ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Wow.... you really sound like an EX1 hater.
If you have an HVX and love your HVX why do you care?
Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?
- Thread starter katyam
- Start date
- Status
Wow.... you really sound like an EX1 hater.
If you have an HVX and love your HVX why do you care?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Dude... read some of Kholi's past posts... when he first got his HVX he wanted an XHA1 soooooo bad because it was supposed to be so much sharper. When the EX1 was first announced he wanted one soooooooooooooo bad because it's sharper. He initially got the HVX because he found a killer deal on ebay.
Since then he's had a chance to see it on the big screen and been blown away by how good it looked, so he seems more content.
But Kholi's exactly the wrong guy to be accusing of what you just said. He's been ready to jump ship lots of times.
ALL he said in that post was "nobody's yet shown some killer examples, the only real 'pro' work we've seen so far is Philip Bloom's". That's all he said, an observation. How does that qualify him as an EX1 "hater"? I don't think you read him right at all.
Since then he's had a chance to see it on the big screen and been blown away by how good it looked, so he seems more content.
But Kholi's exactly the wrong guy to be accusing of what you just said. He's been ready to jump ship lots of times.
ALL he said in that post was "nobody's yet shown some killer examples, the only real 'pro' work we've seen so far is Philip Bloom's". That's all he said, an observation. How does that qualify him as an EX1 "hater"? I don't think you read him right at all.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
I don't what movie you are referencing but here is some great info on "ok" and even "lesser" cams being used for "independents" and "blockbusters".
I am sure the EX1 is a good bet your making.
snowleopard
Well-known member
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Fair enough.
That's why I said he sounded like one and not that he was one. I am asking him what his stance is. It just seems he doesn't like the EX1.
Bottom line is I think it's exactly what you preach Barry.
Right now, it's hard to go wrong with the tool that "fits your hand."
XH A1, HVX 200, or EX1 even the DVX.
I know the film is controversial, but the short "Sta Volta" (It's posted here on DVX) is very very film like.
I showed it to an Academy Award Winning Actress and she asked if I knew what film stock it was shot with. She thought it was shot on 35mm and she's in 5+ Bigger Hollywood Films a year.
I am going way way further though and saying that "Film Like Images" is a term that describes a moving target and that is now more than ever changing.
We are headed to sharper more high def like images as Digital takes over.
I am not saying we are headed to films with a high def video image. But instead, films with less grain and more sharpness.
i'm a XH-A1 owner. i'm searching for a tapeless solution and filmlook. i'm hesitating between EX1 and HVX. 10 days ago i was almost ready to buy the new sony. both are at the same price in europe.
The cinelook is a question of feeling, perception, not numbers. Phil Bloom footages are fantastic, i've seen some others, very good too. but for my perception they are all looking like video. fantastic video .... but video. i showed these samples to people who don't know anything about all that and they had this feeling too. and when i see the comparison between EX1 and HVX side by side, i just regret to have been such a big hater of the HVX since the beginning. for the cinelook i prefer the HVX motion and highlight handling by far on this comparison footage.
The cinelook is a question of feeling, perception, not numbers. Phil Bloom footages are fantastic, i've seen some others, very good too. but for my perception they are all looking like video. fantastic video .... but video. i showed these samples to people who don't know anything about all that and they had this feeling too. and when i see the comparison between EX1 and HVX side by side, i just regret to have been such a big hater of the HVX since the beginning. for the cinelook i prefer the HVX motion and highlight handling by far on this comparison footage.
Stevet
Veteran
Actually it's the highlights that I don't like on the HVX. But to be fair, !/3" sensor cameras don't fair well in latitude. The EX1 has been shown in previous examples to offer more image latitude. Even 1/2" is questionable here.
Also, many have been using the standard curves and have not been trying the cine which offer better image latitude. The one example that was posted showing the G1, HVX200, Z1, & EX1, this clearly showed the EX1 did not blow before the others.
I must admit, this all gets a bit comical between these cameras. I never thought Kholi was a EX1 hater either, lol.
He brings up a good point, and that's been mine too. It was just released a month ago. I remember when the HVX200 was released all we had was a noisy karate clip, dude sitting in a cafe reading the paper, and a desert car scene. None were very impressive looking at it on my 24" Dell.
In fact, it's this Dell that when displaying these full images that seems to show every bit of flaw noise and all.
The HVX did not look that great. It even showed the flaws from many other cameras tested, including the HD100 (although, I still like this camera, nice lens, but bad CA) now watching the 1080P from the EX1. It's quite the difference to say the least. For some reason this monitor shows every tad bit of noise. I know it's nothing to do with the monitor, because highend footage looks very clean. Yes, I'm talking about viewing via DVI not component. The component ins are not very pretty, that's for sure.
Barry's has mentioned this in the past.
I think a lot of our discussion comes from not being able to talk one-on-one. It's hard to convey your thoughts in couple of sentences.
I guess it gets old to hear things like it's to sharp. LOL
That's like saying she's to beautiful!
Also, many have been using the standard curves and have not been trying the cine which offer better image latitude. The one example that was posted showing the G1, HVX200, Z1, & EX1, this clearly showed the EX1 did not blow before the others.
I must admit, this all gets a bit comical between these cameras. I never thought Kholi was a EX1 hater either, lol.
He brings up a good point, and that's been mine too. It was just released a month ago. I remember when the HVX200 was released all we had was a noisy karate clip, dude sitting in a cafe reading the paper, and a desert car scene. None were very impressive looking at it on my 24" Dell.
In fact, it's this Dell that when displaying these full images that seems to show every bit of flaw noise and all.
The HVX did not look that great. It even showed the flaws from many other cameras tested, including the HD100 (although, I still like this camera, nice lens, but bad CA) now watching the 1080P from the EX1. It's quite the difference to say the least. For some reason this monitor shows every tad bit of noise. I know it's nothing to do with the monitor, because highend footage looks very clean. Yes, I'm talking about viewing via DVI not component. The component ins are not very pretty, that's for sure.
Barry's has mentioned this in the past.
I think a lot of our discussion comes from not being able to talk one-on-one. It's hard to convey your thoughts in couple of sentences.
I guess it gets old to hear things like it's to sharp. LOL
That's like saying she's to beautiful!
Barry said it and a lot more tactfully than I would've.
Sometimes I look at my HVX like its the worst can on the market because of the noise and sharpness. But I keep reminding myself of what I've seen first hand and knowing that an HVX and adapter combo (that was M2, I can only imagine LetusEX) is perfect for big screen forces me to sit back and ask-- after my initial eager puppy-like excitement over a new camera-- am I doing enough with what I have already? And, does this new camera offer MORE than what I have? Enough to call a serious upgrade?
The point I attempted to make was that you can't begin to compare them so early in the EX-1s life? To do so does a disservice to the EX, definitely not the HVX. Sharpness and lowlight are great in theory. Even better when you show me what it does when applied to narrative filmmaking when considering the EX-1 as your image acquisition system.
Shorter version: nobody can tell you which is better til it gets used in the environment a few times.
snowleopard
Well-known member
I actually didn't get that feeling when playing with the EX1. It does have the through the window look in 60i, but in 24p it looks closer to the HVX than it does "through the window", which is more like what the Z1 looks like. Neither look just like film to me. They have their own look that is good enough to suspend my belief that I'm watching not a soap opera or reality TV, but a movie.
Then again, more hair-splitting, I digress.
HVX + M2. Yes, let's use that as an example, shall we? You think it was the HVX that fell short or the people that used it?
I'm sorry, but the stuff I saw projected on the Kodak screen looked nothing less than spectacular. How the Paranormal Hour was shot will largely dictate why it might've looked soft. One of those reasons may have been the M2,which I'm sure it was.
Another? Detail level, the Filmout Process, etc etc.
So, you've only served to help my point: it ain't the tool at this point. The HVX, HD100, EX-1, I'd wager even the HV20 can do plenty for the big screen (if you ever even GET there) at this point. It's all who's using it and how much they'e studied and tested up until that point.
A.K.A Prepared
But if I had to work with SxS and that tedious EX1 rebooting between shooting and playback day-in and day-out, I'd kick it like a football and RUN back to the HVX/P2.
Yawn. How about we keep the discussion on topic, and stop taking opportunities to put the boot in?
And this talk of "looking through a window" is pretty weak and subjective at best.
I enjoyed looking at Phil's footage and seeing detail in the midground and background...detail that I don't see with my HVX. If you don't want your audience to see that detail, then leave that part of the frame out of focus (we're almost all using an adapter when going for the "film look", right?).
Any 24p HD cam could have successfully shot that footage in The Departed. It's a close up, right? I doubt they would've been thinking of the HVX (nor any other sub 10k cam) if they needed wide shot pickups.
I honestly don't think the cam we use makes that much of a difference when it comes to the film look. I've seen some very film like Canon GL1 footage.
Lighting, grading, composition, camera movement, performance, location, art direction etc play a far larger role.
In defense of the EX1...it has plenty of "look" adjustability, so the next few months should tell us plenty. For eg, I'm looking forward to seeing footage shot using the various cine gamma modes.
Kholi;1144509) said:
Man I don't know what point you're making anymore but this quote makes no sense to me.
When sonys vx100 started this whole thing we've all progressively asked more from these cams and now that one has come thats given us that little more we start to dismiss it.
hey I'll make even simpler than all this tech talk on why the ex is for me aside from the resolution and gorgeous picture: 4 sxs 16gb cards do me for the day. if i want to get some spur of the moment shooting I do not have to carry a laptop around with me. Its a solid state cam like the old dv days when i threw a bunch a tapes into a bag and went off shooting. The hvx failed with the time restraint on P2 that can only be remedied by throwing alternative capture devices at it or a grossly expensive P2 card collection.You cannot convince me otherwise.
One SXS 16gb=50 minutes tapeless shoot time at best quality. Yahoooooo!
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Gentlemen gentlemen, hehe,
Well i think the impression seems fairly obvious, which is that the EX more or less seems like a progression of Sony's 'ideas' for the video market, rather than as something revolutionary designed specifically for filmmakers.
Blooming heck!
The HVX has a right to sit on its laurels, it is revolutionary, now the EX has to prove A LOT to deserve the praise that makes it a de-facto improvement. It has failed to meet the marketing hype so aggressively pushed (as it would be anyway) and so sceptism should now be expected.
Those that tout the EX as the 2nd coming I find amusing, because until I hear of a big range of names flying behind it, and its inclusion in various hollywood movies for pickups, and a multitude of great looking shorts, then it is the new boy.
As the new boy it has a lot to prove before claiming it superior for filmlook projects!
Nobody out of pride would resist something so incredible that it blew away the qualities of the old cams they possessed. Of course the EX has been hyped, and now the reality is making folks testing them go 'knew it was too good to be true'.
It is not juvenile what Barry Green says about the 'window look' that is ENTIRELY the look which is OBVIOUS to anyone, that the camera captures, and for projects akin to those seen on HD Discovery etc. Is this not typical of the prosumer HD sonys?
Most folks working on indies etc want a film look and any camera that helps them achieve that, through whatever processes it does is appreciated. However mega pixils and numbers are the cheapest marketing ploys of all, in the end its the 'mojo' of the image that counts. Apart from the sharpness it retains on the image of a fig leaf etc, has anyone yet gone 'wow' at its sweepingly cinematic quality of 'image'... No, well i haven't and it will have to PROVE that first in shorts made by folks before it can truly claim it... and not just a few promo clips made by a professional.
The HVX has faced its tests, and has proven extremely popular, with professionals and amatuers alike. It's use in major film productions (whether its to shoot Scorcese taking a dump or to intercut with a hollywood films climactic scene) is nonetheless an achievment the EX will have to attain in order to live up to the hype.
Sony has (like all camera manufacturers) pursued an aggressive marketing style hailing it as a 2nd coming, and I can't help thinking that despite not achieving anything yet, the EX has a comical amount of praise, praise that is being quickly challenged by those sensitive to the requirements of filmmakers.
Art is art, and resolution is the most pointless argument of all imo, 1080p on an hvx is not good enough for resolution? That argument is mute, the aesthetic is not improved by numbers, would an art student inking a mural beat Renoir painting a canvas?
Some of you who dismiss the achievments of the hvx (such as intercutting with hollywood films) would be posting new topics on this forum if the EX had. Its embarassing and childish, especially given how well respected Barry Green's opinion is. I'm no mod, but so much word twisting and rhetoric is used against his statements that its cringeworthy -especially you SteveT *ahem*! He is an impartial source of information for the digital filmmaker whose concerns are often specific, his reviews are frank and respected, and his preferences trusted.
Well i think the impression seems fairly obvious, which is that the EX more or less seems like a progression of Sony's 'ideas' for the video market, rather than as something revolutionary designed specifically for filmmakers.
Blooming heck!
The HVX has a right to sit on its laurels, it is revolutionary, now the EX has to prove A LOT to deserve the praise that makes it a de-facto improvement. It has failed to meet the marketing hype so aggressively pushed (as it would be anyway) and so sceptism should now be expected.
Those that tout the EX as the 2nd coming I find amusing, because until I hear of a big range of names flying behind it, and its inclusion in various hollywood movies for pickups, and a multitude of great looking shorts, then it is the new boy.
As the new boy it has a lot to prove before claiming it superior for filmlook projects!
Nobody out of pride would resist something so incredible that it blew away the qualities of the old cams they possessed. Of course the EX has been hyped, and now the reality is making folks testing them go 'knew it was too good to be true'.
It is not juvenile what Barry Green says about the 'window look' that is ENTIRELY the look which is OBVIOUS to anyone, that the camera captures, and for projects akin to those seen on HD Discovery etc. Is this not typical of the prosumer HD sonys?
Most folks working on indies etc want a film look and any camera that helps them achieve that, through whatever processes it does is appreciated. However mega pixils and numbers are the cheapest marketing ploys of all, in the end its the 'mojo' of the image that counts. Apart from the sharpness it retains on the image of a fig leaf etc, has anyone yet gone 'wow' at its sweepingly cinematic quality of 'image'... No, well i haven't and it will have to PROVE that first in shorts made by folks before it can truly claim it... and not just a few promo clips made by a professional.
The HVX has faced its tests, and has proven extremely popular, with professionals and amatuers alike. It's use in major film productions (whether its to shoot Scorcese taking a dump or to intercut with a hollywood films climactic scene) is nonetheless an achievment the EX will have to attain in order to live up to the hype.
Sony has (like all camera manufacturers) pursued an aggressive marketing style hailing it as a 2nd coming, and I can't help thinking that despite not achieving anything yet, the EX has a comical amount of praise, praise that is being quickly challenged by those sensitive to the requirements of filmmakers.
Art is art, and resolution is the most pointless argument of all imo, 1080p on an hvx is not good enough for resolution? That argument is mute, the aesthetic is not improved by numbers, would an art student inking a mural beat Renoir painting a canvas?
Some of you who dismiss the achievments of the hvx (such as intercutting with hollywood films) would be posting new topics on this forum if the EX had. Its embarassing and childish, especially given how well respected Barry Green's opinion is. I'm no mod, but so much word twisting and rhetoric is used against his statements that its cringeworthy -especially you SteveT *ahem*! He is an impartial source of information for the digital filmmaker whose concerns are often specific, his reviews are frank and respected, and his preferences trusted.
Last edited:
Well everyone is having a say so I might as well too.
Ridiculous thread if you ask me. We are asking what gives the better film look. Sorry to say but at this level of camera using progressive 24fps footage the camera has little to do with it, the difference comes from the operator / dp. Either can look better depending entirely on that.
Ridiculous thread if you ask me. We are asking what gives the better film look. Sorry to say but at this level of camera using progressive 24fps footage the camera has little to do with it, the difference comes from the operator / dp. Either can look better depending entirely on that.
Of course you don't know what point I'm trying to make because you think I really care WHERE you spend your money; I don't. Go buy a few beers, go buy a nuclear weapon. I'm not trying to convince you of anything which is your problem. You're FIGHTING for a camera, an inanimate object.
The big problem? You've got too much emotion invested in something that doesn't have the capability of loving you back.
This is why DVXuser considered disallowing sub-forums for OTHER cameras that AREN'T Panasonic to begin with: some people can't deal with the discussion.
And, before you go off on a tangent about how I'm a Pana-lover or loyalist-- similar to the other guy that did it-- please keep in mind that I was just as ready to jump ship on my HVX200 for an EX-1 as anyone else. I'm the FIRST person to tell you that the HVX is a noisey SOB, soft, yadda plus YADDA.
This topic AIN'T about functionality, though, it's about the FILM LOOK and as I said: SHOW ME AN EX-1 SHORT FILM OR ANY FILM AND THEN LET'S JUDGE.
Gahd. You people are way too sensitive over MACHINES.
Last edited:
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
WOW.... see... I guess that's why I don't know what you were going on about either.
I don't know who you are directing the "other guy" comment to but if it's me then you can keep it.
My point is this.
If you like the HVX greeeeat.
If you don't greeeeaaattt.
As far as to which image is more fimic... yeah... whatever....
I am just interested in the work flow of EX1 and the images it produces just as I am with the HVX.
We are kind of in a tween state right now anyway.
But for those of us that have to shoot on something... it's nice to know where to put out $7500 or whatever.
One way to do that is to find a good system and workflow and emulate it.
The whole exchange of information and all.
I don't know who you are directing the "other guy" comment to but if it's me then you can keep it.
My point is this.
If you like the HVX greeeeat.
If you don't greeeeaaattt.
As far as to which image is more fimic... yeah... whatever....
I am just interested in the work flow of EX1 and the images it produces just as I am with the HVX.
We are kind of in a tween state right now anyway.
But for those of us that have to shoot on something... it's nice to know where to put out $7500 or whatever.
One way to do that is to find a good system and workflow and emulate it.
The whole exchange of information and all.
This thread isn't about whether you LIKE it or not. Someone told Barry to keep it on topic? You both do the same. The thread directly asks BETTER CINEMA LOOK.
RE-READ THE TOPIC. And, you'll see the POINT I'm trying to make refers to the fact that the camera hasn't been out more than a MONTH so how can you even begin to say it's better than or WORSE than in the Cinema arena? Even STEVE agreed with me on that. The hell is the rest of your issues?
Start another one entitled BESTEST CAMERA HVX OR EX-1!?!?!
You don't know what I'm going on about? You haven't bothered paying attention.
RE-READ THE TOPIC. And, you'll see the POINT I'm trying to make refers to the fact that the camera hasn't been out more than a MONTH so how can you even begin to say it's better than or WORSE than in the Cinema arena? Even STEVE agreed with me on that. The hell is the rest of your issues?
Start another one entitled BESTEST CAMERA HVX OR EX-1!?!?!
You don't know what I'm going on about? You haven't bothered paying attention.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep I think Kholi's right, and when it comes down to it we all know that the Amiga was way better than the Atari ST, or in fact, (for UK folk) that the Amstrad 64 was better than the Commodore 64 hehe
The thread is about cinema look that i somewhat clumsily refer to as mojo, though i mean in the filmic context. Like i say, time is yet to judge on this new cam.
It seems u dudes are laying siege to poor Kholi hehe, this should not be tit for tat juvenile antics
It should be manly and sex like me after I emerge from a morning shower *ahem*
Now thats going off topic!
The thread is about cinema look that i somewhat clumsily refer to as mojo, though i mean in the filmic context. Like i say, time is yet to judge on this new cam.
It seems u dudes are laying siege to poor Kholi hehe, this should not be tit for tat juvenile antics
It should be manly and sex like me after I emerge from a morning shower *ahem*Now thats going off topic!
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Ohhh calm down now Kholi and give your HVX another hug....
Yes the thread has transitioned.
That's why they are called threads and not lines because they twist and wind.
Better Cinema look.
That's a loaded question to begin with as 10 people are likely to define the "Cinema Look" 25 different ways.
Maybe you haven't read any of my post. I haven't made any assertions other than the HVX has fantastic images that even those in the biz can confuse for film.
As to the EX1 looks good to me from what I have seen from Philip.
On the Big Silver Screen... jeeze... so many steps to get it there that it is as much the process as the camera. Color grading, transfers, projections....
A better thread would just be... how well does the EX1 emulate film and what are the steps to get it there.
Yes the thread has transitioned.
That's why they are called threads and not lines because they twist and wind.
Better Cinema look.
That's a loaded question to begin with as 10 people are likely to define the "Cinema Look" 25 different ways.
Maybe you haven't read any of my post. I haven't made any assertions other than the HVX has fantastic images that even those in the biz can confuse for film.
As to the EX1 looks good to me from what I have seen from Philip.
On the Big Silver Screen... jeeze... so many steps to get it there that it is as much the process as the camera. Color grading, transfers, projections....
A better thread would just be... how well does the EX1 emulate film and what are the steps to get it there.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
P.S. I am only responsible for my post. Period.
Not anyone else's.
If anyone has an issue with someones post take it up with them.
- Status