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.

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

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 !

Time to change the filter...
 

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/l...ges/120958.jpg

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,

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.

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.

That's frickin' hilarious!

Scott, greetings Brother. I'm an RIT grad too. PPHL (photoIllustration) Class of ' 85, when did you graduate?

Who said that, Les Stoebel, or Terry Bolman?

Dont get me wrong, I would generally always choose the larger chip camera, just wanted to point out that resolution-wise, the 1/3" CCD stuff can come close.

I would not buy a 2/3" CCD camera right now, I rent them as needed. I suspect you will start seeing larger CCDs in the next couple years in the $50K and under range.



ash =o)

Ash, yes, I think most folks would go with the larger cam whenever possible, but it is kind of amazing that the H1 comes so close.

I need something for the lower end jobs. Those clients can't afford to rent a larger camera, so I have to own something that will be at least adequate. All the present prosumer HD/HDV cams have one, or more flaws that make them, in my mind, a bad choice. I can't afford a larger camera at the moment, plus I think the next iteration of the Varicam will be out soon and there are some other cameras that look promising.

So in the mean time, I'm stuck.

Rochester Humor
 

Hey Mark

You've got to have a sense of humor to survive those Rochester winters. The city provided everyone who grew up there w/a pair of 30Y glasses so we wouldn't forget what the sun looked like. Of course up there we revolved around a big yellow box!

I loved Rochester. I really liked driving around some of outlying areas and shooting 8x10 landscapes on color neg. The good ole days. I moved from Rochester to Vermont to be a newspaper photog for ten years, I can deal with winter. I just get suicidal. No worries.

Brian, are you an alum too, or a resident of that fair city?

I'm still a Kodak Man.

I didn't go to RIT- but my brother did. Now he's an engineer for Toyota. I went the art school flunky route and decided I needed to learn a real skill and took up photo on my own. Now I'm trying to get up to speed on audio/video. Its a pretty steep curve for someone who isn't predisposed to the math side of the equation. I think I'm better at the storytelling aspect, but I figure if you don't know how to produce content, you'll just be a bystander and have no say at all.

Rochester was a great place to grow up though. Still go back to see the family every so often. I've lived in Brooklyn for 10+years now.

Well neighbor, I've been here in Queens just a little over two years.

I sucked at math, still do and there's just so much BS to wade through with video. Ugh.

Howdy Neighbor
 

Ha! Well, if you ever want to meet up for drinks at the Beer Garden, let me know.

BS

I have the feeling this one is not exposed well. There is no detail in the blacks (can not even see the buttons on his shirt). Maybe you just put the pedestal too low ?

Cees,

If you can't see the shirt buttons (that is a black-on-black area) then your monitor definitely needs calibrating. There isn't a ton of detail in that area since the lighting was concentrated for skin tones and showing the lenses on the table, the buttons are very noticeable.

Without knowing what kind of monitor you're using (CRT, LCD etc) pr which system PC or Mac, I can't give you any guidelines for proper balancing, but I'm sure one of the forum members can give you a quick guide for proper color/contrast balancing on any setup.

A beer garden? A garden full of beer? Sounds good. I'll send you an email. Busy this upcoming weekend, but I'll be in touch.

I started over at RIT in 76 after an abortive first year as an art student in St. Louis, took a year "off" '78-79 to finish my Gen'l Studies requirements after my AA (and do pottery...I needed a break from the intellectual remove of photography after doing it non-stop for 8 years), then finished up in '81.

Neither of the above, though I did have Les for M&P. It was one of my 2nd year teachers (whose name I've spaced out at the moment). I came through PPHL (that's what the degree is in) but majored in film and tripled up on Multi-Image (remember 16-projector slide shows?... shudder....). I'm also unusual in that I was able to arrange getting Brad Hindson as my primary faculty guy for Photo Ill, even though he was technically assigned to the Photo-Fine Art program (with Bea Nettles). Brad was the only one there who really specialized in visual-diary-with-Leica shooting (think: Horace Bristol, Mary Ellen Mark, Erwitt, Uzzle, Nick Nixon).

As for the Rochester suicidal winters....that's what Lexapro is for! It's also for those of us who sit in a dark edit suite day after day (and that's coming from personal experience!)

But I'm leading us off-topic... sorry 'bout that, folks!!!

Robert,

I wonder what your workflow problem with the H1 is? Do you normally edit in a 720 60p timeline with 24p over 60 frames, or do you usually work in a 720 24 timeline? Have you tried taking raw .m2t's and converting through MPEG Streamclip to DVCPro HD? They can look good at both 1080 24/60i DV100 or even better as 720 24/60p.

It's easy to downres Canon 24F to 720 24 and with a Natress plug-in (Standards Converter/Map Frames) it's also pretty easy to convert 1080i to 60p. If you have a fast G5 the conversions can be very fast.

You could always get a little mini-Teranex for instant standards conversion via SDI but the MPEG Streamclip program produces amazing results for free.

Barlow,

What it amounts to is that trying to merge H1 footage with HVX means more work, no matter how you look at it. So, rather than make more work for myself on this big project I'm just going to stick with what I started with - the HVX. Trust me, I'm not lamenting not getting the H1; it was supposed to be a stop-gap for certain types of work but I'm much better off (and more comfortable) staying with true 24p and 4:2:2.

I've already put my pre-order in for the HPC2000, so between that and the HVX I'll be 100% covered for everything I shoot - with exception to those jobs that are best suited for film.

The 2 Pannys along with the new Mac Pro is just ordered (KONA drivers to be available late this month) I'll be in HD heaven - for a while at least. (^_^)

Understandable. Good for you and good luck with your project. :)

Color Update
 

I just realized today that my previous landscape tests were bungled - I completely forgot to adjust certain settings which would have drastically altered my results - and even made the studio work even better. Crap! Oh well, this entire process has been one massive learning curve.

So, along with the 2 new tests I mentioned in the newer thread, I'll also be posting results from this new round of landscape tests with updated camera settings.

Weather permitting I'll be shooting first light tomorrow and posting later the same day or Friday.

Wow! I gotta ask -- what settings are you talking about? I was perhaps going to buy the HVX200 Thursday, but maybe I should wait to hear what you have to say!

Is there a website devoted to the California shootout/comparison?

Well, I can honestly say that you SHOULD get an HVX, period. Unless you need the more cumbersome and tape-based HDV workflow then the "other" HD cams will do just fine. :-D

But seriously, I went over my result notes and realized that I completely forgot to adjust some pretty important settings such as KNEE, PEDESTAL, CHROMA and RGB balance.

My initial testing plan did cover those setting adjustments however, I became distracted by some strange ND and CIR POL results I was getting and completely glossed over those extra settings. Can you say, "brain fart"? I need an assistant! (laughs)

Adam Wilt's write-up is on DV.com. Register for free to read the article.

California shootout: http://www.dv.com/features/features_...leId=177103305

It's good to hear that! I have been planning a lot of hardware around this camera, and I didn't want to have to re-evaluate everything, I was actually thinking about the H1 beast.

-and yes assistants are great-

Well that's good to know... As I started reading through this thread, I was trying to figure out just what you were going on about. :-) I've used the XLH1 on a few occasions and I would never choose it over the HVX for anything... Not even for its interchangeable lenses. While this can be an advantage along with its added resolution (that's a whole other debate), if I need the lens options for a project, I'll go rent a camera and other gear that I need (Varicam / CineAlta). The HVX with its frame rates, 4:2:2 and true progressive CCDs has so many advantages that my not immediately present themselves. And as you pointed out -- the color reproduction on this camera - wow. Still blows me away that I can get this level of color out of a handheld < $10K camera.

As for me, it's starting to look like my next camera purchase will be either the new Silicon Image camera or RED. And between one of those and the HVX, I should be set.

I can say the same : whithout mentioning all the settings you used on the HVX when you shot landscape scenery forum members can not give you a quick guide for proper handeling the HVX.

edit : I just saw your last threads where you admitted it was just poor handeling.

Wow, the power of words. If any of you are in doubt about the HVX....

http://www.motionzonehd.com/files/fo...d/VIDEO_TS.zip

This is a demo that I did for my site and Panasonic is also using it.
Regional sales reps have a disc that contains the CONTENTS folder that they can copy to a P2 card. It's the same demo as the DVD. The VIDEO_TS folder can be un-zipped and burned to a DVD. It is SD but gives a good indication of what you might expect shooting HD then producing SD DVD. The footage is a mix of 720 24p, 720 30p and 1080 24p.

I'm keen to see your results Robert. I've just bought a HVX knowing (or believing I knew) full well that it can't handle background detail like the other cams. I've seen a lot of footage from the HVX, and everything pointed to the same thing. Very different to what I was seeing from the H1 (and HD100). And I'm not talking about differences due to edge enhancement, or upped detail levels.

Regardless, I bought the HVX (for its many other benefits). Keep us posted.

Godzilla Sorry
 

Did Godzilla ever apologize to the citizens of Tokyo for trashing their city? Nope, but I owe my forum members an apology!

As most of you know, I've been one of the most vocal pro-HVX voices on this forum and many of you have emailed over the months saying that the decision to purchase one was based partly on reviews and feedback that I've supplied. That's heavy. So when I started this thread saying the the HVX wouldn't work for me and, showing off some weaknesses many had a mini-heart attack.

Unfortunately it wasn't until a few days after creating this post that I realized my testing had been bungled by my own distractions, and have since recanted most of the worrysome commentary. No doubt this left many scratching their heads - and rightly so!

So I humbly apologize for making such a goof and needlessly stirring the pot with incorrect/incomplete data.

To make up for the head-spinning I'm offering to the first 10 people who say, "I want one" a free copy of my "Photos in a Flash" DVD which will be out in October. And guess what: The entire project is being shot on the HVX! So there.

So what is Photos in a Flash and why should you care? Check this out: http://www.photosinaflash.com

I'm putting together the revised color tests today and will be posting it - somewhere, not sure where yet.

I want one
 

Thanks Robert!

And really, I've enjoyed your thread from day one. I think that guys like you help push the manufacturers to make better products. I remember speaking with you while we were waiting for the HVX to be released and appreciated your input. I also would have read every thread you posted in the H1 forum, as it would have been interesting to see what your opinions were after having worked with both the HVX200 and H1.

For me - true 24p, 4:2:2 color, P2 and the entire workflow from shooting to editing make the HVX the camera for me (for now).

And really, thanks for apologizing, but I don't think you need to at all.

Cool
 

I WANT ONE

but hey if Europe is not counted into that offer I understand :)
thanks

I want one! :)