organic- vs. video-look. What?
- Thread starter mrjazz
- Start date
Steve Shovlar
DVXuser Sponsor
What is meant is 24P film look Vs the TV news look.
Some on here say the Panasonic HVX200/DVX100 have a more filmic look wheras the Sony has the newsroom lok. Personally I disagree somewhat as I can shoot in 25P (being in UK) and adjust the colour/gamma so that it mimics the look of the HVX, but it has a clearer/sharper image due to 1/2 inch chips compard to the 1/3 inch chips of the HVX.
The EX1/EX3 is completely tweakable to get any look you want, whereas the HVX gives that look out of the box.
Some on here say the Panasonic HVX200/DVX100 have a more filmic look wheras the Sony has the newsroom lok. Personally I disagree somewhat as I can shoot in 25P (being in UK) and adjust the colour/gamma so that it mimics the look of the HVX, but it has a clearer/sharper image due to 1/2 inch chips compard to the 1/3 inch chips of the HVX.
The EX1/EX3 is completely tweakable to get any look you want, whereas the HVX gives that look out of the box.
Stevet
Veteran
There are no special properties.
The HVX has some stock settings that may appeal to some who like the concept of prepackaged looks and do not want to play with their camera parameters to make their own.
The EX has the controls to make your own looks and memory locations to store them (calledl picture profiles). Sony chose not to load the user locations with their concept of what you may want.
I could care less. If you want, you can make your own looks and store them in the EX.
My objective is to shoot and obtain the best exposure possible without clipping and maximizing the cameras dynamic range.
I'd rather work color corrections in post as opposed to being tied to an over compensated image which will cause issues later when I decide to go for something a bit different.
This is normally how it's done. Also, for all buying the RED family cameras . There's no canned looks. All corrections HAVE to be done in post.
mrjazz
Active member
That's absolutely my opinion, too! Btw, I found that cine1 is the most neutral gamma and the best choice, if you want to capture as most information as possible (= maximal SNR) for most flexible post-processing/graduation. Do you agree?
I started this thread to find out about that special hvx-graduation/look, which a lot of people seem to like, because I want to develop a better understanding of their preference and interpretation of a "filmic" look.
emotepix
Well-known member
Depends on what you think is "the best choice".
Certain people lean towards documentary and reality programs ("taking the picture") whereas others tend to prefer recreating the images they first see in their own minds' eyes ("making the picture"). Fiction, or non-fiction, in other words.
Most shooters start off by dabbling in both, and eventually their own personal preferences lead them to one end of the spectrum or the other. Most all will have retained certain fave techniques and tricks gleaned from both ends, no matter which end they finish up shooting more of.
So - two main horses for two main courses:
The filmic look is that which looks like a movie. In other words, that image that best evokes the emotions to be had by an image captured on celluloid and then telecine'd to video.
Mostly people associate that with the different frame rates of movie cameras (24fps) and video cameras (30/60fps) but it's more than that.
Mainly it's the non-uniform gamma response of film and the enhanced contrast that a film image has when compared to a video image.
In a cinema, you're sitting in an almost black room and watching a luminance level of almost pitch black (well, the luminance of the emergency exit signs) up to the level of whatever power xenon arc light the projector has, reflected on the 3M screen and back to your eyes.
In video, you're sitting in a fairly dark room, or not, watching a luminance level of zero pixel activity against full pixel activity. In the case of plasma it's the maximum light output of your fully untwisted plasma strings, and in LCD it's the light output of the tubes behind your crystal sandwich.
Drama comes from luminance. Take the color away from a dramatic scene and the black-and-white element plays just as well, probably better. Take the black and white element away and leave just the color, and everything goes pastel, including the emotional content. That's my opinion, but it is empirical.
So if you're into subjective, interpreted reality, you'll want to mess more with the reality that you're shooting tp create images, icons, symbols.
If you're into objective reality, unfiltered images, then you'll want to do the opposite - preserve the inherent qualities of the reality you're shooting and get as much of that on screen as you can. That "looking though a window" experience is best.
So - in stills photography, certain camera/lens combinations have been used for certain applications. For instance, the Zeiss lenses on Hasselblads have been favored by some pros because by and large they don't tend to add to or take away from the reality in front of them - they're uncolored, in other words. What you see is closer to what you get than, for instance, using a Mamiya or Nikon look, where colors are more punchy, brighter, more saturated than reality.
So we have the Leica look of the Panasonics, a little more punchy, more subjective, and the Sony/Fujinon - more objective.
But as Steve T says - these aren't film cameras, these are digital, and as such their various response curves can be fine tuned and toned. You can make one or the other camera look like almost anything you want to, if you put the time and the energy into finding out exactly which of their myriad controls does what to your reality.
Inherently, though, ("out of the box", as they say), the HVX has a more movie, subjective look and the EX has a more newsy, through-a-window look.
Now for my money, I can make the EX1 look very filmic, very quickly (with a 35mm DOF adaptor and stills lenses) or very video (shot without the DOF adaptor) so that's how I like it.
I'm sure that people on this board can make an HVX look very Sony indeed. Not me, though, which is why I ended up going from DVX to EX1.
It would perhaps be an interesting experiment, to create a Look-Like-EX1 picture profile on an HVX, and test it against a Look-Like-HVX picture profile created on an EX1...
HTH
Cheers
Chris
Certain people lean towards documentary and reality programs ("taking the picture") whereas others tend to prefer recreating the images they first see in their own minds' eyes ("making the picture"). Fiction, or non-fiction, in other words.
Most shooters start off by dabbling in both, and eventually their own personal preferences lead them to one end of the spectrum or the other. Most all will have retained certain fave techniques and tricks gleaned from both ends, no matter which end they finish up shooting more of.
So - two main horses for two main courses:
The filmic look is that which looks like a movie. In other words, that image that best evokes the emotions to be had by an image captured on celluloid and then telecine'd to video.
Mostly people associate that with the different frame rates of movie cameras (24fps) and video cameras (30/60fps) but it's more than that.
Mainly it's the non-uniform gamma response of film and the enhanced contrast that a film image has when compared to a video image.
In a cinema, you're sitting in an almost black room and watching a luminance level of almost pitch black (well, the luminance of the emergency exit signs) up to the level of whatever power xenon arc light the projector has, reflected on the 3M screen and back to your eyes.
In video, you're sitting in a fairly dark room, or not, watching a luminance level of zero pixel activity against full pixel activity. In the case of plasma it's the maximum light output of your fully untwisted plasma strings, and in LCD it's the light output of the tubes behind your crystal sandwich.
Drama comes from luminance. Take the color away from a dramatic scene and the black-and-white element plays just as well, probably better. Take the black and white element away and leave just the color, and everything goes pastel, including the emotional content. That's my opinion, but it is empirical.
So if you're into subjective, interpreted reality, you'll want to mess more with the reality that you're shooting tp create images, icons, symbols.
If you're into objective reality, unfiltered images, then you'll want to do the opposite - preserve the inherent qualities of the reality you're shooting and get as much of that on screen as you can. That "looking though a window" experience is best.
So - in stills photography, certain camera/lens combinations have been used for certain applications. For instance, the Zeiss lenses on Hasselblads have been favored by some pros because by and large they don't tend to add to or take away from the reality in front of them - they're uncolored, in other words. What you see is closer to what you get than, for instance, using a Mamiya or Nikon look, where colors are more punchy, brighter, more saturated than reality.
So we have the Leica look of the Panasonics, a little more punchy, more subjective, and the Sony/Fujinon - more objective.
But as Steve T says - these aren't film cameras, these are digital, and as such their various response curves can be fine tuned and toned. You can make one or the other camera look like almost anything you want to, if you put the time and the energy into finding out exactly which of their myriad controls does what to your reality.
Inherently, though, ("out of the box", as they say), the HVX has a more movie, subjective look and the EX has a more newsy, through-a-window look.
Now for my money, I can make the EX1 look very filmic, very quickly (with a 35mm DOF adaptor and stills lenses) or very video (shot without the DOF adaptor) so that's how I like it.
I'm sure that people on this board can make an HVX look very Sony indeed. Not me, though, which is why I ended up going from DVX to EX1.
It would perhaps be an interesting experiment, to create a Look-Like-EX1 picture profile on an HVX, and test it against a Look-Like-HVX picture profile created on an EX1...
HTH
Cheers
Chris
Last edited:
lawriejaffa
Veteran
mrjazz why are you asking this in the EX sub forum? If you've already read these forum posts then you will already know that EX users dispute the idea, and HVX / HPX users actually list it as one of their reasons they purchase.
Folk like SteveT etc will say the special panny mojo is basically BS while others will say its not. For example for me the panny mojo (and im glad ive introduced this organic concept into discussion hehe) is exuded by the hvx/hpx and makes it stand out against cams like the EX.
Watch some comparison scenes shot of EX and HVX (like that cool horror movie scene, someone can link that?) Both cams look utterly cool, and the differences are not black and white. Merely subjective, also watch the EX and HVX film entries into Lossfest. Many noticed differences, others didn't.
Is it absolute either way? No of course not, its subjective. So there is NO RIGHT OR WRONG on this, its a personal opinion. Is anyones minds going to be changed by a discussion of this issue too? Of course not...
For that reason your question is really rather stupid because one its about panny cams, and its posted on the EX sub forum. Two, its over an issue folk get their pants in a twist about, and three because there is no final answer on it anyway.
Its obvious to me that this is more a pissing in the pool type issue, where you want to have or encourage a squabble about this leading to SteveT dusting off his sarcastic stump speech and others posting vice versa!
Couldn't you see this before you posted MrJazz?
Folk like SteveT etc will say the special panny mojo is basically BS while others will say its not. For example for me the panny mojo (and im glad ive introduced this organic concept into discussion hehe) is exuded by the hvx/hpx and makes it stand out against cams like the EX.
Watch some comparison scenes shot of EX and HVX (like that cool horror movie scene, someone can link that?) Both cams look utterly cool, and the differences are not black and white. Merely subjective, also watch the EX and HVX film entries into Lossfest. Many noticed differences, others didn't.
Is it absolute either way? No of course not, its subjective. So there is NO RIGHT OR WRONG on this, its a personal opinion. Is anyones minds going to be changed by a discussion of this issue too? Of course not...
For that reason your question is really rather stupid because one its about panny cams, and its posted on the EX sub forum. Two, its over an issue folk get their pants in a twist about, and three because there is no final answer on it anyway.
Its obvious to me that this is more a pissing in the pool type issue, where you want to have or encourage a squabble about this leading to SteveT dusting off his sarcastic stump speech and others posting vice versa!
Couldn't you see this before you posted MrJazz?
Last edited:
mrjazz
Active member
I want to get technical background-information. I already know the subjective impressions of people.
What is "mojo"? What is "BS"?
For sure. I just want to know what the hvx is doing with its received light. I hope that's not confidential.
I don't care (right now).
:beer:
Last edited:
lawriejaffa
Veteran
The better forum would be the the HVX/HPX forum, for any questions relating to the percieved qualities of that camera. Why do you think EX users will give you technical information about the percieved organic aspect of HVX footage?
Oh and you should care Mr. Jazz... any questions that lead to pages of unnecessary squabbling and the same old spouting... especially for subjective non technical questions with no answers is worth caring about.
This is just another one of these self-indulgent threads where users of 1 cam are to come together in some joint man hug to reassure themselves of their own cams er glory... and to take shots at another.
The only way to stop stupid threads like this are to call them out...
Oh and you should care Mr. Jazz... any questions that lead to pages of unnecessary squabbling and the same old spouting... especially for subjective non technical questions with no answers is worth caring about.
This is just another one of these self-indulgent threads where users of 1 cam are to come together in some joint man hug to reassure themselves of their own cams er glory... and to take shots at another.
The only way to stop stupid threads like this are to call them out...
Last edited:
liondor1969
Well-known member
24p vs 25p
24p vs 25p
Hey, who can help me? Are in Romania, this system is PAL and I was filming at the wedding in 1920x1080 25p, 24p if the movie is the big difference in the end? What is okay? Thanks
24p vs 25p
Hey, who can help me? Are in Romania, this system is PAL and I was filming at the wedding in 1920x1080 25p, 24p if the movie is the big difference in the end? What is okay? Thanks
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Think you must have posted in wrong thread liondor lol. If you filmed in 25p then that is right as thats what PAL is. 25p is acceptable filmic look just like 24p, in the UK film cameras shoot at 25p too.
liondor1969
Well-known member
Thanks
Attached are some screen grabs of my EX1 footage shot at night using a custom picture profile. The Bill Raven one from Steve T's PP thread on DVinfo. The EX1 has incredible amount of options in adjusting for a film look, or whatever look you want. This camera is so good in low light that it cant be compared to film really.
Attachments
Stevet
Veteran
No, I just get a kick out of some who have to label it "mojo" because they have NO clue on why they think it "may" appear better than another camera.
Last edited:
mrjazz
Active member
Why are you reading the ex-subforum, if you are a hvx-user?
What I really would like is to see are hvx-stills of which you would say "that was done by the hvx in its best shape and I love the filmic look" and stills of the same scene captured with other cams like the ex1. I guess then we could become more objective what the technical differences actually are and by what these subjective effects, like calling it more filmic, are brought on.
I just want to learn more about the correlation between the subjective reality of people and objective measurable things. I don't want to hurt people, but also I don't care if people gets hurt because of my trial to get to the bottom of things.
hehe. I think you got him there Mr.Jazz. Nice.
I also want to explore what defines film look and video look but its a hard thing to pin down really. I think the EX1 and HVX are equal in their color renditions. We should probably steer this thread in the direction of discussing the difference between Digital acquisition and Films chemical acquisition.
What kind of films would you be making by the way?
Last edited:
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Thats interesting Stevet, I actually get a kick from making love to a beautiful woman, or enjoying a fine meal, or shooting and editing films. I don't find my kicks coming from being a kind of spoilt schoolgirl on internet forums. Ah well... but at least you do it well!
As for Mr Jazz... I am reading the ex sub forum because, i read all the subforums from time to time, i guess its a part of something we call intellectual curiousity, if you practiced that then perhaps you would not have needed to ask such a stupid question for this particular sub forum.
The only thing more annoying than the gimp who asks a silly question (with no real intention of wanting an answer but just trying to provoke) is the sad geek who high fives him in the shower.
Yes... you in the hick costume Kubalsky, going 'Yeaaaah you got em there mr. jazz' follow - hick laugh.
So Mr. Jazz... here is my little challenge Post your question in the HVX forum, and see how quickly it takes, for you to get a genuine answer for your question.
I will not take the sarcastic opportunity to say that your appeal for hvx stills is a prime example of your ignorance on posting this topic in the EX user subforum in the first place...
Since I am on a roll actually, your question about the correlation between the subjective reality of people and those which comprise of objective measurable things is trully astonishing.
Simply because, the subjective exists based on perspective and impression derived from numerable qualities that go far beyond any objective measurements. It's why we have subjective thought, and why churning numbers will not explain why there are those who percieve mojo (take up the use of that word with Hudson SteveT...) and those who do not!
As for Mr Jazz... I am reading the ex sub forum because, i read all the subforums from time to time, i guess its a part of something we call intellectual curiousity, if you practiced that then perhaps you would not have needed to ask such a stupid question for this particular sub forum.
The only thing more annoying than the gimp who asks a silly question (with no real intention of wanting an answer but just trying to provoke) is the sad geek who high fives him in the shower.
Yes... you in the hick costume Kubalsky, going 'Yeaaaah you got em there mr. jazz' follow - hick laugh.
So Mr. Jazz... here is my little challenge
Post your question in the HVX forum, and see how quickly it takes, for you to get a genuine answer for your question.I will not take the sarcastic opportunity to say that your appeal for hvx stills is a prime example of your ignorance on posting this topic in the EX user subforum in the first place...
Since I am on a roll actually, your question about the correlation between the subjective reality of people and those which comprise of objective measurable things is trully astonishing.
Simply because, the subjective exists based on perspective and impression derived from numerable qualities that go far beyond any objective measurements. It's why we have subjective thought, and why churning numbers will not explain why there are those who percieve mojo (take up the use of that word with Hudson SteveT...) and those who do not!
Last edited:
mrjazz
Active member
I'm mainly shooting music-videos.
@lawriejaffa
I'm sorry, but calling me a gimp disqualifies you from being taken seriously by me. I guess you're suffering from some kind of a paranoid personality disorder.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
He is Trolling
Actually that is trolling...
Mr.Jazz
And er i'm sorry mrjazz your right calling you a gimp is unnecessary hehe though it was meant with more affection than the word perhaps suggests. In the UK, in particular Scotland, the word infers more 'silly billy' 'ie. oh what a silly gimp' than it probably does in the USA (ie. PVC latex/leather dressed man with zip mouth). I certainly didn't mean to suggest that, so i apolagise for that
Honestly I do! Suggesting im suffering from a paranoid personality disorder is a little personal too however!
I presume you don't really mean that?