Finally got to see "the big three" cameras on a HD projector

[Blackout]

Well I finally was able to get my hands on all of the 'big three' cameras (HVX200a, Sony EX1, Canon XH-A1) over the last week and I am kind of dissapointed with all of them for different reasons to tell you the truth. I mean do these companies actually conspire to give the perfect weakness to each camera? Yeah, I know they don't but sometimes it seems like it.

Coming to this visual test my heart leaned towards the HVX200a because I have had the DVX100 for several years since it was first introduced. Before that I was a big Canon fan because the 30fps frame mode on the XL1 was the closest thing to a native film look on a DV camera there was at that point in time (although it was blurry as hell).

But on to the big three shootout:

I shot similar footage on all three cameras both indoors and out in 720 24p and 1080 24p (I was not interested in any of the video interlace modes) followed by a resolution chart on the HVX200a, the Sony EX1, and the Canon XH-A1 (couldn't get a hold of the Xl-H1 but I am told it produces pretty much identical images minus the interchangeable lenses)

The results surpised me. I viewed all the footage on a 6 foot diagonal Sony HD plasma first and then for the big test I projected the footage onto a very large 15 foot diagonal screen on a high end 1920 x 1080 infocus HD projector in a pitch black screening room.

ON THE SONY 6 foot plasma - the HVX200a stood out with apparantly nicer colors, a more filmic look in general with it's 24p motion characteristics that have made it famous, and no artifacting that I could see. Again this was on the 6 foot Sony plasma. The EX1, while looking stunningly sharper than the hvx200a at first glance, is a mess of a camera with all sorts of issues that I really dont understand how anyone deals with. Perhaps I am a complete nut job or I had a broken EX1. I thought people were being overbearing and overexagerated with the rolling shutter, long GOP, and jellovision stories that I have read online, but it really is a serious problem. Now at first glance - on slow cuts and pans - the EX1 image seems to slamn dunk the HVX except for some strange look of resolution loss or detail loss that appears to happen right after you start moving the camera for the pan - but the EX1 is so sharp that when it losses its detail (perhaps the codec lowering detail to avoid artifacts...although that of itself IS an artifact) it looks more similar to the HVX200a footage, but on fast whips and very fast handheld stuff I saw all sorts of issues and weird skews and slants that there is no way I could deal with. Philip Bloom may have some amazing images but they are all locked down and I don't do locked all the time down so this camera is out.

The Canon XH-A1 was pretty damn stunning though and I was very surpised at the clarity and filmic look of the 24F mode. I had expected this camera to be the dud of the three but I actually far preffered it's images to the Sony EX1 because even though it was not quite as sharp as the EX1 is - it was pretty damn close, and it was noticably sharper and had more detail than the HVX200a while exhibiting none of the wierdo artifacts that the EX1 did when being handheld and whipped around. The colors and highlights were not as nice off the bat as the HVX - the A1 had more of a video look with it's settings right out of the box, but with some tweaking the look closely approached the Panny's famed 24p cine gamma settings. You can tweak colors, but you can't tweak up resolution or detail.

Now where things really stood out: ON TO THE INFOCUS dlp projector:

This is where I really noticed a difference. When I was watching the footage of all three of these cameras projected on about a 15 foot diagonal screen the HVX200a was noticeably soft. I didn't do split screens or anything like that, I was just watching one camera's footage after the other after the other of the same shots. On the Sony 6 foot diagonal plasma I really only noticed the softness of the HVX when I watched the HVX footage immediately after or before the Canon XH-A1 or Sony EX1 footage in a direct comparison, but on the big - BIG screen it was another story. I could see there was some detail lacking on things like a man's whiskers and some tiny flowers in a garden wide shot where I would have liked to have seen some more detail and sharpness on the HVX. The same shots of said man's face with whiskers and wide garden shot were a considerable amount sharper on the EX1 and the XH-A1 and it really showed on the big screen whereas I didn't notice it quite as much on the 6 foot although I did notice it. Again, on the big screen the EX1 dominated in vivid detail but it's out of the question for me because of it's bizzaro artifacts. The XH-A1 was right behind the EX1 and even on the big screen I surprisingly did not notice any compression artifacts from the HDV when I really thought for sure I would see some because I am an artifact stickler. I was pretty damn impressed. The HVX200a still ruled in color, but not by THAT much. The big deal with the HVX of course is that it does have the beautiful variable frame rate that the XH-A1 is painfully lacking, but I found myself longing for some more snap and detail in certain wide images while viewing them on the HD projector. The HVX200a does have a real filmic look and it did look like I was watching 16mm projected images, but it looked like soft 16mm. Making movies for projection display for large audiences is what I am interested in doing and yes yes of course story and content is the most important thing but when you have a great story you do want the best possible capture and display of your images and it's why we're all here. When these things come down to a consumer HD screen of average size or the web, the HVX200a wins, but on the big screen I have to say the XH-A1 looked better because there was definitely increased detail, and it's a couple thousand dollars cheaper too which doesn't hurt.

So now I am at a total loss. The camera I find myself really wanting is not existant. it's the HVX200a with an increased resolution chip because I want tapeless recording and I want variable frame rate...BUT I WANT HIGHER RESOLUTION too damnit! The XH-A1 does not have variable frame rates and that is upsetting, and it's HDV which I would say is not good but it sure looked good - but the HVX200a is more than a bit soft on the big screen. What to do what to do!?

On a resolution chart, I only got what appeared to be a little over 500 lines, maybe 520 if even that on the HVX. What the hell is going on with the other 1400 lines? I don't know.. attack of the clones? Granted I did all this rather quickly and it wasn't a total science, and audiences don't watch resolution charts - but you guys who say you don't want more resolution out of the HVX are nuts! The HVX desperately NEEDS MORE RESOLUTION! Screens are only going to get bigger and more detailed and not vice versa. I really think Panasonic needs to up their game and provide a next generation HVX of sorts that really hits the 1920 x 1080 mark in sharpness and detail, along with all the other qualities that people love about it. I would gladly pay a little more if not double for that because if the Panny had the resolution of the EX1 or even the XH-A1 yet still had it's 100mbit codec and variable frame rates - it would be NO CONTEST and I believe that would be the ultimate dream HD camera for indie film that is going for any sort of theatrical release on a budget. Untill we all get to 4k - but we have a while until that unless you are shooting on RED but I am not a huge RED fan. The RED has it's own issues to my eyes but that is for another article.

As for right now I am stumped between the XL-A1 and the HVX200a and I am going to dunk my head in some cold water.

- Blackout -

PS: I heard the film "THE SIGNAL" was all shot on Canon Xl-H1s and then transferred to film for theatrical release - can anyone confirm this? Are there any films that have had theatrical release that used the HVX200a (yeah I know it's probably too new for that). if not how about the HVX200? And please lets not talk about Cloverfield I don't mean a film that used the hvx200 as an effective home video camera effect in a 'real movie' that's not what I'm looking for. I'm talking about an entire movie that was shot on HVX200 or 200a camera and then transferred to film for theatrical release.

[Al MacLeod]

Did you test at 1080 or 720 for your final comparison?

[Spdamf]

hmm.. i wonder how the sharpness between the HMC 150 and A1 is with the AVCHD codec.

[Blackout]

Did you test at 1080 or 720 for your final comparison?

Both, but I am talking about 1080 24p mode on all three camera (or 24f on the canon) out to 1920 x 1080 on the projector. The 720p mode would have considerable upscaling applied to it and I was trying to avoid that and see what the camera really looked like of themslves without the Infocus upscaling coming into play although it did come into play a little bit because the Canons output res is 1440 x 1080 I believe.
Honestly though the infocus HD projectors have amazingly transparent faroujda scalers that don't add any noticable artifacts as far as I can see. On some of the best blu-ray discs connected via HDMI, you would think you are really watching a brand new film print.

[Blackout]

hmm.. i wonder how the sharpness between the HMC 150 and A1 is with the AVCHD codec.

Isn't the HMC 150 the exact same imager as the HPX170 an HVX200a? Just using a different codec? I don't think it would look any different then unless it was slightly worse off from the increased compression. I certainly doubt it would be better or sharper.

[Ted Spencer]

What were the detail (aka sharpness) settings on the cameras? The HVX is known to have lower default (e.g. "0") values than some others.

[puredrifting]

Hi Blackout:

Thanks for the detailed post. Did you mean XH-A1 all of the times you were typing XL-A1? Or did you mean XL-H1? I am confused as far as which camera you were using? Canon model numbers are confusing as hell.

Dan

[Blackout]

Hi Blackout:

Thanks for the detailed post. Did you mean XH-A1 all of the times you were typing XL-A1? Or did you mean XL-H1? I am confused as far as which camera you were using? Canon model numbers are confusing as hell.

Dan

You know what - you're right I screwed up the naming the entire article. I'm going to go back and fix it. Yes I did mean the XH-A1 but I was typing Xl-A1 for some reason. I guess because the camera I originally wanted to test was the Xl-H1 and the XH-A1 is the stripped down version. Since a XL-H1 but it wasn't available at the time, and everyone and their mother has told me that the XH-A1 is exactly the same except for the fact that it can''t change lenses - I used what was available which was the XH-A1. Quite a huge difference in price too to spend an extra $5000 or so so you can change a lense? A custom XL lense mount at that. Not worth it if you ask me unless you have some really really AMAZING amazing lenses and I don't think the H1 has anything THAT impressive out that warrants the cost increase.

I still do favor the HVX200a colors though.

[Ian-T]

Yes I did mean the XH-A1. I wanted to test on a XH-H1 but it wasn't available at the time, and everyone and their mother has told me that the XL-A1 is exactly the same but it can''t change lenses so I used the A1 instead. Quite a huge difference in price too to spend an extra $5000 or so so you can change a lense? Not worth it unless you have some really really AMAZING amazing lenses and I don't think the H1 has anything that impressive out.
Wel there are a few other things also like HD-SDi output for one. The A1 does not have that.

[Blackout]

Wel there are a few other things also like HD-SDi output for one. The A1 does not have that.

Understood and I agree with you. The H1 better have something more for all that money - but I was specifically looking ONLY at recorded image quality. I don't care if the camera comes with a Lamborghini, I am talking about what does it look like on a big screen - and I don't think the HD-SDI output is going to affect the image unless you are editing uncompressed which is a bit unrealistic and would be an entirely different comparison for all the above cameras. All three cameras uncompressed to a NLE that can handle it is another comparison entirely. For myself personally - I am going to be dealing with footage from card or tape.

[snpx]

What were the detail (aka sharpness) settings on the cameras? The HVX is known to have lower default (e.g. "0") values than some others.

that would be great to know.

[Ian-T]

Quite a huge difference in price too to spend an extra $5000 or so so you can change a lense?.....and I don't think the H1 has anything THAT impressive out that warrants the cost increase.Take it easy. My comment was only in reference to this one that you made...nothing more.

[Blackout]

that would be great to know.

I really did not mess with the settings too much because I didn't have the time. Or more aptly - I had the time but the cameras couldn't stay with me for the time I had ;)

The only thing I did was to switch all the cameras into 720 24p and 108024p and I did mess quite a bit with the Canon's color controls to try and get it to match up to the HVX. I don't recall changing the detail settings on any of the cameras so I assume they were all on their defaults but despite its name you can't really get more detail out of the detail setting - you are really just turning up or down the artificial contrast edge enhancement.

[snpx]

a lot of processing before the picture gets on p2, sxs or tape. so i do accept the detail for sharpening the picture. but you are right, its not native resolution.

[Blackout]

Take it easy. My comment was only in reference to this one that you made...nothing more.

I didn't mean any offense - the lamborghini comment was not meant to be rude or anything - just a metaphor. I just meant that for me personally - I really don't see any of the features of the H1 being worth the increased price over the A1.

[Buck Forester]

Interesting comparison. Each person looking at such results must obviously make up their own mind on what's best for them. The color issue wouldn't be huge for me personally because each of these cameras can be adjusted and tweaked for however you want them to look in camera, as well as making the final product in post.

I wish I could see the footage you created so I could see what you're referring to as unusable footage with the EX1. The only reason I'd like to see it is because to date 95% of all my EX1 footage has been handheld, much of that running at high speeds chasing my little boy. I'm not very soft-footed, ha! I have never come across any kind of rolling shutter issues with my EX1 in regards to motion. I have with close-up camera flashes, but nothing while running handheld. I don't do really fast zoomed whip pans though because they're unwatchable to me, but I understand each person has their own style and tolerances.

It sounds like the Canon is a pretty sweet camera! Thanks for sharing your results.

[Blackout]

Interesting comparison. Each person looking at such results must obviously make up their own mind on what's best for them. The color issue wouldn't be huge for me personally because each of these cameras can be adjusted and tweaked for however you want them to look in camera, as well as making the final product in post.

I wish I could see the footage you created so I could see what you're referring to as unusable footage with the EX1. The only reason I'd like to see it is because to date 95% of all my EX1 footage has been handheld, much of that running at high speeds chasing my little boy. I'm not very soft-footed, ha! I have never come across any kind of rolling shutter issues with my EX1 in regards to motion. I have with close-up camera flashes, but nothing while running handheld. I don't do really fast zoomed whip pans though because they're unwatchable to me, but I understand each person has their own style and tolerances.

It sounds like the Canon is a pretty sweet camera! Thanks for sharing your results.

Hiya,

Have you freeze framed your shots and taken a close look at them? Some people are not as sensitive to skew as others, and their brains literally 'fix' it in their own heads because things are not supposed to look like that and the brain tweaks things to make them acceptable. I will admit I am EXTREMELY sensitive to artifacts that most people never see. Skew looks like you are holding a piece of paper perfectly straight and then someone came along and pulled the bottom of the paper to the right or left so that you now have a slanted paper.

I hated DVD when it first came out because all I saw were mpeg2 blocky compression artifacts and I quite frankly preffered the blurry laserdisc format over that - but when compression codecs got to where I coudln't see blockies anymore I was a happy camper.

I would love to do this test again more scientifically in order to help others and actually upload all the footage so people can be their own judge as they should - I am only offering my opinion here as an independent film maker with a very criticle eye. I watched the EX1 footage several times over and it had issues to me. There was definitely a 'skew' issue meaning - if I had a perfect straight verticle line, when I whipped the camera from the left to right - that line became un-naturaly more of a diaganol line when it should have still been verticle, and the rest of the frame followed suite increasing the skew every scan line or so even if not by mutch.

I guess certain people really wouldn't see it - but it drove me crazy.

[Noel Evans]

No surprise to me the A1 held up image wise.

[Jimmy Moss]

I own both the XH-A1 and HVX200a and yes, the A1 is noticably sharper than the HVX. Too bad it dosent have the variable frame rates and DVCPRO HD. Then again the pixel count/rez is built into the codec. HDV 1440x1080 and DVC PRO 1280x1080.

I have to say though if your not color correcting a lot and you use Dempseys VIVID RGB preset I would use the A1 over the HVX200a. Just cut in HVX slow motion with the A1 stuff.

[ullanta]

Isn't the HMC 150 the exact same imager as the HPX170 an HVX200a? Just using a different codec? I don't think it would look any different then unless it was slightly worse off from the increased compression. I certainly doubt it would be better or sharper.

The imager and optis are indeed supposed to be the same, and the codec has a lower bitrate... but the AVCHD codec is full-raster horizontally, while DVCProHD has significantly lower horizontal resolution (DVCProHD is 1280x1080 vs HMC's 1920x1280; or 960x720 vs. HMC 1280x720).

Whether the codec is at all a limiting factor in the HVX's images indeed remains a question... but certainly we can't rule out the possibility that the HMC would produce more detailed imagery in at least some circumstances. Many suspect this may be true in 720 but not much of a noticeable difference in 1080... but who knows? If you could test it, we'd all be interested!

[Bokes]

I agree with Buck Forestor about the EX1.
Flash issues?- Yup. I got use to it. Clients do not seem to see it. They don't mention it.
I have seen the fast pan jelly images- but I have never seen it on my camera. I tried swinging the camera back and forth like crazy the other day- it would not "jelly". Lines were solid.
The EX1 had a lot of issues out of the gate. Since then there has been several firmware updates. Also, certain settings can cause problems.
That said- There could just be some bad EX1's out there.

I have owned all three cameras. I currently use the EX1 and even if I still had the other two I would always reach for the EX on the big $$ gigs.
I was able to dial in a "HVX" saturated look on the EX. It looks fantastic.
The only characteristic I'll give to Panasonic is the 24p motion. The others have an odd stutter. (to my eye)
I shoot 30p with Sony and it's smooth- so that's what I do.

[Ian-T]

.... I really don't see any of the features of the H1 being worth the increased price over the A1.No offense taken. I absolutely agree with your statement though. There is no justification in such a wide price gap between the A1 and the H1. Nice review by the way.

[Ian-T]

By the way the issue with the HVX is not the codec (from what I understand it's a very good codec) but it's the lower resolution 960x540 imagery (IMO). That is basically barely above standard definition. And then it uses Pixel Shift technology to increase the image size. That's where the image softness is coming from (which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing). That softness, along with everything else, is what is contributing to that "film look." These are just my opinions so....

[dwells]

Did you have the cameras all set close to each other, as far as image controls go?

I've seen a heightened moire effect with the EX1, noise around the edges of the image on the HVX200 (especially in 1080 mode), and a very clear but slightly video-ish look with the H1.

A few years back, we did a comparison of the Z1 in 50i/CF25 mode, the H1 in 24f mode and the HD100 in 24p mode. The settings were as close as possible (though the Z1 doesn't have as great of imaging options vs. the other two), and we realized the HD100 had the most filmic look to it. We had heard someone else did this test, and we wanted to see if the results were the same, and they were. The Z1 was nearly identical to the H1, but with a less "video" look.

We may set up the HVX, H1 and EX1 to see what happens. Thanks, Blackout.

If you are still looking at cameras and can't decide, trying renting one and seeing how it works out. It's so much cheaper to find the perfect camera that way, vs. buying a unit you're not happy with. Ask anyone out there who bought an old JVC HD10 vs. a DVX100!

David

[TheMusician]

Blackout, do you need to have the camera right away? If not, you may be able to find a compromise much like the one I have chosen. RED is coming out with the Scarlet in the Spring. We should have locked down specs in early November, but it will be a 2nd generation CMOS camera design so rolling shutter issues ought to be much better than the EX1, and it is supposed to do 3K resolution up to 120 frames per second.

The specs are about to change, but it was initially 3K for $3K. The price is right, the resolution is right, and the variable frame-rates are right, it records in RAW so you will have the ultimate flexibility with color, and it will be available in the Spring.

So personally, I opted to get a "get by" camera right now. I purchased a HMC150 to do weddings and coporate events and concerts for now, and will sell it in the Spring for the new Scarlet camera. Maybe you could do something like that with the XH-A1???

[frisco]

I think your kinda right on getting a "get you by" camera.
For me.... I was gonna get 2 EX3's.... Than I thought Just one EX3.... Than thought 1 EX1 or 1 Pana 170 to hold me over till there is a camera I like.

Truth is, in the next 24 months there will be more choices than the Red Scarlet.

frisco



Blackout, do you need to have the camera right away? If not, you may be able to find a compromise much like the one I have chosen. RED is coming out with the Scarlet in the Spring. We should have locked down specs in early November, but it will be a 2nd generation CMOS camera design so rolling shutter issues ought to be much better than the EX1, and it is supposed to do 3K resolution up to 120 frames per second.

The specs are about to change, but it was initially 3K for $3K. The price is right, the resolution is right, and the variable frame-rates are right, it records in RAW so you will have the ultimate flexibility with color, and it will be available in the Spring.

So personally, I opted to get a "get by" camera right now. I purchased a HMC150 to do weddings and coporate events and concerts for now, and will sell it in the Spring for the new Scarlet camera. Maybe you could do something like that with the XH-A1???

[Buck Forester]

Ahhh... I wonder if shooting 24p makes a diff, because with my EX1 I only shoot 30p and I haven't noticed any skewing and I'm pretty rough with it. I don't "freeze" the frames though, I just watch the footage. I figure Long GOP won't freeze with motion as well as intra-frame, but since the footage is watched fluidly, that's just how I watch it too. I have paused on motion shots though and have not noticed any skewing, but the image is obviously not sharp because the camera is in motion. But that happens with my still camera too. Anyway, I'm not trying to make a defense of the EX1 by any means, I was just curious because I wasn't seeing the same issues.

[reem12]

hey blackout,wait to you watch the a1 footage on a 15ft with the sgpro and a good lens on it on it.

[hantanbl]

Ahhh... I wonder if shooting 24p makes a diff, because with my EX1 I only shoot 30p and I haven't noticed any skewing and I'm pretty rough with it. I don't "freeze" the frames though, I just watch the footage. I figure Long GOP won't freeze with motion as well as intra-frame, but since the footage is watched fluidly, that's just how I watch it too. I have paused on motion shots though and have not noticed any skewing, but the image is obviously not sharp because the camera is in motion. But that happens with my still camera too. Anyway, I'm not trying to make a defense of the EX1 by any means, I was just curious because I wasn't seeing the same issues.

If you stand straight and look straight and rotate your whole body slowly, you can still see the surrounding image quite clearly. When your rotating speed (panning) increases, the image have more and more motion blur until you can't figure out what it is. This is the same for video camera. When you pan too quickly, the footage is useless be it CCD or CMOS. Come to think or it, will SONY be stupid to roll out EX1 and EX3 if the cameras is only useable for still shooting and not panning? I don't think so.

[ecking]

I own both the XH-A1 and HVX200a and yes, the A1 is noticably sharper than the HVX. Too bad it dosent have the variable frame rates and DVCPRO HD. Then again the pixel count/rez is built into the codec. HDV 1440x1080 and DVC PRO 1280x1080.

Yeah but the hvx's imager isn't 1280x1080, if it did it would be noticably sharper, that to me is what they should have done when they put the new imager in the 170, that would have been awesome.

Remember the texas shootout? The hvx's imager is 960x540 and then it upresses to 1280x1080, like how the the z1u's imager is 960x1080, instead of 1440x1080. These cames should try to have a native res at the ceiling of their codec. The A1 does it and the EX1 does it, panny should have done it and no one would be complaining about softness.

The best overall option (other than slo-mo) is probably a canon g1 and going to prores 422. But I've actually got slo-mo on the a1 down to a science anyway, shoot 60i, shutter at 250, I made a compressor preset to convert it to 60p prores, and then use cinematools to conform to 24p. It actually doesn't take more than a few minutes at most.

I'm gonna put up a test of that soon.

[ecking]

No offense taken. I absolutely agree with your statement though. There is no justification in such a wide price gap between the A1 and the H1. Nice review by the way.

Yeah it made so sense but now canon has the hl-h1a at like 6gs.

[Blackout]

Yeah but the hvx's imager isn't 1280x1080, if it did it would be noticably sharper, that to me is what they should have done when they put the new imager in the 170, that would have been awesome.

Remember the texas shootout? The hvx's imager is 960x540 and then it upresses to 1280x1080, like how the the z1u's imager is 960x1080, instead of 1440x1080. These cames should try to have a native res at the ceiling of their codec. The A1 does it and the EX1 does it, panny should have done it and no one would be complaining about softness.

The best overall option (other than slo-mo) is probably a canon g1 and going to prores 422. But I've actually got slo-mo on the a1 down to a science anyway, shoot 60i, shutter at 250, I made a compressor preset to convert it to 60p prores, and then use cinematools to conform to 24p. It actually doesn't take more than a few minutes at most.

I'm gonna put up a test of that soon.

I agree. When I was doing my initial research on the HVX200a, I had heard it had a new imaging block with 'higher resolution' chips - and this was even in some of Panasonic's literature - yet it now seems to have been removed. Still, I was told again and again that 'resolution doesn't matter' it's the codec it's the codec ect by the panasonic lovers, and that the green pixel spatial offset doubles the effective resolution.

You can go over these things theoretically all you want but nothing really matters until you see the real images yourself displayed the way you are planning to display them. I am not planning to get a camera to just do cute little web videos that look like film in a 6 inch window on a website - I need it to hold up on a 15 foot or wider and on a film transfer and sadly the HVX200a in my opinion doesn't cut it - it needs some more resolution pure and simple and it would dominate. 960 x 540 in theory would be doubled by the green offset and be 1920 x 1080 - perfect HD resolution, but in the real world green offset only increases resolution by about 25% or maybe 30% under the most ideal of circumstances.

Again, it's all just talk until you see the images and while the Panny looks really fine on a smaller screen, I want to capture more detail. I do not believe that a soft image is part of the 'film look' I think that's "I need to make myself feel better" talk. Movies shot on film have razor sharp focus with the modern stocks that are used today - and making the image soft as an artistic choice should be just that - a choice, not a must.

I am leaning more towards the A1 now with a letus extreme and a nikon lense. Maybe I should just sit and wait. Or I will buy and A1 and then sell it because it doesn't pay to rent it. I really want a next generation HVX or HPX that meets the resolution of the other cameras. Anyone know if anything like this is in the works?

As to my EX1 experiences that some people say they can't duplicate - I am extremely sensitive to that sort of stuff and some people probably just don't notice it. What I did not like the most was that on some shots I could clearly see different parts of the picture updated slightly later or behind others - which made the progressive image look non progressive and like it's scan lines were out of synch. It may have been as slight as a 5 pixel difference per line but it drove me bonkers. The camera was new out of the box so I would find it strange that the firmware was old but I wouldn't count it out as a possibility.

[puredrifting]

Based upon what has recently hit the market, I would not hold your breath for any new Sony or Panasonic cameras. Scarlet may actually be a reality someday, but nobody even knows what it is going to be now, much less when you will actually be able to buy one.

DSLRs have become a destabilizing force on the market and I am sure that their release has resulted in an abrupt change of plans in more than one corporate boardroom. Things are changing for the better but I am not sure when exactly we will see what most of us want, a RED level camera with a large chip with no rolling shutter artifacts and changeable lenses for $7,000.00.

For me, I just purchased an HPX-170. For my markets and clients, its resolution is enough, although I agree with you, for large screen projection, it may be lacking in pure resolution. For your needs, it sounds as if you may need to consider a larger, much more expensive camera like the HPX-3700 honestly. You will not get away from the troublesome XDCAM EX codec and chipset even with the more expensive EX-3. The HPX-500 is not really any sharper than the HPX-170. If higher native resolution is a primary requirement, I would consider the HPX-3700, it is a true native 1080 chipset and with a great lens, will make outstanding pictures for the big screen.

Dan

[Blackout]

Yes I have taken a nice drooling look at the hpx3700. Now where's that winning lottery ticket of mine so I can pay for it?

Anyone got a hammer, saw, and nails? I'm gonna jerry rig the 3700 chips into a HVX body.

[delaro]

i used to own a A1 for 2 years before the HVX and now the HPX. A lot of people were saying that it was possible to obtain the HVX colors on the A1 with proper settings. It's just impossible. I've tried many many different settings but, let's be realistic, HDV is not DVCPRO. It was obvious as soon as I started to play with my HVX. A1 looks A1, HVX looks HVX. The main differences i noticed is that you can make good footages with the A1 almost every time. HVX can give ugly/uninteresting results sometimes BUT when you know the camera and you have the good conditions to shoot it's just incredible. It's less sharp than the A1 but not that much.

[Blackout]

Yes I do agree the colors look better on the HVX. The A1 has that same kind of want to go towards this weird blue/grey spectrum that tends to look more videoish than the HVX - but with some tweaking it was better. The motion characteristics of the 24p are also definitely better on the HVX - there is something in the 24f mode that makes it look slightly like there is some sort of high speed shutter on even when there is not. This is all my opinion of course from playing with both cameras for only a few hours.

[Kholi]

For me, I just purchased an HPX-170. For my markets and clients, its resolution is enough, although I agree with you, for large screen projection, it may be lacking in pure resolution. For your needs, it sounds as if you may need to consider a larger, much more expensive camera like the HPX-3700 honestly. You will not get away from the troublesome XDCAM EX codec and chipset even with the more expensive EX-3. The HPX-500 is not really any sharper than the HPX-170. If higher native resolution is a primary requirement, I would consider the HPX-3700, it is a true native 1080 chipset and with a great lens, will make outstanding pictures for the big screen.

Dan

Exactly. If you're lucky enough to get an actual film transfer something as small as a 15ft screen would be the least of your worries. Might as well start with something that's made for such things: a better camera.

Most people won't even see a 6ft screen, which makes all of these cameras winners for the most part.

I've seen old HVX200 footage + Redrock Micro a while back projected at the Kodak and it was fantastic. I'd love to see 170 + Letus Ultimate or RRM2.5 today.

[Blackout]

I will be showing finished short film projections on a very large standard movie screen in combination with a live action stage show. The projection system is a very high end 2K resolution projector with incredible brightness and clarity so yes, I want the best image I can get. I have played some blu-rays off of it and it looked like I was playing a film print. It has a pretty amazing upscaler though even standard def and the DVX100 looked decent on it but I want better than decent:

http://blackout.com/blackout/pics/auditions/Marty%20Scene.jpg

http://blackout.com/blackout/pics/auditions/Theater%20From%20Back%20Small.jpg

[lawriejaffa]

Yep i think thats a great test you did there Blackout, interesting results!

I gotta say though, i find the conclusion you draw for requring more res for the cinema screen a wee bit amusing. Why oh why would anyone get a prosumer cam at all if there seriously contemplating a film out?

While so many films are shot on so many formats that res is just not an issue to me (but thats subjective and its totally cool that for others it is - it can also change from project to project!) But hehe, if res and cinema screens are so important your looking at a bigger cam anyway ;)

[Blackout]

I am getting a prosumer cam because I don't have 30 to 50 grand laying around just yet to get a higher level one and I think the prosumer cams can do it. I want to make it clear that the HVX200a did not look bad at all, just somewhat soft, and I would have liked some more detail. I really think the next level of this camera will be 'it' if they use improved resolution chips because everything else is great. I want native 1920 x 1080 and I think everyone wants that.
True, most people are not going to be playing their productions on a big screen but a lot of indie film makers will get played on big screens in the festival circuit so of course some extra resolution helps there. Native HD projectors are also drastically coming down in price and once you have one of those in your home you won't want to go back to small plasma screens.

[Nathyn]

Remember Cr2nk (Crank 2) is being shot on the XL-H1 and A1s and HF-100s as well so the Canon's are being put to good use. I want one. It hits the sweet spot. I do like the idea of solid state, but I'm thinking about getting Firestore if I can afford it. But right now the HCM-150 is looking real good.

-Nate

[PerroneFord]

You will not get away from the troublesome XDCAM EX codec and chipset even with the more expensive EX-3.


No, but you can get away from the codec with the little BNC connection right on the camera. And you do that a LOT cheaper than looking at a $30-50k camera.

Now rolling shutter, that's a different issue. What boggles me though is how the RED guys seem to not be so affected by it, even though we know it's there...

[Kholi]

Because it's not there to the same extent. I used to think so, but, It looks a lot less prevalent in RED Cameras. It might be because of the weight.

Which in case, beef up your EX-1 setups!

[puredrifting]

No, but you can get away from the codec with the little BNC connection right on the camera. And you do that a LOT cheaper than looking at a $30-50k camera.

Now rolling shutter, that's a different issue. What boggles me though is how the RED guys seem to not be so affected by it, even though we know it's there...

Agreed, but it seems that very few have done this. What exactly would be the options, a desktop Mac Pro with a Kona or something like that? Is there a laptop way to do this even? I keep hearing about the Convergence box but it that even shipping yet? And I think that one is just MPEG 2?

Maybe with the RED guys, because it's much harder to wave a loaded RED package around than an EX1? I dunno. I have only done one shoot with the RED and it never left the tripod ;-)

I shot an interview with the EX1 for Paramount last week, I love the picture, I wish that it could get together with the 170 and have a love child, it would be perfect.

Dan

[PerroneFord]

Because it's not there to the same extent. I used to think so, but, It looks a lot less prevalent in RED Cameras. It might be because of the weight.

Which in case, beef up your EX-1 setups!


You may be onto something. With the mass of the camera, monitor, red drives, matteboxes, etc., you can't swing that RED like you can an EX1. And maybe the style of filmmaking the RED is used for doesn't call for the fast panning that seems so problematic for the EX1.

I don't know but it is a curious question.

[PerroneFord]

Agreed, but it seems that very few have done this. What exactly would be the options, a desktop Mac Pro with a Kona or something like that? Is there a laptop way to do this even? I keep hearing about the Convergence box but it that even shipping yet? And I think that one is just MPEG 2?


You have the options of the Wafian, the Convergent box which is still undergoing some work, but the various models will offer everything from MPEG2 50 Mbps to uncompressed. Honestly, I think the 100 and 160 Mbps at 4:2:2 1080p ought to be enough for most anyone.



Maybe with the RED guys, because it's much harder to wave a loaded RED package around than an EX1? I dunno. I have only done one shoot with the RED and it never left the tripod ;-)


I'm thinking there is something to this. You don't see the large film cameras whipping around either. Clearly, you shoot differently with big hardware. Maybe mimicing that is the answer. But clearly, the rolling shutter forces one to make some compromises. But then I guess all these cameras do.



I shot an interview with the EX1 for Paramount last week, I love the picture, I wish that it could get together with the 170 and have a love child, it would be perfect.

Dan

The amalgam of the HPX170 and the EX1 is out there. It just costs a LOT more than we'd care to pay! :)

[kenn michael]

The reason that rolling shutter doesn't affect the Red shooters as much as EX-1/EX-3 shooters is not entirely due to weight differences (I can swing a Red back and forth just as easily as the EX and see skew) but because Red has tweaked their sensors to get a faster read-rate from them. A Red has less skew coming off the sensor than the EX cameras. Skew is there, but it's not as much.

The reason that the D90 has crazy skew (like cel phone cameras) is because the read rate is much slower from the sensor. It takes more hardware to beef up the speeds.

Interestingly enough, Red has tweaked the skew factor through firmware upgrades. When I first got my cam in January, I noticed the skew a lot. As they upgraded their software, they squeezed more speed out of the hardware to lessen the skew. Now, the skew is not as bothersome as it was months ago. I know how to get to show up easily, but it's definitely improved over the last year.

[PerroneFord]

Well,

Maybe there's hope for the Sony's then.... maybe.

[Kholi]

The reason that rolling shutter doesn't affect the Red shooters as much as EX-1/EX-3 shooters is not entirely due to weight differences (I can swing a Red back and forth just as easily as the EX and see skew) but because Red has tweaked their sensors to get a faster read-rate from them. A Red has less skew coming off the sensor than the EX cameras. Skew is there, but it's not as much.

The reason that the D90 has crazy skew (like cel phone cameras) is because the read rate is much slower from the sensor. It takes more hardware to beef up the speeds.

Interestingly enough, Red has tweaked the skew factor through firmware upgrades. When I first got my cam in January, I noticed the skew a lot. As they upgraded their software, they squeezed more speed out of the hardware to lessen the skew. Now, the skew is not as bothersome as it was months ago. I know how to get to show up easily, but it's definitely improved over the last year.

I know the reason my arm = Jello is due to weight issues. =P Just kiddin'.

Back to shooting! I <3 RED.

[kenn michael]

:)

It's inevitable. In a few years, the rolling shutter issue will most likely be moot with all cameras.

[kenn michael]

I know the reason my arm = Jello is due to weight issues. =P Just kiddin'.

Back to shooting! I <3 RED.

I feel ya man! :)

[dantewaters]

Yea we really have to wait, as professionals our demand is high, but with time all these issues will be ironed out and then we'll find ourselves dealing with more.

[Kholi]

Users should really see hvx and adapter footage projected and shot properly. It's truly amazing even with shortcomings.

[dantewaters]

Kholi one day I will... I've seen a lot of my work blown up on an HDTV and I'm floored but I'm still working out kinks here and there (once they are sorted I can't wait).

[Blackout]

Well at least I'm glad to know that others do understand the skew issue is definitely there and I'm not bonkers. I wish it wasn't there, and the Sony would be the clear winner (minus some color issues), but it is there.

Why the hell is it there anyway? Yes, I understand CMOS chips read different parts of the picture at different times, but my question is why, why the hell would anyone design a chip like that? What possible advantage could that have - even in a still camera? Who would ever want the possibility of different parts of the image registering at a different time?

[PerroneFord]

Who would ever want the possibility of different parts of the image registering at a different time?

Ask JVC...

[monday1313]

I own an EX-1, i've had rolling shutter, but not as bad as described by blackout.
it's bad though when you have a lock down shot and a bus or something goes by fast.

the HVX might be softer out of the box compared to the EX-1 because the EX-1's 0 setting for sharpening is still sharpening the image a little. if you zoom in on a frame you can see the black and white around sharp edges.

granted the HVX is still a little less sharp, but to do a fair test, you have to really spend some time learning about each camera.

the HVX's advantages are it's 422 color and lack of rolling shutter. try color correcting footage form an EX-1 in "Color", it's fairly obvious how bad that codec really is. Pulling good keys are impossible as well. Try motion tracking something from the EX-1 footage when it's a handheld pan. Not so easy, the skewing will really make it hard to put a CGI element in the shot. oh yeah, and it's cheaper...

the EX-1's advantages are a slightly sharper image and lower noise in low-light situations. and longer recording times.

slap a 35mm adapter on the front of either and the difference in sharpness becomes less important than signal to noise ratio.

so really it's a question of what are you going to be filming. maybe you should get both.

I have no experience with the canon, but i don't like the look of it's footage very much.

[Tomas Riuka]

Blackout, or maybe HVX is normally soft? real film is not very sharp in the movies too!

[ProfD]

Very interesting thread.

Like so many others, I'm comparison shopping prior to the purchase of two HD cams. Intially, it was the HPX500, then budgetary considerations demanded by 2/3" HD lense prices forced a cheaper solution.

After researching the issues raised here and other places, I'm now leaning heavily towards the HPX170. The RED Scarlet would obviously have been a desirous choice, but I can't rely on their website release dates and information at this time, and even if it comes out soon..I'm sure the backorder situations would force delivery dates of a year or more...who knows. Bottom line is I need to move into HD now.

Another issue is reliability. Our DVX100's with the redrocks and Nikon glass have been super reliable. I just love to use that little camera. It's the camera that takes a lickin and keeps on tickin. And with the NeatVideo plug and the HD uprez options...it's still not a bad product at all. And we will continue to utilize them for specific projects.

But, we're growing, doing student internships now so a move to HD is necessary.

Sonys, Canons, Panasonics, Reds,....geez...after a month of research I still seem to learn something new to consider when reading the various posts in this forum.

Comments, advice, or suggestions?

Thanks,
Prof. Dunn

[puredrifting]

Very interesting thread.

Like so many others, I'm comparison shopping prior to the purchase of two HD cams. Intially, it was the HPX500, then budgetary considerations demanded by 2/3" HD lense prices forced a cheaper solution.

After researching the issues raised here and other places, I'm now leaning heavily towards the HPX170. The RED Scarlet would obviously have been a desirous choice, but I can't rely on their website release dates and information at this time, and even if it comes out soon..I'm sure the backorder situations would force delivery dates of a year or more...who knows. Bottom line is I need to move into HD now.

Another issue is reliability. Our DVX100's with the redrocks and Nikon glass have been super reliable. I just love to use that little camera. It's the camera that takes a lickin and keeps on tickin. And with the NeatVideo plug and the HD uprez options...it's still not a bad product at all. And we will continue to utilize them for specific projects.

But, we're growing, doing student internships now so a move to HD is necessary.

Sonys, Canons, Panasonics, Reds,....geez...after a month of research I still seem to learn something new to consider when reading the various posts in this forum.

Comments, advice, or suggestions?

Thanks,
Prof. Dunn

Hi Prof:

I shoot regularly with the EX1 and I have owned an HVX200 for more than two years. I just sold the HVX and upgraded to the HPX170, it is a really sweet camcorder.

Dan

[marco0782]

If you didn't mess with the scene file to increase the detail settings, you can't make a fair comparison. The HVX200A to me is much sharper than the 200 and is extremely close to the EX1 and XH-A1.

That said keep in mind that DVCPROHD has less resolution than HDV and XDCAM at 35 mbits.


Marco

[alexdias]

:)

It's inevitable. In a few years, the rolling shutter issue will most likely be moot with all cameras.

Hopefully so, but right now it's a substantial problem and limitation.

I shot a feature doc (www.paperorplasticmovie.com) with the HVX200 at 720 and mastered on HDCAM SR upresed to 1080 using a Kona 3 card. We showed the movie at the LA Film Fest from a HDCAM at the Mann Festival, a 1,500 + seat theater in Westwood, and it played fine. If you sat on the first few rows you would be able to see some noise and low res, but with some distance it played really well.
The projector was a 2K NEC owned and maintained by Technicolor.

The limitations of the DVCPRO HD footage produced by the HVX, and now the 170, are manageable; if I had some JelloVision on my footage I would had not be able to use it.

[PerroneFord]

The limitations of the DVCPRO HD footage produced by the HVX, and now the 170, are manageable; if I had some JelloVision on my footage I would had not be able to use it.


If you were doing this again, and using the 170, would you use the HD-SDI out if you could?

[ProfD]

Dan...among other goodies, the HPX170 has an HD/SD-SDI output....the Panasonic brochure indicates an uncompressed signal tap from the chipset. (didn't someone tap the DVX100's for an uncompressed signal too? whatever happened to that? - Andromeda or something)

Just rambling as usual..hopefully not too far off the thread.

Thanks,
Prof. Dunn

[LukeWarm13]

what detail settings on the hvx or hpx give the most sharp images?

[alexdias]

If you were doing this again, and using the 170, would you use the HD-SDI out if you could?

It depends Perrone. The way I see it, the camera being the tool to tell my stories, if I can set up properly and if it gives me a better result without compromising my process, absolutely yes.

I have my eyes on the NanoFlash, but I'll wait to see if it's viable.
I have no special interest for gadgetry; I care for my films and the final product.
If it's affordable and works for me I'll go for it.
I love some aspects of the EX-3 but at the end it was not the camera for me.

[de selby]

Blackout, you mentioned you used "default" settings on the HVX... My question is: on which scene file? There would be quite some difference between F1 default with the HD Norm gamma and Norm Matrix and the F6 default with Cine D gamma and Cinelike Matrix. You mentioned strong colors (cinelike matrix, perhaps) and softness in the image (cine D gamma?) so I'm kind of guessing an F6 default was used... It would be great if you could clear that up : ) Great write-up by the way.

[Blackout]

Glad you all enjoyed the comparisons. As I said it was just done for myself and with my eyes which have a lot of experience in what I like in a film looking image. It was not the most scientific test in the world but still the results are in the images for me. I am aware there could be a lot more tweaking done but I don't think it would drasticaly change the basic performance of each camera. You guys really all have to go out and see these things on a high end projector it's something else.

ProfD:

I believe the movie you are talking about that used the DVX100 uncompressed out was NOVEMBER with Courtney Cox.

De Selby:
Yes I was in the F6 scene file.

[KMR]

ProfD:

I believe the movie you are talking about that used the DVX100 uncompressed out was NOVEMBER with Courtney Cox.

I thought NOVEMBER was recorded in-camera, in MiniDV.

[adamr316]

Blackout, or maybe HVX is normally soft? real film is not very sharp in the movies too!

That depends on what theatre you go to. At the Muvico 24 here in Baltimore they have the best screens I've seen. Hancock was sharp as a HiDef camera. On the extreme closeups I could easily see parts of actor's faces going in and out of focus. Bruce Almighty...same thing (I really don't go see movies very often so those are about my only two references for that particular theatre).

Muvico is also one of the few theatres in the area with a digital projector.

On the other hand the closest movie theatre near me always looks a bit out of focus. More than likely it's the projectionist who doesn't know how to or can't focus the projector (due to equipment).

[Stevet]

[QUOTE=kenn michael;1431198]The reason that rolling shutter doesn't affect the Red shooters as much as EX-1/EX-3 shooters is not entirely due to weight differences (I can swing a Red back and forth just as easily as the EX and see skew) but because Red has tweaked their sensors to get a faster read-rate from them. A Red has less skew coming off the sensor than the EX cameras. Skew is there, but it's not as much.

QUOTE]

There was only a 10% improvement with their software upgrade.
The isssue has never been tweaking. If this was the case, it would of been done on all CMOS based cameras. I've had an EX1 right next to the RED ONE several times, their CMOS artifacts looking very close. A while back, Jim Aurthurs had examples online of the RED ONE skew artifacts.
The problem is with the current technology of CMOS sensors, but this all might change soon. RED's new offerings is going to shake things up.

[Stevet]

Blackout, or maybe HVX is normally soft? real film is not very sharp in the movies too!

Very true, but there is detail in film. This is all about resolution.


The first thing to do with ALL of these cameras is to shut off sharpness. We all know it's adding artificial enhancement to make the image look sharp.

The problem is many of these cameras do not look good without artificial enhancement.

[ROne]

How did you ouput the HVX to the projector?

I have HVX and a 1080p projector, the component output from the HVX is not the best.

I think you get MUCH better results by making a digital out (WMV or other) and then using HDMI as the connection from the deck.

Any loss in compression image quality is made up for by the output quality of HDMI from your deck.

[booth]

You sure you had the EX1 set up right? Unlike the HVX you need to spend a bit of time with the EX1. I think it's a great camera, rarely see any skew and think it's greatly exaggerated (and I whizz the camera about like a crazy man sometimes). Any other artifacts I don't see.

I shot this entirely hand held when I wasn't used to it and was just testing... And apart from stopping down for a couple of shots way past the sweet spot (so the footage was a bit soft and grainy) everything else worked out well. The full rez footage is super sharp and I'm not seeing any artifacts. I'm looking forward to shooting a big project with it and my forthcoming Letus Extreme.

http://www.vimeo.com/1535515
(video is a bit jumpy due to Vimeo compression)

[Kholi]

Very true, but there is detail in film. This is all about resolution.


The first thing to do with ALL of these cameras is to shut off sharpness. We all know its adding artificial enhancement to make the image look sharp.

The problem is many of these cameras do not look good without artificial enhancement.


I love it when people talk about how film is soft. It's not SOFT. By any means! People are so used to watching Standard Definition they don't realize how sharp film really is.

You need every bit of resolution you can get out of these dinky little cameras, especially with adapters.

[Stevet]

I love it when people talk about how film is soft. It's not SOFT. By any means! People are so used to watching Standard Definition they don't realize how sharp film really is.

You need every bit of resolution you can get out of these dinky little cameras, especially with adapters.


I hear you Kholi.

It's going to get REALLY interesting in the next couple years.

I'm hearing Scarlet is going to be better than we thought. Let's hope the price stays close to as predicted.

If it stays in the $3k price range, we'll all be tossing one of these in our tool bags.

[alexdias]

Anyone that has the opportunity to watch a film projected in a large decent screen knows that film has very high detail, latitude and resolution as oppose to even the most sophisticate HD camera.
The problem is that people don't go to theaters often, and sometimes the projection (screen, etc...) is nothing to be impressed by.

[Kholi]

I hear you Kholi.

It's going to get REALLY interesting in the next couple years.

I'm hearing Scarlet is going to be better than we thought. Let's hope the price stays close to as predicted.

If it stays in the $3k price range, we'll all be tossing one of these in our tool bags.

You have no idea. I'm gonna HAVE to keep a Pana camera around, but I'll surely have a Scarlet sittin' in my pocket! Now, if only I could afford an EX-1. LoL

Alex-- Exactly. I mean, hell, sit in front of a decent-sized 1080p LCD and watch yourself some Iron Man. Tell me if that's soft.

Even older movies are pretty friggin' resolute and sharp. Has anyone seen GLADIATOR in HD?

My word.

[dwells]

Most DPs shooting on film or digital will use filters to help soften things a little bit (especially with HD). Pro mist filters, among others, are popular. Especially when filming women, but probably not as "soft focus with a spot light" that was big in the 1930s-50s.

David

[Stevet]

Yes, but a soft image does not imply it has less detail These are two different things.

[Stevet]

You have no idea. I'm gonna HAVE to keep a Pana camera around, but I'll surely have a Scarlet sittin' in my pocket! Now, if only I could afford an EX-1. LoL

Alex-- Exactly. I mean, hell, sit in front of a decent-sized 1080p LCD and watch yourself some Iron Man. Tell me if that's soft.

Even older movies are pretty friggin' resolute and sharp. Has anyone seen GLADIATOR in HD?

My word.

Kholi,
I know you've worked with the RED and EX1.
If you have the inside scoop on Scarlet, shoot me an email. ;) LOL.
There's a lot of excitment with "new" info on Scarlet soon to be released.

[Blackout]

I love it when people talk about how film is soft. It's not SOFT. By any means! People are so used to watching Standard Definition they don't realize how sharp film really is.

You need every bit of resolution you can get out of these dinky little cameras, especially with adapters.

I agree with this 100%. When I hear someone try and say it's OK that the HVX is soft - as if it's some strength of the camera, I roll my eyes. As if everyone who had a HVX wouldn't love for the chips to be double the res it currently is. YES, resolution is not everything, but since the HVX has all the other stuff down, why not better resolution? You know it needs it and you know you want it. It needs to actually capture the real detail. It can still have a slightly soft look while having another 1000 lines of detail. I am not talking about that artificial video edge enhancement sharpness either I am talking about more real captured image detail at the sensor level. I don't understand how Panasonic talks about how this camera works in the 1920 x 1080 progressive domain and everything is down sampled from that when the chips can't even begin to touch that detailed resolution green abra cadabra or not.

Again this does not mean the HVX200a (I don't like the vanilla HVX200.. waaay too noisy) does not look pretty good for the 500+ lines it does get, it just means DAMN would it be spectacular if it really captured HD resolution. It does not, plain and simple.

I have something coming up where I may be able to get a HVX200a thrown in to a project cost, so I may end up with this camera yet, but I still want more detail out of it.

[Blackout]

How did you ouput the HVX to the projector?

I have HVX and a 1080p projector, the component output from the HVX is not the best.

I think you get MUCH better results by making a digital out (WMV or other) and then using HDMI as the connection from the deck.

Any loss in compression image quality is made up for by the output quality of HDMI from your deck.

All the footage was dumped into a dell xps1530 laptop and played from it's HDMI out to the projector. I have to say the laptop was pretty damn amazing I am going to have to get one. It had a 1920 x 1080 screen on it that looked like I was looking through a window the footage was so clear and sharp when on that small of a screen at that res.

[puredrifting]

All the footage was dumped into a dell xps1530 laptop and played from it's HDMI out to the projector. I have to say the laptop was pretty damn amazing I am going to have to get one. It had a 1920 x 1080 screen on it that looked like I was looking through a window the footage was so clear and sharp when on that small of a screen at that res.

When I was on the set of Corrado, all of the ACs referred to the HVX as a consumer camera. I would too if I was used to shooting with mainly Panavision. That was one of Adam's main complaints, the end result looked great but for the union ACs trying to figure out how to do normal AC things with a five pound plasticky camera, it was a challenge. Had to jury rig the wireless FF. The D4 output to the monitor was a flimsy joke, etc. Great camera, just not a real movie camera.

I don't think of the HPX as a consumer camcorder but the term prosumer has always been a bastardization that many people have an issue with. It is kind of accurate though, an HPX is half consumer (endlessly rotating focus ring with no hard stops, flimsy P2 door, D. Zoom, whitefade and blackfade) and half pro (SDI, P2, waveform/vectorscope, resettable TC, etc.)

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

Dan

[Dino]

I believe that Panasonic would have to move to CMOS sensors to up the resolution ante. That is the only practical way to get a native 1080X1920 into a palmcorder from a cost, noise and power consumption standpoint.

I'm not sure if Panasonic has much experience with CMOS, and we know that there are downsides to that technology in its current state. The motion artifacts are well documented on this forum.

I have A-B'd HVX200A, EX1, and HPX500 next to my HDX900. The EX1 blows away all of them in 1080/24p from a resolution standpoint. It is, however, 1 1/2 stops slower than my 900 at that resolution, but it's so quiet that you can get away with some gain boost.

The problem I have with the EX1, besides CMOS artifacts, is the Long GOP, 4:2:0 codec. Color resolution does not match luma resolution, compared to a 4:2:2 codec like DVCPRO HD. The reality for most shooters is that their footage is not seen on the big screen.

I'm not sure why, if a project is going to have a film out, the proper equipment isn't rented? I just bought an HPX170 package, and even with getting some good deals on things like monitors and batteries, having a Sachtler tripod and some cases, the cost was still over $10K. That same amount would get a very nice high end camera package rental for three weeks. That in turn could save money in post.

Disclosure--I am in the camera rental business.

[doondoon]

Why don't you use the new Varicam, HPX3000, HPX2000 or Sony F900R ? You won't have any problems.

[StefanMunteanu]

I wanted to know more about HD-SDI. How can hpx170 with its native rez, record 1920 x 1080 uncompressed. Is this another software enhancement? I just dont get it. With pixel shift and all it is 1280 x 1080 (or smthn) and DVCpro Hd is the same rez. Does that mean that with an AJA kona card, lets say, there will be better detail and sharper image? Coz I dont get it how can it pull that rezolution if there isnt...
Thanks,
Stefan

[PerroneFord]

HD-SDI gives you the signal pre-codec, but post-hardware processing. So you would get the pixel shifted 1080 image, minus the compression of DVCProHD.

So yes, better detail, sharper image. However, the sensors in the camera are still the weak link.

[StefanMunteanu]

Perrone i sent you a pm. I still dont get it.
If sharpness is the issue, isnt the detail level also related to the glass in front of the ccd?
I know its called lens rezolution. So how can one compare, in lets say film, 3 diferent stocks of film but with 3 diferent lenses? Ive seen, not on hd projection thats true, very sharp images coming out of an hvx with an 35 mm adapter. I may be wrong but it also sounds like an issue...
Stefan

[Alexg]

When I was on the set of Corrado, all of the ACs referred to the HVX as a consumer camera. I would too if I was used to shooting with mainly Panavision. That was one of Adam's main complaints, the end result looked great but for the union ACs trying to figure out how to do normal AC things with a five pound plasticky camera, it was a challenge. Had to jury rig the wireless FF. The D4 output to the monitor was a flimsy joke, etc. Great camera, just not a real movie camera.

I don't think of the HPX as a consumer camcorder but the term prosumer has always been a bastardization that many people have an issue with. It is kind of accurate though, an HPX is half consumer (endlessly rotating focus ring with no hard stops, flimsy P2 door, D. Zoom, whitefade and blackfade) and half pro (SDI, P2, waveform/vectorscope, resettable TC, etc.)

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

Dan

Sorry to change the topic for a second but I've been reading about the "Corrado saga" in the HD magazine and I am wondering why he didn't just shell out a couple grand more for a hpx 500?

[Aroon_Narayanan]

Sorry to change the topic for a second but I've been reading about the "Corrado saga" in the HD magazine and I am wondering why he didn't just shell out a couple grand more for a hpx 500?
At the time, he might not have been able to afford it, and he really didn't want to rent anything. For his next film, however, I believe he's looking into renting some 500s.

[puredrifting]

Sorry to change the topic for a second but I've been reading about the "Corrado saga" in the HD magazine and I am wondering why he didn't just shell out a couple grand more for a hpx 500?

Hi:

The post above is correct. If you go back and read the Corrado thread, you will see that Adam was intent on owning his gear and he ended up shooting with two cameras so I think that two HPXs would have put him over his budget.

I also believe that using the Letus Extreme was another important part of his game plan and the HPX with 2/3" CCDs would have had considerably deeper depth of field than the HVX when paired with the Letus.

Dan

[Brandon Rice]

I know it sounds weird, but I actually prefer the "softer" look of the HVX... that is what actually draws me to the image... I cannot wait to see our HVX feature blown up

[puredrifting]

For his next film, however, I believe he's looking into renting some 500s.

Except this part is wrong, he is seriously considering shooting 35mm.

Dan

[Blackout]

I know it sounds weird, but I actually prefer the "softer" look of the HVX... that is what actually draws me to the image... I cannot wait to see our HVX feature blown up

Again, you are confusing resolution with focus. You can have a 8000 x 4000 resolution picture that still has a soft look with a filter or focus changes, but damn will it have detail.

[Alexg]

Except this part is wrong, he is seriously considering shooting 35mm.

Dan

Hah that is quite a leap from the hvx 200. Maybe the Red would be a good alternative if he doesn't decide to use film and has the budget.

[puredrifting]

Hah that is quite a leap from the hvx 200. Maybe the Red would be a good alternative if he doesn't decide to use film and has the budget.

When your budget leaps from $350k to a few million, why not? ;-)

Dan

[Blackout]

I was able to do some more comparison shooting and I have decided to go with the HVX200a. Even though I wish it had some more resolution, I am unable to get the xa-h1 to compare in motion and color, and the EX1 mght as well be a very expensive sharp still camera to me with it's current issues.

So yay HVX-200a here I come.

[Green Hornet]

Blackout, or maybe HVX is normally soft? real film is not very sharp in the movies too!

It's not so much the softness, but lack of detail (resolution) that people are having issue with. I have been looking at lots of footage, and can say that the EX1 has detail that the panasonics do not have.
I want that detail, but I always get back to the same place.

The HPX170 is:
1. Less money
2. Lighter to hold..lighter has proven to allow me to bring my camera more, so i shoot more.
3. Has better color.
4. Has a better look in the footage (more film like)
5. I already have P2 cards.
6. It is easier to edit.
7. It does not fall apart when you edit.

Thoes are the top 7 reasons for me to probably go with the HPX170.

I have also found that for me, it seems as if I blow the footage up to 1920x1080
for the master, it seems to LOOK better than to leave it the native size.

I do not have pro res HQ, but that seems to also help.
The 10 bit codec seems to make a huge difference.

I won't switch to a mac for that, but I will most likely go with the Prospect HD codec to do the same. I feel confident that that with that and Premiere pro cs4, I will be able to do what I need to do with the HPX170.

I think that some of the grain look is caused by encoding the native footage, in an anamorphic size. I have not tested this, but my thinking is that when you do this, you now are at the mercy of the player to stretch the footage to normal size. I think this is where you are getting grain and softness that you are not seeing from sources that are full raster. Obviously the native lower resolution is always going to make it look less detailed, but I am speaking more to the grain look I sometimes see on others footage online.

[jeff9329]

I was able to do some more comparison shooting and I have decided to go with the HVX200a. Even though I wish it had some more resolution, I am unable to get the xa-h1 to compare in motion and color, and the EX1 mght as well be a very expensive sharp still camera to me with it's current issues.

So yay HVX-200a here I come.

A tough, but good choice.

I spent weeks shooting the HMC-150 and XH-A1 side by side and also trying to match color. I 100% agree with your observations. The max screen size I compared footage on was 51". On 51", the A1 footage is always little sharper when comparing the best of the best. In the end though, I sold the XH-A1s and am going with the HMC-150s for now. The tapeless, wide angle and extra low light sensitivity were what I need. With a tweaked scene file, the HMC-150 is cabable of pretty stunning HD images.

FYI, to even get close to matching XH-A1 & Panasonic color, you have to set the Pana knee to low and master pedestal to a +10ish number. But they never really matched, the Pana just has a much more filmic/production camera look.

BTW, Im glad I didn't get the EX-1, but my next cameras will certainly have 1/2" imagers. A HVX/HMC with 1/2" sensor block would be the ultimate camera. Probably gotta wait 2 or 3 years though.

[Blackout]

I love the Panasonic color and motion qualities but I am really wanting more resolution as I am playing with the HVX200a in 1080 mode.

Take a look at THIS ex1 clip:

http://vimeo.com/1007129

Best EX1 footage I have seen other than the Bloom stuff. The HVX just can't compare in detail and I am jealous even though I made my choice and went with the HVX over the EX1. It is rare to get footage like this without cmos issues - this one has little fast motion so there are no cmos probs and this guy knew what he was doing with color correction.

The best HVX footage I have seen so far is this:

http://vimeo.com/2404740

Very beautiful but no where near he detail. You can see resolution issues in the wide shots on the detail in the leaves - it leaves me wanting more detail.

So I will keep plugging away for now but I am not going to buy multiple HVXs like I thought I would... I just feel that this cameras time is coming to an end as either the cmos rolling shutter issues get fixed or Panny steps up wih a real 1920 x 1080 super HVX/HPX type of cam.

[puredrifting]

Hi Blackout:

Thanks for the Vimeo heads-up. I loved the EX1 kids and dogs clip but i have to say in comparison to the HVX clip, I definitely favor the HVX look, hands down. The EX1 clips are almost too sharp and the movement does have this sort of video feel to it (at least to me).

Both clips were shot by really talented people with a great eye. The HVX clip is amazing, it feels as if it is mostly lifted from a really good Italian gangster film/dream. Absolutely one of the best narrative DP reels I have ever seen. If I were shooting an indie film, I would hire that guy to DP just based upon that reel.

Thanks for that, it is great to see something inspiring from each camera.

Dan

[fredrickkinsman]

Great article,your right about canon and the rediculous cost of the interchangable lens system.If its like the early models it was nothing more than a gimic,It doesent matter how good the glass is if your view finder sucks to where you cant focus anyways.

[Blackout]

Yes, I prefer the filmic look of the HVX too but I edit on these 1080 screens and I see the difference in res stand out. I do everything big. On a normal computer monitor you probably wouldn't notice, on a big screen you see it in the leaves.

I agree with the 'video' look of the ex1 being an issue I don't like, it has a bluish look with hot whites that needs to be overcome, but damn is there added detail that the HVX could use on wide shots.

The HVX guy used mostly close ups but he did appear to get more resolution out of the cam than others. Very good color grading and contrast punch in 1080 mode rezzed down to 720p. I was hoping I could dl the original 1920 x 1080 quicktime but he took it down.

[PerroneFord]

I agree with the 'video' look of the ex1 being an issue I don't like, it has a bluish look with hot whites that needs to be overcome, but damn is there added detail that the HVX could use on wide shots.

And it takes about 10 minutes to dial that out if owners would bother. But who takes time to color balance a handycam? Who takes time to shoot a chroma du monde chart on multicam shoots?

Some people sweat the details. And that is why they get paid what they do, and we oooh and ahh over work, Whether it's a Viper, a Genesis, a RED, or an HV20. Good images require time, prep, and work.

[Kelvin Benjamin]

Might be a silly question but I genuinely don't know... when you film with the Letus 35mm adapter does the footage come out as 16:9 or the film size (I think it's about 2:1 or something)?

[Blackout]

And it takes about 10 minutes to dial that out if owners would bother. But who takes time to color balance a handycam? Who takes time to shoot a chroma du monde chart on multicam shoots?

Some people sweat the details. And that is why they get paid what they do, and we oooh and ahh over work, Whether it's a Viper, a Genesis, a RED, or an HV20. Good images require time, prep, and work.

You can dial out the color issues somewhat but you can't dial out the cmos issues and the motion characteristics are just different. Believe me I wanted to be convinced that the EX1 would do because I want to extra detail.

[PerroneFord]

You can dial out the color issues somewhat but you can't dial out the cmos issues and the motion characteristics are just different. Believe me I wanted to be convinced that the EX1 would do because I want to extra detail.


I buy that. The CMOS issues are real, though overstated perhaps by some. Motion looks different in brands of camera, and even in model lines, to say nothing of actual film.

[bhdfield]

I've read a lot of people longing for a new version of an HVX that matches the resolution of the Sony and Canon. I don't think Panasonic would be eager to do that because it would probably cut into the sales of their more expensive, probably higher margin cameras.

[Green Hornet]

I think the easiest way to see the diferences in resolution is to compare the EX1 against the Panasonic with subject more than 10 feet away.

Close up, everything looks good.
It's when you shoot things that are not close up that the differences are overwhelming.

[reem12]

can someone please correct me on this, but if I'm using a 35mm adapter, would it be safe to say that if i'm zoomed in to the ground glass that the wide angle of the stock lens going soft would be a non issue as I'm now relying on the prime lenses, and if my primes are sharp, i'll therefore get sharp images using a wide angle prime.

Can anyone elaborate on this?

[Stevet]

I know some who own the Sony F350 and say their EX1 looks as good if not better at times over the F350.
So, it's possible that Panasonic will eventually offer a sub $7K camera with full 1920x1080 raster capture.

It's going to have to happen sooner or later, it's just the matter of when.

[Dino]

I know some who own the Sony F350 and say their EX1 looks as good if not better at times over the F350.


This makes sense resolution wise because the 1/2" CCD sensors in the F350 are not full raster. Also, the XDCAM HD codec the camera uses is not full raster. To
get full raster, you have to use the EX codec or the 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec found in the F700.

[Chenopup]

This makes sense resolution wise because the 1/2" CCD sensors in the F350 are not full raster. Also, the XDCAM HD codec the camera uses is not full raster. To
get full raster, you have to use the EX codec or the 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec found in the F700.

Personally, I'd still take the 1/2 CCD's in the 350 than the 1/2 CMOS of the EX1. F700 is really a sweet cam though if you've got the dough.

[puredrifting]

This makes sense resolution wise because the 1/2" CCD sensors in the F350 are not full raster. Also, the XDCAM HD codec the camera uses is not full raster. To
get full raster, you have to use the EX codec or the 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec found in the F700.

I did a shoot with a guy out in Scottsdale last month. He owns the Sony 355. He said it is really tough to see a camera like the EX1 come out that essentially blows away the picture quality of his camera for a price that is a fraction of what he paid. Then again, he has had his camera for three years and it has already paid for itself so I guess its not too bad as long as the gear has paid for itself.

Also, he shoots mostly corporate so the "look" of the camera is just as important as the picture for him. He went from a DVX100 to the Sony 355 (I think that's the model, the 350 with VFR, is that a 355?) and he still ends up delivering most of his projects on web or SD DVD but his clients are very specific that they want their projects "shot in HD" and his nice broadcast looking camera fills the bill.

I am kind of going through that with the Canon Vixia HF11 that I am buying for a low key, semi-undercover shoot I will be doing in the Spring. It kind of is amazing that this little $800.00 camera shoots full raster 1920 x 1080 with a 1/3" CMOS imager when my HPX170 shoots on a native 960x540 chipset.

Mind you, I am very happy with the 170 and it's images are beautiful but this cheapo little Canon is pretty impressive as well, so much cheaper and much higher resolution images. Not saying the images look as good, they don't overall, but they are much sharper.

Dan

[Dino]

Personally, I'd still take the 1/2 CCD's in the 350 than the 1/2 CMOS of the EX1. F700 is really a sweet cam though if you've got the dough.

Agreed! CCD's are my preference, even at 1440 vs. 1920 for CMOS. The F700 will really be sweet when Sony finally offers 24p in June--but for a steep $4500 fee!

I'd rather have a B-Stock HPX3000.

[Dino]

He said it is really tough to see a camera like the EX1 come out that essentially blows away the picture quality of his camera for a price that is a fraction of what he paid. Then again, he has had his camera for three years and it has already paid for itself so I guess its not too bad as long as the gear has paid for itself.

(I think that's the model, the 350 with VFR, is that a 355?)

I am kind of going through that with the Canon Vixia HF11 that I am buying for a low key, semi-undercover shoot I will be doing in the Spring. It kind of is amazing that this little $800.00 camera shoots full raster 1920 x 1080 with a 1/3" CMOS imager when my HPX170 shoots on a native 960x540 chipset.

Dan

Dan,

The F355 hasn't been out for three years, so it would be a 330 or 350, most likeley the latter.

In San Francisco, the XDCAM HD cameras have not gained any traction. There are, however, over 30 HDX900's in town! The EX cameras are making some headway.

I have used Panasonic AVC HD cameras for in-car/on-car applications. They are very sharp, but the compression artifacts, lack of latitude and over-enhanced detail are not going to confuse me with DVCPRO HD and cameras with proper image control and decent latitude.

[puredrifting]

Thanks for the clarification, I know zero about the Sony 1/2" cameras besides the EX1.

These little Canons are pretty sweet for travel/low profile type of shoots.

Dan

[pwalker]

Dan, this is a bit off topic here. Maybe we could move the topic elsewhere. But I would love to know more about your experience with the HF11. I'm thinking of picking one up just as a secondary b-roll cam to mix in with DVCProHD footage that I get - mostly shot on HVX200s or HDX900 cams. If you've written about this elsewhere let me know. I'm interested in your experiences with workflow and mixing these sources. Thanks. Phil.

[puredrifting]

Dan, this is a bit off topic here. Maybe we could move the topic elsewhere. But I would love to know more about your experience with the HF11. I'm thinking of picking one up just as a secondary b-roll cam to mix in with DVCProHD footage that I get - mostly shot on HVX200s or HDX900 cams. If you've written about this elsewhere let me know. I'm interested in your experiences with workflow and mixing these sources. Thanks. Phil.

Hi Phil:

Feel free to PM me, but so far, I am where you are. I don't have an HF11 yet but will be getting one. I am just waiting to see if Canon updates the current models at CES this week. I have a friend who has been shooting with the HF 11 for about 6 months and he loves it. He is a really talented motion graphics artist and has shot some killer HF11 stuff.

Okay, back to the thread topic.

Da

[LuckyStudio 13]

Canon just released hv40 today. The Hv40 now comes with real 24p recording. Just maybe oyu guys wanna check it out.

[puredrifting]

Canon just released hv40 today. The Hv40 now comes with real 24p recording. Just maybe oyu guys wanna check it out.

Gotta link?

I will go hunting for it.

Thanks,

Dan

[Green Hornet]

Canon just released hv40 today. The Hv40 now comes with real 24p recording. Just maybe oyu guys wanna check it out.

I thought we are all done with tape?

All of the HV cameras are tape.


The hf11, hf10, hf100 are all great cameras for the price.
I would say it is the best under $2,500 camera period, and you can get one of them for around $700

The trouble is, you won't have mic inputs, and that is why you would buy an hmc150

[Indywannabe]

Check out the newly announced HF S10 and S100. It is a 1/2 inch cmos vs 1/4...and a 58mm lens.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Pushes-Pro-Features-for-Flagship-HD-Camcorders-in-09---HF-S100-HF-S10-HF20-and-HF200-35816.htm

[ullanta]

Closer to 1/3 inch...

[John Caballero]

HDV Tape? Nahhh. The HF S10 sounds much better. Internal HD and SD memory cards. I wonder about price.

[puredrifting]

The trouble is, you won't have mic inputs, and that is why you would buy an hmc150

Hi Green:

They all have mic inputs with manual levels and 24 segment audio metering. Pretty slick. Of course, you would still need a Beachtek box or some custom cables but these cameras look pretty impressive for the price.

I am buying strictly for size, I need something really small that looks touristy. Going to be shooting in some places where I could get busted with my 170 ;-)

Dan

[puredrifting]

but small 1 chip sensors = yuck

You would be surprised. A really talented graphics friend of mine has the HF11 and I have been blown away by some of the footage he has shot with it. Like everything else, if you can work around its limitations, you can shoot beautiful images with even a tiny, small chip camcorder. You just have to exploit its strengths and take into account its weaknesses. Turn on cable, shows like Bizarre Foods look like crap but are still fun to watch and are making the producers and Travel Channel a boatload of money. Not everything needs to imitate 35mm film. ;-)

Dan

[Nik Manning]

How can you compare video shot with these cameras with out color grading them? The Canon or sony cams can mimic the hvx200 color easily with some color grading! Also some things to consider are The Ex1 has more latitude and more depth of field. You want your movie to look more filmic but you didn't go with the camera that offers these strengths?

Ok you are seeing jello or whatever when you do fast pans. Are you making a movie based on fast pans? That is a serious question. You seem to want the most out of your movie so please do this. Send a clip of your footage here http://lightpress.tv/video-sweetening/ have them color correct some of that Ex1 footage. No movie is done unless it has been color corrected!
FYI not affiliated to lightpress.tv

[alexdias]

Ok you are seeing jello or whatever when you do fast pans. Are you making a movie based on fast pans? That is a serious question.

No, I'm not making movies based on fast pans, but if it happen to me I need a camera that will work accordingly. Every camera has it's limitations, even very expensive film cameras have their drawbacks.
In our world (most of us here) of lower end professional HD cameras it's always a question of understanding needs and selecting limitations.

About the rolling shutter issues I have made my mind a long time ago, but for for kicks I start to noticed in independent movies how many situations it will have been a concern.
I invite people to do the same and it will help them to make decisions.
Last time I did that was with "Slumgdog Millionaire", that movie couldn't be done with a camera that does not support fast pans, fast moving object and so forth.

[Blackout]

I think the easiest way to see the diferences in resolution is to compare the EX1 against the Panasonic with subject more than 10 feet away.

Close up, everything looks good.
It's when you shoot things that are not close up that the differences are overwhelming.

This is exactly what I am talking about - in the two clips I posted about 30 responses back, they both look fantastic in close ups but when the panny hvx200a goes wide it crumbles compared to the EX1. Watch the couple wide shots in the park and looks at the leaves and how soft they are - now imagine that on a huge movie theater screen which is how I look at everything - I project it.

That being said, we ended up going with the EX1 for the current film I am shooting and I have a car accident seen with a lot of weird fast motion and the EX1 is a nightmare for me but you know what - I may be insane because a lot of people JUST DON'T SEE the cmos issues! I don't have permission to post up footage yet but basically I have an interior shot where the driver bangs up against the dash and the camera whips with him and then whips back fast to show a key element on the floor - and the jello vision is awful to me and makes my eyes itch - I reshot 4 different times - but the other editor is blind to it.

Panny would clearly be the winning camera if it had the resolution, that's the only thing the EX1 has going for it.

I think we are going to see something soon... the hvx200a just doesn't cut it anymore yet the EX1 is not the answer.

Ok engineers whip some magic out of your ass- I COMMAND YOU!

24p NATIVE as full 1920 x 1080 raster with no JELLO issues!
MAKE IT SO!

[Barry_Green]

That already exists - you can get 1920 x 1080 full raster in a 24p native recording format with no jello issues.

It costs $48,000; it's called the HPX3000.

If you want 1920x1080 in a chip size (and price tag) smaller than a 2/3" system, right now that pretty much means CMOS, and that means jello. No two ways around it.

[PerroneFord]

LOL! Barry Green.. nail on head.

If you don't want to spend the dough, you have to make the compromise. Most of my shooting is interview and conference. The EX1 was an easy choice. Especially with it's low light performance. If I was shooting narrative and moving the camera all the time, I might have chosen differently.

Buy what fits, or rent.

[Blackout]

I think it would be silly to spend $48,000 on a camera for an independent studio. That could be far more than you need for the budget of an entire movie, and I feel technology is moving so fast that someone will figure out this issue and a camera will soon be out at the $5000 level that matches that $48,000 quality. We see it happen time and time again.
Sure, HB0 can pop for a couple HPX3000s... I can't and even if I could...and I have had the cash flow that that sort of a camera requires at certain times in my life - again I would use the money differently then blowing it all on the cam.

I would by the cam and tomorrow someone would make an announcement that a nww codec for CMOS analyzes all the lines and fixes skew and jello with no res loss - it shifts them back into their correct place. Or panny would say they have solved the supposed limit of res on CCD chips...

Something is going to fix it soon because too many people have an issue with it and work within the same budget range and don't want to buy $48,000 cameras. When a demand is that high, it gets figured out.

I have also never seen HMC150 footage until today and it does not appear to have the softness issue that the HPX200a does - so maybe it has been the DVCPRO codec all along that is the problem more than the chips. I need to do more tests.

[Dino]

I think it would be silly to spend $48,000 on a camera for an independent studio. That could be far more than you need for the budget of an entire movie,

Sure, HB0 can pop for a couple HPX3000s... I would use the money differently then blowing it all on the cam.


Yes, it would be silly to spend $48K on a camera for an indie project.

Most high-end production companies and movie studios rent their camera/lens packages, not buy them for a project/projects. You can't buy Panavision 35mm or Genesis cameras or lenses anyway.

If there is a specific project happening now and the cameras within your budget to purchase won't give you the features/imagery required, it makes sense to rent. That's how it's done everyday, even with big budgets.

Otherwise, the option would be to delay the start of shooting and wait for technology and pricing to do what you require if you must own the camera package for some reason.

[LuckyStudio 13]

Ikonoskop DIII, $10k full rasta HD with CCD 2/3" chipset.

[Blackout]

Ha I have already been following the Ikonoskop people. I thought it's called the DII though and it's still a prototype isn't it?

Also - can anyone else verify my experience that the HMC150 is slightly sharper and has slightly more detail than the HVX200a or am I completely off?

[dwells]

One of the advantages of the low cost cameras is the ability to great images and save money. But there are always sacrifices when spending less than $10,000 on a camera.

If you want to step up to an HPX3000 or higher, renting is always an affordable option. The great thing about rental houses is that you can check out the camera and talk to people who have used it, before making a decision.

David

[Blackout]

I am an own your cameras type of guy because I like to do a lot of experimental things that I couldn't do if I were renting and had to rush rush.