 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to List of Panasonic camcorders. |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2009. The result of the discussion was merge to List of Panasonic Camcorders. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
According to American Cinematographer this month, the film "Redacted" is shot primarily with the AG-HVX200, and (according to http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=49352) some high profile TV shows such as "America's Test Kitchen" and "Numb3rs" Also this link might be valuable to the article? http://panasonic.sixbullets.net Indie_Film ( talk) 01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone like to post a picture of the camera? Or further still, frame grabs or links to released footage? (anon. edit by User:67.52.163.52)
- I could make one, as I own the camera. Framegrabs could be possible, as soon as I get a recording medium for DVCProHD... Pascal Parvex
I put up a file called hvx200-720p.jpg that is a 720p extraction. Indie_Film ( talk) 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The RED camera is vaporware... it doesn't exist yet. Before we compare it to the Panasonic AG-HVX200 maybe we should wait until there is an actual camera developed. The RED camera will cost around $20,000, without a lens and without a tape recorder. It is in a completely different class of camera... beyond HD. Tvaughan1 01:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- RED's not vaporware (=deceptive), it's just not out yet. I agree they are in a different budget, but since both HVX and RED allow very cost-effective filming (saving lots of money compared to how it would have to be done before those cameras were out), both cameras still appeal to the same crowd, and I think, the mention of RED can stay, if properly phrased. Peter S. 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was common knowledge that the HVX200 has 960x540 CCDs? A search for 'HVX200 960x540' on Google will give you nearly 500 hits, whereas 'HVX200 1220x1080' gives precisely zero. If I remember correctly, even Panasonic's own brochure on the camera lists the CCD size as 960x540. Mark Grant 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to be correct (and reflected in the current article).
Peter S.
08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... Okay maybe I acted to quickly to place the
citation needed in there. At first Panasonic never said what the sensor resolution was until march 2006 sometime. I heard a rumor that it was Canon that took it apart and discovered the resolution of the sensor. DV.com is a reliable source, right?
[1] 1080-line camera limiting resolutions. But I agree with you's.
Wuffyz
17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Edit a minute later.
- Yes, I think so. I read about this on dvxuser.com, and I read there that Panasonic themselves confirmed it.
Peter S.
08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the reason that they didn't say at first was because they didn't want people to think the resolution would be low. I tried looking for sample video and it's all been removed. I think it was because Panasonic got mad. They may have thought that anybody with a PAL XL-2 could interpolate the image to 1080p, although pixel shift is a better way than plain interpolation. Wuffyz 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. I read about this on dvxuser.com, and I read there that Panasonic themselves confirmed it.
Peter S.
08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... Okay maybe I acted to quickly to place the
citation needed in there. At first Panasonic never said what the sensor resolution was until march 2006 sometime. I heard a rumor that it was Canon that took it apart and discovered the resolution of the sensor. DV.com is a reliable source, right?
[1] 1080-line camera limiting resolutions. But I agree with you's.
Wuffyz
17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Edit a minute later.
- Well, the resolution is low: the comparison tests I've seen between prosumer HD cameras put XLH1 (1440x1080 CCDs, I think) > Z1 (960x1080 CCDs?) > HVX200. There are other reasons to prefer the HVX200, but if resolution is all you want, the XLH1 apparently beats it easily, particularly through the SDI connectors. Mark Grant 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The HVX200 is better in other such ways, like the non linear recording through the use of P2 cards, the better color that the DVCPRO HD codec succeeds in, the few artifacts than that of the HDV codec and the natively progressive recording, compared to the deinterlaced recording of the XL H1. But I think that you could use some plug-in for a NLE and remove the artifacts, though this would lose some resolution it most likely be yet greater resolution than that what the HVX200 would produce. I am considering getting an XL H1, XH G1 or XH A1. Although the XL H1, XH series, HVX200, Z1, GY-HDU100 and even the HV10 are all great cameras that I would be happy to own. I would probably choose the XL H1 or the XH G1 or the XH A1. Even if the resolution of sensor in the HVX200 was 1220x1080 I would probably choose it. Maybe the HVX200a or the HVX300. Wuffyz 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was highly upset when I clicked on the link See footage from the HVX200 here and found that the vast majority of these links you can't preview at all, in fact, you have to pay just to see them! C'mon...there are plenty of sites out there that list FREE links to view footage from this camera. I move that this link be deleted and replaced with a less commercial sample clip list. josephjrr 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC) I uploaded a still from a project I shot in 720p on the HVX. I don't have much experience with Wikipedia images so I'd feel better if someone else would integrate it into the article and double check that the licensing stuff is ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HVX200-720p.jpg Indie_Film ( talk) 23:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am uncertain why there needs to be a lengthy discussion about HDV vs. DVCPRO on a page about a camera. Instead of, say, on a page about either of the codecs or etc. This is a page about the camera, not about which codec is superior.
Is there any opposition to this section being removed? The only mention of the camera itself in that section seems to use weasel words, citing no source. Thoughts? CharCoal 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Major difference between all HDV cameras and DVCPro HD Cameras is the difference in their picture quality or bit rate, and the codecs that the cameras use is very important in understanding that difference. I think that that section needs some cleanup with citation, but yes, it is quite important.
- It's not that important. Just say that it records DVCPRO HD and link to the DVCPRO HD article. That simple. Then at the DVCPRO HD article you could have a comparison with HDV. Wuffyz 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to List of Panasonic camcorders. |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2009. The result of the discussion was merge to List of Panasonic Camcorders. |
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
According to American Cinematographer this month, the film "Redacted" is shot primarily with the AG-HVX200, and (according to http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=49352) some high profile TV shows such as "America's Test Kitchen" and "Numb3rs" Also this link might be valuable to the article? http://panasonic.sixbullets.net Indie_Film ( talk) 01:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone like to post a picture of the camera? Or further still, frame grabs or links to released footage? (anon. edit by User:67.52.163.52)
- I could make one, as I own the camera. Framegrabs could be possible, as soon as I get a recording medium for DVCProHD... Pascal Parvex
I put up a file called hvx200-720p.jpg that is a 720p extraction. Indie_Film ( talk) 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The RED camera is vaporware... it doesn't exist yet. Before we compare it to the Panasonic AG-HVX200 maybe we should wait until there is an actual camera developed. The RED camera will cost around $20,000, without a lens and without a tape recorder. It is in a completely different class of camera... beyond HD. Tvaughan1 01:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- RED's not vaporware (=deceptive), it's just not out yet. I agree they are in a different budget, but since both HVX and RED allow very cost-effective filming (saving lots of money compared to how it would have to be done before those cameras were out), both cameras still appeal to the same crowd, and I think, the mention of RED can stay, if properly phrased. Peter S. 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was common knowledge that the HVX200 has 960x540 CCDs? A search for 'HVX200 960x540' on Google will give you nearly 500 hits, whereas 'HVX200 1220x1080' gives precisely zero. If I remember correctly, even Panasonic's own brochure on the camera lists the CCD size as 960x540. Mark Grant 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to be correct (and reflected in the current article).
Peter S.
08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... Okay maybe I acted to quickly to place the
citation needed in there. At first Panasonic never said what the sensor resolution was until march 2006 sometime. I heard a rumor that it was Canon that took it apart and discovered the resolution of the sensor. DV.com is a reliable source, right?
[1] 1080-line camera limiting resolutions. But I agree with you's.
Wuffyz
17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Edit a minute later.
- Yes, I think so. I read about this on dvxuser.com, and I read there that Panasonic themselves confirmed it.
Peter S.
08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the reason that they didn't say at first was because they didn't want people to think the resolution would be low. I tried looking for sample video and it's all been removed. I think it was because Panasonic got mad. They may have thought that anybody with a PAL XL-2 could interpolate the image to 1080p, although pixel shift is a better way than plain interpolation. Wuffyz 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. I read about this on dvxuser.com, and I read there that Panasonic themselves confirmed it.
Peter S.
08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... Okay maybe I acted to quickly to place the
citation needed in there. At first Panasonic never said what the sensor resolution was until march 2006 sometime. I heard a rumor that it was Canon that took it apart and discovered the resolution of the sensor. DV.com is a reliable source, right?
[1] 1080-line camera limiting resolutions. But I agree with you's.
Wuffyz
17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Edit a minute later.
- Well, the resolution is low: the comparison tests I've seen between prosumer HD cameras put XLH1 (1440x1080 CCDs, I think) > Z1 (960x1080 CCDs?) > HVX200. There are other reasons to prefer the HVX200, but if resolution is all you want, the XLH1 apparently beats it easily, particularly through the SDI connectors. Mark Grant 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The HVX200 is better in other such ways, like the non linear recording through the use of P2 cards, the better color that the DVCPRO HD codec succeeds in, the few artifacts than that of the HDV codec and the natively progressive recording, compared to the deinterlaced recording of the XL H1. But I think that you could use some plug-in for a NLE and remove the artifacts, though this would lose some resolution it most likely be yet greater resolution than that what the HVX200 would produce. I am considering getting an XL H1, XH G1 or XH A1. Although the XL H1, XH series, HVX200, Z1, GY-HDU100 and even the HV10 are all great cameras that I would be happy to own. I would probably choose the XL H1 or the XH G1 or the XH A1. Even if the resolution of sensor in the HVX200 was 1220x1080 I would probably choose it. Maybe the HVX200a or the HVX300. Wuffyz 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I was highly upset when I clicked on the link See footage from the HVX200 here and found that the vast majority of these links you can't preview at all, in fact, you have to pay just to see them! C'mon...there are plenty of sites out there that list FREE links to view footage from this camera. I move that this link be deleted and replaced with a less commercial sample clip list. josephjrr 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC) I uploaded a still from a project I shot in 720p on the HVX. I don't have much experience with Wikipedia images so I'd feel better if someone else would integrate it into the article and double check that the licensing stuff is ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HVX200-720p.jpg Indie_Film ( talk) 23:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am uncertain why there needs to be a lengthy discussion about HDV vs. DVCPRO on a page about a camera. Instead of, say, on a page about either of the codecs or etc. This is a page about the camera, not about which codec is superior.
Is there any opposition to this section being removed? The only mention of the camera itself in that section seems to use weasel words, citing no source. Thoughts? CharCoal 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Major difference between all HDV cameras and DVCPro HD Cameras is the difference in their picture quality or bit rate, and the codecs that the cameras use is very important in understanding that difference. I think that that section needs some cleanup with citation, but yes, it is quite important.
- It's not that important. Just say that it records DVCPRO HD and link to the DVCPRO HD article. That simple. Then at the DVCPRO HD article you could have a comparison with HDV. Wuffyz 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)