Aja IOHD - Examples? vs. Tape vs. Hard disk

[Guest kalkarman]

Hi there,

 

Using JVCHD200, I'm curious to know if there are any examples of shooting the same scene:

 

1) with tape

2) with hard disk

3) through component out, through IOHD, and direct to hard disk through computer.

 

How much better are the resulting images? Anyone out there have opinions? Anyone done any tests? File size comparison? Disk space?

 

Many Thanks,

 

Kal

[Tyler Purcell]

Hi Kal,

 

Sadly, with the GY-HD200, your limited to a component based video output, which is not digital. Its an analog signal at a higher frequency range and bandwidth, that equates to HD resolution. This is the biggest fault with the JVC HDV format, its VERY consumer based. Tape or Firestore HD are the highest ENG (portable) quality you can get off that camera. Now if you were to capture on location using a component cable and a IOHD sure, you can achieve less compression and higher color space (4:2:2 instead of HDV's 4:2:0) using Apple's Pro 4:2:2 codec in 720p mode.

 

I've done extensive testing with the JVC HDV format, I know it better then some of there engineer's. Its not a great format, especially for high motion. The 19Mbps MPEG2 thats recorded on tape and through the firewire port, is sub-standard in today's flourishing HD world. Mini-DV can easily store 25Mbps, but JVC's idea is simple; they wanted a camera that produced the same quality as broadcast HD which as a limit of 19Mbps. Otherwise, the camera's potential is only limited by the 1/3" pickup device, which looks quite good for a sub $20,000 camera.

 

So in my opinion, don't worry about using the AJA IOHD and capturing it separately, the only benefit you'd get is if you used it on the set to capture picture directly to a computer.