Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

HV20 + CineForm Recorder + Letus35 < 4000$

A

ArthurG

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello,
the Canon HV20 chip is 1080p, and with CineForm Recorder we will be able to record it to 4:2:2 10 bits via HDMI on CF Cards.
If Scarlet is a 2k, 4:2:2, 35mm sized chip, it wouldn't be over 4000$, isn't it ?
 
- Even though the HV20 outputs 4:2:2 via HDMI, most of the reports I've read (from Cineform) indicate that 2 of the 10 bits are not used... So the best you could get is 4:2:2 8-bit.

- HV20 debayering is done in-camera, limiting the algorithm.

- The HV20 lacks several manual controls. While the camera can be almost hacked to get all the correct results, it's hardly foolproof. Connectors, knobs and widgets will add to the cost.

All things considered though, with that $4k you're talking about, you've paid for a tape deck and CF card reader, two codec chips, two power supplies, etc. So if you cut out all the redundancy, you'd probably save quite a bit. The point to take out of this is that for Scarlet to be truly revolutionary in the pocket camcorder market, they have a lot of work to do.
 
Although it's image is stunning, it has one or two major flaws that make it unusable in the 24P professional world. The biggest of which is the scrolling shutter issue:

In a nutshell, the image is processed one line at a time, and it is not processed fast enough. if you are doing a pan, or if something is moving around rapidly in your frame, the image will bend and look like Jell-O.

Speed of processing is part of what makes a camera expensive. An HV20 / 35mm rig might be OK for weddings, docs, or possibly TV, but if you put it in 24P mode you will run into its limits quickly.

Bob
 
Bob Gruen said:
Although it's image is stunning, it has one or two major flaws that make it unusable in the 24P professional world. The biggest of which is the scrolling shutter issue:

In a nutshell, the image is processed one line at a time, and it is not processed fast enough. if you are doing a pan, or if something is moving around rapidly in your frame, the image will bend and look like Jell-O.

Speed of processing is part of what makes a camera expensive. An HV20 / 35mm rig might be OK for weddings, docs, or possibly TV, but if you put it in 24P mode you will run into its limits quickly.

Bob
Click to expand...

thats why I didn't buy one. Some people can live with it, others like myself, can't.
 
Ok, I heard your comments. Scarlet will be better than this config. And if it cost like 4K$ it would be crazy to buy an HV20.
Anyway we can see that a pocket cam in 4:2:2 10bits is possible, with 35 sized sensor and interchangeable lenses too.
 
Any semi/pro camera today without Cineform(RAW) codec is obsolete, imo.
Cineform = easy crossplatform PC<->MAC workflow up to 4K.
 
vsv said:
Any semi/pro camera today without Cineform(RAW) codec is obsolete, imo.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I really can't understand why none of the established players (canon, panny, etc) haven't gotten on board with the idea yet.

Since this is an HV20-ish thread it's a good place to put this observation as well: An HV20-like cam with decent manual controls and a Cineform RAW or Redcode-like workflow would change the market completely. If the camera companies started shipping cameras that were only limited by thier actual technological limitations rather than though feature crippling... I mean, that would really be something! And I don't think it would hurt thier market for higher-end cameras at all. It would just move the capabilities of everything up a notch. The high-end cameras would still be better than the lower end cams simply based on thier parts (cleaner senors, higher res, 3-chips vs one, etc.) Companies like Canon and Panny could focus on making some universal standards for the RAW movies (like the video version of DNG, only with better compression, preferably variable...so the user can choose how much is right for them)

If anything, that's the main reason I'm excited about the Red One. Red is demonstrating this new business model for digital cameras and if it is successful and the market selects for it, the new model has a chance to set the pace for the rest of the industry.
 
lordtangent said:
Since this is an HV20-ish thread it's a good place to put this observation as well: An HV20-like cam with decent manual controls and a Cineform RAW or Redcode-like workflow would change the market completely.
Click to expand...
Maybe if it had 10-bit HDMI 1.3 and eliminated the rolling shutter.
 
Bob Gruen said:
Although it's image is stunning, it has one or two major flaws that make it unusable in the 24P professional world. The biggest of which is the scrolling shutter issue:

In a nutshell, the image is processed one line at a time, and it is not processed fast enough. if you are doing a pan, or if something is moving around rapidly in your frame, the image will bend and look like Jell-O.

Speed of processing is part of what makes a camera expensive. An HV20 / 35mm rig might be OK for weddings, docs, or possibly TV, but if you put it in 24P mode you will run into its limits quickly.

Bob
Click to expand...

It is a bit strange what you read on the internet and spelled in such authority that it feels like letter of law. Unfortunately the redone and most probably the scarlet also suffer from what you described as the major flaw (rolling shutter - not scrolling shutter). It affects CMOS sensors and also film cameras, there are some work around and I guest everything is made of compromise.

I am sorry if my first post here, might seem quite hard but your assumption of the hv20 major flaw is so out of order (google rolling shutter and redone) that I felt that I had to respond for the sake of objectivity.
 
ArthurG said:
Ok, I heard your comments. Scarlet will be better than this config. And if it cost like 4K$ it would be crazy to buy an HV20.
Anyway we can see that a pocket cam in 4:2:2 10bits is possible, with 35 sized sensor and interchangeable lenses too.
Click to expand...

I purchased an HV20 when it first came out. I was very disappointed with the IQ when doing even modest panning. Sold it post-haste.

YMMV
JohnG
 
Sure it's no RED One, but I've been pretty happy with the HV20 + 35mm adapter shooting to plain old HDV:

http://www.vimeo.com/800047

Being tethered to a Blackmagic Intensity-equipped PC for live capture is too restricting, but the little CineForm CF recorder is definitely on my "short list" of toys to check out at NAB ...
 
Issues overlooked?

Issues overlooked?

There are a lot of posts and speculation about the upcoming Scarlet camera. I too am very excited and I have my own opinions and speculations but a lot of what I am reading here is rediculous--or, to be fair, a little far fetched.

Scarlet will most likely NOT have a 35mm sensor--not if it is anywhere NEAR "pocketsized". I think people are forgetting what a feat it is to have a full frame sensor in a camera as SMALL as Red One. Do some research and look at digital still cameras, they share more in common with the RED cams and the big reason those are so small is that the sensor is equally tiny. Go and find a full-frame still camera and see for yourself how not-pocket sized it is, and while you're at it think about WHY all digital still cameras aren't full framed. Because developing/producing a full-frame sensor is expensive at any pixel count.

Now it is common knowledge that a small sensor equals noise and bad DOF, so o it obviously ain't gunna be tiny, but check out how large Sigma's "pocket-sized" DP1 with an APS-C sized sensor and fixed, non-zoom lens. I believe/hope that the sensor for the Scarlet (which will not be full sized and either 2K or full 1080P) is large but will not be a full 35mm frame and probably not even a full APS (24mm) frame. Even at 16mm with an non-interchangeable lens it would be an engineering feat to create a camera that could be considered pocket sized.

Now to create even more controversy, I think that Scarlet may actually record to tape as well as CF. Unless my math is way off--which it could be, I am not very good at math--a 1080P RedRAW stream could be written to a DV tape, certainly a DVCPRO tape. Now I would prefer a flash solution, and I think there will be one, but tape is reliable (relatively) and cheap and would appeal to some of the key markets of the Scarlet. For example, documentary filmmakers, at least the few that I know, would jump at the chance of picking up a small, professional grade camera that would record in at least 30-40minute chunks, sans interruption, to a medium that didn't require being shuffled off to a computer and could be collected in a bad as they wander around the wilderness. Flash won't work because its too small and expensive and hard drives are too finicky and unreliable. I believe both those should, and will, be expansion options. Or perhaps I am wrong and tape is the expansion option, that certainly would bring down the cost of the camera.

Alright, flame away!
 
zecahue said:
c'mom guys :) 1/8" not 1/1.8"
Click to expand...

mistake of writer...
If you check photos here:
http://www.engadget.com/photos/hands-on-with-samsungs-sc-hmx20c-1080p-camcorder/559822/

samsung0001.jpg



you'll see 6.3 - 63mm focal length. At 1/8 inch that will be another digits :)
 
jjeppson said:
people are forgetting what a feat it is to have a full frame sensor in a camera as SMALL as Red One. . . . the sensor for the Scarlet is large but will not be a full 35mm frame and probably not even a full APS (24mm) frame
Click to expand...

Red One sensor = APS-C

APS-C: 24.4 × 13.7 mm
Red One: 25.1 × 16.7
Super35: 24.89 × 18.66

"Full-frame" 35mm: 36 × 24
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top