4-cam comparison -- initial response

SJUSER said:
Sorry but people are still not getting the point. The first is a fact that SD times are over and than everything what was good in SD it is not so good for HD.
Unfortunately HVX with P2 is not a revolution. HD IT workfow was born when the first HD-SDI signal streamed from HD cam to RAID. Maybe they did it with Viper or Cinealta I do not remember now. And it was even uncompressed 4:4:4. So I desperately looking forward to see all those 4 cam tests to confirm my opinion.

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

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
Click to expand...

SJUSER,
It's time to put up or shut up here. Your beloved Sony can't even do progresssive...and guess what..converting interlace to progressive in post looks bad compared to real progressive, especially when projected.

Also.....P2 is a revolution. While your capturing your 5 hours of footage from HDV (hoping you don't have dropouts), I'll be importing my 5 hours of hvx footage into FCP in 25 minutes. OH, 5 hours from hvx you say??? IMPOSSIBLE. Surprise!!! I'll be just fine using P2 and/or a firestore for my corp gigs and personal projects.:thumbsup:

So anyways....I want to see some of this BAD footage you have shot with the HVX. Please post uncompressed stills, and short 5 sec full rez native DVCPRO-HD .mov files so we may all finally see how stupid we are, and how smart you are. AFTER ALL, WE NEED A COMMON "FRAME" OF REFERENCE. If you can not supply these samples...then just be quiet, as I do not like posers.
 
SJUSER said:
I hope that we are all here FREE people and than we can freely choose what should the best cover our needs and our wallet in a low-cost HD.

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

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
Click to expand...

You are 100% percent correct.
However...if your going to state so matter of factly your uncontested knowledge....then prove it...after all, how are we on this forum suppossed to know if you really know what your talking about?
So, as I stated above....put up or shut up.
 
Plus I feel people are missing the bigger picture. All the other cameras tested are recording on HDV. That alone is a big reason not to go with those cameras for higher end work. I hear of people using HDV for parties or corporate training videos - Great! I shot corporate training videos on 3/4" for 10 years....it was fine for that purpose. My market is regional commercial work, higher end corporate presentations and stock footage shooting. I would not even waste my time shooting HDV for stock footage purposes.
 
esperman said:
You are 100% percent correct.
However...if your going to state so matter of factly your uncontested knowledge....then prove it...after all, how are we on this forum suppossed to know if you really know what your talking about?
So, as I stated above....put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

I agree.

SJUSER:

The Sony camera is great, I have seen images on this website that were shot with the camera that are incredible. I am happy you like it so much, but please understand that a lot of us like the HVX-200 so much.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve here. If I had something I was so happy with and content with, I'd be out shooting with it. I have learned to do research on my tech, buy it, master it and then never look back. I missed out on the DVX as I was shooting with my XL1 and quite happy with it. I didn't see the need or had the cash to buy something new.. so I knowingly missed out on that camera.. but it was because I was happy with my XL1.


Now, with all of these other camera people taking the time out.. to preach to an already converted and headstrong audience seems just a bit off center here. You can throw around whatever you want, but it bespeaks of insecurity and probably a feeling of being left out of the party. Once again, if you are converted and happy with a product then why defend it and say a bunch of stuff if things are happy. Relish in your decision and go from there.

However, I can understand feeling left out on this. There was very little Buzz with any of the other 3 low-cost HD solutions. I mean.. it was a paltry response and only amoung techies. Now, the HVX seems to be in a differnt league.. people are talking about this camera. It's startign fights and driving people to a frenzy.

Now, maybe Sony should rethink it's alliances. Panny and Apple have had a solid partnership and I'm buying in. Also, as Steve said, once I get my camera.. I'll be out shooting with it and ya won't see me on the boards as much.


Time to get over not being invited to the party.. so ya pity party can turn into a celebration. Revel in it and spare the preacing to the choir. Also bringing up John Cale's name in a previous post is kind of in poor taste.
 
SJUSER said:
Sorry but people are still not getting the point.
Click to expand...


Actually, SJUSER,
you're not getting the point.

I think the forum's name, DVXUSER , sums it up.

We know the Sony produces a high def picture, and nobody thinks it's a bad camera.

I know this has been said, over and over and over and over, but the Sony does
NOT produce the 24P filmic image we are looking for.

In my opinion, the Canon H1 does not either. There's something videoish about it.
Though, the H1 does produce one heck of a sharp image, and it turns out it produces just about the same noise levels.

I'm not sure why you have to keep this up at the HVX200 forum, why not hang over at the Sony forum.

Believe me, If I were to switch from buying the HVX, it would NOT be for a Sony.
The next in line for me is the HD100, which also produces a filmic image.

For some reason Sony DO NOT LISTEN to what the customer wants. Never have, never will.
You know their old slogan line: "Sony the one and only"

No progressive 24P, NO SALE!

Steve
 
"We know the Sony produces a high def picture, and nobody thinks it's a bad camera."

I've worked with it and I think it IS a bad camera
 
Same here - for me it has to be something that produces 25p and be portable. Im hoping to make a hand held production so HDV is also a nogo really. The HVX is the only cam that fits this workflow at the moment.

And SJ before you mention CF25, if I wanted to de-interlace HD, i might aswell shoot 25p with my DVX100 which would probably be more vertical resoution than deinteralced FX1.
 
Sanjin, you've moved into the realm of trolling (see the conduct guidelines at the top of every page). Please find something else to talk about. Consider this, according to the guidelines, an official warning.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, so much for charts and figures and noise and whatnot -- how did the pictures look? When you put it all together and put color and gamma and resolution and everything all at once and viewed a scene, how did they look? They all looked pretty darn good. Each of them, on their own, shooting the same scene, resolved a high-definition image. None leapt off the screen as compared to the others; even the Sony, which trailed so much in the chart testing, really put together a very nice-looking picture. They all acquitted themselves quite well.
Click to expand...
Just thought I'd remind people of what stuck out in Barry's review. I think people are missing the big picture. I've seen amazing stuff from just about all of the cameras so far. Nate Weaver has put out some amazing HD100 stuff. Barry and Jarred's HVX200 initial footage looked amazing, and Macgregor's G35 footage was simply gorgeous. I haven't seen much XLh1 footage yet, but Michael Pappas's stills on his website were impressive.

At a certain point specs don't mean anything and it's all about the image. With a talented operator and a good DP these tools will excel in your hands. Conversely, shooting with no light will make all these cams look terrible. I am more interested in techniques to get great images than talking about chip sizes and framerates and codecs. I like to think that most of us are artists and not techheads trying to justify our purchases with spec talk.

All of the cams shoot HD in one form or another and each cam has its strengths and limitations. How you put them to use is more important than what they do.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
At a certain point specs don't mean anything and it's all about the image. With a talented operator and a good DP these tools will excel in your hands. Conversely, shooting with no light will make all these cams look terrible. I am more interested in techniques to get great images than talking about chip sizes and framerates and codecs. I like to think that most of us are artists and not techheads trying to justify our purchases with spec talk.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What immediately comes to mind is the fact that Van Gogh could've painted incredible, breath-taking paintings with a cheap crappy paint brush or a super expensive "pro" paint brush. We can find what CCD's have the best resolution or what cam has the best on-camera audio handling or other specific specifications, but it's nearly impossible to determine what the hands-down best camera is for all situations... that's determined by the person using it... what their needs are and how they blend their artistic vision with what the camera can actually do.

-pastywhiteboy
 
unAlterd data stream?

unAlterd data stream?

So, the new box outta JaPan does what, compared to what? Can't wait to see unaltered film.... video......... how 'bout DATA stream --- posted.

From the highest point on this webforum came a few.... declarations that were apparently "different" than what was expected. Rawls on the other hand, though responded different than how a Shooter would have, he did in fact give a legitimate non-response response (with respect to the ambience of this forum). His was called out to make a statement, yes ... he was.

Hopefully the subjective findings by your most trusted one won't burger any ... endorsements.

In as much, regarding the sheep, it's interesting to see so many folks wearing multiples of hats as is protended. -- amusing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry, keep up the good work. Keep it right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RICHARD KNIGHT __________________ TEXAS!
 
Hi Isaac

Remember though that so far Barry is talking about the live outputs. I would expect them to all look pretty similar, with the odd difference in quality/tone. Also remember the Sony was tested in 60i mode, and barry said he shot mainly still subjects. This would make the interlaced format look better also. I think the recorded playback may reveal more leaps in the quality. So far we are not taking mpeg 2 compression into account or the interlacing artifacts of the Sony.

What will be really interesting is the difference between the implementation of HDV on the three cams. Rumours on the canon say it looks great even with fast moving subjects.
 
Barry_Green said:
all looked pretty darn good. Each of them, on their own, shooting the same scene, resolved a high-definition image. None leapt off the screen as compared to the other..
Click to expand...

I think this sums up the whole comparison.
Imagewise all HD camera's produce more or less the same quality. Nothing that cannot be tweaked before or after the shoot, particularly if you know what you are doing.

4:2:2, 4:2:0, DVCPRO, HDV might all be a mute point if the viewer cannot tell them apart...

Its the price and workflow that is going to differentiate all of them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top