HVX VS SDX900 w/ P+S Technic

[Spartacus]

I would like to know what your final output will be.
If your not going to do a filmout and in the end only need a SD master, I know the SDX in DVCpro50 will yield great results.
As said, the DoF should be the same, since you´ll achieve it through the P+S...
Hm, downresed HD nevertheless looks amazing too what I´ve seen so far...
I guess at the current state I would favor the SDX, because it is tested and proven and I´ve worked with it, I´m not trusting the HVX yet (this will hopefully change in the next weeks)...

 

[joe 1008]

Again even 525 lines is not HD. The HVX is, there is a visable diffrence in real world shooting (Not so much in charts). The HVX is able to resolve around 675 to 700 lines in 720 mode, maybe even 750-775 in 1080 mode. On a dvd the SDX may look a tad better because of the better DR and cleaner image but for projection I'd still choose real HD.

But with a P+S or M2 adapter? Won´t the softening equal the advantage of the HD- resolution? But: I my opinion the DOF looks much better with an adapter than with a 2/3" cam.

 

[evinsky]

I haven't had a chance to test any of the 35mm adapters so i can't really say if the recorded detail would be different of not. But if the GG can resolve more than 525 then you will certainly see it on the HVX. As far as dvd, if that's you final output then by all means shoot the SDX. The only reason not to would be cost.

 

[joe 1008]

Funny: The more expensive cam is better at the lower resolution and vice versa. By the way: As I see now, the question was which one is better WITH adapter. So it´s not adapter against 2/3". I understood that wrong. But which adapter do they want to use? There is a very expensive adapter from P+S (about 20k) for 2/3" cams. Is it possible, to mount something like the much cheaper M2, too? That would be interesting to know.

 

[AshG]

I guess Evinsky can see things that established DPs and production houses cannot. Did you read the articles I posted? I dont question the results you have seen, my contention is that they are an aberration from the norm. Myself and every DP I know would, given the choice and budget, choose the SDX which is a fav cam in this area. The HVX does not technically resolve a lot more than the SDX. I mean, technically, the difference between the XLH and HVX is bigger than between the SDX and HVX. Resolution is A factor... not THE factor. Also, as noted and link, the SDX has been upconverted to both HD and film with established fantastic results.

Also, as wonderful as the HVX is, it is still 1/3" CCD... if you cant tell it from Vari footage, I would argue that the Vari is either not being used properly, or not being used in such a way that accentuates its strengths.




ash =o)

 

[Illya Friedman]

Anyone who went to the Plastercity presentation three weeks ago got to see both my HVX material, and material from an SDX900 with the P+S Technik Pro35 and Zeiss MKIII primes on the 30' 2K projection. The person who directed the SDX900 project is a friend of mine and it looks very good. That being said...

The SDX900 with the Pro35 will be much softer when blown up to HD or 35mm. I'm not talking DoF; rather an overall softness that could be considered "film like". However, I personally am not fond of it. I think the look is too soft. If you really, really want the shallower DoF consider the SDX900 with a nice 2/3" piece of HD glass and forgo the P+S. Since the SDX+Pro35+Cine glass is going to be far more expensive than an HVX rental, consider renting 2x HVXs, extra P2s, and getting more coverage on full zoom from B cam.

I.

P.S. I heard an image consultant once say, "sharp images are not always a good thing, and blurry images are not always a bad thing." I tend to agree fully.

 

[Illya Friedman]

I should have added. If you can afford the SDX+Pro35+Cine glass you are better off getting a Varicam package with 2/3" HD glass for the same $. It will be the best image in your price range and is definitely the same or less in price these days.

I.

 

[AshG]

Much softer? I say marginally softer, so marginal that most people would never know. Technically the HVX should be much softer than the XLH when bumped...it isnt, the difference is marginal.

I do agree that the Vari is an even better choice and with the rumored price drop, may drop to within budget for renting....



ash =o)

 

[Illya Friedman]

Much softer? I say marginally softer, so marginal that most people would never know.

On this we are in disagreement. Although in all fairness, I've only seen about 15 minutes of Pro35/Zeiss MK3 via SDX on 35mm film and 2K at Laser Pacific. What Pro35 footage are you referring too and how big is the screen?

I.

 

[evinsky]

I guess Evinsky can see things that established DPs and production houses cannot. Did you read the articles I posted? I dont question the results you have seen, my contention is that they are an aberration from the norm.

Ash, comments and insinuations like this are what will get you into trouble with less patient moderators like John Hudson. That is a truly incendiary tone and a contradiction. Of course you're questioning what I've seen. You seem to be so sceptical of my conclusion as to question my reputation as a cinematographer. I've told you before, I have shot the SDX myself. I've seen this footage projected. I know how to set the camera up, I have DP'd five broadcast television shows that have used this camera.
As far as the articles, they were both written before the HVX was even announced, so how could you use that as an example where a producion chose the SDX over the HVX. I already know that of all the SD cameras the SDX will upconvert the best, but, and you'll love this, I found that it showed only a little more recorded detail than the DVX100a with the anamorphic lens stopped down. Cleaner, much better color but not much more detail! The SDX is an SD camera, the HVX is an HD camera and that difference is very visable when blown up. And the difference between the XL-H1 and the HVX is not as great as the test chart would seem. I was a beta tester for cineform on that camera and it recorded a few more lines but in projection it's not even close to the same difference as the SDX to HVX.

I really don't understand this zelotrous stance you have toward the SDX. Technology progresses and things get better, smaller and cheaper. Most DPs and post houses who have had experience with HVX footage, like Plaster City, like myself, like Illya Friedman have come to the only conclusion the footage supports...
That the HVX produces a higher resolution image more suitable for a theatrical projection.

Please try to be more well informed before making these kind of comments in the future.

 

[kprince]

SDX + Pro 35 would be nice, so nice.

 

[Haakon]

After seeing some of the really cool footage from M2 users over the last couple of weeks, I'm surprised that more companies haven't made 35mm lens solutions as standard features of their cameras. The main reason that people don't like small-sensor cameras (besides limited latitude) is really limited depth-of-field - and you can get a solution for it now for around $500! Pretty sweet deal.

 

[brianluce]

I've never seen a side by side comparison. but i know 2/3" ccd's give a huge performance boost over 1/3". not to mention pro glass. i saw a side by side with a dvx100a and old beta cam with 2/3" ccd's. the dvx looked positively sick in comparison.

if the hvx can outperform a sx900, that would be impressive.

 

[Illya Friedman]

Haakon, you get the award for hijacking this thread.

I sense a lot of hypocrisy going on amongst the DVXUser moderators. If Ash's comments had been made to someone else by a member of the DVXUser staff, there would be no problem at all.

I know I've only been a frequenter of this forum for a few months and usually only read the HVX forums, but in my limited time here I haven't seen what you describe. If you believe this with such fervor, why don't you post a link to an example?

you have made buddy buddy with the people that run this forum and your little yellow name keeps you immune to the repercussions of your actions. I'm surprised that there aren't more users who question this strange power trip.

Umm, this is none of my business. I generally don't poke my nose into other people's beefs, and so I don't plan on really touching this with a 10' pole. However, since AshG's comments are really none of Haakon's concern ;-) I I'll get my hands dirty and add two cents anyway.

I've followed this thread from the beginning to its current place, and read every single post along the way. At worst Evan's post was tit-for-tat. If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out. Anyone making any sort of claim should be able to back it up, if you can't you should be able to admit that you are speaking theoretically, or worst case- that you're are in fact- wrong.

There are a LOT of forums that cater to the low end of camera equipment. The reason I frequent this forum (more frequently than the others) is the fact that they are discussions are moderated, there's a lot of traffic, and (IMHO) the best interface for posting, searching and reading.

I usually can't stand the low-end/consumer forums. They are usually full of members who talk out of the rear. It's also a pain when these same members don't so a search before they ask a question. This gets especially bad when moderators don't actually issue warnings, or take action! When intelligent discussion spirals into a dark un-moderated pit, it's replaced with post after post of trolling, flame wars, and other wastes of bandwidth. Not a single forum I've ever frequented was over moderated.

I am not a fan of Walter Graff by any remote stretch of the imagination, but I'm starting to sympathize with the situation he had to deal with.

Mr. Graff, is also a member of the professional forum I frequent. I don't know what his history @ DVXUser, but I can tell you that he trolls, offers up non sequitur and seems to have a hard time admitting he might (God forbid) be wrong about something. I know many people who now just completely skip reading anything he posts on ANY forum, even if he does have something relevant or helpful to offer, which he does from time to time. To hear that he had a "situation" anywhere doesn't surprise. I've never known anyone to be consistently curmudgeonly and acerbic without repercussions.

certainly not to call someone out by name and insinuate that a moderator will "deal with them" if they don't share the same opinion as you.

Haakon this is an obvious non sequitur. Evan said this:

Ash, comments and insinuations like this are what will get you into trouble with less patient moderators like John Hudson

Which had NOTHING to do with a difference in OPINION it was directly in regards to AshG saying this:

I guess Evinsky can see things that established DPs and production houses cannot.

It's hard to argue that this is anything but insulting.

Ash didn't feel that some of the findings you made were representative of the things he's experienced - and really, who's to say you're more "right" than he is anyway? Most of this stuff is unbelievably subjective as it is.

This is not correct.

In this industry there are a lot of people who talk about what others have done, and haven't tested or done it themselves. Until you do it yourself, you don't truly know. That's the rub. These things are NOT always subjective, they are often quantifiable and tangible so when someone talks about opinion as fact (and facts as opinion) it can become a problem for those who have done it and do know.

When you get a room full of professionals together you'll always get a difference of opinion. I attended the Santa Fe workshops in the summer of 2005 (www.hdworkshops.com); and one of the big issues of the class was determining fact from opinion and how to go about testing and proving performance. It's really simple to get other people on-board with what you're saying... present evidence. The last day we saw footage (or evidence if you'd rather) shot with a F900 that was brought back to a more than acceptable level; really, nearly indistinguishable from dead on exposure. This footage was purposely under-exposed and over-exposed by 4-stops. The footage actually went an entire range under/over a total of 19-stops.

Now many DPs I've met tell me "Oh you can't overexpose the F900 even 1-stop or all the highlight information is gone." This is from DPs that tell me that they shoot a lot of HD, and even some that have had letters after their name.

I've been told by these very, very talented people that that 4-stops over with the F900 is impossible. This doesn't make them bad at what they do, or incompetent. It only makes them unaware of camera settings that allow this massive range of exposure correction potential. If they perpetuate that you can only overexpose the F900 one stop before irreparable harm is caused to the picture it also makes them wrong.

I.

 

[Barry_Green]

One thing that is not gonna happen on these forums is personal attacks. I'm sure Evin and Haakon and whoever can work out their issues with private messages but they're not gonna play out here. This thread is closed.