Part of me can't believe I'm posting this, but one thing I'm always happy to do is take my real-world equipment testing experiences and share it with the forum.

Before I go any further, let me say this upfront: THIS IS NOT a post that I want to de-evolve into a "which is better" measurbating debate. If it does, I'll hound Chris until he deletes it. That's not what this post is about.

Up to this point, most of my HVX time has been either in the studio or, on location with human subjects that fill at least half the frame or, with naturally contrasting subjects such as aircraft or motorcycles. Yesterday I did a test for an upcoming shoot, the kind of which I've never done before on video - wide-view landscapes - and guess what, I found the HVX's Achilles Heel.

Some background:

Last fall I did extensive testing with all the HDV cameras; HD100, H1 and Z1. Since most of my work involves either a lot of skin tones or studio controlled situations I wanted the best color and most film-like output possible. And, I really wanted a tapeless workflow that didn't involve the Firestore. I was relatively happy with the Z1's color the most but didn't like the "sorta-kinda progressive" mode. The JVC was ugly with color response so I immediately tossed it as a contender. The H1 was better with some things but it too was originally just OK in the studio - with default settings.

Then came the HVX: true progressive, 4:2:2 color and a native tapeless workflow - and a little slice of Varicam heaven. But, in testing it fell short on both color contrast/gamma and overall sharpness. In fact, with regard to sharpness alone on a scale of 1 to 10 in just those above cameras, the H1 was a "10", followed by a hotly contested "9" by the Z1, the JVC was an "8" or "7.5" and the HVX was a solid 7. The H1 was cleanest, the HVX was noisiest.

But none of the those minute details really mattered too much because in studio controlled situations or even the semi-controlled locatons that I shoot these "lesser" characteristics of the HVX were a non-issue. I wanted the 4:2:2 color more than sharpness. That is, until now.

Which brings me back to yesterday's landscape test. I put the camera into it's various modes: VIDEO/FILM CAM, HD NORM, CINELIKE D etc, etc. The subject was a desert mountain peak with nice rock detail coming from sunlight shadowing and crevices, and bright blue sky with wispy cirrus clouds - almost too perfect to be real. The results were less than exciting.

There was a distinct lack of detail on the mountain, in fact I questioned whether the lens and UV filter needed cleaning! So, I cleaned them to sparkle perfection just like I would with my Nikon ED or Canon "L" glass. Same result. Not only that, but the overall color response was flat and even... muddy! What? Huh??? This wasn't making any sense at all, not after having such near-perfect results from studio work. I poured over the footage with another editor - we both came to the same conclusion: In any camera setting the clips were soft and lacked color detail. In certain areas it almost looked as if the lens was going out of focus, but it couldn't have because it was manually focused with my super-cool FOXI follow focus. I double checked that too - it and the camera focus mechanism work just fine.

By this point I'm not only very disappointed but also a little pissed; how could my "baby" be so great in the studio but be so out of whack on landscape work?? Then I remembered the shootout that Chris, Barry and others did of all the HD/HDV bodies against the F350 and Varicam. Once I looked at the location examples between the cameras I had my answer: Small details - such as blades of grass or other things that don't fill the frame really show just how soft the HVX really is. Not only that, but unlike studio conditions where you have balanced light, direct sunlight without any fill also shows that HVX color is actually quite flat! That's not something easily discerned with a model holding up a GMB color checker in a studio.

So, after gaining this knowledge from the landscape test and re-reviewing the Texas Shootout samples, I'm moving from the HVX to the H1. Yep, I've been one of the biggest pro-HVX voices on this forum - and I still like the "mini Varicam" a lot, but there's no way I can trust the HVX softness and muddy location color to shooting the Grand Canyon of all things!!

So, do I think the H1 is "better" than the HVX? For certain things, yes. I'd still probably prefer the HVX where there's a lot of skin tone or controlled studio lighting - the inherent softness adds to it's film-like output. And the 4:2:2 color space has less artifacts than HDV, period. But for distant or small detail and more color contrast the H1 is king - within the sub-$10k cameras that is.

But, with input/output options of the H1 I can use the KONA to remove the HDV artifacting and with it's better color contrast and overall sharpness and actually get a better looking image than the HVX. It will take a bit more work on input and, I'll have to use the new Nnovia QC drive to get a tapeless workflow, but isn't everything in life a compromise?

The other major benefit to the H1? I can add either the M2 or Mini-35 adapter with greater ease and have a much cleaner film-like output than shooting a lens through another lens as I'd be forced to do on the HVX.

I'll keep tabs on this forum from time to time to help the other HVX'ers out as much as I can, but mine is being replaced by the H1.

I own an HVX and have used one for a while now. I will probably buy the XLH1s if/when it comes out but I do a LOT of DVCproHD work and the HVX just made more sense. I have noticed this very same thing. On super detailed wide scenes, the HVX is not a lot more detailed than an XL2. I will be posting in the next 6 weeks a video shot in 720P mode on the HVX and 480P on the XL2 and edited in FCP in a 720P timeline. The 480P footage was run thru InstantHD and guess what? The ONLY real difference (on a 42" HDTV) is that the HVX is noisier, not sharper...

I love the HVX but for me it is not THE camera, it is a crutch to limp thru the low cost HD world for now...




ash =o)

Okay. What about tapeless? Is that all it is made out to be ? It seems to me from what I have seen in discussion that backing up the captured footage is more of a problem than expected. Tape provides an archive copy right of the bat, where with tapeless, well, what do do for archive ? What's the verdict ?

Robert,

Wait 'til you see the HD-SDI live output. Here and there I capture the signal with a Kona LH card to the Sheer lossless codec via FCP, and let me just say that the full-raster image is just insane.

When more portable and practical solutions emerge for SDI capture it will open up a whole new world of quality that will supercede the already quite nice Canon HDV codec.

There are a couple of frames from uncompressed SDI I posted on this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72870&page=2

Robert,
Well this is kind of sad news.
You've been a great asset to these boards.
Out of curiosity, where did you set your detail levels on the HVX?
Also what do you mean by the color is "flat"?

If you haven't already try the detail @ +7
Barry noticed that the HVX was just set-up with less enhancement than the other cameras and looked fine @ +7.
Did you shoot 720 or 1080. 1080 should be about 30% sharper.
Last for color, try dropping that pedastel down to -4 or -5 on CiniLike D where it belongs.

Maybe those won't make any difference or you've already tried them but it is a thought.

Okay. What about tapeless? Is that all it is made out to be ? It seems to me from what I have seen in discussion that backing up the captured footage is more of a problem than expected. Tape provides an archive copy right of the bat, where with tapeless, well, what do do for archive ? What's the verdict ?

Chris,

The tapeless archive method has been hotly debated and has become the biggest non-issue I've seen about the tapeless workflow.

I've been shooting digital stills on medium format backs for over 10 years now. There's no tape to archive with when shooting a D-SLR either, there's only one option: hard drives. Technically you could output your final EPS/TIFF/PSD to film, but that's un-godly expensive and on a per image basis well... you'd go broke in a few days after one professional shoot.

The answer is: Hard drives. They're cheap, extremely stable/reliable despite what legacy rumorings say and when in a powered-off state and used strictly for archiving purposes will last indefinitely - or until the technology advances so far ahead that you can't use them anymore - which looks to be about another 10-15 years at a minimum.

Tape is what we're all used to but like it or not, tapeless is the future whether it's P2, XDCAM (Blu-Ray) or something else. Sony, Panasonic, Nnovia and others wouldn't have invested hundreds of millions in R&D and marketing it they weren't already convinced it is the future.

Leonard,

During the landscape test I literally shot every possible combination, especially after the first test run and saw such softness.

You can boost contrast in several ways which can give more detail to dark areas, but it's a simple matter of the chipset. For me, it's like comparing a 5mp DSLR to a 12mp DSLR - you just can't make up for the lower resolution.

If the subject fills the frame and or, is balanced with studio lighting then the HVX really shines. In fact, I'd consider it an almost perfect studio camera. But with any small details, and certainly landscape detail it falls short, painfully short.

Believe me, if the HVX had H1 sharpness and color contrast I'd be keeping it - I absolutely LOVE the P2 workflow and convenience, but unfortunately it's destined for eBay later today.

...I will be posting in the next 6 weeks a video shot in 720P mode on the HVX and 480P on the XL2 and edited in FCP in a 720P timeline. The 480P footage was run thru InstantHD and guess what? The ONLY real difference (on a 42" HDTV) is that the HVX is noisier, not sharper...

Wow, that puts a nail in the coffin! (laughs)

This is sad news indeed. You've been an invaluable contributor.

I hadn't physically tested the other cameras before settling on the HVX, and never considered using any of them without the built-in HDV tape mechanism. As I'm sure we all know by now, all those tiny details you're looking for would get uber-mushy on HDV the moment you started to pan or zoom the camera.

Like you, I'm completely un-thrilled with the 3-lens Redrock setup (built-in lens, achromat lens, Nikkor prime)...it's a real kludge, and loses 2.5 stops of sensitivity. It needs so much light, it's almost unusable indoors.

My initial HVX tests on fine detail (timelapse dusk highrise architecture) were quite unimpressive...the smaller, double-shifted imager isn't quite up to snuff. Compared to a colleague's Varicam, it was tragically poor.

That said, there are enough reasons (tiny form factor, no sensitivity to vibration, variable frame rate, ability to use an under-$10,000 Steadicam) for me to keep the camera. But I'm definitely looking at adding the upcoming P2 2000 or a Grass Infinity or some other 2/3" camera when I can cough up the money. As nice as the HVX is, there's absolutely no comparison to the cameras with larger imagers.

Hey Robert, it's only a matter of time before you realize that only this will do: http://www.gearpreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=707&Itemid=56

LOL!!!

These prosumer cams and 16mm all suffer from the "softies" when used under those conditions.

Hey Tim,

I've actually been the DP for a few film projects (commercial TV spots) where we used Arri-flex cameras. 11-minute film loads, tons of stuff hanging off the camera just so you can monitor it...yeah, it' a beast. But, nothing and I mean nothing beats film. That's why I still shoot 35mm film; nothing can touch Ektachrome 100 or Velvia for color, nothing.

...That said, there are enough reasons (tiny form factor, no sensitivity to vibration, variable frame rate, ability to use an under-$10,000 Steadicam) for me to keep the camera.

Actually, that's one of the reasons I'm going with the H1 instead of a bigger 2/3" inch chipset body - for now. The 2-gyro rig I'm purchasing for more heli work is designed for the mini-DV cameras like what we're using. If I bought a bigger camera I'd have to get a much bigger and more expensive gyro rig - I don't want the added expense just yet.

I just got here and already I am going to miss this guy.

Though I have worked in newsrooms and with video, buying this camera was my first foray into video acquisition -I come from a Still Photo background.

I have owned many different formats and systems, everything from a Yashica T4 to a Deardorff. Found the perfect format (Medium) but I never really found the perfect tool. Every camera had a sweet spot. I thought I had found that mythological beast in the Mamiya 7II - it was light, quiet, and super sharp, but quick focusing was a pain and I ended up using it for strictly for landscapes (thats some glass I hate to see gathering dust..).

I made the move from film to digital and ended up going w/Canon myself. Absolutely love it. I was really going to take a good look at the H1, and if I had more glass invested maybe I would have waited. It has to be superior signal processing and not the glass though. Canon really tweaks the math coming off those chips.

Anyhow, just wanted to thank Robert for bringing his film experience to bear on the cameras. It really helped me relate to the new format!

Leonard,

During the landscape test I literally shot every possible combination, especially after the first test run and saw such softness.



can you post some screen grabs? i am (was) planning on purchasing the HVX in Jan, and I do a lot of landscape shots.

I would like to see those as well.

Its not exactly heartwarming info but I respect your thoughts.

Thanks for all the valuable testing and information you've shared with this community Robert

We will all be sad to see you go.

Stop in now & then and tell us what you've discovered new.

BTW- where are you located, I sometimes need to suggest people in other towns or need to pick up gear when I visit myself.
I'd love your contact info.
If you don't want to share online email me at

<lenny@leonardlevy.net>

- Lenny Levy

Robert,

Guess where I'm going the week of the 20th. The Grand Canyon.
Guess which camera I have to take with me. The HVX200.
Guess what made me buy the HVX. The clips in this forum.

I, like many others here have not used the HVX on a set like the canyon so I'm disappointed to hear the results of your findings. I will be doing shoots at the canyon and in Alaska soon after. I guess I should consider selling the HVX or trading, since I've had offers from HD100 owners to trade.

Sounds like I should seel and step to the Canon.

I won't be able to sleep tonight. **SIGH**

I do pretty much nothing but nature and wildlife and I love the HVX.
It all comes down to what tool is right for you and what look you like best.

I've yet to have anyone look at my landscape footage on a HDTV and say "Gee, it doesn't look very sharp."

Hi Guys,

The reason I started the landscape testing to begin with is that I was contracted to shoot the Canyon from the heli. This is B-roll footage that has to be as close a match as possible to the FW900 Cinealta.

After reviewing the test footage and making the decision to change platforms I didn't keep the footage however, if you remember Chris, Barry and few others did the "Texas Shootout" for DV Magazine. They tested all the HD/HDV bodies side by side. Here's the link:

http://dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064

Go to the bottom of the page and find the samples of the water-splash next to the river edge. That sample clip shows exactly the kind of stuff I saw on my test. Pay special attention to the lower 1/5th of the frame - the blades of grass and the green leaves over the water. It almost looks as if the HVX is out of focus - but it's not! This is exactly the results I had on my landscape tests, regardless which mode I shot in or, what gamma/contrast/matrix settings I used.

Let me be very clear: There's nothing wrong with the HVX per se; it's very, very good at certain things and as I've always said, it's the poor-mans Varicam! Really - there is no other DVCPRO-HD camera that can do variable frame rates other than the $60k Varicam body - and it's not tapeless.

If I could afford to keep it and the H1 at the same time, I would, and I'd use it exclusively for studio work or, anything where the subject could fill at least 1/2 the frame. Heck, I did a spot for an airline and they loved the footage (too bad it wasn't destined for the US market), especially the slo-mo I did of their 747 landing into Sky Harbor at sunset.

But, since I had very specific needs not only for the Canyon shoot and a few other jobs that have cropped up, the HVX's weaknesses would prevent me from making the best footage possible for THOSE specific jobs. Eventually (hopefully later this year or first part of next) I'll be moving BACK to a DVCPRO-HD camera, such as the HPC2000 or even the SPX800, but I just don't have the budget for it today.

So it's not that I'm abandoning the Panasonic P2 system or the codec, I love both. I've just outgrown the HVX - much sooner than anticipated - and the H1 is a stop-gap until I can get into a bigger Panny body.

So Dee, Kevin, Leonard... you guys keep shooting the HVX or, get one if it fits your needs. I still like the "mini-varicam" a lot and still recommend it over the "other" HDV cameras.

If the HPC2000 were available now (and I could afford it) I'd be getting that rather than the H1.

BTW- where are you located, I sometimes need to suggest people in other towns or need to pick up gear when I visit myself.
I'd love your contact info.
If you don't want to share online email me at

<lenny@leonardlevy.net>

- Lenny Levy

Leonard,

I'm in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area. You can always reach me at:

robert@lumenosity.com

My big project right now is:

http://www.photosinaflash.com

The A and B-roll studio scenes were shot with the HVX. I'll use the H1 for all the location work and to keep my tapeless workflow I'll be using the new Nnovia QC Drive.

I do pretty much nothing but nature and wildlife and I love the HVX.
It all comes down to what tool is right for you and what look you like best.

I've yet to have anyone look at my landscape footage on a HDTV and say "Gee, it doesn't look very sharp."

Hey Kevin,

I've seen your site previously; I've always liked your high color contrast/chrome-look and feel to your images.

And you're preaching to the choir: I've always pounded measurbators with the same sermon - "it 'aint the camera that makes the image, it's the shooter". But as in this case, there are times when you push the limits of any camera's capabilities and learn that you're forced to "move up" to the next best thing to get what you need for a client.

Robert,

Couldn't agree with you more.

My thing is people should base their buying choices on their own research and their own needs.

For you the HVX doesn't do what you need it to do.

It's like you saying you don't like deep dish pizza and someone else says, Gee, I was gonna buy a deep dish pizza but since you don't like it, I'm not going to.

I like the look of the HVX, you like the look of the Canon. That's what makes the world and interesting place. If we all shot HVX's or Canon's everything would look the same.

That's like buying a Model T in any color you like as long as it's black.

That was my whole deal. I don't like the uber sharp look. You like a crisper image. Neither is wrong and neither is right.

Course, what the hell do I know. :)

After reviewing the test footage and making the decision to change platforms I didn't keep the footage however, if you remember Chris, Barry and few others did the "Texas Shootout" for DV Magazine. They tested all the HD/HDV bodies side by side. Here's the link:

Just a slight clarification here Robert, since you've mentioned it twice. Barry was not a participant at the Texas HD Shootout. That's nothing against Barry, just a factual clarification.

Adam, Barry, and a few other folks held a camera comparison in California before the Texas shootout occurred.

regards,

=gb= (one of the 'others' from the Texas shootout)

Kevin,

Actually, I like the look of the HVX for certain things; the H1 has more definition which aids in other types of subject material where the HVX is weaker. Like I say, I'd be in HD heaven if I could afford both - or better yet just get the HPC2000! (laughs)

Greg,

I keep forgetting that there were 2 shootouts, TX can CA. I've got so much on my brain with this big project I'm lucky to remember my name!

Don't get me wrong. I agree with everything above as far as the HVX is concerned. For color, variety of modes/formats etc., the HVX is the one. However, I do mostly landscapes (aside from a few weddings, which, by the way, the HVX and FS-100 performed admirably at the one I did last week) and I don't know that I want to duplicate findings. I don't neccessarily need 24P in any mode for the majority of my work. I need detail and resolution. For the most part, the HVX fit the bill.

Now if the HD100 actually gives a better resolution and sharper HD image in 720P, then I would be willing to make the trade I've been offered. I prefer the progressive image over the interlaced but am not apposed to the Canon's SDI out.

I appreciate the testing others in this forum have done and, Robert, I hold your opinions and comments on the HVX in high regard. I guess I just need to evaluate which one makes more sense for my needs. I did, however, expect the HVX to perform better in the detail for landscapes area.

I posted this in the image gallery breifly, but this is an example of what the HVX is perfect for: great, if not totally perfect studio color! If the subject fills at least 1/4th to 1/3rd the frame you'll never have any "sharpness" issues.

Taken from the same studio setup as the other scene. This is where the HVX show's it's softness. Look at details on the table lenses and camera bodies and definition starts to fall off. Obviously it's not important to have fine details in this clip, but this is where distant landscape details would suffer from not being more prominent in the framing.

Geez, I just love the color on the HVX, especially for skin tones it's damned natural!!

Robert,
Do you have any frame grabs you could post here that illustrate what you're talking about? I assume that boosting sharpness/detail in the camera settings did no good?

Hey Bill,

You're looking at them above. The detail and detail coring were both boosted. The second image with the lenses has +5 detail and +2 detail coring adjusted.

"It is what it is", as my friends like to say. The HVX has detail softness that can't be compensated for.

Take a look at this image of various retail flm boxes - this clearly shows both the HVX's strength - color, and it's weakness - small details, in one image. The color on these items is amazingly gorgeous (and you can see some chroma noise) but the printing on the labels is not a clear as you might expect it to be. This image has the same settings mentioned above.

But, who cares about sharpness when you've got color like this??!! That's me, preaching to the masses about HVX color. (big laughs)

Hey Bill,

You're looking at them above. The detail and detail coring were both boosted. The second image with the lenses has +5 detail and +2 detail coring adjusted.

"It is what it is", as my friends like to say. The HVX has detail softness that can't be compensated for.

Take a look at this image of various retail flm boxes - this clearly shows both the HVX's strength - color, and it's weakness - small details, in one image. The color on these items is amazingly gorgeous (and you can see some chroma noise) but the printing on the labels is not a clear as you might expect it to be. This image has the same settings mentioned above.
I should have enlarges the pix! Do you have the same shots from another camera for comparison?

No, but if you click the link I supplied above you'll see the Texas Shootout comparo with tons of direct, same-scene comparisons.

Greg,

I keep forgetting that there were 2 shootouts, TX can CA. I've got so much on my brain with this big project I'm lucky to remember my name!

That's okay Robert. I understand the confusion. Have been in that state myself once or twice (or was it three times).

Here's where DVINFO comes to your rescue. Each time you post, look to the left of your posting and the forum will automagically display your name for you. (grin)

-gb-

Here's where DVINFO comes to your rescue. Each time you post, look to the left of your posting and the forum will automagically display your name for you. (grin)-gb-

Good idea. Now if I can just figure out who this Robert dude is on top of my name... :-P

Prosumer gear will always have a problem. Usually several. Usually, at least one really big, glaring problem.

That's why it's prosumer.

A 1/3 inch chip cam will never give you the sharpness and resolution of a 2/3" chipset.

Prosumer gear will always have a problem. Usually several. Usually, at least one really big, glaring problem.

That's why it's prosumer.

A 1/3 inch chip cam will never give you the sharpness and resolution of a 2/3" chipset.


While I agree that 2/3" CCD cameras are better in all aspects in general... the XLH in 60i is actually sharper and resolves more than the Varicam. That being said, I think uprezzed SDX-900 looks better than native HVX...



ash =o)

Prosumer gear will always have a problem. Usually several. Usually, at least one really big, glaring problem.

That's why it's prosumer.

A 1/3 inch chip cam will never give you the sharpness and resolution of a 2/3" chipset.

No doubt, any sub-$10k body has it's weaknesses compared to it's 2/3" chip bigger brothers, and I don't think anyone expects any of the affordable HDV/HD cameras to perform at 2/3" chipset levels. We can dream and hope, but I think we're all pretty realistic about inherent weaknesses.

So, as I mentioned at the start of this thread, after coming across subject material that showed more of the HVX's weaknesses I had determined that going to the H1 would solve the problem with regard to sharpness.

While the H1 is obviously the resolution/color contrast king the reality of tyring to merge footage from any HDV camera into a project that is DVCPRO-HD based turns out to be much more complicated - and costly - than I had imagined.

Without getting into all the gory details, what it comes down to is this: The Canon is a 1080i camera; the HVX (as we shot it) is true 720p. Even with the KONA LHe there's no cost effective or workflow-logical method for merging the two formats without either serious image compromises or, a post-intensive 3-stage conversion workflow, neither of which makes any sense. (Thanks to the guys at AJA for pointing this out).

So, for the landscape stuff I'm simply going to rent a 2/3" inch DVCPRO-HD body. The rest is going to be shot on the HVX!

So, in fact I'm NOT moving to the H1 after all. I knew there were good reasons for choosing the HVX to start with! (laughs) Oh well, the knowledge gained from this little adventure is a lesson well learned in the constant quest for video knowledge.

Ash, I find that hard to believe that the H1 has greater sharpness and rez than the Varicam. Is that from one of the shoot-outs?

Mark, I think you misunderstood: The H1 has more sharpness and res than the HVX, not the big-Varicam body.

While I agree that 2/3" CCD cameras are better in all aspects in general... the XLH in 60i is actually sharper and resolves more than the Varicam. That being said, I think uprezzed SDX-900 looks better than native HVX...



ash =o)

Yeah, I was gonna say. Just going by what Ash wrote. :~)

Oy! All this video talk makes my teeth hurt.

Nope... I meant what I said. I do LOTS of Vari stuff and on a couple shoots with the Vari and the XLH, the XLH was sharper, not better, but sharper with more resolution (it was in 60i mode). We thought something was "up" so we shot some rez charts (not me, one of the techs I work with ) and the XLH does indeed resolve more lines than the Varicam. Not too shocking really as the Vari is 960X720 native...




ash =o)

Ash, even with the Varicam's larger chips at 720, vs H1 1/3" chips at 1080?

So, then how would the H1 stack up against an F900, or the HDX900 (is that out yet?), or another 1080 camera? Probably not better, but close enough to be good enough?

As soon as I think one camera is better than another I read something that shoots a hole in my theory. All of this has my head spinning there is just too much bulls*** to deal with.

When the PDW350 came out, I thought okay that's the camera. Then Panasonic announced the HDX900, HD big brother to the SDX900. I'm getting of topic here, but WTF? I really don't want to get another prosumer camera I've realy had it with them, so I'm looking at a 2/3 inch camera. But which one?

My sentiments exactly, Mark. I was excited about the F350 too until I realized it was shooting HDV 4:2:0. Bigger, better chips with more res but same HDV workflow issues.

That IS the $30k question: which "big" camera is the best way to go? HPC2000 looks good on specs, but no VFR mode. Sucks.

<SNIP>
So, then how would the H1 stack up against an F900, or the HDX900 (is that out yet?), or another 1080 camera? Probably not better, but close enough to be good enough?

As soon as I think one camera is better than another I read something that shoots a hole in my theory. All of this has my head spinning there is just too much bulls*** to deal with.
<SNIP>

Just check out the DV article by Adam Wilt from the Texas shoutout. There are resolution charts from the varicam and H1. The H1 resolves some incredible detail, right around 800 lines horizontal and vertical. Its amazingly sharp. But things aren't all perfect in H1 land either, in 24/30F mode the horizontal rez drops to 540. Plus the HDV 4:2:0 color sampling can be pretty obvious sometimes (applies to all HDV tape recordings of course).

Anyway, I wouldn't consider the rez of the H1 to make it that much "better" than the other offerings. Its just one of its strong points. I personally still prefer the HVX because of the color sampling and variable frame rates. As has been often pointed out, all these affordable HD cams are pretty close in performance. I think its safe to say a competent film maker could produce stunning product with any of them.

Actually, the Canon XH A1 is my new favorite: you just can't beat that price/performance ratio :)

www.philipwilliams.com

My sentiments exactly, Mark. I was excited about the F350 too until I realized it was shooting HDV 4:2:0. Bigger, better chips with more res but same HDV workflow issues.

That IS the $30k question: which "big" camera is the best way to go? HPC2000 looks good on specs, but no VFR mode. Sucks.

Exactly, Robert. I go round n round n round until I'm sick of looking at the pro's and cons.

My position hasn't really changed from a year ago and am going to continue to bloody well rent until this whole mess shakes down !

Spinning out and absolutely fed up with looking at camera specs here in noozeeeland !

I think I've found the fly in the ointment. According to this simulation, the loss of resolution can be attributed to the use of B+W UV filters


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/120958.jpg

My sentiments exactly, Mark. I was excited about the F350 too until I realized it was shooting HDV 4:2:0. Bigger, better chips with more res but same HDV workflow issues.

That IS the $30k question: which "big" camera is the best way to go? HPC2000 looks good on specs, but no VFR mode. Sucks.

Many of us seem to be hitting the same wall; I'm going to keep the HVX for the mobility and VFR (and mini DV capability, which is fine for some of my clients). Renting a Varicam as needed, and around the end of the year I'll re-evaluate the new mid-price 2/3" HD marketplace. With me it's less a detail issue than the depth of field nightmare on a 1/3" chip.

If you're cool with staying completely tapeless (it's actually more of a problem with my clientele than I expected, so I'm looking to add a tape DVCProHD camera to the mix), I'd keep my eye on the Silicon Imaging unit. It's a sweet-looking piece. Still too new to know for sure, but it looks like it could really turn the world on its ear.

Brian,

You made a good point. Although I think some goofed up with the photos at B&H. I had to exchange 3 top of the line UV filters before I got a satisfactory one. I know many here advocate always having some type of filter on to protect the lens but there is also a small group that believe it can result in image degradation. I think they are right and now only use a protective filter when shooting in uncontrolled environments.

Regards,

Brian,

You made a good point. I had to exchange 3 top of the line UV filters before I got a satisfactory one. I know many here advocate always having some type of filter on to protect the lens but there is also a small group that believe it can result in image degradation. I think they are right and now only use a protective filter when shooting in uncontrolled environments.

Regards,
I came through the RIT photography program back in the 1970s. One of my professors said "why would you spend $500 for a lens, then stick a $10 piece of glass in front of it for all your photos?" Since then, I only use them as clear lenscaps. I'll keep them on during setup, then take them off to actually shoot.

With the 1/3" cameras, the depth of field problem is so extreme that everything has to be surgically clean or you'll see dust/flare spots/etc. I do have 4x4s and a matte box for when filters are necessary, but otherwise I shoot naked. In my experience, the problem is less one of unsharpness (it's not that hard to make optically flat glass) as a serious drop in contrast. Lower-con images look less sharp even if they're not.

...With the 1/3" cameras, the depth of field problem is so extreme that everything has to be surgically clean or you'll see dust/flare spots/etc. I do have 4x4s and a matte box for when filters are necessary, but otherwise I shoot naked. In my experience, the problem is less one of unsharpness (it's not that hard to make optically flat glass) as a serious drop in contrast. Lower-con images look less sharp even if they're not.

Although I've always been an advocate of using protective filters - and I swear by Heliopan or anything that's Schott-type glass - I'm also seriously considering the HVX's softness being made worse by any extra glass in front of the lens. It makes me wince to think that I might be losing any definition or color contrast but it's a worthwhile theory.

The other thing that has my curiosity is how much detail/color might be lost when using either the built-in ND filters or using external - either 72mm screw-in or matte-box type and, which gets better results.

I'll be testing all this later this week and I'll start another thread with results and sample images.