HVX 200 Sample Clips
 

Finally got some stuff copied from my camera to Premiere CS3 and it edit in it native HD format with no gliche. Im happy with the results this would be a typical WMV format for an amateur site. Its compressed for HD downloading. I still need to get use to this camera so Im still experimenting. This is not HDV is DVC Pro HD which has less compression and signal to noise ratio over HDV.

http://jay-rock.com/gfy/test1.wmv

http://jay-rock.com/gfy/test2.wmv

http://jay-rock.com/gfy/test3.wmv

You encoding at close to 5k which is dvd quality.
You notice any difference in comparison from a HDV camera after encoding?

I shoot with that camera. Looks nice hu?

All you need to do now is learn how to keep it steady while you're getting your dick sucked. hehehe

Sebs

Hope you didn't buy that camera for web content. Talk about overkill.

That depends on your standards..

how many people here are using the hvx200?

if not... what HD/HDV camera are you shooting with?

List your equip:

Myself...

Sony HDR-FX1
Canon HV20

(both HDV)

Dude, this cam is just suited for web... fantastic results... of course, if you know how to use it... it's a pretty decent price for the production value... bring that fire store... you just fuckin' rollin'... the Leica is simply awesome, crystal clear... and we not even talking about the HD format yet... Get your hands on one... otherwise you are jerking in the dark...

I had the canon XH A1 for 5 months and I was disappointed. HDV breaks up and goes to shit in the compression if you have any dark areas in your shot. There is a considerable amount of noise in the HDV which is truley a prosumer format and will eventually will be proven a consumer format with codecs like DVC Pro that run circles around it. This HVX 200 is much easier to keep in focus, its is much sharper as well and you don't need 2000 watts of light to get a clean image.

DVD quality
 

5k is not DVD quality 8k if full DVD quality so that would mean its half DVD quality. Its suited for todays savy customers that seek high end content. I will deliver this and my clients will be pleased with me. With my experience the clients that want HD are easier to work for because they will pay you more and expect this quality. As for SD shooting I still shoot standard for some great clients but this is only because they are making DVDs. SD will be a thing of the past in 2008 since major dept store willl stop selling SD tvs. Most models have already been disontinoued and will no longer be in production. This rapid changeover is happening sooner than you think. There will be no more Standard TV stations. People will have to downconvert their HD signals if they are stubborn enough to keep their old SD tvs. I threw all my old SD monitors out. Welcome to today my friends.

Its encoded at 4.5 kbps

I was being sarcastic, and failed at it.

That's a sweet cam for content production, but doesn't give you "outstanding" results in my opinion. We used to shoot with the Sony HVR Z1 which is in the same price range as the Panasonic and it's comparable when in comes to quality. Check out this trailer shot with Z1:

http://www.csi-productions.com/templ...raightdemo.wmv

About six months ago we upgraded to the JVC GY-HD201 (http://www.pbs-video.com/gy-hd201e-p...ml?language=us) and loving it ever since. Pretty much all our clients were blown away by the results. Progressive HDV is the way to go in my opinion. See trailer here:

http://www.csi-productions.com/templ...fps960x540.wmv

After seeing your trailer I realize I new to buy some better lighting LOL!

The content looks badass Jay, well done as usual

Jay... what are you using to archive your content? Those are HUGE files at full HD

how did you get the DVC pro HD format video into cs3? last i read they were not compatable

CS3 was developed in conjunction with Matrox, specifically for HD non linear editing, multi camera editing and SD up convert to HD editing.

here's an SD to HD mix clip I made as a test. This test clearly shows that HD quality for Web can be made with SD .. can you tell which which footage is HD and which is SD ? download the zip file here

I cut this with CS2 on a DV naitive Matrox suite
Vid

so far this looks the best with the JVC.. very nice. great skin tones and clarity.

I love technology, but let's keep things in perspective. The lighting one uses and the actual content (the models, locations, the heat of the sex action) count for as much or more than the camera one shoots with. The clips above look good, but they don't look any better at a glance than say, any well lit clip that one could find that was shot with an hdv camera.

I think the hvx looks better in my opinion.Jay the footage looks great.

thank you shit is shit,if you shoot with hd its hd shit. Lit well , models really into and hot action will sell good if it was shot on hi 8

yes, but dvpro *last i heard* could not be directly uploaded to cs3, only the other formats, that format is directly able to be edited in final cut pro/apple.

it's the big reason i declined buying one and am waiting on the new sony next month, once again, i could be completely misunderstanding the issue re: compatability with hddv pro and cs3.

also the z1 is not even close to the hvx200. The hvx 200 also shoots progressive.

yupe your off on your assumption as of Sept 2007 CS3 supported Pana p2 technology, It also is supported under CS2 (I shoot with the HVX200 and edit with it on a CS2 platform in Naitive Dv) .. Here s a link clearly stating that P2 is supported by Adobe CS3 http://syphaonline.com/SYPHAnewsitem...071008-11.html

fucking-around-and-business-discussion/768051-talk-real-hd-def.html

more on the upcoming HDTV switch

technically, i was only off by a few weeks!:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

anyhoo, it's a great camera and it's nice to see cs3 handling it now

CS3 is great. It's the best performing version when coupled with the newest version of Aspect HD that I use for hdv editing with the Cineform codec.

I shoot with the HVX200, great camera for the money. Heres a little snippet I've just put together

http://www.digitalgloss.com/Jana.wmv

Good stuff as always. :thumbsup

It's not about popping out to the store to buy the best camera available. It's a lot more than that. Finding a model who can suit the quality, the scenario to fit and most of all being able to light the scene.

Shooting teens in HD is good if you want to show Zits. LOL

HD for the web is so much BS - a regular DVD movie, mpeg2, like Jays says has a bitrate of 8mbps - and you have people claiming HD video movies on their sites with 2mbps or 4mbps encoded bitrates. correct me if i'm wrong but a standard DV movie encoded at 4mbps is essentially the same quality as a movie shot with an HD camera encoded at a similar 4mbps - right?

Thats basically true Mutt, but you do get better resolution and picture quality if originating on HD or HDV

but doesn't that get lost to the human eye as you reduce the encoding bitrate?

nice video Timi :thumbsup

Again thats totally correct Mutt. But at any given bitrate that I have encoded to in the past from SD ( VX2000's, PD150's etc) I don't think i've had the picture quality that I'm getting from HD. Also, thanks for the comment. BTW the day when I shot that video I shot a very small amount of 16mm film between takes. Heres a little sample
http://www.digitalgloss.com/test16.wmv

Is the site barelylegalteenz.com live or are you just using it to test stuff. Because I am timing out on all of the samples and the main url as well.

film wins for that type of content imho

honestly - i'm not really impressed by any of those cams, the main difference is the lighting. i like Timis stuff, especially cause it's a different approach to what we do.

Agree with a lot of you but what will you do with your SD content in the future when most people will have HDTV projections on their wall for computer monitors. I already surf the net on my wall a full HD 140 inch display in full 1080 I projected on my wall. It looks insane with you can work in full HD and you videos look like you are looking in a window at the talent. You just don't see this quality on your standard 19 inch monitors. Its all about the future my friends.

stand-by for all the *zitz* comments.

btw, GIGO. i'd much rather downsample super high quality and benefit from cinematic color settings and gammas, 24p, etc. than go buy a $250 sd cam on sale at bestbuy, take the lens cap off and go.

wtf is white balance anywyas?

but maybe that's just why so many sites/content suck these days.

Mutt, I find that hdv footage when lit really nicely looks better to the observer in the final encoded state at say WMV with 4500 Kbps video bitrate than a comparable bitrate SD WMV file would. You can most notice the difference in details like the texture and color of a model's flowing hair and in things that glisten, like say saliva dripping off a hard cock. To my eye, even at a glance there is a whole pseudo 3D look that hi-def footage has that makes it pop off the screen a bit more than SD footage does, again assuming expert lighting in both cases.

The downside for porn is that much of the time, 16 x 9 formats are useless, adding in a ton of extra stuff in the frame that isn't important.

Nice quality videos there :)

I think that regardless of how you output the file, the source counts for a ton. Saying that you can get comparable finished product from a 6MP camera and a 22MP camera is just silly. The 22MP is getting soooooooooo much more source information that it's image will just be better, regardless of the final size. Why do you think almost all major publications shoot cover shots with 4x5 and 8x10s rather than 35mm???

The same holds true for the video production. A camera in HD will get a better source to work with than an SD unit. When you downsample it is noticable.

I agree with you regarding the depth of an HD unit... it has a more realistic feel to it than SD.

Alex, this only has to do with people that are rendering their 16x9 source into a 4:3 frame. If they weren't lazy and rendered it into a 16x9 frame, there would be no extras. I personally hate letterbox when you don't have to have it. it only matters when the output screen is 4:3 (which most monitors have no issue with anymore as the file resolution is much smaller than the monitor's max res.)..... my wife's iPod plays letterbox because it has to when I rip a DVD for her to watch on it... my apple cine screens are 1920x1280... so they play 16:9 inherently without problem.

I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to using Final Cut, but I do know how to take a 16x9 source and output it at 16x9 (I shoot with two SD Canon GL2s and one HD Canon HV10 so I work in both formats... I really do want an HVX200 though... looks slick!!!).... I figured that part out in the first week. In fact, when you do it properly, a 16:9 will render much, much faster at the source ratio than when you render it to 4:3 as it has to create the entire frame that way.

People that render letterbox either don't know any better, havent' taken the class on how to make it work the right way, or just like the look of having somewhere to put their copyright info so it's not on the image, just over the black instead.

That film stock was sexy!!!!! I know there are filters where you can make your digital capture look like that... but honestly that was cool!!! Sometimes you just can't beat old school technology.

Alex, 16x9 is great for filming three-ways especially since you can stretch the three models out in a ménage à trois and fit all or most of the action in the frame!

FTV moves to 1440x1080 or '1920x1080' 8000kb/sec HD in December:
examples:

http://content.ftvgirls.com/samanthahd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/nikitahd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/mariahd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/laceyhd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/karahd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/fayehd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/katehd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/mlhd8.wmv
http://content.ftvgirls.com/terahd8.wmv

:thumbsup :thumbsup

HD at that bitrate and resolution is a bitch to edit though.:mad:

i guess it is with film the same ways as digital SLR's.. the dynamic range is much less then that of film, which makes for overexposure and this is very visible in your first clip shot with the digital HD cam, her skin tones are burnt, have red and orange tones in them.. in the film, the highlights are clean skin colors....nice.
shit i hope the chip manufacturers find a solution for that soon...imagine shooting with a color film or black and white dynamic range digital equipment..my wish for xmas..

for glamour nothing will look better than film - we walk around all day seeing the world in HD - that's the goal of HD technology - but i don't think that's the goal of art/cinema/erotica - to just replicate what we see in our everyday world.

same thing with still photography - film is best.

Rob, your aspect ratio on those videos is all fucked up!

frame rates seem off on just about all the samples on this page ...
HD is a bitch to compress to a Wmv format