View Full Version : Canon HV20 review up at camcorderinfo.com
AuditoryVisuals
03-26-2007, 06:50 PM
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HV20-Camcorder-Review/Performance.htm
How do you like that? The low light seems to be much better than the HV10. But they don't have full resolution images yet. And like all camcorderinfo.com reviews, no video. And also they said that 24p doesn't look like film. They even wents so far as to say "We must preface, for some readers, that 24P does not look like film. Not ever. Not Ever, does video look like film, at least not without very expensive camera and post production equipment."
kledster
03-26-2007, 07:12 PM
i'd have to agree that 24p doesn't look like film. but the great thing is.. 7/10 people don't realize the difference
scharky
03-26-2007, 07:21 PM
I refuse to visit that site for any camcordor info. Not only are their reviews completely biased but they more often than not contain false information. I personally would take everything written on that site with a grain of salt.
Mark Dog
03-26-2007, 07:27 PM
i read the review scharky theye had a lot gooooooooooood thing to say about the hv20 .
peace n luv
Mark Dog
scharky
03-26-2007, 07:49 PM
I have no problem with them saying good things about any camcorder, I'm not saying that they don't like the HV20 either, I'm just saying that just about every review will have some sort of error, the reviewer will be biased in some way either for or against that particular brand of camcorder. I don't care if they say the nicest things in the world about a particular camcorder, their goal is to be first to review things rather than actually get things straight, and in my book that is just plain wrong.
prisma
03-27-2007, 12:03 PM
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HV20-Camcorder-Review/Performance.htm
How do you like that? The low light seems to be much better than the HV10. But they don't have full resolution images yet. And like all camcorderinfo.com reviews, no video. And also they said that 24p doesn't look like film. They even wents so far as to say "We must preface, for some readers, that 24P does not look like film. Not ever. Not Ever, does video look like film, at least not without very expensive camera and post production equipment."
Thanks AuditoryVisuals. Of course 24p does not look like film. The cool thing is that few people can tell the diference, and even better, sometimes 24p looks better than film.
Cool review with nices pictures. Thanks again for the link.
Sean Michael
03-27-2007, 12:59 PM
"Not Ever, does video look like film, at least not without very expensive camera and post production equipment."
I take exception to this categorical statement (and on more than grammatical grounds). It reeks of snobbery.
I guess it depends on one's definition of "very" expensive. But there are several prosumer (and now with the HV20, consumer?) cameras capable of producing a "filmlike" image using video.
Let's say a digitally recorded moving image has full HD resolution, 24fps recording, thoughtful lighting, shallow DOF, and "cinematic" color correction in post. If the image doesn't look like film, what does it look like? Swiss cheese?
Sure, video won't EXACTLY REPLICATE film; by the same token, film won't replicate video. But the qualitative differences between the two mediums are becoming fewer as digital technology advances.
Emanuel
03-27-2007, 01:15 PM
I fully agree with you Sean.
E.
EDIT -- With prisma too. It seems there is a large consensus over here.
disjecta
03-27-2007, 04:02 PM
What he should have said was "in my opinion...." It felt a little jarring for me to read that quote also. I think it's possible to make 24p video look extremely close to film. That 24p look I see on MTV and others does sometimes look like video but the feel I get on the XHA1, I believe, closely resembles film. I know what he's getting at but it's just not as definitive as he's making it out to be.
Kholi
03-27-2007, 04:24 PM
These are the guys that listed the A1 had an HDMI out port. Twice.
No thanks.
Its not film. 24P is not film.
( I discussed this in all its finesses during the HVX introduction against all the HVX power-people together with some cinematic guys and wouldn't do it over, but I stand my point)
Kholi
03-27-2007, 04:50 PM
Of course it's not film.
It's not film. Three words, but it's discussed in 16 pages.
disjecta
03-27-2007, 07:23 PM
No one is contesting that Xray, I don't know why you are repeating yourself.
Kholi
03-27-2007, 07:38 PM
I think he has something important to say. I didn't get it the first time. What is it?
rawfa
03-28-2007, 12:23 AM
I've read a couple of threads from HV20 users who seem to have been having some trouble with focusing properly (manually and automatically). :-(
prisma
03-28-2007, 06:46 AM
It's not film. Three words, but it's discussed in 16 pages.
Xray with the HV20 you record the footage digitaly to a miniDV at 24p in HD, you dont use film media to capture images. So I think everybody on this forum know is not film. Why you keep saying that?
Emanuel
03-28-2007, 07:10 AM
I've read a couple of threads from HV20 users who seem to have been having some trouble with focusing properly (manually and automatically). :-(Defective units. Cinema for the masses. :D
It's solved.
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=649524#post649524
AuditoryVisuals
03-28-2007, 07:17 AM
Everybody knows it's not film. X-Rays can ruin film, not tape. Just look at it and see if the picture disapears, if it doesn't it's not film. ;)
24p is not like film. Look. It doesn't. And to repeat this mantra is very fruitful, see some people above me who are repeating the question 'why I was saying that'.
Barry_Green
03-28-2007, 05:53 PM
24p video can look indistinguishable from the same content originated on film. In skillful hands, optimizing the lighting to fit within video's capabilities (meaning we have an expert creating the footage), even a trained eye would not be able to tell which was from film and which was from video.
So many factors are all together that gives you the film experience. Stock, colors, dynamic range, saturation, cadence, resolution, grain particles, contrast, lenses.
There is so much more in the story that distinguish film from video ( or in this thread separates the 1 chip HV20 with 24p from filmlook)
24p is just one of them, for USA (60hz/30) its a big step, for EU (50Hz/25) it closely matches it for a long time.
I can understand the growing believe 'this is like film' as most of the users here -almost all- never worked or produced on film (S16 or 35mm) to begin with.
AuditoryVisuals
03-28-2007, 06:52 PM
I disagree with your signature xray:
Don't try to mimic a 'film look' by adding noise to videomaterial. If you want the look, use creative lighting and lenses.
Do you have a cinematic look confuesed with a film look?
I agree with the noise part though.
disjecta
03-28-2007, 06:53 PM
24p video can look indistinguishable from the same content originated on film. In skillful hands, optimizing the lighting to fit within video's capabilities (meaning we have an expert creating the footage), even a trained eye would not be able to tell which was from film and which was from video.
At last, the voice of reason :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
I disagree with your signature xray:
Don't try to mimic a 'film look' by adding noise to videomaterial. If you want the look, use creative lighting and lenses.
Do you have a cinematic look confuesed with a film look?
I agree with the noise part though.
Its a free world AV, you can disagree with me, but the answer is no. Filmlook was and is a magic word for many people. And its a sig I use for some years and it started with the canon that had a filmlook button that gives noise artifacts to present the 'filmlook'. Know the classics.
Barry_Green
03-28-2007, 07:51 PM
I can understand the growing believe 'this is like film' as most of the users here -almost all- never worked or produced on film (S16 or 35mm) to begin with.
Whether that's true or not, it's rather egotistical and rude to say because you really don't know what the people here have done or haven't done.
For the record, I've shot plenty of 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, S16mm, 35mm, and Super35mm. I've got my own 16mm, S16, and 35mm cameras right now. I know film *very* well. And I'll say it again: in skilled trained hands, a 24p shooter can make footage that is absolutely indistinguishable from film that's been transferred to video, to the average viewer and to even a trained viewer.
And yes, 24p is the #1 most important revolution in video technology that has allowed that to happen.
And no, raw lousy poorly-shot 24p doesn't look anything like film. But lousy poorly-shot raw 16mm doesn't look anything like a "movie" either, if people are looking for the "movie look."
To dismiss 24p video as not being able to look like film is just plain incorrect.
I know you did. I also can freely say that most users don't. There is nothing rude on that, its a fact in the world today, a mostly video world. Don't you think? I am free to say so, others did that too, funny how you make it "egotistical and rude". I don't need to rephrase the points I made somewhere above, what more is needed to look like film, (latitude) but I can feel with you that:
' in skilled trained hands, a 24p shooter can make footage that is absolutely indistinguishable from film that's been transferred to video, to the average viewer and to even a trained viewer.'
Specially if the circumstance during the shoot (close up, underwatershots, etc) are not optimal, you can intercut film and video without knowing it. If the circumstances are optimal, light, skills, stock, film is much richer to look at. Saying that, I can almost always see if it is originated film or video 24P by looking at it in a long shot.
24p was and is no magic on itself, next year my cellphone shoots 24p and it is no film. Filmlook is more than 24p, but it brakes barriers and the 24p was a gift for the film community.
It's all things together and skills and professionalism that will make video look like film. You can make film look awful if you want too... Sure. You can do nice things on video in 25p, I am happy with it, but this all started with this 1 chip cam HV20was bringing film experience and that is not the case, so is 24p not film look.
You need more to achieve that.
rawfa
03-29-2007, 12:59 AM
At last, the voice of reason :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
I second that.
The grass is always "Barry Greener" on the other side :thumbup:
rawfa
03-29-2007, 01:00 AM
I'm thinking what is going on here is a matter of bad communication. Just like mixing video and film can be very hard, mixing different cultures and languages can be hard too. I believe that what ex-ray is trying to say is that 24p BY IT SELF is not film like.
Emanuel
03-29-2007, 01:48 AM
Whether that's true or not, it's rather egotistical and rude to say because you really don't know what the people here have done or haven't done.
For the record, I've shot plenty of 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, S16mm, 35mm, and Super35mm. I've got my own 16mm, S16, and 35mm cameras right now. I know film *very* well.I second you, Barry. :)
Emanuel is on my list, so I cant see what he is saying, but reading over what I wrote there is no offensive material in.
I was communicating that 24p was no film or not like film and therefore the HV20 24p is not like film. You may think differently, I'll try to give facts. By the way: we have a cellphone contest over here, make your film with your cellphone.
And I shot and produced 8/S8/S16/35/mm film, but also 1", U-matic, BVU, all the Betacam, MII..., D1, SVHS, High8 video. And produced 2D and 3D animations to uncompressed. I finished my first movie 20 years ago, and run around with an VO-3800 to shoot news and documentry on video. And I have an opinion.
For the record..., showing lists like *this* is almost egotistical.
HELP! My tape does not Fit !!
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3842/1175171677.jpg
Gordon Prince
03-29-2007, 06:41 AM
I disagree with your signature xray:
Don't try to mimic a 'film look' by adding noise to videomaterial. If you want the look, use creative lighting and lenses.
Do you have a cinematic look confuesed with a film look?
I agree with the noise part though.Obviously, video can mimic the film motion going with the 24p.
Emanuel
03-29-2007, 06:42 AM
Emanuel is on my list, so I cant see what he is saying, but reading over what I wrote there is no offensive material in.You can always go with "View Post" button (top right corner) and read it if you have any doubt. It is what I'm used to do when your posts are popping up succeeding the others' claims between yours.
prisma
03-29-2007, 06:43 AM
Whether that's true or not, it's rather egotistical and rude to say because you really don't know what the people here have done or haven't done.
For the record, I've shot plenty of 8mm, Super 8mm, 16mm, S16mm, 35mm, and Super35mm. I've got my own 16mm, S16, and 35mm cameras right now. I know film *very* well. And I'll say it again: in skilled trained hands, a 24p shooter can make footage that is absolutely indistinguishable from film that's been transferred to video, to the average viewer and to even a trained viewer.
And yes, 24p is the #1 most important revolution in video technology that has allowed that to happen.
And no, raw lousy poorly-shot 24p doesn't look anything like film. But lousy poorly-shot raw 16mm doesn't look anything like a "movie" either, if people are looking for the "movie look."
To dismiss 24p video as not being able to look like film is just plain incorrect.
I agree with you 100%
prisma
03-29-2007, 06:50 AM
I know you did. I also can freely say that most users don't. There is nothing rude on that, its a fact in the world today, a mostly video world. Don't you think? I am free to say so, others did that too, funny how you make it "egotistical and rude". I don't need to rephrase the points I made somewhere above, what more is needed to look like film, (latitude) but I can feel with you that:
' in skilled trained hands, a 24p shooter can make footage that is absolutely indistinguishable from film that's been transferred to video, to the average viewer and to even a trained viewer.'
Specially if the circumstance during the shoot (close up, underwatershots, etc) are not optimal, you can intercut film and video without knowing it. If the circumstances are optimal, light, skills, stock, film is much richer to look at. Saying that, I can almost always see if it is originated film or video 24P by looking at it in a long shot.
24p was and is no magic on itself, next year my cellphone shoots 24p and it is no film. Filmlook is more than 24p, but it brakes barriers and the 24p was a gift for the film community.
It's all things together and skills and professionalism that will make video look like film. You can make film look awful if you want too... Sure. You can do nice things on video in 25p, I am happy with it, but this all started with this 1 chip cam HV20was bringing film experience and that is not the case, so is 24p not film look.
You need more to achieve that.
Mr. Xray
Don’t be so adamant zealot of film media. In few years (2 maybe?) HD video at 24p will look 10 times better than today’s analog film. You don’t believe me? Take a look at what is happening in the professional digital photo market.
Obviously, video can mimic the film motion going with the 24p.
Sure. That it can. ( I love all those 'me too', and ' I second that ' posts) .
Does not fit either...
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3842/1175172446.jpg
AuditoryVisuals
03-29-2007, 06:52 AM
Obviously, video can mimic the film motion going with the 24p.
My point exactly. I think the motion can replicated simply by the framerate. Even if it's on a "cellphone".
And no, raw lousy poorly-shot 24p doesn't look anything like film. But lousy poorly-shot raw 16mm doesn't look anything like a "movie" either, if people are looking for the "movie look."
Yes, I think this is what he had confused.
Gordon Prince
03-29-2007, 07:15 AM
Sure. That it can. ( I love all those 'me too', and ' I second that ' posts) .
Does not fit either...
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3842/1175172446.jpg
If you have your opinion, there are others with the same will. Why your obsessive content is so offensive and unfriendly? :(
This is a community of friends. Perhaps, it's time for mod's time.
identity
03-29-2007, 07:42 AM
You know...it comes down to this. If you like the cadence and look of digitally generated 24p, use it. If you prefer the cadence of film, use that instead. However, if you can't afford to shoot on film, you now have the chance to shoot in a framerate that looks pretty darn close! Could you say that 5 years ago? I think not! That...is the point.
prisma
03-29-2007, 08:01 AM
Sure. That it can. ( I love all those 'me too', and ' I second that ' posts) .
Does not fit either...
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3842/1175172446.jpg
Your point being.....?
If you have your opinion, there are others with the same will.
Hey, I agreed on you! The 'me too' was not for you. Lets bring this to a good end my friends.
24P is a gift, I'll shoot 25P today so I like it. HD video is developing and increases in quality. It's clean and high res, and besides the 24p cadence they also replicate color and gamma from the film. So film lives on in the HD cinema. But HD cinema also shoots with big chips, highend uncompressed or low compressed video in 4:4:4: or 4:2:2 space, with great lenses etc. In that, the quality issues remain and craftsmanship also.
Like low lousy 16mm film is no quality, low handycam shot HDV isn't. The fact that handcams can emulate 24p as it is, is not enough to bring cinematic satisfaction on the screen or to the viewer. There is more needed to create that, also in technically developments. RED is one company that is doing the transition. I'm not alone on a film-island, I know that it is changing, but it changes in the whole chain: high end image sensors, low compression, great fast lenses. And digital reproduction, editing and presentation.
But even shooting Fuji Velvia slide today brings a satisfaction that is unbelievable. There is something in it that is hard to replicate in digital photography.
So is analog a master for the digital future.
Peace.
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei
03-29-2007, 08:13 AM
I don't know, it seems like xray is trying to tell us that just 24p is not film, and I think all of us here can agree with that.
But it seems like xray is also trying to say that we are not qualified to even talk about what constitute a 'film look' because most of us haven't worked on or shot on film before.
At the end of the day, the audience couldn't care less if it was shot on film or video as long as it looks like a movie to them.
FIlm or video, it's just a medium.
rawfa
03-29-2007, 08:31 AM
C.S.I's uses HDV constantly (in flashbacks and so). The intro has footage shot with a Z1 (thanks, Steven!). I think most will agree it can be mixed perfectly with film (most people probably didn't even notice it was HDV), hence film look achieved.
Gordon Prince
03-29-2007, 08:41 AM
The 'me too' was not for you.
Okay but personal attacks are useless and aren't allowed at least here. All the members are welcome if their contributions are healthy.
Peace for once.
Being on this board for some years (and not entered this month -not for you-)
I know the rules well, look back, there is no personal useless attack from my side.
snowleopard
03-29-2007, 12:13 PM
I think the article ignores any scale of relative comparison. Allow me to elaborate:
A Canon A1 (or HVX for that matter) shooting at 24p, with a Cine curve, in a controlled lighting situation is going to look much, much closer to film than, say, and old Betacam will. I bring this up because most people associate the look of video with footage shot with a Betacam, or something similar (VX1000, PD150, cheap 1 chip DV camera). As a matter of fact, in the hands of someone with skill, it will look very close to film, or "movies". So close, as others have pointed out, that most people can't tell the difference, and don't care. My guess is that the HV20 will come closer to looking like the A1 than Betacam. Hence, good enough or close enough to film for most people to look at it and go "it looks like movies do".
Saying 24p video doesn't look like film may be true in the purist sense. But omits the word "exactly". It doesn't look exactly like film. It may never - though someday soon it will likely look better in most people's eyes. For example, there tends to be scratches and dirt in film. Is that what one wants? Some do, hence Magic Bullet's "Misfire" and Boris and Digieffects' "Film Damage" filters. Is that the exact same as real dust and scratches or film damage? No, but used with skill, most people wouldn't notice, or care. Along these lines, a PD170 doesn't look like Betacam SP footage - it lacks the color depth most of all, but most people won't notice, or care.
Saying the HV20, or video in general doesn't look like film is fine. But it carries no more weight in comparison than saying 35mm doesn't look like 70mm, or video shot on a Phantom 65. No it doesn't, and it never will, but only in very certain circumstances will people know the difference, or really care. This is especially true when delivered in the medium most people will see it: on a TV screen.
themusic
03-29-2007, 01:33 PM
Does anyone feel like stopping the arguing and discussing the review?
snowleopard
03-29-2007, 01:45 PM
Thought I kind of did that, referring the article in my first sentence.
Well, on a thought, he did say in the review that the 24p footage looked beautiful. Also pointed out it held up in low light better than the HV10, if a hair grainy. Comments from anyone who has used one (or all three of these: HV20, HV20, A1)?
epsilonbass
03-29-2007, 01:52 PM
For the record..., showing lists like *this* is almost egotistical.
HELP! My tape does not Fit !!
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/3842/1175171677.jpg
Of course the tape doesn't fit, the tape deck is on the other side of the camera... duh.
But back to the original topic, I find camcorderinfo reviews to have the bare minimum in finding out about cameras. I would point someone here to learn about cameras (even the hv20) before telling them to go to camcorderinfo.
But there is a lot of rehashed conversation that doesn't need to be going on. Just pick the right camera for your current finanical situation whether it be a hv20 or arri BL, and make your work. Time spent defending your camera is time you could be shooting with your camera.
prisma
03-29-2007, 01:55 PM
Yes it said that it perform really good in low ligth conditions and is due to the fact that it shoots at 24p. What kind of light kit do you guys recomend me to use with the HV20? regular flood lights? or this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=315916&is=REG
Boomerang
03-29-2007, 08:44 PM
I am going out on a ledge here- but what if we created a film camera that had a "video like" feature......
Film vs. Video, Apple vs. PC, Midget wrestling vs. Mexican wrestling
To each there own but damn my HVX with an M2 adaptor looks good!
Barry you are always on point!