Hello Mr. Pappas, your dinner is ready!
- Thread starter soarprod
- Start date
Ranger
Well-known member
I agree, the canon footage does look the best of the cameras resolution wise, but that dog ain't gonna hunt regarding CA on the lens.Rich Lee said:
I also agree that the HVX image looks soft. This is the one Achilles Heel that has had me flip flopping. Everything else about the camera Panasonic was dead on target - color accuracy, tapeless workflow, codec and variable frame rates. It's too bad Pana was not able to incorporate a chip similar to Canon's in the HVX. That would have been the coup de grace that would have separated the HVX from the rest of the pack. Sigh ... maybe next time. As others have mentioned ad nauseum, you just have to pick your poison and run with it.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
soarprod said:
SIMPLE! ...... Torent!
DavidBeier
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
The problem with P2 workflow I think is completely ligitimate but I think it will be releaved when the cineporter comes out.
As for cost, things are odd. Up till about a month ago, one could get a HVX200 two P2 cards and a P2 store (and later an HVX200 and a cineporter) for still less than a Canon XL H1 would cost. Recently however, the price of the H1 seems to have dropped about 2k (and the HVX200 some) so I'm no longer sure how they compare price wise.
Now first I'd like to say that I really am blown away by the Canon's resolution as it's far sharper than I would have thought for this price range. I heard arguments of the JVC being much sharper but all the footage I've seen from both leads me to believe the difference is pretty neglible. Canon's on the other hand makes a real and viable alternative to the HVX200.
Unfortunatly, from what I've heard the Canon HDV tapes only play with the Canon itself. This just strikes me as totally bad planning (unless there are options I don't know about which is quite possible). I've worked with the DVX100 for a LONG time and most of my troubles arise from the recording head in one form or another. This is WITHOUT every using it as a deck as I had previous cameras breakdown from such things.
The idea of having to use the H1 as a deck and having it breakdown, thus rendering the camera a nine thousand doller paper-weight is pretty scary to me and pretty much eliminates it as an option. My commentary on it is more out of personal frustration than anything as it seems like such a bad choice to make for such a powerful piece of equipment.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
It's not a problem to those it is not a problem for !
LOL
-
The Canon and the JVC both appear sharper too me than the HVX100 by leaps and bounds with the Canon getting the trophy.
The HVX, thus far, is showing up like Super16 in my eyes minus the grain of the film stock but in the softness of the image and the latutude and color rendition.
-
I had not heard this. Is this true ? That may be the dumbest thing they have done. Ouch on the head times. So for every hour of shooting it's an hour of capture ?
DavidBeier
Veteran
^
I've heard two people on these boards tell me this and no one refuted them (though someone said this thankfully isn't the case with the JVC). If it's true (which I'm asking on Canon boards) it is DEFINATLY a deal breaker for me.
I've heard two people on these boards tell me this and no one refuted them (though someone said this thankfully isn't the case with the JVC). If it's true (which I'm asking on Canon boards) it is DEFINATLY a deal breaker for me.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It is absolutely true.DavidBeier said:
The possibility exists that Canon will introduce another camcorder, perhaps a $3,000 GL-series, which would play the 24F/30F tapes. Canon has never produced a videotape deck, so if they were to produce a deck that would be a first for them.
The JVC situation is better, but not a tremendous amount. JVC tapes are incompatible with Canon and Sony equipment, and only play on JVC gear. But JVC at least makes a deck (the BR50) that can play the 24P tapes, so you're not restricted to using the camera itself. And, the cheap JVC HD1/HD10 can be used to transport the 24P footage. You can't "play" the 24p and see it, but you can use the cheap cameras as a blind digitizing deck. And, of course, no JVC equipment can be used to play any Sony or Canon tapes either.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
I'm with John. He said all, though the JVC latitude (also despite Evin's opinion) it is, at least to me, as suitable as HVX. My only HVX problem that you didn't add but I can understand 'cause I do the same with the things that I love, it is the macro blocking. As well, the lack of definition to handle with a 35mm adapter if we'll go to blow-up regarding its device softness.John_Hudson said:
Last edited:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
How lame is that ? Who knew.
Emanuel said:
Yes yes
The Macroblocking is a concern I have seen. Now here is what I am seeing:
No Macroblocking at regular resolution but when 'magnifying the image' say in PS or enlarging a QT File the Macroblocks become very pronounced. Again, not seeing any of this in regular defination or in other words the way it is is intended to be viewed.
So for those that know; is this Macroblocking appearing on a film out and blown up on a screen ?
-
I understand the def on a 35MM adapter, but I am not sweating the def (Think 28 Days Later) at this time. On a filmout it will pass and on DVD it will RULE
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Initially, I thought the same but after there were a lot of users that said it would be impossible to avoid it@raw_footage, as well.John_Hudson said:
I opened a lot of discussion points in these same forums (posts & posts, threads, etc) in order to push to a post solution but the only answer that I had it was: «I will test it!» and silence or something like it's filtering (as softness) the image.
I'd like to know, I hope it didn't. And to see that too. The question is also the run & gun low lighting (I'm afraid that HVX it is well suitable to controled situations).
I agree with you but the point is@indies' theatrically release you must have the best definition picture that your money can afford.
Last edited:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Well they said it; but let's see it or get this from someone who has evidence ! I watch Bob's footage FULLREZ files and see none of it. It is only upon blowing stuff up that I have seen it.
Is this happening with every single unit ?
---------------------------------------------
Run and Gun Low Lighting ?
Bah ! They use old Arri's and Bolex's for this; it'll be fine. You get what you put into it and if you expect amazing results running and gunning over a controlled production environment then you're expecting miracles. This goes for any camera.
If these guy's want low-light run and gunner's, go back Stone Age Style and use the PD-170
Poi Boy
Well-known member
E-
everyone on this site has different opinions of what great looking footage is; somethings I think look like poo others rave about. Some things I think look soft others think they are too sharp,It is human nature. I can say from my experience of 25 years of shooting and 10 years of manipulating digital images that a filmout from well shot m2 footage would look awesome.
Aloha
-A
everyone on this site has different opinions of what great looking footage is; somethings I think look like poo others rave about. Some things I think look soft others think they are too sharp,It is human nature. I can say from my experience of 25 years of shooting and 10 years of manipulating digital images that a filmout from well shot m2 footage would look awesome.
Aloha
-A
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Yup, also I was thinking if it wouldn't be a single unit hassle? But there were a lot of people to claim it. But I can assure you that also I will want to see FULLREZ files before any single purchase.John_Hudson said:
The point is if this or that camera it will not be the best capture device according your own lighting or even production needs. And if we have an excellent tool like Canon's XL-H1 why to go back? The same to HVX vs. DVX. I prefer the last one but after HVX launch it will be impossible forget it. HD rules. At least to me.
Last edited: