16mm X HVX FOOOOOTAGE!!

Drew599 said:
I would much rather stay with P2 than go with a drive as well. Once the 16GB cards come out that will be a perfect record time...for me.
Click to expand...

Along with a P2 store that's cheaper and holds more.
 
I cannot play one of the clips! I have QT 7 (h264 codec) and I also tried to open it with VLC media player! I get error code -2048 this is not a movie file!!!

any ideas???
 
The biggest difference I see is that the HVX200 has more noise/grain in the shadow areas. This is of course because the HVX200 has less lattitude and can't be changed. On the pros, it looks to me that less noise/grain is visible in the HVX200's lighter areas.
 
Ahhh... I did see this before and it is damn damn impressive on the HVX end. The noise mentioned about the HVX comparatively is unfounded. Look at the black guitar strap and lots more noise or muted black compared to the HVX. The HVX blacks look richer more crushed and overall better. The color looks better on the HVX... The look is overall more pleasing on the HVX... The motion.. the stills all better on the HVX...

And this is all IMHO... and too my eyes. Now, I think that this is the HVX at its best.. in a high key shot with minimal murky areas.. so I'll say that. If this were a high contrast shot... with lots of grads and subtle gradations.. then the film would kick ass. I think that when there's enough light the HVX shines... and a film comparision of dramatic contrasy scene would really be a tell-tale demonstration...


But for ya money... Look at that beautiful HVX.... ahhhhh. I wonder if Kodak will be making P2 cards since they are laying off thousands of people.... I wouldn't want to own a film processing or lab at this stage of the game...
 
I don't waste my time anymore in this discussion, film is stock+ lens+ light. If you think the 520 resolution from the HVX is like film, go ahead. If you think its great to troll on Kodak go ahead, any serious filmmaker saying things like that get laughs over here.
 
Justyn said:
Ahhh... I did see this before and it is damn damn impressive on the HVX end. The noise mentioned about the HVX comparatively is unfounded. Look at the black guitar strap and lots more noise or muted black compared to the HVX. The HVX blacks look richer more crushed and overall better. The color looks better on the HVX... The look is overall more pleasing on the HVX... The motion.. the stills all better on the HVX...
Click to expand...

I prefer the HVX200 look too but I gotta say I don't know what you're seeing. I think in these comparisons the Super 16mm easily beats out the HVX200 in the black guitar strap and box. I can see way more noise there compared to the detail of the 16mm. The bottom line is that the 16mm has more lattitude so you'll get more detail in the darks instead of noise/grain. Personally, I would have crushed the HVX's blacks a bit more than they did but I guesse they were trying to get them to match up. Of course this is all just what I see and very subjective.

I agree that the noise issue is REALLY overblown with the HVX but I can't deny that it's more prevelant in the dark areas compared to the 16mm (though, as I've said, it seems to handle the lights with less noise).

And this is all IMHO... and too my eyes. Now, I think that this is the HVX at its best.. in a high key shot with minimal murky areas.. so I'll say that. If this were a high contrast shot... with lots of grads and subtle gradations.. then the film would kick ass. I think that when there's enough light the HVX shines... and a film comparision of dramatic contrasy scene would really be a tell-tale demonstration...

But for ya money... Look at that beautiful HVX.... ahhhhh. I wonder if Kodak will be making P2 cards since they are laying off thousands of people.... I wouldn't want to own a film processing or lab at this stage of the game...
Click to expand...

I don't think it's quite that simple. From what I've seen, the beauty of Panasonic's cameras is that they seem to handle the subtle shadows almost exactly the way film does. This is one of the things that has made me stick with them compared to Canon and JVC. I honestly think the biggest thing is pure lattitude. Good Super 16mm will have 14 stops. HVX200 will get 10.

Personally, I'd want to use the HVX200 in most situations. In most of what I'd shoot, I think I'd be able to get a better look out of the HVX200 than 16mm because I can see how I'm affecting the image on the monitor rather than relying on guesswork (and yes, I know that if you're really good it's not guessing but having shot film, I still don't think it's ever quite the same as seeing exactly what you're getting).

The only times when I'd really want film are in extreme lighting circumstances. Either on a very harsh sunny day where I'd either end up with the HVX200 blowing out heavily or having large pools of black (once again less lattitude). Or in an underexposed lighting situation where the film would look great but the HVX200 noisy as hell.
 
xray said:
I don't waste my time anymore in this discussion, film is stock+ lens+ light. If you think the 520 resolution from the HVX is like film, go ahead. If you think its great to troll on Kodak go ahead, any serious filmmaker saying things like that get laughs over here.
Click to expand...
Serious filmmakers in the Netherlands eh?? Yea...:Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
Now that's funny! They are just serious people over there... making serious films about serious subjects.. thus being serious filmmakers.. They are also trying to keep up with the Sweedish, but just ain't cutting it.

Also any serious filmmaker trolling the HD threads.. then is a window shopper. Besides, serious filmmakers just talk and talk to be serious.


Well my eyes are seeing what they are seeing... and clients can't tell and don't know the friggin difference. I showed some footage to my sister-in-law and her unsolicited reaction was... that's movie quality. Now when I showed her some film footage... got the same reaction... but she couldn't put into words much of a difference... and simply that they both looked good. However, even considering the cost of purchasing the HVX, the HVX footage cost about 50K less.. So somethings are better on the bottom line.
 
^
I actually did a blind test with several people from my film school and all thought the HVX200 footage looked better. Other none film people I've shown couldn't tell the difference at all.

Besides, anyone claiming someone isn't a "serious filmmaker" for their choice of medium still has quite a bit to learn.
 
Androoow! Thank you for delevering the goods. Your awesome....


Anybody got the second clip by any chance?

Pappas

androoow said:
i saved one of the clips.. 16mmxhvx-a only 5 seconds long..ive just added it
onto my free isp webspace ..have no idea what limit is ..but its there now..
the original mov clip approx 12mb hope this is the one people are on about.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/eco-studios/videos/16mmxhvx-a.mov



didnt save the 2nd clip though...

hope this helps a bit.


cheers
Click to expand...
 
Xray I hear ya. Although serious filmmakers are using video I understand what you're trying to say. I have the HVX strictly for monetary reasons but if that wasn't an issue I'd go film for sure. Its just pure economics that you have to get around and I'm sure if money weren't an issue a lot of members here would run to film. The fact that Panasonic has made a camera that emulates the look and cadence of film says a lot.
 
the longer clip does some some noise on those pants or compression mess. Darn impressive and yes it is about the economics for personal ventures. for another client their budget would dictate the camera choice and playing with film toys and big boy video toys is fabulous.. but in the day to day of grabbing a camera to shoot something... that's what makes this quality leap something astounding as well as financially less threatening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top