first HVX footage posted...

Post by **christoph** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:59 am

dvxuser.com was first - as always..

if you wanna see what all the hype was about, check:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=40488

or if you dont want to read through 43pages or cheering:
http://wilson.pp.fi/mikko/hvx200/hvx_10 ... ootage.wmv
http://wilson.pp.fi/mikko/hvx200/720_h264.mov
http://wilson.pp.fi/mikko/hvx200/1080_h264.mov

this is highly compressed samples, but you'll get the idea...
no it's not film, but it's the best video you can buy for the money.

++ christoph ++
ps: i should add that you need a pretty fast computer to play them back smoothly, but the slide show is also nice ;)

Post by **studiocarter** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:22 am

1/4 of the screen was pink on the right, the rest was very clear.

My QT won't play

Post by **tlatosmd** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:23 am

So, what is it? Judging from the name, I suppose it's Divx at HD resolution?

EDIT: Okay, seen it now. However did you get the idea we might think it would be film? Color raster accuracy might be neat (making it look sharper than we are used to) for video, but the colors themselves look just as pale as they always do in video.

Post by **steve hyde** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:26 am

Hi Christoph,

A very sharp image here with shallow depth of field. Looks impressive.
So what is the skinny with HVX?

Steve

Post by **paulcotto** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:37 am

Here is a review of the camera. Wish I had $6000 doing nothing....

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/HVX200/

Regards,
Paul Cotto

Post by **steve hyde** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:39 am

Thanks for the link Paul. ahhh yes, the much hyped tape or tapeless digital cinema camera for 6,000 USD. A very interesting camera.

Post by **Nigel** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:46 am

It's not hype...

It's Full HD unlike the HDV cams of similar price.

Good Luck

Post by **steve hyde** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:54 am

..well, it's the most interesting kind of hype. Hype with a good reason for being hype.

What does "Full HD" mean? It's still captured to a MiniDV tape right? Are you talking about the flash media capture?

What is the post production workflow for Flash media capture?

Steve

Post by **etimh** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:04 am

Tastes like chicken. :roll:

Tim

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:21 am

Captures to P2 cards... I assume that you can import the footage via firewire and the workflow would be standard from that point on, assuming your NLE and CPU can handle true HD. Probably need a specialized graphics card for real-time processing.

One thing that did stand out as I viewed the clip (at half-size, with crappy framerate in wmv format, since I don't have QT7 yet) on my dual 2 GHz G5 is that no matter what the resolution is, video still looks like video.

Post by **sarmoti** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:27 am

No, it's not captured to MiniDV tape. The highest quality capture option is DVCPROHD format (at 100mbps vs HDV's 25mbps max). Its captured to P2 solid state media or external hard drive.

My only MINIMAL complaint with DVCPROHD is the scaling that occurs on every pass (in 1080 mode, there's no scaling in 720 mode). It records at 1280x1080 and upscales it to 1920x1080. Of course HDV and HDCAM do the same but the numbers are 1440x1080 and the scaling ratio is better there.

It's not "full HD" if you consider "full HD" to be Uncompressed 1920x1080 60 or 24 frame progressive footage at 4:4:4 color sampling. The best the camera can do is 1280x1080 60 frame 4:2:2 footage but it's pretty impressive at that price ($6K USD for the camera, $9K USD with 16GB of P2 cards bundled).

Another great contender is Canon's offeting which has a fully uncompressed HD-SDI output onboard. It's CCDs are "full HD" It captures at 1440x1080 to tape but still capture is at full 1920x1080. Perhaps this camera is the best option for 16mm and 8mm workprinter users.

Depth of field is going to be the same as any other camera with a 1/3" imager size at the same aperture and focal length, the only way around this is using larger chips or a 35mm lens adapter (with an aerial image system).

The main problem with all these new HDV cameras is that the smaller the chips, the better the lenses need to be. Good lenses are expensive to make, good HD lenses are VERY expensive to make. All of these cameras are seriously lacking in the lens department, (even Canon!). To get around the problem, most of these lenses only open to f4 or f5.6 and only stop down to less than f11 to avoid various optical issues. To get the best pictures you need to be shooting at around f8, the images significantly soften at higher and lower apertures. This also limits the possibility of really shallow DOF effects.

Post by **sarmoti** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:05 am

LOL, in the WMV clip, the outdoor shots I recognized my friend Marcus (from Las Vegas). He's one of the Blue Men in "Blue Man Group".

Post by **freddiesykes** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:23 am

What kind of cams do Lucas and Rodriguez use?

Post by **S8 Booster** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:33 am

still looks videoish to me incl artifacts

on first thought - id consider it when all my film cams are worn to dust
- on second thought - then better and cheaper tech is around -
- on 3rd though - when be i wont be around

i really cant understand what this hype
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=40488
is all about.

they should really try some film.....

s/hoot

Post by **sarmoti** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:20 am

Lucas and Rodriguez use:

Lucas
Episode 1 = 35mm Film (one test scene with FDW-900)

Episode 2 = Panavision modified Sony FDW-900 "CineAlta" (1440x1080 resolution at 4:2:2 color sampling)

Episode 3 = Sony HDCF950 camera to SRW1 and SRW5000/SRW5500 HDCAMSR decks. (in order to achieve full 1920x1080 resolution at 4:4:4 color)

Rodriguez

I think Spy Kids were shot with FDW-900 and Sin City and Sharkboy and Lavagirl with HDFC950 to HDCAMSR decks.

Links to the gear are here:

HDFC950 $115,800 USD for camera head alone (no lenses, viewfinder or accessories, about $220,000 USD when fully equipped.

SRW1 about $125,000 USD

SRW5500 over $100,000 USD

Lenses start in the $20,000-$30,000 USD range for a basic "news" (ENG) lens but go up to well over $100,000 USD

I guess the hype is understandable when you compare the vast difference in price but you can't expect anywhere near the performance of the Sony CineAlta gear. That's why it's funny to me every time I read posts from people that are "dissapointed" that the test footage has lens abberations, doesn't look like film, has too wide of a depth of field, etc...