EX1 vs HVX200

[StevenBagley]

It didn't take me long to decide that if low light working is important, then (between those two) it's a one horse race.......... ;)

Whatever you decide, I am hearing of quite a few people trading HVX200s in for EXs. Even if you do decide to for the HVX, a used one may be pretty good value now. The expectation seems to be there must be something out before long to replace it, which would even further impact on the resale value of a new one. Sorry to look at it in so mercenary a light!

:)

I'm hovering more and more towards the EX1 -- some of the footage I've downloaded is incredible. And most of the HVX200 stuff isn't -- mind you, half of it seems to be testing whatever the latest gadget is to make the camera even more unusable by gluing a 35mm lens on the front :)

The only thing that makes me waver towards the HVX is the compression codec and CMOS sensors (specifically the rolling shutter). I suppose what I really want is a cut'n'shut job of the EX1 front and the HVX back.

Steven

[Rob James]

I'm with you Steven. I deeply distrust the EX1 codecs but I want 1/2" sensors and a decent lens and a cheaper and better form of solid state storage than P2. By the sound of it, you've been looking at the same stuff as me (Phil Bloom? etc.)

It's a shame the world has to be so complicated.

[StevenBagley]

I'm with you Steven. I deeply distrust the EX1 codecs but I want 1/2" sensors and a decent lens and a cheaper and better form of solid state storage than P2. By the sound of it, you've been looking at the same stuff as me (Phil Bloom? etc.).

Yep his stuff, and there's some wonderful stuff shot in india. What I'd really like to see is handheld low-light stuff, shot with gain on a motorboat going over a choppy sea. That should really stress things.

Steven

[Rob James]

Yeah, that would be very interesting! I've got the location but neither the camera nor the boat. (Although I might be able to organise the boat) I'd be interested in seeing the Indian material if you could post a link.

[StevenBagley]

Yeah, that would be very interesting! I've got the location but neither the camera nor the boat. (Although I might be able to organise the boat) I'd be interested in seeing the Indian material if you could post a link.

It's on page 2 of this review: http://www.dendv.nl/ex-review1.php

Lots of interesting stuff on here too: http://www.freshdv.com/2007/09/more-xdcam-ex-pre-launch-official-specifications.html

Steven

[infocus]

The only thing that makes me waver towards the HVX is the compression codec and CMOS sensors (specifically the rolling shutter). I suppose what I really want is a cut'n'shut job of the EX1 front and the HVX back.
Knowing my luck I'd probably end up with an HVX front and an EX back.......

I can't claim to have performed an in depth comparison between them, but you don't need to in order to see how much better the EX is in low light. One horse race sums it up well, or that was my feeling after seeing them (almost) side by side at a show. (And seems in line with what pretty well everybody else is saying.)

The other "night and day" immediate difference I saw between them was the manual lens on the EX. I just don't know why no manufacturer has put a manual, non interchangeable, lens on a camera before. That said, they both struck me as ergonomic hell for handheld use. The HVX can at least claim not to have had the example of the JVC range whilst under development, but the EX hasn't that excuse.

I can't comment about the rolling shutter, but the codec issue seems a bit half and half - DVCProHD has the consistency of I-frame only, but a lot less resolution. If you're prepared to transcode, you can always move to a different codec for editing. And the bit rate of XDCAM does mean a card lasts 3 times as long.........

I don't know what your main intended use is, Steven, but I have heard talk of people thinking of taking its uncompressed HD-SDI output to a separate recorder. If that works for you, it may allay some of your codec worries?

But how difficult do you think a cut-and-shut would be to do.....? :)

[StevenBagley]

Knowing my luck I'd probably end up with an HVX front and an EX back.......

Hehe... ;)

I can't claim to have performed an in depth comparison between them, but you don't need to in order to see how much better the EX is in low light.

Low-light quality is definitely something I need.

The other "night and day" immediate difference I saw between them was the manual lens on the EX. I just don't know why no manufacturer has put a manual, non interchangeable, lens on a camera before.

Well they did -- back in the 1980s/early-90s. I can remember using both VHS and VHS-C cameras that had proper manual lenses on them. The Panasonic M10 rings a bell. But as people wanted smaller and smaller cameras they removed the feature.

That said, they both struck me as ergonomic hell for handheld use. The HVX can at least claim not to have had the example of the JVC range whilst under development, but the EX hasn't that excuse.

"Ahh but sir, we offer such a design please come this way and look at this model. It is only £10,000" :) I think the EX1 was deliberately designed into the Z1 body to provide a decent HD camera in that style. Presumably to stop sales being lost to the HVX at places like Auntie ;) In fact, one begins to wonder whether the decision of the BBC not to use XDCam didn't have a lot to do with SxS and the EX1's development.

I can't comment about the rolling shutter, but the codec issue seems a bit half and half - DVCProHD has the consistency of I-frame only, but a lot less resolution. If you're prepared to transcode, you can always move to a different codec for editing. And the bit rate of XDCAM does mean a card lasts 3 times as long.........

My many qualms about the codec are how well it does it hold up when filming in terms of artefacts and how well can I get a greenscreen key off the images. Final Cut Pro can edit XDCam natively with ease and my Macbook Pro has an express card slot. In terms of the codec stability, the clips I've seen have all looked very good (in some cases better than HDCAM shot stuff on BBC HD -- both viewed on my iMacs 1920x1200 screen) and as you point out you are only talking an extra 3:1 compression on DVCproHD in the worst case (although DVCproHD does decimate the image first) which is well within long-GOPs ability.

And with keying, I've managed to pull decent keys off interlace DV 4:2:0 footage so it shouldn't be a problem and the chroma error is likely to be less with HD 4:2:0. Vertical chroma samples are 4/576ths of the image height apart in SD and only 4/1080ths of the height in HD.

I don't know what your main intended use is, Steven, but I have heard talk of people thinking of taking its uncompressed HD-SDI output to a separate recorder. If that works for you, it may allay some of your codec worries?

Yea -- I'd considered that, and have already built a PC for a friend to record SDI out of his XL-H1 so that is an option certainly.

But how difficult do you think a cut-and-shut would be to do.....? :)

Probably very, everything will be integrated into a few ICs on the board. It was bad enough replacing the viewfinder cable on my VX1000 (http://homepage.mac.com/stevebagley/PhotoAlbum5.html)...

Everything does point in the EX1's favour, doesn't it.

Steven

[infocus]

Ahh but sir, we offer such a design please come this way and look at this model. It is only £10,000" :)
Yeah, but all joking apart, it ISN'T just such a design - it's a lot bigger and heavier, as well as more expensive. To me, the beauty of the JVC range is good ergonomics at roughly the size/weight of the HVX200 and the Z1, as well as comparable price.
In fact, one begins to wonder whether the decision of the BBC not to use XDCam didn't have a lot to do with SxS and the EX1's development. .
I have a Sony press release from NAB a few years ago, just after the original announcements of XDCAM and P2. Sony were asked about solid state, and their response was along the lines of "probably in the future, but we don't think the times right now". That memory prices have fallen faster than then predicted, coupled with the BBCs decision may well have meant "the future" was closer than they realised at the time. I think Sonys plans may have been brought forward, rather than radically altered.
And with keying, I've managed to pull decent keys off interlace DV 4:2:0 footage so it shouldn't be a problem and the chroma error is likely to be less with HD 4:2:0. Vertical chroma samples are 4/576ths of the image height apart in SD and only 4/1080ths of the height in HD..
I assume by that you're considering 1080i/25? If you went for 1080p/25, then presumably it'd be only 2/1080ths? My understanding is that 4:2:2 has more advantage in an interlace system than progressive.
Everything does point in the EX1's favour, doesn't it.
I doubt it's "everything", life's never that simple, but of the two the EX would certainly be my favourite at the moment.

So what would you say to a "three way cut-and-shut" - EX front end, HVX back end, and build them in to a JVC 251 body........... :)

[Alan Roberts]

Indeed, 422 is a work-around for interlace, because 420 causes the lines carrying chroma to be bunched in pairs in the frame, rather than evenly spread. However, that hardly affects the actual chroma resolution, simply because the 420 subsampled data is reconstituted to 444 for all practical purposes (in professional-level kit) using proper polyphase resampling filters. All that matters is that the chroma resolution of each field is half that of luma, both horizontally and vertically. The only real problem is that interlace twitter in luma happens at 288 cycles/pic hight, while it happens in chroma at 144 cycles/pic height.

420 is fine for progressive, because the chroma resolution is exactly half that of luma in all directions. The polyphase sub-sampling and reconstituting filters are a lot easier to design and implement, so a lot less easy to get wrong :)

[infocus]

I have a Sony press release from NAB a few years ago, just after the original announcements of XDCAM and P2. Sony were asked about solid state, and their response was along the lines of ...............
I came across that reference by accident today, and it's from (only)NAB 2004 - http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2004/04_apr/features/psd3js6t.htm . What seems astonishing is how the landscape has changed in well under 4 years. The Z1 was a yet to be seen prototype, P2 and XDCAM were new concepts, and no sign of HD versions of either! The bit I was thinking of is from page 2:
DMN: On the roadmap anywhere, do you see Sony getting into the solid state memory aspect of this, or is Sony going to stick with optical for the time being?

Shapiro: We would never say never, but I think the reality is, as a company, we are a leader in the development of solid state technology. We understand it very well -- what the pricing is, and the direction that it's going to go -- and I think for the short term we've decided that optical is the way to go.

Gaggioni: We have spent, actually, many years examining which type of storage technologies we should use in our migration away from tape formats. As Alec pointed out, we have enormous knowledge of solid state memory. We happen to sell 2GB Memory Sticks, which are our solid state memory for still imaging cameras. When you put everything into a system, rather than just focusing on the technology per se, but as a system where you have to include functionalities, cost of the media, speed of the devices, the workflow -- many of the variables come into play. After a long, hard analysis, we opted for optical. In terms of cost per gigabyte of storage, it's just incredibly ahead of anything else in the storage technologies. When the time comes, and the viability of the technology makes sense from a practical deployment standpoint, there's no question we're going to use it.

Shapiro: We have the capability to do it, certainly.
The last couple of sentences leave little doubt that solid state was always on the horizon for Sony, BBC policies or not. I think in April 2004, they may have thought that "the time" was a lot further into the future than it's turned out to be.