AF100 vs HVX200

K

klectik

New member
Hello dvxusers,

I v bought years ago a dvx100 that I sold to an HVX200, this summer I shot a lot with the 5D which really impressed me.
I am a director and a color grader and I am really wondering about selling my hvx200 to buy the AF100.
Like everybody I am looking for a better gamma which means less light equipment which means it s quicker and cheaper. Since this is my job (colorist) I am not looking for a good image straight from the camera but a good signal to grade, typically I am looking for washed out images. The problem with the 5D is that it s beautiful but once you try to work with it in post production it s not as great as red, sony900... so you d better do your image on the set...
Would the AF100 allow me to work on the image?
Are theire big differences between an exterior HD SDI recording and the camera recording?
How big is the difference between an HVX200, a AF100 and a good DSLR?

Please guys what would you do?...


Thanx a lot


Happy Xmas, Happy New Year, Happy Birthday and most of all HAPPY NEW AWESOME FILMS FOR 2011 with these new tools!!!!
 
Well it'll be a step up over the HVX200.... the 150 would be a step up too. The original HVX200 is now by comparison a very noisy camera but it does produce some very vibrant imagery... albeit not that great in low-light.

I've had limited experience with the other cameras you've mentioned but I've shot a ton of AVCHD footage throught the 150 and others... and although people may slag the codec, it's really pretty robust and can handle a lot of grading. I think the AF100 would do a fine job...


My advice would be to get someone to upload some clean camera native files and you do a test for yourself... see what it does and how you like it and then you'll be able to make an informed decision....


peace.
 
My guess is that a 4:2:0 colorspace may be limiting for you, but I have not worked with this codec. SO I can't say how it holds up (although many recent reviews have leaned towards the favorable). OF course, you could get 4:2:2 right out of the camera with more hardware, which makes that a non-issue.

The HVX did not do well in low-light, but if you lit a scene well, the footage is great to work with in post because of that 4:2:2 colorspace. It's really robust.

I'm guessing you were working with the 5D for the interchangeable lenses and shallower DOF, which the AF100 will do for you. By all accounts so far, this camera will give you less noise, moire and artifacting than the 5D.

It's probably still somewhat of a compromise in, but I would say that the AF-100 will give you more of the elements you want of those two cameras.

Just my opinion. I'm making the move myself (although I'm keeping the HVX as well)
 
I am in a similar position. I have been using the HVX200, HPX170 and 5D for most of our aerial video work the last couple of years. For those of you who would incorporate aerial shots into your work, would it make much of a difference to you if these were from the HVX/HPX/5D versus the AF100 at this stage of the game? For aerial work shallow DOF isn't a concern although low light is nice at times. I love editing P2 so giving that up would surely make me sad.

thanks,
 
Thanx for the post Jim and Justyn
I was working with the 5D for the special lenses (tilt and shift mainly) and the astonishing capacities in low light conditions, which I really appreciated.
I think I might record in 422 outside the camera.
I ll test it soon and send a post to see if the difference is that big.
 
Boomstrike- What are the weight limitations of your aerial gear? I'm just asking because I have worked on some shoots where the remote helicopters loved the 5D because it was so much lighter than some of the video cams they were using. But since the AF-100 body is so light, and you would probably go with a wider prime for aerial shots it sounds like a great camera for aerial footage.
 
We too use smaller electric powered models to fly the 5D. They are really nice for indoors/tight spaces and when noise is an issue. Our workhorses are twin cylinder gas powered helicopters that can carry over 15 lbs. of camera. I actually lifted 25 lbs. of weights under one as a payload test once. We have flown the Red on these so camera weight hasn't been a limiting factor so far for video or film. I really like flying these because they aren't affected by the wind much.
 
Do you mind a random rant in this post for a second?

I was a fan of the DVX, that was pretty revolutionary at the time, but the HVX never impressed me. It recorded on expensive P2 cards that would set you back more than the camera body itself, and the codec, while robust, was not 1080p or even close. The rectangular pixels and it's rectangular noise looked horrid and while the codec was pretty good, the recorded image wasn't all that great. It was big and bulky for a handycam, and performed pretty poorly compared to a big sized cam. While it was definitely one of the best choices for the price at the time, it wasn't such a pearl, in my opinion, and I'm glad to see it's days are over. The EX-1 is a much better engeneered camera in my opinion, not because it outperforms the HVX (it should! it's way more modern), but because it gave us very little to complain.

I think the HVX was a huge step towards accessible HD production, but I don't think it will be a camera to be so sweetly remembered, like was the PD-150, or the DVX. I always loved the panasonic color science, and even my TVs are all panasonic plasmas, so when the AF-100 started showing up, I got excited again. At this point, I am just speculating but I think we're up for a HUGE improvement, from the HVX to the AF-100.

I shoot a lot with the 5D nowadays, and there is something about it's color rendition and it's highlight handling that will still always make me go for it for some shots, but I'm dying to get to know the Af-100 better, to see if I can just deprive myself of the 5D cream for some artifact-free footage...

Anyway, that's the rant, or at least, it's there somewhere, probably expressed poorly with my brazilian broken "engrish".

Cheers! :thumbsup:
 
"I am not looking for a good image straight from the camera but a good signal to grade"

I think if you paid attention to getting a good image straight from the camera you wouldn't have to worry as much about grading. With everything that can be done in post now we forget how much time can be saved if it was done while shooting.
 
boomstrikevideo said:
For those of you who would incorporate aerial shots into your work, would it make much of a difference to you if these were from the HVX/HPX/5D versus the AF100 at this stage of the game? For aerial work shallow DOF isn't a concern although low light is nice at times.
Click to expand...

I tend to feel that of those cameras for aerial work, it would go af100>5D>hpx>hvx since resolving power would likely be a significant factor for such imagery where the 5D makes second place since it likely leads in latitude, especially useful for those higher contrast shots.
 
eldiabloblanco said:
"I am not looking for a good image straight from the camera but a good signal to grade"

I think if you paid attention to getting a good image straight from the camera you wouldn't have to worry as much about grading. With everything that can be done in post now we forget how much time can be saved if it was done while shooting.
Click to expand...

How do you grade for example a door differently than a face and a background sky within the same frame, inside your camera? Totally impossible. Simple grading inside the camera; yes maybe. But DaVinci or Apple Color like grading inside a camera; no way. So OPs question makes totally sense, for post grading you want neutral sharp footage. I think the AF100 is perfect for this.
 
taubkin said:
Do you mind a random rant in this post for a second? (..) Anyway, that's the rant, or at least, it's there somewhere, probably expressed poorly with my brazilian broken "engrish".
Click to expand...

Very well explained and your English is perfect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top