DV camera discussion

[steve hyde]

Steve--

You get full HD out of the HD SDI--Not HDV or an HDV signal.

So, it really is a great option. If you can afford it.

Good Luck

I see the HD 250 is HD (1080) and the HD 100 is HDV.

Steve

[ccortez]

I have yet to see an "HD" cam under $50,000 that was worth its weight in crap. They have very low dynamic range, LOTS of compression which makes the images fall apart during editing etc. In my observation, a good SD camera is WAY better, and often clearer than a cheap HD camera.

I'm certainly no expert, but this is the opposite of my opinion. I have a Sony TRV-900 (SD) and the Sony Z1 (HDV) and think the images from the Z1 are worlds apart from those of the TRV-900. Even the SD looks better on the Z1, probably due to the chip size (?) and optics.

EDIT: FWIW, I misunderstood the claims being made by the original author, so feel free to ignore the above.

[wado1942]

I haven't seen the h.264 codec yet but I was really excited to learn about it. I was just hoping they'd use it to get better quality rather than squashing the signal even more. As for other unanswered questions, I didn't realize anybody asked me anything.

As for the wierd motion, I mean a person moves very slightly but part of their skin stays in the same place instead of moving with them. Things like that. Things just don't move right using MPEG-2 compression or rather any kind of temporally compressed video. When I first started working on video, I had the ability to capture my analogue video in a multitude of manners one of which was MPEG-2 at 15Mbps. I could also capture in a much better version of MJPEG at 28Mbps. But in all my experiments, I consistantly got the best quality capturing uncompressed 352x480 4:2:2. I guess artifacts just bother me more than anybody else or something. Though I must admit, my best media was S-VHS which only resolves 400 lines anyway. Never-the-less, I'd sometimes capture MPEG-2 for offline edits and the image always looked like crap on output. When I captured 352 lines uncompressed, I'd have to edit in tiny sections because I only had 7GB of free storage (this was in '98 ) but the output, even compressed to DVD looked better than a full res MPEG-2 origin.

I've seen footage off of the Genesis. While it's MUCH better than the high end HD cams, it's still not 35mm film. I think what I like most about it is the 3 layered CCD. That camera still has problems though. I think its biggest shortcomming is the lack of a mechanical shutter but being able to shoot a theoretical 360 degree angle has its own sort of coolness too.

[mattias]

I didn't realize anybody asked me anything.

sorry, that's not what i meant. i just think it's more fun if everyone participating in a discussion considers every question asked to be for them to answer. the more views the better.

As for the wierd motion, I mean a person moves very slightly but part of their skin stays in the same place instead of moving with them.

ok, that's what i thought. i know exactly what you mean but frankly i haven't seen it in hdv. only the crawling/flickering blacks and the occasional appearance of dct noise.

the output, even compressed to DVD looked better than a full res MPEG-2 origin.

then surely it's a codec problem, since dvd's are also mpeg-2 compressed? standard definition mpeg-2 at 15mbits should look almost perfect. maybe it was i-frame only, which is basically the same thing as mjpeg? i know that was used a lot in broadcast systems about ten years ago. or am i misunderstanding something?

/matt

[Scotness]

any feedback on that imx clip btw? you obviously can't tell the "quality" from a compressed version, but i was very pleased with how nice the colors were and how much latitude i got, compared to most video cameras except maybe the highest end digibetas. and this is from a $20,000 camera.

/matt

Hi Matt - it looks like a fun film. Technically the images looked pretty good to me - although I do think the colours and lattitude still look a bit limited - you no doubt got the most out of it that the camera could give - but it does seem a little down on what it would be like on colour neg, but that of course is no surprise to any of us! I think the outdoor stuff looked the nicest, the lower light stuff seemed to struggle a bit - perhaps that's my monitor/viewing conditions.

I really liked the depth of field - you got some nice shallow DOF on some closer wide shots - like the school hallway at aroud 1:00. Did you use a mini35 DOF adaptor or was it all within the cameras capabilities?

Well done


Scot

[MovieStuff]

IThough I must admit, my best media was S-VHS which only resolves 400 lines anyway.

It's funny that you mention that because one of my favorite funky formats from the past was Hi-8 (also about 400 lines), but not just with any camera. A client of mine had one of the big Hitachi Hi-8 broadcast cameras and it produced a picture that was realllllly pretty. Granted it wasn't tack sharp like Betacam but the Hitachi Hi-8 produced a nice, smooth picture that had great color and tonal qualities. The tapes would self-destruct almost immediately, of course, but if you could get them into your edit system before they fell apart, you were okay.

Ahhhh, analog......


Roger

[Patrick]

I was under the impression that the Panasonic Genesis (which has been used in a few big name movies) was a HD camera. So this thing really is a DSLR? Just shows how ignorant I am of such technologies...

[Nigel]

No, the Genesis is not a DSLR. Nor does it have true TTL viewing.

I had the chance to toy around with a Genesis back in August at Panavision and they do not use a mirror like Arri and Dalsa.

It does have the ability to go out as a pure uncompressed signal but they told me that no one has ever shot on it that way due to the lack of storage and the current storage may or may not be fast enough.

Good Luck

[flatwood]

....my favorite funky formats from the past was Hi-8 (also about 400 lines), but not just with any camera. A client of mine had one of the big Hitachi Hi-8 broadcast cameras....

You could get a Hi-8 back for the Sony beta SP cameras too like the DXC 3,4,5 series. Like with the Hitachi you could get real good results; still could I bet, and for cheap. All these cameras came with great looking lenses, full manual control. Craig Brewer shot Poor and Hungry with a Sony Hi-8 and turned it B&W and cut it in Premiere 4.2 using a DC30.

..the camera I am considering is actually the JVC HD 100 because a used one can be had for around 3500 - 4500. USD...

You might be able to get a new one for that??? Anyway, I'm really scared of used video cameras unless you have confidence in the source. I do like what Ive seen about this camera but I'm continning to lean to SD shooting combined with film. I'm shopping for a 42" plasma monitor right now so I might change my mind, but so far.......

Now, that imx system looks very cool but how do I justify the cost of owning it??? Rent it out?? I'm in the middle of a cotton field. Next best bet would have to be the Canon. I hear the lens is very good, much better than the JVC in the detail. Video has always been a close up medium while film wins hands down on long range detail.

[Nigel]

Flatwood--

Nothing wrong with cotton fields. One of the times I wish I had a camera was sitting on the hood of the car surrounded by cotton with some Georgia Moon and some great friends. It just wouldn't look right on DV.

Good Luck
PS--Although you could get some great footage from a crop duster.

[wado1942]

The Genesis shouldn't even be compared to HD cameras because it's an entirely different format and is completely incompatable with any current HD systems. Ah, YET ANOTHER digital format. The Genesis scans at 4096 lines 101-bit log (I think) rather than 1920 linear so it's compatable with the current FILM post production facilities rather than HD video. It's also light years better than any HD cam I've seen.

[steve hyde]

...Flatwood, I think you are right. I talked to the seller today (a reputable west coast camera distributor for more than 30 years) and I think I could get the camera for closer to 3K. We also talked about the A-minima (my first choice) but that is a 30K proposition and won't happen any time soon.

Steve

[flatwood]

.....of the times I wish I had a camera was sitting on the hood of the car surrounded by cotton with some Georgia Moon...

Yes, the cotton fields before they're picked in the fall are beautiful, like a field of white snow. If you ever come back to Georgia for a visit be sure and look me up if the timing's right.

[flatwood]

... I think I could get the camera for closer to 3K.....

Yes sir, money talks!!

[christoph]

I like the fact that it has interchangable lenses. That is a major plus...

only that a good lens will cost you more than the camera itself.. :)

From my understanding the Canon is still the best since it has full HD SDI outs. So, from the camera you get a full 444 single that can go to a deck or drive.

nope, the HD-SDI on the canon is 4:2:2 (and 8bit).. considering the fact that a deck that can record 4:4:4 is over 100K, and that the human eye can't see any difference i guess that's not much of an issue though

Because every HDV camera is under 50,000 and looks like crap.

does it? i must have done something wrong then with my last project, because i think it looks quite nice. would it look better if we'd shot on 35mm? sure, but it would have cost 10 times as much, and we didnt have that kind of money.

So what is the big deal about HD - SDI? I am under the impression the HD -SDI allows recording to external hard drive, but doesn't it record the same HDV signal? Does the hard drive capture more information than the tape?

it does put out an uncompressed signal, which is an advantage, specially if you do greenscreen or other vfx stuff.. *however* recording solutions are expensive and/or cumbersome and since the camera has a very limited chip and signal processor anyway you'd be much better off buying a better camera in the first place. it's kinda like buying a 5 gallon water tank to store bottles of coke.

..one more question: How does the JVC camera compare to Beta SP? I have seen some documentaries recently that used Beta SP and the look was fine.e

technically the JVC will look *way* sharper and more detailed than any Beta SP ever made. subjectively if your end format is a SD DVD hardly anybody will be able to tell the difference if both was handled carefully in postproduction.

back to the original question:
no sub 10k camera will be perfect, so think what's most important to you. some record progressive frames, others dont, some more noise, other less dynamic range, some crappy sound processing. all of them will lookreally really good though if handled properly.

if you're in the sub 5K range, the Z1U (or it's new 24P cousin) is hard to beat for sharpness and ease of use. if you're filming for SD distribution (DVD etc), the DVX100B is excellent value.

++ christoph ++