What TV stations are still shooting 4:3? I'm guessing only the smaller ones without budgets to upgrade. I'd highly reccommend to anyone thinking about shooting 4:3 on a HVX b/c it takes less P2 card space to instead shoot 720NP30. It is only 50mbps, so you can get over 2 hours on a 64GB card, if you shoot 4:3 safe you can crop the picture for broadcast, but have a 16:9 HD master for future proofing.
Is my HVX obsolete?
- Thread starter daveswan
- Start date
What TV stations are still shooting 4:3? I'm guessing only the smaller ones without budgets to upgrade. I'd highly reccommend to anyone thinking about shooting 4:3 on a HVX b/c it takes less P2 card space to instead shoot 720NP30. It is only 50mbps, so you can get over 2 hours on a 64GB card, if you shoot 4:3 safe you can crop the picture for broadcast, but have a 16:9 HD master for future proofing.
EDV
New member
A lot of TV content is still 4:3, especially on cable. It's not a matter of budget... in some countries, most people haven't upgraded to flat widescreens, so I guess it makes sense to use 4:3 sometimes. Regardless, this thread isn't about aspect ratio... the Pannys are still being used as you saw in the photo.
filmguy123
New member
obsolete is perhaps not the question, as use case plays a large role.
If you want to make stuff that has a desired aesthetic or a filmic look, or you're a freelancer/enthusiast/hobbyist I would say the HVX is pretty to close to obsolete aesthetically. But you probably already know that if you have seen content shot on newer cameras.
If you want to make stuff that has a desired aesthetic or a filmic look, or you're a freelancer/enthusiast/hobbyist I would say the HVX is pretty to close to obsolete aesthetically. But you probably already know that if you have seen content shot on newer cameras.
EDV
New member
I have to disagree here filmguy. The HVX / HPX is known for its "filmic" look ( even without a 35mm adapter ) Countless TV ads and music videos and even some Films can credit this. I have seen the latest and greatest from budget Pro cameras, and they look a bit too sharp to my eyes. I can't recall 35mm film being that sharp? CCDs vs CMOS I guess, but I like the richer colors of CCDs... especially in 4:2:2 , which by the way, is still broadcast standard.
Last edited:
David Jimerson
Moderator
The HVX has the Panasonic mojo. It has it, the DVX had it. That will never be obsolete.
This is really, I mean really boring http://www.remarkablefilms.com/icmi_sample.html but it's something I shot for a client the other day. The speaker was shot with the HVX at full zoom and the slides were shot with a Nikon D7000. The point is for straight out of the cam footage I think it's pretty good for a 2007 cam. Not perfect but the client loves it. I don't think the HVX is unusable yet.
filmguy123
New member
Filmic in what way? Color? 24p? Yup, HVX is great on both counts. Great codecs and 4:2:2. P2 recording is great.
As I said, it depends on use case. The reality is, the HVX produces terribly poor lowlight, can't offer shallow DoF, has poor DR, quiet a large crop factor compared to the s35 format, etc. Those are all pretty important... depending on your use case. Now, in a controlled lighting environment where DR can be controlled via lighting, shallow DoF is not desired, and lowlight is not an issue... great. Broadcast, great.
But frankly, the technology is very outdated in producing the aesthetic that most people desire.
In response to sharpness and color and CMOS sensors and newer cameras: you can dial down the sharpness dramatically on new cameras, something that most people don't do (and should). And the colors on the AF100 which uses CMOS are very rich.
Anyway, let's not kid ourselves here. The HVX still gets it done in some settings and some use cases, if you like the aesthetic. So, I stand by what I posted. For most freelance shooters shooting live events, etc. the HVX is very outdated in it's performance or ability to produce a filmic look.
I still own an HVX200, alongside with an AF100. Here's a couple pieces I did (5 years ago) on the HVX200:
http://vimeopro.com/brickwork/main/video/33047284
http://vimeopro.com/brickwork/main/video/33048494
And more recently on the AF100:
http://vimeopro.com/brickwork/main/video/63946714
Last edited:
EDV
New member
The HVX200 music video looked better than the other one. Crushed blacks and blown highlights didn't do it for me, it looks like stock lens footage with maybe some bad post choices... but the other video looked fairly good. Was that stock lens too? Because lets not forget, once you add a 35mm adapter and you start playing around with PL mounts and Zeiss lenses...the HVX don't look so old anymore. The AF100 look good... but frankly, colors still look 4:2:0 to me. Especially skin tones and greens... but also reds and yellows... the HVX's 4:2:2 color space has the edge here... but also, the fact that CCDs give you a different look than CMOS. If the HVX was 2/3" CCDs instead of 1/3"... we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I like the look of CCDs, and personally, I use the HPX170 +35mm adapter. I rather rely heavily on lighting skills than on the low light ability of a sensor.
David Jimerson
Moderator
OK, you originally said the HVX was obsolete "aesthetically." But here, you're giving a bunch of technical things it could do better.
You're also saying this specifically about its "filmic look," and then you describe the environment it excels in -- a controlled film set, where you create your "filmic" results.
If what you meant to say is that there are other cameras which can do better in a run-and-gun environment or by people who work on something other than a controlled film set, then you can make a case. But that's not really what you said.
The aesthetic of the HVX is quite pleasing and very, very filmic. And it's nearly exactly the same as the AF100, only with better color sampling.
EDV
New member
David Jimerson
Moderator
Well, it isn't even necessarily that. It's like a Jeep. It's like saying a Jeep is obsolete because other cars are better for the highway -- sure, the Jeep is still great for what it was designed for, but because other cars get better mileage on road trips, it's obsolete.
Surf it Mike
New member
I dont wish to rain on this parade......
I had to recently incorporate HVX footage into modern camera workflow, codecs & above all looks hence the following comments...
Please the world has moved on..... HVX was once a good camera. However there are so many modern cameras that now do so much more...... so much better...for so much less. Move on pay your respects but the HVX belongs to yesteryear.
Crucify me by all means. But it doesn't change the reality. Either demand will continue to decrease ( your shooing on what ! ) or the tech. components will start failing ....either way the same result.....move on.
I had to recently incorporate HVX footage into modern camera workflow, codecs & above all looks hence the following comments...
Please the world has moved on..... HVX was once a good camera. However there are so many modern cameras that now do so much more...... so much better...for so much less. Move on pay your respects but the HVX belongs to yesteryear.
Crucify me by all means. But it doesn't change the reality. Either demand will continue to decrease ( your shooing on what ! ) or the tech. components will start failing ....either way the same result.....move on.
Last edited:
EDV
New member
At the end of the day, it's not only what camera you use... there's a lot of other factors that come into play. To mention only two of them: lighting and web compression. Lighting can make a world of difference... it can make a good camera look amazing... or an amazing camera look ordinary if you get it wrong. The whole DSLR revolution is creating a generation of people that rely on the sensor's low light capabilities, instead of the craft of lighting a scene. Web compression: Like it or not, YouTube is becoming the new CableTV... and anything goes there. I have watched movies that were filmed on 35mm film so badly compressed, they look worse than a well compressed SD clip. Even films downloaded from bitTorrent look like crap a lot of the time, and by that I mean NOWHERE NEAR what they would look like in BluRay. And yet people still watch them... So to say that this camera or that camera matters that much, I think is ignoring all these other factors that come into play...
Zephyrnoid
New member
Very astute and lucid.
allow me to add some additional observations.
1) CODECS improve, bandwidth continues to widen and throughput also increases. While on a Bell Atlantic Video ( Now Verizon Wireless) team to develop ADSL for video over copper ( Cable won ) we struggles with the tech of the mid 90's. However, we were aware that broadband would arrive and the component tech would improve in sync and...
2) Here we are, 15 years later, still having that same discussion. "YouTube is becoming the new CableTV" is astute and it will all eventually be 2k-4k over ultraband ( prolly when I'm dead
3) "The whole DSLR revolution is creating a generation of people that rely on the sensor's low light capabilities, instead of the craft of lighting a scene" Absolutely! But it's not all bad. The craft of lighting isn't just about compensating for slow sensors or developing an ambience/mood or set via lighting. It's also about choosing to use available light IF it looks great as is or can be captured to convey the mood of a scene without enhancement or manipulation.
4) "I have watched movies that were filmed on 35mm film so badly compressed, they look worse than a well compressed SD clip" BUT as higher res becomes more accessible over the Internet, those old 35mm celluloids will gain new life as they are dragged out of archives and remastered digitally to take advantage of as yet undeveloped codecs.
It all comes to pass ( almost* ) we just have to be patient and work out butts off as we wait
* So where are the Jetsons' space cities? No where that's where .
David Jimerson
Moderator
That, too, is about technical stuff, not the "aesthetic" of the HVX. The other Panny cameras give pretty much exactly the same aesthetic. It is very, very easy to intercut HVX footage with that of the newer Panny cameras, aesthetically speaking.
Are there better choices for a myriad of technical capabilities and cost? Absolutely. Do they actually offer a better "aesthetic" or "filmic" look? No. Or at least not outside personal taste, as opposed to actual "obsolescence" of that aesthetic.
filmguy123
New member
Sorry, I almost spit out my milk (this is a true story, actually, I'm not saying that for dramatic effect). Did you just say the AF100 and the HVX200 have almost exactly the same aesthetic? By what measure? Color handling??
Oh come on! You've got to be joking, right? TECHNICAL specs are a way of describing aesthetic. Dynamic Range describes a HUGE and very practical part of the aesthetic a camera is going to deliver. Far more than the AVC-INTRA codec and 4:2:2!! Oh, the irony. The eye is far more sensitive to the impacts of low light and dynamic range than 4:2:0 color space VS 4:2:2 color space or the intra codec.
Let me phrase it different then: the AF100 or any large sensor cameras look sexy, the HVX200 and smaller CCD chip cameras look dated and video-ish.
Perhaps, or perhaps I was describing a news broadcast set... which is decidedly UNFILMIC, and which the HVX200 would fit VERY well in.
By the way, if it takes perfect hollywood lighting and a controlled environment to get the camera to look even semi-filmic, then I'm sorry but the camera does NOT have a filmic look. If that's the measure, than the iPhone 5 camera has a filmic look, too. The lighting and crew set made the scene look filmic. And even in perfect conditions with the HVX, you still loose DR, smooth highlight roll-offs, shallow depth of field unless you're at far telephoto wide open (and even that's not much), large format perspective, interchangeable lenses... which are all incredible important technical aspects to the aesthetic of a filmic look.
So what are you referring to? The Panny mojo and 4:2:2 color space making this camera look filmic? Yes, I'm sure any film directors would instantly be like "ohhh... yeah I thought the HVX200 looked pretty video-ish at first, but now that you're telling me this is 4:2:2... yeah man! FILM!"
You're right, it's not what I said. That's because my point was to say it's ONLY in the most perfectly controlled cases that the HVX even stands at a chance at producing something that could give a sort of filmic look. But even in the most perfect of controlled and studio cases, the HVX still gets eaten alive put next to any other modern camera.
Based on colors only... sure.
I went to a lighting workshop last week with Alex Buono, who is a DP, and this was discussed. His take? DSLR's don't save bad lighting, they allow you to use LESS quantity of light... which is a GOOD thing. It means that natural light can be a key, and you can use a flag to create a shadow and ratio. This is much better than needing to own and lug around thousands of dollars in lighting gear.
Not having to light a scene with any extra light ALLOWS creativity, because you can focus on the artistic use of available light rather than a technical need to blast subjects with artificial light just to get something to look decent. When you have plenty of light, whether natural or artificial, the same rules apply to using and manipulating it well to "paint" your scene.
You're right. Lots of people with DSLRs don't use light at ALL, and it shows.
Yes, I suppose everything comes down to personal taste. Nothing wrong with that at all. And I'm not trying to insult that in anyway. But when some we are talking about a "filmic" look, we use that word to describe a certain aesthetic. And I'm sorry, but...
^ This
I still work side by side the AF100 and the HVX200 on shoots at times as I own both. I don't like to do it. I'm quite aware of the aesthetic it produces. It produces really nice VIDEO with really nice colors and a great codec. At times, in perfect conditions, it can give some nice shots... but not nearly as nice as anything modern. And most of the time, it just looks like video.
Last edited:
David Jimerson
Moderator
OK, filmguy. I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but there is no fruit to be harvested in what will amount to a "nuh-uh!" and "uh-huh!!!" exchange. I still think you're using the word "aesthetic" to mean something different than I do, and I have no idea what you must consider "filmic" to say the HVX isn't, but there's no point in going around and around about it. I'm entirely content to let people look at the images and make up their own minds; I really don't care what anyone shoots with.
Zephyrnoid
New member
About the NEXT big thing...
http://www.ultrahdtv.net/what-is-ultra-hdtv/#.UgT1-hYebA4
http://www.ultrahdtv.net/what-is-ultra-hdtv/#.UgT1-hYebA4