16mm X HVX FOOOOOTAGE!!

I went to the recently mentioned Plaster City Digital Post screening on thier brand new Christie 2k cinema DLP projector. They projected quite a lot of footage from quite a few cameras including the HVX200, Varicam, F900 Cinealta as well as S16, S35 and DV. The surprise for me was at 30' just how well they all held up. Even the DVX looked good. But by far my most happy revelation is just how cloose to the "Big Guns" of HD the HVX comes. I would say from that projection the most "Filmlike" Image of any video camera was definately from the Varicam, the F900 certainly has more res but not by much, however it still felt very "Video" in comparison to the Vari and the HVX. In fact, and this is my point, the HVX looked BETTER than the S16mm footage I saw. It had at least as much detail but was much cleaner. The S16 grain was enormous. In fact the DVX100 about matched it for grain with the S16 having only a little more detail. The only reason to shoot S16 over the HVX would be lattitude.

I know this sounds amazing but, I kid you not, it is true. This little camera really shines when blown up. And these were all shot 720, I think 1080 would do even better. I can't wait to try.
 
IMHO S16 looks okay if sent through a digital intermediate as opposed to an optical (lab) system as that tends to increase grain, blend mid tones and lower contrast (milking the blacks) which if you have a dark film means the image is a sea of grey (which also then shows up lots of noise). of course content is part of that equation as s16 will have a grittier feel (so a film like Narc might suit the treatment whereas a film like "maid in manhattan" would probably not.). Futher, choice of film stock is important (50d being the cleanest).

Digital it seems will make inroads in the next year to mainstream production - I just shot a commercial using anamorphic lenses on an Arri D20 and I can say that the results are completely indistinguishable from film even to the most hardened critic - the camera has ten stops of latitude, no video edging, superb colour and DOF. Its only drawback is that it's advertised 100asa rating is more like 25/35asa - so some work needed there.

Barry's clips from the hvx exhibit amazing latitude for a video camera while IMHO the HD100 looks a lot more video in those terms to my eye. Well done and thanks on the test barry - the best real world examples of the HVX capabilites so far. Charts are fine but thats what counts really.
 
Ok I say it again without sarcastic tone. It is impossible to prove anything showing s16mm film against video on a 335x345 pixel website video. It is way to small to do so, it says more that it is not alloud to say so.

If you cant have this kind of observation or criticsm, I am sorry for you.
 
Barry_Green said:
Xray, please knock off the trolling. I deleted your last post for your sarcastic smack against these guys' comparison. And I deleted your earlier sarcastic smack against the validity of this comparison.
Click to expand...

Go ahead, I am absolutely not with you here. I said I liked film it is more fresh. I said it in three lines in a ironicly way. Davinci cc and high scanning is beautiful but you cant see that on a small video like this.THAT IS WAT I SAID. You think that is taking a "hostile jabs at them?" Is that trolling? No it is not.

Barry_Green said:
If you don't like the way a comparison is done, get out there and make your own and show us how it should be done, but don't sit there taking potshots from the peanut gallery.
Click to expand...

I take the time to see comparisons, so I can make up my mind, that is if it is helpfull to do so, if it is not, I like to say so and why. There is no HVX in Europe.
 
It'd be nice to see some fullsize frame grabs.

Also I think the HVX200 is at a disadvantage because it wasn't graded with the Davinci - that's some box of tricks that can (with a top colorist) make DV footage look like 16mm! Think what it can do with HVX footage.
 
booth said:
...
Also I think the HVX200 is at a disadvantage because it wasn't graded with the Davinci - that's some box of tricks that can (with a top colorist) make DV footage look like 16mm! Think what it can do with HVX footage.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see a shootout between a Davinci and affordable software, both with talented colourists.
 
Man.. this is so awesome for someone to take the time to do this! I've been thinking it's 16mm since the day I got it... It acts a lot like 16 in the way it responds to light.. and how you have to light to avoid the grain... Can't wait to get it downloaded..

INMHO.. this is the cam for music videos and indi films. I spend 32k in film and lab costs on my last feature... which went straight into storage and onto video.

The resemblance is amazing... and I think the lattitude might be the major advantage with film... but is serioulsy challenged by all of the immediate benefits of the HVX...

Thanks for taking the time to share!
 
Hiii, everbody !!
Thanks for all the coments, but first the band name is PATOFU, www.patofu.com.br. They are great.
16mm was transfer to external HD, in uncompressed codec , 1080 23.97 4:2:2
HVX 1280x720 PN , the film has much more resolution but more noise. Shot the both in the same 6.3f. I never thought a video camera could get this closer to film camera.


www.brokolis.com.br/frames/16mm-2.jpg
www.brokolis.com.br/frames/hvx2.jpg

www.brokolis.com.br/frames/A.jpg
www.brokolis.com.br/frames/B.jpg


ps. I LOVED DVCPROHD and I LOVE FILM TOO.
 
mmm said:
It would be interesting to see a shootout between a Davinci and affordable software, both with talented colourists.
Click to expand...


That is true. I'd like to see that. I was so impressed with final touch... looks like a great tool.. but kind of pricey for the full high end solution.

Also would be cool to see a variable speed shoot out.. see how a filmcam resolves under a variety of speeds. I've been so blown away by all of them on the HVX.. and can't wait to shoot an explosion in 60fps...
 
Thanks for bringing in some bigger shots!
Take a close look at the HVX picture http://www.brokolis.com.br/frames/hvx2.jpg the base player right at front, I see a small line around his face and shoulder, a compression artifact, I see it also around the drum cymbals. I don't see it in the 16mm jpg. Is it in the original or is it jpg artifacts?

It looks like a double line.
 
Last edited:
xray said:
the base player right at front, I see a small line around his face and shoulder, a compression artifact, I see it also around the drum cymbals. I don't see it in the 16mm jpg. Is it in the original or is it jpg artifacts?

It looks like a double line.
Click to expand...
]

Dude! You're complaining about THAT? It's a six thousand dollar camera!

I had to zoom in to see it.

I'm coming up from miniDV and had to live with it's horrible artifacting. My greenscreen stuff often had a green line on the inside of the skin and an extra skin line on the outside of the skin.

I can live with that kind of compression artifacts that I have to zoom in to see. If you don't like the artifacts, take the analog componant signal and ingest it into your computer uncompressed.

Go read the posts comparing the HVX to the HD100. You want artifacting, look what the HD100 does with 4:2:0.
 
Last edited:
xray said:
Ok I say it again without sarcastic tone.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

It is impossible to prove anything showing s16mm film against video on a 335x345 pixel website video. It is way to small to do so
Click to expand...
That is true. And a community-friendly way to say it would be "wow, at this small size they look very comparable, but to be fair, this is a small window that doesn't really show us the differences. Could I ask you to please post some full-size frame grabs? Thanks."

See, that way instead of coming in with some negative dismissive connotation that gets you accused of trolling, you instead get what you want in a community-friendly way. It's all in the attitude. One attitude is welcome here, and one is most decidedly not.
 
Last edited:
BigMike said:
]

Dude! You're complaining about THAT? It's a six thousand dollar camera!

Go read the posts comparing the HVX to the HD100. You want artifacting, look what the HD100 does with 4:2:0.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see it too! My old eyes don´t fool me, but I agreed its a minor thing, could be JPG fault too. Overall it is looking nicely although I have seen cleaner 16mm to D1 scans. Hey you want to know the weight of the film spools I have in archive here? Soon it will be harddisks.
 
Baremis, thanks for the full-res grabs!

Did you shoot 720p or 1080 on the HVX? I'm guessing 720. There is a bit of color artifacting on the strap vs. the bass player's blue shirt, and a little more detail on the drummer's face, in the film grab. I'd bet if you'd shot 1080 on the HVX that would have gone away.

But overall, very impressive. I can see a difference, but I'd be very hard-pressed as a producer to justify the budget for S16 film vs. the HVX based on the results of your side-by-side test here.
 
Unbelivable! It is amazing how simliar it is. The HVX looks a tiny bit more staturated. I can't wait to get my hands on it!

Parabens, Baremis! De que lugar do Brasil você é?
 
Barry_Green said:
Thank you.

That is true. And a community-friendly way to say it would be "wow.
Click to expand...

// of topic
We Dutch are not "wow" people, we are straight and direct, I try enough to do it on the American way. Don' t delete my posts thank you.
//on topic
 
Indeed... Barry. Can't wait to see more of this type of comparison. Well, I'm off to shoot some talking heads yackety yacking for 3 solid days. I'll miss you all.. my camera.. but I'll still carry this warm fuzzy feeling with me for a while.... I know that because of this cam.. I have a perma cat shitting grin about me...

Maybe time for a 12 step HVX program? Thanks again bro for some wonderful comparative footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top