My HVX is giving me an ulcer! noise? low res? Argh!

[Justyn]

Feeling a bit sore there...

Feeling a bit sore there...

Justyn:
So you are saying that ALL the People involved in the review of the HD cameras
are wrong?....I dont think so my friend.....I know how it goes...when a boy has
a "new toy" in the block he swear that it is the best...right?....(it is less painfull than accept the truth)
I myself am in the dilemma of getting an HD camera or a 2/3 SD camera...
And if you are doing a lot of low light work the winner is the 2/3 CCD camera
Check this one: 750 lines of resolution and is a beauty in LOW LIGHT:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...911&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Sorry if I've cause bad fellings....but the truth is always the best policy...
Cesar.

The truth is that in most real senses and real world scenerios.. low-light is a euphamism for amateur videography.. and/or in a better sense, documentary shooting. I don't know a single professional shooter who goes.. man I want to shoot in piss poor low-light so I can have it look piss poor.. but better than that camera which is incredible when dealt with correctly.


I also read the reviews and they said that the cameras are more similar than not. That the HVX is a beauty.. and people like it.. some liked the JVC.. some liked the canon. Admittedly, it's not a low-light camera, but seeing as how I have a full light kit, and ample resources to make my stuff look good, your observation is unfounded.

Also, I bite the bullet.. bought a camera and I'm not poo-pooing things and speculating. Put your money where your mouth is and buy the analogue camera.. and then a deck.. and whatever else you want.. Plus a back brace to carry it around. I bought what I liked and I'm very happy. This was about ICEicle and helping him out.. not about flamming out about the camera.

BTW.. how much money have you made on your speculative camera? Waiting and being on the fence just seems kind of wimpy. Choose ya weapon and buy it, and soon enough my HVX will be paid off from GIGS and then I could probably buy your low-light wonder and make more money on that... Also, we are talking different price strata here. I could buy 3 HVXs for the price of this one... so obviously you are also besides a first rate judge of talent/cameras.. must be a financial genius.. Are you the next Donald Trump? LOL...


Again admittedly you might be like a DP who hates lights.. hates dramatic lighting.. and want's poor low-light for some aesthetic. Good luck winning people over with that argument.


Also, have you shot with the Varicam? I have and that camera loves light too. You get much BETTER results with more light and isn't that the objective. Otherwise, buy a camera with night vision.. or just simply buy and get off the fence.

I also value the opinions of Barry, Jared, Evinsky (who says it's the money compared to the Varicam), HVXguy, Richard, Bob.. and just about everyone else here. Good luck shooting your dark feature... I'm sure it'll be stunning!

 

[thefilmaddict]

Icicle should post frames of the noise so that we can see what he is talking about, otherwise, we are just speculating.

I would like to know if his noise issue is similar to mine.

I wouldn't attack him. He's is not the first to make these complaints.

Yes, tons of light is always a good idea, but what if you have a ton of light AND areas where the light falls off causing gradients (light to dark areas) that are noisy? That's my issue. I've posted stills in the past, I will do it again if you want me to do so.

Overall, I do like the camera in most situations (very film like and much easier to edit than HDV). I may send it in to see if it is defective or if I am just asking too much of a camera in this price range.

 

[John Rivers]

Justyn:
So you are saying that ALL the People involved in the review of the HD cameras
are wrong?....I dont think so my friend.....I know how it goes...when a boy has
a "new toy" in the block he swear that it is the best...right?....(it is less painfull than accept the truth)
I myself am in the dilemma of getting an HD camera or a 2/3 SD camera...
And if you are doing a lot of low light work the winner is the 2/3 CCD camera
Check this one: 750 lines of resolution and is a beauty in LOW LIGHT:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...911&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Sorry if I've cause bad fellings....but the truth is always the best policy...
Cesar.

You're referring to one review.

Even then, I've read through that article a few times, and even then, despite the problems, there isn't a definitive bad review against the HVX.

I could just as easily bring up CNet's review, where the HVX kicks ass and is editor's choice, and then post on an XL H1 forum "wow guys, XL H1 isn't really that great."

As for the 2/3 CCD camera, you'd be paying $8,500 for an SD camcorder. Granted, it rocks at SD, but you don't get the tapeless workflow (saving HOURS from having to capture), you're stuck at 720x480 resolution, and it's a good deal heavier, leaving affordable stabilizers out of the question (no Merlin here, folks). So, at that point you ask yourself "is the picture improvement THAT much better to justify staying in SD, using DVCPRO 25 tapes, still having to capture my footage, not being able to shoot at 24 fps (the specs only list 30 and 60), and adding $2,500 and 4 lbs?"

Suddenly, the HVX seems pretty nice, and considering some of the footage we've seen, pretty capable of giving an excellent picture too.

 

[thefilmaddict]

I will try Barrys tip -- setting the zebra for 105, then bringing it down a little. This may help reduce noise and better nail the shot in camera (not with CC in an edit suite).

 

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, we're done here.

Icicle, feel free to start a new thread, but this one is headed in the wrong direction.

Two posts deleted, and I repeat: "we are NOT doing this same thing all over again". Thanks.