|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 26th, 2007, 04:38 PM | #31 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Burbank, CA 91502
Posts: 949
|
Quote:
Jim Martin p.s. Chris, hopefully you won't delete these Crooklyn names but if you have to, I understand |
|
January 26th, 2007, 05:03 PM | #32 |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,055
|
Well I still think for the overall price, ability to shoot 4:2:2, workflow advantage of P2, increased light gain over any other 35mm adapter option on the market and no need to flip images in post or add on TFT/LCD's - the HVX lens & CCD modification would surpass many digital 35mm systems falling only short of RED which is nearly 5 times the price!
|
January 26th, 2007, 06:22 PM | #33 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: leeds uk
Posts: 38
|
I'm with you Dennis, if nothing else it would be nice to get rid of that dam digital focus at least.
|
January 26th, 2007, 07:17 PM | #34 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 681
|
Quote:
__________________
- Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience - www.darkscience.com |
|
January 26th, 2007, 09:31 PM | #35 |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,055
|
I wouldn't say superior resolution. Both cameras use the same bag of tricks to achieve higher "effective" resolutions. Canon goes with horizontal pixel shift to achieve 1440 pixels horizontally but since it's an interlaced sensor offers 1080 pixels natively for vertical resolution. The HVX being a progressive sensor uses pixel shift to get 1440 pixels horizontally and scans 1080p vertically and converts it to 1080i.
A resolution chart in front of both cams may reveal slightly more sharpness with the XLH1 in 1080i modes but for 720p shooters likely no advantage - especially if you have to deinterlace in post or go with the frame mode of the Canon. As for interchangeable lenses, is there still only one HD lens available for the XLH1? Adding P2 cards to the HVX may not make the XLH1 more expensive, but if you want to record 4:2:2 you need to go external with the XLH1 and that's no cheap option either. Let's not forget the advantages of shooting to solid state memory either ie. no mechanical parts, no maintenance, quiet, use in harsh environments, drop it in your fish tank, etc.. Speaking of 4:2:2 it's more than just less jaggies for chroma-keying. DVCPRO HD uses intraframe compression which compared to HDV makes for a lot more ease during the editing and rendering process. It's exactly why programs like Cineform exist - so people can convert their HDV non frame independent compressed footage to something similar to DVCPRO HD (intraframe compression) and be happy editing. I currently own Canon (XL2) so don't get me wrong - I'm not brand dedicated and could care less what brand I own or use. In the end it has to get the job done, be cost effective, offer some useful features... but at $8500 vs $5300 it's a no brainer for me. Let's not even begin to started on other features of the HVX like 4 channel 16 bit uncompressed audio, variable frame rates from 12 to 60 fps, not front end heavy........ . ... |
January 26th, 2007, 10:01 PM | #36 | |||
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hope this helps, |
|||
January 26th, 2007, 10:07 PM | #37 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,055
|
Quote:
BTW Chris, I just love this site and all the work you've done here. I spend more and more time here everyday and soon will get fired from my job because of it. Cheers! |
|
January 26th, 2007, 11:31 PM | #38 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Thanks for your kind remarks, Dennis.
So-called "effective" pixel counts always refer to the actual number of pixels used on the CCD *before* the Pixel Shift process is applied. The differentiation between total pixels vs. effective pixels is due to the fact that there is almost always a certain number of unused pixels along the outer edges of a CCD sensor. The effective count is important because that's what's actually being used. Pixel Shift is never figured into that number though. For example, the specs for the original Canon XL1 state that it had 270,000 total pixels on each CCD, of which 250,000 were effective. Do the math and you'll find that the effective count was less than the native resolution for standard definition DV (345,600 pixels). A combination of horizontal and vertical Pixel Shift processes boosted the resolution of these less-than-SD chips up to 720 x 480 (and more importantly, nobody complained about it back then). Likewise, each CCD on the Canon XL H1 has a total 1.67 megapixels, of which 1.56 megapixels are effective. They're "native" 1440 x 1080, before Pixel Shift is applied. Hope this helps, |
January 27th, 2007, 01:08 AM | #39 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 681
|
Quote:
__________________
- Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience - www.darkscience.com |
|
January 27th, 2007, 01:33 AM | #40 | |||||
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 681
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, I'm going to get a huge dose of HDV stupidity this weekend and for about 10 days of editing after that. Hopefully it will be the last time... And to make matters worse, it's coming as 720p30 from a JVC JY-HD10U camcorder... w/Letus35 adpert and Nikkor lenses. Should be interesting... I get to cut that with stuff I shoot on the HVX.. All the HVX work is mostly going to be 720p60 and/or greenscreen. At least the project involves hot chicks with guns, so I do at least have that to look forward to. Quote:
__________________
- Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience - www.darkscience.com |
|||||
January 27th, 2007, 01:39 AM | #41 | |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
|
|
January 27th, 2007, 01:50 AM | #42 | |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Quote:
|
|
January 27th, 2007, 08:49 AM | #43 |
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,055
|
If appears I was quite incorrect to state the XLH1 offers 1440 horizontal pixels. It is in fact 1920x1080 (screen resolution) while the block would in fact appear to be 1440x1080. That is quite a bit more horizontal than the HVX in fact.
Vertically however, 1080i and 720p perceptually are suppose to be the same but given Panasonic says their HVX sensor is 1080p (even though you can't get that out of the camera) I wonder how the HVX 1080i stands up to the XLH1 1080i mode - anyone care to comment? Anyway I think the point being made was why go through the trouble of building a direct add-on 35mm adapter to a modified HXV200 when you can use the XLH1 or HD100 to do the same thing. My answer to that again is given the low cost of the HVX with all the functionality it packs it becomes very clear why - well at least to me. I'd be shooting 35mm, DVCPRO HD on solid state memory with a few extra in camera features like gamma, etc.. all for less than $6k. Think of it as RED's little brother. Jeff - by the way that's great you're getting into bed with RED. It's clearly the next step once you factor in the price of a good HD camera and mini35 adapter. I haven't decided on a path for myself yet. I'm working with an XL2 and mini35 and recently added a HVX to the collection. We'll see what's next. |
January 27th, 2007, 08:43 PM | #44 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 681
|
Quote:
__________________
- Jeff Kilgroe - Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience - www.darkscience.com |
|
January 27th, 2007, 09:05 PM | #45 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
I saw a great boxing video a while back on ESPN2 that used 24p and other cinematic tricks, like wild color correction and overcranking. Rather than giving the feel of a live fight, these guys looked like gladiators.
24p definitely has its uses in the real world - specifically to help make it seem beyond reaity.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|