Video University: Video University Forums: HDV: Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD


Home	Free Library	Store
Free Catalog

Save with a Two Year Membership

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.
Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members

Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index	Search Posts
Who's Online	Log In

Home: Video University Forums: HDV:
Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD

1 2

View All

ADP Wavefront
Enthusiast

Feb 27, 2005, 12:11 PM

Post #1 of 31 (6710 views)
Shortcut

Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD	Can't Post

At the last FCP UG meeting in Hollywood they did a side by side comparison of the PD-170 in SD and the FX HDV which was recorded in HDV, captured 10-bit uncompressed, and down rez'd to SD. Both cameras set up for the same exact shot. My theory that the FX1 would look sharper did not hold. The PD-170 looked noticeably sharper. Sooo...I would not use the FX1 for SD. If you can't deliver in HD there is no point to buying this camera right now.

On another note they did a side by side comparison of the FX1 to the FW900. Incredibly the FX1 looked very close. To the casual viewer I would say the same. The FW900 is a tad sharper. I would hope so since the lens is $20k. The contrast was also a little better and the colors looked richer. However the FX1 is an INSANE value considering how similar it looked. All that talk about motion artifacts didnt hold up either. They played some very fast motion footage under different lighting condidtions and I saw zero artifacting. This camera can handle sports videoography with ease. Its all about using the camera correctly. I am very impressed with its performace. And finally, the gain control was astounding. Unlike the PD-170, when you crank up the gain on the FX in low lighting you get much less visible noise levels and better color retention. I don't see this camera as being weak in low lighting at all. Technical spefications can be misleading.

HDV is amazing. The guys at ProMax think it will be bigger than the DV revolution. Lets see what happens. Its def a great value.

V.U. California Crew, L.A. Chapter

RustyB
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 2:04 PM

Post #2 of 31 (6660 views)
Shortcut

Re: [ADP Wavefront] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

So what you're saying is the PD170 has a sharper image than the FW900, or at leat closer to an FW900 than an FX1?

Was the image on the PD170 cropped to 16:9 and blown up on a 16:9 monitor the same size as the image from the FX1?

Or, was the FX1 image cropped and blown up on a 4:3 monitor to the same size as the PD170?

I agree, you'll be fine delivering SD DVD's for a long time. But if I can get better widescreen video from an FX1 than from my VX2000 for a SD DVD, it's a very smart upgrade. I've been burning DVD's from sample .m2t files I find off the internet, and compared to my widescreen VX2000 DVD's they look great.

With supposedly better optics, better CCD's, the only reasons I can think of for a worse picture would be bacause of aspect ratio differences or maybe from more compression?

Thanks for the post, I'm still waiting for some money to make my decision. I'm definitely still leaning towards the FX1 or Z1, since I personally quit making 4:3 weddings a couple years ago.

Faith Poison Wedding Films Blog
Intergalactic Award-Winning Epic-Cinematic Wedding New-Doc Style Indie Fusion Bridal Movies on Hi-Definition Blu-Ray Disc

(This post was edited by RustyB on Feb 27, 2005, 2:05 PM)

ADP Wavefront
Enthusiast

Feb 27, 2005, 2:16 PM

Post #3 of 31 (6648 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hi Rusty,

"So what you're saying is the PD170 has a sharper image than the FW900, or at leat closer to an FW900 than an FX1"

No, I'm saying the PD170 has a sharper SD image than the FX1. The FX1 HD image rez is VERY similar to the FW900 which suprised the hell out of me.

"Or, was the FX1 image cropped and blown up on a 4:3 monitor to the same size as the PD170?"

It was 4:3. It was cropped not blown up. The two cameras were basically shooting the same scene at the same focal distance, framing, etc.

Regardless the FX1 rocks but I would not use it for SD weddings. The down rez adds too much compression and softens the image a bit. When Blu Ray is here HDV will rock in the industry.

The guys at ProMax said you will need to use some form of RAID for editingg since you cant edit mpeg2 natively so start saving up for a massive HD storage upgrade ;) Were talking TBs.

V.U. California Crew, L.A. Chapter

(This post was edited by ADP Wavefront on Feb 27, 2005, 2:18 PM)

AEMIKEA
User

Feb 27, 2005, 2:34 PM

Post #4 of 31 (6625 views)
Shortcut

Re: [ADP Wavefront] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

When I downconverted the HD file (cineform intermediate) it did not look as good as the vx2100 (slightly), but when i did a downconvert from m2t to m2v it looked better than vx2100 m2v, if you can follow, even in the case you describe, HDV would still be good enough to downconvert and you have an HDV version to boot.

Mike

scotthayes
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 3:40 PM

Post #5 of 31 (6584 views)
Shortcut

Re: [AEMIKEA] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

I am pretty sure my SD 16:9 Ikegami HL-DV7AW DVCAM is sharper than any handheld camera on the market.
Cool

I got it friday, took it on a shoot friday night, literally straight from the box. the image quality from those 2/3" chips is astounding! My clients
this year are in for a big surprise. Seriously, if you can afford it, go bigger, size does matter.

If your gear is paid for, KEEP IT!

DSE
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 3:57 PM

Post #6 of 31 (6559 views)
Shortcut

Re: [scotthayes] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

I am pretty sure my SD 16:9 Ikegami HL-DV7AW DVCAM is sharper than any handheld camera on the market.

I dunno that I'd go THAT far, but it's a very nice, high end camera in it's class. The 2/3 chips make a big diff, and the FIT's are awesome as well. But at 18K with a decent 2/3 lens, how many folks here are looking at these?
Even though it's an SD camera, I've wondered a few times why Ike didn't take this model into the HD realm, since it's almost there anyway at 800 lines.
KOMO-TV has a couple of these, and they're sweet. Replace the recommended lens with something a little better like the Fuji 18 or the Canon 20, you've got a very nice ENG cam.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

Mathew
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 4:33 PM

Post #7 of 31 (6529 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Even though it's an SD camera, I've wondered a few times why Ike didn't take this model into the HD realm, since it's almost there anyway at 800 lines.

Maybe because DVCAM is more embedded than HD is?

I would wager that this Ike will have a longer shelf life than any first gen HD camera. Couple that with the savings of not having to upgrade all of your post production equipment including field monitors and that 18K isn't such a bad deal.

szerangue
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 4:46 PM

Post #8 of 31 (6505 views)
Shortcut

Re: [ADP Wavefront] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

Sorry, ADP, but a lot of what you are saying is just not real life.

Cancer - Step Outside the Box.. by Ty Bollinger

Maybe a life could be saved.

DSE
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 5:04 PM

Post #9 of 31 (6493 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mathew] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

not having to upgrade all of your post production equipment including field monitors and that 18K isn't such a bad deal

Not so fast... The Ike is an 800 line cam. Correct me if I'm wrong, Scott...but I'll bet that you don't have 800 line monitors, unless you bought one just recently. You need an 800 line monitor with this cam to accurately C/C and filter w/it. As far as any other post production, there is nothing more to upgrade if you've already got a fairly fast computer and the amount of memory/storage that most editors own.
I believe that Ike didn't go HD on this cam for the same reason the Z1 uses miniDV tape. Transport is already available from other models, and it made a lot of sense to work with existing parts. I'll also wager that you'll see Ike do something more with this cam body and electronics very, very soon.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

(This post was edited by DSE on Feb 27, 2005, 5:05 PM)

Mathew
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 5:22 PM

Post #10 of 31 (6477 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

I believe that Ike didn't go HD on this cam for the same reason the Z1 uses miniDV tape....

I'll also wager that you'll see Ike do something more with this cam body and electronics very, very soon.

How so? Wouldn't going HD require a totally new sensor? Wouldn't 3
2/3" HD sensors be cost prohibitive for a 18K camera?

szerangue
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 5:26 PM

Post #11 of 31 (6468 views)
Shortcut

Re: [ADP Wavefront] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

The guys at ProMax said you will need to use some form of RAID for editingg since you cant edit mpeg2 natively so start saving up for a massive HD storage upgrade ;) Were talking TBs.

Cancer - Step Outside the Box.. by Ty Bollinger

Maybe a life could be saved.

DSE
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 5:35 PM

Post #12 of 31 (6461 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mathew] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

It's already an 800 horizontal line camera. And the type of CCD's it uses (FIT) can be spatially offset, making this be a progressive-scan capable camera. Therefore, it could be reasonably easily converted to a 960x720 output, progressive scan camera. By converting the pixels to a non-square format ala Varicam, HDCam, and DV, it also could be stretched to 1280 x 720 with little loss to the image. Therefore, they already have the necessary resolution to do HD in the cam based on CCD size and diagonal matrice. If they had used an FT or an IT CCD, they wouldn't have this ability, but they chose FIT, which gives them a lot of options. Who knows...maybe they intend to take this cam (or a reasonable facsimile) to HD since they have the technology in the cam already.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

szerangue
Veteran

Feb 27, 2005, 5:45 PM

Post #13 of 31 (6445 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

The guys at ProMax said you will need to use some form of RAID for editingg since you cant edit mpeg2 natively so start saving up for a massive HD storage upgrade ;) Were talking TBs.

I have a 400gb SATA Raid drive (2x200), I capture all of my footage from my Z1 or FX1 using the Canopus HQ codec. The captured HDV footage captured takes up no more disc space than capturing in DV.

Cancer - Step Outside the Box.. by Ty Bollinger

Maybe a life could be saved.

ADP Wavefront
Enthusiast

Feb 27, 2005, 11:17 PM

Post #14 of 31 (6372 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

How do you edit it ? Don't you have to convert into an intermediate format ? From what I understand you can not edit mpeg2 because its made up of I,P,B frames. At least in FCP that is the case.

V.U. California Crew, L.A. Chapter

videobear
Veteran

Feb 28, 2005, 5:51 AM

Post #15 of 31 (6344 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mathew] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

You missed Spot's point. He means that Sony uses MiniDV tape in their HDV camcorders because they can re-use the tape transport mechanism from their DV designs, and that Ikegami made their camcorder DV because they could re-use the tape transport (and possibly other components) from their other cameras. He wasn't making any kind of image comparison, only pointing out that there are engineering decisions relating to economics in designing any new model (of anything).

Regards,
Doug Graham
Panda Productions

szerangue
Veteran

Feb 28, 2005, 6:36 AM

Post #16 of 31 (6329 views)
Shortcut

Re: [ADP Wavefront] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

I can capture to a native .m2t file or use the Canopus HQ Codec and capture to a Canopus .avi file. You probably need some of the more technical experts on here to explain the whole compression thing, but the .m2t file is highly compressed and, although can be edited on the Edius timeline, not very successfully. Due to the high compression of the file, about all you can get is one layer with very limited filters with a very fast processor and the Canopus NX or SP card. The Canopus HQ Codec apparently reduces this compression to a format that can be successfully edited without losing picture quality. It works.. All I am saying is that argument about needing more disk space than Bill Gates can afford to capture footage from these cameras is not true.

Cancer - Step Outside the Box.. by Ty Bollinger

Maybe a life could be saved.

KevinShaw
Veteran

Mar 2, 2005, 10:26 PM

Post #17 of 31 (6231 views)
Shortcut

Re: [scotthayes] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

I don't doubt that the Ikegami takes beautiful SD pictures, but it doesn't make sense that a camera which only records 720x480 pixels could possibly rival the image detail of a camera which records 1440x1080 pixels. After seeing footage from the FX1 played on an HDTV, I wouldn't personally bother with any expensive SD camera unless I had some very specific reason to do so. But if you have no interest in attempting to do HD editing & distribution, then good SD cameras will continue to have their place.

Morris
Enthusiast

Mar 3, 2005, 2:28 AM

Post #18 of 31 (6220 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

The Canopus HQ Codec apparently reduces this compression to a format that can be successfully edited without losing picture quality. It works.. All I am saying is that argument about needing more disk space than Bill Gates can afford to capture footage from these cameras is not true.

Shane,
Could you give us an idea of how the size of the captured Canopus HDV file compares to the same time duration footage captured from a SD miniDV camera?
Thanks,
Morris

scotthayes
Veteran

Mar 3, 2005, 4:03 AM

Post #19 of 31 (6212 views)
Shortcut

Re: [kwshaw1] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

, I wouldn't personally bother with any expensive SD camera unless I had some very specific reason to do so. But if you have no interest in attempting to do HD editing & distribution, then good SD cameras will continue to have their place.

this is a good point. and I did have a specific reason to purchase the camera (which was significantly less than 18K). I am doing a local entertainment style show that I picked up, which airs on our nbc affiliate on sundays. I needed the quality, and didn't have the time to mess around in hdv. I sure would love to see some Z1 or FX1 footage up close though.

If your gear is paid for, KEEP IT!

szerangue
Veteran

Mar 3, 2005, 7:00 AM

Post #20 of 31 (6193 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Morris] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

There is no remarkable difference.

Cancer - Step Outside the Box.. by Ty Bollinger

Maybe a life could be saved.

Morris
Enthusiast

Mar 3, 2005, 12:44 PM

Post #21 of 31 (6168 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

There is no remarkable difference.

Sounds like the Canopus compression is about the same as the original HDV MPG2 compression and that affected portions will have to be uncompressed and recompressed when effects are applied.

According to Newman of Cineform, Premiere Pro will use their codec to transcode the HDV stream to a wavelet.avi on the fly while capturing resulting in about 3 times the original file size.

Thanks for posting your HDV observations,
Morris

KevinShaw
Veteran

Mar 3, 2005, 11:21 PM

Post #22 of 31 (6133 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Morris] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

"Sounds like the Canopus compression is about the same as the original HDV MPG2 compression and that affected portions will have to be uncompressed and recompressed when effects are applied. "

I think there's some confusion here because Edius allows you to edit using either native HDV files or the Canopus HQ codec, and an earlier poster appeared to be describing the native editing option. HQ uses a variable bit rate codec which is roughly comparable to Cineform in terms of typical bandwidth, and likewise more efficient than the native HDV format in terms of processing power requirements. HQ also has a choice of quality settings which allow you to make trade-offs between bit rate and editing efficiency, with the "standard" quality setting reportedly yielding very good results. Since both HQ and Cineform use some compression they obviously have to uncompress and recompress for applying effects, but both are apparently much better in this regard than trying to work on native HDV.

kedan
Enthusiast

Mar 4, 2005, 9:56 AM

Post #23 of 31 (6111 views)
Shortcut

Re: [kwshaw1] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

This is what I found in SD:

4x3 Interlaced I think the VX2100 is a little better, but I don't see a big difference

16x9 Progressive z1 blows you away, its like Hollywood DVDs

16x9 Interlaced Z1 is much much, much better than VX2100

DVman
User

Mar 4, 2005, 10:04 AM

Post #24 of 31 (6112 views)
Shortcut

Re: [scotthayes] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

Don't be so sure about it. I recently purchased a Sony Z1 and the HDV downconverted footage in DVcam is looking even better than my expensive 2/3 inch Sony Betacam camcorder. Tried the DVcam back and the Z1 still looked better. Not only that, a friend of mine Richard, who owns a 35,000 2/3 inch cam, saw the footage from the Sony HDV and it blew him away. And I am talking about the DVcam downconverted signal, not even the HDV signal !!! Folks, you are in for an incredible surprise with this camera. Amazing what Sony did ...

In Reply To

I am pretty sure my SD 16:9 Ikegami HL-DV7AW DVCAM is sharper than any handheld camera on the market.
Cool

(This post was edited by DVman on Mar 4, 2005, 10:12 AM)

scotthayes
Veteran

Mar 4, 2005, 11:33 AM

Post #25 of 31 (6100 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DVman] Saw it with my own eyes. Pd-170 SD is sharper than the FX in SD [In reply to]	Can't Post

it is these first hand reports that scare me and make me think I should have gotten two Z1s.

If your gear is paid for, KEEP IT!

1 2

View All