|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 31st, 2008, 09:39 AM | #31 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 191
|
Quote:
And while we are debating numbers, there are numerous show shoot with say Hpx2100. Here in Norway the most popular series at the moment, "Himmelblå"(not sure what the correct translation would be, but it means blue sky(sort of)) is shot with Hpx2100. 1080p25 with DvcproHD. At the most 1,4million watch, or about 1/4 of Norway. It's not film but buy far the best looking series produced in Scandinavia, broadcasted in SD though. Sometimes the numbers in a lab don't seem to mean to much in the real world... If were to put numbers behind every desicion quality wise Xdcam wouldn't be accepted as a format for anything else than news. |
|
October 31st, 2008, 10:40 AM | #32 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 192
|
Quote:
I was in error re: US price for HPX2000, it is $27K USD for the body, not $25K, so add an AVC Intra board and you're at $30K, still close to $10K less than an HPX2700. It is very easy to buy an HPX2000 for $22K new and under $20K for a demo or B-stock unit. As far as the 2000/2100 having different images vs. an HDX900, this makes no sense, the 2000 is the P2 version of the 900. It does have CAC, which the 900 does not, but comparing the two cameras in DVCPRO HD should yield the same image. Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video |
|
October 31st, 2008, 12:20 PM | #33 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
|
Check out the BBC test documents here BBC - R&D - Publications - WHP034 and it shows that there is a difference somewhere (I think some mention of optical low pass filters being relevant?) Anyway I seem to recall the upshot being that there was a lot of aliasing on the 2100, unlike the 900?
Steve |
October 31st, 2008, 05:23 PM | #34 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It wouldn't matter if broadcasters could just throw bandwidth at the problem. Then the aliases would be of less significance. But bandwidth equals money, and whilst two cameras may look similar on straight recorded pictures, or with light compession, they could show severe differences with normal transmission compression. Which is why the review of the 2700 I'm waiting for is one with zone plate tests. I would hope that unlike the 2100 it has the optical filter. |
|||
October 31st, 2008, 05:56 PM | #35 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 192
|
Great info from the BBC. Thanks Steve. I would have to think that the 2000/2100 and 900 would both have the same aliasing issues, however, these were pre-production cameras by the sound of it, so maybe low pass optical filtration was added for production versions?
Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video |
November 1st, 2008, 07:16 PM | #36 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
Even if that had been initially overlooked, I believe these reports are submitted to the manufacturer before publication, and if their intention was to add optical filtering to subsequent units, I find it inconceivable that wouldn't have been picked up on and a statement of intent added to the published review. |
|
November 1st, 2008, 11:43 PM | #37 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 192
|
Quote:
Yes, that makes sense. The questions I have are why haven't I noticed aliasing artifacts with my HDX900 and does the HPX2700 have a low pass filter? Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video |
|
November 2nd, 2008, 04:12 AM | #38 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
As I understand it, static aliases (as in a still photo) aren't too objectionable. With movement, the aliases move in the opposite direction to the shapes that are causing them, and that's what can cause coders confusion, and to waste data trying to compress something that shouldn't be there. It's the fact that they can survive unnoticed through the production process, but have a big effect right on final transmission that makes them so undesirable, and why broadcasters now HAVE to do lab tests, why you can't simply rely on "picture looks good to me". That's a fact of the digital age. Quote:
|
||
November 12th, 2008, 02:15 PM | #39 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 192
|
I asked a Panasonic product manager if the HPX2700 had different sensors than an HPX2000. The answer was no. I neglected to ask if there was low pass filtering for the CCD's. So, I'm still unclear as to why the 2700 would look better than a 2000 or 900 in DVCPRO HD or AVC Intra for the 2000 or 2700? It would have to be processing differences, I would guess.
Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video |
November 27th, 2008, 04:00 PM | #40 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 256
|
My third HPX2000 came as an a-stock with the varicam logo on it. For whatever side you're on in this continued discussion, I would think that might tell you something. Wonder how that camera was being shown around...
I'll look forward to going side by side with the 2700. I've held the thought since NAB that they're the same camera, with extra software (cranking and Film Rec), the intra card (which mine has), and the extra HD-SDI. Good problems I guess - with a 2700, I'll have 4 cams (2 with vari logos), and I expect that they'll match & switch images identically. Just think I'm paying another $12K for math and a logo with the 2700... |
December 6th, 2008, 11:37 PM | #41 | |
New Boot
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 21
|
Hi Shawn,
Any further impressions on the HPX2700, and how its image stacks up against the HPX2000? Quote:
|
|
December 7th, 2008, 05:38 AM | #42 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
|
It's a mistake and very misleading to put a Varicam badge on an HPX2000, the Varicam means variable frame rates, which the 2000 just doesn't have.
I think it might be one of these comparisons where on-screen you don't see that much difference, but if you want to measure it the extra resolution to AVC-Intra and the 10 bit vs 8 bit should make a fair difference. There's a Panasonic day with my local dealer next week where they'll have all their cameras, but not sure if I'll be able to make it. If I do I'll post any info. Steve |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|