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

Blackout said:
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.
Click to expand...

A tough, but good choice.

I spent weeks shooting the HMC-150 and XH-A1 side by side and also trying to match color. I 100% agree with your observations. The max screen size I compared footage on was 51". On 51", the A1 footage is always little sharper when comparing the best of the best. In the end though, I sold the XH-A1s and am going with the HMC-150s for now. The tapeless, wide angle and extra low light sensitivity were what I need. With a tweaked scene file, the HMC-150 is cabable of pretty stunning HD images.

FYI, to even get close to matching XH-A1 & Panasonic color, you have to set the Pana knee to low and master pedestal to a +10ish number. But they never really matched, the Pana just has a much more filmic/production camera look.

BTW, Im glad I didn't get the EX-1, but my next cameras will certainly have 1/2" imagers. A HVX/HMC with 1/2" sensor block would be the ultimate camera. Probably gotta wait 2 or 3 years though.
 
I love the Panasonic color and motion qualities but I am really wanting more resolution as I am playing with the HVX200a in 1080 mode.

Take a look at THIS ex1 clip:

http://vimeo.com/1007129

Best EX1 footage I have seen other than the Bloom stuff. The HVX just can't compare in detail and I am jealous even though I made my choice and went with the HVX over the EX1. It is rare to get footage like this without cmos issues - this one has little fast motion so there are no cmos probs and this guy knew what he was doing with color correction.

The best HVX footage I have seen so far is this:

http://vimeo.com/2404740

Very beautiful but no where near he detail. You can see resolution issues in the wide shots on the detail in the leaves - it leaves me wanting more detail.

So I will keep plugging away for now but I am not going to buy multiple HVXs like I thought I would... I just feel that this cameras time is coming to an end as either the cmos rolling shutter issues get fixed or Panny steps up wih a real 1920 x 1080 super HVX/HPX type of cam.
 
Hi Blackout:

Thanks for the Vimeo heads-up. I loved the EX1 kids and dogs clip but i have to say in comparison to the HVX clip, I definitely favor the HVX look, hands down. The EX1 clips are almost too sharp and the movement does have this sort of video feel to it (at least to me).

Both clips were shot by really talented people with a great eye. The HVX clip is amazing, it feels as if it is mostly lifted from a really good Italian gangster film/dream. Absolutely one of the best narrative DP reels I have ever seen. If I were shooting an indie film, I would hire that guy to DP just based upon that reel.

Thanks for that, it is great to see something inspiring from each camera.

Dan
 
Great article,your right about canon and the rediculous cost of the interchangable lens system.If its like the early models it was nothing more than a gimic,It doesent matter how good the glass is if your view finder sucks to where you cant focus anyways.
 
Yes, I prefer the filmic look of the HVX too but I edit on these 1080 screens and I see the difference in res stand out. I do everything big. On a normal computer monitor you probably wouldn't notice, on a big screen you see it in the leaves.

I agree with the 'video' look of the ex1 being an issue I don't like, it has a bluish look with hot whites that needs to be overcome, but damn is there added detail that the HVX could use on wide shots.

The HVX guy used mostly close ups but he did appear to get more resolution out of the cam than others. Very good color grading and contrast punch in 1080 mode rezzed down to 720p. I was hoping I could dl the original 1920 x 1080 quicktime but he took it down.
 
Blackout said:
I agree with the 'video' look of the ex1 being an issue I don't like, it has a bluish look with hot whites that needs to be overcome, but damn is there added detail that the HVX could use on wide shots.
Click to expand...

And it takes about 10 minutes to dial that out if owners would bother. But who takes time to color balance a handycam? Who takes time to shoot a chroma du monde chart on multicam shoots?

Some people sweat the details. And that is why they get paid what they do, and we oooh and ahh over work, Whether it's a Viper, a Genesis, a RED, or an HV20. Good images require time, prep, and work.
 
Might be a silly question but I genuinely don't know... when you film with the Letus 35mm adapter does the footage come out as 16:9 or the film size (I think it's about 2:1 or something)?
 
PerroneFord said:
And it takes about 10 minutes to dial that out if owners would bother. But who takes time to color balance a handycam? Who takes time to shoot a chroma du monde chart on multicam shoots?

Some people sweat the details. And that is why they get paid what they do, and we oooh and ahh over work, Whether it's a Viper, a Genesis, a RED, or an HV20. Good images require time, prep, and work.
Click to expand...

You can dial out the color issues somewhat but you can't dial out the cmos issues and the motion characteristics are just different. Believe me I wanted to be convinced that the EX1 would do because I want to extra detail.
 
Blackout said:
You can dial out the color issues somewhat but you can't dial out the cmos issues and the motion characteristics are just different. Believe me I wanted to be convinced that the EX1 would do because I want to extra detail.
Click to expand...


I buy that. The CMOS issues are real, though overstated perhaps by some. Motion looks different in brands of camera, and even in model lines, to say nothing of actual film.
 
I've read a lot of people longing for a new version of an HVX that matches the resolution of the Sony and Canon. I don't think Panasonic would be eager to do that because it would probably cut into the sales of their more expensive, probably higher margin cameras.
 
I think the easiest way to see the diferences in resolution is to compare the EX1 against the Panasonic with subject more than 10 feet away.

Close up, everything looks good.
It's when you shoot things that are not close up that the differences are overwhelming.
 
can someone please correct me on this, but if I'm using a 35mm adapter, would it be safe to say that if i'm zoomed in to the ground glass that the wide angle of the stock lens going soft would be a non issue as I'm now relying on the prime lenses, and if my primes are sharp, i'll therefore get sharp images using a wide angle prime.

Can anyone elaborate on this?
 
I know some who own the Sony F350 and say their EX1 looks as good if not better at times over the F350.
So, it's possible that Panasonic will eventually offer a sub $7K camera with full 1920x1080 raster capture.

It's going to have to happen sooner or later, it's just the matter of when.
 
Stevet said:
I know some who own the Sony F350 and say their EX1 looks as good if not better at times over the F350.
Click to expand...

This makes sense resolution wise because the 1/2" CCD sensors in the F350 are not full raster. Also, the XDCAM HD codec the camera uses is not full raster. To
get full raster, you have to use the EX codec or the 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec found in the F700.
 
Dino said:
This makes sense resolution wise because the 1/2" CCD sensors in the F350 are not full raster. Also, the XDCAM HD codec the camera uses is not full raster. To
get full raster, you have to use the EX codec or the 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec found in the F700.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd still take the 1/2 CCD's in the 350 than the 1/2 CMOS of the EX1. F700 is really a sweet cam though if you've got the dough.
 
Dino said:
This makes sense resolution wise because the 1/2" CCD sensors in the F350 are not full raster. Also, the XDCAM HD codec the camera uses is not full raster. To
get full raster, you have to use the EX codec or the 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec found in the F700.
Click to expand...

I did a shoot with a guy out in Scottsdale last month. He owns the Sony 355. He said it is really tough to see a camera like the EX1 come out that essentially blows away the picture quality of his camera for a price that is a fraction of what he paid. Then again, he has had his camera for three years and it has already paid for itself so I guess its not too bad as long as the gear has paid for itself.

Also, he shoots mostly corporate so the "look" of the camera is just as important as the picture for him. He went from a DVX100 to the Sony 355 (I think that's the model, the 350 with VFR, is that a 355?) and he still ends up delivering most of his projects on web or SD DVD but his clients are very specific that they want their projects "shot in HD" and his nice broadcast looking camera fills the bill.

I am kind of going through that with the Canon Vixia HF11 that I am buying for a low key, semi-undercover shoot I will be doing in the Spring. It kind of is amazing that this little $800.00 camera shoots full raster 1920 x 1080 with a 1/3" CMOS imager when my HPX170 shoots on a native 960x540 chipset.

Mind you, I am very happy with the 170 and it's images are beautiful but this cheapo little Canon is pretty impressive as well, so much cheaper and much higher resolution images. Not saying the images look as good, they don't overall, but they are much sharper.

Dan
 
Chenopup said:
Personally, I'd still take the 1/2 CCD's in the 350 than the 1/2 CMOS of the EX1. F700 is really a sweet cam though if you've got the dough.
Click to expand...

Agreed! CCD's are my preference, even at 1440 vs. 1920 for CMOS. The F700 will really be sweet when Sony finally offers 24p in June--but for a steep $4500 fee!

I'd rather have a B-Stock HPX3000.
 
puredrifting said:
He said it is really tough to see a camera like the EX1 come out that essentially blows away the picture quality of his camera for a price that is a fraction of what he paid. Then again, he has had his camera for three years and it has already paid for itself so I guess its not too bad as long as the gear has paid for itself.

(I think that's the model, the 350 with VFR, is that a 355?)

I am kind of going through that with the Canon Vixia HF11 that I am buying for a low key, semi-undercover shoot I will be doing in the Spring. It kind of is amazing that this little $800.00 camera shoots full raster 1920 x 1080 with a 1/3" CMOS imager when my HPX170 shoots on a native 960x540 chipset.

Dan
Click to expand...

Dan,

The F355 hasn't been out for three years, so it would be a 330 or 350, most likeley the latter.

In San Francisco, the XDCAM HD cameras have not gained any traction. There are, however, over 30 HDX900's in town! The EX cameras are making some headway.

I have used Panasonic AVC HD cameras for in-car/on-car applications. They are very sharp, but the compression artifacts, lack of latitude and over-enhanced detail are not going to confuse me with DVCPRO HD and cameras with proper image control and decent latitude.
 
Thanks for the clarification, I know zero about the Sony 1/2" cameras besides the EX1.

These little Canons are pretty sweet for travel/low profile type of shoots.

Dan
 
Dan, this is a bit off topic here. Maybe we could move the topic elsewhere. But I would love to know more about your experience with the HF11. I'm thinking of picking one up just as a secondary b-roll cam to mix in with DVCProHD footage that I get - mostly shot on HVX200s or HDX900 cams. If you've written about this elsewhere let me know. I'm interested in your experiences with workflow and mixing these sources. Thanks. Phil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top