The HVX200-glass half full

[arrestthisman]

Okay, I don't know if I'm the only one, but judging from all of the posts here I don't think so... that is, someone who expected the HVX200 to be perfect.

I'm not dissapointed in the least... The following is just a little rant, and some thoughts about why we should be happy about our favorite little cam even if i doesn't have SDI-out, 2/3 or 1/2" chips. etc.

I shoot a lot of low light scenes, and I like it to look at least reasonably clean, especially since I do a lot of VFX and compositing. (AE, combustion, and Shake junkie since 15 years old).

I looked at some of my preliminary footage shot in low light and wasn't all that happy with the noise, or "grain." It actually should be called grain because--at least to me--the noise is strikingly similar to the look of celluloid grain. IMHO.

So I did the usual searching and thinking, and just stayed up for three hours with a monitor fiddling with the settings to get it clean in low light. First of all, with all of the tweaking I was amazed at how drastically different you can change the look of your footage in-cam. Second I was able to get it pretty clean. And 1080p downsized to 720p would have been even cleaner.

But then it occured to me... who cares? (Okay, alot... but hear me out). This is a camera for under 10 grand that delivers quality... there just are no words to describe how nice it can look. The point is, I looked at the footage, and said, I CAN make pretty much any movie I want with this, and it will certianly NOT distract the audience with any lack of quality.

I compare it to 16mm or super 16mm in terms of quality. In 1080p it's better IMO, but by how much is hard to quantify. This is not an HVX versus film, it's merely my opinion if where it would stand in the historical stance of quality. I've seen PI, and leaving las vegas. Both 16mm. One as we know, is grainy as hell, and the other... not. There's some grain in LLV, but not a whole lot. I was surprised it was shot on 16mm at all.

As for as DOF, I'm in a different boat because I like f64, and the few times I want shallow DOF, I find the the HVX200 to give me plenty. It's all a question of how you use it, and personally I think shallow DOF is done ad nauseum. Then again I grew up on Woody Allen movies, and Stanley Kubrick, so...

The last thing on this list is the comfortability of the digital domain. Lets say for instance thay film WAS superior in every way, I know I would not be able to make as good of a movie using film than with digital. The reason is that like most science minded people born in the early 80s, I grew up, built, repaired, and tinkered every which way with computers. I never did arts and crafts. I like 1s and 0s. Even if the budget allowed film, I will always choose digital because it's what I know and love. It's not because it's easy. I'm not a n00b that thinks the cam will do all of the work, it's just a medium I fundementaly understand, and that is very important when working with such a complex craft.

Film is a domain, and digital is as well. For most veterans of film, they grew up with film. I think this has a big impact upon one's bias. That is their domain. Be happy with. I have no qualms about film as long as I don't have to shoot it. I did a lot of still photography with film when I was younger and I always hated it. I didn't like relying on a lab. I didn't like the lack of control or preview. Not my domain. When digital still cams came out (think 320x240 rez casio), I was first in line. I took better pictures. I couldn't print them out as large, but what the hell, I enjoyed it and was comfortable.

Now that we're in an age where digital has caught up in quality, and I think the film gurus have finally admitted it; both will continue to increase in quality, and whether one outpaces the other is beside the point. We've reached a point of quality that audiences are plenty happy with for the time being. And personally I don't think the french connection is any less of a movie just because it doesn't look as clean as the say Ronin. Different era, different quality. Both good movies.

I don't know if I wholly believe in the current wisdom which is: choose the best medium for the project.

I think the medium should be the domain one is comfortable with, even if you weren't born in the 1980s. The HVX200 has become my domain's Minima. I love it. and I think that love it for the right reasons.

This is just my 02 cents, and if anyone else agrees with this, I agree too.. hehe.

 

[Goddard11]

I Agree 100%!

I totally agree with you on the DOF, many films, especially low budget indie's try to use it so much, spending vast amounts of their time and money into getting adapters and lenses to achieve the shallowest depth of field. And when you look at a film that uses such low DOF throughout, you instantly think "Low budget" or "small scale" because really, that is what the shallow DOF effect creates, a focusing on a narrower area creating a narrow, "closing in" effect. Obviously this is useful to highlight something in the story, or if you specifically want that effect, but I think its widely over-used. If you look at any good looking hollywood film that is shot well, they use shallow DOF, but sparingly to really emphasize an important close up. The other 75%-90% (very rough) of the shots in these films uses a DOF that is achievable with the stock HVX lens.

 

[David Saraceno]

Nice comments and well appreciated.

Thanks

 

[brokenjack]

I think shallow depth of field is a bit more relevant in still photography(sans Ansel Adams of course). I was lucky enough to experience both worlds of film and digital video. The one thing I think too many people get hung up on, regarding the look of film, is 24p. I think lighting and dynamic range is way more important, whatever you are shooting in. I use to just de-interlace stuff I shot in analog video as the final step in film look. I always lit and tried to bring the f-stop range close to what I thought was a film look. The kinetics of 24p can enhance or screw you up sometimes. If i'm shooting high action, I will most preferably shoot in 30p. I think the p is more important than the number. I just so happens that the standard of 24 from the golden age of film has stuck around so long, that it's all we are use to seeing. I believe the Japanese actually prefer the look of video. Sony has capitalised on that. I shoot with a Sony Cinealta at work, and it is very difficult to mimic a softer look of film. I demo'd a Varicam, and was really impressed with how Panasonic really spent time with their gamma settings.

I can't wait for my HVX to come in sometime in July from Full Compass. Hopefully I can contribute a bit more to this site, once I've worked my way through the camera.

 

[arrestthisman]

I think shallow depth of field is a bit more relevant in still photography(sans Ansel Adams of course). I was lucky enough to experience both worlds of film and digital video. The one thing I think too many people get hung up on, regarding the look of film, is 24p. I think lighting and dynamic range is way more important, whatever you are shooting in. I use to just de-interlace stuff I shot in analog video as the final step in film look. I always lit and tried to bring the f-stop range close to what I thought was a film look. The kinetics of 24p can enhance or screw you up sometimes. If i'm shooting high action, I will most preferably shoot in 30p. I think the p is more important than the number. I just so happens that the standard of 24 from the golden age of film has stuck around so long, that it's all we are use to seeing. I believe the Japanese actually prefer the look of video. Sony has capitalised on that. I shoot with a Sony Cinealta at work, and it is very difficult to mimic a softer look of film. I demo'd a Varicam, and was really impressed with how Panasonic really spent time with their gamma settings.

I can't wait for my HVX to come in sometime in July from Full Compass. Hopefully I can contribute a bit more to this site, once I've worked my way through the camera.

All interesting comments. I don't know if 24p is the actual 'problem of fixation' so to speak, though. Progressive imaging is essential for quality regardless of looking for video of film look.

24p 30p, are just frame rates, what's more important is the motion blue thye generate. For some reason a shutter speed of 1/48 is more pleasing to most people for dramatic or cinematic quality footage than 1/60. if 30p were shot with 1/48 shutter, it would look very similar.

The other thing that is neglected is the type of shutter. Global versus rotating shutter (as is used in sony cams) is night and day. To me global is the clear winner. It produces that nice motion blue without motion-smear. (pannys are global)

I actually don't think that cinealta footage looks very good. I vastly prefer varicam, having seen both on the big screen. I don't think the rez make a ton of difference and some varicam shots fooled me to thinking it was 35mm. I thought collateral looked TERRIBLE. So video-y. I hate using that word to describe it as a negative, because good varicam is still video. I know it's semantics, but someone needs to coin a term that describes footage from digital cinema that looks like something off TV.

It's all up to the DP and there are plenty who swear by the cinealta look. I don't like it but that doesn't make it bad. It's just a preference. In the end , the audience probably won't notice or care as long as it's a good yarn, sans the film buffs.

congrats and Mahzel Tov on your new HVX. You're going to love it. Be warned though, even though its a small cam, it's a steeper learning curve than most cams in its class to get good footage. Even Adam Wilt, skewed his review because he didn't fully understand the settings and therefore shot his footage in the foot appling common knowledge settings for optimum quality. The HVX has it's own world to work in and you have to get in to it. Be warned, I was surprised at how much noise it throws off, but once you get the hang of it you can supress it ALOT, to the point where you can pull some clean mattes even in low light. That said, you might like the noise because it is amazingly similar to film grain. Nothing like any other small cam I've used. The grain seriously looks like it's straight off 16mm. My eye's opinion only though.. then again, I'm not the only one who noticed this.

Make sure to read barry's book and memorize it. Load his scene files. They'll teach you a lot in and of themselves.

Last but not least, the lattittude is striking. I don't care what they say in the tests, or the numbers, in real world performance it's amazing. Which is pretty much the HVX in a nutshell. The little cam that could. But again, it's not even close to as simple to operate as say a Canon (any low cost pro canon). Everything is customizable.

Take care, and once again enjoy your new cam. feel free to PM me if you like, if you run into some n00b issues and don't want to get flammed on the forums.

-Alex

 

[brokenjack]

I actually don't think that cinealta footage looks very good. I vastly prefer varicam, having seen both on the big screen. I don't think the rez make a ton of difference and some varicam shots fooled me to thinking it was 35mm. I thought collateral looked TERRIBLE. So video-y. I hate using that word to describe it as a negative, because good varicam is still video. I know it's semantics, but someone needs to coin a term that describes footage from digital cinema that looks like something off TV.

Yeah I don't like the cinealta much. I think it could probably be a very powerful tool in the hands on a DP/engineer. I'm just a DP who's shot film, and has a hard time sifting though menu after menu, that won't even get you in the ball park. Good point about the shutter speed, it's definitely a factor. Unfortunately I work for a production company that makes hasty decisions about equipment before consulting the production team. When I demoed the Varicam, I said without a doubt, that we should go that route. The reply was, and I quote "can't go wrong with a sony". This is coming from the management who never shoots. They also bought in way too early, and now are having a hard time justifying costs with new clients. They also sunk way too much money in 3 Avid DS Nitris suites, and right now we are having a hard time trying to find an editor who will work on one for less than 6 figures. Oh well, I guess I'm fortunate to have the HD experience, but man is it hard to get a creamy image with the sony. Sometimes you just have to man up and get your own damn camera.

 

[izoneguy]

It's funny, I have shot with rented F900's, VariCam's, 35MM film packages and
never considered owning any of them...Just too expensive....so the little HVX comes along,
$6K no big deal, a jump up from the DVX I had. Now lately we are winning many projects that F900 and VariCam owners have bid on.....
We are always in the same ballpark for budgets so we are not "lowballing"
but the clients we have had and the 16:9 demos we show win the projects.
I just returned from a 16 hour day shooting for a local city....
All HVX, this city has given us dozens of tapes from DV to HDCAM and none
of it looks as good as what we are shooting. The footage from the major
sports teams has been - bad - the in-house city stuff shot on DVCAM - bad -
we will be putting a quick demo of what we shot so they can see the difference
and make them feel good about hiring us.....all these cameras are only tools,
having a $60,000 or a $6,000 camera is a moot point unless you have the
talent to know how to use it.

 

[arrestthisman]

It's funny, I have shot with rented F900's, VariCam's, 35MM film packages and
never considered owning any of them...Just too expensive....so the little HVX comes along,
$6K no big deal, a jump up from the DVX I had. Now lately we are winning many projects that F900 and VariCam owners have bid on.....
We are always in the same ballpark for budgets so we are not "lowballing"
but the clients we have had and the 16:9 demos we show win the projects.
I just returned from a 16 hour day shooting for a local city....
All HVX, this city has given us dozens of tapes from DV to HDCAM and none
of it looks as good as what we are shooting. The footage from the major
sports teams has been - bad - the in-house city stuff shot on DVCAM - bad -
we will be putting a quick demo of what we shot so they can see the difference
and make them feel good about hiring us.....all these cameras are only tools,
having a $60,000 or a $6,000 camera is a moot point unless you have the
talent to know how to use it.

HEREHERE!!!

That brings up a whole 'nother point about the beauty of the HVX.

When price becomes democratized, the tools no longer make the talent. When the standard tools are in reach of virtually everyone, it weeds out non-hackers; and, the talent who may have never been able to produce anything, can be brought to the fore.

Everyone goes to the movies (or any other entertianment or medium) for different reasons, and in the near-perfect world, we will have distribution channels for very niche markets. After all, there is a market for almost anything. It just depends on how many people are in it.

Now we have the quality to compete with the "standards," next we need new distribution. So we're one step away from the filmmakers-near-perfect world.

BTW, didn't sopranos ROCK last night!@!@@@#@!!!!!