Barry what do you think of this statement!!!

Oh my goodness, I better go reshoot everything.

Oh my goodness, I better go reshoot everything.

Well darmn it, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to live with myself now. I shot beautiful landscapes with an HVX200 instead of XLH1. I might have gotten 'x' percent sharper if I had a XLH1, instead of HVX200.

:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Maybe if I drive around, realign the sun and reshoot everything 60i on the Canon, instead of 720/30pn on the HVX I will be a better more well rounded person. Maybe chics will dig me then. Hehehe

Okay, enough of that. We just did a 5 minute video of Coos County, Oregon. A lot of scenic stuff. Here is the link:

http://www.beaverhillproductions.com/show_cooscounty/cooscounty_showpage.php

I think the XLH1 is one sharp camera. But oh my goodness, how do I count the ways in which I love my HVX200. This is the first piece we produced with the HVX and once I found the variable frame rates I was a hog in sh*t!!!!
 
Hey there Learning Video,

So glad you like it. I shot 720/30pn and on shots like the waterfalls and the wave at the start I cranked it to 60 frames to get those beautiful slow moving effects. For the sunrise I set it for interval recording but now I can't remember the settings. It was so on the fly. Every shot was taken within 30 minutes of the beaver ranch.
 
Pascal_Parvex said:
Tape, yes. But not DVD-RAM, which is optical
Click to expand...

Okay, I guess dvd-ram is a good archival medium (at least for 30 years) ...and it's EMP-proof. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

But anyway, returning to the topic at hand...

If having a sharper digital image will lead to results like the superman movie... where everything looks plastic clean and sterile... then I'll take the "softer" or "dirtier" HVX any day.
 
Hey Flash Beaver, hi from a fellow Oregonian!

...well I am living in Ohio now, but for for 25 years I had lived in Klamath Falls.

The video clips look great! You did some really nice work. Scenic landscapes and wildlife are my passion when it comes to shooting. How do you like shooting with the HVX? I am really wanting to get one for myself. I am still using an old Sony DCR-VX1000 that I got years and years ago.

I just wonder if the UV filter contributed to making a softer image with Robert Lane's setup. I know the HVX is a little softer anyways but I have seen clips from the HVX that look muddy when it comes to wide landscape shots and then I have seen other clips that look outstandingly detailed in the distant landscape. I would definitely try adjustments on the iris to try out different f stops on the lens to see what range produces the best results before writing it off as an inherent problem. I know on my VX1000, I get all kinds of artifacting in auto modes that I can eliminate by setting the gain shift on it to -3 from 0, turning edge enhancement all the way down and using appropriate ND filter to get the f stops in the lower mid range to get the best out of the glass. I wonder myself what settings might make the difference because I have seen some awesome landscape shots coming from the HVX.

One thing is for sure, you can't beat the native frame capturing and variable framerates with over/undercranking for making a huge impact on what this camera delivers.
 
Flash Beaver said:
Hey there Learning Video,

So glad you like it. I shot 720/30pn and on shots like the waterfalls and the wave at the start I cranked it to 60 frames to get those beautiful slow moving effects. For the sunrise I set it for interval recording but now I can't remember the settings. It was so on the fly. Every shot was taken within 30 minutes of the beaver ranch.
Click to expand...

Great, now every one will want to move to the Pacific NW.

Nice footage.
 
TheThe said:
If having a sharper digital image will lead to results like the superman movie... where everything looks plastic clean and sterile... then I'll take the "softer" or "dirtier" HVX any day.
Click to expand...

I don't think higher resolution is to blame for that, more the visual style of the movie as a whole. What I've seen of Apocalypto which was shot using the same Genisis cameras looks amazing.

I'd love for the HVX200 to be sharper but I guess it's not as big a deal for some of us. I mean, I just watched the Thin Red Line last night (stunning film). As great as the imagrey the HVX200 creates, it can't come close to that pure 35mm beauty. Niether can the XLH1 for that matter. I haven't even seen the 65k Varicam or the 115k CineAlta 950 look as good as great 35mm like that. The only digital I've really seen get those kind of results has been the Genisis and that costs just as much to work with as 35mm film. My point is that I don't think any of these cameras really fucntions as a good solution to well lit 35mm. I think of the under 10k cameras as a good alternative to Super 16mm. As far as that goes, the HVX200 stacks up fine. Yes the Canon's resolution comes closer to that of 35mm but, if I could afford to shoot something on that level I wouldn't be using an XLH1. I'd be using a 35mm film camera or a Genisis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top