I've been reading this forum for six months; this is my first post. Kudos to Barry and everyone else who has posted; your information and insight has been invaluable to me. This post is to stimulate discussion and to explore a new niche; it's long-winded as I've tried to show where I'm coming from so you can evaluate my comments properly. For a quick read go elsewhere . . . . .
First let me say that I love the HVX! I'm very happy and have had no problems with the camera.
I ordered the HVX based on it's specs and on my ownership of the DVX, and on it's ability to capture any format I need with seamless post (no time-consuming GOP rendering chores on output, etc.). I paid for it in December last year (for tax purposes) without seeing it's output. Yeah, I had faith!
I got my HVX in March, with 2 8-gig cards and 2 4-gig cards. I shoot mostly to card so far, but I have done several greenscreen shoots directly to FCP (so I can name clips on the fly and keep organized). I've shot every other day since I got the camera, testing every setting as much as I could so far. I mostly monitor with FCP going out of an AJA Kona LHe as HD-SDI to a Blackmagic HD-Link to an Apple 23". I also monitor with a 42" Panasonic HD Plasma, from the Kona LHe and from the camera via component.
Most of what I've shot so far is "testing" and stock footage, and the aforementioned greenscreen. I want to know exactly what I will get before I'm shooting for clients. I started with mostly 720 24Pn, but I have switched to mostly 1080 24Pa to get all the natural sharpness I can. I love the colorimetry of the camera; amazing for video. I shoot mostly Cine D gamma, though occasionally I do a test run with the other gammas just to make sure I am getting the best results. I keep going back to Cine D for it's smoothness, lack of banding, and latitude.
I am happy with the choices Panasonic made with this camera; I wouldn't want any less light sensitivity, P2 and DVCPro HD (and 50) are great once you get the workflow down, I like the form factor (great for tight spaces and for travelling), good price point, good lens. Sure, there's "grain" and it could be sharper, but I think Panny hit the sweet spot for it's size, price, and capabilities.
I did a DI last year (I was the colorist and did some effects, a 3D shot, and the title sequence); it was shot on Super 16 (Panavision 16 camera, great glass, Vision2 stock), telecined to HDCAM on a Spirit with da Vinci, HDCAM into FCP 10 bit uncompressed 1080 24 Psf, extensive color correction with Color Finesse (an amazing plugin-the telecine guy was shocked at what it could do). It looked very good - you can't beat film for pleasing skin tones, but it's grain level was WAY above what I am getting with the HVX, even with 50 speed film, and it's sharpness was only slightly higher than the HVX in 1080, except for some poorly exposed night scenes that were soft. So to my mind the HVX compares favorably to Super 16 and to its competition; it covers my very wide target quite well. Whenever I want a little more "sharpness" from the HVX, I just add some in FCP or AE, which is what the other competing cameras do in-camera and this way I can be very precise and it's not baked into the footage.
I checked out the competition at NAB as best I could; I think the HVX has more pleasing colors than the others, and everything else is ballpark or better.
Of course I always want more. More real sharpness, more shallow depth of field, less noise (I can always add that in post if I want the texture or to reduce digital banding), more light sensitivity. I am looking forward to renting the AJ-HPC2000 when it comes out, with its 2/3" CCD's.
But how about this: a slightly upsized HVX with 1/2 inch CCD's! 2/3 inch would be too large for the form factor and would be expensive, but 1/2 inch would give a nice improvement over 1/3 inch without the size and expense of 2/3 inch. Sensitivity would be up, sharpness would be up, depth of field would be more "filmlike" without using an adapter like the M2, noise would be down. Cost would be up too, but I think there is a niche between the HVX (and the HDV's) class, and the upcoming HPC2000 and XDCAM HD.
I've been weaned off the over-the-shoulder form factor by the DVX, the Aaton aMinima Super 16 camera, and the HVX, but I want a step up in image quality over the HVX. The HVX fixed lens is amazing, actually; I no longer feel the need for a interchangeable lens for 95% of what I do, especially if I could get less depth of field. I just want the HVX with a little more of it's goodness.
It remains to be seen what Red and other cameras will really be like, but even Red will cost more than this niche I am thinking of, not to mention the accessories necessary to actually use Red. $10-15K for an upscale HVX?
First let me say that I love the HVX! I'm very happy and have had no problems with the camera.
I ordered the HVX based on it's specs and on my ownership of the DVX, and on it's ability to capture any format I need with seamless post (no time-consuming GOP rendering chores on output, etc.). I paid for it in December last year (for tax purposes) without seeing it's output. Yeah, I had faith!
I got my HVX in March, with 2 8-gig cards and 2 4-gig cards. I shoot mostly to card so far, but I have done several greenscreen shoots directly to FCP (so I can name clips on the fly and keep organized). I've shot every other day since I got the camera, testing every setting as much as I could so far. I mostly monitor with FCP going out of an AJA Kona LHe as HD-SDI to a Blackmagic HD-Link to an Apple 23". I also monitor with a 42" Panasonic HD Plasma, from the Kona LHe and from the camera via component.
Most of what I've shot so far is "testing" and stock footage, and the aforementioned greenscreen. I want to know exactly what I will get before I'm shooting for clients. I started with mostly 720 24Pn, but I have switched to mostly 1080 24Pa to get all the natural sharpness I can. I love the colorimetry of the camera; amazing for video. I shoot mostly Cine D gamma, though occasionally I do a test run with the other gammas just to make sure I am getting the best results. I keep going back to Cine D for it's smoothness, lack of banding, and latitude.
I am happy with the choices Panasonic made with this camera; I wouldn't want any less light sensitivity, P2 and DVCPro HD (and 50) are great once you get the workflow down, I like the form factor (great for tight spaces and for travelling), good price point, good lens. Sure, there's "grain" and it could be sharper, but I think Panny hit the sweet spot for it's size, price, and capabilities.
I did a DI last year (I was the colorist and did some effects, a 3D shot, and the title sequence); it was shot on Super 16 (Panavision 16 camera, great glass, Vision2 stock), telecined to HDCAM on a Spirit with da Vinci, HDCAM into FCP 10 bit uncompressed 1080 24 Psf, extensive color correction with Color Finesse (an amazing plugin-the telecine guy was shocked at what it could do). It looked very good - you can't beat film for pleasing skin tones, but it's grain level was WAY above what I am getting with the HVX, even with 50 speed film, and it's sharpness was only slightly higher than the HVX in 1080, except for some poorly exposed night scenes that were soft. So to my mind the HVX compares favorably to Super 16 and to its competition; it covers my very wide target quite well. Whenever I want a little more "sharpness" from the HVX, I just add some in FCP or AE, which is what the other competing cameras do in-camera and this way I can be very precise and it's not baked into the footage.
I checked out the competition at NAB as best I could; I think the HVX has more pleasing colors than the others, and everything else is ballpark or better.
Of course I always want more. More real sharpness, more shallow depth of field, less noise (I can always add that in post if I want the texture or to reduce digital banding), more light sensitivity. I am looking forward to renting the AJ-HPC2000 when it comes out, with its 2/3" CCD's.
But how about this: a slightly upsized HVX with 1/2 inch CCD's! 2/3 inch would be too large for the form factor and would be expensive, but 1/2 inch would give a nice improvement over 1/3 inch without the size and expense of 2/3 inch. Sensitivity would be up, sharpness would be up, depth of field would be more "filmlike" without using an adapter like the M2, noise would be down. Cost would be up too, but I think there is a niche between the HVX (and the HDV's) class, and the upcoming HPC2000 and XDCAM HD.
I've been weaned off the over-the-shoulder form factor by the DVX, the Aaton aMinima Super 16 camera, and the HVX, but I want a step up in image quality over the HVX. The HVX fixed lens is amazing, actually; I no longer feel the need for a interchangeable lens for 95% of what I do, especially if I could get less depth of field. I just want the HVX with a little more of it's goodness.
It remains to be seen what Red and other cameras will really be like, but even Red will cost more than this niche I am thinking of, not to mention the accessories necessary to actually use Red. $10-15K for an upscale HVX?
