HPX500 is pretty bitchin' first pro35 footage?

24fps4ever said:
offensive? yeah right, its not my problem that some people cannot accept comments that I guess dont flatter or tell you how good something is, this is the real world pal, I was just giving my opinion just like everyone here does but I guess it wasnt what the user was looking for and look now.....
Click to expand...

Constructive comments are always welcome here, I assure you, but saying you've seen HVX footage that looks 10 times better, without 1.) SHOWING us that footage, and/or 2.) showing us YOUR fantastic HVX footage that looks 10 times better just makes your comments seem a little immature at best.
 
Obin

That first grab is great; a little hot on his head, but I love the Zones you created with lighting this shot

I also love the framing. Very nice.

The other grabs (Sans the wide of homeboy) are too flat for my tastes.
 
I used the HPX500 recently, and yes, its better than an HVX200. Do you have any full res grabs? It's hard to make a really good comparison when things are shrunk down for the web.

My only critiques would be the "clippy" looking highlight. It is what it is now, but in After effects, with careful masking and some change color effects, I think you can soften out the transition, and then add a very light peachy color to the guys forehead in the first shot, and maybe some very light silver in the shot with that fridge thing in the background.

I can't remember what I ISO rated that camera at, but it was higher than the HVX200. I think I pegged it at 125 based off of RGB highlight clipping at 90 IRE... something like that, but that will all depend on how you set up the cameras DSP.
 
I think everyone is misunderstanding this dude, I guess he has seen hvx footage that looks more filmic to him, which is understandable,
beauty is in the eye of you know who :)

mcgeedigital said:
Constructive comments are always welcome here, I assure you, but saying you've seen HVX footage that looks 10 times better, without 1.) SHOWING us that footage, and/or 2.) showing us YOUR fantastic HVX footage that looks 10 times better just makes your comments seem a little immature at best.
Click to expand...
 
TimurCivan said:
Filmic Doesnt mean better..... :violent5:
Click to expand...

of course not tim, hey tim by the way how have you been doing with the 35mm rental, do you have a lot of rentals in dec? I have been thinking of having my extreme 35 for rental here in the area, can you give me some feedback on the whole experience from the renters perspective
 
I did not mean to "stir" the pot around here. maybe next time I will keep me posts to me self.....
 
THing is this. Even if you think someone is a total no talent looser it's just not cool to say it harshly. You can always tell someone how they can improve the craft without saying: man your **** stinks I know someone with 10x better footage from a 20x cheaper camera!

So, unless you would like to come out of the closet and show me the 10x "better" footage so we can argue till dawn I will disregard your post as an assault that needs no more thought on my behalf. :violent5::Drogar-Shock(DBG):

I will try and post the finished Commercial when I am done with the edit and it's on the air.
 
obin, we need people like you around to show people aspirring to make good work how its done. no worries man. your input is greatly valued.
 
Keep in mind Obin's been nominated for something like 4 emmy awards and produces national broadcast spots. Dude knows what he's doing.
 
Panasonic is really ramping up the quality of their cameras. Obin, your screen shots from the HPX500 are fantastic. It nice to know how much visual latitude one can get from a camera that is a step higher than the HVX200. Its a remarkable difference. I still would not disqualify the HVX-look. Its dense and bold like 16mm Ektachrome stock. HPX500 brings things closer to 35mm film.

I agree with Timur assessment of the screen grabs. The first two have hot spots and that's judging by the lighting config and ratio. The other shots are flat, but can be corrected in post. Composition is excellent.
 
Sprocketboy said:
I agree with Timur assessment of the screen grabs. The first two have hot spots and that's judging by the lighting config and ratio. The other shots are flat, but can be corrected in post. Composition is excellent.
Click to expand...

I meant JR Hudson's assessment. :huh:
 
why are we still arguing this? has anyone heard of the gritty look? I know a lot of people that would take the gritty look over the super clean 1080 look, some people love the look of the dvx100 some like the look of the varicam at 1080, no you cannot compare them but its a matter of choice, just because something looks good to you does not mean that it looks the same to the next person just my .02
 
aalleexx said:
the look of the varicam at 1080
Click to expand...

Just a FYI, Varicam tops out at 720p.

And these are fantastic grabs. I would love to see the last three timed as well as the first two take the cake look-wise.

And with the 500 and the 200 I think they are directly comparable considering their innards and image processing are closer then possibly any other 1/3" and 2/3" cams
 
these shots are so much sharper than anything i have seen shot on hvx with any adapter. not to say that this is a better look but for me, i would rather start out like this and soften in post if needed than be stuck with a softer image all the time. i shot on the hdx900 recently which also has 2/3" chips and i was amazed at the difference in required light. it was like being back on a dvx with no adapter. nowadays i shoot mostly with the hvx/redrock and sometimes the amount of light we need to use is just plain rediculous.

obin, don't let the naysayers get you down. the shots look like money. there are a few people lurking around here that just lke to flame everything. you know what they say about opinions....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top