dory_breaux
11-04-2008, 07:02 PM
Theres a comparison the Zacuto did between the 7 cameras listed below. View the orrigional thread on Scarlet User (http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=1462).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright, I finally got around to watching the tests on a TV. My report is as follows:
DISCLAIMER- I am not a compression expert nor a DVD authoring expert, so take this for what it is worth. I do however know at least a bit about what I am talking about (probably more but I gotta leave some wiggle room). I will try to be as un-biased as possible in this report.
First of all, my workflow: Down-sampling done half in ProCoder and half in Encore CS3 (1080>720 in ProCoder and 720>480 in encore) with settings I cant remember right now, Encore project at 9Mbps, transcode settings maxed out (VBR2pass @ 9mbps). Burn to a regular DVD-R at 12X.
Secondly, let it be known that I HIGHLY disagree with the way Zacuto transferred there footage, for some reason I hate D5. That's just a weird personal thing, I cant figure it out. And 1080 60i pisses me off even more, so take that for what its worth/
Now on to the good stuff.
First of all, let me say this: they all look MUCH closer on an SD TV playing from an SD DVD. The EX1 still has sloppy highlights and strongly saturated colors, but it is not quite as noticeable.
After starring at it over and over for about 3 hours, pausing, replaying, scrutinizing from 2 inches away and from 10 feet away from the screen, asking my dad to give me his opinion, different lighting conditions in the room, here is my final list. I will start with the cameras for now, then later tonight or tomorrow I will write up my findings on the adapters.
The Arri/35mm took first place, just as I thought it would. But, come on. Nothing looks better then 35mm (except 65/70mm HA!), even RED. The biggest part of this is that there were ZERO imperfections in any part of the image. There isn't much to be said since film is still the standard in motion picture films (sorry all you revolutionists, that's just the way it is for now, as much of an impact as RED is making, most films that I can think of are still shot in 35mm)
RED One took second place by far (this is allowing for the horrible processing that it was given, although I don't know if that's necessary). It was pretty hard to discern from the Arri/35 setup, in fact if I hadn't know that they were different I probably would not have known the difference. If I were an average movie goer I would not have noticed a thing. One thing that did bother me was that it looks like they shot in 2:1 instead of 16:9, so that kind of threw me off a little bit. Not really worth mentioning except to say that they messed up on more then the processing of RED.
The Varicam took 3rd. The displayed latitude (meaning not by what Panasonic says it is, what I see on the TV) was maybe two or three stops (three max) under the RED and Arri, but in this controlled situation that's not that hard to work out and it wasn't too obvious. The skin tone was lacking something, but there was nothing wrong with it. The highlights looked really nice and the blacks were rich while retaining a good amount of detail.
Fourth goes to the HPX3000. It would have been a draw between the HPX and F900, but you'll find out why the HPX took it in the bit aboot the F900. The HPX looked pretty close to the VCam, with the only discrepancies being a little less detail and slightly weaker skin tone. Also, after watching it a lot, I noticed that the image as a whole was a tad softer then the VCam.
The F900 takes fifth. It would have been a draw between the HPX and F900, if it weren't for the ridiculous amount of greens in the skin tone and in general all over the warmer areas of the picture. It did, however, seem to have a much sharper image then the HPX and it also had a good deal of detail in the darker ares of the picture. One thing I noticed, the blues really popped, which I like as long as the whole picture isn't over blue, which it was not. So props to the F900 for the sharpness and detail (and blue pop I guess), but that green tone on the skin just killed it for me.
In sixth is the HVX200. Again, it was close between the HVX and the EX1, but the HVX came in on top, and you can see in the EX1s bit why. One thing that really popped out about the HVX was how there was much less contrast there was. This was especially noticable in the faucet or handle right behind the girls head (and dammit all I have to do this: I wish it were my faucet behind her head. Altho it might be better off in front of for obvious reasons http://www.scarletuser.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif) and in the darker area behind the flowers and wine bottle. Something else that pops out right away is the lack of detail in the darker areas. However, the blacks are super super rich when there is not a great deal of contrast in the scene around them, like in the girls hair. As I was expecting, the HVX lacked a little bit in detail in general and was a bit soft. The EX1 pwnd it like a noob in this area.
Seventh is given to the EX1. The main two reasons being that even though it is a lot less noticable on the SD TV, the highlights are STILL a lot stronger then any other camera. They do not blow out at all, but it they are much higher and it is noticable when looking at them next to say the HVX or F900. However, there was quite a bit more detail in the darker areas while the blacks retained a good deal of detail. Second reason (and possibly biggest for some users) is there is a very noticable blue tone throughout the entire picture. It isn't as if the white balance is off, its a lot like the green skin tone thing with the F900 but in general more noticable. Now, something good I noticed about the EX1 instantly is the sharpness of the picture. There's an incredible amount of detail over the HVX, which for some people may be a huge selling point (color can ultimately be fixed in post, detail you cant really do a ton about). There also seemed to be a lot more detail in the green crap hanging off the vase (I'm pretty sure it wasnt crap but I like that word).
Now, right away you'll probably think I am being biased against Sony and, there probably is a little bit there. However, I also blocked out the labels on the camera part and burnt that as the first thing that played. I then wrote down what I thought about them and which shots they were, and then watched the labeled ones, just to be as fair as possible.
All in all, knowing the specs of each camera/format, if money were no obstacle I would most likely ultimately choose the RED or HVX, based mostly on the content of what I personally shoot. 35mm is WAY too much of a hassle for a one or two man skiing/snowboarding/mountain biking crew, but the down points of the Sony's (and that damn rolling shutter on the EX1) killed them. The HPX doesn't support over/under cranking (to my knowledge) and the Varricam is just too much of a hassle (the only format that shoots to tape, of these cameras. Don't tell me that film is more hassle then tape, I know it is but the picture is 100000000 times better to my eye).
So there you have it, take it for what its worth. I encourage you to do the same thing I did and make a DVD of this. I'd also LOVE to see what someone with the capabilities to do this in Blue Ray (with an HD set) gets out of this.
Thanks,
Dory
Oh, and some HUGE props to Zacuto for getting that hotty to be the model http://www.scarletuser.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright, I finally got around to watching the tests on a TV. My report is as follows:
DISCLAIMER- I am not a compression expert nor a DVD authoring expert, so take this for what it is worth. I do however know at least a bit about what I am talking about (probably more but I gotta leave some wiggle room). I will try to be as un-biased as possible in this report.
First of all, my workflow: Down-sampling done half in ProCoder and half in Encore CS3 (1080>720 in ProCoder and 720>480 in encore) with settings I cant remember right now, Encore project at 9Mbps, transcode settings maxed out (VBR2pass @ 9mbps). Burn to a regular DVD-R at 12X.
Secondly, let it be known that I HIGHLY disagree with the way Zacuto transferred there footage, for some reason I hate D5. That's just a weird personal thing, I cant figure it out. And 1080 60i pisses me off even more, so take that for what its worth/
Now on to the good stuff.
First of all, let me say this: they all look MUCH closer on an SD TV playing from an SD DVD. The EX1 still has sloppy highlights and strongly saturated colors, but it is not quite as noticeable.
After starring at it over and over for about 3 hours, pausing, replaying, scrutinizing from 2 inches away and from 10 feet away from the screen, asking my dad to give me his opinion, different lighting conditions in the room, here is my final list. I will start with the cameras for now, then later tonight or tomorrow I will write up my findings on the adapters.
The Arri/35mm took first place, just as I thought it would. But, come on. Nothing looks better then 35mm (except 65/70mm HA!), even RED. The biggest part of this is that there were ZERO imperfections in any part of the image. There isn't much to be said since film is still the standard in motion picture films (sorry all you revolutionists, that's just the way it is for now, as much of an impact as RED is making, most films that I can think of are still shot in 35mm)
RED One took second place by far (this is allowing for the horrible processing that it was given, although I don't know if that's necessary). It was pretty hard to discern from the Arri/35 setup, in fact if I hadn't know that they were different I probably would not have known the difference. If I were an average movie goer I would not have noticed a thing. One thing that did bother me was that it looks like they shot in 2:1 instead of 16:9, so that kind of threw me off a little bit. Not really worth mentioning except to say that they messed up on more then the processing of RED.
The Varicam took 3rd. The displayed latitude (meaning not by what Panasonic says it is, what I see on the TV) was maybe two or three stops (three max) under the RED and Arri, but in this controlled situation that's not that hard to work out and it wasn't too obvious. The skin tone was lacking something, but there was nothing wrong with it. The highlights looked really nice and the blacks were rich while retaining a good amount of detail.
Fourth goes to the HPX3000. It would have been a draw between the HPX and F900, but you'll find out why the HPX took it in the bit aboot the F900. The HPX looked pretty close to the VCam, with the only discrepancies being a little less detail and slightly weaker skin tone. Also, after watching it a lot, I noticed that the image as a whole was a tad softer then the VCam.
The F900 takes fifth. It would have been a draw between the HPX and F900, if it weren't for the ridiculous amount of greens in the skin tone and in general all over the warmer areas of the picture. It did, however, seem to have a much sharper image then the HPX and it also had a good deal of detail in the darker ares of the picture. One thing I noticed, the blues really popped, which I like as long as the whole picture isn't over blue, which it was not. So props to the F900 for the sharpness and detail (and blue pop I guess), but that green tone on the skin just killed it for me.
In sixth is the HVX200. Again, it was close between the HVX and the EX1, but the HVX came in on top, and you can see in the EX1s bit why. One thing that really popped out about the HVX was how there was much less contrast there was. This was especially noticable in the faucet or handle right behind the girls head (and dammit all I have to do this: I wish it were my faucet behind her head. Altho it might be better off in front of for obvious reasons http://www.scarletuser.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif) and in the darker area behind the flowers and wine bottle. Something else that pops out right away is the lack of detail in the darker areas. However, the blacks are super super rich when there is not a great deal of contrast in the scene around them, like in the girls hair. As I was expecting, the HVX lacked a little bit in detail in general and was a bit soft. The EX1 pwnd it like a noob in this area.
Seventh is given to the EX1. The main two reasons being that even though it is a lot less noticable on the SD TV, the highlights are STILL a lot stronger then any other camera. They do not blow out at all, but it they are much higher and it is noticable when looking at them next to say the HVX or F900. However, there was quite a bit more detail in the darker areas while the blacks retained a good deal of detail. Second reason (and possibly biggest for some users) is there is a very noticable blue tone throughout the entire picture. It isn't as if the white balance is off, its a lot like the green skin tone thing with the F900 but in general more noticable. Now, something good I noticed about the EX1 instantly is the sharpness of the picture. There's an incredible amount of detail over the HVX, which for some people may be a huge selling point (color can ultimately be fixed in post, detail you cant really do a ton about). There also seemed to be a lot more detail in the green crap hanging off the vase (I'm pretty sure it wasnt crap but I like that word).
Now, right away you'll probably think I am being biased against Sony and, there probably is a little bit there. However, I also blocked out the labels on the camera part and burnt that as the first thing that played. I then wrote down what I thought about them and which shots they were, and then watched the labeled ones, just to be as fair as possible.
All in all, knowing the specs of each camera/format, if money were no obstacle I would most likely ultimately choose the RED or HVX, based mostly on the content of what I personally shoot. 35mm is WAY too much of a hassle for a one or two man skiing/snowboarding/mountain biking crew, but the down points of the Sony's (and that damn rolling shutter on the EX1) killed them. The HPX doesn't support over/under cranking (to my knowledge) and the Varricam is just too much of a hassle (the only format that shoots to tape, of these cameras. Don't tell me that film is more hassle then tape, I know it is but the picture is 100000000 times better to my eye).
So there you have it, take it for what its worth. I encourage you to do the same thing I did and make a DVD of this. I'd also LOVE to see what someone with the capabilities to do this in Blue Ray (with an HD set) gets out of this.
Thanks,
Dory
Oh, and some HUGE props to Zacuto for getting that hotty to be the model http://www.scarletuser.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif!