We just finished a Sunday studio shoot that needs to go out in 48 hours in advance of the Olympic games. Because we shot the first two spots using the XL2 that was the look we needed to emulate...but let me back up.
Because we need to do another shoot in HD this week, I made the call to get the HD100 for a number of reasons, but at it's current price point and the fact that I could have it immediately that was the logical choice.
This is all a lot bigger than this particular shoot though...it's a decision on format and workflow and of course the prefered look.
Had the HVX200 been available to us, I would have likely bought that, again not because I'm sure that it would be the "right" system and format but because I would want to have the opportunity to check it out on all fronts extensively.
Getting the HD100 afforded me a chance to get familiar with it and importantly to compare the Canon and JVC looks side by side.
The HD factor removed, the XL2 is remarkably similar in look to the H! much like the HVX seems to carry on the look of the DVX.
At the end of the shoot I asked the talent to stay on set and we switched the HD100 onto the sticks and shot a quick take to compare after.
I can tell you one thing immediately just from getting behind the camera and from the monitors...in full cine gamma and cine color mode (with all of the tweaks that were already done) the HD100 was noticeably more "filmic".
The skin tones were smoother and the overall look a bit "richer" (not from a saturation standpoint).
I think I prefered the 24p look as well, but until I sit with the footage side by side I'd defer any serious opinion on that.
BUT - they are two very different looking creative tools with both of them in their cine modes and under the exact same lighting conditions.
Honestly as I dialed in the exposure on the HD100 it struck me how much the look emulated film stock versus video...whatever JVC did, they got the film look down on this camera regardless of the other weaknesses or strengths.
Because I'm not sold on the P2 concept, I hedge on the HVX, but for those vaccilating over their purchases etc. don't - if you are comfortable with the P2 workflow and cost then don't worry about the measurement stuff...means nada.
The HVX look is beautiful and I was a bit frustrated that I couldn't get one for this HD shoot this week at the Olympic Center.
If I could have I would have got both it and the JVC and really been able to do a great comparison.
So far we've done two days of tests and shooting in all kinds of conditions with the JVC and I still need to do more to get the best out of it (which would be same with either 3 of these tools).
So don't fret about what went down in the madness of a 6 camera "do the best you can with..." test.
The HVX looks great out of the box and will look better and better as people can actually work with it in real life.
I love the footage I've seen from it so far and really look forward to shooting it when it comes available.
It's all good.
I won't bog this list with more HD100 specifics but will post a detailed review over at dvinfo where there's an appropriate forum.
Because we need to do another shoot in HD this week, I made the call to get the HD100 for a number of reasons, but at it's current price point and the fact that I could have it immediately that was the logical choice.
This is all a lot bigger than this particular shoot though...it's a decision on format and workflow and of course the prefered look.
Had the HVX200 been available to us, I would have likely bought that, again not because I'm sure that it would be the "right" system and format but because I would want to have the opportunity to check it out on all fronts extensively.
Getting the HD100 afforded me a chance to get familiar with it and importantly to compare the Canon and JVC looks side by side.
The HD factor removed, the XL2 is remarkably similar in look to the H! much like the HVX seems to carry on the look of the DVX.
At the end of the shoot I asked the talent to stay on set and we switched the HD100 onto the sticks and shot a quick take to compare after.
I can tell you one thing immediately just from getting behind the camera and from the monitors...in full cine gamma and cine color mode (with all of the tweaks that were already done) the HD100 was noticeably more "filmic".
The skin tones were smoother and the overall look a bit "richer" (not from a saturation standpoint).
I think I prefered the 24p look as well, but until I sit with the footage side by side I'd defer any serious opinion on that.
BUT - they are two very different looking creative tools with both of them in their cine modes and under the exact same lighting conditions.
Honestly as I dialed in the exposure on the HD100 it struck me how much the look emulated film stock versus video...whatever JVC did, they got the film look down on this camera regardless of the other weaknesses or strengths.
Because I'm not sold on the P2 concept, I hedge on the HVX, but for those vaccilating over their purchases etc. don't - if you are comfortable with the P2 workflow and cost then don't worry about the measurement stuff...means nada.
The HVX look is beautiful and I was a bit frustrated that I couldn't get one for this HD shoot this week at the Olympic Center.
If I could have I would have got both it and the JVC and really been able to do a great comparison.
So far we've done two days of tests and shooting in all kinds of conditions with the JVC and I still need to do more to get the best out of it (which would be same with either 3 of these tools).
So don't fret about what went down in the madness of a 6 camera "do the best you can with..." test.
The HVX looks great out of the box and will look better and better as people can actually work with it in real life.
I love the footage I've seen from it so far and really look forward to shooting it when it comes available.
It's all good.
I won't bog this list with more HD100 specifics but will post a detailed review over at dvinfo where there's an appropriate forum.