Economics 101 at DVinfo.net

Lynne Whelden · March 12th, 2003, 05:30 PM

I should have known. Let's face it, HD is the end of the road for video camcorder manufacturers. It doesn't get any better! So unless they want to sign their own death warrant, most are going to extend their product roll-out as slowly as possible. JVD probably upset the apple cart by unveiling their affordable HD camera in 2003. But even in their benificence there's evidence of "product protraction." This 35 lux thing as an example. What a disappointment! Now we'll have to wait, what, six months or a year until they release a version that can shoot interiors using natural lighting. Same thing for a three-chip version. We'll wait another couple of years until there's a decent lens and chroma. In the meantime, we get a truly odd couple--using Sony's $4000 blu-ray DVD deck to store material from the $4000 camcorder. I'm sure Sony never envisioned that pairing, as reflected by their (typically) exorbitant pricing structure. So I'm slowly coming back down to earth. A few weeks ago I really thought my HD boat had arrived....

Joseph George · March 12th, 2003, 06:02 PM

35 lux rating means nothing unless we know under what conditions was this rating arrived at. The DVX is rated 3 lux but in progressive it becomes 24 lux, to make the picture have a significantly better quality (less noise, which gain up produces). The pictures shot with the JVC and included in that Canadian review were excellent. DVHS camcorder is well under $1000 and has basically the same quality as the blue laser HD DVD. The HD DVD is a consumer product, just as DV is, altough both products do/will extend into the pro market. You will not have to wait years for new MPEG2 HD products. Panasonic and others are subscribing to the blue laser HD DVD format and Sony and another company already started making the mechanisms for others. The price will naturally come down quickly.

Joseph George · March 12th, 2003, 06:04 PM

Sory, not DVHS camcorder; I ment DVHS VCR

Chris Hurd · March 12th, 2003, 08:45 PM

[board moderator self-indulged mini-rant mode on]

Is it just me, or aren't lux ratings pretty much useless?

Is it just me, or is there way too much hype about low-light performance these days?

Is it just me, or shouldn't you be pumping in as much light as possible into your production, especially if it's HD?

It's just me, isn't it.

The *best* American film noir thrillers from the late '40's, so dark and moody and full of shadows in appearance, were *saturated* with set lighting during production. It takes a lot of light to get that no-light look!

[board moderator self-indulged mini-rant mode off]

Lynne Whelden · March 12th, 2003, 09:00 PM

It's meaningful if you're into documentary film production or "event" videography where you have little or no control over lighting. I'm trying to remember what the old RCA TK-76 tube cameras that I started out on in the late 70s had for sensitivity rating. They were plumbicon tubes and I'm sure they were in the "four score and seven" realm. That's why for me it seems like one step forward, two steps back.

Allan Rejoso · March 12th, 2003, 09:21 PM

I just talked over the phone to Victor Japan's Customer Service regarding 35 lux. Here's their reply.

The 35 lux minimum lux requirement is correct and measured under the same condition and procedure that they use with their miniDV cams.

Joseph George · March 12th, 2003, 10:49 PM

Of course the 35 Lux is correct and it was measured under the same conditions. Still it is meaningless. Example: Panasonic DVX is rated 3 lux -- in its interlaced mode. If measured under the same conditions, in progressive, the rating would become 24 Lux, because of no gain up. The gain up increases the video amplifier sensitivity and increases noise. The CCD is just as sensitive in progressive as in interlaced mode, but Panasonic selected not to provide gain up in the progressive mode, to increase picture quality, although more light is needed. Once you get beyond the 24 lux, both progressive and interlaced modes will both have the same light sensitivity characteristics. Since we do not know the gain characteristics of the amplifier, etc., the 35 Lux is meaningless. It definitely is not a camera for the event videographer, just as the DVX is not for the event videographer in its progressive mode. I estimate that the 1/3" HD CCD sensitivity will be similar to Sony's 1/5" SD CCD's. I explained the logic in a previous post. That would make it about 7 Lux if it had the same gain up as e.g. the PDX10. Additional gain up does not cost the manufacturer anything, but means lower quality picture in the lower light; without it it may mean no picture in the lower light. So expect this camera, in the lower lighting levels, to need at least twice as much light as the DVX in it's progressive mode, for the same level of video noise. To get useable picture, expect 1.5x the amount of light as the DVX. These are of course only approximations based on the limited available information. However don't think that it's CCD is 12x less sensitive that DVX's CCD. It is absolutely not.

March 12th, 2003, 05:30 PM	#1
Lynne Whelden Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: williamsport, pa Posts: 604	Economics 101 I should have known. Let's face it, HD is the end of the road for video camcorder manufacturers. It doesn't get any better! So unless they want to sign their own death warrant, most are going to extend their product roll-out as slowly as possible. JVD probably upset the apple cart by unveiling their affordable HD camera in 2003. But even in their benificence there's evidence of "product protraction." This 35 lux thing as an example. What a disappointment! Now we'll have to wait, what, six months or a year until they release a version that can shoot interiors using natural lighting. Same thing for a three-chip version. We'll wait another couple of years until there's a decent lens and chroma. In the meantime, we get a truly odd couple--using Sony's $4000 blu-ray DVD deck to store material from the $4000 camcorder. I'm sure Sony never envisioned that pairing, as reflected by their (typically) exorbitant pricing structure. So I'm slowly coming back down to earth. A few weeks ago I really thought my HD boat had arrived....

March 12th, 2003, 08:45 PM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	[board moderator self-indulged mini-rant mode on] Is it just me, or aren't lux ratings pretty much useless? Is it just me, or is there way too much hype about low-light performance these days? Is it just me, or shouldn't you be pumping in as much light as possible into your production, especially if it's HD? It's just me, isn't it. The best American film noir thrillers from the late '40's, so dark and moody and full of shadows in appearance, were saturated with set lighting during production. It takes a lot of light to get that no-light look! [board moderator self-indulged mini-rant mode off] __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

March 12th, 2003, 06:02 PM	#2
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	35 lux rating means nothing unless we know under what conditions was this rating arrived at. The DVX is rated 3 lux but in progressive it becomes 24 lux, to make the picture have a significantly better quality (less noise, which gain up produces). The pictures shot with the JVC and included in that Canadian review were excellent. DVHS camcorder is well under $1000 and has basically the same quality as the blue laser HD DVD. The HD DVD is a consumer product, just as DV is, altough both products do/will extend into the pro market. You will not have to wait years for new MPEG2 HD products. Panasonic and others are subscribing to the blue laser HD DVD format and Sony and another company already started making the mechanisms for others. The price will naturally come down quickly.

March 12th, 2003, 06:04 PM	#3
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	Sory, not DVHS camcorder; I ment DVHS VCR

March 12th, 2003, 09:00 PM	#5
Lynne Whelden Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: williamsport, pa Posts: 604	It's meaningful if you're into documentary film production or "event" videography where you have little or no control over lighting. I'm trying to remember what the old RCA TK-76 tube cameras that I started out on in the late 70s had for sensitivity rating. They were plumbicon tubes and I'm sure they were in the "four score and seven" realm. That's why for me it seems like one step forward, two steps back.

March 12th, 2003, 09:21 PM	#6
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	I just talked over the phone to Victor Japan's Customer Service regarding 35 lux. Here's their reply. The 35 lux minimum lux requirement is correct and measured under the same condition and procedure that they use with their miniDV cams.

March 12th, 2003, 10:49 PM	#7
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	Of course the 35 Lux is correct and it was measured under the same conditions. Still it is meaningless. Example: Panasonic DVX is rated 3 lux -- in its interlaced mode. If measured under the same conditions, in progressive, the rating would become 24 Lux, because of no gain up. The gain up increases the video amplifier sensitivity and increases noise. The CCD is just as sensitive in progressive as in interlaced mode, but Panasonic selected not to provide gain up in the progressive mode, to increase picture quality, although more light is needed. Once you get beyond the 24 lux, both progressive and interlaced modes will both have the same light sensitivity characteristics. Since we do not know the gain characteristics of the amplifier, etc., the 35 Lux is meaningless. It definitely is not a camera for the event videographer, just as the DVX is not for the event videographer in its progressive mode. I estimate that the 1/3" HD CCD sensitivity will be similar to Sony's 1/5" SD CCD's. I explained the logic in a previous post. That would make it about 7 Lux if it had the same gain up as e.g. the PDX10. Additional gain up does not cost the manufacturer anything, but means lower quality picture in the lower light; without it it may mean no picture in the lower light. So expect this camera, in the lower lighting levels, to need at least twice as much light as the DVX in it's progressive mode, for the same level of video noise. To get useable picture, expect 1.5x the amount of light as the DVX. These are of course only approximations based on the limited available information. However don't think that it's CCD is 12x less sensitive that DVX's CCD. It is absolutely not.