http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/bridge_h264.zip
http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/bridge.wmv

Data: Zoom out 55mm~4.2mm
Original File: Over 400MB
Compresss to H264
Manual Focus Fixed
Aut iris
Cinelike Gamma D

my comment:
Mr. Okamura missed few more detail of his camera mode, but he will shoot more tests also today.
When I see the result of his camera test, the focusing of tele-mode: very sharp and I can see really well.
But when it comes wide, it loses sharpness a bit.

One thing, I’ve noticed HVX’s lens that is not same as DVX’s characteristic behavior. HVX has strong tele-side effect and weaker wide side (it could be a first LOT out model). DVX and anamorphic has wider effects, (HVX -35mm equivalence: 16:9 32.5mm~423mm) I uses a lot of 80mm~100mm for 35mm Film camera for interior shot for dialogue setting, according to Okamura that he said HVX’s 11.1mm(80mm/7.2) or 13.8mm(100/7.2), neither one will not get enough depth of field.
I guess that I should get wide-angle attachment from Century that makes 0.6 and 0.75 wide converters.
1/3 ccd is native 16:9.
4:2:2 is not 4:4:4 which loses 540 line of chrominance compare to 4:4:4.
But I heard from Panasonic Engineer in Japan who said there is 4:4:4 SD-HDI signal internally but for the post environment is not ready for 4:4:4 yet,


Also please check JAPANESE DVX/HVX fan site:
http://www.geocities.jp/sumi653/

Thank you for coming by....

It was DVX fan that helped make the final decesion to buy the DVX100 way back when it came out. The tests you did were very helpful, I look forward and hope you do the same with the HVX...

It seems I'm out of all the responsibility to do everything by myself :).

Now I'm going to do what I do decent. If other colleagues miss something and we can do whatever comes up.

It's been very educating for me to involve in this community and this is the way internet should be used, I really want to thank Chris and others for making this happen.

Spread the wave.

Well, Kaku you have been amazing.

No one has gone as far as you have is offering footage from these HD cams online.. I have your footage spread all over my machines. PC and Mac...

The problem with the above clip is it's H.264 they posted. These are distribution codecs and should not be used to judge image quality. Those codecs soften out noise and artifacts. This is a Big ( NO NO )!

Raw clips only, like you have given us whether from a FX1 or H1 to the HVX200 allow us to microscope the image to evaluate it and see if it can hold up and if it deserves merit.

Kaku do you know when you will have the night footage up. That's very important to see... There was a bay shot you did with the H1, I would love to see that done with the HVX.

Also is there a chance you could get a close up in 1080p 24 like the one of Barlows daughter. Same kind of lighting , no harsh sunlight. But an outdoor shot as well with close ups to mediums shots of people just talking or anything so we can see how well details in the faces hold up.

As always, and never can say too much......Thanks Kaku.

Pappas

I hope they do the same, I'm not much of shooting various scenes especially subtle ones. I'm very much performance oriented.

I did take some night ones today. Gain on and off. Also the detail down and regular version.

Off the topic here, so I will explain in the other thread.

OK -- I don't read Japanese, but having lived in Japan I'm familiar with reading CCD specs from a Japanese brouchure.

But, I don't see any CCD specifications. Only that the chips are 1/3-inch.

Likewise, I see no lux specifucation -- the second most important CCD spec.

Steve,
Panasonic is not providing the pixel dimensions of its CCDs. They will only say the CCDs are scanned in 1080P, are 16:9 aspect ratio, and have a minimum sensitivity of 3 Lux (no IRE given).

If Sony or Canon or JVC did that, they would be burned at the stake and talked-about so extensively, it would borderline racism.
Panasonic does it, and it's all good. lol

- ShannonRawls.com

To be fair and to equally spread the blame, Panasonic is not the only manufacturer to withold certain specs. Canon, for instance, refuses to reveal the bit depth of the DSP in the XL H1, which is a pretty important thing. Just to cite one specific example out of many.

It's wrong not to tell us those "major" specs not unlike a car manufacture not revealing to us how many cylinders, valves, engine block size or gas mileage a car you have just purchased has.

Simple, I don't agree with it, but what choice do we have. All we can do is call them on it. Tell them it's BS as well.



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com



To be fair and to equally spread the blame, Panasonic is not the only manufacturer to withold certain specs. Canon, for instance, refuses to reveal the bit depth of the DSP in the XL H1, which is a pretty important thing. Just to cite one specific example out of many.

Jan basically told me that she would "lose the opportunity to educate" on the quality of the HVX200 if those pixel dimensions were published. I think maybe we should evaluate the picture quality as a combination of the whole (CCD, lens, DSP) rather than try to focus on any one factor in creating the image. If the image looks and is good, who cares how it was created?

It all comes out in the wash.
For cars: they are 0-60mph and 0-100mph times. Who cares if the engine has 3 cylinders!

When someone posts *any*res charts for the HVX200 camera, they won't be able to hide the numbers any longer.
The pathetic video edge enhancements fool uninformed 'TV people', but they just can't bring back *actual* resolving ability.

Someone please post still images of a chart or other sharp edged content, with the sharpness setting turned as low as possible!
Even using a dollar bill works, and most people can get one of those to shoot.
-Les




It's wrong not to tell us those "major" specs not unlike a car manufacture not revealing to us how many cylinders, valves, engine block size or gas mileage a car you have just purchased has.

Simple, I don't agree with it, but what choice do we have. All we can do is call them on it. Tell them it's BS as well.



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com

I can't help but comment on this, but coming from sales, I would read this as:

" lose the ability to trick " rather than the " lose the ability to educate "

-Les

Jan basically told me that she would "lose the opportunity to educate" on the quality of the HVX200 if those pixel dimensions were published. I think maybe we should evaluate the picture quality as a combination of the whole (CCD, lens, DSP) rather than try to focus on any one factor in creating the image. If the image looks and is good, who cares how it was created?

I think that's an overly harsh judgement. How is it wrong, to suggest that yoiu need to consider the entire chain, the lens plus chips plus DSP etc., instead of concentrating on only one aspect. I think it's very good advice actually.

Well, I respectfully disagree with you Chris!

It's wrong X's ten in my opinion! I been at this longer that you at the high-end level, and I have never experienced that lack of trust at the professional level of production equipment sold to professionals. But then again, just my opinion.......

>pappas


I think that's an overly harsh judgement. How is it wrong, to suggest that yoiu need to consider the entire chain, the lens plus chips plus DSP etc., instead of concentrating on only one aspect. I think it's very good advice actually.

According to the brochure there is no mention that the CCDs are 16:9.


Given the level of secrecy my best guess is the CCDs are the very same ones used in the DVX100AB's, pixel shifted to provide additional 'interlaced resolution' with the attendent problems of low contrast, luma nioise, chroma noise and hue shift.

Whether that's good or bad is in the eyes of the beholder.

In the prosumer market, hype and first look image impression is a big factor in sales.
'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.."

I am getting the feeling that this new crop of prosumer HD cams have no more
image resolving ability than my antique JVC HD10.
There, I said it.
This doesn't mean that you can't make a nice film with them! The lack of settings made that very hard on the old JVC. But I'm still curious about the actual resolving power, after the candy coating ( edge sharpening ) is peeled away.

This is important to anyone who actually thinks in terms of the overused term 'film look'. Ringing on sharp edges is a dead give away to the video look. Sure, film that goes into a DI process often gets sharpened, but that never causes ringing ( overshoot on edges that look like black lines ).

Let's see some charts.
-Les

According to the brochure there is no mention that the CCDs are 16:9.
On the Panasonic Web site, HVX200 product description, sixth bullet down states:

"1/3" 16:9 native high-sensitivity progressive 3-CCD with 1080/60p scanning"

Then on the FAQ page:

"What size is the 3-CCD imager?
The imagers are 1/3" CCD, 16:9 native aspect ratio..."

And finally, on page 12 of the brochure:

"16:9 Squeeze and Letterbox Modes
The AG-HVX200 can record in SD with a 16:9 or 4:3 aspect ratio.
When 16:9 is selected, the AG-HVX200 can record in native 16:9
recording..."

Seems pretty clear to me.

http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/
he just updated one more,
Earl says:
The AG-HVX200 can record in SD with a 16:9 or 4:3 aspect ratio.
When 16:9 is selected, the AG-HVX200 can record in native 16:9
recording..."
that is right.

Kaz Okamura posted new clips that I requested for the DOF test :

80mm?35mm?÷ 7.2 = 11.1mm
100mm?35mm?÷ 7.2 =13.8mm
The result is very good and I'm pretty much satisfied about it.
The other one is a gain test, I see the noise when it +12db that I never use anyway.

Thanks Kaz again.

I will make new thread.