••Why do You Guys Continue to Shoot on the EX1?••
- Thread starter Coco Bermudez
- Start date
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Ah its okay ChipG, ill pull up a seat next to you and have some popcorn if i may... I always enjoy the show too...
Waiting to see what the jumping monkey will do next in an attempt to flame a response
Its a 'fetish' not fettish. I guess your fetish is attempting to suggest that other forum users have psychological problems. Its not really a fetish though... more just a stupid habit eh? hehe
Waiting to see what the jumping monkey will do next in an attempt to flame a response
Its a 'fetish' not fettish. I guess your fetish is attempting to suggest that other forum users have psychological problems. Its not really a fetish though... more just a stupid habit eh? hehe
Can we please stay on topic?
Did anyone watch Storm Chasers that was just on Discovery Channel? sony cmos torture test, I didn't have any problems with the footage. I think my hvx footage looks better (in those situations) but rolling shutter was never a concern and a network that has very high standards accepts it.
Did anyone watch Storm Chasers that was just on Discovery Channel? sony cmos torture test, I didn't have any problems with the footage. I think my hvx footage looks better (in those situations) but rolling shutter was never a concern and a network that has very high standards accepts it.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
lol Yeah good idea
I saw Storm Chasers looked good! I think folk would edit around any camera issues to be had honest. For EX or HVX they can both deliver cracking documentary footage given the size of the cams as well, there great to carry about.
I saw Storm Chasers looked good! I think folk would edit around any camera issues to be had honest. For EX or HVX they can both deliver cracking documentary footage given the size of the cams as well, there great to carry about.
LeftyLarry
Member
Do you mean "drivel"? :undecided
Sorry - but it's late and I've read through this whole thread and am loopy, but it has been intriguing.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Ironic isnt it muhahahahahahaa
muhahahahahahaaEr... the colour is better when someone thinks the colour is better... when they look at an image and go hmm, i prefer that look, ill buy that cam for it produces 'that' look. People laud the panny mojo for its 'look', we've heard it since the dvx. Who the heck goes 'wow... the EX organic look astounds me...
Comparing numbers means nothing, watching films produced on them does...
Thanks for finding my film amusing Lawrie, was a fun test
By the way I was very against the EX1 as a replacement for the HVX200. But when you dial in the Vortex DVD settings the colours are very lush indeed. And along with a lens adapter you can make the image very organic. Just open up wide on both lenses, use ND's, etc - you get a more filmic softer image, at least in my opinion. I actually think more filmic than the HVX200, as the HVX200 image is just plain muddy relatively speaking (not the HVX200a by the way!) Looking at a HVX frame at 100% and a EX1 frame at 100% there really is no comparison. Add on top of that you can do more with grading/lighting. I saw a short film on Vimeo with the EX1 stock lens which looked very filmic just because of the lighting used. I thought it was shot on Red.
At the risk of sounding an opinionated arrogant sod, I think many people don't know how to use their EX1 to make them look more filmic. That's not meant to be flaming anyone, I just think many stick with the stock settings and that's why you see all the video-ish looking footage from the EX1. The HVX is filmic looking out of the box, but in my opinion you can push the EX1 to a higher level. I shot some beautiful winter footage the other day that I just couldn't have done on the HVX, capturing grains of frost yet because of opening wide on the lenses, using ND's I managed to also make it as filmic as the HVX. If I had have shot it with the HVX it'd just look filmic but without the fine detail of the tiny ice crystals.
Anyway, who cares we will all be shooting on Scarlett next year! :cheesy:
Last edited:
emotepix
Well-known member
Guys
At the risk of posting yet another long ramble, let's not forget that in with world of video acquisition, it's all about the 'now'.
Digital technology is subject to Moore's Law, thus:
Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. Since the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958, the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has increased exponentially, doubling approximately every two years. The trend was first observed by Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore in a 1965 paper. It has continued for almost half of a century and is not expected to stop for another decade at least and perhaps much longer. (quoted from Wikipedia).
Which means that any digital camera we use is likely going to be doubly outclassed every 2 years or so, and probably unusably outdated by 4.
Ask Apple why they don't extend their warranties much past then and they'll tell you why too.
So - unlike mechanical technology, where you buy a car, and expect to drive it around for ages, years at least, or pencils, which also last that long these days, your video camera will be gone, in one way or another, in roughly a thousand days from brand new. Kind of like an expiration date.
So the bigger question, to my mind, is this:
What images will you make in the next thousand days? What machine makes those images best?
Will you sit around for five hundred of those days waiting for the perfect machine to come along?
Put another way, one of my old mentors used to tell me this:
The equipment game.
Filmmaker A takes his money, saves it up for a year, and at the end of the year he buys a camera and makes a movie. One movie.
Filmmaker B takes his money and rents, borrows or steals a camera, and puts his money on movies. At the end of the year he's got three movies. Three movies.
At the end of the year, given that the talents of both filmmakers are roughly equal, which of the two films d'you think would be better?
A's first one? Or B's third one?
Yes, A has a camera too. But what is the camera for?
What is the investment in? Cameras? Or films?
At the risk of posting yet another long ramble, let's not forget that in with world of video acquisition, it's all about the 'now'.
Digital technology is subject to Moore's Law, thus:
Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. Since the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958, the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has increased exponentially, doubling approximately every two years. The trend was first observed by Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore in a 1965 paper. It has continued for almost half of a century and is not expected to stop for another decade at least and perhaps much longer. (quoted from Wikipedia).
Which means that any digital camera we use is likely going to be doubly outclassed every 2 years or so, and probably unusably outdated by 4.
Ask Apple why they don't extend their warranties much past then and they'll tell you why too.
So - unlike mechanical technology, where you buy a car, and expect to drive it around for ages, years at least, or pencils, which also last that long these days, your video camera will be gone, in one way or another, in roughly a thousand days from brand new. Kind of like an expiration date.
So the bigger question, to my mind, is this:
What images will you make in the next thousand days? What machine makes those images best?
Will you sit around for five hundred of those days waiting for the perfect machine to come along?
Put another way, one of my old mentors used to tell me this:
The equipment game.
Filmmaker A takes his money, saves it up for a year, and at the end of the year he buys a camera and makes a movie. One movie.
Filmmaker B takes his money and rents, borrows or steals a camera, and puts his money on movies. At the end of the year he's got three movies. Three movies.
At the end of the year, given that the talents of both filmmakers are roughly equal, which of the two films d'you think would be better?
A's first one? Or B's third one?
Yes, A has a camera too. But what is the camera for?
What is the investment in? Cameras? Or films?
lawriejaffa
Veteran
lol if the Red lives up to its hype ChipG, then the hvx, ex, and hubble telescope will all 'seemingly' be obsolete. Im sceptical myself others aren't but of course it will rock if they can deliver!
Yah you did nice with that film Booth and your totally entitled to your opinion obviously. Do i think most folk would give a crap if a good movie was shot on an ex or an hvx? OBVIOUSLY we know they wouldnt.
Its just some of us gimps that care cos we hope that our percieved edges in the technology of our choosing will make us gods among men, harvesters of souls and so on.
emotepix your post is painfully rambling (but at least their poignant!) mine are still working up to that haha.
We got so excited with HD that we got more and more girly about chasing numbers instead of better stories. The closer we get to this perception of 'real' movie makers, (ooh peter jackson used this cam or... ooh it has the same res as lucas' thingy) then the more gooey we get about marketing that makes insane tech gear promises...
While even the relevance of those promises (if delivered) and their practicality became delightfully ignored, as we stare wide eyed at the pretty graphs, numerical comparisons and or slick graphic presentations...
Maybe next year I can shoot on a 500k digi cinema cam piloted by robot super sexy life like bikini babes who never miss a take. (That's Reds 2010 announcement btw.)
Photography and art never improved with 'greater detail' in its capture of reality (or subjective representation.) Such is the little difference res makes but to us tech geeks. Same goes for any of these tech differences, not just res that we oft spout between our cams.
Yah you did nice with that film Booth and your totally entitled to your opinion obviously. Do i think most folk would give a crap if a good movie was shot on an ex or an hvx? OBVIOUSLY we know they wouldnt.
Its just some of us gimps that care cos we hope that our percieved edges in the technology of our choosing will make us gods among men, harvesters of souls and so on.
emotepix your post is painfully rambling (but at least their poignant!) mine are still working up to that haha.
We got so excited with HD that we got more and more girly about chasing numbers instead of better stories. The closer we get to this perception of 'real' movie makers, (ooh peter jackson used this cam or... ooh it has the same res as lucas' thingy) then the more gooey we get about marketing that makes insane tech gear promises...
While even the relevance of those promises (if delivered) and their practicality became delightfully ignored, as we stare wide eyed at the pretty graphs, numerical comparisons and or slick graphic presentations...
Maybe next year I can shoot on a 500k digi cinema cam piloted by robot super sexy life like bikini babes who never miss a take. (That's Reds 2010 announcement btw.)
Photography and art never improved with 'greater detail' in its capture of reality (or subjective representation.) Such is the little difference res makes but to us tech geeks. Same goes for any of these tech differences, not just res that we oft spout between our cams.
Scarlet is still vaporware, I don't think the hubble has anything to worry about (pretty funny). It's still a ways away, I'm sure it will be everything it's said to be.
One of the reasons I asked what super 8 is going to be shooting is because some content bennefits more from the camera. Planet Earth would not look that good shot on an hvx, ex-1 would be better but still not varicam territory (and yes it was shot in 720p) now, indie movies, if the story is good, the acting is good, the lighting is good it really doesn't matter that much.
Super 8, did you think your thread would turn out like this?
(pretty funny). It's still a ways away, I'm sure it will be everything it's said to be.One of the reasons I asked what super 8 is going to be shooting is because some content bennefits more from the camera. Planet Earth would not look that good shot on an hvx, ex-1 would be better but still not varicam territory (and yes it was shot in 720p) now, indie movies, if the story is good, the acting is good, the lighting is good it really doesn't matter that much.
Super 8, did you think your thread would turn out like this?
LuckyStudio 13
The Tapeless One
No you are wrong. If you ever shot for a decent* network broadcast station, they have minimum specs that every one has to conformed to. Secondly, YES, RED DELIVERS. You just have to give them "learning time". The RED ONE became a decent camera after first 3000+- units. I have worked with a RED ONE during production as well as seen the image during post. I even witnessed 2x RED ONE strapped on a Tahoe and was accidentally RAN through a toll booth destroying all the rails and bottom plates of the camera but the 2x Red One kept on shooting.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Jeez dont give yourself a stroke Luckystudio, im not just wrong... im WRONG lol!
Thats a great ra-ra red story, you know what, i heard a Red helped a poor kid who scraped his knee, bandaged him up... bought him a coffee... the works! Red cures herpes... woo woo
Thats so silly that we can probably ignore that endless Red debate. You quote me but how the heck am i wrong? You think I don't know about network requirements?
I mean lets look at that. So Johnny EX and Billy HVX are walking down the street, there worried... how are they gonna get their new HBO show on air if they use themselves? Hmm... guess thats a problem. Oh wait... broadcast programmes have budgets... Budgets that tend to go 'beyond' a prosumer camera...
While an indy feature (99% of them) will be LUCKY to afford a prosumer camcorder.
Now, my quote does presume that one percieves it as referring to indy producers/directors. I think its safe to assume that broadcast professionals are more concerned for the quality of their latte than the issues arising from prosumer debates hehe...
I think many Indies become so passionate about their cams exactly because their low budgets are so heavily invested in a cam, which in the big scheme of things is nothing, but to them at that moment in their career, represents everything hehe, their fears, aspirations and egoes - that cam becomes the gateway to sticky Lucas -like heaven and no punk is gonna tell me my camera x is inferior to camera y lol.
Likewise its the selling point for RED - oh any broadcaster will take it, it will never be obsolete, its the best etc... (its the revolution!) Well regarding broadcasters taking Red (or other broadcast cams) NEWSFLASH... They won't... why? Because most programmes made on it (or films) will probably suck.
So... drumroll...
A commissioning editor will take the best prog shot on a Cornflakes Box with a taped on Jam Jar over an average prog shot on a Red... or any broadcast spec camera.
Which... is actually good.
// Just to add in there ChipG, you have to be a bit cynical, sure the cam has some laudets from Jackson, but he shot - a short on it... The reason Red brought in 'names' was EXACTLY so folks would make the statements of 'hey it must be great celebrity x used it' I mean you know that - and just to add,im not saying Red sucks, lol obviously, but yah... enough already Give me a scarlet and ill make my decision on their greatness then!
Thats a great ra-ra red story, you know what, i heard a Red helped a poor kid who scraped his knee, bandaged him up... bought him a coffee... the works! Red cures herpes... woo woo
Thats so silly that we can probably ignore that endless Red debate. You quote me but how the heck am i wrong? You think I don't know about network requirements?
I mean lets look at that. So Johnny EX and Billy HVX are walking down the street, there worried... how are they gonna get their new HBO show on air if they use themselves? Hmm... guess thats a problem. Oh wait... broadcast programmes have budgets... Budgets that tend to go 'beyond' a prosumer camera...
While an indy feature (99% of them) will be LUCKY to afford a prosumer camcorder.
Now, my quote does presume that one percieves it as referring to indy producers/directors. I think its safe to assume that broadcast professionals are more concerned for the quality of their latte than the issues arising from prosumer debates hehe...
I think many Indies become so passionate about their cams exactly because their low budgets are so heavily invested in a cam, which in the big scheme of things is nothing, but to them at that moment in their career, represents everything hehe, their fears, aspirations and egoes - that cam becomes the gateway to sticky Lucas -like heaven and no punk is gonna tell me my camera x is inferior to camera y lol.
Likewise its the selling point for RED - oh any broadcaster will take it, it will never be obsolete, its the best etc... (its the revolution!) Well regarding broadcasters taking Red (or other broadcast cams) NEWSFLASH... They won't... why? Because most programmes made on it (or films) will probably suck.
So... drumroll...
A commissioning editor will take the best prog shot on a Cornflakes Box with a taped on Jam Jar over an average prog shot on a Red... or any broadcast spec camera.
Which... is actually good.
// Just to add in there ChipG, you have to be a bit cynical, sure the cam has some laudets from Jackson, but he shot - a short on it... The reason Red brought in 'names' was EXACTLY so folks would make the statements of 'hey it must be great celebrity x used it'
I mean you know that - and just to add,im not saying Red sucks, lol obviously, but yah... enough already Give me a scarlet and ill make my decision on their greatness then!
Last edited:
Rumor has it that Scorsese is filming a new doc on 3 Red One cameras.