View Full Version : Multi-camera shoot 200/170
Scott W. Smith
01-27-2009, 08:47 AM
From all I've read there is a difference in noise between the 200 and the 170, but I'd like to hear from someone who's actually done a multicamera shoot with both. Is there a noticable difference cutting to wide shot and close-ups?
Barry, your tests were "extreme magnification to show the worst possible noise," but do you think they'd cut together well in a normal situation?
Next week I have a multicamera shoot for an online cooking show that in the past was shot with HVX/DVX and worked out great. But to streamline the editing process I'd like to shoot P2 this time around.
01-30-2009, 01:46 PM
My understanding is that there is very little difference in a controlled, well lit situation
such as your cooking show. Where the 170 and 200A really shine is in low light, and
you can easily see the noise difference. I expect to get one of them and keep my 200
for use as a backup and in multi camera shoots.
I'm sure someone will weigh in who has shot with all three.
01-30-2009, 03:43 PM
There are some comparison stills in my article, about 2/3 of the way down.http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/hpx_170_evolution_brockett.html Same subjects shot with my HVX200 and my HPX170. IMHO, the two cameras do look different. Go through all of the menu items, the HPX170 has more levels of adjustment on master ped and a few of the other parameters.
I shoot with both cams and IMHO, they will not cut seamlessly. You can get them close but the 200 is grainier and "dirtier" than the 170 and I don't mean just low light grain. Even well lit, the 170 is cleaner and has more detail to the image. But will the average person notice this? Probably not. The colorimetry, which is what more people would notice right off of the bat, is pretty close.
I guess the real question is, "how good are you or your editor at color correction?" If you are a good colorist, I think you can get them pretty close. DEFINITELY shoot chip charts for every setup. DEFINITELY do tests beforehand and experiment with both camera setups, lighting and in post.
I am shooting several TV show pilots with my 170 and two other friends 200s. For my concepts, they will work fine. If you are shooting the same shot, a wide and a medium, then it will be tougher. But if you are shooting one talent and a reverse of another talent, much easier to cheat the differences.
02-01-2009, 12:30 AM
I'm trying to find a camera to match my 170 too. Same shots : concerts in wide/medium/XCU's. Not much experience (yet) at color correction. Sounds Dan like another 170 is really my only option. I don't suppose I should even think about trying to match it with a 150? (Thinking dollars here.)
02-01-2009, 08:24 AM
Most DPs will tell you that in order to cut seamlessly, you need to shoot with the same model camera. Ideally, you have an engineer or DIT who "paints" the cameras to match. You obviously cannot "paint" prosumer camcorders like the HPX170 as they do not support CCUs.
One factor that may surprise those who haven't done it, you would think you would just setup two or three camcorders with all of the same parameters and they would cut together seamlessly. Not so. The angle of the camcorder to the lighting means that the look can vary radically even if the camcorder is setup identically. This most often manifests in the master ped and gamma settings, but as I wrote, matching the color is very important. One of the best low budget ways to match multiple cameras is to run the cameras into the same monitor and a/b switch between the two as you adjust them on the same monitor.
Matching multiple camcorders to cut seamlessly is an art, not just a science and it is much more difficult with cheap camcorders like the HPX170 because of the lack of CCUs. But a good starting place would be to use the same model of camcorder.
I've done a multi-cam shoot with 3xHVX 1xHPX 171 and 1xHPX500. (Not a live mix though)
They cut well if you position the cameras to their advantage.
Ie. We used the HPX500 for the long-lens master, the HVX for general stage wides and medium shot.
The HPX-171 was used on the audience for the sensitivity advantage. (At the wide end)
I used the same pre-sets and gamma curve and tried to get the camera ops to get their image exposed following the HPX500.
The final edit needed a bit of highlight adjustment, but you would not tell they were different cameras.
I would not duplicate angles with the different cameras though to avoid a direct A/B comparison.
Scott W. Smith
02-09-2009, 04:16 AM
Just a follow-up...I did go ahead and buy the HPX 170 and shot all last week with it along side the HVX 200. In the monitor and timeline it matches well and believe when all is said and done not a single online viewer will comment, "Hey. those cameras don't match."
Thanks for all the input.
BTW--For the cooking show last week I used hardwire lavs on host and chef and after watching Barry's DVD on sound bought an Oktava MK-012 that is spoken highly about and that thing sounded great hanging between the talent.