. While the HVX is called a 4:2:2 recording format in terms of how it samples color, frankly due to the cameras limited electronic processing in the camera it's like 3 gallons in a 5 gallon bucket so the advantage of 4:2:2 color sampling in the HVX is negligible compared to the HD200. A $70k Varicam yes, but a prosumer HVX200, no. I have done extensive keying with both and neighter beats out the other. I find it interesting how companies like Panasonic tried ot downplay the color sampling of the JVC's HDV fomrat compared to the HVX200 when in fact in the real world the difernce is negligable at best. Yet their marketing ploy worked as most folks falsely beleive ther is some great advantage over the HVX200s format compared to JVC's HDV. Since I use both and have used both in numerous matting and layering projects I can say from real workd expereince that the DVCPRO recordng format used in the HVX200 offers little to no advantage to HDV aquisition. I am curently working on an extensive article that will put all the marketing crap to bed as I show 15 cameras from a simple one chip up to teh Sony 950 and show both aquisition methods and editing methods involving keying out a subject. While I'm not done with the article I can show you quite easily that there is little to any noticable differnce in any camera sold at the same price point and that there are many ways to take advantage of a formats in post that a profesisonal would use to take advantage ofa format.

[Walter Graff]

I should also add that using HDVxDV capture allows you to transcode HDV to 4:2:2 in any codec you want and the addition of Nattress 4:4:4 upsampling filters in post can make any acquisition much more robust for the most intricate of effects. But then again, since 4:4:4 offers no advantage for 99% of the folks who use these cameras (they have fallen for marketing gimmicks) I say you don't need to worry. I recently shot a fashion project with my HD200 that was supposed to be a girl over a pinkly lit cyc. But in post I wished I could key different things in the shot. So I did and I was able to very easily key her even with pink as a background color and even though my acquisition was only 4:1:1 color space. So much for the marketing gimmicks that every one falls for. As I say time and again a camera doesn't make you a pro, experience with the camera does. It's my twenty years of extensive work in the area of video matting that lets me key projects with what some would consider the most difficult of scenarios. As I say every day to folks, stop worrying about numbers. Often they mean little once off the paper. Learn the art and you'll see through all the marketing that is designed to sell you a camera, not make you a career.

[Kevin Zanit]

The differences in color space do come into play when it is time for color correction. I don't pay a ton if attention to every last spec for every camera system, but I do know that having the most information possible with the gentlest compression is a good thing.

 

It is more than marketing mumbo jumbo, and often does have a lot to do with the "real world", for say when it is time for color correction.

 

I do know that with these cheaper HD cameras (not necessarily this camera in particular, I have not worked with it, so I can't judge it) that we are getting a lot of "HD" content that can not hold a candle to what a 900 or other high-end camera can deliver.

 

I think it is important to understand the technical, and to be aware of it, but not to let it replace actual testing before talking about it.

[adam berk]

Why does anyone who makes video with this camera for anything but a film out need to transcode HDV? There is not a person on this board that can tell the difference from 4:2:2 color sampling from 4:1:1 by eye on a monitor.

 

I can spot 4:1:1 color sampling any time of any day with a little saturated red in the picture. Take a frame from a dvx-100 and an hvx-200 both shooting a car from behind with the brake lights on. Notice the brake lights turning into a few huge blocks of digital puke in the dvx-100 frame? I do!

[Walter Graff]

I can spot 4:1:1 color sampling any time of any day with a little saturated red in the picture. Take a frame from a dvx-100 and an hvx-200 both shooting a car from behind with the brake lights on. Notice the brake lights turning into a few huge blocks of digital puke in the dvx-100 frame? I do!

 

Sorry, just don't beleive you really can. I know I can't. And if I can't neither can anyone else. I'll have to do some blind examples and let you show me how you can see the differnce. It will be fun.

[Walter Graff]

The differences in color space do come into play when it is time for color correction. I don't pay a ton if attention to every last spec for every camera system, but I do know that having the most information possible with the gentlest compression is a good thing.

 

It is more than marketing mumbo jumbo, and often does have a lot to do with the "real world", for say when it is time for color correction.

 

I do know that with these cheaper HD cameras (not necessarily this camera in particular, I have not worked with it, so I can't judge it) that we are getting a lot of "HD" content that can not hold a candle to what a 900 or other high-end camera can deliver.

 

I think it is important to understand the technical, and to be aware of it, but not to let it replace actual testing before talking about it.

 

It CAN be a factor in color correction but most times isn't, especially when your camera can only produce 3 gallons of water in a 5 gallon bucket as these prosumer cameras do. Having the most infomation is important, but what I am saying is that the difernces in these cameras mentioned here is not enough to notice the diference. And the fact that aquisition isnot necessarily post in terms of what you start out with with digital does not mean that is what you end up with. Color is very forgiving by the human eye and hence why we never start out with al teh colro inteh first place, and hence why many times we don't need to.

 

Look for an article shortly with side by sides of A and B. It wil be fun to watch folks scratch their head trying to figure out which is which.

[Thomas James]

I thought HDV used a 4:2:0 color space. This means the color resolution is 640x360. The color resolution of 4:1:1 is only 320x180 which could cause some color bleeding.

[Walter Graff]

I thought HDV used a 4:2:0 color space. This means the color resolution is 640x360. The color resolution of 4:1:1 is only 320x180 which could cause some color bleeding.

 

 

Sorry, that was me that started saying 4:1:1 instead of 4:2:0. I was incorrect when using 4:1:1 for this discussion. My point is simple, when you've got a five gallon bucket and some red food coloring, putting five drops into your water gives you slightly pink water. When youve got a gallon bucket and you put five drops in you get red water. The anology is to more robust cameras compard to the prosumer cameras. More robust cameras are the five gallon bucket. In other words while the format might seem better on paper due to numbers that mathematically sound bigger or better the reality is after you add to the equation the lens, the CCD, the limited electronics making the picture in the less robust camera, the two fomrats in question are far closer than farther apart. As a person who now uses a lot of HDV aquisition for many projects and does everything asked of more robust sounding fomrats I can say for a fact that marketing has convinced most folks of a reality that simply isnt true. As my initial tests (http://www.bluesky-web.com/HDVHVX.htm) and subsiquent real world broadcast jobs have proven to me (no going on at least 150 jobs using HDV-even just completeing an entire half hour infomerical all in chromakey even though I did not origionally shoot for keying the subject matter), HDV is a very viable aquisition format that once captured and transcoded into a more robust editing codec, performs as well as what marketers tell us should be better.

Edited July 30, 2007 by WALTER GRAFF

[Tio Poreamo]

Walter,

 

I am new to this site but I have already found many helpful info here including your posts and tests you performed.

I read your comparison test of HD100 v. HVX200 and both camcorders have their pros and cons.

I am planing to buy either the JVC GY-HD200U or the Panasonic AG-HVX200.

As of now I still cannot decide which one would be the best for my purposes. I am mostly after the film type of look and I mainly plan to shoot music videos and short films, maybe even commercials. In your tests I like the more detail picture quality in the HD100 but I prefer the HVX200 motion capture. I am not really happy about the low light noise level of the HVX200 but I know that there are very nice de-noiser Plug-Ins for video editing softwares. I know for fact that these plug-ins do amazing job on pictures in Photoshop.

I like the almost glassy looking slow motion possibilities with the HVX200 (record 720/60p and play it 720/24p) since it creates a bit less motion blurring.

 

Here are my questions:

Have you had any experiences working with noise reduction plug-ins?

In your opinion how much better JVC made the picture quality and the motion capture quality in the JVC GY-HD200U v. HD100?

Does the JVC GY-HD200U creates similar or better slow motion quality the same way as the HVX200 does?

 

Thank you for any help you can provide,

 

Tio

Edited September 24, 2007 by Tio Poreamo

[Phil Rhodes]

I am not impressed with the noise performance of the HVX200. I've seen it look both good and bad but it's got a frankly fairly low-res, pixel-shifted sensor array and I'm not a big fan of the pictures. The JVC 200 has true 1280x720 CCDs and can record 60P as well (although see my previous concerns regarding the codec beginning to break up a little at that point). The JVC stuff has interchangeable lenses, which is also a big issue - for the sort of work you're talking about, you may want to mount some sort of lens adapter, but you will definitely want the better control. The JVC's menus are also much more like a professional camera. It's available with professional battery mounts, too.

 

Also, the HVX200 records to P2 cards. This is an issue for field archive and postproduction - HDV post is much more widely supported, and if you do shoot documentaries, P2 will rapidly become a pain.

 

If you are interested in high-speed work, you will want to avoid the HD100 as it doesn't support HD at 60P - only SD.

 

Not a difficult choice for me, and not only because I'm not really a P2 fan.

 

Phil

[Tim Tyler]

I agree with Phil's first paragraph, however...

 

Also, the HVX200 records to P2 cards. This is an issue for field archive and postproduction - HDV post is much more widely supported, and if you do shoot documentaries, P2 will rapidly become a pain.

 

I've shot a fair number of projects on the HVX including quite a bit of documentary-style TV, and boring corporate, but the P2 thing has never been a problem. I really like it. For docs I like it because the producer can take a disk back to the hotel at night and review and log. I like that the camera starts recording the instant I hit the record button, not three seconds later. For long interviews, I've never used more than two 8GB cards since they can be hot-swapped and dumped to my notebook and a backup USB drive in half the time it takes to fill them at 720p, 24/30Pn. I like being able to overcrank with one switch also, and to play back takes in camera without fear of overwriting anything or timecode breaks.

 

I shot a short with the HD100 last summer that I timed at Modern Digital in Seattle and we found it that there really wasn't a lot of room to play around with the image. I've also heard first-hand complaints obout editing HDV, mostly because of the GOP. I haven't had any complaints or problem reports from post production people on my P2 projects yet.

 

Ergonomically the JVC is waaay better, and its lens options are better, but the HVX is no less of a tool, just a different one. Neither is great, but they're an inexpensive way to shoot HD.

[Michael Nash]

"I am not impressed with the noise performance of the HVX200....

 

Not a difficult choice for me, and not only because I'm not really a P2 fan.

 

Phil"

 

Wow, I guess I'll offer the complete opposite point of view then.

 

I find the images from the HVX to be more pleasant and film-like, and with more image control than the JVC. The menu options may be similar, (maybe even more in the JVC), but it seems like you have to push those controls farther in the JVC in the first place just to get the image looking right. Yes, I know you can color-correct either camera in post to get the look you want, but the better the image you start with the fewer problems you have later, especially when dealing with HDV compression. And yes, I know you don't have to do your color correction within the HDV codec, but it's always a case of garbage-in, garbage-out.

 

The HVX is noisy and soft. I won't dispute that. But to me it somehow helps the overall "filmic" look, compared to some of the video-ish quality (color, edge enhancement, etc.) from the JVC. I wouldn't rely too much on noise reduction in post though; it can end up just softening the image even more. And don't judge the quality of noise reduction by still images in Photoshop either; noise in moving images at 24fps appears very different than it does in a single still image.

 

For slow motion the HVX is a no-brainer. The variable frame rate option in-camera is a huge asset for things like music videos. Not only do you have more frame rate options available, you can play them back on set to see how the effect looks and refine the action. And no post-rendering is needed to get the effect.

 

For short-form projects like music videos and commercials the limited run time of P2 cards is not a problem. For narrative work it does take a more film-like approach on set, with similar run time per "mag" (P2 card) and personnel (someone dedicated to download cards). "Widely supported" isn't much of an issue, at least here in LA. Macs and FCP are hugely popular among filmmakers here, and the DVCPRO HD codec performs well and is supported by Apple. I know JVC's 24p HDV option wasn't even supported at first in FCP, but that may be resolved by now for all I know. For even longer run times you can use an external firestore drive, although that does cost $$.

 

The lens issue isn't an issue either. The HVX glass is good on its own, and wide angle adapters are readily available, as are 35mm adapters. I suspect you'd have a harder time finding alternate lenses available for the JVC's 1/3" mount, although I'm sure they exist.

 

Functionally the JVC is set up much more like a professional ENG camera, ergonomically and with all the buttons in the right place. The HVX is an odd configuration that sometimes takes some awkward rigging depending on the setup.

 

But all this goes to show that it's as much a matter of taste and preference, and your particular situation. You have to decide which camera works better for you.

[Walter Graff]

I've also heard first-hand complaints obout editing HDV, mostly because of the GOP.

 

Ah the great myth of HDV shows it's ugly head again.

[Tio Poreamo]

And don't judge the quality of noise reduction by still images in Photoshop either; noise in moving images at 24fps appears very different than it does in a single still image.

 

I totally agree.

 

I have a question about the FireStore.

Is it possible to do a recording into the FireStore with the same 100MB/s transfer rate as with a P2 card?

 

Definitely the HVX200 manages a smoother softer touch to the pictures yet somehow still capable to give the impression of sharpness. And that is "film" isn't it?!

 

However isn't it possible to create a more film like smoothness in post production with the sharper JVC material?

 

I would go for the JVC except I am disturbed by the problems and certain artifacts of the HDV compression. Because of this it might be more reasonable to go with DVCPro thus I am leaning towards the purchase of the HVX200 with a nice usable 35mm adapter and preferably a Leica 50mm lens on it. It seems the HVX200 has the needed quality and an easy, fast workflow. I am also an Apple enthusiast and I have two G5 towers and a MacBook. :rolleyes:

[Phil Rhodes]

Bear in mind that DVCPRO-HD only produces a 100mbit stream when it's at full rate, 60p. At 24p, it only produces a 40 megabit stream, which is only twice that of HDV on a much dumber codec.

 

That said, you do at least have the option to up the rate on P2. It's a case of being worse in general, but not suffering so badly from higher speed recording.

 

Phil

[Walter Graff]

Bear in mind that DVCPRO-HD only produces a 100mbit stream when it's at full rate, 60p. At 24p, it only produces a 40 megabit stream, which is only twice that of HDV on a much dumber codec.

 

If we we're talking about 2/3" chips and $100k cameras, I'd say your point is valid. But on a $5k camera that "advantage' that Panasonic marketed as such really isn't. A five gallon bucket with two gallons of water is always two gallons of water. Of course all sorts of myths and third person (friends brothers sisters husbands mothers cousin) complaints will start, but everytimeI hear them it's clear to me that most folks only understand the myths of HDV started by Panasonic but have not actual experience with it as I and many otehrs who use it weekly do so don't suffer the fate of the myths of HDV. Wait till my articles come out showing what everyone has been told and what is in fact reality. That should put a damper on the ignorance that perpetuates like a cold virus on a handrail.

 

As for the answer to the person asking the question of a HD200 or a HVX200, it seems by absorbing few if any first person stories as you already have, you have made up you mind. The HVX will suit you well.

[Tim Tyler]

...which is only twice that of HDV on a much dumber codec.

 

Wow, Phil, you really don't like DVCPRO, do you? Twice the bitrate is not as good? I don't know which per-frame compression is superior or why though, so I can't argue that further.

 

I do know that the DVCPRO-HD's 24pN 40 Mbit/s stream is 40/24 megabits per frame, where as HDV is always 19.7 Mbit/s with 30 frames (60i) even at 24p. Does that work out to 1.66 Mb/frame with DVCPRO-HD and .66 Mb/frame with HDV? With HDV's GOP that's not too bad with static frames, but with busy backgrounds and lots of movement that's got to be tough for the codec.

 

Both formats have been proven though, and they're both very usable in just about any situation. Any purchase decision should probably boil down to a camera's features and personal appeal.

[Tio Poreamo]

Bear in mind that DVCPRO-HD only produces a 100mbit stream when it's at full rate, 60p. At 24p, it only produces a 40 megabit stream, which is only twice that of HDV on a much dumber codec.

 

That said, you do at least have the option to up the rate on P2. It's a case of being worse in general, but not suffering so badly from higher speed recording.

 

Phil

 

I haven't checked the transfer rate of the FireStore but it seems to me that the 40MB/s 24P is OK with that.

 

I would buy both the JVC and the HVX200 if I had enough money. But hey, if I had that amount of money I would possibly go for the HVX500 or better...

Actually I have seen some amazing professional quality material made with HVX200 with 35mm adapters. If I buy the HVX200 I still have to get at least two P2 cards minimum 8GB each. Than maybe the Brevis35 or RedrockM2? I also need a steady cam like maybe the GlideCam Pro4000? Also need to get extra batteries for the HVX and who knows what else comes up that usually comes up during practical usage of the camera that you figure you need it for that certain shoot to make as good as it is just possible. Money, money and more money...

 

There is an ebay store selling the HVX200 for a really great price $4249!

Do some of you know them if they are reputable? Should I buy the HVX from them?

 

Thank you all for the helping inputs!

 

Tio

[Gary McClurg]

Do some of you know them if they are reputable? Should I buy the HVX from them?

Tio

 

 

These places will call you and tell you oops we made a misaket that's the price of the camera with out the lens.. or tell you need to buy these other goodies a $25 tripod for $300 bucks...