Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?

[katyam]

Hi!

There is a very rich discussion going on here about the two cameras and their strong features and shortcomings, but I couldn't find anything that would decidedly mark one as a better choice for achieving a film look, so I am turning to the experts for advice.

I am currently working on feature-length documentary in Israel, and the bulk of my work will be interviews done outside, while walking around historical locations with my protagonists. I will be doing a lot of hand-held shooting, often in fairly low-light conditions. Given what I read about the two cameras so far, hand-held work seems to call for the HVX because of the wobble issue. However, there are other concerns I would like to clarify:

1) footage from which camera would produce better results when blown up to 35mm?
2) which footage is easier to do after effects and color correction work on?
3) which camera gives a more credible cinema look overall, without using a 35mm adapter?

Thank you very much for your advice!

Katya Myer

[FrankC]

Hi Katya... I'm buying the EX1 partly for my full length feature work.
1. I'm guessing the EX1 will produce a better 35mm blow-up by far since it's full blown 1080p as opposed to 720p.
2. Apple FCP fully supports the EX1's long GOP format...and with Color, it's amazing what you can do to achieve a film look. Not only that, with Motion, you can smooth out those handheld shoots to be glassy smooth. So much of your work will actually be in post rather than in the camera.
Also, I really don't think any shutter wobble will be an issue at all (unless you're slinging the camera around on a rope). Many people on this forum have reported not seeing ANY problem at all.
With the great in-camera film looks...for me, there's no question the EX1 is the top choice.

[Barry_S]

You sure you don't want to ask something less controversial--like what's the best religion? :)




1) footage from which camera would produce better results when blown up to 35mm?


Since no one has seen EX1 footage transferred to 35mm film, no answer yet. Presumably, the EX1's higher resolution would yield a sharper image, but sharpness is only a single factor. We already know HVX film transfers look good.



2) which footage is easier to do after effects and color correction work on?


If we're talking about working with the native footage, the HVX's DVCPRO HD is less taxing on computer systems. The EX1's MPEG2 footage would be better transcoded before any heavy grading or composting.



3) which camera gives a more credible cinema look overall, without using a 35mm adapter?

The HVX has a nice cinema look right out of the box and Panny made it clear that they tweaked the gamma/chroma to achieve that look. Out of the box, the EX1 doesn't look as filmic *but* Sony has stated that their priority was to capture the maximum dynamic range. The EX1 footage can be graded beautifully as evidenced by Philip Bloom's Magic Bullet work on his EX1 footage.


Handholding does not mean that EX1 wobble is going to be an issue, unless your work is very very shaky. The EX1 would be better than the HVX in low light--although the jury is still out on just how much better.

[ffaf07]

1) Both cameras do 1080p, so film out resolution would be equal. However, the EX1 has 1/2" chips, as opposed to the HVX's 1/3".

2) The HVX's DVCProHD video codec is 4:2:2 colorspace, which will give you more post production freedom the EX1's 4:2:0.

3) The EX1 is still very new, and of course that is very subjective.

There are a couple of things I would concern you about:

If you're plan is to go to 35mm film, then you're clearly serious about this film, in which case I would edit the feature without any color-correction, then export it as a TIFF sequence to a hard drive, and bring it to a post house for some serious professional color correction, as well as bringing it to a studio for professional 5.1 sound production. Both would make an incredible difference on your result.

Overall I would say go HVX. It's been around for a while, has many instructional DVD's out (for learning before your official shot), it has plenty of accessories and service, and there's a lot of people here who know how to help you get the best out of the camera. With the EX1 you're essentially paying more for the interchangable lens feature, which I'm sure you won't need.

DVX feature documentaries have been nominated for Oscars, so as long as you're passionate about your subject and committed to filming a LOT, the camera you use becomes quite insignificant.

[mico]

The EX does not have interchangeable lenses. Sony will come out with two cams that do have interchangeable but they shoot hDV not xdcam.

Yes the HVX does 4:2:2 but with its lower resolution and more noise, I'm not convinced of how much more 'freedom' in post there will be over the EX.

[Leo Versola]

With the EX1 you're essentially paying more for the interchangable lens feature, which I'm sure you won't need.

Quick point of clarification: the EX1 does not accommodate interchangeable lenses. It has a fixed Fujinon lens; and from what I've read, a fairly decent one at that.

[katyam]

Thank you for great responses and useful advice!

Barry, your post should be read by anyone who is accusing you of exclusive pro-HVX bias on this forum.

ffaf07, I will be editing my footage in FCP, and hope to prepare the best material possible for the post production work, including color and sound. I was just really drawn to the idea of a sharper image, and the beautiful footage posted by Phillip Bloom looked very very attractive.

Barry, another question. Forgive my ignorance, but could you put me to some source that would explain the relationship between the dynamic range and achieving a film look?

Many thanks!

Katya

[ilauzirika]

1) Both cameras do 1080p.
yes but one is 1920x1080 and the other 1280x1080.

[ffaf07]

Sorry about the Sony cam confusion.

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

The better cinema look, huh? Well I bet I can make a better cinema look with the worst camera sitting in best buy then you can using both HVX and EX1!
ohhhhhh you just got served! :costumed-smiley-047

Ok in all seriousness, it's not the camera it's the person behind it. Remember people, camera's don't shoot movies, people shoot movies. Some may help you shoot, but they won't make the film. If you want my honest opinion on which is better.... If you can't tell right away, then I'd say neither is. If it's not immediately obvious, I would say the results will always vary depending on the production and the skill of the videographer. To add another analogy... will a 500 horsepower car vs a 480 horsepower car have an automatic win because it's 'technically' better on paper? Or will it depend on how the driver performs?

And on another note, I've seen some of the WORST prosumer camcorders make the most beautiful images when in the hands of the right person. It's all about finding the right wand, Harry Potter, all about matching you up with the right wand. :)

[katyam]

"It's all about finding the right wand, Harry Potter, all about matching you up with the right wand."

Well, the "right wand" in this case could be the right camera, couldn't it? :) And/or the right camera person (I am doing only about half of the shooting myself).

In all seriousness, though, on a big project it makes sense to try and produce the best raw footage possible, to make post production easier and more fun. It doesn't cancel out the talent factor though :)

[Barry_S]

Barry, your post should be read by anyone who is accusing you of exclusive pro-HVX bias on this forum.


Ahh, the problems of having two Barry mods on the same forum. :) I'm not Barry Green, but I think he's been even-handed on the EX1.





...could you put me to some source that would explain the relationship between the dynamic range and achieving a film look?



No references, but it's all about how the image processing is handled with repect to chroma and gamma. Different manufacturers have particular looks associated with their camera lines as a result of their camera designs and internal processing choices. You're best off trying to find a bunch of footage from each camera and deciding if you like what you see. Both cameras are capable of producing good looking footage, but it also depends on what you plan for your workflow.

[J.R. Hudson]

These days it seems all of our camera options are becoming neglible.

Can one really go wrong with all of the options out there ? If one can make a story really worthy of its weight, no one will blink an eye at the camera used.

28 Days Later - Canon XL1 *
Pieces of April - PD 150 #
Open Water - VX2000 / PD170 *

* Box Office Cinematic success.
# Best supporting actress OSCAR nomination for Patricia Clarkson

-

The right wand isn't the camera, it's the Wizard and his execution and talent.

[Barry_Green]

Excellent points John, but you left out other standard-def hits like:
SuperSize Me: Oscar nomination for Best Doc (PD150)
Inconvenient Truth: Oscar winner for Best Doc (lots of cams including HD100)
Iraq In Fragments: Oscar nominee for Best Doc (DVX100)
Murderball: Oscar nominee for Best Doc (DVX100)

The lesson here is: your camera is not what's keeping you out of the theaters or out of the Academy Awards! Yes better is better, and we all like better, but anyone who thinks that their choice of an EX1 vs. HVX200 is going to have *any* bearing on the success of their film is just totally not thinking correctly.

[J.R. Hudson]

Exactly BG. !

[katyam]

While I agree with the wise ones here, I think an important angle is being overlooked :) Nobody in their right mind would hope that a better camera alone would guarantee success of their film - I certainly don't. At the same time, there is quite a bit of interest in new cameras on this forum and elsewhere on the net, simply because fresh technologies are fascinating, could be used to produce exciting results, and when they become available, why not look into them?

I read through a lot of interviews given by James Longley because I was fascinated with the work he did in Iraq. In his case the camera did matter - he relied on DVX's sturdiness and ability to deliver excellent performance in very rough conditions, which was just what the camera did. He did say in one of the interviews that he was planning to do his next project using HVX - that was before any news on EX1 came out. So, since he was planning to switch to HVX, he was at least somewhat mindful what equipment he was using, no?

But overall, of course - talent rules, and there is no replacement for it.

[katyam]

Barry, thank you for the very useful info. Sorry for mixing you up with someone else!

K.

[Stevet]

These days it seems all of our camera options are becoming neglible.

Can one really go wrong with all of the options out there ? If one can make a story really worthy of its weight, no one will blink an eye at the camera used.

28 Days Later - Canon XL1 *
Pieces of April - PD 150 #
Open Water - VX2000 / PD170 *

* Box Office Cinematic success.
# Best supporting actress OSCAR nomination for Patricia Clarkson

-

The right wand isn't the camera, it's the Wizard and his execution and talent.

Well put John!

[Stevet]

The lesson here is: your camera is not what's keeping you out of the theaters or out of the Academy Awards! Yes better is better, and we all like better, but anyone who thinks that their choice of an EX1 vs. HVX200 is going to have *any* bearing on the success of their film is just totally not thinking correctly.


That's for sure!
These cameras are just our tools. It's how creative one can get with their tools to deliver their story.

The same holds true with everything. I'm also a studio owner and have always seeked the best quality I could afford, but you can't help to stop and realize what was done over thirty years ago and how dang good it sounds!

It's easy to get caught up in the number games.
Thanks you John and Barry for reminding us just that!

[ahusain]

another point of view is that some films could not be made without certain types of super expensive cameras, because half the story is the image. the film baraka is a good example (shot on 65mm). it wouldn't have the same impact on a pd-150. of course i agree with the spirit of this topic.

[sodotoguwangus]

It's obvious that the "user" and not the "camera" is what makes the film. Why must this be empasized over and over again? People who insist on repeating this mantra must think they are all knowing sages ... or something.

Imagine if the film 300 was shot on a sony PD-150.

Sometimes, just sometimes, the technology does matter.

And yes, I know, no amount of technology can make up for sheer talent.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

It's both.

If it weren't technology AND talent then painters wouldn't go to such great lengths to formulate such prized paints nor would they trouble themselves so much with finding the most precise implement to apply their precious paints.

This is the same with this collaborative most highly technical art of film making. Digital or otherwise.


There are two simple truths in this regard.

1. No amount of technology, however advanced or perfected, will compensate for the lack talent on the part of writer, actor, director, cinematographer...

2. The absence of "the perfect" technology will not impede a talented and masterful artist from producing "the perfect" piece of art.

[mico]

It's obvious that the "user" and not the "camera" is what makes the film. Why must this be empasized over and over again? People who insist on repeating this mantra must think they are all knowing sages ... or something.



Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.

[Barry_Green]

Agreed, yes. But this used to be far more important three or four years ago, when the question was high-def interlaced vs. standard-def 24p vs. film, etc.

It's not such a big deal now. I wager you could shoot something on a $1,000 HV20 that could make for a sharp-looking film transfer, certainly sharper than anything anyone would have gotten from a 1/2" BetaSP UVW100 from 15 years ago. The market has changed. The tools are closer than they were, and the point of "good enough" has been passed in many ways.

I'm a gear head. I am a proponent of "better is better, and we like better because it's better." But recently we've been swamped with gear lust on these boards, so we're just trying to bring a little perspective as well as pointing out that the threshhold of "good enough" has been met. A $3,000 XHA1 will produce images that are "good enough" that nobody's going to be clawing their eyes out in the theater (unlike the XL1, when I was seriously bothered by how out-of-focus the whole "28 Days Later" experience was.) Now we have a massive-budget Best Picture Oscar-winning film using an HVX200 for an insert shot and intercutting seamlessly and nobody even noticed?

We're at "good enough." Spazzing over a few pixels here and there isn't going to do anything for a "cinema look", y'knowhutImean?

[dmc]

I couldn't be more in agreement that it's the carpenter and not the hammer. Content and talent will always trump technology.

While I prefer to read about the more aesthic aspects of the craft, this is largely a technology focused user group (DVXUSER) - I'm not sure why people are surprised that camera specs and technical critiques are so prevalent.


dmc

[snowleopard]

Great post there Barry. Agree with you 1000% about "good enough" being passed in many ways and an excess of gear lust of late.

[J.R. Hudson]

Agreed, yes. But this used to be far more important three or four years ago, when the question was high-def interlaced vs. standard-def 24p vs. film, etc.

It's not such a big deal now. I wager you could shoot something on a $1,000 HV20 that could make for a sharp-looking film transfer, certainly sharper than anything anyone would have gotten from a 1/2" BetaSP UVW100 from 15 years ago. The market has changed. The tools are closer than they were, and the point of "good enough" has been passed in many ways.

I'm a gear head. I am a proponent of "better is better, and we like better because it's better." But recently we've been swamped with gear lust on these boards, so we're just trying to bring a little perspective as well as pointing out that the threshhold of "good enough" has been met. A $3,000 XHA1 will produce images that are "good enough" that nobody's going to be clawing their eyes out in the theater (unlike the XL1, when I was seriously bothered by how out-of-focus the whole "28 Days Later" experience was.) Now we have a massive-budget Best Picture Oscar-winning film using an HVX200 for an insert shot and intercutting seamlessly and nobody even noticed?

We're at "good enough." Spazzing over a few pixels here and there isn't going to do anything for a "cinema look", y'knowhutImean?

Great post.

[Isaac_Brody]

I think gear lust is sometimes a mask for insecurity. When people don't know how to write, or light, or tell a story with the tools in front of them, it's easier to say the next best thing will make me a better filmmaker instead of spending the time each night to write or shooting all the time to improve skills.

[Barry_Green]

Could very well be. But I think a lot of it was also based in the reality that the newer tools really did offer something that was missing before. Component digital recording with lossless capture (VX1000) was a nice big step. 24P progressive video at an affordable price point, and quality audio (DVX) was a huge step. High-def 24p (HD100). Native 16x9, 24p and high def, even variable frame rates and cine gammas -- well, we're there. That's where we needed to get to, and that's where we're at. We can even get there (HD 24p 16:9) at $600 (HV20)!

But now every manufacturer offers an adequate digital cine tool, so it's not even like we should be thinking about waiting for "the next great thing", we've got more than enough (again, witnessed by a lowly PD150 being enough to get an Oscar nod for SuperSize Me!)

In other words, it absolutely isn't the tools that's holding anyone back now. We enjoy talking about them and seeing what's new and whatnot, but objectively speaking every one of them is good enough for the purpose that most of our DVXUsers want to put them to. We're no longer talking about a major difference of kind anymore, now it's largely a matter of degree.

[adamr316]

Both talent and tools matter. Once you reach a certain level of skill/knowledge you will be hindered by low-end equipment. Higher end cameras just don't produce better images/sound, they also provide expansive functionality and speed up the film/videomaking process.

Cases in point:

Consumer cameras do not offer XLR inputs
Consumer cameras do not offer manual audio control (for the most part)
Consumer cameras are often not very ergonomical (those palm sized cameras come into mind)
Manual white balance is not always possible with consumer cameras
Consumer cameras do not have professional quality lenses and therefore lack a lot of the features of a professional image. Great color rendition, contrast, coating, and resolution come to mind. Not to mention easy manual focusing.

I'm missing a lot of things but I hope you get the point. Equipment level is equally important as skill level. But the content of what your audio/video devices is what people will ultimately care about. The series "Planet Earth" was a perfect combination of excellent content, camera operator skills/creativity and high end equipment. And the result was just marvelous! They wouldn't have shot that on a Hi8 camera!

A few of the award winning movies used prosumer equipment to achieve a certain aesthetic but a lot of them (especially the documentaries) more than likely would have used much better equipment had they had the budget. I know I would...if you have the cash, why not?

People are more likely to take your work seriously (and get your project distribution) if the technical qualities of your project are up to snuff. Actors will take your film more seriously. Clients will respect a high end camera (I dare you to show up to big corporate job with a handycam). In this field we call Communcations, it is easy to communicate (i.e. keep a captive audience) when the sound and picture are pretty!

Having cheaper equipment isn't an excuse for poor filmmaking but it sure does make a difference or we all wouldn't invest our money into costlier equipment.

[Barry_Green]

All excellent points.

[whachusay]

Barry, what was the Oscar winning Best Picture film that used an HVX in a scene?

Sorry for my ignorance.

[Barry_Green]

Scorcese's The Departed.

[Jared Meyer]

Barry do you know specifically which shot it was? The only reason I ask is that this thread states it is the entire last shot of the film which I find really hard to believe.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=88008

[Barry_Green]

Rob Legato, visual fx supervisor for the film, has described it before. It's a shot of Di Caprio's character, wearing a hoodie (it's a stand-in, actually) and holding a picture frame.

[Jared Meyer]

Ah, thanks. Going to find it right now.

[whachusay]

Snaps! That movie was great.

thanks for the info.

[taormina]

Yeah but I like gear lust ;-)

[Gil-galad]

I agree with what people have been saying, although I would like to suggest that poor image quality is much more acceptable in a documentary than in a narrative. A notable exception is 28 Days Later, as I think someone said, was shot on the XL-1. However, in this case, the images quality was used as a aesthetic effect, and was not distracting, but enhanced what the filmmakers were going for.

But try shooting Lord of the Rings or War of the Worlds on a DVX and blowing it up to 35, and IMHO, even non-film people would have a problem with it. Basically, documentaries can get away with a lot. At least, when it's footage from the field. For interviews there is no excuse for lousy lighting and composition. Just my two cents.

[emotepix]

I agree with all the above.
And the topic of this thread is a better cinema experience for the buck.

I'm in a position of transition at the moment, from HDV cameras through camera X to a Red, eventually. So I'm not a filmmaker 101.

I don't have the business volume to buy a Red yet. I don't like the present wait for rentals. I do like owning my own camera. I have two 35mm cameras, an Aaton S16 camera, a Scoopic. I use them when budget permits.

That having been said, the HDVs I have (a Sony FX7 and HC1) are going out and something is coming in to my inventory. Mainly we're using my partner's JVC 100 as our A camera at the moment. It's okay, but obviously won't meet HD delivery (broadcast) requirements.

So - an HVX? Or an EX1?

I don't do documentaries or reality to film look.
I think that "films" like 28 days, Starship Troopers II, and the like, are unwatchable.
In other words, even with the best actors and production values, the look of the program itself ended up detracting from my suspension of disbelief and my investment in the story. I walked out of that Jamie Fox / Tom Cruise movie about an assassin and a cab driver at night (can't recall the name) and asked for my money back.

However, I loved films like 405 the movie, or 28 seconds (both short film look shows made with tape acquisition). So I'm a believer, mainly if a 35mm DOF box is used. It's the look itself that counts, for me. The difference between a picture and an image. Latitude and the grey scale, in short.

So. Given that:
I know my way around cameras and lenses, and
I know my way around production, and actors, and
I really want to spend more time on the set working with performances, lighting, mood and the like, and also
more time in post working on nuances of picture and audio and less time on film- looking the show (and yes, I pretty much every film look plug in and technique handled, it's what I do as a day job), and
yes, I'll be using a 35mm DOF box with the video camera anyway, and
yes, I do know between long GOPs, macro blocking and the like, and 4:2:0/4:2:2 color spaces (and
no, I don't really like to work tethered to an Apple cart, even though the DOF box is a pain in itself), but will use one for green screen and the like,

yes, I know what wavelet compression is, but a camera in the sub $10k area is the step I want to take next. When I have more than $20k to spend on acquisition package I use my Aaton and spend that money on film and lab.

so...
there's the firewire out cameras ( that I have already and don't make the HD grade thus far)
and the serial out camera (that I'd like to get).

Which leaves me with what?
Canon XLH1, G1, Sony V1, JVC 250??, and maybe the HDMI out cameras??

And also, of course, the HVX200...

I've been a Leica guy from way back and believe in the lens, although I built my DOF box after I sold the DVXs so couldn't comment on the quality of a DVX + Zeiss/Nikon or Lomo combination. Also - bokeh, bokeh, bokeh. So much so that I'm seriously considering putting a Leica M or R mount on my DOF box.

I've had three DVXs (one with Andromeda - loved the picture but couldn't hang with the tether) and loved the look of them. Lack of latitude and compression artifacts have been a pain tough, but that was just HDV and video in general, I believe.

Unfortunately I've posted quite a few P2 shows that have been nightmares because production didn't spend money on the assistant doing the media management and backup. I've actually lost out on a feature film project because about a third of the dailies was loaded onto a single HDD that crashed on location before they backed it up - and they weren't prepared for the eventuality (actors left), and had to abandon the shoot.

Most people in Hollywood post look at a P2 show and ask about media management, first thing. And that's a really good example of that we've been talking about in this thread - it's not the quality of the toys, but the quality of the players.

and the EX1 - SxS of course. Same deal as the P2 - media management is the key here. So no shooting without a lead assist who knows what they're doing, or without sufficient time or cards to do it myself. I love Fujinon lenses, run them on my large format stills cameras. Like the fact that Sony went for expanded latitude. And of course this camera is a later generation and so has better (newer) bells and whistles.

Mostly I prefer the better (sharper, more pixels) focusing system. I've been tagged with out of focus end product that went undetected pretty much all the way through post before being noticed on a big screen premiere. And that I attribute directly to editing in a computer (in low res). The show originated in 35mm, BTW. So focus, back focus and the like is huge for me, so much so that I now use a video projector that puts a wall sized image up behind my Avid when I'm cutting a feature film, just to remind me.

My own stories tend to be middle to low key love stories, or sci fi stories. Very little high key stuff. Mostly augmented practical light, but of course some lit sets. Quite a bit of integration with VFX, match moving, digital mattes and the like. Filtration like crazy on actresses, but none of it so's you'd notice.

Cameras on boom, jib, Magiqcam mostly, very little pure hand held stuff. Client monitors and film style video village on the larger shoots, but only a 7" for focus and flip if I can help it.

So - given all of the above - pundits, please - your preferred sub $10k serious video camera for indie film look production?

[J.R. Hudson]

It's obvious that the "user" and not the "camera" is what makes the film. Why must this be empasized over and over again? People who insist on repeating this mantra must think they are all knowing sages ... or something.


Is it wangus ? Is it really that ovious ?

I find it to be the crust of one of the main problems in indiefilmmaking. Way too many people thinking if they shoot something on a higher format then all is good. I don't see too many obsessing on learning the langauge of film; visually or in structure. Mainly, I see crap, crap and more crap.


I agree with what people have been saying, although I would like to suggest that poor image quality is much more acceptable in a documentary than in a narrative. A notable exception is 28 Days Later, as I think someone said, was shot on the XL-1. However, in this case, the images quality was used as a aesthetic effect, and was not distracting, but enhanced what the filmmakers were going for.

But try shooting Lord of the Rings or War of the Worlds on a DVX and blowing it up to 35, and IMHO, even non-film people would have a problem with it. Basically, documentaries can get away with a lot. At least, when it's footage from the field. For interviews there is no excuse for lousy lighting and composition. Just my two cents.

Lord of the Rings? No way.

War of the Worlds ? I can totally see that being done on an HVX level with the right accessories.

I can name a hundred films the HVX is ready for with the right talent in place.

Tigerland
We Were Soldiers
Any Cop film from Lethal Weapon to Cop Land
Sideways
Planet Terror
Collateral (Yes, even with an HVX)
Miami Vice (Yes, even with an HVX)
Rocky 6
Children of Men
The Devil's Rejects

It's obviously my own spin on the matter; but take the right artists from the DP to the Director to the talent and any of those stories (and a hundred more) could be done in todays reality

Outfit that HVX or EX1 (allegedly) with all the goodies and it'd work.

-

The sad truth is that most aren't ready for prime time. It is those that acknowledge and accept their weaknesses and the willingness to hone that craft who will succeed.

[emotepix]

Interesting take. I think I agree. Certainly it could make sense given the time and budgets involved with those shows, and any decent camera that will yield a good DI. However I think that most of them would probably better be served, at that production budget range with the SI or the Red - UHD cameras.
In ours, though, i.e. in the range that used to be covered by 16mm prodctions, say $150k down to $8k or so for 90-100 minutes of dramatic production, don't you feel that the HVX/EX1 range of cameras should theoretically rule the roost?

I believe the idea is that anything more than, say, my theoretical $150k shelf is a one-off endeavor, and probably therefore better served wtih rental equipment, whereas there's a bunch of us that are doing just what your signoff line suggests - owning their own equipment and churning out relatively inexpensive little projects like crazy, to hone our craft and hopefully succeed in moving up a notch or two.

Oh, and by the way, if you own all your own gear, including post and 5.1 audio, it is theoretically possible and actually quite feasible to cook up a decent little feature film for under $10k per show. Of course, that's not including the cost of the equipment in the first place. And the quality of your writing, actors and crew that can be had for what is essentially an expenses-only production.

[snowleopard]

I don't see too many obsessing on learning the langauge of film; visually or in structure. Mainly, I see crap, crap and more crap.

I agree with this. It seems we're at a point where everyone who ever wanted to get into this now has a handycam and is a filmmaker. But it's not just the technical aspect, it's a huge void of acumen in story telling and character development. So many indie filmmakers obsess over gear, and then obsess over technical knowledge, and ignore putting their ass to the chair for hours and hours on end to actually write something compelling.

To spin what you wrote in another way - it didn't bother me that much that Open Water was shot on a PD150. I got used to the low quality look of the movie, mostly because overall I thought it was a well played out story. Not a 4-star Oscar winner, no, but certainly as good as much of what Hollywood shoves at me.

[katyam]

To keep things fair, I must say that "they" - at least some of the indie filmmakers, that is, myself included - are in fact obsessing with learning the language of film, just not on this specific forum :)

It's been great learning from everyone here - very educational. Thank you!

[J.R. Hudson]

My two new best friends.


I agree with this. It seems we're at a point where everyone who ever wanted to get into this now has a handycam and is a filmmaker. But it's not just the technical aspect, it's a huge void of acumen in story telling and character development. So many indie filmmakers obsess over gear, and then obsess over technical knowledge, and ignore putting their ass to the chair for hours and hours on end to actually write something compelling.

To spin what you wrote in another way - it didn't bother me that much that Open Water was shot on a PD150. I got used to the low quality look of the movie, mostly because overall I thought it was a well played out story. Not a 4-star Oscar winner, no, but certainly as good as much of what Hollywood shoves at me.

I could not agree with you any more. Open Water received so many pans on this forum and I think it succeeded on all levels; the story, the actors, compellingly told with the tools they used (PD150 and VX2000) and what else did it do ?

Oh yeah, got snatched up at Sundance by Lion's Gate for 2.5 Mil



To keep things fair, I must say that "they" - at least some of the indie filmmakers, that is, myself included - are in fact obsessing with learning the language of film, just not on this specific forum :)

It's been great learning from everyone here - very educational. Thank you!

It's all I obsess about and am constantly realizing what I do know doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

[TimurCivan]

Only the DP should be worried about the camera package. if the director is worried about the camera, the director is not doing his job.....

[J.R. Hudson]

Baaaaaaa Timur

Let us hope the director has his Janusz

[katyam]

It's all I obsess about and am constantly realizing what I do know doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

Ditto. From the outset, I decided not to do the camera work myself, because I don't think I can learn quickly enough for my projected timeline. This being the case, I am still the one responsible for choosing the equipment because a) I am still looking for a camera person and given that it's Israel he is not likely to have his own equipment; b) I am going to be shooting really a lot of material on several connected subjects and need the equipment to be available 24/7; c) all of my work will be done in Israel and the kind of equipment that I am looking for is not readily available here for renting; d) keeping the post in mind, I need to know exactly what the camera can do so that I can gauge how much money I'll need to raise for transferring the footage to film (for example, the transfer in Iraq in Fragments was done beautifully, but it cost them a LOT).

I also feel that it's important for the director to have a clue as to what the equipment is capable of. Nothing worse than a clueless person on the set, especially if she is in charge. But I spend only about 10% of my time on equipment research and purchasing. The rest goes where it needs to go - research, story development, interviews, and writing.

[yoclay]

I have never retained anything I have learned on a purely technical or theoretical level. The true answer to this question of which camera, is driven by your subject matter and your point of view. True technique is always discovered in the course of pursuing your vision. The technical capacities of each of these cameras are fairly well delineated, so given the nature of what your project is, what is it telling you is a priority? For instance if low light is a dominating element and you want to go hand held what might that be telling you? It seems to me that you already know the answer. Best of luck.

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL

I'm the same way

I still ask the most 'rudiment camera tech details' on set.

:P

[katyam]

Thank you :) You are right, I already know the answer, from reading the responses to this thread as well as other threads on this forum and DIVinfo. It was also very helpful to see the footage from EX1 and HVX and compare the two - the feel of EX1, at least from what I can judge so far, is closer to what I want to achieve in the film. I was originally planning to get an HVX and had a whole equipment package written out to be purchased at B&H, but low light is a huge issue for me, and with EX1 coming out the hope of resolving it adequately grew brighter :)

[katyam]

:) same here. After shooting a promo for my film in Israel I got a feel for the bare minimum that I need to know to be an asset instead of a liability on the set. I also need to be really involved in forming the visual structure of the film and have been reading and watching movies non-stop, to formulate what it is that I really want to achieve. Luckily, most of the locales that that I am going to film are within easy reach, so often I just go there and wander around, trying to find the best spots to shoot from. It's been lots of fun so far, but also lots and lots of hard work.

[Barry_Green]

I still ask the most 'rudiment camera tech details' on set. :P
Or sometimes he just hands the camera to me and says "do it." :thumbsup:

[Tim Le]

Not all of us here are filmmakers and directors. Some are camera operators and directors of photography. To these people, technical details of the imaging system are relevant and important.

I think people should remember there is a distinction between "image quality" and "content quality." These two often get mixed up. Content quality is obviously based on the sum of a lot of factors including the photography, writing, talent, etc.

Image quality is the inherent technical traits of an imaging system, like resolution, color rendition, sensitivity, noise characteristics, etc. In the film world this would be like the different characteristics of film stock and lenses. It's important for a camera operator or a director of photography to understand these inherent traits to either achieve a certain look, maintain consistency or to choose the right tool for the application.

The end product of any imaging professional is artistic, but to get there you have to use technical tools. The more you understand these tools, the better you'll use them.

[Barry_Green]

Not all of us here are filmmakers and directors. Some are camera operators and directors of photography. To these people, technical details of the imaging system are relevant and important.
Yes, excellent point. And I also like to point out that not everyone here (on the forum) is even interested in making cinema at all; we have plenty of news and event and sports and wedding shooters too.



The end product of any imaging professional is artistic, but to get there you have to use technical tools. The more you understand these tools, the better you'll use them.
All good points. I think some of us are just giving a knee-jerk reaction to the "which is better" posts that come up all the time, frequently from people who really don't know one way or the other what is "better" or why it should be better. But yes, for those who know what to look for, the discussion of relative performance remains highly relevant.

[J.R. Hudson]

Or sometimes he just hands the camera to me and says "do it." :thumbsup:

I did think of you when I wrote that. :lipsrseal :cheesy:


Not all of us here are filmmakers and directors. Some are camera operators and directors of photography. To these people, technical details of the imaging system are relevant and important.

I think people should remember there is a distinction between "image quality" and "content quality." These two often get mixed up. Content quality is obviously based on the sum of a lot of factors including the photography, writing, talent, etc.

Image quality is the inherent technical traits of an imaging system, like resolution, color rendition, sensitivity, noise characteristics, etc. In the film world this would be like the different characteristics of film stock and lenses. It's important for a camera operator or a director of photography to understand these inherent traits to either achieve a certain look, maintain consistency or to choose the right tool for the application.

The end product of any imaging professional is artistic, but to get there you have to use technical tools. The more you understand these tools, the better you'll use them.


Good points Tim. I can't argue with that.

[katyam]

Image quality is the inherent technical traits of an imaging system, like resolution, color rendition, sensitivity, noise characteristics, etc. In the film world this would be like the different characteristics of film stock and lenses. It's important for a camera operator or a director of photography to understand these inherent traits to either achieve a certain look, maintain consistency or to choose the right tool for the application.


I would argue that it's also extremely important for a director to have a working understanding of these inherent technical traits so that she can communicate to her DOP the look that she wants to achieve in terms more specific than "I'd like this scene to look airy, beautiful and mysterious." :)

[Tim Le]

I would argue that it's also extremely important for a director to have a working understanding of these inherent technical traits so that she can communicate to her DOP the look that she wants to achieve in terms more specific than "I'd like this scene to look airy, beautiful and mysterious." :)

And I would agree with you :) The more knowledgeable someone is about anything and everything, the more capable they are. Some big-time directors are very hands-on and even operate their own cameras or Steadicams. But on very big projects this is not practical so the work has to be delegated to people who specialize in each area.

This is what I like so much about imaging: it takes technical skills AND creative (artistic) skills. Those two skills require both sides of the brain, yet most people tend to be one side or the other. So us camera nuts are rare people indeed :D

[J.R. Hudson]

Mmmmmmmmm

Maybe

What good's making a pretty picture if one doesn't know what to do with it ?

Maybe can you define IMAGING ?

I think most can learn exposure, focus, etc but are you referring to something else; something deeper beyond camera techs ?

I think a DP should not only know the camera like his baby, but how to light.

But what about frame compostion ? What about composing beyond that with blocking, Mis-en-scene, continuity, coverage ?

Is that the director or DP ? Both usually, right ?

[Tim Le]

Imaging for media is pretty much still and motion picture photography. Photography boils down to two essential elements: the camera and light (natural or artificial).

Technical skills one would need: know how to physically operate the camera, how to operate camera support equipment, focus, exposure, white balance (color temperature of natural and artificial light), filtration, lens characteristics, lighting equipment (what kind of lights to use, where to place them and what light modifiers to add to achieve a certain exposure), special needs for VFX, etc.

Of course, on a big-time production the DOP probably doesn't operate the camera.

Creative skills: composition, blocking (camera placement, focal length selection, etc.), lighting equipment (same as above but this time to achieve the desired look), location selection, time of day selection, "vision," etc.

Clearly there will be some overlap between the DOP and the director. Sometimes the DOP is only responsible for the lightning and the look of the film and the director does the blocking. Sometimes the DOP does it all and the director focuses on the talents' performances. Or sometimes there is no DOP and the director does it all, etc.

[J.R. Hudson]

I see; thanks for clarifying

I have to agree; those with both sides working have a benefit !

[taormina]

I'm directing my first feature next year. I wrote the script. It took me about two months to write it, and about a year to rewrite it. Then i started buying gear and filming shorts. I am currently debating on whether to trade in my hvx for an HPX, because even though I direct and have a great DP, I still want the absolute best for my project, and since it's all my gear, money, story - you name it - it all has to be perfect.

So I for one get myself into the nitty gritty of all the details and I do not leave it to my DP. When I've made the short list, I confer with him.

Interestingly, he's shot enough with the HVX that he's said it's just fine for my project. I'm not sold on it's low light performance, so I'm still thinking about it.

Maybe it's just me, but I need to know about everything pertaining to my project. I bought all the lights in my 3 ton HMI / tungsten package, bought my HVX, LEX, lenses, bought my dolly, bought my gels, bought my grip truck.....I can't let anyone take the blame for poor decisions on my first big project.

It sounds like micromanaging, but it's not. As a parent of 3 kids, it's kind of like having a baby. You need to care and feed it.

Going back to where we started, I need to know all the technical issues on the cams and welcome these debates.

[mico]

Thought that everyone might be interested in this:

http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2006/11/quiet-miracle-james-longleys-iraq-in.html

[J.R. Hudson]

Awesome article mico !

My sentiments exactly.

[ripupthehwy]

Both cameras do 1080p, so film out resolution would be equal. However, the EX1 has 1/2" chips, as opposed to the HVX's 1/3".

Yes, but aren't you talking CMOS chips here, as opposed to CCD's ? That's like comparing apples to oranges. Videography magazine just did an article where they tested a demo of the Sony camera and said the low light is the same as the HVX 200.

A Sony rep at the NAB told me that CMOS chips are not as good in low light. I imagine that's why the Sony cam is 1/2 chiips, to make it comparable to Panny's 1/3 CCD's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Rich

[Stevet]

LOL..
Now that's funny.

I've been around the HVX200 and a slew of other 1/3" cams, The EX1 is at least 1.5 to 2 stops faster. Heck, the EX1 has already been noted to be 1.5 stops faster than it's expensive cousin, the F350. And this info comes right from the users that own the F350.

[emotepix]

Stevet
Any word on the filmic quality of the EX1 vs the HVX? After the curves have been adjusted, that is, not straight out of the box?
Heard the EX1 was unoficially rated at around ISO 320, BTW. Which is pretty fast for an HD camera.

[TimurCivan]

NO WAY its 320. the HVX is a 320. the DVX was about a 640 @ 24p, and a 800 at 60i. The EX is at LEAST a ISO 800 if not 1000..... Which is AMAZING.

[emotepix]

Dang!
That IS fast.

[lambchops99]

Everyone forgot to mention SOUND!

haha....

Doesn't matter how good your pics are...if you have S*** sound you can kiss your Oscar goodbye haha.

GET A GOOD SOUNDO for your productions!!!

[seunosewa]

- The cheapest one is the best one.
- If you have the budget for a theatrical release you should have a budget for a good camera stabilization system. Wobbly videos are not very cinematic.

[Stevet]

Sound is excellent. uncompressed.

When working larger events, or where I'm capturing ambience for surround sound, I always use a multitrack recorder and sync up to video in post.

[rawfa]

This thread contains some of the wisest most realistic posts in any dv forum...and for once I'm REALLY not being sarcastic.

[J.R. Hudson]

Everyone forgot to mention SOUND!

haha....

Doesn't matter how good your pics are...if you have S*** sound you can kiss your Oscar goodbye haha.

GET A GOOD SOUNDO for your productions!!!

Yes !

:thumbsup: :thumbup:

[Hudsonview]

Mico dropped a link to Steven Boone writing about "Iraq In Fragments". Here is a piece of an interview Boone recently did with controversial critic Armond White, and which is very pertinent to this thread:

SB: [...] but what I’m saying is, the technology is right there—

AW: The technology has always been there. That’s part of my problem with the enthusiasm so-called critics have with video. “Wow, now everybody has access. It’s all democratized now.” Nonsense. The same thing was said about 8mm forty, fifty years ago. “Now anybody can make movies. We don’t have to have to hold 200 pound Mitchell cameras. You can get this little Bolex and hold it in your hand.” That didn’t mean you were going to get radical visions from everywhere.

SB: What it suggests to me is that radical visions from people who would otherwise not have been bothered because of the mountain you’d have to climb to get a film completed, the translators you’d have to employ, would no longer be an issue, and you’d take camera in hand. Super 8, Pixelvision, Hi-8—all that stuff was nice, but it was low-resolution and if you put them up against a 35mm projection, audience prejudices would discount these other media. Now we have these new cameras that, if you know how to light and compose and expose, your image is going to be free of those subliminal triggers that provoke an audience to dismiss a film as “not film.” All that stuff goes away.


AW: Well, you say “audience prejudice.” I say “audience preference,” because the screen is not a level playing field. And Americans are very fortunate to have had Hollywood, to have experienced--to know-- how great photography can be. So don't give me no bullshi*. I know what great photography is. I don't want to see somebody scrambling with their camera and trying to do things modestly. I've seen Joseph August and Gordon Willis. I don't want anything less.

SB: Right, but--

AW: That's not prejudice, that's preference.

SB: Well, let me get a little more specific about it. Gordon Willis could have taken a consumer Sony Hi-8 camera and lit something the way that he lit... The Landlord-- which was amazing, the use of shadows, underexposure, soft lighting. All that stuff would not register on something that was finished on, say, Hi-8. The technology now has moved to where that kind of work can be rendered effectively. That's all I'm saying, not that this is great because amateurs like Joe Blow can just push the button and get something amazing. It's going to look as horrible as anything else. But if you do the kind of work that Gordon Willis does, it's going to be translated effectively when its transferred over to a presentation medium that most people are used to-- 35mm, HD... So I'm waiting for those Gordon Willises from the ghetto and everywhere to emerge.

AW: As you wait, I suggest that you not hold your breath. But I'm not waiting. I don't want to wait.
--------------------
Read the complete interview here:

http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-world-that-has-darjeeling-limited.html

[J.R. Hudson]

Thanks for that Hudsonview

Great read.

[Hudsonview]

James Gray, dir. of "We Own The Night", recently weighed in:

SCOPE: What, as an alleged (or accused) “classicist” is your stance on DV?

GRAY: The thing about movies, of course, is that they’re a technical medium as well as an artistic one, so you can never exclude technology from the debate—it’s absurd to sound apologetic if you say, “Can I ask a technical question?” But—and I hate to say this—I think the question of DV or not-DV is one of the least interesting discussions and debates that there is. I don’t think format is the real problem with movies. The problem with movies is not the delivery device of the medium, not the way they look, not even the way they’re distributed, really. The problem with movies is the movies. The problem with movies is the content. The problem with movies is laziness, narrative laziness. So we can talk about the digital revolution forever, but it will never address what is really ailing the culture, which is that they don’t care about storytelling.

SCOPE: So is DV not even an option for you?

GRAY: I’d use it, but the thing is it’s not there yet. I mean, with Harris, you’re talking about the best cinematographer working today, and even he couldn’t get it exactly right. It was close, and it was great, but it took a lot out of him. It gave him a hell of a lot of trouble and a hell of a lot of heartache and it didn’t save them any money. This whole discussion about film or DV is kind of moot, in a way, because the system will determine it for you—like I said, the stock that The Yards was shot on no longer exists. But it is strange the way things are appraised, because if you said, “This new format came along and it’s got a better contrast ratio than digital and it’s got better resolution than digital,” —well, that’s film. If everybody were shooting digital and film came along, everybody would want to shoot film. So my own view is why shoot with something that’s not as good? I’ll do it when I have to, but until then why bother?

[ffaf07]

SCOPE: So is DV not even an option for you?

GRAY: I’d use it, but the thing is it’s not there yet. I mean, with Harris, you’re talking about the best cinematographer working today, and even he couldn’t get it exactly right. It was close, and it was great, but it took a lot out of him. It gave him a hell of a lot of trouble and a hell of a lot of heartache and it didn’t save them any money. This whole discussion about film or DV is kind of moot, in a way, because the system will determine it for you—like I said, the stock that The Yards was shot on no longer exists. But it is strange the way things are appraised, because if you said, “This new format came along and it’s got a better contrast ratio than digital and it’s got better resolution than digital,” —well, that’s film. If everybody were shooting digital and film came along, everybody would want to shoot film. So my own view is why shoot with something that’s not as good? I’ll do it when I have to, but until then why bother?

When he refers to Harris Savides, what film does he reference him using DV?

[Hudsonview]

That would be "Zodiac", ffaf07.

[KyleProhaska]

If I had the money and knowhow....35mm film would be a no brainer for me. DV, HDV, RED, XDCAM, w/e are all alternatives but I think it comes down to personal preference. It's no different than the annoying Mac vs. PC debates I read. I've seen great footage from all kinds of formats, and in contrast crappy footage from them as well. Its who is behind the camera that counts, always does and always will.

- Kyle

[shaun1970]

Put Kelly Slater on a 20 year old design stick and he's still gonna cut it apart better than anyone else, if you know your shit, you'll make it good even with the old tools. There's an old saying, "you can't polish a turd".,,, Ohh but yes you can.

[Mouayed Zabtia]

Prodigt that’s really nice answer, your they best

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Mico dropped a link to Steven Boone writing about "Iraq In Fragments". Here is a piece of an interview Boone recently did with controversial critic Armond White, and which is very pertinent to this thread:

....


By "controversial" do they mean "dick"?

[Bokes]

My 2 cents,
Just picked up a EX for event work. I haven't had much of a chance to play with the settings, but out of the box I prefer the HVX in terms of the "cinema" look..
Sony has always looked liked hard edge video to me and the EX has that Sony look. Unfortunately, I do not make cash by shooting Feature films with the HVX.
The work I get lends itself more to the strengths of the EX.
If you make money by shooting under controlled light and can afford P2 and prefer a more cinema look and feel- stick with HVX otherwise go with the EX-
It should prove to be a good work horse video cam.

As I said- I still need to adjust settings- so if anyone has any suggestions....?

[Stevet]

Congrats Bokes!

You'll find the EX1 has a wealth of pro picture adjustments. In fact, it offers the same flexibility as their higher end F350 model.

You can experiment with their Cine3 and Cine4 gamma curves.
Here's a Sony site that mentions a few settings:http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowContent.action?site=biz_en_GB&contentId=1193315622112

I wish thier sample footage was not so dang small!

[TimurCivan]

If I had the money and knowhow....35mm film would be a no brainer for me.

As a DP i must say.... if given the option of shooting on Film or Red, i'd take film in a hearbeat. I have never felt a thrill like watching my first real dalies in the screening room in Du-art, in NY........ So pristine, and natural looking. its Gorgeous. event the one shot where i forgot to put in the .3 ND filter, though over exposed, still looked good..... Its amazing.

[Stevet]

As a DP i must say.... if given the option of shooting on Film or Red, i'd take film in a hearbeat.



No doubt about that!

[TimurCivan]

heres my digital/film analogy.

digital is a luxury gps guided fully powered yacht. it gets you from port to port quickly and with much style. plus it has a steering wheel and anyone can pilot it.

film is a sail boat. it still gets from port to port, but its a little slower, you need skill and a small crew to pilot it, and keep it running smooth. but its looks beautiful, gracefull and elegant. also commanding and operating the ship itself is half the fun.

[ffaf07]

heres my digital/film analogy.

digital is a luxury gps guided fully powered yacht. it gets you from port to port quickly and with much style. plus it has a steering wheel and anyone can pilot it.

film is a sail boat. it still gets from port to port, but its a little slower, you need skill and a small crew to pilot it, and keep it running smooth. but its looks beautiful, gracefull and elegant. also commanding and operating the ship itself is half the fun.

Hahaha I like that.

[Ian-T]

heres my digital/film analogy.

digital is a luxury gps guided fully powered yacht. it gets you from port to port quickly and with much style. plus it has a steering wheel and anyone can pilot it.

film is a sail boat. it still gets from port to port, but its a little slower, you need skill and a small crew to pilot it, and keep it running smooth. but its looks beautiful, gracefull and elegant. also commanding and operating the ship itself is half the fun.
I had to chime in here...that was nice.

[_gl]

Ya know. I think we really work too hard at the technology these days. Too much consumerism is creeping into the field and it tends to distract us from the real goals of making a movie - telling a story.

I think the smaller hd cams are a terrific boon to the indie world but, debating this cam -vs- another is pretty pointless to the overall process of telling a story. Either of these cams will work just fine. Getting a good script and crew to go along with it is much more important.


-gl

[Barry_Green]

also commanding and operating the ship itself is half the fun.
Which is why, even though I haven't used 'em in a few years, I still have a closet full of film cameras... :)

[TimurCivan]

So when are we making that short ends film?

[Barry_Green]

Gimme a script... how 'bout you and Jack come up with a brilliant LoveFest film, and drive on down here and we'll shoot it on 35mm. Gotta be MOS though, or all ADR...

[TimurCivan]

I cant write.... i cant even spell. thats on JAck.....

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I saw grindhouse last night and wow.... the filmed half looked superb even with the fake degradation thrown in.

There was just something about it.


I was struck with how beautiful film is.

[PaPa]

yes, film is film. Digital will never look like film, although it may have the whole 24 fps thing going on. Film's softness and organic feel, color replication will be impossible to replicate, but digital has its own flavor.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

yes, film is film. Digital will never look like film, although it may have the whole 24 fps thing going on. Film's softness and organic feel, color replication will be impossible to replicate, but digital has its own flavor.

Wow....

Those are HUGE HUGE WORDS...


Personally I DO think Digital Film (Video) will catch up and indeed surpass Emulsion Film (Film :D ) in the very near future.

When, maybe a year, maybe 2 years, maybe 10 years, but it will most definitely happen.


But as of today. You are absolutely correct in that well done film has a very ascetically pleasing smoothness about it.

[emotepix]

Umm...
Film carries contrast and color information stored on the molecular level.
How many lines per mm would that be?

[KyleProhaska]

I agree that digital will always be an emulation of film, no matter how large the pixel frame sizes get BUT there is a limit to how much your eye can really see anyways. Digital will never BE film, thats a given but I think its now hit a point where it can be easily mistaken for film...lots of things on this forum being an example.

[Barry_Green]

Umm...
Film carries contrast and color information stored on the molecular level.

Film's ability to resolve detail is not infinite, it's limited by the grain size of the silver halide emulsion, not by measuring resolution at the molecular level.

Look at some Super8 film, it's lower res than standard-def DV.

35mm film is claimed by Kodak, and verified by tests, to deliver about 4000 x 3000 pixel resolution. Or, put in other words, if you wanted to do a digital scan and assure yourself that you're capturing all the detail of the original film shot, you'd have to scan at a resolution of 4000 x 3000. That means a scanning rate of about 4500 DPI.

How many lines per mm would that be?
Well, considering a full-width frame of film is about 24mm wide, and can resolve about 4000 pixels, that'd be in the range of about 80 lp/mm.

The EBU calculates that the Nyquist limit for resolution of scanning film at 2K res is about 41.1 line pairs per millimeter, so an upper limit of 82lp/mm would seem appropriate for a 4k scan. Last I knew, even Kodak wasn't claiming you'd get any benefit from scanning film at higher than 4K res -- although, that was before Vision 3 stock came out; I know they're claiming reduced grain but I don't know if they've upped the perceived resolution claims of vision 3.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Which is why, even though I haven't used 'em in a few years, I still have a closet full of film cameras... :)

What kind do you have?

Which ones are your favorites?

[TimurCivan]

Oooo... Vision 3.... Cant wait to try it someday.....

[kubalsky]

thanks for the link stevet! Im trying to work out my EX1 gama settings at the moment, was a big help!

[kubalsky]

heres my digital/film analogy.

digital is a luxury gps guided fully powered yacht. it gets you from port to port quickly and with much style. plus it has a steering wheel and anyone can pilot it.

film is a sail boat. it still gets from port to port, but its a little slower, you need skill and a small crew to pilot it, and keep it running smooth. but its looks beautiful, gracefull and elegant. also commanding and operating the ship itself is half the fun.

Nice Analogy...and either boat still makes us feel like kenny loggins or a beegee.

[PaPa]

Oooo... Vision 3.... Cant wait to try it someday.....

hoping to get some vision 3 500t for next semesters shoot! :)

[emotepix]

Barry
So emulsion isn't built of molecules, then?
And you're saying that a digital scan dictates the physical resolution of a chemical film emulsion?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your arguments only make sense if you're actually finishing or going digital in the end?
What about projection in a cinema?
If you have a decent projection setup, what's the theoretical (not practical) physical resolution there?
Isn't your method of measurement based on digital limitations? On the limits of what's presently scannable? And as you know, drum scanners can elicit a lot more resolution than 4kx3k, and there's not been much progress in high resolution drum scanning for years.
Vision 3's resolution isn't higher than Vision 1's, then? Because of its lines/mm?
80 lines/mm, you say?
And film couldn't ever do better than 80 lines/mm, because molecular information can't get any better than emulsion level? Or that emulsions can't get any better at the molecular level?
Barry, are you sure?

[Barry_Green]

Barry
So emulsion isn't built of molecules, then?
Of course it is. But it's the complete grain of silver halide crystal that's registering the image. The size of that grain determines how much resolved detail the film can reflect.


And you're saying that a digital scan dictates the physical resolution of a chemical film emulsion?
No, I'm saying that the grain structure of the film limits it. You made it sound like it's unlimited resolution, and it most certainly isn't. The limit of 35mm film's ability to resolve detail can be accurately captured in a 4K scan. Scanning at any higher density won't show any more detail, it'll just take up more space.


Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your arguments only make sense if you're actually finishing or going digital in the end?
What does digital have to do with it? I'm saying film is not unlimited resolution, it's able to resolve based on the size of the grain structure of the emulsion. Whether you go digital or not, you're still going to have that same limit. And the limit is cumulative; as you make more copies and prints the limit goes down, to the point where by the time you make a release print for exhibition in the theater you're down to about 800 lines of resolved detail.


What about projection in a cinema?
Optical cinema projection should have no effect on the resolved image, depending on the quality of lens you use. If you've got a cheap lens, obviously that could ruin the quality of the projection.

Digital projection is a totally different beast, of course. But optical projection, depending on the lens, should show every detail the film recorded.


If you have a decent projection setup, what's the theoretical (not practical) physical resolution there?
Depends on what you're projecting (camera original reversal film? Or a release print made from an answer print which has been printed from some combination of interpositive and internegative intermediary steps? The camera original film can be quite sharp, extremely sharp -- but the cumulative optical effects of contact printing mean that you usually get somewhere on the order of about 800 lines of visible resolution (yes, about 720p HD worth) from a final released film print.

If you wanted the theoretical maximum, you'd have to look at every element in the chain, including the sharpness of your lens and the precision of the registration of the film (any jitter or wiggle in the film's registration will obviously have a serious impact on the film's capability to resolve vertical detail). Assuming you had perfect registration and a perfect lens (heck, let's use an Arri Laser Recorder instead of a camera to record the image in the first place to assure that) then you'd get, again, about a 12mp image on that film. The sharpness, as expressed in terms of pixels, would be in the ballpark of 4000 x 3000.

Isn't your method of measurement based on digital limitations? On the limits of what's presently scannable? And as you know, drum scanners can elicit a lot more resolution than 4kx3k, and there's not been much progress in high resolution drum scanning for years.
Again, has nothing to do with digital. You could scan 35mm film at 10,000,000 x 10,000,000 and you're still only going to get about 4,000 x 3,000 worth of unique information.

Just like you could take a VHS tape and transfer it to HD. It won't be any sharper, it'll just take up a lot more space. Even though the HD tape was recorded at 1920x1080 resolution, the original VHS tape didn't have any more than about 400 x 300 worth of picture.

It doesn't matter what resolution you scan that film into, or whether you scan it at all. The film itself is capable of recording a limited amount of detail. According to Kodak themselves, if you wanted to do a digital scan of a 35mm film frame and capture every bit of detail recorded on that film, you should do a scan of 4000 x 3000. That's about enough to get all the detail that film can record.

But again, it's dependent on the size of the film too. 16mm is not going to be able to record as much detail as 35mm, and 8mm won't be able to record as much as 16mm. And 35mm can't record as much as 65mm.


Vision 3's resolution isn't higher than Vision 1's, then?
I said I don't know whether it is or not. I looked on their marketing site and they don't claim that it's sharper than Vision. They claim less grain in the shadows and extended highlight range, but they don't claim it's sharper. There's only one Vision3 stock out now, and it's 500T; maybe by the time they get to 50D they'll be claiming more sharpness? We'll see.


And film couldn't ever do better than 80 lines/mm, because molecular information can't get any better than emulsion level? Or that emulsions can't get any better at the molecular level?
Kodak improves film all the time. Vision 2 is notably sharper than the stocks that shot movies in the 50's and 70's. The EBU has created a special test film that resolves up to 125lp/mm. Not something you'd shoot a movie on, but something you'd shoot tests with.


Barry, are you sure?
Sure about what? I'm not sure about what you're asking.

Am I sure that film doesn't have limitless ability to resolve detail? Absolutely. Can it be improved? It always is. But modern motion picture film maxxes out around 80 lp/mm nowadays. And if you wanted to quantify how much detail a frame of film is capable of resolving, you could mathematically measure out the millimeters and count the lines, having to factor in such niceties as the Nyquist limit as well... or you could go by what Kodak says. Kodak even advertised 35mm film as a 12-million-pixel sensor (4,000 x 3,000 = 12,000,000).

[emotepix]

Barry.
Very interesting. Most illuminating.
That's based on an 18x24mm full frame (Academy) 35mm gate, right?
So Super 35 might be a little more, and 35mm at 1.85 (hard gate) would be less. So it isn't possible to reduce the size of the emulsion grains and capture more theoretical resolution (with due respect to Mr. Nyquist?)

Then what's giving the film ness of the images, if it isn't the absolute resolution? Is it the relative contrast (luma) ranges? What else is being captured onto those emulsion grains that isn't being captured onto pixels?


For me, I already know that when I use my own film cameras (also at the moment in my closet -- but they get air regularly), I'm forever putting things on the lenses to cut the resolutions down, especially when shooting faces. (who wants to see every pimple and wrinkle?)
But there's certainly something being captured on the emulsion that's missing in the electron.
And really, the 24p motion I've seen out of some of these cameras (NOT the DVX or HVX, which are still my faves) looks nothing at all like film telecine'd. I recently had a look at some footage in a true, high end HD monitor and REALLY didn't like the 24p motion from the cameras (I think they were high end 900's).
So what do you think it is?

Very interesting discussion. Most illuminating. I've been doing this for awhile and haven't had an answer to these questions that satisfied me in quite the same way as yours have.

Thanks again, Barry.

Oh, and going from the above back on topic, this would mean that the added resolution of the EX1 may or may not result in a more filmic look than that of the HVX? If resolution were all we were looking at?

And if you had a camera to buy and a dramatic feature film to shoot, at least to go to Blu Ray and maybe through DI to 35mm, which would you prefer? Given the requirement of that elusive film look?

If you couldn't afford to go to your freezer and bust out your Vision 2 stock, that is?

[Barry_Green]

Barry.
Very interesting. Most illuminating.
That's based on an 18x24mm full frame (Academy) 35mm gate, right?
Yes based on 4x3 full frame, which is the same as Super35. Academy is smaller because it makes room for the soundtrack on the side.


So it isn't possible to reduce the size of the emulsion grains and capture more theoretical resolution (with due respect to Mr. Nyquist?)
Kodak and Fuji are constantly improving their film stocks over time; the films of today are much sharper than the films of 30 or 40 years ago. But I'd suspect that the advances going forward in the future are likely to be less aggressive since film is losing so much market share. Film advances could be cross-collateralized between the still and cine market, but while both markets have shrunk enormously (due to pressure from digital) I think the still market has probably fallen furthest. Kodak still churns out a ton of film for the motion picture industry, but how much r&d is justifiable on their end, considering the rapid erosion of film use in the television market?


Then what's giving the film ness of the images, if it isn't the absolute resolution?
Resolution is the LEAST important component in "the film look"! There are so many elements that go into an image, from the resolution to the contrast to the frame rate to the highlight handling to the gamma curve to the toe and knee response to the colorimetry, and then there's that intangible of actually physically capturing something in a tangible medium vs. representing it electronically. There's the tangible aspects of physical grain vs. electronic noise... there's a million differences. But video can be graded very close to film now.

But resolution is the least of the issues. Watch the HD broadcast of the Super Bowl -- very sharp, but does it look in any way like film? Not a chance! :)


And really, the 24p motion I've seen out of some of these cameras (NOT the DVX or HVX, which are still my faves) looks nothing at all like film telecine'd.
Frequently this is due to the operator not operating the camera like a film camera. I put film and DVX side-by-side to settle this question, and yes true 24p acquisition does look exactly like film telecine'd to video. But so many shooters shooting 24p have no idea how to move the camera that they end up creating footage that doesn't look like film. The hard part to grasp is: if they moved the film camera the exact same way, they'd get footage that looks exactly like the 24p video camera did! But film shooters just don't do that. They've had 100 years of fighting the low-frame-rate issues that they've had enough experience to develop techniques for moving the camera, for panning speeds, etc. that control and mask the strobing.


I recently had a look at some footage in a true, high end HD monitor and REALLY didn't like the 24p motion from the cameras (I think they were high end 900's).
The F900, when shooting 24p, does deliver motion exactly like a 24fps film camera. What you probably saw was a 24pSF monitor, which delivers extraordinarily flickery footage. Watch a movie like Spy Kids 2 or Once Upon A Time In Mexico or any of the other multitude of F900 movies on your DVD player, and you'll see that it really does look just like film motion.


Oh, and going from the above back on topic, this would mean that the added resolution of the EX1 may or may not result in a more filmic look than that of the HVX? If resolution were all we were looking at?
Again, resolution is the least of the issues. Put a Sony FX1, shooting 60i, up against a standard-def DVX100 shooting 24p. I can almost guarantee you that everyone looking at that footage comparison will say the DVX looks more like film. Even though the FX1 would be so much sharper.

We've had this discussion here for years, ever since the Canon XL2 came out. The XL2 was significantly sharper than the DVX100 -- yet (search for "mojo") you'll find that many people preferred the filmlike images from the DVX. The XL2 looked like super-sharp video. When we went high-def the same argument came about with the XLH1 vs. the HVX. The XLH1 is sharper, yes. But it's got that same "look" as the XL2, just in high-def. Whereas the HVX has that same "look" as the DVX, but in high def.

Now we'll probably have a replay of the argument again -- no question the EX1 is sharper. But does that make its footage look filmic? Not in and of itself. You'd have to explore the gamma curves and the colorimetry and probably do some grading in post before you could truly answer that. But I'd say from the footage that comes out-of-the-box, the HVX's default scene files deliver more filmic footage than the EX1's. The EX1 out of the box is tuned for razor-sharp HD video.


And if you had a camera to buy and a dramatic feature film to shoot, at least to go to Blu Ray and maybe through DI to 35mm, which would you prefer? Given the requirement of that elusive film look?
Well, I'm doing exactly that right now. I'm developing a feature film with Jack Stanley. The leading candidate right now is the Red One. But that's a $50,000 product. In the $25,000 bracket I'd go with the HPX500, no doubt. In the $10,000 bracket? That's the question. Frankly you're not going to go to 35mm with a project that's shot on an under-$10,000 camera anyway, the odds are astoundingly against it. But if you were the 1 in 10,000 who did, I'd say the actual camera choice is of little consequence. Whether you chose a DVX, an XHA1, an XL2, an EX1, an HVX, or an HD100, they'll all do a fine job on the big screen. Sure the EX1 would be sharper, but the DVX has shot films that have won the Sundance "best cinematography" award twice, and been nominated for Oscars twice in the "best doc" category. Even the non-24p Sony PD150 has done that. So choice of camera is going to have little to no bearing at all on whether you get picked up and taken to the big screen.

If going to blu-ray or HD-DVD (for that 1% of households that have a player) I'd rule out the DVX and XL2 and stick with some manner of HD camcorder, but the particular one would be chosen based on what features were needed and what the price range was. The only absolute requirement I'd insist on would be that it shoot 24p.


If you couldn't afford to go to your freezer and bust out your Vision 2 stock, that is?
Well, that's the other funny thing -- if you're *sure* you're going to end up on a 35mm print at the end, it's just as affordable to shoot 35mm in the first place. :thumbsup:

[TimurCivan]

film is not as horridly expensive as some make it out to be... I 1sted on a feature shot on 40,000 on vision2 shrt ends. it was hell on me and the loader but it can be done.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

film is not as horridly expensive as some make it out to be... I 1sted on a feature shot on 40,000 on vision2 shrt ends. it was hell on me and the loader but it can be done.


How much were you able to score the film stock for?

Do you have any idea what your average lengths were?

[TimurCivan]

How much were you able to score the film stock for?

Do you have any idea what your average lengths were?

we were avraging 350' short ends. not too shabby. dont know price.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

...
Well, I'm doing exactly that right now. I'm developing a feature film with Jack Stanley. The leading candidate right now is the Red One. But that's a $50,000 product. In the $25,000 bracket I'd go with the HPX500, no doubt. In the $10,000 bracket? That's the question. Frankly you're not going to go to 35mm with a project that's shot on an under-$10,000 camera anyway, the odds are astoundingly against it. But if you were the 1 in 10,000 who did, I'd say the actual camera choice is of little consequence. Whether you chose a DVX, an XHA1, an XL2, an EX1, an HVX, or an HD100, they'll all do a fine job on the big screen. Sure the EX1 would be sharper, but the DVX has shot films that have won the Sundance "best cinematography" award twice, and been nominated for Oscars twice in the "best doc" category. Even the non-24p Sony PD150 has done that. So choice of camera is going to have little to no bearing at all on whether you get picked up and taken to the big screen.

Well, that's the other funny thing -- if you're *sure* you're going to end up on a 35mm print at the end, it's just as affordable to shoot 35mm in the first place. :thumbsup:


Great points Barry.

It's like you always say, the right tool for the job at hand.

From my limited knowledge I understand, it's important to look at the project's work flow from acquisition, production, and to publication. Not just any one phase.

Is it still the case that having a 35mm print made form digital is quite expensive?

[Barry_Green]

Last time I looked the quality jobs started at around $400/minute for HD to 35mm, and go up from there. So count on $40,000 to $60,000 for one print.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Ouch!

Do you know how much it is to have a digital film, say shot on the HVX or Red, packaged for Digital Cinema Distribution?

[Barry_Green]

Is there any such thing yet? Is there any substantial installation of Digital Cinema projectors, or a network to deliver content to them?

You could try talking to Mark Cuban and his Landmark Theaters, but last I knew there were only about 58 Landmark theaters in America, in 23 cities. Not exactly a mass audience.

DCI distribution will undoubtedly be the future, but as for today I'd bet film distribution is the only viable option for reaching the mass audience.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Is there any such thing yet? Is there any substantial installation of Digital Cinema projectors, or a network to deliver content to them?

You could try talking to Mark Cuban and his Landmark Theaters, but last I knew there were only about 58 Landmark theaters in America, in 23 cities. Not exactly a mass audience.

DCI distribution will undoubtedly be the future, but as for today I'd bet film distribution is the only viable option for reaching the mass audience.


To be sure.

Even the top theaters in the country only have one or two. (Century in Daly City California is a good example.)

But, what I am wondering is if there is a standard format to deliver the digital films in and if so is it proprietary and what's its costs?

[emotepix]

Barry
Just did a shoot on a Red and it wins this battle hands down. Too steep for me at this moment, though, and the rental queue is ridiculous at the moment. Thanks for the heads up, though. Much appreciated.

[Dylan Marshall Brady]

Hi Katya... I'm buying the EX1 partly for my full length feature work.
1. I'm guessing the EX1 will produce a better 35mm blow-up by far since it's full blown 1080p as opposed to 720p.
2. Apple FCP fully supports the EX1's long GOP format...and with Color, it's amazing what you can do to achieve a film look. Not only that, with Motion, you can smooth out those handheld shoots to be glassy smooth. So much of your work will actually be in post rather than in the camera.
Also, I really don't think any shutter wobble will be an issue at all (unless you're slinging the camera around on a rope). Many people on this forum have reported not seeing ANY problem at all.
With the great in-camera film looks...for me, there's no question the EX1 is the top choice.
Yes, the EX does 1080p at 35 mbps i think.
The HVX does 1080 at 100 mbps, with a 4:2:2 color space.
Wouldnt you think the HVX has better picture quality.

[matthew77]

Yes, the EX does 1080p at 35 mbps i think.
The HVX does 1080 at 100 mbps, with a 4:2:2 color space.
Wouldnt you think the HVX has better picture quality.


You're kidding, right?

[Michael T]

If your gonna talk about wizards and magic the old saying in Magic is ( Its not what you do but how you do it that counts ). This is the hardest principle to teach people. They all want to go and do without practice or understanding. This is why the master can take simple things and create true magic. One magician does a magic trick and another performs a miracle. Its not the guitar thats in Al Dimeola's hand its the music he plays that counts. Some people can use inferior equipment and produce riveting entertaining content thats beautiful and exciting to watch.

[rawfa]

heres my digital/film analogy.

digital is a luxury gps guided fully powered yacht. it gets you from port to port quickly and with much style. plus it has a steering wheel and anyone can pilot it.

film is a sail boat. it still gets from port to port, but its a little slower, you need skill and a small crew to pilot it, and keep it running smooth. but its looks beautiful, gracefull and elegant. also commanding and operating the ship itself is half the fun.

That is a nice image. Maybe you can write better than you think, Timur. ;-)

[emotepix]

Interesting thread.
We keep on going round in circles and dodging the issue here.

Okay, given an incredible Merlin who is equally powerful in making film-like images with an HVX or an EX1, which wand do you think that Merlin would be better off using?

Which is the better wand?
Not the favorite, not the more wandlike, the more film like?

Not the Red or the SI, HV20, HC1, or any other camera. Not 16mm or 35mm either, just between the HVX and the EX1?

I haven't owned either of the two yet, that's why I'm asking.

Yes, there are several schools of thought about buying equipment. My school goes like this: "learn it the hard way. Take the old equipment you already have access to and shoot, shoot, shoot. Or, better yet, learn it the easy way -- buy the best equipment you can just about afford, read all the manuals, and then shoot, shoot, shoot."

I've read a lot of Phil Bloom's stuff, and a lot of Barry's stuff too. I know what they prefer, and people like those two can use whatever camera they want to.

So I'm asking the HVX people and the Sony people too. Trying to be unbiassed, even though I'm a Leica person myself.

So - not asking which is cheaper, more cost effective, more affordable.

On the sole basis of the topic stated on this thread, which yields the better cinema look for indie feature film makers who:

a) want to own (not rent) a sub $8k camcorder;

b) shoot and edit themselves (assume at least a competence at modern camcorders);

c) don't have large crews;

d) shoot scripted material (and use film camera discipline, not pray and spray);

e) finish to DVD nearly all the time at the moment, but Blu Ray or HD DVD pretty soon, for sales or pre-sales purposes or to distribution entities only, (i.e. NOT principally for television end use) and

f) if/when their films do get sold, need to bump the existing footage to DI/35mm for cinema viewing

??

put simply, which of the two camcorders would yield a better DI?

[Stevet]

There really is no winner here. You just need to decide on what is important to you. At this point just look at the pros and cons of each camera. They have been mentioned quite a few times in this thread, EX1 threads, and other HVX threads.

The large pro for the HVX200 is due to its codec, every frame will be equal in quality (intraframe) and it offers 4:2:2.

The EX1 high pros are higher sensitivity due to 1/2" chips, native 1920x1080 rez, SDI 10 bit 4:2:2 (recently confirmed by Cineform).

As far as overall features, they are very close. You can buy into the HVX200 cheaper right now, so if you're on the fence, the HVX200 may be the way to go due to it will cost less.

Having said that, look closely at the work flow. This can greatly affect cost.

[BobDiaz]

There really is no winner here. You just need to decide on what is important to you. ...

Good points.

I also agree with Stevet, both cameras have shown to produce great results. So, it really becomes a very subjective thing to say this camera produces a better look than the other. Some will pick the HVX-200 and others will pick the EX-1. However, lighting will play a greater factor for the look, than the choice of the camera.

I do NOT believe that there is "one size fits all" camera. Each camera has its strong and weak points, so it more a matter of understanding what are each camera's strong/weak points and finding the best match for your needs.

IMHO: Both are very good cameras, so you can't go wrong with either one.


Bob Diaz

[emotepix]

Thank you again.
Has anybody actually tried the EX1 to DI yet?

Comparative workflows are what I'm trying to get details on so I can make a valid comparison. "Look closely at the workflow" is what I'm doing here. The best way I know is to ask a wizzard who's doing it already. I've been editing professionally for years and still don't know everything about all my tools.

I've done P2 edits on FCP and Avid, but not MXFs. P2 edits are a pain, IMHO.

However, I can't even get MXF test clips to play on my machines with the (correct and current) Sony drivers and players installed, and I have both Win and Mac machines. And I don't particularly like Vegas.

Is there that much difference in the colorspace comparing SDI outputs tethered? I'm using Conduit Live for my matte work. Maybe that will be the tie-breaker for me, as well as the best platform for the new wavelet boxes...

[lawriejaffa]

Yep i think the cineform offers a benefit for the EX if one purchases yet another product for their cam.

For the cam's alone, the hvx stands out for its codec, and now i suppose, its global shutter! The resolution both cams use is attained by different technology and so the real hd, native hd arguments i think are better deciphered by the best looking image than the best looking number.

I use Premiere CS3 and the latest update makes editing pimps easy for me, never found that a problem, i'm wary more of the editing requirements and workflow of hdv (of course that was the Sony Z1 i used!)

it's almost like the computer cpu days of athlon vs intel and how their clockspeeds were determined haha.

I'm really looking forward to trying the EX, but i think anyone that has a 2/3 cam (or take the hpx5oo for example) would wonder at the fuss we make. Bar the practical differences Barry has highlighted with filming different emerging technologies (as placed within our cameras) the general quality to the skilled operator will be all very good.

[TimurCivan]

That is a nice image. Maybe you can write better than you think, Timur. ;-)

was that an insult dude? ;)

[Tim Le]

I do NOT believe that there is "one size fits all" camera. Each camera has its strong and weak points, so it more a matter of understanding what are each camera's strong/weak points and finding the best match for your needs.

IMHO: Both are very good cameras, so you can't go wrong with either one.


I think this is good advice. Another thing to think about is all the other factors other than picture quality. These forums tend to concentrate a lot on the picture quality of the cameras. But also look at workflow and how you operate the camera. Handle it, use it, see if you like it. Like any tool, if you really like how it feels or if you really like how to operate it, you're more likely to use it :)

[emotepix]

Tim, thanks, and I've been doing this as a pro since 1975.

I've tried out both cameras, like the feel of both, and can make money operating both.

Guess in a perfect world I'd get both and switch according to how I feel.

But in your own philosophy of "no one camera good for all" I would own a DSLR/35mm SLR set, a 6x6, a 6x9, a 4x5, a couple of Super 8's, a Super 16, a 35mm sperical, a 35mm anamorphic/Super 35, and some high definition cameras. So That's what I have in my cupboards at the moment. I had many more stills cameras when I was doing that, but switched to motion pictures in the mid 80s. I've had my motion picture cameras pretty much since then, and use them whenever I can. However, as we all know, the digital gear goes out a lot more these days, for most of us.

Now, for the "some high definition cameras" shelves of my cupboards, the Red One will eventually be the high end, and I already own some of the lower end cameras (HC1, V1u, HD110) .

Now, which medium range hand held form camera to complete the picture?
Aye, there's the rub.

And yes, we're on the DVX forum. I know.

I still have a Leica SL2 and Leica Rs as well as an M2/35 that I will never sell...

[DeeZiD]

EX1 vs. HVX200 Shootout:
http://www.pairofhands.net/Ex1%20vs%20HVX%20Shootout.html


regards Dennis

[Stevet]

Dennis, was this your test? If so, nice job, you put a lot of work into this.

The only question I have is, why was the white balance not matched?
The HVX is on the warm side, the EX is on the cool side.
Look at the garage door on the EX1. It looks way cool.
I would of adjusted the white balance to match the HVX.
I tend to run my cameras warmer than viewed by eye.
Of course, you can always adjust in post, but we don't have the original files.

Again, I'm not saying it's your test, I just can't help ask why they were not matched?

[DeeZiD]

No, it isn't mine ;)


regards Dennis

[Kholi]

Don't get me wrong, I like dreaming about new "better" Cameras. Sharper images (come on, HVX IS kinda soft), less noise, etc so on so forth and more...

But, if you've ever seen HVX+Adapter projected on a huge screen, you know that at this point it really doesn't matter what cam you pick up and shoot with. I have to remember what I saw on the Kodak screen of my own amateur-ass footage and wish i could've taken a picture of it blown up like that, but trust me... once you see it you really do get the gist of "Time to find a good story."

From here on out, EX-1's VERY sharp and great lowlight image. SCARLET's probability in the removable lens department amongst other options, and whatever else comes down the road... all that? It's Icing on the cake.

On the HVX200 vs EX-1 Comparison: In all fairness, EX-1 is a new camera. Someone on this site once pointed out the NEW CAM PHENOMENA, which is High, Low, High.

High -- Camera gets released, everyone's on pins and needles, some of the footage looks great and it's time to go and buy a new camera for a lot of us. (I'm guilty of this)

Low -- Suddenly the Camera has a lot of issues, the footage isn't as appealing as you once thought and it's just another tool.

High -- People start learning how to use it and kick out great footage once again, and it's officially part of the tool set for SOME people. A lot of us didn't whip out our wallets, sell our cameras, and are back to being happy with what we own til the next cam release gets us all in a fuss. (Yeah, that's me too.)

The test is cool, it's also from a new EX-1 owner that may need to learn it as well as he knows his HVX200.

[TimurCivan]

Dude... despite its flaws, the Z1 is still hugely popular and is being used by Tens of thousands of people..... Same for the HVX, A1, H1, HD200..... The EX will fit right in, awesome in someway, flawed in another, but just right for one particular application.

[delaro]

i've seen the EX1 vs HVX shootout. i was almost ready to upgrade from XH-A1 to EX1. but the HVX is far more filmic on these samples. and i really don t like the highlights of the EX1. there is also something strange with the EX1 sky in the 720p motion comparison.....

[Kholi]

See the post above Timur's. The reason the EX-1 doesn't look as great is because it's a new cam and people have to start exploring it more in-depth to get the best out of it.

Look at Disjecta and the A1? He makes that thing sing.

[Stevet]

Yes,
I'm willing to bet this is stock with no cine curves selected.
Also, once again, the white balance was set on the cool side for the EX1.
Take a look at Phil Blooms stuff. This is very filmic. Please define "something strange".. LOL

Also, if you own the A1, there's really no need to upgrade. ;)

[delaro]

Yes,
I'm willing to bet this is stock with no cine curves selected.
Also, once again, the white balance was set on the cool side for the EX1.
Take a look at Phil Blooms stuff. This is very filmic. Please define "something strange".. LOL

Also, if you own the A1, there's really no need to upgrade. ;)

i've watched the "EX1vsHVX_720pMotionBig.mov" sample, and there is something strange in the upper right corner of the image (the sky) around 00:00.23 sec. like a too strong knee just in this area. or edge enhancement.
thanx for the comparison anyway!
i know we have to be careful because we don't really know the conditions and the settings. the EX1 seems to be a very nice camera. but imo the soft look of the HVX is more filmic on my computer screen. the EX1 is too sharp for what i consider a cinema look. i think it can be powerfull for someone who is transferring his feature to film. but for dvd export i prefer HVX. just personal opinion.
you're right i will keep my A1 for a while ;)

[Barry_Green]

I just spent some time with both of 'em, and I largely mirror what Kholi says. In fact, I refuse to post static shots because that'll become what it's all about, and heck, we all know the EX1 is sharper than the HVX on a static shot, so why beat that horse? I was more interested in all the other factors that come into play.

If I was making something for the cinema, no doubt I'd go with the HVX. If I was shooting something for DiscoveryHD in 1080/60i, and I wasn't going to run into rolling shutter issues, then no doubt I'd lean towards the EX1. But if I had to work with SxS and that tedious EX1 rebooting between shooting and playback day-in and day-out, I'd kick it like a football and RUN back to the HVX/P2. :)

Your mileage may vary. Don't believe anybody's hype, use the product that best meets YOUR specific purpose. There are substantial advantages to an EX1 over an HVX (a half stop more sensitive, and a noticeably sharper/clearer image) and there are some substantial disadvantages (rolling shutter, reboot time, working with SxS), etc. There's some overlap between them, obviously, and there's a big price gap too. Pick the right one for you.

[marco0782]

If I was making something for the cinema, no doubt I'd go with the HVX.

Why? If the EX1 is clearer and sharper? You can always add the gamma effects in post.

[snowleopard]

This reminds me a little of Barry's test shooting both the HVX and XH-A1 - both cameras look fine, more similar than different. Both pictures can be further tweaked, sure. Both cameras will do a plenty good job if you do a good job. It's almost moot to compare pictures, and more practical to compare features, like how you like the camera to your tastes for example.

Or as Barry said in another post (and Kholi echoes perfectly here) we've long ago passed "Good enough". Time to cowboy up and use any of these great tools to make great things happen.

[Stevet]

Why do some want to tie low rez to a movie look. It only takes one gaze at highend motion picture to realize there is detail (yes, more than SD, LOL). You can have a filmic look with detail, .. It doesn't need to be blurry to have the look. Afterall, soft is only a click away in post. Also, a lot of the "look" everyone is always craving is done in post. DOF is another story, both of these cameras need an adapter to get there, althought the EX1 gets a bit closer on its own.

[Barry_Green]

Why do some want to tie the HVX to "low rez" or "blurry"?

Of course movies have detail, and the HVX has plenty of that (intercutting an HVX seamlessly with 35mm on "The Departed" would kind of support that conclusion). What the HVX doesn't do is that hyper-sharp looking-through-a-window look. And neither does film.

Simply put, more detail does not make it look more filmlike, once you hit a certain threshhold.

[gaffney film]

(intercutting an HVX seamlessly with 35mm on "The Departed" would kind of support that conclusion)

That picture posted as a 2K DI, therefore the HVX intercut with a 2K DI not 35mm. That is an important distinction.

v

[taormina]

Yeah but it's still intercut with 2K - think about it!

[Barry_Green]

I'm saying that by the time it got projected in the theater, through whatever process it went through, it was obviously "good enough." Nobody is going to argue that an HVX is as sharp or sharper than an EX1, obviously. But it was good enough to go into a shot in a major-budget Oscar winner for "best picture" so yes, I categorically reject the idea that it's not sharp enough to deliver the film look.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

What an interesting thread.

However, this is an art form that constantly changes.

Just watched a copy of Snatch (2003 widescreen) and it looked like pure shyte.

The DVX100 looks better and the XH A1, HVX, and now EX1 with adapter are killing it as well.

Just absolute leaps and bounds; head and shoulders above film transfers of just a few years ago.


And to be honest, it's all absolutely moot at anyrate as the new distribution model is most certainly going to be direct to home theater.

To counter this, traditional theater owners will be "upgrading" to digital projectors with gimmicks like the new and improved 3D! but all in all I think the theaters are becoming a lost cause.

The new theater will be the 65" 1080p/120 with 7.1 surround. All self calibrated. All in the comfort and security of ones homes.

Here we will compete with"TV" images that on the whole are currently much sharper.

The bottom line will be what it really always has been.

Did you tell a compelling story, in a compelling way, without letting technology get in the way?



.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Cloverfield.

[Stevet]

Well, we definately disagree here, that's for sure, and everyone I've ever met in this business.
Are you telling me rez chart shots on highend movie production cameras fall short of 600 lines?

You can ALWAYS take away detail, but you can't get it back!
Also, try turning any artifical enhancement off on any of these cameras and compare. Turning it down on the HVX200 is not a pretty thing.

I'm finding it amusing having image detail is a bad thing. 320x480 image holds less detail than a 720x480 image. Somehow I believe the 480 image will look better. ;)

[Kholi]

Thing is that people need to realize that nobody's calling the EX-1 a bad camera or saying that what it offers over the HVX (cause, come on, it's got some reach over the HVX in aspects of the image department as represented by Phillip Bloom) isn't enough to justify its existence.

Just saying that there's more to consider than just lowlight performance and resolved detail.

Better Cinema look? Show me the EX-1 used on a short film instead of just tests and let's get to talkin' about that. Show me the EX-1 blown up to fifty or sixty feet in a narrative environment and let's chat it up.

Then and only then can you really see how the EX-1 performs in "cinema" land. We've seen it from the HVX... numerous times.

Dead Horse Beating Proverb #1337: Shooting RED ONE huh? What's the story about?

[Stevet]

The camera was just released one month ago.

[Kholi]

The camera was just released one month ago.

Yeah, that's my point: why is this topic even in existence? How can you even begin to speculate on which camera is the better Cinema look and why propagate (guilty as charged, m'self) the idea that you can even BEGIN to guess?

This question has been asked WAY too early. There's not even a MUSIC video shown yet. No pro work outside of Phillip Bloom's (Pro-looking is Pro enough). Seriously.

[gaffney film]

Yeah but it's still intercut with 2K - think about it!

2K is only a 13% increase in pixels over 1920 x 1080 HD. Now if it was a 4K film out, that would be a huge deal.

v

[Kholi]

How is it not a huge deal to begin with? 2k, I agree, is pretty worthless in comparison to 1080. The FACT is that it was GOOD ENOUGH for the big screen. Granted, it was a very small portion of the movie, but there are other movies shot on less that were good enough to garner worldwide attention.

Don't try to turn wine into water.

[gaffney film]

How is it not a huge deal to begin with? 2k, I agree, is pretty worthless in comparison to 1080. The FACT is that it was GOOD ENOUGH for the big screen. Granted, it was a very small portion of the movie, but there are other movies shot on less that were good enough to garner worldwide attention.

Don't try to turn wine into water.

What made it good enough was the story. If that footage forwarded the story visually it could have been shot on Hi8.

I'm not trying to turn anything into anything. I'm stating facts about DI and 35mm. A properly exposed 35mm negative that is processed normally can be described as having between 4 and 6K resolution. But it's not digital so they're just reference numbers.

Comparing any of these cameras to that is a bit silly to me. You wanna have the film look? You know the rest.

v

[mico]

Thing is that people need to realize that nobody's calling the EX-1 a bad camera or saying that what it offers over the HVX (cause, come on, it's got some reach over the HVX in aspects of the image department as represented by Phillip Bloom) isn't enough to justify its existence.

Just saying that there's more to consider than just lowlight performance and resolved detail.

Better Cinema look? Show me the EX-1 used on a short film instead of just tests and let's get to talkin' about that. Show me the EX-1 blown up to fifty or sixty feet in a narrative environment and let's chat it up.

Then and only then can you really see how the EX-1 performs in "cinema" land. We've seen it from the HVX... numerous times.

Dead Horse Beating Proverb #1337: Shooting RED ONE huh? What's the story about?


Yeah lets check the thread on that Paranormal Hour movie shot with the HVX too while we trash the EX. Ypu can make all the excuses you want about how it was shot but its soft soft soft. I can't believe whats being said about this new cam. I've seen it close up on a hd monitor and I will purchase one, warts and all.

[snowleopard]

More hair splitting if you ask me.


To counter this, traditional theater owners will be "upgrading" to digital projectors with gimmicks like the new and improved 3D! but all in all I think the theaters are becoming a lost cause.

The new theater will be the 65" 1080p/120 with 7.1 surround. All self calibrated. All in the comfort and security of ones homes.

Now this I agree with.

[Barry_Green]

Well, we definately disagree here, that's for sure, and everyone I've ever met in this business.
Are you telling me rez chart shots on highend movie production cameras fall short of 600 lines?
Of course not. What I *am* saying is that by the time the film print was released, the HVX footage mixed in just fine with the film footage.


You can ALWAYS take away detail, but you can't get it back!
Absolutely agreed.


Also, try turning any artifical enhancement off on any of these cameras and compare. Turning it down on the HVX200 is not a pretty thing.
Nor is it a pretty thing on the JVC HD100. So? The EX1 ships with a lot of enhancement by default, turn it off and it gets softer too (but still quite a bit more detailed than the competition).


I'm finding it amusing having image detail is a bad thing.
Has anyone anywhere ever said that? Come on, Steve, try to play fair. What was said was "they're both good enough." Yes the EX1 has more detail, but that doesn't mean it makes a more filmlike image. The amount of detail in an HD100, an HVX, or an XHA1 is enough to make a good-looking film print, and the HVX at least has been intercut in a major motion picture and worked fine.

If you want/need more than that, go right ahead, be my guest. But to characterize it in such a way as to say that having even more detail than we've currently got would make for a "better cinema look" just doesn't logically follow.

If you're going for a 4k projection, fine. But a theatrical release print has, on average, about 800 lines of res by the time you get it projected in the theater. That's what "cinema" looks like.

Now, let me turn it around -- are you saying that the high-detailed looking-thru-a-window look that the EX1 delivers looks anything at all like what you see in the theater?

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Yeah, that's my point: why is this topic even in existence? How can you even begin to speculate on which camera is the better Cinema look and why propagate (guilty as charged, m'self) the idea that you can even BEGIN to guess?

This question has been asked WAY too early. There's not even a MUSIC video shown yet. No pro work outside of Phillip Bloom's (Pro-looking is Pro enough). Seriously.


Wow.... you really sound like an EX1 hater.

If you have an HVX and love your HVX why do you care?

[Barry_Green]

Dude... read some of Kholi's past posts... when he first got his HVX he wanted an XHA1 soooooo bad because it was supposed to be so much sharper. When the EX1 was first announced he wanted one soooooooooooooo bad because it's sharper. He initially got the HVX because he found a killer deal on ebay.

Since then he's had a chance to see it on the big screen and been blown away by how good it looked, so he seems more content.

But Kholi's exactly the wrong guy to be accusing of what you just said. He's been ready to jump ship lots of times.

ALL he said in that post was "nobody's yet shown some killer examples, the only real 'pro' work we've seen so far is Philip Bloom's". That's all he said, an observation. How does that qualify him as an EX1 "hater"? I don't think you read him right at all.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Yeah lets check the thread on that Paranormal Hour movie shot with the HVX too while we trash the EX. Ypu can make all the excuses you want about how it was shot but its soft soft soft. I can't believe whats being said about this new cam. I've seen it close up on a hd monitor and I will purchase one, warts and all.


I don't what movie you are referencing but here is some great info on "ok" and even "lesser" cams being used for "independents" and "blockbusters".


I am sure the EX1 is a good bet your making.

[snowleopard]

http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_67/hair_twh_67_03.jpg

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Dude... read some of Kholi's past posts... when he first got his HVX he wanted an XHA1 soooooo bad because it was supposed to be so much sharper. When the EX1 was first announced he wanted one soooooooooooooo bad because it's sharper. He initially got the HVX because he found a killer deal on ebay.

Since then he's had a chance to see it on the big screen and been blown away by how good it looked, so he seems more content.

But Kholi's exactly the wrong guy to be accusing of what you just said. He's been ready to jump ship lots of times.

ALL he said in that post was "nobody's yet shown some killer examples, the only real 'pro' work we've seen so far is Philip Bloom's". That's all he said, an observation. How does that qualify him as an EX1 "hater"? I don't think you read him right at all.

Fair enough.

That's why I said he sounded like one and not that he was one. I am asking him what his stance is. It just seems he doesn't like the EX1.



Bottom line is I think it's exactly what you preach Barry.

Right now, it's hard to go wrong with the tool that "fits your hand."

XH A1, HVX 200, or EX1 even the DVX.


I know the film is controversial, but the short "Sta Volta" (It's posted here on DVX) is very very film like.

I showed it to an Academy Award Winning Actress and she asked if I knew what film stock it was shot with. She thought it was shot on 35mm and she's in 5+ Bigger Hollywood Films a year.




I am going way way further though and saying that "Film Like Images" is a term that describes a moving target and that is now more than ever changing.

We are headed to sharper more high def like images as Digital takes over.

I am not saying we are headed to films with a high def video image. But instead, films with less grain and more sharpness.

[delaro]

i'm a XH-A1 owner. i'm searching for a tapeless solution and filmlook. i'm hesitating between EX1 and HVX. 10 days ago i was almost ready to buy the new sony. both are at the same price in europe.
The cinelook is a question of feeling, perception, not numbers. Phil Bloom footages are fantastic, i've seen some others, very good too. but for my perception they are all looking like video. fantastic video .... but video. i showed these samples to people who don't know anything about all that and they had this feeling too. and when i see the comparison between EX1 and HVX side by side, i just regret to have been such a big hater of the HVX since the beginning. for the cinelook i prefer the HVX motion and highlight handling by far on this comparison footage.

[Stevet]

Actually it's the highlights that I don't like on the HVX. But to be fair, !/3" sensor cameras don't fair well in latitude. The EX1 has been shown in previous examples to offer more image latitude. Even 1/2" is questionable here.

Also, many have been using the standard curves and have not been trying the cine which offer better image latitude. The one example that was posted showing the G1, HVX200, Z1, & EX1, this clearly showed the EX1 did not blow before the others.

I must admit, this all gets a bit comical between these cameras. I never thought Kholi was a EX1 hater either, lol.
He brings up a good point, and that's been mine too. It was just released a month ago. I remember when the HVX200 was released all we had was a noisy karate clip, dude sitting in a cafe reading the paper, and a desert car scene. None were very impressive looking at it on my 24" Dell.

In fact, it's this Dell that when displaying these full images that seems to show every bit of flaw noise and all.

The HVX did not look that great. It even showed the flaws from many other cameras tested, including the HD100 (although, I still like this camera, nice lens, but bad CA) now watching the 1080P from the EX1. It's quite the difference to say the least. For some reason this monitor shows every tad bit of noise. I know it's nothing to do with the monitor, because highend footage looks very clean. Yes, I'm talking about viewing via DVI not component. The component ins are not very pretty, that's for sure.
Barry's has mentioned this in the past.

I think a lot of our discussion comes from not being able to talk one-on-one. It's hard to convey your thoughts in couple of sentences.

I guess it gets old to hear things like it's to sharp. LOL
That's like saying she's to beautiful!

[Kholi]

Wow.... you really sound like an EX1 hater.

If you have an HVX and love your HVX why do you care?

Barry said it and a lot more tactfully than I would've.

Sometimes I look at my HVX like its the worst can on the market because of the noise and sharpness. But I keep reminding myself of what I've seen first hand and knowing that an HVX and adapter combo (that was M2, I can only imagine LetusEX) is perfect for big screen forces me to sit back and ask-- after my initial eager puppy-like excitement over a new camera-- am I doing enough with what I have already? And, does this new camera offer MORE than what I have? Enough to call a serious upgrade?

The point I attempted to make was that you can't begin to compare them so early in the EX-1s life? To do so does a disservice to the EX, definitely not the HVX. Sharpness and lowlight are great in theory. Even better when you show me what it does when applied to narrative filmmaking when considering the EX-1 as your image acquisition system.

Shorter version: nobody can tell you which is better til it gets used in the environment a few times.

[snowleopard]

...the high-detailed looking-thru-a-window look that the EX1 delivers...

I actually didn't get that feeling when playing with the EX1. It does have the through the window look in 60i, but in 24p it looks closer to the HVX than it does "through the window", which is more like what the Z1 looks like. Neither look just like film to me. They have their own look that is good enough to suspend my belief that I'm watching not a soap opera or reality TV, but a movie.

Then again, more hair-splitting, I digress.

[Kholi]

Yeah lets check the thread on that Paranormal Hour movie shot with the HVX too while we trash the EX. Ypu can make all the excuses you want about how it was shot but its soft soft soft. I can't believe whats being said about this new cam. I've seen it close up on a hd monitor and I will purchase one, warts and all.

HVX + M2. Yes, let's use that as an example, shall we? You think it was the HVX that fell short or the people that used it?

I'm sorry, but the stuff I saw projected on the Kodak screen looked nothing less than spectacular. How the Paranormal Hour was shot will largely dictate why it might've looked soft. One of those reasons may have been the M2,which I'm sure it was.

Another? Detail level, the Filmout Process, etc etc.

So, you've only served to help my point: it ain't the tool at this point. The HVX, HD100, EX-1, I'd wager even the HV20 can do plenty for the big screen (if you ever even GET there) at this point. It's all who's using it and how much they'e studied and tested up until that point.

A.K.A Prepared

[StMad]

But if I had to work with SxS and that tedious EX1 rebooting between shooting and playback day-in and day-out, I'd kick it like a football and RUN back to the HVX/P2. :)



Yawn. How about we keep the discussion on topic, and stop taking opportunities to put the boot in?

And this talk of "looking through a window" is pretty weak and subjective at best.

I enjoyed looking at Phil's footage and seeing detail in the midground and background...detail that I don't see with my HVX. If you don't want your audience to see that detail, then leave that part of the frame out of focus (we're almost all using an adapter when going for the "film look", right?).

Any 24p HD cam could have successfully shot that footage in The Departed. It's a close up, right? I doubt they would've been thinking of the HVX (nor any other sub 10k cam) if they needed wide shot pickups.

I honestly don't think the cam we use makes that much of a difference when it comes to the film look. I've seen some very film like Canon GL1 footage.
Lighting, grading, composition, camera movement, performance, location, art direction etc play a far larger role.

In defense of the EX1...it has plenty of "look" adjustability, so the next few months should tell us plenty. For eg, I'm looking forward to seeing footage shot using the various cine gamma modes.

[mico]

Sharpness and lowlight are great in theory. Even better when you show me what it does when applied to narrative filmmaking when considering the EX-1 as your image acquisition system.

Shorter version: nobody can tell you which is better til it gets used in the environment a few times.

Man I don't know what point you're making anymore but this quote makes no sense to me.
When sonys vx100 started this whole thing we've all progressively asked more from these cams and now that one has come thats given us that little more we start to dismiss it.

hey I'll make even simpler than all this tech talk on why the ex is for me aside from the resolution and gorgeous picture: 4 sxs 16gb cards do me for the day. if i want to get some spur of the moment shooting I do not have to carry a laptop around with me. Its a solid state cam like the old dv days when i threw a bunch a tapes into a bag and went off shooting. The hvx failed with the time restraint on P2 that can only be remedied by throwing alternative capture devices at it or a grossly expensive P2 card collection.You cannot convince me otherwise.

One SXS 16gb=50 minutes tapeless shoot time at best quality. Yahoooooo!

[lawriejaffa]

Gentlemen gentlemen, hehe,

Well i think the impression seems fairly obvious, which is that the EX more or less seems like a progression of Sony's 'ideas' for the video market, rather than as something revolutionary designed specifically for filmmakers.

Blooming heck!

The HVX has a right to sit on its laurels, it is revolutionary, now the EX has to prove A LOT to deserve the praise that makes it a de-facto improvement. It has failed to meet the marketing hype so aggressively pushed (as it would be anyway) and so sceptism should now be expected.

Those that tout the EX as the 2nd coming I find amusing, because until I hear of a big range of names flying behind it, and its inclusion in various hollywood movies for pickups, and a multitude of great looking shorts, then it is the new boy.

As the new boy it has a lot to prove before claiming it superior for filmlook projects!

Nobody out of pride would resist something so incredible that it blew away the qualities of the old cams they possessed. Of course the EX has been hyped, and now the reality is making folks testing them go 'knew it was too good to be true'.

It is not juvenile what Barry Green says about the 'window look' that is ENTIRELY the look which is OBVIOUS to anyone, that the camera captures, and for projects akin to those seen on HD Discovery etc. Is this not typical of the prosumer HD sonys?

Most folks working on indies etc want a film look and any camera that helps them achieve that, through whatever processes it does is appreciated. However mega pixils and numbers are the cheapest marketing ploys of all, in the end its the 'mojo' of the image that counts. Apart from the sharpness it retains on the image of a fig leaf etc, has anyone yet gone 'wow' at its sweepingly cinematic quality of 'image'... No, well i haven't and it will have to PROVE that first in shorts made by folks before it can truly claim it... and not just a few promo clips made by a professional.

The HVX has faced its tests, and has proven extremely popular, with professionals and amatuers alike. It's use in major film productions (whether its to shoot Scorcese taking a dump or to intercut with a hollywood films climactic scene) is nonetheless an achievment the EX will have to attain in order to live up to the hype.

Sony has (like all camera manufacturers) pursued an aggressive marketing style hailing it as a 2nd coming, and I can't help thinking that despite not achieving anything yet, the EX has a comical amount of praise, praise that is being quickly challenged by those sensitive to the requirements of filmmakers.

Art is art, and resolution is the most pointless argument of all imo, 1080p on an hvx is not good enough for resolution? That argument is mute, the aesthetic is not improved by numbers, would an art student inking a mural beat Renoir painting a canvas?

Some of you who dismiss the achievments of the hvx (such as intercutting with hollywood films) would be posting new topics on this forum if the EX had. Its embarassing and childish, especially given how well respected Barry Green's opinion is. I'm no mod, but so much word twisting and rhetoric is used against his statements that its cringeworthy -especially you SteveT *ahem*! He is an impartial source of information for the digital filmmaker whose concerns are often specific, his reviews are frank and respected, and his preferences trusted.

[Noel Evans]

Well everyone is having a say so I might as well too.

Ridiculous thread if you ask me. We are asking what gives the better film look. Sorry to say but at this level of camera using progressive 24fps footage the camera has little to do with it, the difference comes from the operator / dp. Either can look better depending entirely on that.

[Kholi]

Man I don't know what point you're making anymore but this quote makes no sense to me.
When sonys vx100 started this whole thing we've all progressively asked more from these cams and now that one has come thats given us that little more we start to dismiss it.

hey I'll make even simpler than all this tech talk on why the ex is for me aside from the resolution and gorgeous picture: 4 sxs 16gb cards do me for the day. if i want to get some spur of the moment shooting I do not have to carry a laptop around with me. Its a solid state cam like the old dv days when i threw a bunch a tapes into a bag and went off shooting. The hvx failed with the time restraint on P2 that can only be remedied by throwing alternative capture devices at it or a grossly expensive P2 card collection.You cannot convince me otherwise.

One SXS 16gb=50 minutes tapeless shoot time at best quality. Yahoooooo!

Of course you don't know what point I'm trying to make because you think I really care WHERE you spend your money; I don't. Go buy a few beers, go buy a nuclear weapon. I'm not trying to convince you of anything which is your problem. You're FIGHTING for a camera, an inanimate object.

The big problem? You've got too much emotion invested in something that doesn't have the capability of loving you back.

This is why DVXuser considered disallowing sub-forums for OTHER cameras that AREN'T Panasonic to begin with: some people can't deal with the discussion.

And, before you go off on a tangent about how I'm a Pana-lover or loyalist-- similar to the other guy that did it-- please keep in mind that I was just as ready to jump ship on my HVX200 for an EX-1 as anyone else. I'm the FIRST person to tell you that the HVX is a noisey SOB, soft, yadda plus YADDA.

This topic AIN'T about functionality, though, it's about the FILM LOOK and as I said: SHOW ME AN EX-1 SHORT FILM OR ANY FILM AND THEN LET'S JUDGE.

Gahd. You people are way too sensitive over MACHINES.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

WOW.... see... I guess that's why I don't know what you were going on about either.

I don't know who you are directing the "other guy" comment to but if it's me then you can keep it.

My point is this.

If you like the HVX greeeeat.

If you don't greeeeaaattt.


As far as to which image is more fimic... yeah... whatever....

I am just interested in the work flow of EX1 and the images it produces just as I am with the HVX.

We are kind of in a tween state right now anyway.

But for those of us that have to shoot on something... it's nice to know where to put out $7500 or whatever.

One way to do that is to find a good system and workflow and emulate it.

The whole exchange of information and all.

[Kholi]

This thread isn't about whether you LIKE it or not. Someone told Barry to keep it on topic? You both do the same. The thread directly asks BETTER CINEMA LOOK.

RE-READ THE TOPIC. And, you'll see the POINT I'm trying to make refers to the fact that the camera hasn't been out more than a MONTH so how can you even begin to say it's better than or WORSE than in the Cinema arena? Even STEVE agreed with me on that. The hell is the rest of your issues?

Start another one entitled BESTEST CAMERA HVX OR EX-1!?!?!

You don't know what I'm going on about? You haven't bothered paying attention.

[lawriejaffa]

Yep I think Kholi's right, and when it comes down to it we all know that the Amiga was way better than the Atari ST, or in fact, (for UK folk) that the Amstrad 64 was better than the Commodore 64 hehe

The thread is about cinema look that i somewhat clumsily refer to as mojo, though i mean in the filmic context. Like i say, time is yet to judge on this new cam.

It seems u dudes are laying siege to poor Kholi hehe, this should not be tit for tat juvenile antics ;) It should be manly and sex like me after I emerge from a morning shower *ahem*

Now thats going off topic!

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Ohhh calm down now Kholi and give your HVX another hug....


Yes the thread has transitioned.

That's why they are called threads and not lines because they twist and wind.



Better Cinema look.

That's a loaded question to begin with as 10 people are likely to define the "Cinema Look" 25 different ways.


Maybe you haven't read any of my post. I haven't made any assertions other than the HVX has fantastic images that even those in the biz can confuse for film.

As to the EX1 looks good to me from what I have seen from Philip.


On the Big Silver Screen... jeeze... so many steps to get it there that it is as much the process as the camera. Color grading, transfers, projections....


A better thread would just be... how well does the EX1 emulate film and what are the steps to get it there.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

...

It seems u dudes are laying siege to poor Kholi...

...



...

Someone told Barry to keep it on topic? You both do the same. The thread directly asks BETTER CINEMA LOOK.

...



P.S. I am only responsible for my post. Period.

Not anyone else's.

If anyone has an issue with someones post take it up with them.

[lawriejaffa]

Okay good, so are we all going to be gentlemen and let it settle, and have a cup of tea ;)

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Ohhhh... I love tea... the Misses is actually making a proper cup as we speak!

[Stevet]

LOL !!!!! LOL
Now, you can't tell me the EX1 hasn't created any heat !
Sorry, we're all rolling out of our chairs here!

LOL!!!

[Stevet]

Sorry, technology improves every year and things only get better.
Three years from now we'll ALL be using something different and laughing at this stuff...
Remember, it's only a tool...

[snowleopard]

I never quarrel with anyone in here, but I have to take exception to this:


(The EX) has failed to meet the marketing hype so aggressively pushed (as it would be anyway) and so sceptism should now be expected..

The camera has been out, what two weeks? With some people having some still on order. How on earth can you state with such conviction that it's "failed to meet the marketing hype"??? Can you point us to some sales numbers supporting your contention?


It is not juvenile what Barry Green says about the 'window look' that is ENTIRELY the look which is OBVIOUS to anyone,

I find this selective argument from intimidation insulting. If you have no compelling evidence to back up such a claim, stop doing so by attempting to belittle and insult us by questioning us and forcing us to defend our own selective judgment. Your fallacy makes about as much logical sense as me saying "It should be OBVIOUS to anyone that the HVX is a child's toy because of (insert selective weakness here)".

I'm out.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I justed spilled my F'n tea.....


Damn... it was good tea too!

[Stevet]

I justed spilled my F'n tea.....


Damn... it was good tea too!


A- f'n men brother!

[lawriejaffa]

Oh boys calm down, look snowleper I'm damn right and i know it ;) I didn't say anything about marketing figures and sure I can substantiate my comments, but since er nobody else does on this thread, bar Barry... All cams are released with insane hype this is KNOWN, its not like the hvx lived to its every expectation when it was hyped on release! Likewise with the EX, thats the point i make, i think its fairly obvious...

Anyway lets just relax, and take a cup o' tea again.

This thread has way out lived its usefullness, and its not the fire of an amazing new machine SteveT that has folk dancin' - its just ego's squabbling, and you stevet are among the most guilty for baiting and naughtiness, it ain't you sitting back laughing, your usually too busy making some retort to a tech post barry puts up...

The guy thats laughing is probably the one with the JVC HD250 who thinks we're nuts.

So darlings, let's get back to our cup o' tea, the 'outrage' of angry fanboys doth tires me :)