16mm X HVX FOOOOOTAGE!!

Rodrigo said:
I guess it may be good for getting rid of some noise but I honestly prefer noise to the plastic llok
Click to expand...
I'll agree here -- recently I've started setting coring negative to get the max. detail. There is another HD camera on the market that is hyper-cored and it has that plastic sheen you reference; I'm finding I prefer the texture even if it means a bit more noise.
 
Pukki said:
Never the less, does anybody have done sd (to tape) comparisons with the dvx100 using squeeze-mode :)
Click to expand...
Yes, and the HVX is substantially clearer, because of the native 16:9 chips. The overall color rendition etc. is about the same, and in 4:3 they're very comparable, but in 16:9 the HVX is sharper as you would expect. Also has a notably wider field of view when both are at the same focal length.
 
Pukki said:
I'm just not getting too excited over web-videos. Downresized like that, any video would look "great".

Same goes for still cameras, debating film vs. digital is so impossible over jpg-images.

If a 6000$ camera makes nice web-videos, I wouldn't call it groundbreaking news... If you make web-videos from 1080 material, I bet the will look very nice :costumed-smiley-047

Never the less, does anybody have done sd (to tape) comparisons with the dvx100 using squeeze-mode :)

:kali:
Click to expand...


Sigh.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round....
 
Pukki said:
If a 6000$ camera makes nice web-videos, I wouldn't call it groundbreaking news...
Click to expand...

Neither would I. I'm excited because this $6,000 camera makes great-looking big screen feature film quality images. It's absolutely amazing.
 
I have seen full rez, compressed, uncompressed, raw, 720, 1080.......

This camera is the real deal. If you are not sold it on yet you never will be.

-
 
Hvx Tattoo

Hvx Tattoo

The HVX footage looks awesome. I can say though that some lens diffusion would match the HVX even more, getting rid of the VERY VERY slightly harder edge you see on the guys bald head. And I think the "motion" of the film is a LITTLE smoother, maybe shooting in 30p would match that up, or maybe a higher shutter angle on the HVX in film camera mode.

But jeezus look at the cost comparisons.

Has anyone gotten HVX tattooed on themselves yet? I nominate Justyn to get it done first.
 
SergejIvanovits said:
I think the Pal HVX 200 will be Golden. You guys has to trash your NTSC HVX and buy a Pal one, just like in the god old days , lol.
Click to expand...
Well with the higher price mark-up in the UK, I'd advise anyone who's thinking of doing this to buy a PAL model from somewhere else. At least the supposed/reported extra features and changes make me feel better that I'm paying much more than you US HVX'ers! :)
 
I'd also like to thank you for doing this comparison. I can tell minor differences between the two (with some being in favor of the HVX200) but I'm willing to bet that 99% of viewers won't. Honestly, if your audience is squinting that much in order to try to find out if it's film or video, you havn't made a very good movie.

Ultimatly, what this test means for me at least, is that I probably won't work with film again unless it's 35mm. I respect the opinions of others who think that noise is a bit too big of an issue and I really will miss the loss of latitude but in the end, the pros of the HVX200 and digital (being able to light totally by eye and see the results immediatly, P2 scene managment, easy digitization, FAR cheaper costs) outweigh what I'd get shooting super 16mm.
 
DavidBeier said:
Honestly, if your audience is squinting that much in order to try to find out if it's film or video, you havn't made a very good movie.
Click to expand...

HA! That's EXACTLY right. :thumbsup:
And the audience also doesn't take 10 minutes to scrutinize a SINGLE frame for discrepancies! :)
 
You can see examples of HVX with a 35mm adapter over on holyzoo.com. Steev Dinkins has posted a lot of his footage on DVInfo; he's using the MPIC 35 on his HVX.
 
and in this corner.... HVX200

and in this corner.... HVX200

I think the HVX200 has them up against the ropes. It's a knockout!!!
 
DavidBeier said:
I'd also like to thank you for doing this comparison. I can tell minor differences between the two (with some being in favor of the HVX200) but I'm willing to bet that 99% of viewers won't. Honestly, if your audience is squinting that much in order to try to find out if it's film or video, you havn't made a very good movie.

Ultimatly, what this test means for me at least, is that I probably won't work with film again unless it's 35mm. I respect the opinions of others who think that noise is a bit too big of an issue and I really will miss the loss of latitude but in the end, the pros of the HVX200 and digital (being able to light totally by eye and see the results immediatly, P2 scene managment, easy digitization, FAR cheaper costs) outweigh what I'd get shooting super 16mm.
Click to expand...


Pretty much says it all... exactly as I think things too, brother! I'm shooting films for myself and this offers me the ability to get great results for a fraction of the price of 16mm...
 
Take a look on a big, did I say big? screen with moving action and then make up your mind. Look at latitude. I am amazed that people here are comparing s16mm film with the hvx video. It is impossible to prove anything showing s16mm film against video on a website. It is way to small/still to do so. I take a look and number:

For full resolution digi (scan)projection:
(1)HDcam F900--(2)S16mmVision2---(3)Varicam

Where do you want to place the HVX in this row or against the Varicam?
 
baremis said:
...the film has much more resolution but more noise. Shot the both in the same 6.3f.
Click to expand...
Hmm, shot with same f-stop?
This will explain the graininess a bit; you underexposed the film!
If hvx200 is rated 320asa with 360° shutter, you would need open f-stop for almost two stops for film with 200asa and film camera with 180° shutter.

I couldn't download the movies, so Baremis, can you tell me why did you shoot with both cameras? Just for comparison? Did you mix the materials in the edit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top