Sony PMW-EX1 vs Panasonic HVX200 shootout footage online

Christopher Barry · January 6th, 2008, 06:42 AM

The EX1 has Cine 1, 2, 3 and 4, and we do not know what Matt used, nor do we know what HVX settings were used?

Another important setting to test is Matrix. We don't know if Matt used Standard, High SAT, FL Light and Cinema?

There is so much more to be explored and combinations to be mixed. Matt Jeppsen will soon post some DSC Lab charts exploring the Cine Gamma Curves and different Matrix settings.

Steven Thomas · January 6th, 2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

I don't think that's just because of the white balancing.

The Sony definitely wins, but the HVX looks damn good.

Maybe so, but when someone puts up examples where whites are blue, this is white balancing.

I believe i've shown this before. It's not a blown up frame, but a cropped section of a 1080P
comparison between the EX1 and HVX200.

Imagine seeing this on a big screen.

http://members.cox.net/vx2000/HVX200_EX1.bmp

Matt Devino · January 6th, 2008, 06:14 PM

Sorry about the cross post, it won't happen again. Is there a way to post in one forum and link to two forums? i.e. here it makes sense that people who frequent the Sony forum and the Panasonic forum would want to see this, but I wasn't sure how to keep it in the same thread, is that possible? Thanks.

Also as far as gammas go I think the EX1 was on Cine 1, and the HVX was cine-d. I operated the EX1 for the most part, and it was my first time using it, while the owner of the HVX operated that camera, so I'm not 100% positive of his settings but I think that was it.

Christopher Barry · January 7th, 2008, 07:29 AM

Matt, thanks for confirming (you think) Cine 1.

Anyone have a view why the sky is almost solarised looking at 20 seconds on this clip: EX1vsHVX_720pMotionBig.mov ?

The sky anomaly does not appear present in the 1080 clips.

It seems like a Knee effect, say on the highest Knee setting, coupled with 8 bit encoding. I read in the manual that some Cine Gamma Curves do not have Knee enabled (not sure if this is the case with Cine 1, 2, 3 and/or 4), however, the nature of some of these Cine Gamma Curves are like a Knee filter, compressing the Dynamic Range of certain parts of the curve.

Peter Moretti · January 9th, 2008, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

Maybe so, but when someone puts up examples where whites are blue, this is white balancing.

I believe i've shown this before. It's not a blown up frame, but a cropped section of a 1080P
comparison between the EX1 and HVX200.

Imagine seeing this on a big screen.

http://members.cox.net/vx2000/HVX200_EX1.bmp

Come on, a cropped section IS a blown up frame. That little portion of the frame filling the big screen would repesent a ridiculous blow up.

Yes the EX1 looks better. Yes of course there was a white balancing problem. But I still leave impressed with the HVX, esp. considering its age. And I think it has very nice color. This has always been the rep of the HVX, good color out of the box. That's why so many XH-A1 users use some type of "panalook" preset to mimick the DVX/HVX color rendition.

Steven Thomas · January 9th, 2008, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

Come on, a cropped section IS a blown up frame.

You're joking, right?

A cropped section out of a frame is NOT blown up unless one increases the size. Those SECTIONS were CUT from each 1920x1080 frame. They are the original size. The size was never increased.

Francesco Dal Bosco · January 9th, 2008, 08:05 AM

Steven,
have you shot the comparison clips with your own cameras?
The HVX example looks a little too bad in my opinion. I'm not a sharpness fanatic but I think I can have much more detailed pictures from my HVX, expecially in 1080 mode.

Steven Thomas · January 9th, 2008, 09:06 AM

No, this was from the EX1, G1, Z1, HVX200 framegrab comparison review posted a while back. BTW, both of those images were from the 1080 30P comparison.

Hey, I'm not saying the HVX can not produce pretty footage. We all know it can. Look at all the decent stuff that has came off of this camera over the last two years.
A couple years ago, over one month, we did a lot of tests comparisons between the JVC HD100 and the HVX200. Even though the HD100 had shortcomings such as GOP and CA, we liked the HD100 better.

Dom Stevenson · January 9th, 2008, 11:50 AM

This is the kind of thread that was bound to get the HVX crowd on the back foot. I find it quite gratifying because over on the final cut pro forums i'm forever being told how HDV is rubbish and how i should have gone the DVCPRO HD route instead (I'm an XHA1 owner). One of the best things about DVinfo is most people are open minded about different cameras/codecs, and recognise the strengths as well as the weaknesses of HDV.

The Panasonic is a fantastic camcorder, and still does things that the Sony won't do, and i nearly bought one, but as i said earlier on this thread, if i was buying now i'd get the sony, assuming that the camera improves the motion issues that lets down the current crop of HDV cameras for certain kinds of work.
Looking at the shots of the guy on the skateboard there doesn't seem to be much difference, and i agree the HVX stands up well.

Peter Moretti · January 11th, 2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

You're joking, right?

A cropped section out of a frame is NOT blown up unless one increases the size. Those SECTIONS were CUT from each 1920x1080 frame. They are the original size. The size was never increased.

I don't want to concentrate on something that really isn't important. But they can't be original size. Each crop is 9.5 inches by 3.5 inches on my lowly 19" screen.

Steven Thomas · January 11th, 2008, 10:22 PM

LOL...
Each image is a cropped image approx. 660x240 out of the 1920x1080 originals.
What is your screen resolution 800x600? ;)

The combined example is approx. 660x480.
Pull it into any editor or paint program and look.

January 6th, 2008, 06:14 PM	#18
Matt Devino New Boot Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Burbank, CA Posts: 12	Sorry about the cross post Sorry about the cross post, it won't happen again. Is there a way to post in one forum and link to two forums? i.e. here it makes sense that people who frequent the Sony forum and the Panasonic forum would want to see this, but I wasn't sure how to keep it in the same thread, is that possible? Thanks. Also as far as gammas go I think the EX1 was on Cine 1, and the HVX was cine-d. I operated the EX1 for the most part, and it was my first time using it, while the owner of the HVX operated that camera, so I'm not 100% positive of his settings but I think that was it.

January 6th, 2008, 06:42 AM	#16
Christopher Barry Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 107	The EX1 has Cine 1, 2, 3 and 4, and we do not know what Matt used, nor do we know what HVX settings were used? Another important setting to test is Matrix. We don't know if Matt used Standard, High SAT, FL Light and Cinema? There is so much more to be explored and combinations to be mixed. Matt Jeppsen will soon post some DSC Lab charts exploring the Cine Gamma Curves and different Matrix settings.

January 7th, 2008, 07:29 AM	#19
Christopher Barry Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 107	Matt, thanks for confirming (you think) Cine 1. Anyone have a view why the sky is almost solarised looking at 20 seconds on this clip: EX1vsHVX_720pMotionBig.mov ? The sky anomaly does not appear present in the 1080 clips. It seems like a Knee effect, say on the highest Knee setting, coupled with 8 bit encoding. I read in the manual that some Cine Gamma Curves do not have Knee enabled (not sure if this is the case with Cine 1, 2, 3 and/or 4), however, the nature of some of these Cine Gamma Curves are like a Knee filter, compressing the Dynamic Range of certain parts of the curve.

January 9th, 2008, 08:05 AM	#22
Francesco Dal Bosco Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Italy Posts: 31	Steven, have you shot the comparison clips with your own cameras? The HVX example looks a little too bad in my opinion. I'm not a sharpness fanatic but I think I can have much more detailed pictures from my HVX, expecially in 1080 mode.

January 9th, 2008, 09:06 AM	#23
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	No, this was from the EX1, G1, Z1, HVX200 framegrab comparison review posted a while back. BTW, both of those images were from the 1080 30P comparison. Hey, I'm not saying the HVX can not produce pretty footage. We all know it can. Look at all the decent stuff that has came off of this camera over the last two years. A couple years ago, over one month, we did a lot of tests comparisons between the JVC HD100 and the HVX200. Even though the HD100 had shortcomings such as GOP and CA, we liked the HD100 better.

January 9th, 2008, 11:50 AM	#24
Dom Stevenson Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London UK Posts: 430	This is the kind of thread that was bound to get the HVX crowd on the back foot. I find it quite gratifying because over on the final cut pro forums i'm forever being told how HDV is rubbish and how i should have gone the DVCPRO HD route instead (I'm an XHA1 owner). One of the best things about DVinfo is most people are open minded about different cameras/codecs, and recognise the strengths as well as the weaknesses of HDV. The Panasonic is a fantastic camcorder, and still does things that the Sony won't do, and i nearly bought one, but as i said earlier on this thread, if i was buying now i'd get the sony, assuming that the camera improves the motion issues that lets down the current crop of HDV cameras for certain kinds of work. Looking at the shots of the guy on the skateboard there doesn't seem to be much difference, and i agree the HVX stands up well.

January 11th, 2008, 10:22 PM	#26
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	LOL... Each image is a cropped image approx. 660x240 out of the 1920x1080 originals. What is your screen resolution 800x600? ;) The combined example is approx. 660x480. Pull it into any editor or paint program and look.