4-cam comparison -- initial response

This sounds like great news for everyone; DVX users who love their cameras appear to have an excelent HD upgrade path --- as do XL-1/XL-2 owners, etc... Now, it's just about the bells and whistles, and for me, the variable frame rates are the big seller (though, perhaps we're all jumping the gun a bit --- the final results aren't in). To everyone involved, thanks a million.
 
Quote>>Barry_Green:
"...In noise performance, the Sony was easily the winner. It was noisier than the 2/3" cameras, but noticeably cleaner than the other 1/3" cameras...These are all high-def cameras. The resolution chart numbers have little bearing on what you see in the actual image. The Sony had the lowest chart numbers and it can look stunning and completely, legitimately high-def..."


After my 4 cam comparison footage and the Barry's 4-cam comparison -- initial response I would say that Sony is OVERALL WINNER in a both, the price and the performance. It is about this conclusion that in the case you need more cam performance go in a higher class of Varicam, CineAlta, Viper, Arri D20 and in the future RED camera. It is about that for the price of Canon and HVX+8GB P2 cards (about $/€ 11.000) you can get Sony FX1E (50i to 24fps than confirm to 24 fps option) and P+S Technik 35mm lens adapter the best one you get between all of them. So with that GEAR you would be able to go and shoot your indie movie straight away without any fear about the quality of 35mm blow up.

Sony_FX1E_the_winner.jpg


Also Steve Jobs did not mention HVX at MacWorld San Francisco at all. It was surprise compared with the last year's Sony FX1 presentation. He talked about Sony's 16 hundred HDR-HC1.

Steve_Jobs_hd_cam_mwsf2006.jpg



SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
4-cam comparison

4-cam comparison

Excellent report Barry, Thanks!

Looks like I'll have to take more money out of my retirement account for my new HVX toys!
 
Great initial gut reporting. Maybe this will put to rest this whole "grain"/ strawman argument against the HVX. Also good for the JVC. My buddy's short he shot with it looks incredible, even amongst his rumblings about the fact that he should have waited for the HVX. And in any upcoming test, I do think the canon would win based upon weight. That's a heavy SOB compared to my XL1. Really built solid.
 
SJUSER... I have recently shot a short film with the sony that's gonna be blowed up to 35mm but I couldn't disagree more...

The sony is useless in exteriors where you need great latitude... it's lack of definition as well of solidness makes it unusable for effects shots as well. The hvx won't be a expensieve option either: p2 cards will come down in price, other options such as Cineporter will be soon available and I believe that there will be many ppl offering cards to rent very soon.


And maybe Jobs did not talk about the hvx, but Kevin Smith did, and regarding independent filmmaking I definetly feel more interested in what HE has to say.

I am planning a feature film, either in form of a tv-movie or independent feature (what comes first) and I most probably using the HVX for it.
 
Based on reading this thread it seems that the JVC and HVX are "comparable enough" to make a decision based on feature sets and not image. If you wat variable framerates, shoot to tape, etc etc.

Anyone agree?

My only big surprise and hiccup is that if the jvc is so close in image to the hvx then isnt that a great arguement for HDV? In which case a low cost tape option is now available with similar image quality to HVX? Am i missing something here? - do these images take into account the codec?
 
SJUSER said:
Let's wait for the FINAL RESULTS from Barry and Co. and than judge about exteriors, latitude, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree, but then you do the same before you call an overall winner. ok?
:thumbsup:
 
"Let's wait for the FINAL RESULTS from Barry and Co. and than judge about exteriors, latitude, etc."

You didn't for it wait to acclaim the sony as the "overall winner".

I've seen shots by the sony with such poor resolution that you wouldn't even believe it.
 
Thanks Barry - a lot of hard work there.

I really look forward to hearing the recorded results comparison. I suspect this is where the HVX will outgun the other contenders. Live outputs are not exactly much use to most of the people on this board - but I think its a great and thorough test you are doing.

As a matter of interest, was the live output from the HVX (when you compare resolution) in 720p or 1080p? Also I have heard that the camera is more noisy in 1080 than 720. Does this seem to be the case to you? If it all originates from a 1080p capture it seems odd if there is more noise in 1080.

The sensitivity is a big suprise. It goes to show that all the talk of a native 1440x1080 block being far less sensitive are not enitrely true.

Oh and whatever results you manage to get; could you please make some available to PC users too, even if they are stills?

thanks

Karl
 
It may be a bit early, but can you give un as idea to what lattitue the HVX was handling?

Im a bit confused with you saying the HVX was 2/3 stop faster than any other camera, but you say the JVC handled highlights better - or is this a totally different thing?

Karl
 
LOL, Sjuser is even more biased than us...


After having worked with it I wouldn't use the sony for a feature even if my life was at stake. JVC looks as such a BETTER option for the price.
 
smelni said:
Based on reading this thread it seems that the JVC and HVX are "comparable enough" to make a decision based on feature sets and not image. If you wat variable framerates, shoot to tape, etc etc.

Anyone agree?
Click to expand...

I agree based on the clips I've been able to view on my own, and confirmed by observations at the test yesterday.

smelni said:
My only big surprise and hiccup is that if the jvc is so close in image to the hvx then isnt that a great arguement for HDV?
Click to expand...

All Barry's (and mine) comments are based on live images for the time being. Remember JVC's HDV is different than Sony's is different than Canon's.

I own the JVC, but based on the HVX stuff I've been able to analyze, I expected the JVC to fall quite short of the mark. Any personal investment in how the camera would perform I had gotten over weeks ago while I weighed my options of possibly selling the JVC for the HVX!.
 
Sanjin says not to jump to conclusions and then posts topics like "HVX is a big flop" - saying that the HVX is too expensive when compared to the Canon (even tho the Canon is more expensive than the HVX)....which is then removed by administrators.....

but I think you're a fun character to have around Sanjin, just try to stay calm until we get all the facts, not long now.
 
I am talking about the BUDGET options. If I would have to spent more money I would go to HIGHER HD CAM CLASS as I said before. Acquisition is the most important thing but if you are indie and cost you more than 10K per cam than you could ask for a better gear. PAY MORE, GET MORE but not in the case of XL H1, HVX and HD100 compared with FX1E. Than you should ask for 2/3' cams like Varicam, Viper etc.

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
So, Sj, you say I shouldn't bother acquiring a HVX?

That if I am not happy with the sony I should go and buy a VIPER?
 
"But you are not going to be more happy with XLH1, HD100and HVX either."

why? I would gladly pay the 800$ difference between the z1u and the jvc for the difference in the footage that I have seen.

The truth is, the sony is the worst of the pack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top