HDX-200 lens good or just functional? at DVinfo.net

Michael Pappas · April 6th, 2005, 11:25 AM

About the HDX200
Originally posted by Joonas Kiviharju :
<<<<< <<<<<If I was of the bet making type, I would place my bet on the manual controls on the lens being all three: focus, zoom and aperture. >>>>>>>>>>>

I want to believe Panasonic will do this one right, but..... Canon the all mighty lens company couldn't even get it right. You would think that a company that is famous in the universe for lenses could put a good lens on the XL1 and XL2 as standard.

Canon did do it right once. The L1 & L2 had real lenses and markings on them. It actually stopped too! No free spinning hell! As well, it was a standard kit, not an option. This was a great little camera. I would love an HD version.

Here is a L2/L1 pic: [ http://www.findchicago.com/upload/goods/1034191095_37.jpg ]

I remember telling one of the top people at canon that ""you guys got it right in 1991 on the L1/L2, how did this happen to the XL1"" ""He said that people don't want lenses that have manual settings, and this was better"".

I couldn't respond to Mr. Canon with such great logic, but only could give that look of " what the f%^$".

I can only hope Panasonic makes up for not offering a lens mount like JVC's hd camera and I'm sure Canons XL mount on their future HD cam 10 years from now.

It seems logical if you going to make a lens not removable, then you make it the best it can be and match the operation aspects of a manual lens.

If Panasonic is aiming this at professionals and not rich drilling dentists, then there is no accuse for not putting a good lens with true controls on it.

If Panasonic and others don't. Then how can they claim they know what professionals want and need on there cameras and then not deliver. That's an odd one!

Panasonic on the DVX-100 put a zoom lens that was not of the free spinning nightmare. But this was just half way. What people wanted was a manual focus like the zoom has. To date, DVX-100 is my favorite of the little DV cams that I owned.

Panasonic has been told for years on every board to do put a real manual control lens on these cameras and not the free spinning nightmare. Not just Panasonic, but Sony and Canon have had this request. Except for Canons optional manual lens, the shipping basic kits of these cameras never had real lenses or offered anything truly on target.

None of them have taken that to heart, just keep putting on this free spinning hell that these lenses are.

Why? Who knows... Years ago camcorders used to have more manual control on lenses in the consumer market. Yes, more manual then they do today. Backwards isn't it. The L1-L2- A1- VX3-V9 just to name a few had markings etc and this was around 15+ years ago.

Has something changed? More pro's use these small cameras then they did 15 years ago. These were made for consumers with no pro intent. Today all these companies know pro's use their mini-cams, but now they yanked off what was giving as standard 15+ plus years ago.

So as much as I would like Panasonic to do it. All I can do is go on past actions, and so far lens control is always given the shortest stick by all the companies mentioned. With the exception of the Canon's optional manual lens.

So what will Panasonic do with the HDX-200?

Michael Pappas
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS

Aaron Koolen · April 6th, 2005, 01:26 PM

I heard about the HVX before I'd known about the new JVC - now that's keeping up to date huh? ;) So when I heard of the HVX, I thought it was the bees knees (It might well be) but then I saw that the JVC had an interchangeable lens - and that really got me cause I'd been waiting for another company to do what Canon has done, but do it right for once.

So I feel that people will be pulled toward the JVC a lot better and easier than the Panasonic (Which I assume is going to have a fixed lens). Unless they can get FAR superior glass on it (Which I doubt) at a lower price. Sure I think DVCPro sounds better than HDV, but after seeing that I can capture and edit without having to use P and B frames on HDV, my view of it has changed slightly.

Aaron

Aaron Shaw · April 6th, 2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

but after seeing that I can capture and edit without having to use P and B frames on HDV, my view of it has changed slightly.

How does that work? Via an intermediate codec like cineform? Just trying to make sure I understand.

Aaron Koolen · April 6th, 2005, 02:11 PM

Yeah. The demo I saw of the Z1 used Cineform's Intermediate codec. I think they were using Premiere Pro as their edit system. I never saw them capture though but they "assured" us it was seemelss ;)

Aaron

Michael Pappas · April 6th, 2005, 05:16 PM

<<<<So I feel that people will be pulled toward the JVC a lot better and easier than the Panasonic (Which I assume is going to have a fixed lens). Unless they can get FAR superior glass on it (Which I doubt) at a lower price.>>>

We will know shortly what kind of lens it will have.......

Uri Blumenthal · April 6th, 2005, 08:44 PM

Aaron, the problem with HDV format is not that it's not editable - both MainConcept and CineForm proved that. Its problem

The big problem with HDV format is compression artifacts, both temporal and scene-dependent (e.g. still-life - excellent, moving objects - trouble). And, unlike editability, this is irrepairable result of long-GOP.

But your CineForm experience is very encouraging - I hope that it implies CineForm ProspectHD quality, that may be necessary to edit DVCPro HD in Adobe Premiere Pro.

Aaron Koolen · April 6th, 2005, 09:31 PM

Uri, yes that's another concern, but unfortunately the demo video they were showing at the Z1 presentation was that one of all the flowers and things. No real-world "dramatic" scenes and things with people, car chases etc. and all tha and I couldn't get close enough to really look close either even if they had of had something really good to watch.

I think on a TV, sitting down it'd be fine. Whether it's perfect for the picky people I dunno, and I wonder what it'd look like in a theatre.

Aaron

Dave Eanton · April 7th, 2005, 12:20 AM

the other problem with compression is that it gives poor results with green screen...

Laurence Maher · April 9th, 2005, 06:05 AM

Plus color space of 4:2:0 on JVC when 4:2:2 on Panasonic.

Michael Maier · April 9th, 2005, 10:30 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Uri Blumenthal :
The big problem with HDV format is compression artifacts, both temporal and scene-dependent (e.g. still-life - excellent, moving objects - trouble). And, unlike editability, this is irrepairable result of long-GOP. -->>>

ProHDV has shorter GOP, so maybe the problems won't be that much. I heard drop outs are far less at least.

For green screen, if the uncompressed out is 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, you can use that instead of the recorded HDV. Should be even better than DVCPROHD. As long as it's not a long sequence and you have the computer power, should work.

Luis Caffesse · April 9th, 2005, 01:33 PM

"I heard drop outs are far less at least."

As Joseph McCarthy might say if he were a videographer....

"One drop out in my footage is still one drop out too many!"

This is why I'm looking forward to solid state recording.
I don't want "far less" drop outs...I was zero.
No head clogs, no timecode breaks, no drop outs....

sounds like a dream.

R Geoff Baker · April 9th, 2005, 03:08 PM

"ProHDV has shorter GOP, so maybe the problems won't be that much. I heard drop outs are far less at least."

Ok, you got me there -- where is the GOP for ProHDV described? Where is the _format_ described? I missed that one ...

"For green screen, if the uncompressed out is 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, you can use that instead of the recorded HDV. Should be even better than DVCPROHD."

DVCProHD is 4:2:2, of course, so for green screen you should be golden, though if you can find 4:4:4 you'd be better -- I have yet to see any suggestion there will be such an out on any camcorder in this 'family'.

GB

Barry Green · April 11th, 2005, 04:27 PM

I believe in some of the articles they did mention that ProHD has a GOP of six frames. That's shorter than the Sony, but the same as HDV for 720p recording (i.e., all HDV at 720p, whether 25, 30, or 60fps, records with a GOP of six frames, and so does ProHD's 24p version). I think Steve Mullen did a writeup of the technical implementation of ProHD and reported the six-frame GOP as well.

Regarding "uncompressed" output -- the Sony does it as well, and presumably the Panasonic will too. Assuming you have some way to record the 166-megabyte-per-second data stream, which is 70x as much info as gets recorded on tape, you should be able to circumvent the HDV or DCT compression. Whether you get 4:4:4 is a whole 'nother question. It all depends on where, in the signal chain, the color decimation occurs. Presumably it gets chopped to 4:2:0 before hitting the DSP, so all operations in the DSP (color changes, gamma curves, all that stuff) operate in the lower color depth and will thus be output on the component outputs. That *may* mean 4:2:0 uncompressed output, but maybe not. It remains to be seen.

April 6th, 2005, 11:25 AM	#1
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	HDX-200 lens good or just functional............ About the HDX200 Originally posted by Joonas Kiviharju : <<<<< <<<<<If I was of the bet making type, I would place my bet on the manual controls on the lens being all three: focus, zoom and aperture. >>>>>>>>>>> I want to believe Panasonic will do this one right, but..... Canon the all mighty lens company couldn't even get it right. You would think that a company that is famous in the universe for lenses could put a good lens on the XL1 and XL2 as standard. Canon did do it right once. The L1 & L2 had real lenses and markings on them. It actually stopped too! No free spinning hell! As well, it was a standard kit, not an option. This was a great little camera. I would love an HD version. Here is a L2/L1 pic: [ http://www.findchicago.com/upload/goods/1034191095_37.jpg ] I remember telling one of the top people at canon that ""you guys got it right in 1991 on the L1/L2, how did this happen to the XL1"" ""He said that people don't want lenses that have manual settings, and this was better"". I couldn't respond to Mr. Canon with such great logic, but only could give that look of " what the f%^$". I can only hope Panasonic makes up for not offering a lens mount like JVC's hd camera and I'm sure Canons XL mount on their future HD cam 10 years from now. It seems logical if you going to make a lens not removable, then you make it the best it can be and match the operation aspects of a manual lens. If Panasonic is aiming this at professionals and not rich drilling dentists, then there is no accuse for not putting a good lens with true controls on it. If Panasonic and others don't. Then how can they claim they know what professionals want and need on there cameras and then not deliver. That's an odd one! Panasonic on the DVX-100 put a zoom lens that was not of the free spinning nightmare. But this was just half way. What people wanted was a manual focus like the zoom has. To date, DVX-100 is my favorite of the little DV cams that I owned. Panasonic has been told for years on every board to do put a real manual control lens on these cameras and not the free spinning nightmare. Not just Panasonic, but Sony and Canon have had this request. Except for Canons optional manual lens, the shipping basic kits of these cameras never had real lenses or offered anything truly on target. None of them have taken that to heart, just keep putting on this free spinning hell that these lenses are. Why? Who knows... Years ago camcorders used to have more manual control on lenses in the consumer market. Yes, more manual then they do today. Backwards isn't it. The L1-L2- A1- VX3-V9 just to name a few had markings etc and this was around 15+ years ago. Has something changed? More pro's use these small cameras then they did 15 years ago. These were made for consumers with no pro intent. Today all these companies know pro's use their mini-cams, but now they yanked off what was giving as standard 15+ plus years ago. So as much as I would like Panasonic to do it. All I can do is go on past actions, and so far lens control is always given the shortest stick by all the companies mentioned. With the exception of the Canon's optional manual lens. So what will Panasonic do with the HDX-200? Michael Pappas http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS

April 6th, 2005, 01:26 PM	#2
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	I heard about the HVX before I'd known about the new JVC - now that's keeping up to date huh? ;) So when I heard of the HVX, I thought it was the bees knees (It might well be) but then I saw that the JVC had an interchangeable lens - and that really got me cause I'd been waiting for another company to do what Canon has done, but do it right for once. So I feel that people will be pulled toward the JVC a lot better and easier than the Panasonic (Which I assume is going to have a fixed lens). Unless they can get FAR superior glass on it (Which I doubt) at a lower price. Sure I think DVCPro sounds better than HDV, but after seeing that I can capture and edit without having to use P and B frames on HDV, my view of it has changed slightly. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 6th, 2005, 02:11 PM	#4
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Yeah. The demo I saw of the Z1 used Cineform's Intermediate codec. I think they were using Premiere Pro as their edit system. I never saw them capture though but they "assured" us it was seemelss ;) Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 6th, 2005, 09:31 PM	#7
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Uri, yes that's another concern, but unfortunately the demo video they were showing at the Z1 presentation was that one of all the flowers and things. No real-world "dramatic" scenes and things with people, car chases etc. and all tha and I couldn't get close enough to really look close either even if they had of had something really good to watch. I think on a TV, sitting down it'd be fine. Whether it's perfect for the picky people I dunno, and I wonder what it'd look like in a theatre. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 7th, 2005, 12:20 AM	#8
Dave Eanton Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: CANADA Posts: 56	the other problem with compression is that it gives poor results with green screen... __________________ XL1s, XL2, 3x Wide lens, Matrox RTX 100 pro, Premiere Pro 1.5, After Effects 6.5, Encore, Audition

April 6th, 2005, 05:16 PM	#5
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	<<<<So I feel that people will be pulled toward the JVC a lot better and easier than the Panasonic (Which I assume is going to have a fixed lens). Unless they can get FAR superior glass on it (Which I doubt) at a lower price.>>> We will know shortly what kind of lens it will have.......

April 6th, 2005, 08:44 PM	#6
Uri Blumenthal New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Fair Lawn, NJ Posts: 20	Aaron, the problem with HDV format is not that it's not editable - both MainConcept and CineForm proved that. Its problem The big problem with HDV format is compression artifacts, both temporal and scene-dependent (e.g. still-life - excellent, moving objects - trouble). And, unlike editability, this is irrepairable result of long-GOP. But your CineForm experience is very encouraging - I hope that it implies CineForm ProspectHD quality, that may be necessary to edit DVCPro HD in Adobe Premiere Pro.

April 9th, 2005, 06:05 AM	#9
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	Plus color space of 4:2:0 on JVC when 4:2:2 on Panasonic.

April 9th, 2005, 10:30 AM	#10
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	<<<-- Originally posted by Uri Blumenthal : The big problem with HDV format is compression artifacts, both temporal and scene-dependent (e.g. still-life - excellent, moving objects - trouble). And, unlike editability, this is irrepairable result of long-GOP. -->>> ProHDV has shorter GOP, so maybe the problems won't be that much. I heard drop outs are far less at least. For green screen, if the uncompressed out is 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, you can use that instead of the recorded HDV. Should be even better than DVCPROHD. As long as it's not a long sequence and you have the computer power, should work.

April 9th, 2005, 01:33 PM	#11
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"I heard drop outs are far less at least." As Joseph McCarthy might say if he were a videographer.... "One drop out in my footage is still one drop out too many!" This is why I'm looking forward to solid state recording. I don't want "far less" drop outs...I was zero. No head clogs, no timecode breaks, no drop outs.... sounds like a dream. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

April 9th, 2005, 03:08 PM	#12
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	"ProHDV has shorter GOP, so maybe the problems won't be that much. I heard drop outs are far less at least." Ok, you got me there -- where is the GOP for ProHDV described? Where is the _format_ described? I missed that one ... "For green screen, if the uncompressed out is 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, you can use that instead of the recorded HDV. Should be even better than DVCPROHD." DVCProHD is 4:2:2, of course, so for green screen you should be golden, though if you can find 4:4:4 you'd be better -- I have yet to see any suggestion there will be such an out on any camcorder in this 'family'. GB

April 11th, 2005, 04:27 PM	#13
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I believe in some of the articles they did mention that ProHD has a GOP of six frames. That's shorter than the Sony, but the same as HDV for 720p recording (i.e., all HDV at 720p, whether 25, 30, or 60fps, records with a GOP of six frames, and so does ProHD's 24p version). I think Steve Mullen did a writeup of the technical implementation of ProHD and reported the six-frame GOP as well. Regarding "uncompressed" output -- the Sony does it as well, and presumably the Panasonic will too. Assuming you have some way to record the 166-megabyte-per-second data stream, which is 70x as much info as gets recorded on tape, you should be able to circumvent the HDV or DCT compression. Whether you get 4:4:4 is a whole 'nother question. It all depends on where, in the signal chain, the color decimation occurs. Presumably it gets chopped to 4:2:0 before hitting the DSP, so all operations in the DSP (color changes, gamma curves, all that stuff) operate in the lower color depth and will thus be output on the component outputs. That may mean 4:2:0 uncompressed output, but maybe not. It remains to be seen.