Finally got to see "the big three" cameras on a HD projector

If you didn't mess with the scene file to increase the detail settings, you can't make a fair comparison. The HVX200A to me is much sharper than the 200 and is extremely close to the EX1 and XH-A1.

That said keep in mind that DVCPROHD has less resolution than HDV and XDCAM at 35 mbits.


Marco
 
Last edited:
kenn michael said:
:)

It's inevitable. In a few years, the rolling shutter issue will most likely be moot with all cameras.
Click to expand...

Hopefully so, but right now it's a substantial problem and limitation.

I shot a feature doc (www.paperorplasticmovie.com) with the HVX200 at 720 and mastered on HDCAM SR upresed to 1080 using a Kona 3 card. We showed the movie at the LA Film Fest from a HDCAM at the Mann Festival, a 1,500 + seat theater in Westwood, and it played fine. If you sat on the first few rows you would be able to see some noise and low res, but with some distance it played really well.
The projector was a 2K NEC owned and maintained by Technicolor.

The limitations of the DVCPRO HD footage produced by the HVX, and now the 170, are manageable; if I had some JelloVision on my footage I would had not be able to use it.
 
alexdias said:
The limitations of the DVCPRO HD footage produced by the HVX, and now the 170, are manageable; if I had some JelloVision on my footage I would had not be able to use it.
Click to expand...


If you were doing this again, and using the 170, would you use the HD-SDI out if you could?
 
Dan...among other goodies, the HPX170 has an HD/SD-SDI output....the Panasonic brochure indicates an uncompressed signal tap from the chipset. (didn't someone tap the DVX100's for an uncompressed signal too? whatever happened to that? - Andromeda or something)

Just rambling as usual..hopefully not too far off the thread.

Thanks,
Prof. Dunn
 
PerroneFord said:
If you were doing this again, and using the 170, would you use the HD-SDI out if you could?
Click to expand...

It depends Perrone. The way I see it, the camera being the tool to tell my stories, if I can set up properly and if it gives me a better result without compromising my process, absolutely yes.

I have my eyes on the NanoFlash, but I'll wait to see if it's viable.
I have no special interest for gadgetry; I care for my films and the final product.
If it's affordable and works for me I'll go for it.
I love some aspects of the EX-3 but at the end it was not the camera for me.
 
Blackout, you mentioned you used "default" settings on the HVX... My question is: on which scene file? There would be quite some difference between F1 default with the HD Norm gamma and Norm Matrix and the F6 default with Cine D gamma and Cinelike Matrix. You mentioned strong colors (cinelike matrix, perhaps) and softness in the image (cine D gamma?) so I'm kind of guessing an F6 default was used... It would be great if you could clear that up : ) Great write-up by the way.
 
Glad you all enjoyed the comparisons. As I said it was just done for myself and with my eyes which have a lot of experience in what I like in a film looking image. It was not the most scientific test in the world but still the results are in the images for me. I am aware there could be a lot more tweaking done but I don't think it would drasticaly change the basic performance of each camera. You guys really all have to go out and see these things on a high end projector it's something else.

ProfD:

I believe the movie you are talking about that used the DVX100 uncompressed out was NOVEMBER with Courtney Cox.

De Selby:
Yes I was in the F6 scene file.
 
Tomas Riuka said:
Blackout, or maybe HVX is normally soft? real film is not very sharp in the movies too!
Click to expand...

That depends on what theatre you go to. At the Muvico 24 here in Baltimore they have the best screens I've seen. Hancock was sharp as a HiDef camera. On the extreme closeups I could easily see parts of actor's faces going in and out of focus. Bruce Almighty...same thing (I really don't go see movies very often so those are about my only two references for that particular theatre).

Muvico is also one of the few theatres in the area with a digital projector.

On the other hand the closest movie theatre near me always looks a bit out of focus. More than likely it's the projectionist who doesn't know how to or can't focus the projector (due to equipment).
 
kenn michael said:
The reason that rolling shutter doesn't affect the Red shooters as much as EX-1/EX-3 shooters is not entirely due to weight differences (I can swing a Red back and forth just as easily as the EX and see skew) but because Red has tweaked their sensors to get a faster read-rate from them. A Red has less skew coming off the sensor than the EX cameras. Skew is there, but it's not as much.

QUOTE]

There was only a 10% improvement with their software upgrade.
The isssue has never been tweaking. If this was the case, it would of been done on all CMOS based cameras. I've had an EX1 right next to the RED ONE several times, their CMOS artifacts looking very close. A while back, Jim Aurthurs had examples online of the RED ONE skew artifacts.
The problem is with the current technology of CMOS sensors, but this all might change soon. RED's new offerings is going to shake things up.
Click to expand...
 
Tomas Riuka said:
Blackout, or maybe HVX is normally soft? real film is not very sharp in the movies too!
Click to expand...

Very true, but there is detail in film. This is all about resolution.


The first thing to do with ALL of these cameras is to shut off sharpness. We all know it's adding artificial enhancement to make the image look sharp.

The problem is many of these cameras do not look good without artificial enhancement.
 
Last edited:
How did you ouput the HVX to the projector?

I have HVX and a 1080p projector, the component output from the HVX is not the best.

I think you get MUCH better results by making a digital out (WMV or other) and then using HDMI as the connection from the deck.

Any loss in compression image quality is made up for by the output quality of HDMI from your deck.
 
You sure you had the EX1 set up right? Unlike the HVX you need to spend a bit of time with the EX1. I think it's a great camera, rarely see any skew and think it's greatly exaggerated (and I whizz the camera about like a crazy man sometimes). Any other artifacts I don't see.

I shot this entirely hand held when I wasn't used to it and was just testing... And apart from stopping down for a couple of shots way past the sweet spot (so the footage was a bit soft and grainy) everything else worked out well. The full rez footage is super sharp and I'm not seeing any artifacts. I'm looking forward to shooting a big project with it and my forthcoming Letus Extreme.

http://www.vimeo.com/1535515
(video is a bit jumpy due to Vimeo compression)
 
Stevet said:
Very true, but there is detail in film. This is all about resolution.


The first thing to do with ALL of these cameras is to shut off sharpness. We all know its adding artificial enhancement to make the image look sharp.

The problem is many of these cameras do not look good without artificial enhancement.
Click to expand...


I love it when people talk about how film is soft. It's not SOFT. By any means! People are so used to watching Standard Definition they don't realize how sharp film really is.

You need every bit of resolution you can get out of these dinky little cameras, especially with adapters.
 
Kholi said:
I love it when people talk about how film is soft. It's not SOFT. By any means! People are so used to watching Standard Definition they don't realize how sharp film really is.

You need every bit of resolution you can get out of these dinky little cameras, especially with adapters.
Click to expand...


I hear you Kholi.

It's going to get REALLY interesting in the next couple years.

I'm hearing Scarlet is going to be better than we thought. Let's hope the price stays close to as predicted.

If it stays in the $3k price range, we'll all be tossing one of these in our tool bags.
 
Anyone that has the opportunity to watch a film projected in a large decent screen knows that film has very high detail, latitude and resolution as oppose to even the most sophisticate HD camera.
The problem is that people don't go to theaters often, and sometimes the projection (screen, etc...) is nothing to be impressed by.
 
Stevet said:
I hear you Kholi.

It's going to get REALLY interesting in the next couple years.

I'm hearing Scarlet is going to be better than we thought. Let's hope the price stays close to as predicted.

If it stays in the $3k price range, we'll all be tossing one of these in our tool bags.
Click to expand...

You have no idea. I'm gonna HAVE to keep a Pana camera around, but I'll surely have a Scarlet sittin' in my pocket! Now, if only I could afford an EX-1. LoL

Alex-- Exactly. I mean, hell, sit in front of a decent-sized 1080p LCD and watch yourself some Iron Man. Tell me if that's soft.

Even older movies are pretty friggin' resolute and sharp. Has anyone seen GLADIATOR in HD?

My word.
 
Most DPs shooting on film or digital will use filters to help soften things a little bit (especially with HD). Pro mist filters, among others, are popular. Especially when filming women, but probably not as "soft focus with a spot light" that was big in the 1930s-50s.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top