Hv20 V.s. Hvx200 ????

H

hammondcheezefilms

Active member
I'm looking at purchasing a camera... (i've been looking for 3 years)

And i'm set on the HVX with a Brevis 35..... but seeing all of this footage from the HV20/30 makes me rethink everything??

My 2 concerns are manual control of the HV20 and audio functions.

Also is the picture quality comparable to the HVX?? cause it looks amazing?

any comments would be great
 
No way in a million year can you ever compare an HV20 to an HVX. The HVX is a professional tool with all the manual function you'd expect, and the HV20 is a consumer camera, albeit a good one. There's a reason why the HVX costs ten times as much.
 
Agreed. I bought and HVX when the camera first came out and have been using it steadily since then. I recently bought an HV20 and find it to be a wonderful camera for the price and for situations where you want a tiny camera in hand. But they just aren't the same thing at all if you're talking about shooting in a controlled, professional situation. If these are important factors, as you say, and if you can budget the HVX, that's the way to go. That said, with the right mind set and technique, you really can squeeze some satisfying images out of the Canon.
 
If you are a hobbyist then get a hv20. Alot of people buy very expensive cameras and never use them. That is why you can always find cameras for sale with such low hours. I would actually recommend the canon a1 as a great starter camera for getting your feet wet in the world of video. What do you plan on shooting?
 
I've got an FX1 and a XH-A1. Personally, I think the FX1 would make a better starter camera, between the two. The viewfinder and LCD are better on the FX1, making it easier to focus. The FX1 has decent manual control, and while the A1 is a lot more tweakable, it takes longer to master.
 
well.. my view is purely my opinion not a fact.. but.. when i first saw my hvx200 footage my smile was in denial.. i was smiling cos i wanted to believe i was happy, cos i spent so much money on it, but deep inside i was thinking "what the &*&*("

something was bothering me and i couldnt put my finger on it until i saw hv20 footage now i know what it was: hvx looks soft. Even the hv20 looked sharper to me.

i dont know if its film look soft or "blow-up of the sensor to 1920" soft but its the kind of soft that if it was on photoshop id click "sharpen" once or twice.. or thrice.. Once i had a friend connect a SGPRO on my hvx200.. ohmygod, now that was even SOFTER!!! great DOF shots but softer in the focal points too. anyway.. seing the ex1 footage was the final straw and i sold my hvx200.

but i admit its a cool camera for undercraking, nice film like colors etc... had fun with it.. but im obsessed with crisp sharp images. soft should be for BEHIND the actors.

Ive been shooting since i was eleven from 8mm videos to 35mm films.. its not from lack of experience in lighting or choice of DPs either.. ive seen hvx200 music videos and i find them soft too. My DP doenst see it, so it definitely a personal opinion only :)
 
Last edited:
cinemamo yes hvx is soft. Don't turn down the sharpness. Turn it up. Truth is most people do prefer it that soft. I know you are a professional but look at all the dramas on tv. They are all hvx soft. Ha we may have a new phrase "hvx soft". Panasonic should start including that as a feature. :)
 
It's funny how video people want their videos to look like film and one of the ways they do that is to either add grain or softness to it when film people are trying to avoid those, unless it is for a stylistic purpose.
 
I have both cameras here now. I've borrowed the HVX200 for some work I need to do. Will be shooting at DV resolution though.

Anyway, I was just messing with the HVX200 to see what it's light sensitivity was like with just basic household lighting at night here. I turned the gain off (low), had the shutter set to 1/60 and the iris open which I believe could be f1.6? I then copied these settings the best I could to the HV20. Cinemode, 25P, 1/50 shutter speed, f1.8 (no artificial gain). Surprisingly both seem to have roughly the same low light performance. I was honestly expecting the HVX200 to be a lot brighter, but it wasn't at all.
 
You did something wrong then, because the HVX is about two stops faster than the HV20. There must have been some gain in the signal. The HV20 with no gain clocks in at about 80 ISO.
 
Very true.. The HV20 which I had and sold... is horrible in low-light, like most of the small HD cams. The grain and noise that getts produced in the HV20 when not sufficient light.. is horrendous.


Funny to also call the HVX soft. but I guess this is a nice way of ignoring all of the color info and the quality of the cine gamma. The HV20 was washed out, muted and just plain HORRIBLE for what I was tryig to do. The CMOS chip can not handle vibrations, fast movement, or suddent bumps. It goes to Jello-vision and I have a ton of that old footage. THe Panny SD9 camera by comparrison has much better color saturation and doesn't suffer from jello-vison.. . plus there's no pesky tape to capture.


The HV20 is good B-camera though if you can throw a ton of light at the subject and if you don't do any movement or are in an extreme environment.
 
nah, he didn't ignore the color info and quality..

but i admit its a cool camera for undercraking, nice film like colors etc... had fun with it.. but im obsessed with crisp sharp images. soft should be for BEHIND the..
Click to expand...


anyways, I love my hv20, but heck if I actually had a choice, like if someone layed both cams in front of me and said choose, there's no way I'd pick an hv20 over the hvx, my gad!
 
Eh, in my experience, the HV20 is not as bad as you think. Obviously because of the CMOS chip, I can't do any "24" spoofs any time soon unless I want the "jello vision" look. However, the HV20 has worked wonders for what I've been doing. It all just depends on how you go about doing things. I do a lot of tripod work so the rolling shutter isn't much of an issue and if I have to do handheld, I make sure it's smooth.

But still, the HVX can do things that the HV20 just can't. Even though the HV20's image, to my eye, looks way better, there's still a lot to consider. Variable frame rates is a big one, the DVCPROHD 4:2:2 codec is another one, all the manual control goodness, professional audio, and, the best by far, the tapeless workflow. The HV20 made me miss a 24-hour film contest deadline because of realtime tape download and HDV rendering plus the pulldown removal. If the HVX could only be native 1080p, then it would be perfect and I would say, not just "yes", but "heck yeah!" when you ask whether you should buy it or not.

Image quality, in my opinion, the HV20 wins handsdown. But for everything else, the HVX can't be beat (at least as far as this comparison goes). Low light isn't as bad as you might think with the HV20 either, granted you have to give up 1/48 shutter and bump it up to 1/24, which is, as far as I can tell, what most people do with the Panavision Genesis but they refer to it as 360 degree shutter.

If you're really set only between the HV20 and HVX, go with the HVX, you won't be sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top