HVX aricle by Adam Wilt on DV.com

Thanks for the link, Juan. This should be interesting as a followup to the Texas shootout.

Edit: Interesting article, and the Adam Wilt attention to detail was characteristically exhaustive. I appreciated the pics, though I would like to see even larger sizes for detail comparison.

My experience with the difference between Cine_Like_D and _V seems a bit different from what he had there. Cine_V always seems "hazier"/flatter to me, but in his it seemed (almost) the reverse in feel.

I never use the non "Cine" settings, so it was good to see comparisons. I will stay with Cine-whatever for most work, but I can think of some shots I've done that would have benefitted from other settings, based on what I saw. It would be good to see the same comparison for outdoor shots, full sun.

Oh, Barry-book, hurry through the mail!!
 
Last edited:
I disagreed 100% with previous Adam's statements.

But i agree 100% with this new one.

Remeber that this is only my opinion, ...and that could change over time !...depending on experience etc...

Having my HVX for 9 months now, i can say for sure that cinelike D is not the best gamma choice for the best highlight natural handling/clipping/compression.
If you want the color to pop with cinelike D, open he iris and bang, the whites are clipping in a contrasty scene.
With "High" gamma setting, you will not clip the highlights AND have good color intensity/reproduction in the 0 to 30 ire range.

My very best results were when using "cinelike V" AND "High" gamma settings.
I prefer "High" gamma setting with cinelike color matrix.

ALSO, the image is cleaner with "high" than with cinelike D. and more vivid.
You have to close the iris about half a f/stop to a full f/stop to match 50 ire response.

Adam is also right saying that cinelike has less edge enhancement for a given detail setting. It is obvious when you film a closeup of a book. The biggest difference is in the vertical ehancement.

If i use cinelike, i set 0 H Detail and 0 V detail.
If i use "High", i set H detail to -2 and V detail to -2.

Finally, using the "high" gamma setting, since it is cleaner, you can dial detail coring to 0 without fearing too much noise, and you should see a little better image finesse.

That said, there are plenty of situations where cinelike D is great gamma curve.

Testing, testing, and testing is the key to find the setting you like best for a given look.

Cheers !
 
Last edited:
Adam's last sentence is the single most important in his entire article:

"You may find that spending a day or two just playing with your camera may yield similar insights, allowing you to paint more elegant pictures with your chosen tools."

I think so many of the questions that pop-up here, over and over, could be easily answered if people just put their camera's on a set of sticks and diligently went through their settings and recording formats themselves. Take notes and indicate to yourself what looks the best to you and then trust your gut and use it.

There is no magically correct setting for anything, just choices we make to better paint our pictures, as Adam said.

--

Rob
 
And there you have it folks. Adam Wilt whose Texas shootout has so often been quoted as proof the HVX200 isn't high rez enough admits it was handicapped. Glad he took the time to learn the camera and admit an error.

His initial assesment wasn't even really his fault entirly since all these tests try too hard to make the cameras perform like one another and thus tend not to really show their strengths. The footage produced from these tests always looks way worse to me than some of the better stuff I've seen come from these cameras. Treating all cameras equally doesn't work. The detail thing is a great example. Setting all of them to the minimum setting doesn't work since JVC's -6 is equal to Pansonic's +7 and Canon's -3 is equal to Panaonic's -7. It's kind of a shame that the companies don't agree on a uniform detail notation.

I still think the best way to test the cameras is to get people who really know them inside and out and know how to utilize their strengths to get the best looking image. Shoot the same things but don't use all the same settings since that just doesn't work.
 
Good thread. I found my self adjusting the master ped up and down while shooting a run and gun reality sequence outdoors in a park depending on whether the scene was primarily bright sun or mostly shade. I was surprised on viewing the footage later how well that worked. Time spent tinkering and experimenting with this camera is well worth it That is why it is GRRRRRRREAT !
Back to my documentary on the making of "Ishtar"
 
This is the very same issue I have with almost EVERY Canon XL series test I see, in every case, the Canon was not represented with an operator who knew how to make the camera look the very best. Same is true for many on this and other forums who just cameras based on very limited experience with them. My arguement which I say still holds true is that all these cameras are "good enough" We are splitting hairs when comparing 1/3" CCD images...



ash = o)
 
True.

...and "out of the box" settings are rarely the best settings for any camera...


...and even more...the relationship between gamma curves, exposure, color matrix need to be extensively explored.

I've seen great footage from all these cameras, and i've also seen crappy footage from all these cameras.
 
TimurCivan said:
http://www.chrisoben.com/discoveringthehvx200_dcs_web.pdf

Yea but read this.... this is interesting. they were intercutting HVX with F900, and they thought i did well....!?
Click to expand...

Great read. I thought it was interesting how they never even mentioned any issues with the HVX's sharpness (saying +2 made it gel fine with their F900 stuff) and only real issue was the lack of lattitude (which of course will be the case in a 1/3 CCD camera). I also found it interesting that they havn't been using the HDV cameras because of the motion compression.
 
I guess some poeple care more about the actual PICTURE than some numbers about resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top