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 :)

Canon HV20

OcularLimpidity said:
You want it so bad you have to say that a two different websites.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm always saying the same whatever the place is: I'm proud to be a coherent person -- that's why I'm here since the first day. :)
 
AppliedVisual said:
Yep. And I followed your links... The first of which doesn't tell us anything other than the HVR-V1 might be able to do it. It talks of outputs on the JVC HD100/110 and the HVX200/202. Both outputs are "uncompressed", but are heavily processed. In my experience with both cameras - yes, I've used both and still own the HVX. The conversion from digital to analog component back to digital isn't kind to the signal when recapturing due to the level of noise and edge processing that's there. Also the JVC only outputs 4:2:0 equivalent via component. I personally have no experience with the Sony HVR-V1 so I can't comment.
Click to expand...

Jeff, here is some light on this:

«Let's try to keep from assuming - for instance the Sony V1U (a much higher end cam than the HV20) processes it's 1920x1080 footage to 1440x1080 and converts it to 4:2:0 BEFORE it's outputted to HDMI (it just upscales the 4:3 image to 16:9 on output again). So, no matter what, you're getting an image that's been processed! By outputting HDMI on the Sony, all you're doing is bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates. And the Sony is approx $4-5k CDN!»

LINK
 
Emanuel said:
So, no matter what, you're getting an image that's been processed! By outputting HDMI on the Sony, all you're doing is bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates.
Click to expand...
And isn't it enough?
 
AppliedVisual said:
As for the second link, I've already followed that whole thread over at DVINFO and that discussion is entirely academic. It's the same thread that rears up every time a new low-budget camcorder is due to be released too. I did a bit more serching too and I can't seem to find anyone that can actually confirm the HVR-V1 sends an un-crippled, 4:2:2 stream that hasn't been butchered out of its HDMI port.

So far, all the HDMI and/or component output I've viewed of live feeds out of cheaper (sub $5K) HD camcorders has been seriously over-processed and looks identical to what you get a few minutes later playing the HDV feed back through the same port.
Click to expand...
Over-processed or not, we'll be avoiding the defective compression. As it was said: bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates. Correct?
 
Gordon Prince said:
Over-processed or not, we'll be avoiding the defective compression. As it was said: bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates. Correct?
Click to expand...

Maybe so... I'll have to see the output of the V1 for myself, but it seems there's enough people that insist this is the case, yet so far I no one has actually posted any tangible proof.

But I have to wonder... Is a camera like the HVR-V1 really cost-effective when you intend to shoot video by capturing a live feed from the HDMI out? HDMI capture cards, a competent notebook or portable system to capture to along with a proper HDMI interface card.... To me it would make more sense to just buy a non-HDV camcorder. :confused:

In the case of budget, compact camcorders like Canon's HV20, it seems that only a few people are saying its HDMI output is free of compression artifacting (macro blocks, etc..). I'm not sure what to think there, but I'm highly skeptical here. I also will want to take a good look at one before I buy... It needs to be noticeably better than my HC3 (it's HDMI out has all the jaggies, banding and macro blocking of the HDV playback). The fact it does true 24p is very appealing, and if it's comparable to my HC3 in every other way, I'd probably trade up. Or I may just buy one as a compact 24p camera... For the price it's almost a "why not?" scenario.
 
Here is another Robert Ducon (previous) input:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=598704#post598704

Before (same thread) he had said some really bad about the DVCPRO-HD experiences. It seems David Newman's Cineform contribution will give a hand in the future. And asking you, Jeff. I believe you already answered 50% of your purchase option question. The other five, I'd add what all of us, we're looking for: the future proof over anything we bet.
 
AppliedVisual said:
There's another discussion at DVINFO that I popped up in the search -- there's 3 or more on this very subject in the V1/FX7 forum. Where two othe members confirm the same thing. One wasn't so sure the HDMI out was pre-comrpession, but all agreed it was heavily processed showing edge and color artifacting and it's pretty noisy too.
Click to expand...
Where did you read it?

I've been following the Emanuel's links and I couldn't find it. Only DVCProHD or even HDV related via HDMI. It's not the same we're approaching here.
 
Emanuel said:
Here is another interesting input:

Douglas Spotted Eagle (comparing HDMI acquisition with HDCAM)
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=79534&page=2
Click to expand...

This HDMI capture situation isn't quite as gloomy as is presented in that thread. You can build an eSATA (software) RAID capable of the necessary data rates pretty cheaply (maybe $1200, for 2.5 TB), and working with uncompressed data doesn't require a more powerful computer otherwise -- in fact, it uses less CPU power, because you don't have to decompress anything.

Now, if you're planning to keep that data uncompressed, your archiving costs are going to be pretty nuts. A better option is probably to capture uncompressed, and then compress the stuff later. (With a better codec than HDV.)
 
Does it seem a HDMI capture will always be NOT slightly better than HDV? Since it is uncompressed though heavily processed, 4:2:0 8bit, etc?

Is that so in your opinion? Will there be significant differences?
 
Assuming that the HDMI output doesn't exhibit the HDV compression artifacting, you will pretty much be only eliminating the macroblocking and some of the additional compression-induced noise and edge artifacting (maybe). But it's still going to be heavily processed, even though HDMI is 4:2:2 capable (4:4:4 with HDMI v1.3) I doubt you'll see that coming out of a $1K camcorder. It's still going to be the 4:2:0 HDV equivalent and you're still going to get the same muddy colors and 8bit color banding.

So looking at it this way:

$1100 - Camcorder (HV20)
$1200 - Decent RAID for capture (probably could get this down under $1K)
$1000 - HDMI capture card
$180 - 35-50ft HDMI cable
or
$299 - wireless HDMI kit

And figure from there that now this tiny palm-corder is no longer portable. Or at least only mobile within the confines of your HDMI cable length or wireless HDMI feed.

That's over $3400... Why not spend $3500 and just buy a camcorder with much better image quality, glass, features, etc..??? I'm just a bit puzzled as to why people are trying to circumvent crappy HDV when the video is coming from a crappy palm-corder to begin with and the HDV compression is probably one of the least important factors effecting image quality in this setup. ...In other words, the video is going to be very noisy and overprocessed before the HDV codec even gets to work on it.

It's possible that the HDMI feed will be slightly better than the HDV feed. But you have to ask is it worth the extra cost for capture cards and a faster drive system and the need to capture to your tethered computer the live feed from the camera? ...When the cost of the extra hardware needed could be factored for the purchase of a better camera to begin with. I'm not saying that you should jump all the way to XDCAM HD or could within this same budget, but a V1, while still HDV is going to be vastly better than an HC3 or HV20. An XLH1 is quite a step up from an FX1/V1 (IMO).
 
just a thought

if the hv20 or another small camera, maybe a hard drive version similar to the new jvc
http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?item=565&pageID=1
could RECORD from the hdmi port, you could attach it to the reds hdmi out, put it in your pocket, and have a smaller format edit proxy without any post needed to deliver to clients on the day of the shoot, then they could ask for better files from the 4K RAW later
 
AppliedVisual said:
That's over $3400... Why not spend $3500 and just buy a camcorder with much better image quality, glass, features, etc..??? I'm just a bit puzzled as to why people are trying to circumvent crappy HDV when the video is coming from a crappy palm-corder to begin with and the HDV compression is probably one of the least important factors effecting image quality in this setup. ...In other words, the video is going to be very noisy and overprocessed before the HDV codec even gets to work on it.
Click to expand...
But that's the point. To know if this cam will be usable beyond the HDV.

There is who doesn't mind to leave their own assets to the museum and others who would be comfortable knowing there will be an useful future for the money spent now.
 
As I already previously said :):
Emanuel said:
(...) I'd add what all of us, we're looking for: the future proof over anything we bet.
Click to expand...
 
AppliedVisual said:
Why not spend $3500 and just buy a camcorder with much better image quality, glass, features, etc..??? I'm just a bit puzzled as to why people are trying to circumvent crappy HDV when the video is coming from a crappy palm-corder to begin with and the HDV compression is probably one of the least important factors effecting image quality in this setup. ...In other words, the video is going to be very noisy and overprocessed before the HDV codec even gets to work on it.
Click to expand...

Form factor and broadcast requirements, will they be two enough reasons?!

Thirdly, the economies of scale and the technology convergence will help to find the same importance than a brush has for a painter. Or the computer keyboard has for a writer, rather a pencil. That's what a lot of Red users are looking for.
 
Nice reading!

"I would like to find a Prosumer cam that could be taken into the streets (of Paris, Rome, New York, etc,) and not be as noticeable as pro cameras are. I want something I can put in a jacket pocket and pull out when needed."

Applied Visual, do you see what we're talking about?

I would just add. This is not a prosumer but can get some prosumer or even pro results. If adding the necessary pro tools. A camera is just a tool. Getting the necessary definition, our money should have other priorities. A camera is just an item. The problem is to get the right items.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top