About to make a purchase decision.. leaning toward HVX 200, could use some advice.

[Blackout]

Greetings once again all.

I have been in the land of DV with the original DVX-100 for some time now and
I have been following all the HD cameras and news as much as I can and am about ready to jump in a make a purchase of two cameras and an editing system.

So far I am completely leaning towards the HVX-200. Some of the footage I have seen has completely blown me away as far as having a filmic look to it, even though I know it doesn't have the resolution of it's competitors, it just looks better and it's gamma curves and contrast ratios and colors look way more film like.

I toyed around with the Sony Z1 HDV and it looked way to videoey to me (if that's a word) and it's 24 mode is fako. I haven't gotten my hands on a JVC, but I have toyed with the ridiculously expensive Canon HD and while looking and feeling impressive and having very sharp images, it also had a very video look to it's fake 24p mode as well, so I am pretty much convinced on the HVX 200 so far, just a little concerned about the lower res and the expensive P2 cards.

Also, I plan on buying a top of the line mac and windows editing system. What am I looking at in terms of that to edit HD comfortably without laggy glitches (is that even possible?) and what software should I be editing on. I have heard a lot of camps say the HVX footage edits better on a PC, yet everyone says Final Cut is the master program.

Up until this point I have been editing on premiere 6.5 or Edius believe it or not because I have a Canopus DVStorm2 pro card that has been able to do real time 4 layers of DV on cubes and all sorts of effects and not get bogged down. I am ready to do a feature film though and if the film sells I am concerened about how well the HVX will tranfer to a film print. Has anyone done this yet? Are there any movies out yet in any theaters actually fully shot using HVXs?

Is there any other camera I should be looking at or considering? What is this RED thing I keepm hearing about?

I would like to get two cameras and two editing systems. Do I need an external raid? Can the two computers share it? Is this doable for under $25,000?
I already have pro sound gear.

Thanks, any help or guidance before I make the big purchase would be greatly appreciated. You can see some of my work on my website:

http://blackout.com

Also take a look at ART'S POINT OF VIEW:
This was shot DV with an XL2

http://blackout.com/artspointofview

Thanks,

Michael (Blackout)

 

[brianluce]

If I had 25k and wanted to make a feature I'd set about 3-5k aside for audio gear and would only buy one camera and one editor.

And I'm not sure I'd concern myself too much with how filmish it looks since you can do so much of that in post. I'd probably get something better than an HVX if I had that much money, probably something with 1/2" CCD's.

 

[Cees Mutsaers]

I think if you want to buy the full set (thus HVX,P2 cards, edditing hardware + software, archiving discs, audio stuff etc. etc), 25k is just enough for only one setup. If you want a higher end cam than the 25k is just enough for the cam only.

 

[brianluce]

I think if you want to buy the full set (thus HVX,P2 cards, edditing hardware + software, archiving discs, audio stuff etc. etc), 25k is just enough for only one setup. If you want a higher end cam than the 25k is just enough for the cam only.

Let's try and break it down...

basic production kit:

5500 HVX with 8 gig p2
1000 Tripod and head
2000 Audio kit (AT4073, Octava, softie, boom pole, cables, lav mic)
1500 basic lighting kit
???? Mac with Final cut
1000 field monitor of some sort

(don't know how much a final cut set ups cost for I built a p4 with a $99 vegas software for under 1000 bucks and It can do alot of what final cut and fancy mac can do for alot less money. Not to mention superior audio features.)

Okay, flame away...

 

[Blackout]

Like I said I already have pro audio and lighting gear. I have a Sanken CS-3e which is just the best all around mic I have ever used and I have a direct to hard drive recording system. It's not a diva but it gets the job done. So I just need two cams and a computer editing setup. I need two cams because I am doing scenes that will need multiple camera coverage. To me, the HVX looks damn good... I don't know if a studio or an audience is going to know if I spend the money on a 25K camera. I would just like to see how the thing looks once blown up to a 35mm print. Is there anywhere to see this? Has anyone done this?

It's obvious that if you light and shoot right it'll look great on an HD DLP projector, but how will a film transfer do? The only big drawback i see is in it's handling of harsh reds because of the pixel shift technology. but that is also what's giving it the amazing lighting contrast range it has where the other cameras fail and blow out.

 

[ozduc]

People have done 35mm blow up tests and you can find some threads realating to this by searching the forum. However the only way to really see what a 35mm blow up will look like is to see it projected from a 35mm projector on to a big screen, so looking at the results on the internet wont do you much good.
If you have $25k to spend, it would probably be worth your while to spend about 5% of that on some tests. Rent a camera for a day, shoot some footage and blow it up to 35mm so you can test the workflow and see the results for yourself. That way you can be sure it is the right camera for you and your project. Just be sure to shoot 1080/24PA for best results.

 

[THoff]

The problem I see with that is that having never used an HVX before, he won't be familiar with the camera and know how to really take advantage of it, so the results probably won't be as good as what is possible.

Also, there is much more to testing the camera than just renting it for a day. Blackout is also investigating an editing solution, he's on Premiere and that can't handle the HD from the camera (at least not by itself).

Barry has done film-out, I'm hoping that he will chime in.

 

[Cees Mutsaers]

Mac : ~ $3000
FCS : ~ 1299
Tripod +head : more like $3000 for something decent

Let's try and break it down...

basic production kit:

5500 HVX with 8 gig p2
1000 Tripod and head
2000 Audio kit (AT4073, Octava, softie, boom pole, cables, lav mic)
1500 basic lighting kit
???? Mac with Final cut
1000 field monitor of some sort

(don't know how much a final cut set ups cost for I built a p4 with a $99 vegas software for under 1000 bucks and It can do alot of what final cut and fancy mac can do for alot less money. Not to mention superior audio features.)

Okay, flame away...

 

[Barry_Green]

So far I am completely leaning towards the HVX-200. Some of the footage I have seen has completely blown me away as far as having a filmic look to it, even though I know it doesn't have the resolution of it's competitors

Says who? Fewer pixels, yes, but less resolution? Here's a shot of the Canon XHA1 and the HVX shooting the exact same subject at the exact same time of day, side by side, with exposure set exactly to the same IRE level according to the zebras, both on tripods, both white-balanced the same, both set to comparable detail levels, both at middle color levels, both in their most filmlike gamma curves. These are uncompressed frame grabs directly from the timeline, saved as uncompressed PNGs.

Are you seeing a big resolution difference here?
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX-Battleship-Medium.png
http://www.fiftv.com/XHA1-Battleship-Medium.png

Looking at those images, I see very comparable resolution, but the HVX picture is just a whole lot cleaner. Less grain, less artifacts, much better color. And directly comparable resolution.

, it just looks better and it's gamma curves and contrast ratios and colors look way more film like.

Having extensively tested them all (except the new Sony V1U) I would definitely agree with you on this point.

Also, I plan on buying a top of the line mac and windows editing system. What am I looking at in terms of that to edit HD comfortably without laggy glitches (is that even possible?)

DVCPRO-HD flies on any modern Mac system. I mean flies. You won't get that performance with HDV in its native codec, but you can handle multiple streams of HD in realtime on any Intel Mac. On the PC you can get superb performance from EDIUS and Avid works pretty well with it. If you want to get a hardware board, the Matrox Axio system works with Premiere Pro 2 and delivers amazing P2 integration and all sorts of realtime effects and such.

I don't like how FCP 5 integrates with the MXF files, but once you have the footage imported, it edits very, very well on FCP.

Up until this point I have been editing on premiere 6.5 or Edius believe it or not because I have a Canopus DVStorm2 pro card that has been able to do real time 4 layers of DV on cubes and all sorts of effects and not get bogged down.

With a fast PC you could do that with EDIUS in high-def, and FCP can probably handle it as well. And if you go with Premiere Pro and Axio, it has hardware acceleration so it can handle all sorts of tasks in pure realtime.

I am ready to do a feature film though and if the film sells I am concerened about how well the HVX will tranfer to a film print. Has anyone done this yet? Are there any movies out yet in any theaters actually fully shot using HVXs?

Fully shot? None that I know of. Films that used the HVX and integrated it into the release print would include Scorcese's "The Departed, and Spielberg's "Munich" (for middle-eastern theatrical release). And supposedly Spider-Man 3 used it too.

I've got a film print here but haven't screened it yet, I have 720 and 1080 footage on it. Seth Melnick (smelni) and Ilya Friedman have both done film transfers from HVX footage and had high praise for the results.

What is this RED thing I keep hearing about?

Red is a new Ultra-HD system, read more at www.reduser.net. It's in a totally different league than all these prosumer HD cameras.

I would like to get two cameras and two editing systems. Do I need an external raid? Can the two computers share it? Is this doable for under $25,000?

Easily. Two HVXs with the free 8GB card would cost around $11,000. Even a 24" Imac could make a decent editing station, or you could get a killer PC editing system, for $2000 each either way. As for a raid, you certainly don't need it, but it's always nice to have.

 

[USLatin]

I just love it when Barry gets all into it...

just wanted to mention:
_Tripod $1,400
jut got the F102 setup from VTP and this would handle the HVX loaded with lens monitor and more
_2 HVXs and two 8G $10,100
getting this price is easy when u r getting so much, go to VTP I jut got only one HVX and an F102 and got the HVX for $5,000 even
_One lens adaptor and follow focus $2,500
M2 and follow focus from RedRock, unless you will need DOF control on both cameras simultaneoulsly then double
_Laptop $1,000
just to dump cards would be about 1k
_2 Roxi focus contollers $900

I am going to ballpark these:
_Mac $3000
with software, you can go up or as Barry said down in price here, I am quite sure you will be "flying" for 3k
_I don't know about PC systems comprable to the abilities of FCP, I am using Vegas and it rocks but you might want to go with those mentioned by Barry and others but I do know that you can get a super fast desktop for $2500
_Hard Drives $1300
you'll need more than what you r getting for a feature, I think this would get you about 2TB now
_2 HD Monitors $1,600 just estimating the cheapest pair but most would ay get better ones or even just one good one

Now you are at 21,800 leaving 3,200 left and still need to budget:
_lights
_lens rental
_possibly 2 more 8G cards to have 2 per camera ($1500 if bought from Europe)
_Matte boxes and filters
_on camera monitors

and what about your people

 

[Ted Spencer]

Says who? Fewer pixels, yes, but less resolution? Here's a shot of the Canon XHA1 and the HVX shooting the exact same subject at the exact same time of day, side by side, with exposure set exactly to the same IRE level according to the zebras, both on tripods, both white-balanced the same, both set to comparable detail levels, both at middle color levels, both in their most filmlike gamma curves. These are uncompressed frame grabs directly from the timeline, saved as uncompressed PNGs.

Are you seeing a big resolution difference here?
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX-Battleship-Medium.png
http://www.fiftv.com/XHA1-Battleship-Medium.png

Looking at those images, I see very comparable resolution, but the HVX picture is just a whole lot cleaner. Less grain, less artifacts, much better color. And directly comparable resolution.

Could you tell us what the detail settings were for these shots? I have no hands-on experience with any of the HVX's competitors, but it seems generally understood that they have higher edge enhancement/detail levels as defaults.

I could see a couple of different technical approaches to screen grab comparisons like this where detail is concerned. One that might somewhat unfaiirly favor the HVX would be to start by setting its detail level to its "sweet spot" and than lowering the Canon's to match that. This would in effect be "dumbing down" the Canon, if in fact a higher detail setting on it would actually be better than the HVX's. Another way, and arguably the fairer way, would be to set each camera's detail level to its own sweet spot and let the differences show as whatever they were.

In either case, a certain amount of eyebelling is necessary to make the judgement of course, but I think few would impugn your ability there. So my question, in addtion to simply asking what detail settings were used, is how did you determine where to set them? Most particularly, was the Canon set to its own ideal level by your estimation?

If the answer is that both cameras were set to show their best results, then these screenshots would truly seem to put to rest any discussion on the HVX's inferiority, at least in the shooting environment of the test (low light being another matter, for example). To my eye the Canon's color, resolution and even noise (wow!) are distinctly inferior. Noise-wise, even the ship's large grey hull-side area shows noticeably more than the HVX shot. It certainly is not at all what I would have expected, and one can only imagine that if the Canon's detail level were raised it would be even worse in both noise and resolution.

I'm still quite new to the HVX, having only had it for a couple of otherwise very busy months (you know, with my *real* job and everything), so how to get the best results, especially detail-wise is very valuable information to me. So far I've only tried cranking it to about +2, but I know others have gone much higher. I'd be curious to know what your general take is on where it starts to get too edge-enhanced for your taste.

Thanks again for taking the time to post the great pix and comments.

 

[Barry_Green]

Could you tell us what the detail settings were for these shots? I have no hands-on experience with any of the HVX's competitors, but it seems generally understood that they have higher edge enhancement/detail levels as defaults.

Both were set to dead center, middle, default. I tested them quite a bit to try to determine where a comparable setting would be, and it does seem like the middle point is about the same on both.

I could see a couple of different technical approaches to screen grab comparisons like this where detail is concerned. One that might somewhat unfaiirly favor the HVX would be to start by setting its detail level to its "sweet spot" and than lowering the Canon's to match that. This would in effect be "dumbing down" the Canon, if in fact a higher detail setting on it would actually be better than the HVX's.

Of course that's true, and that would be dishonest to demonstrate it in that way.

Another way, and arguably the fairer way, would be to set each camera's detail level to its own sweet spot and let the differences show as whatever they were.

That is what I attempted to do.

So my question, in addtion to simply asking what detail settings were used, is how did you determine where to set them? Most particularly, was the Canon set to its own ideal level by your estimation?

I set up two laptops side by side, both running DV Rack 2.0 HD. I set both cameras side by side, and framed up and shot my Cambook resolution chart, and Cambelles test picture. I then used the DV Rack monitor and blew up the image to maximum magnification (way, way beyond pixel-for-pixel, I zoomed in to max which is something like 400% on PhotoShop) so that any changes would be immediately obvious and indicative of the changes in the actual signal, and not due to any effect the monitor would have on it. Then I ran both cameras through their gamut of detail settings, in the appropriate gamma curve.

I found both cameras to offer relatively mild edge enhancement, certainly nothing at all like the JVC does. The Panasonic can be doubly enhanced if you put it in the normal or non-cine gammas, but half the point of shooting on the panasonic is to use the cinelike gammas and any film-style shooter is going to likely be using them, so I used them exclusively.

If the answer is that both cameras were set to show their best results, then these screenshots would truly seem to put to rest any discussion on the HVX's inferiority, at least in the shooting environment of the test

The Canon can exhibit a bit more sharpness in leaves or other solid-green circumstances, but if those leaves start blowing then the HDV compression can take that away. So overall, I conclude that yes they are comparably sharp.

(but keep in mind this was 1080/24F, which causes a resolution softening in the Canon; had we been shooting 60i to 60i the Canon would have been sharper).

(low light being another matter, for example).

Not really. In low light circumstances they deliver comparable brightness and comparable amounts of noise; it's just that the HVX's noise is more chroma noise and blotchy/smeary whereas the Canon noise is gritty and black & white; some people seem to prefer that over the smeary/blotchy look of the HVX's. But the HVX has so much more color in its signal that you could probably get them to match if you just turned the color down on the HVX to match the Canon's; I bet that would cause a comparable noise texture in both (but I didn't think to test that when I had them both here!)

To my eye the Canon's color, resolution and even noise (wow!) are distinctly inferior. Noise-wise, even the ship's large grey hull-side area shows noticeably more than the HVX shot. It certainly is not at all what I would have expected, and one can only imagine that if the Canon's detail level were raised it would be even worse in both noise and resolution.

Yes, I agree completely. The Canon is a noisy camcorder, no doubt about it. Thing is, the Canon stays noisy under all conditions, whereas the HVX gets very, very clean under adequate lighting conditions. You'll see that same layer of grit in other XLH1 and XHA1 test shots; here's an example of the XLH1 shot by Scott Billups, comparing it against the Viper -- notice the same layer of noise:
http://www.cinematography.net/hdcamtests/pixelmonger/_CAR_2.jpg

Now, it's not possible to remember every single feature during comparison tests, especially when you're by yourself and trying to set up two cameras, so one feature I wish I would have put on the Canon is "sky detail". That would hopefully have cleaned up the blue sky, but probably wouldn't have done anything about the gray hull.

There is noise in all the camcorders; I find the HD100 the noisiest, the HVX and XHA1 comparable under most conditions, and the Sony Z1 the cleanest. The HVX's noise gets splotchy in the dark, whereas the XHA1's stays consistent, so perhaps what people are seeing is a "transition point" whereupon they like one's noise more than the other. But Evin Grant shot the Viper and the HVX on the same shoot, and concluded that the HVX was every bit as clean as the Viper (and we show that footage at the HVX BootCamps).

I'm still quite new to the HVX, having only had it for a couple of otherwise very busy months (you know, with my *real* job and everything), so how to get the best results, especially detail-wise is very valuable information to me. So far I've only tried cranking it to about +2, but I know others have gone much higher. I'd be curious to know what your general take is on where it starts to get too edge-enhanced for your taste.

Coming from the DVX perspective we used to always go to -3 or lower, but with the HVX I find 0 quite satisfactory, and the negatives just make the image too soft for my taste without really masking any edginess. I normally run at +2, and I have on occasion gone to +7. +7 can look fine in many circumstances, but if it's a really low-contrast scene you can start getting some black outlining. I find +7 (when in cinelike gamma) is about comparable to a JVC at -6, and JVC shooters seem to like the image at -6, so hey... but I did find several cases where +7 was just too edgy. It never gets offensively edgy like the HD100 at "max", for example, but it can add enough of a black outline to draw attention to itself, which is more than I care for. But be aware, if you're using a non-cine gamma, the edge enhancement effect is doubled. So in normal gamma you might use -2, whereas in cinelike-D you'd use +2, and get about the same results.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Thanks so much for the detailed information, Barry. It should certainly help settle a...uh..."discussion" or two : )

 

[brianluce]

That HVX image pops relative to the canon. Barry, do you think it's the 4.2.2 color space that's making the difference here?

 

[Barry_Green]

That HVX image pops relative to the canon.

It's not just that one, it's every shot I took. Overall it's the same thing as it was with the XL2 & DVX -- the XHA1 looks like a high-def XL2, and HVX looks like a high-def DVX.

If you see the Canon by itself, you just say "wow, that looks fantastic." But if you look at them side-by-side, the HVX looks better every time. (of course that's a subjective opinion, as is nearly every use of the word "better"!)

Barry, do you think it's the 4.2.2 color space that's making the difference here?

No, I just think it's the overall chroma matrix and the color saturation level. You can crank up the canon to deliver more color than default, of course, but it can't ever come close to the gorgeous saturated color palette the HVX delivers.

Those shots were both with color level set to middle. I also did some shots where I tried to extract the max color from the Canon, and it began to approach the overall color level of the HVX at middle. But then you can turn the HVX up to supersaturated and still get far more. But even so, the overall feel of the color is just different. I couldn't make the Canon look like the Panasonic, and I tried.

 

[unfiltered]

DVCPRO-HD flies on any modern Mac system. I mean flies. You won't get that performance with HDV in its native codec, but you can handle multiple streams of HD in realtime on any Intel Mac.

Barry's the man and he doesn't really need anyone to confirm his points, but this carries so much truth, I had to.

After cutting test footage from the HVX over the past few months while getting getting to know that camera, I have a certain expectancy when it comes to Final Cut performing on my dual 2.3 G5. Like Barry states, it DOES fly. (As it does on my MacBook Pro.)

But with a new baby in the house, I figured the wife needed a nice handheld camcorder, and I didn't want to get anything cheap. So I picked up a Sony HDR-HC3 (an HDV camera) , and I have been very satisfied with the images. Of course, after capturing it in FCP, I was surprised to see it hang on some of the native editing/playback on both my G5 and Intel machines.

Considering my HC3 is an HDV-format, I would suspect even it's big brothers will give the same performance, which in my experience is less than ideal.

FCP and the HVX have been giving some users issues while importing, but not everyone. In the scenario the original poster is looking to create, that long GOP HDV format is going to catch up with you.

 

[ozduc]

I've got a film print here but haven't screened it yet, I have 720 and 1080 footage on it.

Barry, if you're in Los Angeles and would like to screen your film print, I would love to see it, so shoot me a PM and I'll organize a private screening.

 

[Christopher Barry]

Very informative Barry, thanks. This info clears up some questions I had about the Canon.

 

[USLatin]

I'd love to attend that screening.

 

[Bucknfl]

Having extensively tested them all (except the new Sony V1U) I would definitely agree with you on this point.

Barry have you got your hands on a Sony V1U? I am interested in using one on a documentary, and shooting several hours of footage a day I think it will be more practical to use than the hvx 200.