thefilmaddict
Veteran
Barry,
That pair sounds great!
That pair sounds great!
new shootout! HVX200 versus....hvx200! deathmatch!
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
- Status
DC
Cinematographiliac
darwinandpaine said:
Let me clarify a bit . . .
I'm working on setting up our first HVX200 Los Angeles User Group for after NAB. So yeah, I'm shooting for May. I'm happy to arrange the shootout BUT -
Barry_Green said:
So, I'm also glad to let these guys handle it. That seems to be the way this is going and that is fine. I'm looking forward to NAB and seeing all that is to be seen. And don't worry, we'll have plenty of show n' tell at our first HVX meeting in LA.
thefilmaddict
Veteran
Perhaps this thread should be closed and a new one with the test results should be started in the future. The more people that do the test, the better.
Barry_Green said:
And it'll keep going, ne'er sleep like Samara Morgan from The Ring.
Just a few gems off the top of my head:
1. Pre-release it was that Panny was lying about 1080. Right up until release I saw posts asserting that there was just no way that this camera will record 1080. A bait and switch by Panny was in the works. I thought that was the low point...oh, no.
2. Posts about how Panasonic somehow shut out PC NLEs, never mind that it did practically everything it could to persuade them to come on board. Still, one guy insisted, the whole fiasco was at least partly if not mostly their fault.
3. Then my grand fav thread of all: Pappas threatening a class-action suit against Panny for deceiving us in putting out an uprezzing 720 cam.
4. Then Noise Threads v. 1.0, 2.0,...
...and now this (3.0c?).
No, I'm not on the Panny payroll, and of course I've never said the company is immune from quality control anomalies. My first DVX had a bad pixel in the LCD. There's a helluva difference in that and the scale of what some people are alleging about the HVX.
Here's what we'll hear after the meeting:
"But I wasn't at the meeting..."
"The cameras weren't different enough..."
@John Hudson: Dude Bro, it looks like your "noisewraiths" ain't goin' anywhere.
thefilmaddict
Veteran
I trust Evinsky and Haakon.
I'm also sick of going in circles.
I'm also sick of going in circles.
Agreed (within reason) - Evinsky and Haakon are excellent choices, but 2 or 3 from each camp would be better. And any thoughts about neutral observers? The sort of person I'd trust would be a DVX100 owner, keen to upgrade to an HVX, but also keen to see for themselves if this whole issue is a real worry or not before they do.thefilmaddict said:
It would also be a good idea to have someone there with a different camera, a Z1 say, to act as a 'control' and try to iron out whether any effects seen may be attributable to individual monitors.
Poi Boy said:
It would still be nice to have a verification that a person who thinks the HVX is too noisy and a person who doesn't see the noise as a problem, could look at the same screen and see the same results. Then we could agree that the noise issue is one of personal preference. Adding more cameras to this test will also confirm or deny that multiple cameras are performing the same or not. If I were to find out my HVX200 was excessively noisy compared to others I would want it rectified.....wouldn't you? There's no reason to find something wrong with it...but if it turns out there is inconsistency between cameras I would like to know.
Peace!~
thefilmaddict
Veteran
Poi Boy said:
If the test shows that the cameras are not all the same and that some have issues, it would not be silly.
What is your experience? Have you played around with several cameras and have already come to the conclusion that each camera is exactly the same? Did you test my camera, Haakons or Icicle22's camera (and others who have similar complaints)?
Live long and prosper!
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
I agree with thefilmaddict... The key, in my mind, is not just to get a bunch of HVXs together for the shoot, but to get people who think, in particular, that their HVX is noisy and test it against any HVX that is not thought to have the problem. I don't believe Evin or Haakon think their cameras are noisy, so testing their cameras side-by-side would mean nothing.
And yes, the results will probably show that there is no quality control problem. Like I said, I'm thrilled about my HVX. But since the camera is so new, and the vast majority of us really have no baseline for judging what this camera can do, and what the images should look like, this test (if done right) could have tremendous value.
It will not end the debate, but at least we'll be able to say --- "we tested a bunch of HVXs side-by-side, including the HVXs of owners who thought theirs were particularly noisy, and here's what we found..." I don't understand why anyone would oppose this or be defensive about it. We're not questioning anyone's religion... are we?
And yes, the results will probably show that there is no quality control problem. Like I said, I'm thrilled about my HVX. But since the camera is so new, and the vast majority of us really have no baseline for judging what this camera can do, and what the images should look like, this test (if done right) could have tremendous value.
It will not end the debate, but at least we'll be able to say --- "we tested a bunch of HVXs side-by-side, including the HVXs of owners who thought theirs were particularly noisy, and here's what we found..." I don't understand why anyone would oppose this or be defensive about it. We're not questioning anyone's religion... are we?
Not to beat a dead horse but probably my sinlge biggest complaint is that the entire reasoning behind using a "less dense" CCD was to improve low-light performance and increase sensitivity/latitude. I can't help feeling a little "gyped" as I have a lower res hi-def camera and a poor performing lower light camera too. It turns out that the 2 main competitors who have "higher density" CCDs are performing quite well with minimal noise in lower light and shadow areas. That's what gets me.
Why sacrifice so much resolution for better sensitivity and latitude when it is actually less sensitive and noisier? At least the latitude is really good....along with the color pallette. I love the DVX/HVX color rendition but I just don't get why we had to sacrifice perceived resolution to get it. Can't we get higher res chips and the Cinegamma™ MOJO we all love? Please?
Why sacrifice so much resolution for better sensitivity and latitude when it is actually less sensitive and noisier? At least the latitude is really good....along with the color pallette. I love the DVX/HVX color rendition but I just don't get why we had to sacrifice perceived resolution to get it. Can't we get higher res chips and the Cinegamma™ MOJO we all love? Please?
darwinandpaine said:
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Haakon was on the "noisy" side and Evinsky was on the "not noisy"side? That is the whole purpose. If they both look at the Haakons HVX on the screen and Evinsky says "that looks clean" and Haakon says "that looks noisy" then we can conclude that it is all very subjective.
If they look at the screen and Evinsky says "dude...that is noisy" and Haakon says "that's what I am talking about" then we have something. Evinsky can then proceed to put his on the screen and see if it is indeed cleaner and Haakon can agree or disagree.
At least that would be a start as to how much of all this is subjective and how much is really different from camera to camera.
Peace!
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
icicle22 said:
You're probably right. Barry would have known better than I. And if that is the case, an Evin/Haakon deathmatch would certainly satisfy me, although in any kind of experiment, the larger the sample, the better.
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
icicle22 said:
In this regard, I have no idea what you're talking about. My HVX IS higher res with the Cinegamma I love --- and so much more!!!! I shot something two weekends ago that still blows me away because it's so gorgeous (720pn) --- beautiful color space, and fantastic resolution. If you're not seeing that with your HVX, perhaps there really is something wrong.
John Rivers
Active member
just to note, I finally filmed some SD stuff onto MiniDV last night at my school's music competition. I thought the picture (when viewed from FCP after capture and then viewed later on my TV) was awesome (and it wasn't even HD!). Lighting was about what you'd expect for a low budget concert-like event, and I didn't even use Gain. I used the Zebra control with manual Iris adjustments to keep the light level where I wanted it.
But yea, point being, I didn't find noise to be a problem at all.
So...the plot thickens...
But yea, point being, I didn't find noise to be a problem at all.
So...the plot thickens...
thefilmaddict
Veteran
icicle22 said:
PERFECT!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Now that sounds like a marvelous idea. Let's discuss it when there are results and we actually have something to discuss, because after 96 posts in this thread we have, indeed, gone in circles.
The circle is now complete.
- Status