Barry what do you think of this statement!!!

What is there really to say??
Nobody here said any one camera was the be and end all. Most of that thread seemed reasonable to me. If I'm shooting wide static landscapes...I'll shoot a highend format- 35mm or 2/3 HDCAM.

HVX fits the bill for 70% of what I need. Everything else can be rented. I'm sure not feeling sorry for the images I'm getting from the camera.

Can't speak for Barry....but I'm sure he's not losing any sleep either :)
 
I'd say first of all, read through the whole thread -- he's sticking with the HVX, not selling it, not going to the Canon after all.

Second, yes the XLH1 can make a sharper image. But it still sounds to me like he should have shot both products side-by-side to verify whether the XLH1 would really have made that much difference. Without being there, without knowing the circumstances, who's to say that maybe it was a situation where a polarizer would have helped, or something like that?

Other than that, as esperman said, there's no one final end-all be-all. The XLH1 is a little sharper. Frankly, it had better be, since it costs 50% more.
 
Last edited:
Sharper Image is one thing.

Titling, FX and compositing are anothers. HDV has issues, at least from my personal experience, with all three.
 
David S. said:
Sharper Image is one thing.

Titling, FX and compositing are anothers. HDV has issues, at least from my personal experience, with all three.
Click to expand...
This is not a recommendation for one or the other, but I'm a bit tired of hearing this characterization of HDV.

10 years ago people said the same thing about FX work in 4:2:2 8bit video [which is what the DVCProHD codec is], if it wasn't 4:4:4 10bit you shouldn't do it. Now people are saying that 4:1:1 is not adequate for green screen, FX work etc...

While the DVCProHD codec is a marginal codec at best, there are some very good codec’s for converting HDV to an intermediate format that works as well as the DVCProHD codec for doing the same sorts of effects.

I have seen footage shot with the XL-1H used in comps that looks great. I would characterize it this way; the best scenario for shooting for effects is 4:4:4 10bit video, which provides the most latitude. The 4:2:2 8bit which has less room for error, and finally 4:1:1 which has very little room for error – so you had better know how to light a green screen shot correctly.

But the difference between HDV that has been converted using a good quality codec and using the DVCProHD for effects work is marginal. Quite frankly if I have a choice for this type of production I wouldn’t use either.
 
As I said, this is my observation.

We had a Z1U and produced SD DVDs from HDV footage, with titling, etc.

Then we bit the bullet, and purchased a HVX200. The SD DVDs from 720p/24 are qualitatively better.

Especially where titling, FX, etc is concerned.

I'm not knocking HDV image, just how it handles graphics, titling, etc.
 
One thing I like about the HVX is the wide angle. 32.5mm is very good for a video camera. And it is this, that is also responsible for the corner softness.
 
i think we all know that the HVX200 isn't as sharp as the XLH1. That said, I must say that his claims about the color looking flat are pure and utter BS. I think one of the things that most people who like the DVX and HVX have always responded to are the very filmish colors. Even in very negative tests like the Texas shootout they commented on how great the HVX200 colors looked. If he can't get them to look good outdoors then he has issues as an operator.
 
I DID read the whole thread !! and it was even really surprising/funny (since in the beginning he was so sure to put the HVX on ebay) that at the end he said he will stick to the HVX and rent something else for landscape kind of footage. Barry I was just curious how your experiences are with landscape shooting using the HVX. Is the HVX indeed less suitable for such thing? and if so is the explanation he proposes (resolution) right are is it caused by something else (or even very exagurated)?


Barry_Green said:
I'd say first of all, read through the whole thread -- he's sticking with the HVX, not selling it, not going to the Canon after all.

Second, yes the XLH1 can make a sharper image. But it still sounds to me like he should have shot both products side-by-side to verify whether the XLH1 would really have made that much difference. Without being there, without knowing the circumstances, who's to say that maybe it was a situation where a polarizer would have helped, or something like that?

Other than that, as esperman said, there's no one final end-all be-all. The XLH1 is a little sharper. Frankly, it had better be, since it costs 50% more.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It all depends on too many circumstances to easily answer that. I've shot some desert landscape stuff in the mountains of Vegas that I was disappointed with the sharpness of. But then we shot some other desert stuff that I was very happy by the sharpness of (look back on the original 1080/24p stuff). That's why I wonder if it wasn't more a situation of needing a polarizer or something, or, furthermore, just comparing both products under the exact same circumstances.

No doubt a 2/3" camera with a $60,000 lens is going to deliver better wide shots. But I've seen (and every HD BootCamp attendee has seen) this 1080p footage blown up on a 10' screen and unless I'm mistaken there's never been a case of anyone saying "does that look soft to you?" Normally they're very happy with it.

As far as landscape shooting the HVX is every bit as suitable as an HD100 or Z1, and will do way better than the Z1 if the Z1 is in CF24 or CF25 or CF30 mode, but if it's ultimate resolved detail that you're after it won't quite resolve as much as an XLH1 (especially if the XLH1 is in 60i mode). And obviously it won't match a $100,000 CineAlta either. But it's a screamingly lot better than any standard-def camera and plenty detailed enough for most any work.

I've got this 1080p desert landscape stuff transferred to 35mm film now and just have to find a place where I can screen it, and that will be somewhat of the ultimate test.
 
Robert Lane rises one interesting point, about backup solutions. I also read something similar in the HVX Book:

Robert Lane said:
The answer is: Hard drives. They're cheap, extremely stable/reliable despite what legacy rumorings say and when in a powered-off state and used strictly for archiving purposes will last indefinitely - or until the technology advances so far ahead that you can't use them anymore - which looks to be about another 10-15 years at a minimum.
Click to expand...

I thought that hard drives are nothing to be considered as archival solution, as the data is saved magnetically, and so is prone to fail anytime some magnetic field is getting to close, or just by de-magnetization over time, or just by mechanical impact.

So, then, the truth is, that I can buy two (double backup) of those, for example, Maxtor 500 GB drives, store eight hours of DVCProHD footage on them and be sure to still have the data ten years from now? Right now, my backup solution consists of DVD-RAM cartridges, optical storage.

Barry_Green said:
I've got this 1080p desert landscape stuff transferred to 35mm film now and just have to find a place where I can screen it, and that will be somewhat of the ultimate test.
Click to expand...

How do you deliver the footage for film transfer? As stills on a harddrive?
 
Yeah, let the images show for themselves... so far I've been much more impressed with the color picked up by the HVX than by the XL-H1.
 
I think it's worth noting that people also tend to be too scared of the detail settings on the HVX. The other night in preperatiion for a project, I went ahead and shot a bunch of tests; all seeing how the image reacts to upping the detail and v detail. For starters, the HVX tends to have much less edge enhancments than the Z1 or HD100. I believe Barry mentioned -6 detail on the HD100 is actuall equivelant to +7 on the HVX (big difference). I also have found in my tests that upping the detail on the HVX does a good job of making it look sharper without making it look overly digital as is the case with other cameras. Now, upping the detail does of corse increase the noise but it seems that the detail coring does a wonderful job of getting rid of the excess noise without losing any of the sharpness (in my tests, I could not see any loss of sharpness between -2 or +7 on detail coring, just a lot less noise).
 
Last edited:
Pascal_Parvex said:
I thought that hard drives are nothing to be considered as archival solution, as the data is saved magnetically...
Click to expand...


But aren't tapes also magnetic? Theoretically, if an EMP hits this side of the world, ALL media stored on tape would be immediately wiped out. And with the earth's climate going to hell and the ozone becoming thiner by the minute this isn't too far-fetched.

EMP = Electro Magnetic Pulse

P.S. So therefore, the BEST archival method available... chisel every one and zero of your video stream onto stone tablets :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
TheThe said:
P.S. So therefore, the BEST archival method available... chisel every one and zero of your video stream onto stone tablets :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...

True. I have been just jotting them down on yellow legal pads for years. Quicker?...sure. But Rock is so much more durable than paper. I hear Canon is working on a rockless workflow.
 
Well, in Roberts case it was a lot about workflow. Same boat here... I shoot a lot of Vari stuff and it is just easier to incorporate HVX stuff technically. If I were shooting in low light or mainly shooting wide detailed scenes, I would not choose the HVX.

The HVX's strength, for me anyway, is music videos, short narrratives, etc. Like I always say, there is no best camera for everything. Get what you need MOST the time, then rent when you need to. And ALWAYS make sure your camera is not included in your rate... break it out seperately!!!!




ash =o)
 
Dude, in case of a massive EMP, as much as I love my HVX and the footage it produces, I am pretty sure they will be the last things I'll be thinking of.

:Drogar-Mark-10(DBG)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top