DP of "24" hit tv show does a adapter and camera shootout

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barry_Green said:
Then something's wrong, because I've shot plenty of frame grabs from both and they're very comparable, with the HVX having an advantage in vertical res and the JVC having an advantage in horizontal res. They net out about the same, as the resolution chart shows.
3-Cams-Charts.JPG


Don't forget that the JVC is grossly oversharpened by default. You have to turn the edge enhancement down to "MIN" to get it under control, and even then it's still more sharpened than some of us prefer, but "OFF" is truly off, which seems too far. At the 4-cam comparison we really wished there was a setting between "MIN" and "OFF".

If you're looking at the stock edge enhancement the JVC can look sharper, but it's not resolved detail, it's artificial edge enhancement. Jack an HVX up to +7 (maximum edge enhancement) and it'll look about like the JVC at default edge enhancement.
Click to expand...
This is almost exactly what we found when running footage through a Davinci2k with a £25,000 CRT monitor which shows all the flaws in an image. Though we actually saw less detail in the text on colour charts with the HD100, and some were just pixels whilst with the other cameras (H1, HVX, Z1, Varicam, Cinealta) you could still read the smallest text.

This was also found when using the frame grabs from the four-way shoot out too.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
From reading the article I think that they really do not understand the difference between HDV and DVCPRO HD. That's weird. And I can only say I have one set of shots that totally counter their findings on the noise and mine is on a bright blue sky.

Meanwhile there are members of the ASC that own an HVX, like James Cameron, Steven Soderberg, and Francis Ford Coppola.
Click to expand...
At ASC (American Society of Cinematographers)? Seriously?.. Cameron, Coppola or even Soderberg? I already knew that Steven operates but Francis or James.. well, I think that they really do not understand the difference between.. :2vrolijk_08:

edit :engel017: I thought they were.. they are directors.. :violin:
 
Last edited:
evinsky said:
JVC: Pros
Interchangeable lens
Slightly better DR (than the HVX)
Long record times

JVC: Cons
Coke bottle lens (Hopefully replaced soon)
HDV, 4:2:0 colorspace
No native 24P editing (This is really the deal breaker for me)
Strange highlight rendering past 105IRE (Mauve?)

From my testing there is not a visable difference in noise or recorded detail between this camera and the HVX.
Click to expand...

Under cons, you might want to add the horizontal blue smearing that occurs when panning across anything with a specular highlight (like chrome). This is 100% duplicatable and JVC has acknowledged it. In addition, the vertical smearing on lights seems worse than other 1/3" cameras.

Everyone seems hung up on resolution here. it's important, as is noise, but there are some other deal breakers out there... like the blockiness that HDV shows under certain circumstances. I too found that I had to boost the color gain on the JVC to get color in areas where a DSR-300 had lots of color. Bossting the color gain resulted in more noise.
 
Glad someone is actually putting the JVC to use.. It's such an ugly looking camera with that giant floating earpiece that kind of looks like a lower extremity opening... but we won't go there.

I've seen some nice footage from the camera but it really poops the bed when you do any kind of stylized and hyper speed camera movements. We did a small kungfu fight scene with the JVC prior to me getting the HVX and the results were less than impressive. Now on the HVX though.. seems to really handle movement so friggin well and even though she's a fattie.. still pulling in the interest from all of us men. I mean, what's the ratio of cameras in operation now? I'd bet that every month goes buy... more and more of it is Panasonic. I already have two friends who've sold their JVCs for future HVX purchases.

Maybe the higher res of the JVC and the Canon is jamming their sales through the roof...creating lines.. causing fights and genrerally getting people all crazy... or maybe I'm wrong on this end and it's the fattie camera that I'm calling Shirley. Surely you can't be serious.. I am and my cam is named Shirley
 
Last edited:
John_Hudson said:
Rhydon?

Were you going to at least focus and expose the shot properly ? If that's what you have with the HVX then I'd say you have your work cut out for you.

I can now honestly say I have seen the worst grab yet off the HVX.

Here is a nice link that may help you

http://www.schoolofphotography.com/basic_photography_course.html
Click to expand...


Johny! Ouch! That hurt! That shot is at full wide, all in focus according to my camera. However, that was with my initial HVX, which i had some lens issues with, i cant see the issues in that shot, to me thats what the HVX looks like. Its not as sharp and crisp in fine detail (such as trees) than the 720x1280 JVC. Even look at the 5 cam shootout by adam wilt.

Look at the frame grabs in the footage section, the xmf files in particular, they are just as "sharp".

Il make you a deal. Find me a shot. One that looks beautiful to you, and we will compare the recorded detail.

Otherwise, guys, leave my front lawn alone! lol.
 
Last edited:
Rhydon said:
Johny! Ouch! That hurt! That shot is at full wide, all in focus according to my camera. However, that was with my initial HVX, which i had some lens issues with, i cant see the issues in that shot, to me thats what the HVX looks like. Its not as sharp and crisp in fine detail (such as trees) than the 720x1280 JVC. Even look at the 5 cam shootout by adam wilt.

Look at the frame grabs in the footage section, the xmf files in particular, they are just as "sharp".

Il make you a deal. Find me a shot. One that looks beautiful to you, and we will compare the recorded detail.

Otherwise, guys, leave my front lawn alone! lol.
Click to expand...

That screen grab is pretty bad, I thought it was a joke when you first posted it. Then I looked at it and thought you'd shot something, played it back and then re-shot it off the monitor screen :shocked:
 
booth said:
That screen grab is pretty bad, I thought it was a joke when you first posted it. Then I looked at it and thought you'd shot something, played it back and then re-shot it off the monitor screen :shocked:
Click to expand...

Here's another joke for you - hahaha - I can't focus. On "ANYTHING"? And it's obviously not full wide angle, but I could be at a slightly wider aperture. So there you go - motion, colors, latitude, resolution. Literally EVERYTHING I shoot looks like this. And this is the GOOD frame... I didn't just grab a bad one on purpose here.



Ren14_HVX200vsHD100.jpg
 
These aren't identical as we didn't get scientific about this but if you'd like to. experience my pain more fully.
HVX Tiffs:
http://www.bigsmile.com/uploads/Ren_HVX200.zip

HD-100 tiffs
http://members.cox.net/proaudio4/comp1.tif
http://members.cox.net/proaudio4/comp2.tif
http://members.cox.net/proaudio4/comp3.tif
http://members.cox.net/proaudio4/comp4.tif
http://members.cox.net/proaudio4/comp5.tif
http://members.cox.net/proaudio4/comp6.tif


And if you hunt around you'll find a LOT of action footage on the HD-100 that looks great and a lot of soft HVX footage. Go look at the wolves footage again... is anything in that frame as sharp as the sharp stuff in those HD-100 tiffs? And it's not like there's crazy artificial detail there... he's dialed back to -6 and I'm at +3 on the HVX here. C'mon - you shouldn't be able to shoot stuff this soft even on accident.
 
You sure you haven't got a defective HVX Joelnet? That screen grab also looks especially poor - it looks like you've just taken a DV image and blown it up in Pottyshop.

I mean, even the soft looking footage (ie, wolves footage) from the HVX looks nice - and doesn't exhibit jaggies like yours does.
 
And the absurdity continues, blah, blah, blah... I just want to know the girl in the red dress !
Aloha
-A
 
booth said:
You sure you haven't got a defective HVX Joelnet? That screen grab also looks especially poor - it looks like you've just taken a DV image and blown it up in Pottyshop.

I mean, even the soft looking footage (ie, wolves footage) from the HVX looks nice - and doesn't exhibit jaggies like yours does.
Click to expand...

No I'm not sure mine's not defective... I thought it was soft from the start... but frankly - I see A LOT of stuff posted that looks this way so I'm not convinced it's atypical.

And if you go looking you'll find A LOT of JVC stuff that looks like my friend's stuff.

You can look at my screenshot and know there are literally no settings that will get it to look as good, much less better.
 
I've seen lots of poorly shot stuff on the HD100, but I've seen just the same amount of really good stuff shot with the HD100. The same can be said for the footage from the HVX200.

It's difficult getting all of these conflicting views, and from the small test that we did with the Davinci (note that we're post-processing with really high-end gear, so if the Davinci likes it then we like it) the HVX200 was actually capturing more detail than the HD100. So interesting that other people are getting different results. I can't wait to do some more extensive tests and see for myself fully in a variety of circumstances how each camera copes. My colleagues work keeps getting in the way though!

HVX200 or HD100... Choices, choices...
 
Last edited:
I noticed that too, Isaac.

They are also overexposed on the highlights (Expose for the highlights is what I reccomend.) The whites are off the 100 IRE chart on my monitor.

Come on guys; if you shoot like shite you are going to get shite.

-
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Joelnet are you using a monitor to focus with your HVX? Just looks like you're not in focus.
Click to expand...

So you think I probably just focused on ininity? Heh... look, I had 50 feet in the there to hit SOMETHING. It's soft... that's what soft looks like.

But to answer - yes, I zoomed on the girl (cause... well you gotta pick something ;-) and used the focus assist.
 
Although it's not exactly the same scene, I have some similar shots from the HD100 that could be compared to Rhydon's park shot:

Rhydon's HVX200:

HVX.jpg


Neopics HD100:


HD100-4-720.jpg


HD100-2-720.jpg


HD100-3-720.jpg


I have no bias of one camera over the other (in fact, I really wanted the HVX200 but was forced to get the HD100 because of the delays). But to my eye, the HD100 looks sharper. (These are with detail is set to "MINIMUM".)
 
John_Hudson said:
I noticed that too, Isaac.

They are also overexposed on the highlights (Expose for the highlights is what I reccomend.) The whites are off the 100 IRE chart on my monitor.

Come on guys; if you shoot like poo pooe you are going to get poo pooe.

-
Click to expand...


Look at the friggin' shadows. I'm supposed to drop the exposure MORE? This was a torture test... it's BRIGHT outdoor light and shadows. Look at the shadows AND the highlights on the JVC.

I was shooting within one stop of him... and I've got 4:2:2 working for me luckily. Think about what you're are saying... I'm not 5 stops over and grabbing a bunch of shadow detail here.

That's why I didn't post this stuff before... I knew I'd have to walk everyone out there with us before they'd believe it.
 
joelnet said:
But to answer - yes, I zoomed on the girl (cause... well you gotta pick something ;-) and used the focus assist.
Click to expand...

From what I can see I think you need a monitor for proper focusing. Bob Gundu just posted some HVX footage in the clips section that looks much sharper than what you posted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top