HVX200 vs XL-H1 Highlight Blowout Analysis at DVinfo.net

Steev Dinkins · January 29th, 2006, 01:38 AM

I have been on the fence between the XL-H1 and HVX200, so I decided to revisit my highlight blow out tests. I am still amazed that the HVX200 with DVCPRO HD has highlight detail beneath apparently blown out highlights, while the XL-H1 just simply does not. Once that blow out is on HDV, it appears to be really in there.

Below are comparisons between HVX200 and XL-H1 source footage brightness reduction using FCP color correction (whites).

HVX200 Examples
Example 1 - Before and After
Example 2 - Before and After
Example 3 (My favorite) - Before and After

XL-H1 Examples
Example 1 - Before and After
Example 2 - Before and After
Example 3 - Before and After

I think I'm back on the HVX200 train. :P

-steev

Steev Dinkins · January 29th, 2006, 03:51 AM

I want to share another test here.

I did another test which isn't perfect but still proved something important. I took a frame from raw HVX200 footage, recompressed it both to DVCPRO HD and to HDV. Then I brought those clips back into FCP to see how the CC brightness tweaking would behave. My theory was that the HVX footage encoded to Mpeg2 will lose the ability to handle highlights the way DVCPRO HD does.

And this test is showing exactly that.

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx20...OHD_vs_HDV.mov

Use your left and right arrow keys to toggle back and forth to analyze the differences - there are many.

Steve Connor · January 29th, 2006, 05:36 AM

None of this is surprising, DVCPro HD is a more forgiving codec than HDV. If you've got and H1 the very simple answer is to make sure you expose correctly!

Randy Donato · January 29th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Or capture the HDV to an intermediate like CFHD or Canopus HQ(both of which are better than DVC-Pro HD IMHO) and get better or equal lattitude.

Graeme Nattress · January 29th, 2006, 07:49 AM

Steve, could you post before/after with the FCP waveform monitor as well, so we can see what's happening with regards to the highlights?

Graeme

Steev Dinkins · January 29th, 2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Donato

Or capture the HDV to an intermediate like CFHD or Canopus HQ(both of which are better than DVC-Pro HD IMHO) and get better or equal lattitude.

However, what I'm seeing is once you've committed to Mpeg2 (HDV) there's no getting it back, regardless of intermediate post codec. I tried the test from HDV to Uncompressed as well. The codec latitude is not there. Admittedly, this is very subtle stuff, and I'm being contested on DVXuser that it's a insignificant moot point. :) Would it prevent my from buying one over the other based on this alone? No, but it adds to the equation.

Steev Dinkins · January 29th, 2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Steve, could you post before/after with the FCP waveform monitor as well, so we can see what's happening with regards to the highlights?

Graeme

Graeme, here's another .mov with 4 .jpgs in it with Waveform and Color Correction filter included. 2 with before/after using Mpeg2, 2 with before/after using DVCPRO HD.

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx20...OHD_vs_HDV.mov

Graeme Nattress · January 29th, 2006, 11:35 AM

Thanks Steev. The movie is great, but not as elucidating as I'd thought it would be.

Graeme

Steev Dinkins · January 29th, 2006, 11:45 AM

Well folks, I hate to waste everyone's time with Codec latitude speculation, but I believe true scientists will admit when their findings swing away.

I tried bringing an image from a 12MP in RAW format, downres'd in FCP then exported both to HDV and DVCPRO HD. Then I applied the same CC test, and I don't see a bit of difference!! Wow. Okay, so well, hmm, I don't know!

However, here's the good news. My decision has been baked, formalized, and completed. Because.... I called BHphoto to cancel my preorder from Oct 22nd, and they said the system shows that 1 out of 9 HVX200s they just received is coming my way!

WOOOOOO F**N HOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Two 8GB Package. If this aint true, I'm gonna go so postal.

Michael Pappas · January 29th, 2006, 01:53 PM

Very good testing.....

Barlow Elton · January 29th, 2006, 02:34 PM

Good stuff, Steve. When you get your HVX please give us some appetizers to nibble on. I'd love to see more real-world HVX stuff.

Steven Thomas · January 29th, 2006, 04:24 PM

Nice stuff Steev.

I hope you get your camera soon.

I further into the preorder list.
I'm probably lucky if I see it within a month.

David Newman · January 29th, 2006, 06:18 PM

Note: the above analysis has nothing to do with the codec, but how the NLE you used handles super-whites in YUV space. It seems that the NLE used is broken for HDV handling as it is clipping YUV to 235. All cameras (HDV included) will encode luma levels above 235, yet some poorer quality NLEs will use cgRGB processing which will clip Y levels to the 235. On the PC only Vegas defaults to full range YUV processing (by using vsRGB), Premiere Pro with Aspect HD also handles this correctly (although PPro alone clips the YUV space.) Which NLE was used?

Pete Bauer · January 29th, 2006, 06:24 PM

Looks from the downloads and Steev's profile like he is using FCP.

Ash Greyson · January 29th, 2006, 06:35 PM

As I said on DVXuser, this has nothing to do with CODEC, the XLH was improperly setup. The knee was not set to low (you can tell by looking), the footage was overexposed anyway and the master pedestal and setup level were not adjusted at all...

ash =o)

January 29th, 2006, 01:38 AM	#1
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	HVX200 vs XL-H1 Highlight Blowout Analysis I have been on the fence between the XL-H1 and HVX200, so I decided to revisit my highlight blow out tests. I am still amazed that the HVX200 with DVCPRO HD has highlight detail beneath apparently blown out highlights, while the XL-H1 just simply does not. Once that blow out is on HDV, it appears to be really in there. Below are comparisons between HVX200 and XL-H1 source footage brightness reduction using FCP color correction (whites). HVX200 Examples Example 1 - Before and After Example 2 - Before and After Example 3 (My favorite) - Before and After XL-H1 Examples Example 1 - Before and After Example 2 - Before and After Example 3 - Before and After I think I'm back on the HVX200 train. :P -steev __________________ www.holyzoo.com

January 29th, 2006, 03:51 AM	#2
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	I want to share another test here. I did another test which isn't perfect but still proved something important. I took a frame from raw HVX200 footage, recompressed it both to DVCPRO HD and to HDV. Then I brought those clips back into FCP to see how the CC brightness tweaking would behave. My theory was that the HVX footage encoded to Mpeg2 will lose the ability to handle highlights the way DVCPRO HD does. And this test is showing exactly that. http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx20...OHD_vs_HDV.mov Use your left and right arrow keys to toggle back and forth to analyze the differences - there are many. __________________ www.holyzoo.com

January 29th, 2006, 07:49 AM	#5
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Steve, could you post before/after with the FCP waveform monitor as well, so we can see what's happening with regards to the highlights? Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

January 29th, 2006, 11:35 AM	#8
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Thanks Steev. The movie is great, but not as elucidating as I'd thought it would be. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

January 29th, 2006, 11:45 AM	#9
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Well folks, I hate to waste everyone's time with Codec latitude speculation, but I believe true scientists will admit when their findings swing away. I tried bringing an image from a 12MP in RAW format, downres'd in FCP then exported both to HDV and DVCPRO HD. Then I applied the same CC test, and I don't see a bit of difference!! Wow. Okay, so well, hmm, I don't know! However, here's the good news. My decision has been baked, formalized, and completed. Because.... I called BHphoto to cancel my preorder from Oct 22nd, and they said the system shows that 1 out of 9 HVX200s they just received is coming my way! WOOOOOO F*N HOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Two 8GB Package. If this aint true, I'm gonna go so postal. __________________ www.holyzoo.com Last edited by Steev Dinkins; January 29th, 2006 at 03:33 PM.*

January 29th, 2006, 05:36 AM	#3
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	None of this is surprising, DVCPro HD is a more forgiving codec than HDV. If you've got and H1 the very simple answer is to make sure you expose correctly!

January 29th, 2006, 07:40 AM	#4
Randy Donato Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 138	Or capture the HDV to an intermediate like CFHD or Canopus HQ(both of which are better than DVC-Pro HD IMHO) and get better or equal lattitude.

January 29th, 2006, 01:53 PM	#10
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	Very good testing.....

January 29th, 2006, 02:34 PM	#11
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	Good stuff, Steve. When you get your HVX please give us some appetizers to nibble on. I'd love to see more real-world HVX stuff.

January 29th, 2006, 04:24 PM	#12
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Nice stuff Steev. I hope you get your camera soon. I further into the preorder list. I'm probably lucky if I see it within a month.

January 29th, 2006, 06:18 PM	#13
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Note: the above analysis has nothing to do with the codec, but how the NLE you used handles super-whites in YUV space. It seems that the NLE used is broken for HDV handling as it is clipping YUV to 235. All cameras (HDV included) will encode luma levels above 235, yet some poorer quality NLEs will use cgRGB processing which will clip Y levels to the 235. On the PC only Vegas defaults to full range YUV processing (by using vsRGB), Premiere Pro with Aspect HD also handles this correctly (although PPro alone clips the YUV space.) Which NLE was used? __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

January 29th, 2006, 06:24 PM	#14
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Looks from the downloads and Steev's profile like he is using FCP. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

January 29th, 2006, 06:35 PM	#15
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	As I said on DVXuser, this has nothing to do with CODEC, the XLH was improperly setup. The knee was not set to low (you can tell by looking), the footage was overexposed anyway and the master pedestal and setup level were not adjusted at all... ash =o)