Question for Adam Wilt (and his response).
 

In his article he states he preordered a hvx, yet it seemed to be the poorest performer . I'm wondering if he still plans on buying it and , if so , what are his reasons ? Kurth

He'll probably be owning both an XL H1 and an HVX, he is a connoisseur of cameras. =)

Good point! Maybe HVX will be the best in something or not?

Or maybe the noise issue can be avoid...BTW, is there any post-production prescription to take away that horrible chroma noise?

Adam is not an active member here (or at any other message board that I'm aware of). Please direct questions to him via email. His address is located on his site at www.adamwilt.com -- hope this helps,

And then post your answers from him here.

Only if you have his prior permission to do so.

Because otherwise, public posting of private email is a huge no-no. That's netiquette 101.

sorry Chris , I thought the whole world were members here . Well , he should be .Maybe he sneaks in and out like a kind of Zorro , lurking about. No. Well , I thought a public response would be better. I'll try over at dv.com. He's got to be a member there , you'd think. I'm just wondering if he agrees with my other thread that resolution isn't everything and still sees some imperative reasons to get it. I don't think he would just whip out 10k 'cause it's the "next" coolest toy. He might be successful and well paid but I doubt he's that rich so he's probably weighing info that might be useful Then again , he might have personal or professional reasons to not want to share those thoughts. We might have to wait for a review. I mean , he does get PAID for sharing those very thoughts , why would he give them away. Worth a try - but I just hate posting somewhere else. thanks -Kurth

Thanks Kurth, but I don't think AJW posts much at the dv.com boards either. Why not send him an email and ask in advance if you can publicly share his answer to you. Hope this helps,

Next Four Cam Test
 

hey chris,
if it is at all possible, i was wondering if you could find or rent the 13x wide angle for the jvc and conduct the test with that particular lens on it.

Thanks Maurice, that is an excellent suggestion. I'll try to make that happen.

thanks buddy. i'm in the process of getting the jvc and was just wondering if the wide angle could make the camera stand out more in the test.

Chris - I got his response but I'm such a computer dork - how can I copy out of my email into your "reply to thread" box. I'd prefer to COPY rather than just copy- I might make a mistake - it's a good additional paragraph to his article.Please help. thanks Kurth

"Adam is not an active member here (or at any other message board that I'm aware of). Please direct questions to him via email. His address is located on his site at www.adamwilt.com -- hope this helps"

Hope I'm not spilling any beans here, but Adam is a regular contributor to the HDV-list, which admittedly is a Yahoo group, so you have to join to even read the messages (but it's free). It was originally started by Gary of Videoguys.com and was slow in getting started, but in recent months it's become an interesting mix of folks from all over the world. Adam's postings there are as always, informed and invaluable.
The group's webpage is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HDV-list/

Bob England

ok - stop laughing , I never copied email to post before and at first it didn't work. Mr. Wilt responded promptly and supports my point about resolution not being the deciding factor, I think. Read for yourselves. Mr. Wilt please...

"By my account, the HVX200 falls down in raw resolution and in the visual appearance of its noise (although Barry preferred the look of the HVX's noise over the others; this is strictly one of those personal preferences). If it's such a loser, why do I still have one on order? Mightn't it be the case that other factors offset the numbers? Might the phrase "variable frame rates" have some resonance? Remember that we looked at only a very few factors determining the image quality and usability of these cameras--no ergonomics; no practicality for a given situation; no frame-rate flexibility; no how-wide-does-the-lens-go; no audio quality tests; no can-I-handhold-it-steadily-for-90-minutes; no low light tests; no complex motion rendering; no flare levels; no how easily can a 1st AC pull focus on it; no how easily can I pull focus on it while running 'n' gunning; no codec quality--so how can one say that resolution numbers or noise levels or a stop more or less sensitivity makes or breaks a camera? That's silly. We captured four or five data points out of the hundreds one needs to think about. There are still hundreds of data points to go.

Cheers,
Adam Wilt"

Well, I think that says what alot of people have been thinking and if Adam Wilt is still in line then you other guys/girls waiting should be patient.This camera is all about framerates and until someone else does it better , then the hvx is the coolest camera on the block from my point of view. Not knocking the canon and I own the sony so nothing to grind. thanks - Kurth

By the way Chris , he gave me permission to share " this part " of his email. I , at his request edited down to just this portion. If you'd like I can send you the full email so you could confer. thanks - Kurth
ps - I was pleasantly surprised at his response- both prompt and professional esp. to a stranger.

I've gotten the same question, and here's how I look at it. Yes the charts were puzzling, yes the XLH1 showed the highest res, but -- the F900 was way higher than the VariCam, yet if you read Adam's article he says "which one did we all want to take home at the end of the day? The VariCam." (almost all of us, that is -- Jay still preferred the F900).

There's more to the cameras than just res charts; the bigger questions that Adam points out are all things that should be factored into one's decision. So how did those of us who were there feel about 'em, who saw the footage and the live feeds and who used the products? Where will we vote when it comes to buying one of these four?

I polled most everyone there; I missed the ProMax guys and I didn't get Aaron's opinion. But as for those of us who were there and who saw the tests and went through the whole process, who's buying what?

Adam: (has an FX1, has been testing an HD100 for several weeks): is buying an HVX.

Barry: (bought an early HD100, sent it back): got the HVX

Jay: (has an FX1): bought the HVX

Shannon: (has an XLH1 and a Z1, and was considering buying the HVX): bought another XLH1 instead

Evin: bought an HVX

Nate: (has an HD100, was considering selling it for an HVX): decided to keep the HD100

Rush: buying an HVX

So, take that for what it's worth. Some people changed their minds, some were happy with their current choices, but when it comes down to where the dollars are going, this is what the people who were there decided.

Good post, but I have one question.

Most people you cited decided to buy the HVX.

But why? Picture quality? Frame-rate flexibility? Price? Or something else.

The target group might not have economic and workflow considerations that those of us contemplating a purchase have.

So, while I certainly appreciate the information, invariably the devil is in the details.

Why did most elect the Panny?

I can't speak for exactly why they chose which. I know why I choose it, and that's listed in a massive post on DVXUser. Adam gave reasons as to why he chose it. Jay, Rush, Evin, and the rest should speak for themselves as to what they prefer; I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths.

Actually, Jay Nemeth just made a post that sums up some of his reasoning:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.p...&postcount=315

I must not be looking in the right place, but I can't find any reference to the HVX on his site.

I did see a great example of color spaces, and why the HDV 4:2:0 color space is inferior to DVCPRO-50/HD's 4:2:2. That alone makes the arguement in favor of the HVX and, backs up what I've always said about digital imaging: Color is much more important than resolution - who wants high definition mud?

Robert - it's from an article at www.dv.com

Thanks Kurth.

Adams experience notwithstanding, I still consider the HVX a *near-perfect* sub-$10K body. Considering it is the ONLY body to use the 4:2:2 color space, true progressive 16:9 chips and a native-to-the-system tapeless workflow there's absolutely nothing else out there - for less than $10k - that has it's capabilities and versatility.

Barry - I think , more than any other time , that these cameras must be in our hands , to make the decision. However , even if I flew to NYC and spent the day at B&H, I still couldn't have the experience/time /different viewpoints that a group test like this can offer. First , thanks for doing it , and sharing freely. Second , we need more ! I hope the Texas test materializes . Being Texan , I'm a bit partial to how texans view the universe ( ha ) so I know those guys will give it at least more time . And being from Austin , I KNOW they will. Hey Chris , how about some footage from Barton springs. I still miss BS alot ! OK , back on topic. I guess , my opinion of the test is you guys didn't have near enough time to do anywhere near the justice required to evaluate thes babies . The sonys' have been out and are street proven , but the other 3 need some serious feedback. And the hvx is still in this limbo state , which to most minds means they're still working on problems. This might not mean problems of how the cameras work, but problems associated with manufacturing it. Regardless , getting these personal feelings of how you guys feel , after spending real testing time with all at once , is invaluable , esp. to those of us who live in the boondocks ( probably more of us than you might think ! ) Anyway thanks again for sharing .
What I'd really like to hear from these tests are , how does the footage looks projected in it's hd state on an large venue 1080 projector. I think "filmout" might be useful but the truth is the future is digital. Patience is required by all , but I'm sure enough info will be in our hands/computers/minds to make a decision . Kurth

The issue that prompted my question to Mr. Green, however, is that it isn't "out there" yet. There are very isolated reports, and virtually no real world comparisons.

So on paper it looks good, and I hope it performs. For me, I'm concerned with workflow. If the Cineporter can capture 24PN to a hard drive, that that's a good first step.

At this point, the Cineporter is more of an unknown than the HVX is, especially since Kaku's footage solidified my decision to buy the body.

One of the people from Spec-Comm does monitor this HVX board and can easily answer that question or, send them an email directly and I'm sure they'll tell you exactly what the Cineporter can and can't do.

But still you are saying that 4:2:2 color (chroma) _resolution_ is somehow better than different color resolution (4:2:0).
I think people like panny's colors because they are more saturated than the others. You can add saturation in the post to all others and have the same visual result.

Where do you need more chroma resolution in one dimension than the other with progressive imaging?

Toke,
You can add more color in the camera as well. No need to wait till post.

However, it's undisputable.......4:2:2 is much MUCH better then 4:2:0. Wouldn't you agree? it has everythig 4:2:0 has...PLUS!

More Chroma Resolution is bette the NO chroma resolution, yes?

- ShannonRawls.com

I'd say that I'd take 4:2:0 with 10bit colors before 4:2:2 8bit, any given day...

Where would better vert chroma rez than horiz chroma rez needed?
Chroma key with lots of vertical movement?

which codec is working in 10 bit 4:2:0 ?

Yes, but Toke....
Where on earth can you get 10bit 4:2:0 footage from?

Ok...so lets talk reality here.....would you rather have 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 (both 8-bit)? I think the answer is obvious.

Now if we are comparing DVCPROHD 4:2:2 to HDV 4:2:0 and talking colors....well, I don't know. Too many factors to involve, beginning with the lens, then the chips, then the dsp, etc....

- ShannonRawls.com

Maybe infinity will have this as an option.
Funny thing is that 4:2:2 codecs are designed for interlaced picture, where vert rez is more important than horz rez. In progressive picture they are equally important, so when human vision is more accurate for luminance than for chrominance, having same vert luminnance & chrominance rez is waste of data. Much more important would be getting more tones for color correction.

Is that right? Well hot diggity. I wonder why everybody is so hellbent on "verticle" resolution when it comes to these cameras? I was under the impression horizontal rez is not all that important based on the way humans view images.

If this is the case, then that's good news for cameras with high horizontal rez that wish to do a film-out or one day be recorded to HD-DVD/BLURAY

- ShannonRawls.com

Human eye's fovea's center, where the sharpest vision is, is a round thing with equal amount of horizontal and vertical cells. BTW, there are only couple of hundreds of them per dimension, so it is quite funny how much resolution we need to reproduce natural view. If we could just nail all audineces eyes on one point of picture all else could be just blurred. But everybody's eyes seem to wonder through the pictures with their own path and pace...

Of course for chroma keying and compositing 4:4:4 is always the best and it gets worse when you go further from that, but with natural image, there should be no way to separate progressive 4:2:2 picture from progressive 4:2:0 picture.

Oh !!!!

Here i completely disagree.

I mean, i can easily "see" the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0
and i can easily "see" the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:1:1

Even watching the footage at a good distance from the monitor, i can actually see that 4:2:2 looks more "solid", but smoother (more natural) at the same time.

If you think that's true, take a look at Adams site and look at the direct color comparison he shows on the site. While 4:4:4 is king, there is a huge difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. The difference is not only noticeable, it's downright ugly!

Just shot some stuff in 4:2:2 and 4:1:1; I think the difference is noticeable enough (and ugly enough!) that it deserves its own thread...

I wasn't talking about 4:1:1.
That is about ugliest chroma resolution for progressive picture.
So are you guys seeing differences with 4:1:1 or 4:2:0?
Or just between 4:4:4 and everything else?

If you are seeing difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 progressive natural images with full framerate playback, I'd guess that you are looking from too short distance, so that you are able to separate single luminance pixels.

Otherwise you guys have just trashed the theory behind component video and our perception has evolved in couple of decades.

I still haven't heard a single argument, why human eye should not notice lower chroma resolution horizontally, but should notice it vertically.

Toke,

4:2:2 is twice the color resolution of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1, twice !

It's not about satuation level, the 4:2:2 color will always appear smoother, richer, more natural than 4:2:0 and 4:1:1.

Yes, even at a good distance from the monitor, you can see the difference.

So you are saying that your eyes resolve chroma as sharply as luminance?
Or that your eyes can see the difference vertically but not horizontally?

Well, maybe this old story about component chroma resolution compression is just a legend. Maybe I'll have to do some tests with my own eyes.
Some of these old "laws of nature", that you learn very early, you just take for granted. Should question everything...

Yes Toke !