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

[Rhydon]

Common guys. The HVX is soft compared to the HD100. Plain and simple. You could go on for days about how your focus wasnt a millimeter on what it was suppose to be, where will that get you? nowhere. The grabs speak for themselves.

The HD100 shoots 720x1280 (no pixel shift), the HVX shoots 720x960 (with pixel shift). Clearly the HD100 takes the resolution win.

If some STILL think these grabs are incorrect, then go find some good sharp ones. Post them, and we will compare. Otherwise, dont quote the HD100 as not recording as much detail as the HVX, as it is simply NOT TRUE.

 

[Neopics]

Ultimately, the only fair comparisons would be of the same subject matter. Joelnet's have been the most appropriate so far, though even I am suprised at how soft the HVX was. Perhaps the iris was stopped down enough that diffraction was the problem. (Do you recall the f-stop, Joelnet?)

If any HVX owners in the Vancouver BC area are up for a day of comparison shooting, I can bring the HD100.

 

[Rhydon]

if anyone has an HD100 in the Toronto/Hamilton/Niagara area id gladly set up a meet.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

I bet I could make the HD100 softer than the HVX by shooting out of focus footage. :evil:

I'm just kidding. I don't think soft focus shots are representative of most of what I've seen come from the HVX. The HD100 shots do look in focus. I really think people need monitoring for HD, if nothing else to avoid soft focus shots.

How did this turn into a my camera is better than yours argument? How does every post turn into that. Can we move past that?

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Common guys. The HVX is soft compared to the HD100

Heh heh heh...

First of all Rhydon; your Grabs can't speak for anything. Totally not harshing you but that grab is not indicative of what we have seen the HVX pulling off. That grab is horrible. (I am totally not baggin on you just the grab! This is not an attack!)



You want to scream soft ? But, but how are the other folks getting such great results?

-

Being soft over one or the other is not my issue; my issue is the crap footage being displayed as absolute.

-

Joelnet

I noticed that too (the Latitude); the 100 IRE was way over and the Black 0 IRE was under (7.5 ?).

What did you have the HVX set to ?

-

Compare the grabs and you can see a total difference in the exposure levels of the subject matter.

-

 

[joelnet]

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.

Yeah - I'll just drag a reference monitor everywhere I want to shoot while my JVC buddy nails it with the patented focus assist thingy.

Even if was mostly blind the viewfinder shows how many feet away you're focused. I didn't miss by 20 feet. I zoomed in and got close.. and the people are moving. We'd see the wall or the front row or something looking good if I missed. Now I did manage to grab HIS camera and shoot... and when we watched it back he said "dang you're nailing the focus fast."

I was probably at F4 or 5.6 in these shots... but the metadata is gone...could be 2.8. It's bright sun and I'm on the 1/64 ND invoking 4:2:2 with the wind in my sails and tightly corsetted women cheering me on.

We shouldn't even be talking about what I needed to do to be as good as a cheaper camera with a "crappy lens" recording to H.... D....

Be nice now - It's defective and it's going back. A lot of SSE cameras have gone back to JVC. I had a DP friend of 10 years friend come over and tell me "I hate to say this, but that's soft". Jan has very graciously said she wants to see the unit - and hopefully let everyone know mine's out of spec. Just waiting on my return authorization.

 

[booth]

Common guys. The HVX is soft compared to the HD100. Plain and simple. You could go on for days about how your focus wasnt a millimeter on what it was suppose to be, where will that get you? nowhere. The grabs speak for themselves.

The HD100 shoots 720x1280 (no pixel shift), the HVX shoots 720x960 (with pixel shift). Clearly the HD100 takes the resolution win.

If some STILL think these grabs are incorrect, then go find some good sharp ones. Post them, and we will compare. Otherwise, dont quote the HD100 as not recording as much detail as the HVX, as it is simply NOT TRUE.

Sorry for repeating myself again...

Rhydon, I respect your opinion but we found with a very high end/unforgiving monitor that actually the difference is minimal and that in actual fact the HD100 was recording 'slightly' less detail. This took me completely by surprise, but because of that I can quote that on that occasion this is what we found.

The footage was going through a Davinci2k (http://www.davsys.com/2k.htm) and being displayed on a £25,000 HD CRT post production monitor.

An example is that on the 4 way shootout screengrabs, on all the other cameras we could read the smallest text on the color chart - except the HD100.

I don't own any of these cameras so have no bias - this is just what we found.

 

[Rhydon]

Heh heh heh...

First of all Rhydon; your Grabs can't speak for anything. Totally not harshing you but that grab is not indicative of what we have seen the HVX pulling off. That grab is horrible. (I am totally not baggin on you just the grab! This is not an attack!)


You want to scream soft ? But, but how are the other folks getting such great results?

Being soft over one or the other is not my issue; my issue is the crap footage being displayed as absolute.-

Accepted. I do not want my grabs to be used as a comparison.

You claim that us folks are getting such good results... But where? i havnt seen a single 720x960 shot (blownup to standard spec 720x1280) that looks sharp. John, find me these glourious shots with more recorded detail than the HD100 and i will take back everything i have said...

I too am not trying to act demeaning in any way, if i seem to, please dont take it that way. I just would like to see some honest chat compairing the HVX to the HD100.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Yeah - I'll just drag a reference monitor everywhere I want to shoot while my JVC buddy nails it with the patented focus assist thingy.

Even if was mostly blind the viewfinder shows how many feet away you're focused. I didn't miss by 20 feet. I zoomed in and got close.. and the people are moving. We'd see the wall or the front row or something looking good if I missed. Now I did manage to grab HIS camera and shoot... and when we watched it back he said "dang you're nailing the focus fast."

I was probably at F4 or 5.6 in these shots... but the metadata is gone...could be 2.8. It's bright sun and I'm on the 1/64 ND invoking 4:2:2 with the wind in my sails and tightly corsetted women cheering me on.

Perhaps Panasonic will look into addressing this issue on future models? Improving the LCD ?

One thing we probably should remember is that these are not Handycams. We're not out shooting the Barabque with Aunt May and Uncle Bodie.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Be nice now - It's defective and it's going back. A lot of SSE cameras have gone back to JVC. I had a DP friend of 10 years friend come over and tell me "I hate to say this, but that's soft". Jan has very graciously said she wants to see the unit - and hopefully let everyone know mine's out of spec. Just waiting on my return authorization.

Joel I hope you get that sorted out. I just don't want any users to come to any rash conclusions about your stills. It sounds like the camera is a little wonky, but sometimes it comes down to operator error. People need to realize that HD is not as forgiving for focusing as SD.

 

[Rhydon]

Rhydon, I respect your opinion but we found with a very high end/unforgiving monitor that actually the difference is minimal and that in actual fact the HD100 was recording 'slightly' less detail. This took me completely by surprise, but because of that I can quote that on that occasion this is what we found.

An example is that on the 4 way shootout screengrabs, on all the other cameras we could read the smallest text on the color chart - except the HD100.

I don't own any of these cameras so have no bias - this is just what we found.

Interesting. Thank you for posting your results.

But i, and others, can only take your findings with a grain of salt since you have no proof of your tests or grabs to refer to as examples.

I too went over the 4 way shoot out, but determined the JVC as having more detail. Looking at the quicktime clip of the 3 720p cameras will confirm this. It has a slightly sharper image with more of an "exact" edge.

Yes i have seen ALL material from those tests.

 

[booth]

Y'see dragging a monitor around isn't a problem for me because we'll be shooting a drama so there will be a monitor attached all the time. I think the same will be true for a lot of drama shooters - for event shooters I can see where the crappy LCD would be a hindrance, though isn't the viewfinder supposed to be b/w and sharp?

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Interesting. Thank you for posting your results.

But i, and others, can only take your findings with a grain of salt since you have no proof of your tests or grabs to refer to as examples.

I too went over the 4 way shoot out, but determined the JVC as having more detail. Looking at the quicktime clip of the 3 720p cameras will confirm this. It has a slightly sharper image with more of an "exact" edge.

Yes i have seen ALL material from those tests.

Perfect example of why comparisons are sometimes moot and people need to choose on what their shooting needs are and what camera they're most comfortable with. Rhydon, even your stills have to be taken with a grain of salt because you didn't shoot the same scene with both your cameras and focus was soft in one of them. Our eyes see different things. I would like people to get away from trying to come up with absolute conclusive tests because people don't review the results objectively.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

You claim that us folks are getting such good results... But where? i havnt seen a single 720x960 shot (blownup to standard spec 720x1280) that looks sharp. John, find me these glourious shots with more recorded detail than the HD100 and i will take back everything i have said...

Whoa whoa whoa

I don't care which is softer or sharper. They all look fabulous. The neglible difference in sharpness is not even a factor for me.

-

I can make no judgement unless i see the results up close and personal; which I have not.

-

 

[Rhydon]

OK, something we all agree upon.

With HDV, DVCPROHD, and all the new 1/3" chips comming out, its very hard to determine which is best until you see it and play with it.

Im gonna go play with that HD100 as soon as i get back, just to see what its like in real life

 

[booth]

Interesting. Thank you for posting your results.

But i, and others, can only take your findings with a grain of salt since you have no proof of your tests or grabs to refer to as examples.

Well hopefully we will soon

For now this is what our colorist said - this was about the 4-way shootout stuff:

The detail on the JVC camera is definitely not as much as on the Z1 where i could still read the words on the alignment chart. (on the JVC its all pixels) thats 720 vs 1080 I suppose.
The f900 is wonderfully clear as you'd expect. The HVX is a bit better than the JVC ( i can just about make it out kinda sorta)
the canon is OK
so at HD in terms of DETAIL the JVC is worst.

I must note that the 720p stuff was (hardware) uprezzed to 1920x1080 and the H1 and Z1 were NOT deinterlaced. The deinterlacing would probably have reduced it, but this hardware deinterlacer is amazing so it would have made a better job of it than me at my PC

 

[D_and_G]

Both cameras gave very pleasing results, and the two DPs concluded part one of their test by acknowledging the undoubted quality of the images – certainly good enough for HDTV production in the areas of news, current affairs and reality TV, for instance. But when it came to big budget movies and high-end TV drama, there were some reservations, the main two being the quality of the optics and the problem of over-wide depth of field (DOF). There are also possible question marks over the robustness of the heavily compressed HDV signal once it has undergone significant post processing (to be dealt with in detail in part three)

The depth of field issue is to do with the size of the chip and is a difficult limitation to overcome. Very narrow depth of field is a hallmark of high-end film production and quality drama. Rodney himself uses very narrow focus shots throughout 24. Of course, DOF can be narrowed considerably by using telephoto focal lengths and exposing to ensure the iris is wide open, but shooting telephoto is not always desirable or even practical, so some other method needs to be employed to ensure more readily available narrow DOF if these cameras are going to make serious headway into high-end drama.

Just thought I'd try to get this back on track. The operative word in the article was ALL cameras. The HVX will produce amazing imagery, as will the JVC, under the right conditions and with the people behind and in front of the camera. My only concern is addressing possible weakness' in each camera to realize its full potential. Maybe the HVX has less resolution - maybe. The more apt question is how do we utilize the HVX's strengths to best effect ? Or how do we get the best out of the JVC, that has its own limitations ?

For Rodney's needs DOF is paramount. For others it would be less so. I know shooting narrative, I would almost always have a monitor, and the P2 workflow would fit right in. For others it might be a different story altogether. So,for me, I think its counterproductive to say that each camera doesn't have its own worth - it depends on the type of production, the people involved, budget and needed aesthetics. There is no definitive overall winner. The triple crown winnner who crosses the line could be any type of horse depending on your needs.

What I liked about the article was that although all cameras were comparable, the DP was applying specific needs and wants (DOF) to the footage he was going for and was coming up with specific recommendations for his choices.

If people who post a crappy grab could say, "Here's what I got and here's what I did to make it better" or "Let's toss around some ideas to get the best possible improvement on this" ... just a thought.

All of these cams are 1/3rd" chip cams. They have built in obstacles to getting certain performability (if that's a word ) The trick is in analysing your needs, applying creative adaptions and overcoming the limitations.

I hope to contribute some of them when I pick up my own camera, and finalize preproduction. I know there are some talented people on this site, and they'll do the same. :beer:

Cheers.

 

[jimagine]

I took a two day class on the JVC and rented one for a weekend. HDV just isn't good enough.

You must have higher standards than me and a whole lot of top producers. Not good enough? that's simply silly. In virtually every objective test so far it has been rated as as good or superior to the HVX across the board.
It's more than good enough.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I missed this comment !

Good enough for what ? Cannes ?

 

[booth]

You must have higher standards than me and a whole lot of top producers. Not good enough? that's simply silly. In virtually every objective test so far it has been rated as as good or superior to the HVX across the board.
It's more than good enough.

Our company did an objective test and the HD100 didn't come out the same or superior to the HVX.

I do have to note that we're being that objective that we're doing another test to make fully sure - and of course because we can get the HD100 a lot cheaper. Cheaper to do another test than find we've wasted the extra money bagging the HVX when the HD100 will do the job.