Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

katyam

Member
Hi!

There is a very rich discussion going on here about the two cameras and their strong features and shortcomings, but I couldn't find anything that would decidedly mark one as a better choice for achieving a film look, so I am turning to the experts for advice.

I am currently working on feature-length documentary in Israel, and the bulk of my work will be interviews done outside, while walking around historical locations with my protagonists. I will be doing a lot of hand-held shooting, often in fairly low-light conditions. Given what I read about the two cameras so far, hand-held work seems to call for the HVX because of the wobble issue. However, there are other concerns I would like to clarify:

1) footage from which camera would produce better results when blown up to 35mm?
2) which footage is easier to do after effects and color correction work on?
3) which camera gives a more credible cinema look overall, without using a 35mm adapter?

Thank you very much for your advice!

Katya Myer
 
Hi Katya... I'm buying the EX1 partly for my full length feature work.
1. I'm guessing the EX1 will produce a better 35mm blow-up by far since it's full blown 1080p as opposed to 720p.
2. Apple FCP fully supports the EX1's long GOP format...and with Color, it's amazing what you can do to achieve a film look. Not only that, with Motion, you can smooth out those handheld shoots to be glassy smooth. So much of your work will actually be in post rather than in the camera.
Also, I really don't think any shutter wobble will be an issue at all (unless you're slinging the camera around on a rope). Many people on this forum have reported not seeing ANY problem at all.
With the great in-camera film looks...for me, there's no question the EX1 is the top choice.
 
You sure you don't want to ask something less controversial--like what's the best religion? :)

katyam said:
1) footage from which camera would produce better results when blown up to 35mm?
Click to expand...

Since no one has seen EX1 footage transferred to 35mm film, no answer yet. Presumably, the EX1's higher resolution would yield a sharper image, but sharpness is only a single factor. We already know HVX film transfers look good.

katyam said:
2) which footage is easier to do after effects and color correction work on?
Click to expand...

If we're talking about working with the native footage, the HVX's DVCPRO HD is less taxing on computer systems. The EX1's MPEG2 footage would be better transcoded before any heavy grading or composting.

katyam said:
3) which camera gives a more credible cinema look overall, without using a 35mm adapter?
Click to expand...

The HVX has a nice cinema look right out of the box and Panny made it clear that they tweaked the gamma/chroma to achieve that look. Out of the box, the EX1 doesn't look as filmic *but* Sony has stated that their priority was to capture the maximum dynamic range. The EX1 footage can be graded beautifully as evidenced by Philip Bloom's Magic Bullet work on his EX1 footage.


Handholding does not mean that EX1 wobble is going to be an issue, unless your work is very very shaky. The EX1 would be better than the HVX in low light--although the jury is still out on just how much better.
 
1) Both cameras do 1080p, so film out resolution would be equal. However, the EX1 has 1/2" chips, as opposed to the HVX's 1/3".

2) The HVX's DVCProHD video codec is 4:2:2 colorspace, which will give you more post production freedom the EX1's 4:2:0.

3) The EX1 is still very new, and of course that is very subjective.

There are a couple of things I would concern you about:

If you're plan is to go to 35mm film, then you're clearly serious about this film, in which case I would edit the feature without any color-correction, then export it as a TIFF sequence to a hard drive, and bring it to a post house for some serious professional color correction, as well as bringing it to a studio for professional 5.1 sound production. Both would make an incredible difference on your result.

Overall I would say go HVX. It's been around for a while, has many instructional DVD's out (for learning before your official shot), it has plenty of accessories and service, and there's a lot of people here who know how to help you get the best out of the camera. With the EX1 you're essentially paying more for the interchangable lens feature, which I'm sure you won't need.

DVX feature documentaries have been nominated for Oscars, so as long as you're passionate about your subject and committed to filming a LOT, the camera you use becomes quite insignificant.
 
The EX does not have interchangeable lenses. Sony will come out with two cams that do have interchangeable but they shoot hDV not xdcam.

Yes the HVX does 4:2:2 but with its lower resolution and more noise, I'm not convinced of how much more 'freedom' in post there will be over the EX.
 
ffaf07 said:
With the EX1 you're essentially paying more for the interchangable lens feature, which I'm sure you won't need.
Click to expand...

Quick point of clarification: the EX1 does not accommodate interchangeable lenses. It has a fixed Fujinon lens; and from what I've read, a fairly decent one at that.
 
Thank you for great responses and useful advice!

Barry, your post should be read by anyone who is accusing you of exclusive pro-HVX bias on this forum.

ffaf07, I will be editing my footage in FCP, and hope to prepare the best material possible for the post production work, including color and sound. I was just really drawn to the idea of a sharper image, and the beautiful footage posted by Phillip Bloom looked very very attractive.

Barry, another question. Forgive my ignorance, but could you put me to some source that would explain the relationship between the dynamic range and achieving a film look?

Many thanks!

Katya
 
The better cinema look, huh? Well I bet I can make a better cinema look with the worst camera sitting in best buy then you can using both HVX and EX1!
ohhhhhh you just got served! :costumed-smiley-047

Ok in all seriousness, it's not the camera it's the person behind it. Remember people, camera's don't shoot movies, people shoot movies. Some may help you shoot, but they won't make the film. If you want my honest opinion on which is better.... If you can't tell right away, then I'd say neither is. If it's not immediately obvious, I would say the results will always vary depending on the production and the skill of the videographer. To add another analogy... will a 500 horsepower car vs a 480 horsepower car have an automatic win because it's 'technically' better on paper? Or will it depend on how the driver performs?

And on another note, I've seen some of the WORST prosumer camcorders make the most beautiful images when in the hands of the right person. It's all about finding the right wand, Harry Potter, all about matching you up with the right wand. :)
 
Last edited:
"It's all about finding the right wand, Harry Potter, all about matching you up with the right wand."

Well, the "right wand" in this case could be the right camera, couldn't it? :) And/or the right camera person (I am doing only about half of the shooting myself).

In all seriousness, though, on a big project it makes sense to try and produce the best raw footage possible, to make post production easier and more fun. It doesn't cancel out the talent factor though :)
 
katyam said:
Barry, your post should be read by anyone who is accusing you of exclusive pro-HVX bias on this forum.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the problems of having two Barry mods on the same forum. :) I'm not Barry Green, but I think he's been even-handed on the EX1.


katyam said:
...could you put me to some source that would explain the relationship between the dynamic range and achieving a film look?
Click to expand...

No references, but it's all about how the image processing is handled with repect to chroma and gamma. Different manufacturers have particular looks associated with their camera lines as a result of their camera designs and internal processing choices. You're best off trying to find a bunch of footage from each camera and deciding if you like what you see. Both cameras are capable of producing good looking footage, but it also depends on what you plan for your workflow.
 
These days it seems all of our camera options are becoming neglible.

Can one really go wrong with all of the options out there ? If one can make a story really worthy of its weight, no one will blink an eye at the camera used.

28 Days Later - Canon XL1 *
Pieces of April - PD 150 #
Open Water - VX2000 / PD170 *

* Box Office Cinematic success.
# Best supporting actress OSCAR nomination for Patricia Clarkson

-

The right wand isn't the camera, it's the Wizard and his execution and talent.
 
Excellent points John, but you left out other standard-def hits like:
SuperSize Me: Oscar nomination for Best Doc (PD150)
Inconvenient Truth: Oscar winner for Best Doc (lots of cams including HD100)
Iraq In Fragments: Oscar nominee for Best Doc (DVX100)
Murderball: Oscar nominee for Best Doc (DVX100)

The lesson here is: your camera is not what's keeping you out of the theaters or out of the Academy Awards! Yes better is better, and we all like better, but anyone who thinks that their choice of an EX1 vs. HVX200 is going to have *any* bearing on the success of their film is just totally not thinking correctly.
 
While I agree with the wise ones here, I think an important angle is being overlooked :) Nobody in their right mind would hope that a better camera alone would guarantee success of their film - I certainly don't. At the same time, there is quite a bit of interest in new cameras on this forum and elsewhere on the net, simply because fresh technologies are fascinating, could be used to produce exciting results, and when they become available, why not look into them?

I read through a lot of interviews given by James Longley because I was fascinated with the work he did in Iraq. In his case the camera did matter - he relied on DVX's sturdiness and ability to deliver excellent performance in very rough conditions, which was just what the camera did. He did say in one of the interviews that he was planning to do his next project using HVX - that was before any news on EX1 came out. So, since he was planning to switch to HVX, he was at least somewhat mindful what equipment he was using, no?

But overall, of course - talent rules, and there is no replacement for it.
 
Last edited:
J.R. Hudson said:
These days it seems all of our camera options are becoming neglible.

Can one really go wrong with all of the options out there ? If one can make a story really worthy of its weight, no one will blink an eye at the camera used.

28 Days Later - Canon XL1 *
Pieces of April - PD 150 #
Open Water - VX2000 / PD170 *

* Box Office Cinematic success.
# Best supporting actress OSCAR nomination for Patricia Clarkson

-

The right wand isn't the camera, it's the Wizard and his execution and talent.
Click to expand...

Well put John!
 
Barry_Green said:
The lesson here is: your camera is not what's keeping you out of the theaters or out of the Academy Awards! Yes better is better, and we all like better, but anyone who thinks that their choice of an EX1 vs. HVX200 is going to have *any* bearing on the success of their film is just totally not thinking correctly.
Click to expand...


That's for sure!
These cameras are just our tools. It's how creative one can get with their tools to deliver their story.

The same holds true with everything. I'm also a studio owner and have always seeked the best quality I could afford, but you can't help to stop and realize what was done over thirty years ago and how dang good it sounds!

It's easy to get caught up in the number games.
Thanks you John and Barry for reminding us just that!
 
another point of view is that some films could not be made without certain types of super expensive cameras, because half the story is the image. the film baraka is a good example (shot on 65mm). it wouldn't have the same impact on a pd-150. of course i agree with the spirit of this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top