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

Kholi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kholi,
I know you've worked with the RED and EX1.
If you have the inside scoop on Scarlet, shoot me an email. ;) LOL.
There's a lot of excitment with "new" info on Scarlet soon to be released.
 
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 agree with this 100%. When I hear someone try and say it's OK that the HVX is soft - as if it's some strength of the camera, I roll my eyes. As if everyone who had a HVX wouldn't love for the chips to be double the res it currently is. YES, resolution is not everything, but since the HVX has all the other stuff down, why not better resolution? You know it needs it and you know you want it. It needs to actually capture the real detail. It can still have a slightly soft look while having another 1000 lines of detail. I am not talking about that artificial video edge enhancement sharpness either I am talking about more real captured image detail at the sensor level. I don't understand how Panasonic talks about how this camera works in the 1920 x 1080 progressive domain and everything is down sampled from that when the chips can't even begin to touch that detailed resolution green abra cadabra or not.

Again this does not mean the HVX200a (I don't like the vanilla HVX200.. waaay too noisy) does not look pretty good for the 500+ lines it does get, it just means DAMN would it be spectacular if it really captured HD resolution. It does not, plain and simple.

I have something coming up where I may be able to get a HVX200a thrown in to a project cost, so I may end up with this camera yet, but I still want more detail out of it.
 
Last edited:
ROne said:
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.
Click to expand...

All the footage was dumped into a dell xps1530 laptop and played from it's HDMI out to the projector. I have to say the laptop was pretty damn amazing I am going to have to get one. It had a 1920 x 1080 screen on it that looked like I was looking through a window the footage was so clear and sharp when on that small of a screen at that res.
 
Blackout said:
All the footage was dumped into a dell xps1530 laptop and played from it's HDMI out to the projector. I have to say the laptop was pretty damn amazing I am going to have to get one. It had a 1920 x 1080 screen on it that looked like I was looking through a window the footage was so clear and sharp when on that small of a screen at that res.
Click to expand...

When I was on the set of Corrado, all of the ACs referred to the HVX as a consumer camera. I would too if I was used to shooting with mainly Panavision. That was one of Adam's main complaints, the end result looked great but for the union ACs trying to figure out how to do normal AC things with a five pound plasticky camera, it was a challenge. Had to jury rig the wireless FF. The D4 output to the monitor was a flimsy joke, etc. Great camera, just not a real movie camera.

I don't think of the HPX as a consumer camcorder but the term prosumer has always been a bastardization that many people have an issue with. It is kind of accurate though, an HPX is half consumer (endlessly rotating focus ring with no hard stops, flimsy P2 door, D. Zoom, whitefade and blackfade) and half pro (SDI, P2, waveform/vectorscope, resettable TC, etc.)

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

Dan
 
I believe that Panasonic would have to move to CMOS sensors to up the resolution ante. That is the only practical way to get a native 1080X1920 into a palmcorder from a cost, noise and power consumption standpoint.

I'm not sure if Panasonic has much experience with CMOS, and we know that there are downsides to that technology in its current state. The motion artifacts are well documented on this forum.

I have A-B'd HVX200A, EX1, and HPX500 next to my HDX900. The EX1 blows away all of them in 1080/24p from a resolution standpoint. It is, however, 1 1/2 stops slower than my 900 at that resolution, but it's so quiet that you can get away with some gain boost.

The problem I have with the EX1, besides CMOS artifacts, is the Long GOP, 4:2:0 codec. Color resolution does not match luma resolution, compared to a 4:2:2 codec like DVCPRO HD. The reality for most shooters is that their footage is not seen on the big screen.

I'm not sure why, if a project is going to have a film out, the proper equipment isn't rented? I just bought an HPX170 package, and even with getting some good deals on things like monitors and batteries, having a Sachtler tripod and some cases, the cost was still over $10K. That same amount would get a very nice high end camera package rental for three weeks. That in turn could save money in post.

Disclosure--I am in the camera rental business.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you use the new Varicam, HPX3000, HPX2000 or Sony F900R ? You won't have any problems.
 
I wanted to know more about HD-SDI. How can hpx170 with its native rez, record 1920 x 1080 uncompressed. Is this another software enhancement? I just dont get it. With pixel shift and all it is 1280 x 1080 (or smthn) and DVCpro Hd is the same rez. Does that mean that with an AJA kona card, lets say, there will be better detail and sharper image? Coz I dont get it how can it pull that rezolution if there isnt...
Thanks,
Stefan
 
HD-SDI gives you the signal pre-codec, but post-hardware processing. So you would get the pixel shifted 1080 image, minus the compression of DVCProHD.

So yes, better detail, sharper image. However, the sensors in the camera are still the weak link.
 
Perrone i sent you a pm. I still dont get it.
If sharpness is the issue, isnt the detail level also related to the glass in front of the ccd?
I know its called lens rezolution. So how can one compare, in lets say film, 3 diferent stocks of film but with 3 diferent lenses? Ive seen, not on hd projection thats true, very sharp images coming out of an hvx with an 35 mm adapter. I may be wrong but it also sounds like an issue...
Stefan
 
puredrifting said:
When I was on the set of Corrado, all of the ACs referred to the HVX as a consumer camera. I would too if I was used to shooting with mainly Panavision. That was one of Adam's main complaints, the end result looked great but for the union ACs trying to figure out how to do normal AC things with a five pound plasticky camera, it was a challenge. Had to jury rig the wireless FF. The D4 output to the monitor was a flimsy joke, etc. Great camera, just not a real movie camera.

I don't think of the HPX as a consumer camcorder but the term prosumer has always been a bastardization that many people have an issue with. It is kind of accurate though, an HPX is half consumer (endlessly rotating focus ring with no hard stops, flimsy P2 door, D. Zoom, whitefade and blackfade) and half pro (SDI, P2, waveform/vectorscope, resettable TC, etc.)

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

Dan
Click to expand...

Sorry to change the topic for a second but I've been reading about the "Corrado saga" in the HD magazine and I am wondering why he didn't just shell out a couple grand more for a hpx 500?
 
Alexg said:
Sorry to change the topic for a second but I've been reading about the "Corrado saga" in the HD magazine and I am wondering why he didn't just shell out a couple grand more for a hpx 500?
Click to expand...
At the time, he might not have been able to afford it, and he really didn't want to rent anything. For his next film, however, I believe he's looking into renting some 500s.
 
Alexg said:
Sorry to change the topic for a second but I've been reading about the "Corrado saga" in the HD magazine and I am wondering why he didn't just shell out a couple grand more for a hpx 500?
Click to expand...

Hi:

The post above is correct. If you go back and read the Corrado thread, you will see that Adam was intent on owning his gear and he ended up shooting with two cameras so I think that two HPXs would have put him over his budget.

I also believe that using the Letus Extreme was another important part of his game plan and the HPX with 2/3" CCDs would have had considerably deeper depth of field than the HVX when paired with the Letus.

Dan
 
I know it sounds weird, but I actually prefer the "softer" look of the HVX... that is what actually draws me to the image... I cannot wait to see our HVX feature blown up
 
Brandon Rice said:
I know it sounds weird, but I actually prefer the "softer" look of the HVX... that is what actually draws me to the image... I cannot wait to see our HVX feature blown up
Click to expand...

Again, you are confusing resolution with focus. You can have a 8000 x 4000 resolution picture that still has a soft look with a filter or focus changes, but damn will it have detail.
 
I was able to do some more comparison shooting and I have decided to go with the HVX200a. Even though I wish it had some more resolution, I am unable to get the xa-h1 to compare in motion and color, and the EX1 mght as well be a very expensive sharp still camera to me with it's current issues.

So yay HVX-200a here I come.
 
Tomas Riuka said:
Blackout, or maybe HVX is normally soft? real film is not very sharp in the movies too!
Click to expand...

It's not so much the softness, but lack of detail (resolution) that people are having issue with. I have been looking at lots of footage, and can say that the EX1 has detail that the panasonics do not have.
I want that detail, but I always get back to the same place.

The HPX170 is:
1. Less money
2. Lighter to hold..lighter has proven to allow me to bring my camera more, so i shoot more.
3. Has better color.
4. Has a better look in the footage (more film like)
5. I already have P2 cards.
6. It is easier to edit.
7. It does not fall apart when you edit.

Thoes are the top 7 reasons for me to probably go with the HPX170.

I have also found that for me, it seems as if I blow the footage up to 1920x1080
for the master, it seems to LOOK better than to leave it the native size.

I do not have pro res HQ, but that seems to also help.
The 10 bit codec seems to make a huge difference.

I won't switch to a mac for that, but I will most likely go with the Prospect HD codec to do the same. I feel confident that that with that and Premiere pro cs4, I will be able to do what I need to do with the HPX170.

I think that some of the grain look is caused by encoding the native footage, in an anamorphic size. I have not tested this, but my thinking is that when you do this, you now are at the mercy of the player to stretch the footage to normal size. I think this is where you are getting grain and softness that you are not seeing from sources that are full raster. Obviously the native lower resolution is always going to make it look less detailed, but I am speaking more to the grain look I sometimes see on others footage online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top