Bad news from PAL HVX

P

pete archer

Member
Hello out there in the PAL Part of the world.
Yesterday I tested a PAL HVX together with a friend of mine who is more knowlegdeable about tec spec than I am and who programms among other for Apple FCP ( you all have ued his plug ins...)
We compared the much awaited Panasonic with yes - a Sony FX 1.

Hvx was set to automatic Scenefile 1 1080i/25p, the FX 1 was also set on automatic.
We shot some roofs with lots of rooftiles i.e. lots of details, captured both scenes in FCP with no problem,(720/25p can not be captured in FCP yet...) took stills out of the time line - magnified each shot up to 400% - AND SAW NO DIFFERENCE. except for some chromatic aberration on the part of the FX 1 which the HVX did not have.

second we shot inside the room in a very "bright" kind of low light. The FX gave a good and clear picture, the white wall was white - meanwhile the HVX delivered a very muddy image the white wall showing some pink and lots of noise.

This was especially disappointing for me since I often shoot documentaries in third world countries where a light bulb often is luxury i.e. with very little light inside huts etc ( which my PD 150 so far has handled very well)

Giving the HVX some gain made the pictue brighter but not better.

Granted this was a brief test, we did not fiddle with the HVX set ups aussuming automatic should bring out the best in the Camera (?)...

I for my part will think again and definitely not rush out to get the HVX( for my purpose) which I would liked to have done before yesterday.

I will attach pictures as soon as I know how to.
 
nothing you can say can change what I have seen with my own eyes.

even when people are shouting "noise noise" like with the venice skate clip all I see are amazing images.

that for me was not bad news.

no 720/25P support in FCP is bad news!!! but I already knew that ;)
 
Been out shooting in the garden this afternoon with the HVX200 and the Redrock M2. Just beautiful images, nothing less.

Perhaps you might need to white balance the HVX?

I sold my FX1 to buy the HVX and haven't regretted it one bit. The FX1 is a really super camera, there is no getting away from it despite all the poo pooing on this forum. But it is only 1080i, and no progressive. Once you have played with the HVX for a few days you will get the best out of it I am sure.
 
I agree - it sounds like you aren't using the camera to the best of its abilities. That said who is at this point? But it sounds like you're barely touching the surface.
 
second we shot inside the room in a very "bright" kind of low light.
Click to expand...

What?? Isn't that an oxymoron? A bright kind of lowlight? I think by now everyone knows this camera loves light. Try giving the camera ample light and see what the results are.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
What?? Isn't that an oxymoron? A bright kind of lowlight? I think by now everyone knows this camera loves light. Try giving the camera ample light and see what the results are.
Click to expand...
To be more precise: it was a room somewhat shaded by a blind but bright enough for instance to read without additional light.
I will post the pictures asap. pete
 
Pete, I am sure myself that the FX1 is better in low light situations. I was shooting with the FX1 only just over a week ago and it was a better, less grainy image in low light compared to the HVX. But once you get to know your way around the HVX, the best is soon brought out of it. Don't dispair.
 
pete archer said:
This was especially disappointing for me since I often shoot documentaries in third world countries where a light bulb often is luxury i.e. with very little light inside huts etc ( which my PD 150 so far has handled very well)
Click to expand...

Like Steve said, an FX1 might suit your needs better. Sony definitely rules in the lowlight department.
 
Pascal_Parvex said:
Put them online on
, then take the _direct_ link and implement them here.
Click to expand...
Ho Pascal, thanks for the hint, but my computer shows only a sign with a ? after you write " put them online on ... this is where the ? sign appears . The rest is clear again.
can you fill me in - thanks Pete
 
Pete, you have an interesting point. You made a good comparison and i completely respect your opinion. I dont want to see your post hacked to bits for legitimacy, but this is an HVX200 website, most here are definitive lovers of this camera and defend it accordingly. (please dont delete that moderators, its the truth, we are all subject to it some time or another ;)

I would encourage you to post some frame grabs to back up your statements. People say a lot of things and its the only way we can attempt to have a fair argument.

Personally id love to see some direct comparisons as well.
 
Rhydon said:
Pete, you have an interesting point. You made a good comparison and i completely respect your opinion. I dont want to see your post hacked to bits for legitimacy, but this is an HVX200 website, most here are definitive lovers of this camera and defend it accordingly. (please dont delete that moderators, its the truth, we are all subject to it some time or another ;)

I would encourage you to post some frame grabs to back up your statements. People say a lot of things and its the only way we can attempt to have a fair argument.

Personally id love to see some direct comparisons as well.
Click to expand...
I have the frame grabs but don`t know how to attach it to my message ??
 
That may be true Rhydon but I could set up my camera in my home with dim light and without white balancing properly and shoot some awful pictures with a cinealta.

For anyone who has seen what the camera can do in decent light, day light or lit in a studio they can see the difference between what the FX1 and HVX can do.

FX1 & Z1 - nice video in low light. If lit by a good DP it still looks like nice video but you'd have to do a lot of post-production to trick people into thinking it was filmic for narrative purposes. Very clean. I'd like a Z1 as a B camera for exterior night shots and nightclub shots.

HVX200 - excellent in good light. Looks very filmic if lit by a good DP. Granier than the Z1 and in bad lighting circumstances can look pretty awful. Well lit it looks like it's been shot on a higher class of camera than the Z1 IMO.

Just my opinions from experiences of the two cameras, both of them being very good.
 
booth said:
That may be true Rhydon but I could set up my camera in my home with dim light and without white balancing properly and shoot some awful pictures with a cinealta.
Click to expand...


I completely agree- i could do the same with a varicam.


booth said:
For anyone who has seen what the camera can do in decent light, day light or lit in a studio they can see the difference between what the FX1 and HVX can do.
Click to expand...

Again, im sure your correct, i would hope so actually. I just want to see some grabs!! Pete obviously has found something of concern to him, lets see the results and discuss the matter.


booth said:
Just my opinions from experiences of the two cameras, both of them being very good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i hear ya. When i have my friends XLH1 next to my HVX, im sorry but my image just blows away HDV in so many ways. I will admit im a perfectionist, looking at the stroby motion of HDV turns me inside out.
 
Rhydon said:
Again, im sure your correct, i would hope so actually. I just want to see some grabs!! Pete obviously has found something of concern to him, lets see the results and discuss the matter.
Click to expand...

Let me just warn everyone now that I won't allow a sixty page thread of people freaking out about lowlit footage. For Pete's needs (lowlight shooting in uncontrolled settings) the HVX is probably not the best tool for his doc work. He's free to show grabs, but if people start kicking up sand...well you know what happens. :)
 
Good point. Also, i know this is probably hard to request, but compare the FX1 and Z1 low light performance to other HD cameras.... Because wasnt the HVX touted for its amazing low-light performance compared to the competition???
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top