Snoqualmie Falls footage

[Carrington Benz]

Im not sure - you can just pigeon hole these cameras like that Dave

To me - res & color is everything - it gives you the scope to make your images more " filmic" than the hvx - if you want to.
you see - I don't think your seeing the bigger picture ( no pun ) - surely if the resolution is higher, then a film transfer to big screen , would have the " filmic " look sorted ? except - hey ! it will look alot better qual than the HVX - which has a lower res..
If all your doing is going to dvd with your films, than that maybe a diff story but - no one cares as long as its shot well & the story is strong - examples being 28 days later xl1 & open water pd150.
who wouldv'e thought these " feature films " would be shot with such basic dv cams & make the big leagues 5 years back - its all just too subjective.

Those are "films " right ? so therefore the " filmic " look depends really on how the cam is used - light - grip - composition - then the small matter of post prod which can filpmode the style & entire look .

I think the matter at hand here - is that if we have more res & color & light to play with then surely - we have more room & more options - whether its a doc or film or tv ..watever.

I don't think its a fair comparison between the xl2 & xlh1 etc - HDV is a totally diff beast to dv so - surely its like comparing digibeata to dv.

I have seen some great shorts on digibeata - that I bet were shot on 16mm - purely because the res & the cc was so filmic, it fooled me the viewer - vice verse - I've seen some ad's on tv that i swore where digital only to find out its 35MM!!

So - I would disagree strongly about the HVX being more filmic - that maybe true straight outta of the box but " we are the music makers - we are the dreamers of dreams " once its logged - the magic begins.

I can see clearly from Disjecta's images - how the xlh1 can work for me - whether its a film or a doc or watever - these are just tools that can be manipulated to express the artist behind them - nothing more - it certainly will not improve the film whether its a xlh1 or hvx or hd100.

 

[DavidBeier]

Im not sure - you can just pigeon hole these cameras like that Dave

To me - res & color is everything - it gives you the scope to make your images more " filmic" than the hvx - if you want to.
you see - I don't think your seeing the bigger picture ( no pun ) - surely if the resolution is higher, then a film transfer to big screen , would have the " filmic " look sorted ? except - hey ! it will look alot better qual than the HVX - which has a lower res.

Well, if we're going to talk color I, and many would argue that the HVX200 produces it better than the XLH1. To my eye, their colors are just more filmic and there's no arguing that there is an advantage in the HVX200's 4:2:2 color campling compared to the Canon's 4:2:0.

And no, just having higher resolution doesn't make something more filmic. Resolution is nice but it's hardly everything. I'd argue motion, gamma, and color are all much more important. 28 Days Later didn't look closer to film because it was dramatically higher rez then other video. It looked closer because they converted it to 24 frames a second (motion) and tweaked the color and the gamma to look more like film. Resolution is always going to be getting higher and higher and is largely subjective in my book. I can't begin to count the number of films I've seen recently with a soft focus or a bad print but you get used to it after about 5 minutes. Our eyes accomodate to the resolution we are looking at but things like better lighting color and motion tend to be more contstant.

If all your doing is going to dvd with your films, than that maybe a diff story but - no one cares as long as its shot well & the story is strong - examples being 28 days later xl1 & open water pd150.
who wouldv'e thought these " feature films " would be shot with such basic dv cams & make the big leagues 5 years back - its all just too subjective.

Those are "films " right ? so therefore the " filmic " look depends really on how the cam is used - light - grip - composition - then the small matter of post prod which can filpmode the style & entire look.

I'd argue that 28 Days later with all it's post production work still doesn't look as filmic as many things I've seen shot with a DVX100 strait out of the camera. To my eye, Panasonic simply does the look better and if the millions they spent on post for 28 Days later can't fix that, I don't think I will be able to either.

I think the matter at hand here - is that if we have more res & color & light to play with then surely - we have more room & more options - whether its a doc or film or tv ..watever.

But all the Canon has is more resolution. It has roughly 25% more resolution but roughly half the color information of the HVX. It depends on which matters more to you and color does to me. If you've ever done extensive color correction, you'll know that having 4:2:0 color gives you a LOT less to play with. You can try but it's far harder to get the look you want because there is less information to play with. With the HVX200, you not only get better colors out of the camera (to my eye) but also have more options with them in post production because of a higher sampling rate.

I have seen some great shorts on digibeata - that I bet were shot on 16mm - purely because the res & the cc was so filmic, it fooled me the viewer - vice verse - I've seen some ad's on tv that i swore where digital only to find out its 35MM!!

Anything is possible. I've seen a lot of super 16mm that looked terrible and I thought it was DV. That said, I think the HVX200 gets closer to film in terms of color, gamma, and motion. In terms of color and motion however, it also gives you more options flat out with higher color sampling and uncompressed frames. Just as the Canon gives you more info by way of resolution.

So - I would disagree strongly about the HVX being more filmic - that maybe true straight outta of the box but " we are the music makers - we are the dreamers of dreams " once its logged - the magic begins.

Out of curiousity, how much color correction have you done? I think most who have done a fair amount with 4:2:0 would know it's drawbacks. I also argue there is no substitute for having it look as close to right out of the camera.

I can see clearly from Disjecta's images - how the xlh1 can work for me - whether its a film or a doc or watever - these are just tools that can be manipulated to express the artist behind them - nothing more - it certainly will not improve the film whether its a xlh1 or hvx or hd100.

For me, the HVX200 will improve the film because I'll feel a huge weight lifted off my chest from never having to use tape again. Aside form that, I agree.

 

[Carrington Benz]

I think my main point has been missed - I was referring more to pigeon holing these cams - I don't really care whats on paper - its all about the eye for me - I simply think higher resolution is a huge advantage when working on such complex format as HD.

On the other hand - I would still argue that I have seen more filmic images from the dvx100.

My ref's to 28 days later is just to show that a good film doesn't have to be determined by the cam its shot on - ie : I hated the xl1 but I personally like 28 day's later as film - I think it did have a unique look & it lent its self well to the subject matter.

I really don't think " having never to use tape " will improve the film or lift that much weight off - if thats the case then you should really question your skills as a filmmaker ( btw - i don't claim to be good one ) I mean, if a scene goes smoothly - then storage is the least of my worries man.
I still think dv has its uses for certain shots - even my little sony pc120 would have its uses stylistically - sure it doesn't have p2 - so what ?

I think I have done my fair share of cc to know that the H1 would serve me well - If resolution isn't everything then whats the point of getting HVX in the first place - I think the whole point of HD is that everyone wants more res - in fact thats the main selling of HD as format - its " higher res " !

 

[DavidBeier]

I think my main point has been missed - I was referring more to pigeon holing these cams - I don't really care whats on paper - its all about the eye for me - I simply think higher resolution is a huge advantage when working on such complex format as HD.

As is twice the color depth. As pure frames. As is multiple frame rates. As is a more film-like gamma curve (subjective). As is more vibrant colors (subjective). Resolution isn't everything. Resolution isn't what makes great cinematography. I can't remember the last time I read an issue of American Cinematographer and the DP said, "what was really important was for it to be sharp. Really high resolution." Resolution is important but there are other things that are just as important if not more so.

My ref's to 28 days later is just to show that a good film doesn't have to be determined by the cam its shot on - ie : I hated the xl1 but I personally like 28 day's later as film - I think it did have a unique look & it lent its self well to the subject matter.

Of course a film's quality isn't determined by the camera it's shot on. The XLH1, the HD100, and the HVX200 all produce some impressive results. A great film can be shot on anything. I simply think that the HVX200 produces the image that comes closest to that of actual film and the type of look I like. As for 28 Days later, you're missing the point. You talk so much about resolution but what made 28 Days later impressive from a video standpoint was everything but the resolution which was still quite low.

I really don't think " having never to use tape " will improve the film or lift that much weight off - if thats the case then you should really question your skills as a filmmaker ( btw - i don't claim to be good one ) I mean, if a scene goes smoothly - then storage is the least of my worries man.
I still think dv has its uses for certain shots - even my little sony pc120 would have its uses stylistically - sure it doesn't have p2 - so what ?

I'm very sorry you took my comment seriously. I don't actually think that not having to use tape will make for a better movie. It's only in reference to my complete and utter hatred of dealing with tapes. If I don't have to deal with breaking heads, digitizing, dirty heads, and all the other issues of tapes then I'll be less likely to have a heartattack on set. Less hearattacks allow for better filmmaking.

I think I have done my fair share of cc to know that the H1 would serve me well -

What you want to do and what others want to do are different things. You do realize that color depth does in fact translate into resolution right? Look at some of Barry's tests. If you get less color samples then areas where the primary difference is in color rather than luminance are going to be blurrier. Not to mention that color correcting will be much harder because you have less information to work with. If you find the H1's lack of color depth acceptible then good for you. I find the HVX's lack of resolution acceptible.

If resolution isn't everything then whats the point of getting HVX in the first place - I think the whole point of HD is that everyone wants more res - in fact thats the main selling of HD as format - its " higher res " !

You've hit the nail on the head and demonstrated the problem with a lot of people on these boards. We get into HD and suddenly that is all anyone can think of. People actually think resolution is everything and that is so misguided it's plain sad. As any cinematographer who knows much of anything and they will tell you there is so much more than just resolution to an image.

Sure I want a higher resolution image but is 25% more pixels worth a 50% loss in color information, less appealing gamma, less appealing colors, motion artifacts (from HDV which compresses frames), a lack of variable framerates, and having to deal with 24f that actually interpolates the image and loses much of the resolution that was bragged about in the first place? Not in my book.

Let me put it this way, say in 6 months Sony surprises everyone and comes out with something that's even sharper than the Canon at around the same price range. At that point, both the HVX and the Canon will look soft since resolution is pretty relative. On the other hand, we'll still see better colors with more bit depth coming out of the HVX. We'll still see a more filmish gamma curve. We'll still see smoother motion from pure frames. And we'll still see true under and over-cranking.

 

[disjecta]

I still prefer the Canon XLH1 over the HVX

 

[DavidBeier]

^
Good for you. You shoot landscapes and resolution is important to you. I shoot narrative films where colors, lighting, and motion are important to me. As I said, i think the XLH1 is definatly the right camera for what you want. I think the HVX200 is the right camera for what I want and for people who are shooting narrative film (unless perhaps if they're shooting some Lawrence of Arabia style epic). Not quite sure where the HD100's strength lies save for being the cheapest alternative.

 

[Carrington Benz]

I didn't equate 28 days later with resolution - I stated that it had a unique look & even tho it was shot on a camera I disliked - I think it came across well. you mentioned in your previous post - that xlh1 suited discovery & hvx suited film - this is where I disagree - I don't think these clips are enough to pigeon hole these cams - ie: " the hvx being more filmic & better suited to film " is utter tosh. Which is why I brought up 28 days later - its still a " film " & it looks good to me, because it suited the story - therefore you could argue that the xl1 is as " filmic " as the dvx

I also am very clear on your judgement about - the hvx being closer to the "look" of film out of the box - but !
doesn't mean the xlh1 is less " filmic " nor that it is less better suited to shooting " filmic " looking films & is more suited to docs or discovery.

I still say - I think the dvx100 is more closer to the look of 16mm than the hvx so far - I just haven't seen the same magic. I do like the slo mo stuff but thats not enough for me.
Seeing Disjecta'a clips - pretty much gave me the green light for the xlh1 - they just look stunning - straight outta of the box - the potential gives me goose bumps.

On tape heads vs P2 etc - I still don't understand your point here - tape heads may get dirty but p2 will have its faults too - its digital media which can glitch & lose data very easily - tape is still reliable - im sure the next generation of cams will have better media but Im not worried - for a couple of years at least which by then I'll be looking at the next cam.

If a year from now the xlh2 or hvx 300 comes into in existence then we really are wasting time here - oranges & lemons - I think the hvx isn't more " filmic " than the XLH1 but you do so - lets agree to disagree & let our projects do the talking.

I have seen many clips from all the cam's & the xlh1 stands out for me - with the right hands , it has the potential to shoot some great films - based on the homework I've done so far -
Thats coming from a long term dvx user - who still has the original model.

 

[DavidBeier]

I didn't equate 28 days later with resolution - I stated that it had a unique look & even tho it was shot on a camera I disliked - I think it came across well. you mentioned in your previous post - that xlh1 suited discovery & hvx suited film - this is where I disagree - I don't think these clips are enough to pigeon hole these cams

Why do you accuse me of pigeon holeing when you were just arguing that "resolution is everything" and the XLH1 will produce a more filmic image when blown up?

- ie: " the hvx being more filmic & better suited to film " is utter tosh. Which is why I brought up 28 days later - its still a " film " & it looks good to me, because it suited the story - therefore you could argue that the xl1 is as " filmic " as the dvx

Being a film that "looks good to you" is not the same thing as being "filmic." I've seen stuff shot on a 1 chip camera (highly CCed of course) that I've found more visually pleasing than stuff I've seen shot on a 16mm camera. That doesn't mean it's more filmic. Just that it looks better. Big difference. I'm arguing that the HVX200 looks closer to film than the XLH1 does and, for totally different reasons, also looks more pleasing to my eye.

I also am very clear on your judgement about - the hvx being closer to the "look" of film out of the box - but !
doesn't mean the xlh1 is less " filmic " nor that it is less better suited to shooting " filmic " looking films & is more suited to docs or discovery.

Ok. Why? We seem to be running around in ciricles as you don't seem to be backing up much of what you're saying. I think if you're going to try to get a more filmic look then a camera that looks more filmic without CC is the way to go. It's that simple. You can do a lot with CC but in my experience it doesn't beat what you get out of the camera, especially if you are working with 4:1:1 or 4:2:0 compression. 4:2:0 I've found often looks quite good out of the camera untill you try to mess with it in CC and then all the compression becomes apparent because of the limited sampling. If the HVX200 already produces a more filmic look and one can do more extensive CC on the image thanks to greater sampling, I feel it's quite fair to say it's better suited to the "film" look.

I still say - I think the dvx100 is more closer to the look of 16mm than the hvx so far - I just haven't seen the same magic. I do like the slo mo stuff but thats not enough for me.

Kind of an interesting claim especially considering your previous arguments. The HVX IS a DVX in many ways. It has the exact same gamma curves and visual options. The only difference as far as the image goes is that it has a sharper lense and higher-res chips (also has greater color depth though you can go back to 4:1:1 if you want). It's interesting that you earlier were arguing that more resolution would mean a more filmic image but now claim the DVX100 is more filmic even though the only difference is less resolution.

On tape heads vs P2 etc - I still don't understand your point here - tape heads may get dirty but p2 will have its faults too - its digital media which can glitch & lose data very easily - tape is still reliable - im sure the next generation of cams will have better media but Im not worried - for a couple of years at least which by then I'll be looking at the next cam.

I still don't understand why you are still taking this part of my post seriously. I don't like tape or the hassels it presents. P2 presents it's own hassels but I vastly prefer it to that of tape. As far as workflow goes it's a completely subjective thing.

If a year from now the xlh2 or hvx 300 comes into in existence then we really are wasting time here - oranges & lemons - I think the hvx isn't more " filmic " than the XLH1 but you do so - lets agree to disagree & let our projects do the talking.

I have no problem with this, I just don't think your reasoning quite works. When my HVX200 comes in in a few days, I'll post some of my own landscapes. I'd love to have an academic discussion in comparison to what you shoot.

 

[Carrington Benz]

u mean to tell me - you say all of this - and you haven't even got the hvx ??...mmmmm

the reason I dont have much to back up, is because I clearly don't own the xlh1..yet - I am using this board as a think tank - you seem to be really blowing this out of proportion - im not the one who's arguing resolution - Im merely using common sense from my experience - as an editor more res gives u more scope in post prod I can go either way - more filmic or less ...

P2 has been out 5 mins & you talk like its been around for years - how can you judge without the experience of it.

Academic discussion .....errr. im not a geek dude ... i like to shoot stuff - as to comparing - watever - im game - sure - if you like..

HVX is HD - DVX is years old & is DV - I think not ....

To me I know the dvx is closer to look of 16mm " SO FAR... " ( read my post again ) I haven't seen anything yet from the hvx that has the same magic - this may change. A few of my dvx projects have been confused with 16mm over the last couple of years - thats how I base my judgement - I haven't seen much on the hvx clips to convince me its going to improve my work vastly - where as the xlh1 has convinced me otherwise .

Anyway - I'll let you rant on - I agree to disagree.. thats me - especially since I can't really take you seriously until you actually own the hvx & produce a wealth of " filmic " material to base your judgements - when I see this - I may reply back - in the meantime Im not wasting anymore of my precious time talking color space.

 

[DavidBeier]

u mean to tell me - you say all of this - and you haven't even got the hvx ??...mmmmm

I know people with one and I've seen it work. Besides, you're arguing without an XLH1.

the reason I dont have much to back up, is because I clearly don't own the xlh1..yet - I am using this board as a think tank - you seem to be really blowing this out of proportion - im not the one who's arguing resolution - Im merely using common sense from my experience - as an editor more res gives u more scope in post prod I can go either way - more filmic or less ...

Your comments still don't really hold water. Just having more resolution doesn't mean you can be more filmic or less purely because of higher resolution. Other things are imporant.

For that matter, as an editor, shouldn't you know realize how important twice the color resolution is and how important that will be to achieve the film look in post.

P2 has been out 5 mins & you talk like its been around for years - how can you judge without the experience of it.

How can you continually argue about an issue I've said twice was not meant to be taken seriously? My issues with tape are such that even seeing my friends work with P2 and that workflow is enough to be a plus for me. I'm not arguing it as a pro for the camera or anyone else. Just my own hatred of tape. What's so confusing about that?

To me I know the dvx is closer to look of 16mm " SO FAR... " ( read my post again ) I haven't seen anything yet from the hvx that has the same magic - this may change. A few of my dvx projects have been confused with 16mm over the last couple of years - thats how I base my judgement - I haven't seen much on the hvx clips to convince me its going to improve my work vastly - where as the xlh1 has convinced me otherwise .

That's odd, I read your post again and you still have absolutly nothing to support your claim that the DVX looks more filmic.

I agree to disagree.. thats me - especially since I can't really take you seriously until you actually own the hvx & produce a wealth of " filmic " material to base your judgements - when I see this - I may reply back - in the meantime Im not wasting anymore of my precious time talking color space.

Buddy, I really couldn't care less if you "take [me] seriously." Can I suggest that while you're gone you actually look up many of the things you blather about? You havn't backed up any of your assertations with facts. You argue I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't own either camera yet niether do you. I've at least worked with this things to an admittedly limited degree and am familiar with the tehcnical limitations. From your total lack of understanding of things like gamma curves, color compression, and general camera functionality, I really think you might want to read a book about this stuff before you try to pretend you know something again.

 

[disjecta]

Discussions like these always end up getting personal and it doesn't have to be that way. There are all kinds of technical reasons to argue what's a better camera and there are good points made here.

The fact is, there have been a lot of films shot on miniDV that had equal if not more limitations and they looked good by the time they were finished production.

Also, most of a viewing audience will not be seeing these limitations. That is a "gift" only we, as anal filmmakers, have and we can sit there and analyse a film's look to death and end up not even enjoying the intended experience.

While I understand that you are arguing about a lot of technical issues, you are also arguing who has the most objectivity and that's just something you can't do. Filmmaking is an art and everyone has there own likes and dislikes when it comes to the tools that create our vision. If Carrington is moved to buy this camera for narrative work and he puts enough work into the production, it will look like a film. The same can be said about the HVX but I think it is absurd when these cameras are so good that we are reduced to personal attacks and arrogance in terms of who knows more about what they are talking about. I mean, look at the vast array of different film stocks, all with their own unique look, that are available to those shooting on film. Sometimes it just comes down to the 24p cadence because there can be an equally vast array of looks and both cameras have this ability.

We are independent filmmakers and these cameras are the best we've ever had available at this price point. If color space limitations become a major stumbling block in a low budget film then there is something wrong with the world. I understand that you have a choice and why not go with the best you can for the work you do but that's exactly what we are talking about here.

Color space limitations are not a huge issue for a low budget flick, it can still look outstanding with those limitations.

Let's just relax a little and try to respect that everyone has a different and equally valid point of view based on what it is they want from the tools they will use to express their own vision.

 

[Carrington Benz]

I know people with one and I've seen it work. Besides, you're arguing without an XLH1.

end of story.. seeing it work now & then as opposed to finishing full productions- doesn't give you much credibillty here . btw Im not arguing.

Your comments still don't really hold water. Just having more resolution doesn't mean you can be more filmic or less purely because of higher resolution. Other things are imporant.

Maybe - but resolution is a a very big factor - I know this as an editor - check my work - I don't claim to be the king editor around here - but 10 years editng audio - 5 years video - I know enough to hold some water.

That's odd, I read your post again and you still have absolutly nothing to support your claim that the DVX looks more filmic.

Well, I meant read the bit where I stated " SO FAR " ie: I haven't seen the same magic from the hvx as dvx - I still believe that SO FAR.. I've seen more filmic looking projects from the dvx - the xlh1 has a more unique look & is vastly diff to the look of the xl2 - Disjecta's clips have proven this. but I still think the dvx has a more oraganic " filmic " look than the hvx footage I've seen ...so far

Buddy, I really couldn't care less if you "take [me] seriously."

Judging from your very pedantic post's, obviously you do, just a tad - hell even I've got the bug now , looking at this one.

I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't own either camera yet

This is most certainly TRUE

Third time lucky maybe - I'll say it again - I agree to disagree FULL STOP.
Also I second Disjetca's view on this over heated discussion

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Alrighty then