xdcam VS hv10 at DVinfo.net

Jung Kyu · December 9th, 2006, 11:09 AM

all three camera looks good but hv10 is pretty amazing.

HV10

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0145477.jpg

xdcam

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0152271.jpg

fx1
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...315_016186.jpg

Carlos Osterling · December 16th, 2006, 11:30 PM

Interesting comparison, considering the big difference in prices.

Steve Connor · December 17th, 2006, 02:15 AM

Not very relevant really, picture quality from my HC3 in daylight cuts very well with the 350 however clients wouldn't be happy if I turned up on a job with one!

All the new HD cameras blur the line between pro and domestic quality.

Alister Chapman · December 17th, 2006, 09:24 AM

The XDCAM clearly has the best dynamic range, even though it looks to be set with the flat factory gamma. The FX1 is soft, particularly at the edges. The HV 10 certainly produces a nice image.

Tony Tremble · December 17th, 2006, 10:51 AM

As soon as there is any movement the XDCAM HDs leave HDV cameras in their wake. A still only tells part of the story.

Credit where credit is due though.

TT

Carlos Osterling · December 17th, 2006, 01:11 PM

Has anyone seen/compared footage from either these cameras. I am trying to decide between these. I know differences in specification, but the important part is the quality of images produced. Please don't start a battle between brands, just trying to see some samples. Thank you.

Nate Weaver · December 17th, 2006, 02:00 PM

HPX isn't out yet. At DV Expo, they only had a non-working mockup of it.

Alister Chapman · December 17th, 2006, 03:07 PM

I believe the panasonic only has a 720 front end so 1080i is up-rezzed from that, much like the HVX. I would expect it to produce good images, but I for one am not convinced that the P2 workflow is a serious option for most users. Sure solid state is the future but we don't live in the future.

Hornady Setiawan · December 19th, 2006, 07:18 PM

I've compared images from a beta F350 and a release HDX900. I got these images from nice people at Digital Magic, HK. Both tests in 1080 res.

To be honest, F350 is sharper. The HDX is somewhat as sharp as Z1, less sharp than F350. BUT, color-wise, HDX900 may be a tiny bit ahead.

I also notice the HDX900 has a bit more compression artefacts. Some people argues that 100Mbps DVCPROHD is superior than 35Mbps Mpeg2. I have seen the fact that it is not so. Yet test footages i've compared are all stationary or slow moving. Can't say for fast moving scene.

Sorry i can't post frame grabs here as these footages are not mine.

Carlos Osterling · December 19th, 2006, 10:01 PM

Very interesting... I wish somebody could post links to a comparison between Sony 350 vs. Panasonic HDX-900. Thanks.

Robert Ducon · February 26th, 2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornady Setiawan

I also notice the HDX900 has a bit more compression artefacts. Some people argues that 100Mbps DVCPROHD is superior than 35Mbps Mpeg2. I have seen the fact that it is not so. Yet test footages i've compared are all stationary or slow moving. Can't say for fast moving scene.

I've shot with the Z1 a lot, and have to say, whenever I transcode any HDV footage (or even completely computer fabricated graphics done at 1920x1080 in AE) to DVCPROHD, that it reduces the resolution. I'm not impressed with that codec - at 100MB/sec, yes, it should be better, but it isn't. Yes, I just said that the HDV codec appears to retain better sharpness on low movement frames than DVCPROHD. At first glance of the specs (4:2:2 and 100Mb/sec) it looked like it could be a good archival codec, but no dice now.

Jonathan Ames · February 26th, 2007, 06:19 PM

The other day, Carlos, I was pulling focus as a favor for someone on a 900 and the question arose as to whether or not I hit the marks. Summarilly I asked him to just bring it up on the monitor and see. Oops. And therein lies one of the main differences between the two; the disk management system. Sure, there are a ton of others that separate the two but as I've written so many times, comparing the two cameras 2/3 for 1/2, by choosing the right glass and the lighting correctly, the XDCAM is simply a better value and performer as evidenced by the footage. It's been a long time since I really looked forward to NAB but being asked to showcase El Papel's footage and effects on the big stage for Adobe and the smaller stage for Sony, I can't wait to hear everyon's opinion in a side-by-side comparison of the cameras shot-for-shot. I hope you find it the answer to your question as well.

Tip McPartland · February 27th, 2007, 10:56 AM

I love the little Sony cameras, in fact I just bought the HVR-V1U as a B-camera to my 350. But this comparison, while displaying a rather impressive picture from the HV10 really underscores the differences between them rather than amazing me with the closeness in quality.

Alister's comment about dynamic range points toward the huge difference. After seeing how differently the somewhat "hot" areas of the roofs are handled, take a look at the two renditions of the sky. One is a deep, rich blue, the other almost white. Now please don't rain on my parade and tell me that there was a polarizing filter on the 350, but the difference is like that.

Given that dynamic range is the big difference between the "big" and the "little" here, and the V1U while of manageable size, does have great dynamic range, I would love to see such a comparison that also includes it.

From my experience shooting a demo, it did an extraordinary job of preserving detail and color saturation both inside a car and outside in full sunlight. Certainly better than most cameras which would give you a blown out exterior or alternatively shadow people inside.

Tip

Emanuel Altenburger · February 27th, 2007, 01:07 PM

The advantages and possibilities of the XDCAM HD are enormous. Even though the still picture of the small camera looks pretty damn sharp and good, I think "still life" is not what it´s all about. For me it´s important how a camera like the F-350 performs out there in the field, while recording under difficult circumstances. It´s important that your camera is a reliable partner. As soon as you have challenging demands, the small one will almost certainly leave you alone - even though these small cameras get better and better every day. But for me a still picture doesn´t tell me anything about the camera´s performance. It´s just a still picture and for still pictures I normally use my SLR camera:-)

Eric Gorski · February 27th, 2007, 06:40 PM

the hv10 footage looks over exposed.. i think those hotspots could be removed with a ndf or something..

December 9th, 2006, 11:09 AM	#1
Jung Kyu Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 143	xdcam VS hv10 all three camera looks good but hv10 is pretty amazing. HV10 http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0145477.jpg xdcam http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0152271.jpg fx1 http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...315_016186.jpg

December 16th, 2006, 11:30 PM	#2
Carlos Osterling Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Weston, Florida Posts: 34	Interesting comparison, considering the big difference in prices. __________________ Carlos Osterling www.cine3.com

December 17th, 2006, 09:24 AM	#4
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	The XDCAM clearly has the best dynamic range, even though it looks to be set with the flat factory gamma. The FX1 is soft, particularly at the edges. The HV 10 certainly produces a nice image. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

December 17th, 2006, 01:11 PM	#6
Carlos Osterling Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Weston, Florida Posts: 34	XDCAM vs Panasonic HPX-2000 Has anyone seen/compared footage from either these cameras. I am trying to decide between these. I know differences in specification, but the important part is the quality of images produced. Please don't start a battle between brands, just trying to see some samples. Thank you. __________________ Carlos Osterling www.cine3.com

December 17th, 2006, 02:00 PM	#7
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	HPX isn't out yet. At DV Expo, they only had a non-working mockup of it. __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

December 17th, 2006, 02:15 AM	#3
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	Not very relevant really, picture quality from my HC3 in daylight cuts very well with the 350 however clients wouldn't be happy if I turned up on a job with one! All the new HD cameras blur the line between pro and domestic quality.

December 17th, 2006, 10:51 AM	#5
Tony Tremble Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 451	As soon as there is any movement the XDCAM HDs leave HDV cameras in their wake. A still only tells part of the story. Credit where credit is due though. TT

December 17th, 2006, 03:07 PM	#8
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	I believe the panasonic only has a 720 front end so 1080i is up-rezzed from that, much like the HVX. I would expect it to produce good images, but I for one am not convinced that the P2 workflow is a serious option for most users. Sure solid state is the future but we don't live in the future. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

December 19th, 2006, 07:18 PM	#9
Hornady Setiawan Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Jakarta, Indonesia Posts: 103	I've compared images from a beta F350 and a release HDX900. I got these images from nice people at Digital Magic, HK. Both tests in 1080 res. To be honest, F350 is sharper. The HDX is somewhat as sharp as Z1, less sharp than F350. BUT, color-wise, HDX900 may be a tiny bit ahead. I also notice the HDX900 has a bit more compression artefacts. Some people argues that 100Mbps DVCPROHD is superior than 35Mbps Mpeg2. I have seen the fact that it is not so. Yet test footages i've compared are all stationary or slow moving. Can't say for fast moving scene. Sorry i can't post frame grabs here as these footages are not mine.

December 19th, 2006, 10:01 PM	#10
Carlos Osterling Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Weston, Florida Posts: 34	Very interesting... I wish somebody could post links to a comparison between Sony 350 vs. Panasonic HDX-900. Thanks. __________________ Carlos Osterling www.cine3.com

February 26th, 2007, 06:19 PM	#12
Jonathan Ames 2nd Unit TV Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 509	The other day, Carlos, I was pulling focus as a favor for someone on a 900 and the question arose as to whether or not I hit the marks. Summarilly I asked him to just bring it up on the monitor and see. Oops. And therein lies one of the main differences between the two; the disk management system. Sure, there are a ton of others that separate the two but as I've written so many times, comparing the two cameras 2/3 for 1/2, by choosing the right glass and the lighting correctly, the XDCAM is simply a better value and performer as evidenced by the footage. It's been a long time since I really looked forward to NAB but being asked to showcase El Papel's footage and effects on the big stage for Adobe and the smaller stage for Sony, I can't wait to hear everyon's opinion in a side-by-side comparison of the cameras shot-for-shot. I hope you find it the answer to your question as well.

February 27th, 2007, 10:56 AM	#13
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Back to the camera comparison... I love the little Sony cameras, in fact I just bought the HVR-V1U as a B-camera to my 350. But this comparison, while displaying a rather impressive picture from the HV10 really underscores the differences between them rather than amazing me with the closeness in quality. Alister's comment about dynamic range points toward the huge difference. After seeing how differently the somewhat "hot" areas of the roofs are handled, take a look at the two renditions of the sky. One is a deep, rich blue, the other almost white. Now please don't rain on my parade and tell me that there was a polarizing filter on the 350, but the difference is like that. Given that dynamic range is the big difference between the "big" and the "little" here, and the V1U while of manageable size, does have great dynamic range, I would love to see such a comparison that also includes it. From my experience shooting a demo, it did an extraordinary job of preserving detail and color saturation both inside a car and outside in full sunlight. Certainly better than most cameras which would give you a blown out exterior or alternatively shadow people inside. Tip

February 27th, 2007, 01:07 PM	#14
Emanuel Altenburger Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Innsbruck, Austria Posts: 134	The advantages and possibilities of the XDCAM HD are enormous. Even though the still picture of the small camera looks pretty damn sharp and good, I think "still life" is not what it´s all about. For me it´s important how a camera like the F-350 performs out there in the field, while recording under difficult circumstances. It´s important that your camera is a reliable partner. As soon as you have challenging demands, the small one will almost certainly leave you alone - even though these small cameras get better and better every day. But for me a still picture doesn´t tell me anything about the camera´s performance. It´s just a still picture and for still pictures I normally use my SLR camera:-)

February 27th, 2007, 06:40 PM	#15
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	the hv10 footage looks over exposed.. i think those hotspots could be removed with a ndf or something..