View Full Version : The Hv20 Chart Vs Arri D-20 Chart
04-04-2007, 10:03 PM
I post this for fun. There is no way these are even one bit the same camera. However the core images of these are scary close. If the HV20 was captured straight component it would even be better and it just tells us that when the next gen of this Cmos is in the next H1 or A1 replacement it's going to be crazy! That said, this is not science here, however just a fun comparison.
04-04-2007, 10:43 PM
Way cool. My HV20 comes tomorrow and I can't wait. Your footage at Laguna is the best yet and I hope to do something similar and upload it for everyone here.
04-04-2007, 11:53 PM
Absolutely astonishing :O
04-05-2007, 12:48 AM
So what does this mean exactly? Was this shot to tape or hdmi output? Can you go into a little more detail about this post. Thanks
04-05-2007, 08:38 AM
That's pretty darn close. Well, I guess the names are similar, so why not the pictures? :)
04-05-2007, 09:10 AM
The HV20 is a crazy leap forward.
A mere 18 months ago, I bought a 3CCD SD Panasonic GS150 at Best Buy -- paid about $600 for it (ouch ). The video it produces...well, it looks a lot like video produced by most consumer cameras of the past 20 years.
I paid $925 for my HV20. The video it produces...looks a lot like that of the Arri D-20. Wow. :shocked:
04-07-2007, 02:02 PM
Crazy leap forward is for sure!
04-07-2007, 04:13 PM
Was the HV20 in Cine Mode or not?
04-07-2007, 04:36 PM
Good question Norbert. I'd like to see a comparison between progressive / cine_mode / interlaced.
04-07-2007, 08:48 PM
I'm not too much of a fan of CineMode. I swear the shutter is fixed at 1/24, that's just my 2 cents of observing my fastly moving finger or toes while switching to it from 1/48 fixed shutter in TV mode whilst moving my fingers at the same rate. I've done this indoor and outdoor and I notice CinemaMode is almost ALWAYS brighter/blurry. This also would explain why people are saying CineMode is "too soft". I shoot at 24p exclusively so my observations are not from just seeing the difference from going 60i to 24p. The HV20 takes a few seconds to switch modes from different framerates, you can switch between CineMode and TV mode instantly with the joystick, hence my observations with my fingers. I've owned the HV20 for 4 days now and shot stuff in all different lighting conditions and my fave setting is fixed shutter in what Canon calls TV mode. Also, if you turn the EXP, exposure up even the slightest in CineMode it always kicks in an even slower shutter, so I would stay away from CineMode unless you want to shoot stars or something. It, to me, is nothing like the gamma curves on the DVX. I'm not a fan of 1/24 especially FIXED 1/24. You can dial down sharpness two ways in the other modes besides CineMode so it is no biggie. I love the CONTRASTY 1080p images I get from this cam. It is really sweet. Who nees Arri anyway???? Come on Spielberg, make the switch.
04-07-2007, 10:15 PM
It, to me, is nothing like the gamma curves on the DVX. I'm not a fan of 1/24 especially FIXED 1/24.
I agree -- the gamma curves aren't as "DVX-like" as I anticipated. I've been shooting in CineMode, with mixed results. I will start experimenting with the other options.
I'd like to hear everyone's favorite HV20 settings...perhaps worthy fodder for another thread!
10-31-2007, 01:34 AM
Over at DVinfo there is a whole thread on Cinemode! Pro or Con. Cinemode seems better, however res takes a hit... The HV20 is a scary super performer. I just read about a DP over at CML that was blown away by how it beat out far better cameras with 3 chips. A camera at this price range doing this good is crazy. A1, H1 and HV20 review res chart test that camcorderinfo shot, shows the HV20 kicking the hell out of either the H1 or A1. I cant wait to see Brevis flip footage shot with the HV20. I look at the HV20 as a box with a kicking ass cmos chip in it.
I made this out of the C-Info site review tests. This comparison is just for fun, however it does show that little bugger is quite amazing..
11-02-2007, 01:40 AM
What is wrong with those pictures? They have horrible scaling artifacts going on, like someone did a pixel resize on a 1440x1080 to get it to 1920x1080. Looks horrid.