4-cam comparison -- initial response

[Haakon]

I seriously got caught up in the hype that the HVX is the missing link that'll make the big shot studio executives run for cover.

No, that's the RED camera. :thumbsup:

I've been pretty critical of the HVX; mostly because I'm an extremely proud DVX user and I wanted to make sure that whatever followed in its footsteps was worthy to carry on the legacy. The DVX was so revolutionary in its 24p offering - so magnificent in its handling of gamma curves - and I really wanted the step between the DVX and HVX to be as groundbreaking as it was for the pre-DVX days and the introduction of the DVX itself. On paper, it seemed like it would be... I still argue that the tapeless workflow is the best thing this camera has going fo it... but I feel really deflated in my expectations compared to the results I've seen and the inferred legacy that this new camera would bring.

I still don't have my HVX yet (at this point, there has been no new notification as to when more stock is coming - it's looking closer to February at this point, and I'm high on the list) and therefore it's really impossible to truly say one way or another how I feel about the camera. I would agree with Barry, however; from all of the footage I've seen, it seems that this whole group of cameras are all pretty comparable (except the Sony - I don't see how anyone can make any argument for trying to squeeze a realistic 24p solution from that camera). I'm actually more inclined to side with macgregor on this topic; I think perhaps HD and 1/3" chips are just not a very good match... at least with the current technology we have. I realize the resolution is slightly better than the SD cams, and there's no question that the films from these new cameras will blow up better to a bigger screen. However, we've made no advancements at all in latitude (even taken a step or two back in some situations) and noise, and I've yet to really see any example or hear anything from someone that actually has used the camera that the 4:2:2 color space has done much for perceived color sampling. I'm sure there's more data there, and I'm sure it will make things easier for people that do keying work, but if it doesn't translate in a standard picture to the average viewer, then it really is a pretty moot point. I remember the first time I saw true 1080 HD on a CRT monitor... I was literally blown away. That was the kind of excitment I was looking forward to having over the next generation of new HD cameras, but I feel like everything is just mediocre or flat. I think that's why even just the notion of the RED camera has a lot of people giddy... though whether or not it will even come to fruition - and be affordable for any of us, at that - reamains to be seen entirely.

I definitely appreciate the work of everyone that took part in the test... hopefully in the weeks to come I will receive my HVX and feel pleased with the purchase I have made. I know I'm making one feature with it at the very least. If it ends up just not being the next step I'm looking for, I'm sure there will be plenty of people eager to take it off my hands.

Here's to the future...

 

[jimagine]

I seriously got caught up in the hype that the HVX is the missing link that'll make the big shot studio executives run for cover. Don't get me wrong, I'm buying the camera no matter what. It's the best tool I can afford and I'm sure I (I mean "We, Goose"... Top Gun reference) can make magic with it. My point is, no matter how you look at it, you're taking sacrifices when you spend less then 10 grand on a camera. There aren't many miracles in life. You usually get what you pay for.

Trust me on this as someone that's been producing at all levels for a while now.
You make sacrifices if you spend less than 20k, 40k, 100k,...
Go back 20 years and in fact, yes this would be a miracle camera.
And movies haven't gotten better in 20 years...maybe CG, but not storytelling, writing, direction.
Some people I respect have rated the quality of the HVX above what they're used to getting in 16mm.
If that's the case then there should be nothing but talent to hold you back.
The only thing that's going to make studio execs run anywhere is a really great story and screeenplay.

Back when I was producing music on a 1/2" analog tape all the "real" studios and producers said you couldn't do real work on anything other than 1" tape.
Come by my studios sometime and I'll show you all the awards we won with that sub-pro equipment...in fact it paid for these studios.

The same old thing keeps going round and round in film and music and it always will for people that actually listen to it.

I remember talking to a pretty expereinced producer back then and lamenting that I didn't have a million dollar studio to produce my work.
He said " you've got 95% of anything you need to produce world class work.
Every 1% above that will cost you 100k, so spend your time getting the most out of what you've got because 95% is all that matters in the real world"

Not long after that I had Donald Fagin's (Steely Dan) engineer in my studio and was feeling inadequate. He laughed at me and told me that my new room smoked the studio they had just built for Donald and where they cut most of Night Fly.
Comments like that made me put my focus on developing my creative skills and felling blessed to have the level of gear I did.

Lesson: don't ask for more than your really need. I imagine that this new camera will deliver all the potential that most anyone here will need for a while to come in their creative pursuits.

 

[esperman]

Keep in mind....so far Barry's response is from seeing live , and for the most part, STILL footage...not recorded HDV or DVCPRO-HD.

As for hvx being "mediocre"...please stop listening to people who speculate after reviewing downconverted footage or viewing on QT with improper settings. I have shot on the HVX...and I'll tell you.....it's ALOT better than the DVX....
it has alittle more noise, and alittle less DOF than varicam....at ALOT LESS $$$.

 

[Damon Botsford]

Haakon,

You took the words out of my mouth. The future's looking Red.
I might even dig out my 1985 Iridium "scratch-resistant" pair of Oakleys just for old times sake. I'm gonna shut up now...I diverted this thread way off topic.

Thanks for your input, Jimagine.

 

[Emanuel]

Ummmmm, you're starting to make me feel like a televangelist and that damn clown picture is starting to get on my fricken nerves.

Right, D...:laugh: :engel017:

:lipsrseal

:kiss:

 

[Blaine]

Great post jimagine.

 

[Emanuel]

No, that's the RED camera.

Next plot point?... Just another promise?... And at what a price?

it seems that this whole group of cameras are all pretty comparable (except the Sony - I don't see how anyone can make any argument for trying to squeeze a realistic 24p solution from that camera).

The motion...well, Chaplin's successes were shot @18_frames, isn't it?

 

[Haakon]

Next plot point?... Just another promise?... And at what a price?

The motion...well, Chaplin's successes were shot @18_frames, isn't it?

Lol, well I suppose that's true.

 

[Emanuel]

Well...@post from 50i, will it not be possible an acceptable motion from there?

 

[joe 1008]

Yes, jimagine, that´s it! With those cameras the gape between SD and the big screen got much smaller. Now you can jump. You might fall, you might stay on the secure side but still: If you really want, there´s nothing that should keep you away from jumping.

 

[Haakon]

Well...@post from 50i, will it not be possible an acceptable motion from there?

First of all, no, I don't believe that some 24 frame conversion from 50i (60i) would look anywhere near acceptable... and furthermore, I don't want that headache in post. I'm not saying the Sony is a useless camera (it probably makes really pretty weddings), but if 24p is important to you, you wouldn't pick the ZU1.

 

[Lenilenapi]

One more word of Thanks to Barry, Adam and everybody who did the Test.

I assume you didn't record miniDV to compare HVX to DVX simply as a DV camera by any chance?

 

[Emanuel]

A)

(...) that some 24 frame conversion from 50i (60i) (...)

Yeah!...50i -> 25 -> 24 or 60i -> 24, following here:

The Sony was only used in 60i mode. We figured that many film transfer places are saying that they'd prefer 60i over CF25, and Graeme has said that he gets better results from his 60i de-interlacer than CF25 does, so we thought we'd just shoot 60i.

B)

I don't want that headache in post. (...) but if 24p is important to you, you wouldn't pick the ZU1.

The progressive film-like feel it is (important) but as well all the 35mm@my_TV or DVD it is film-like despite the interlaced mode.

That is, "p" or "f" or not, to me, it's the same. The terminology is not so important, just to NOT have the videoish look (different than the interlaced film-like look), interlaced or progressive...whatever!

And, for sure, to go to 35mm film-out. Concerning this business in a one 90/120 min.s feature basis per a two years period, why will it be an headache?

Producing that it will be. Raising the money it will be. And the videoish look (with blowing highlights, for instance) or even the noise@big_screen if film-grain-like it will be. The motion solved@post (120 min.s at maximum during two years, don't forget!), I'm not so sure. And, probably, two years later, there will be the next Sony without CF mode... :laugh:


C)

(...) it probably makes really pretty weddings (...)

I liked...as a joke! But it's true that until to see the HVX footage available@PC_side (I repeat, 'cause it was possible to watch just three or four from the twenty five Kaku's samples - if I'm not wrong! - plus the other ones available out there and I prefer the run & gun Kaku's profile as a brand agnostic footage), I thought the same, except for the macgregor's stuff or even regarding other samples like this one: http://www.poetsofthefall.com/videos/lift/

And if it wants a CineAlta look@affordable_price, it needs a cleaner image (free from luma or chroma - whatever! - noise that 1/3 can do), better than the sharpness, unless the doubt: what is the result@big screen after a 35mm blown-up?

 

[Brian_Broz]

So reading between the lines...the HVX has to be the winner of the recorded-in camera signal? If the HVX is #1 or #2 (not that this is a competition, but a comparison) based on a live signal, how can HDV recorded playback compare/compete with the less compressed, 4:2:2 color sampled DVCPRO HD?
Viewing live (based on my experience with 3 of the 4 cameras) I would expect exactly the results I'm hearing...although a bit of an head start/advantage has to go to the Canon for viewing direct HDSDI...it seems (?)
Once recorded footage is viewed (preliminary results / comments were only from "live picture") there can't be any comparison between HDV and DVCPRO once recorded? Especially...I repeat especially when moving the camera with a jib, dolly, steadicam, figRig, etc. or even handhel for that matter.
From my experience that's where HDV really exhibits "softness" and the compression starts to show. I'm not knocking HDV, as I have seen amazing results from a Z1U...but HDV seems to require more care in how you shoot (than DVCPROHD, HDCAM etc).
Much respect to Barry and those involved for taking the time and reporting. I'm anxious to hear comments once the recorded images are reviewed.
Thanks everyone,


Brian Broz

 

[joelnet]

So reading between the lines...the HVX has to be the winner of the recorded-in camera signal? If the HVX is #1 or #2 (not that this is a competition, but a comparison) based on a live signal, how can HDV recorded playback compare/compete with the less compressed, 4:2:2 color sampled DVCPRO HD?

Well, in theory I suppose HDV shouldn't be able to compete - but the reality is there's some killer HDV footage from all the HDV cameras that's been posted. Frankly, I'm starting to look at that JVC now and it was never even a possibility until today.

Now that I've started looking at some footage I find I'm feeling pretty good about what I've been seeing from it. I got to hold one at NAB and to me it's easily got the best ergonomics of any of the these cameras. I'm almost thinking the Canon is out for me at this point. I can use that extra $3k on scantily clad women... I mean a new monitor.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

What happened to NBCshooter? I guess the heavens above finally answered his big question. He must finally be at peace.

Does anyone know if there was a 2/3" STANDARD-DEFINITION camera in the room? Boy, I sure would have loved to hear even just a seat-of-the-pants impression of THAT comparison!

Yeah, I'm working my azz off prepping the Golden Globe Awards stuff I gotta work on. I won't even be home during this weekend to keep up with this thread, since they got me a room at the hotel where it's happening. Yeah, I've pretty much decided on the DSR450. But I was kinda waiting for SOMEONE to see an HVX picture, side-by-side with the DSR450's SD picture, and give me a qualitative "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" on overall image quality when comparing the two.

'Cause you know when you go to a trade show, and they have a standard-def picture on one plasma, and a high-def picture on another plasma right next to it? And after looking at the high-def picture for a minute, as soon as you look at the SD picture again, you're like, "Wow that looks like CRAP!" You know, like all soft and fuzzy, compared to the HD image? Anyway, thanks to all who participated in the tests--and thanks for the rapid turnaround on the first impressions, Barry!

 

[BobDiaz]

I hope the tests included a rapid pan to see how the compression held up. I know that Sony shows motion artifacts when you do a rapid pan, but I have no idea if Canon or JVC have this problem or not. It's a save guess that Panasonic does not have this issue.

Bob Diaz

 

[evinsky]

No 2/3" SD camera, in fact no SD camera at all (Except for Shannon's little handycam) in the test.

 

[Stevet]

I'm really looking forward to seeing the comparison data when complete.
Thanks Barry for working this out.

This forum is a great resource!

Steve

 

[robweiner]

"In noise performance, the Sony was easily the winner. "


Barry, the Sony is notorious for being "slow", but isn't that the reason the picture is so clean. If we crank up the sensitivity of the chip, it looks noisier.


Also, any thoughts from the participants about the quality of the eyepieces and the flip-out screens?