DV.com HD/ HDV Shootout
DV.com article requires login
Wow. Just got done reading an extensive article covering a (6) camera shootout comparing the performance of (4) Pro-Sumer grade HD and HDV cameras and (2) of the “big-boy” 2/3″ CCD cameras (I’ll call them ProDef). The test was performed by a bunch of really really smart engineers and written by Adam Wilt
The cameras compared were…aquisition media format listed in paranthesis.
Pro Def Cameras
Sony F900 CineAlta (HDCAM)
Panasonic Varicam (DVCPRO HD)
Pro-Sumer Cameras
Canon XLH1 (HDV)
JVC GY-HD100U (HDV)
Panasonic HVX200 (P2)
Sony Z1U (HDV)
This article is extremely in-depth in terms of telemetrics, color sampling, and techno jargon that made even my most intersted head burst. All of the spec info listed by Adam is worth the price of admision (DV.com create-an-account), but let me comment on a few of Adam’s conclusions.
–
All the 1/3″ cameras clustered together more tightly than we expected. Each camera excelled at some aspect of image rendering, but all of them were more alike than different; none stood out as being clearly superior all around.
Furthermore, they all came a lot closer to the 2/3″ cameras than we thought they would: while we could clearly see that the big cameras made superior images, the contrast between the 1/3″ and 2/3″ cameras was nowhere near what we expected to see.
DP and CineAlta operator Art Adams once characterized my Z1 pix as “half HD” for their horizontal softness, and that perception holds as I look at the 10-bit uncompressed clips: The 1/3″ 1080i camera pictures are only about half as crisp as the CineAlta’s. In 720p, the JVC comes close to the Varicam in raw detail, although its noise is quite a bit higher.
When you consider that none of these 1/3″ cameras comes anywhere close to half the price of their 2/3″ brethren, you’ll see that “half HD” isn’t bad for the money.
We came away convinced that any of the cameras would do a creditable job in the hands of a skilled user, and that the choice of camera should be made more on features and ergonomics than on image quality. This is not to say that people didn’t pick favorites; people did. It’s just that no one, not even the most partisan among us, would have claimed that any one of the cameras was unacceptable for doing serious work.
We also understood how sketchy and rudimentary our explorations were. We didn’t look at motion rendering, or how the camera’s different codecs and recording formats affected image quality. Do the cameras behave differently in daylight-lit exteriors than in tungsten-balanced interiors? How does each one handle handheld? What kind of work is each camera most suited for?
We didn’t have time to answer these questions, so they remain subjects for future tests.
—
Given that most of the participants (an interested readers, I’m guessing) are Indie film oriented (as opposed to broadcast), I don’t believe the shootout touched on enough subjects to help many Indies make an informed purchase (or rental) decision.
Specifically, how can Indies acheive their “filmlook” with each of these cameras, and to what price will they pay? The biggest caveat in the price per “filmlook” equation: Workflow.
Look for an extensive upcoming article (by me) to expand on DV.com’s marvelous test by hitting home on what most Indies are concerned with…their bottom line.
A small correction: The VariCam actually shoots DVCPRO-HD, not HDCAM.
I agree, I wish the article had spent a little more time on “movie”-related issues. But what else can you expect from a self-proclaimed “video geek”?
Comment on January 30, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
You are correct GlassBlowersCat, the Varicam shoots on DVCPRO HD. I have made the correction. Good looking out.
Comment on January 31, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Yeah, workflow’s pretty vital and so is cost. There’s been a lot of angry posts on DVXUser and even a mini flamewar on Mike’s site (HDForIndies) where people are slamming these cameras (especially the Sony Z1) since Adam’s comment about how you could use any of these cameras to create credible content ruffled more than a couple of feathers. So it goes…
Comment on February 1, 2006 @ 8:40 am
Congratulations on your blog. Found it today while looking for discussion of Adam Wilt’s article. You excerpted just the right bits — it’s a provocative conclusion. Just wish they had another day to continue the comparison.
The boon of the HVX200 / P2 seems to be that it can capture DVCPRO-HD. I am very keen to get a handle on low-budget film-look possibilities for DVCPRO-HD workflow. Does that camera/format offer the ultimate quality for a low-budget? 24 frame 1080p?!?
Look forward to the upcoming post and hope it will help with these questions.
(One of the defining benefits of DV was that it was a “lossless” digital workflow. Or is this new problem of “lossy” compression and recompression in HDV workflow just not so serious?)
Glad you’re going to write more. Thanks.
Comment on February 1, 2006 @ 5:01 pm