|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 14th, 2007, 03:07 AM | #16 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
Quote:
The (4:3) half inch chip has a surface area of 30.72 mm2. The 1"/3 chip has a surface area of 17.28 mm2 - or roughly 50% less. The EX1's 5.8 to 81.2 mm f/1.9 lens sure will make a dof difference, I can assure you. The Z1's full tele of 54 mm at a smaller f/2.8 aperture is feeble in comparison. tom. |
|
November 14th, 2007, 08:48 AM | #17 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
In any case, if the EX1 is better in low light and can record longer per memory card than the HVX200, it will likely become more popular for event videography. Whether it's worth switching from one to the other is something to wait and see as discussed in previous posts. |
|
November 14th, 2007, 09:25 AM | #18 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
"But if low light isn't an issue and you do a lot of grading, DVCPro HD is vastly superior to the codec than you're going to get with the EX1."
On the outset, this statement is correct, however there is ALOT that can be done in an 8bit 4:2:0 world. Consider Vegas 32bit float rendering as a starter. Then consider the same render or even the source itself, to be a transcode from Cineform or Sony YUV at 4:2:2. The differences will be barely noticable to DVCproHD. Considering the Luma sampling of the EX is sourced at 1920x1080 native pixel res (as opposed to 960x540 on the HVX), dropping this down to 720p or even 1440x1080, increases the colour sampling range anyway. DVCproHD is an incredible format, no doubt, but its not the bees knees. In addition, if codecs are an issue, the fundamental difference between the 2 units is SDI. HVX does not have this. And with the coming of the bolt on SDI capture to CF adapter, it will be the definitive option for running and gunning uncompressed footage. I do not doubt that we will see the EX used in motion pictures as stunt cams, steadicams, crash cams or even B Roll. Its cheap, looks incredible as is, (uncompressed is even better) and extremely flexible in regard to output options. |
November 14th, 2007, 10:58 AM | #19 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ATL
Posts: 65
|
Quote:
|
|
November 14th, 2007, 11:20 AM | #20 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
Not sure what you mean when you say '8 mm dof', EJ. Super-8 film? Each frame has a projected area of 21.3 mm2, so it sits happily between the 1"/3 and 1"/2 chips. And you're right, down the wide end everything's in focus in all three formats generally.
tom. |
November 14th, 2007, 11:29 AM | #21 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
I saw a noticeable difference in DOF when I went from a camera with 1/4" chips to 1/3", so I would think there would be a similar difference going to 1/2". Also, going from 540 lines of resolution on the HVX200 to ~1000 lines on the EX1 will probably be noticeable as well.
|
November 14th, 2007, 11:37 AM | #22 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ATL
Posts: 65
|
Quote:
But even in a low noise situation, I don't think a 35Mbs 4:2:0 codec is going to have anywhere near the grading latitude as a 100Mbs 4:2:2 codec. But I would be completely thrilled to find out my guess is completely wrong. |
|
November 14th, 2007, 11:39 AM | #23 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Inland Northwest
Posts: 490
|
Quote:
Exactly when is the Sony going to be available for some objective side by sides? |
|
November 14th, 2007, 12:32 PM | #24 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
In any case, good observation that people are successfully grading HDV footage, so the EX1 should at least be better than that. |
|
November 14th, 2007, 01:37 PM | #25 | ||
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ATL
Posts: 65
|
Quote:
Quote:
No doubt, which is a shame given that DVCPRO HD is one of the HVXs best features. |
||
November 14th, 2007, 01:52 PM | #26 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Looks like the Convergent XDR uses MPEG2 compression rather than AVC-intra, but with an I-frame recording option at 160 Mbps data rate. Attach one of those to an EX1 and you could have full-raster 1080p I-frame data using memory cards which would cost about $27.50 per minute of recording capacity, which isn't bad for what you get.
|
November 14th, 2007, 02:20 PM | #27 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,896
|
Quote:
|
|
November 14th, 2007, 11:00 PM | #28 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ATL
Posts: 65
|
Whooops. Too much Panny on the mind. It's not only I-frame, but a Sony codec chip-set. Makes you wonder why they couldn't have used their own module in the EX1. (Probably the same reason why the HPX500 didn't get AVC-Intra)
|
November 30th, 2007, 01:54 PM | #29 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Francisco/Paris
Posts: 121
|
Quote:
I'll post my results soon. |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|