16mm X HVX FOOOOOTAGE!!

Hi Barry,
the settings of hvx:

720 24 PN
Detail level -2
V detail -1
coring 0
chroma level -2
phase 0
ires level -2
gamma cinelike v
matrix cinelike
skin tone on

i wish have a HD monitor there!!!
 
So, let's be clear -- you got results that are within 95% of S16mm film that's been graded on a DaVinci, and you did it without an HD monitor at all, and you did it shooting in the lesser mode of 720p instead of 1080...

... that's darn impressive! :) Excellent job!

Again, thanks for coming to the community, for taking the time to make the comparison and to share it with us!
 
Need to take a critical look.

Need to take a critical look.

Seriously, guys, take a good look at those full-sized stills (the #2 ones). We have people going back and forth here on their arguments. First people are gushing about how this shows that "digital has caught up to film", and then if anyone points out flaws in the digital image, someone jumps in with, "what do you want from a $6000 camera?"

So which is the point? Is the point here that the HVX is as good (or nearly) as 16? That's bunk. Take a look at the noisy, mottled skin tones. Look at the face of the drummer. Look at the back of the keyboard: On 16, it has some grain, but on the HVX it's a noisy mess. On that same keyboard panel, look at the "6" in SP76. It's pretty clean on 16, but barely (if at all) legible on the HVX.

Look at the red triangles: smooth angles on the 16, aliased and ringing on the HVX. Granted, the sharpness need to be zeroed out on the video camera to judge that kind of stuff fairly, but let's get real here folks. And what about keying? You can scan the film at 4:4:4.

Is the point that the HVX is good for $6000? Now that one holds water.

Aside from quibbles about how the HVX was set, this full-frame set is a valuable comparison. Thanks for posting!
 
thanks Baremis for the comparo.

The only (relatively) real difference is in the skin tones.

If you use normal color matrix, and add a little saturation (to compensate for the reduced saturation of the normal color matrix), you should be 99% of the S16 color palette.

The pink color will also be more S16 like.

thanks for sharing. Great job.
 
stokestack said:
"what do you want from a $6000 camera?"
Click to expand...

You're misquoting me. I said:

Dude! You're complaining about THAT? It's a six thousand dollar camera!
Click to expand...

I was responding to Xray's comment about a slight edge on the back of the bassist's head and that you have to zoom in to PIXEL level to see it. After that someone else commented that it might not even be the camera but, rather, the jpeg of the screen capture.

I regret saying it at all. Sorry to get defensive, but it was early in the morning when I read the troll's posts.

At the time I thought my statement was in context with what Xray was complaining about.

Sometimes some of the users in this group are exceedinly nit-picky and Xray was a little overly nit-picky for me. I should have kept my mouth shut.

I bought the camera and it's exceptional no matter the cost. The next step up for me would be a Varicam and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Well Mike, sometimes it´s hard to give any form of criticism on this site, there are always users/buyers who take offence on that and start nit-picky on the opinion of someone else. Look over wat I said, and think again.

B.t.w Even a 500$ consumer camcorder today gives a better videosignal than a 6.000$ camera 10 years ago.
 
stokestack said:
So which is the point? Is the point here that the HVX is as good (or nearly) as 16? That's bunk. Take a look at the noisy, mottled skin tones. Look at the face of the drummer. Look at the back of the keyboard: On 16, it has some grain, but on the HVX it's a noisy mess. On that same keyboard panel, look at the "6" in SP76. It's pretty clean on 16, but barely (if at all) legible on the HVX.

Look at the red triangles: smooth angles on the 16, aliased and ringing on the HVX. Granted, the sharpness need to be zeroed out on the video camera to judge that kind of stuff fairly, but let's get real here folks. And what about keying? You can scan the film at 4:4:4.
Click to expand...

You have to take note what each piece of material was graded with - I'd be willing to bet money that the Davinci2k would get rid of the aliasing and ringing if used to grade that HVX footage. I know not everyone has access to a Davinci but the 16mm stock was graded with it. It's the same with the grain, the Davinci would minimise some of that 'noisy mess'.
 
I like what I'm seeing with the images. I can see the differences but I doubt most "normal" people would even notice those. The only thing I can pick out that's very noticeable is the purplish tint on the white sheets on the right side of the HVX image: http://www.brokolis.com.br/frames/hvx2.jpg

Does anybody know what the cause/solution of that might be?
 
I'm pretty happy with the results because I'm also considering using a HVX (or a XL-H1) for some future projects, but let's not make a rule based on one single example shot under very specific lighting conditions.

If you take an outdoor shot, for example, the results will be way different.

Watch this clip shot by one of the members of this forum for reference:

http://homepage.mac.com/acoreasc/iMovieTheater21.html

That doesn't invalidate the comparison, of course, and I'm glad Paulo spent some time to share these clips with us, but you cannot merely oversimplify the results by saying the HVX200 is a perfect alternative to Super 16mm. In some cases it is ... not in all situations.
 
Last edited:
Ropbo, that is some gorgeous footage. Has a kind of Huck-Fin vibe to it. Keep rockin' that super 16mm. I'm jealous of your Arri SR2 :beer: -

The HVX is quite the versatile little cam. It's like the swiss army knife for cams in this price bracket.
 
Last edited:
D_and_G said:
Ropbo, that is some gorgeous footage. Has a kind of Huck-Fin vibe to it. Keep rockin' that super 16mm. I'm jealous of your Arri SR2 :beer: -
.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, it wasn't shot by me. It was filmed by another member of this forum:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=45167

(by the way, Adrian if you're reading this, I hope you don't mind my posting this here)

But I gotta agree with you, the quality is really amazing.
 
Last edited:
hey ropbo ..nice link..

http://homepage.mac.com/acoreasc/iMovieTheater21.html


been watching some of the other trailors on there and they look great..

Freezer Burn preview looks fab and shot in 24p on dvx100.. just shows that along with good lighting , movement angles and direction its not just image quality that makes something filmic.

and i think with the shots we have seen with the HVX , at present ive not seen any complete projects with it , just short example shots ..so we gonna view them in "techy" mode..as there isnt a complete picture we can see it and "feel " what we see...apart from viewing the visual image.

what i mean is , when u see a film , u can get lost in it ..so you dont JUST look at the image for its image sake,and notice imperfections ect.

so..i reckon when complete projects start to show up ..be it long or short few min pieces...thats when we will see what the HVX can do.. be it good or bad.

cheers
 
Last edited:
evinsky said:
I know this sounds amazing but, I kid you not, it is true. This little camera really shines when blown up. And these were all shot 720, I think 1080 would do even better. I can't wait to try.
Click to expand...

Let's put this test into perspective. Most people on this site are interested in making the best looking movies they can for a very small budget. If a $6,000 camera can get these excellent results, this is exciting, groundbreaking news!
If you look at the success of Blair Witch, Open Water, 28 Days Later, The Celebration, movies with picture quality FAR inferior to what the HVX can do... This is so exciting because it makes someone's little micro-budget HVX movie, if done well, have a better chance at getting distribution.

I don't think the HVX is better quality than shooting Super16. (well, at that Plastercity screening it looked better, but that was only because they showed a truly crappy Super16 clip).
With D.I.'s, well-shot Super16 with finer grain filmstocks and degraining software in post can make it indistinguishable from 35! I've seen it.
Super16 can look great, as good as 35mm film. But it's also cost prohibitive for many micro-budget filmmakers.

I was at that Plastercity screening, and I agree with Evinsky, the HVX footage truly shined on the big screen. Interior, Exterior, all kinds of lighting, all kinds of shots, it looked awesome on a 30' screen with 2K projection.
What more could you ask for?

Thanks for doing this test! It further proves that the HVX can be a viable, cost-effective alternative to shooting on film.

Richard
 
Last edited:
What I am seeng is that detail coring gives HVX200 that horrible plastic look to things that I have seen before since I am not seeing it on this comparison shot with coring put to 0

I guess it may be good for getting rid of some noise but I honestly prefer noise to the plastic llok
 
R Gale said:
Let's put this test into perspective. Most people on this site are interested in making the best looking movies they can for a very small budget. If a $6,000 camera can get these excellent results, this is exciting, groundbreaking news for most of us.
Look at the success of Blair Witch, Open Water, 28 Days Later, The Celebration, movies with picture quality FAR inferior to what the HVX can do. This is so exciting because it makes someone's little micro-budget movie, if done well, have a better chance at getting distribution.
Click to expand...

Here, here! Good post, and what we've also got to remember is that films like 28 Days Later had a heck of a lot of work done to them in post-production too, so imagine what a HVX project would look like with the same treatment.
 
R Gale said:
Let's put this test into perspective. Most people on this site are interested in making the best looking movies they can for a very small budget. If a $6,000 camera can get these excellent results, this is exciting, groundbreaking news!

If you look at the success of Blair Witch, Open Water, 28 Days Later, The Celebration, movies with picture quality FAR inferior to what the HVX can do... This is so exciting because it makes someone's little micro-budget HVX movie, if done well, have a better chance at getting distribution.

I don't think the HVX is better quality than shooting Super16. (well, at that Plastercity screening it looked better, but that was only because they showed a truly crappy Super16 clip).

With D.I.'s, well-shot Super16 with finer grain filmstocks and degraining software in post can make it indistinguishable from 35! I've seen it.
Super16 can look great, as good as 35mm film. But it's also cost prohibitive for many micro-budget filmmakers.

I was at that Plastercity screening, and I agree with Evinsky, the HVX footage truly shined on the big screen. Interior, Exterior, all kinds of lighting, all kinds of shots, it looked awesome on a 30' screen with 2K projection.
What more could you ask for?

Thanks for doing this test! It further proves that the HVX can be a viable, cost-effective alternative to shooting on film.

Richard
Click to expand...

Great post ! I agree 100%

Why someone would take the time to pick apart every minor detail is comical at best. Some folks are never happy no matter what you give them; too hot, too cold and never just right.


Every few years the industry get's more and more exciting for the indiependent filmmaker! And to think prior to 28 Days Later I had gi9ven the idea of ever even haing a chance of making my own film (Without mortgaging the house of course)
 
R Gale said:
Let's put this test into perspective. Most people on this site are interested in making the best looking movies they can for a very small budget. If a $6,000 camera can get these excellent results, this is exciting, groundbreaking news!
Click to expand...

I'm just not getting too excited over web-videos. Downresized like that, any video would look "great".

Same goes for still cameras, debating film vs. digital is so impossible over jpg-images.

If a 6000$ camera makes nice web-videos, I wouldn't call it groundbreaking news... If you make web-videos from 1080 material, I bet the will look very nice :costumed-smiley-047

Never the less, does anybody have done sd (to tape) comparisons with the dvx100 using squeeze-mode :)

:kali:
 
Pukki said:
I'm just not getting too excited over web-videos. Downresized like that, any video would look "great".
Click to expand...

Disagreed. There are lots of terrible looking web videos about - compressors don't usually like noise and work best with higher quality sources.

You should take a look at some footage straight from the camera - it's very nice y'know.

Here's a link to a link to some uncompressed footage: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=451244&postcount=25
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top