Best image?

If you are focusing (No pun) on resolution and pixel count being your swing vote then you are definately setting yourself up for disapointment.

Once getting into the realm of :

" ... affordable" high def cameras (the HVX, the H1/A1/G1 or the HD100"

then resultion is neglible. I'd place my attention on gamma, dymanic range and the intangible Mojo of the overal moving image itself.

And I would stray from 24f.
 
Why stray from 24F, John?

Why stray from 24F, John?

John_Hudson said:
If you are focusing (No pun) on resolution and pixel count being your swing vote then you are definately setting yourself up for disapointment.

Once getting into the realm of :

" ... affordable" high def cameras (the HVX, the H1/A1/G1 or the HD100"

then resultion is neglible. I'd place my attention on gamma, dymanic range and the intangible Mojo of the overal moving image itself.

And I would stray from 24f.
Click to expand...

The essence of my query has been: ASSUMING a filmic look (24P/F, cine gamma, etc.), how do I get highest resolution/sharpness?

Is your comment addressed to Canon's particular success at emulating 24P? Or are you suggesting that interlaced images will have noticeably more resolution than progressive/progressive-like images? I am already willing to trade off some resolution for the filmic look, if that is indeed the case.

Thanks in advance.
 
DVXDaddyO said:
The essence of my query has been: ASSUMING a filmic look (24P/F, cine gamma, etc.), how do I get highest resolution/sharpness?

Is your comment addressed to Canon's particular success at emulating 24P? Or are you suggesting that interlaced images will have noticeably more resolution than progressive/progressive-like images? I am already willing to trade off some resolution for the filmic look, if that is indeed the case.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You know what happens when you assume don't ya DaddyO ?

My comment was addressed specifcally at the orginal post by you:

Which of the "affordable" high def cameras (the HVX, the H1/A1/G1 or the HD100) will yield the absolute sharpest, highest resolution image in "filmic" mode (24P or 24F) in what I will assume is 1080p or equivalent?
Click to expand...

To be blunt; if you are merely seeking the sharpest/highest image, just look at the specs and choose that one. My comment regarding 24F is not at 24F alone, but the package that comes with it.
 
I do both video and still photography professionally. They are more a like than they are different. Motion blur is, in fact, a still photography factor used to get specific looks purposefully.

Could you see the difference between an HVX and some other digital camera on a theater screen? I don't know. But I do know that next to film, you could very easily tell, side-by-side, which was digitally shot and which was real film.

And I also know that side-by-side, in every test I've seen published, no other digital video camera in it's price range saturates and has the control and filmic look as the HVX/DVX cameras, regardless of what screen you show them on.

And I'm a huge Canon fan, too.
 
smelni, I'm not missing the point. I am concentrating on a different point. I well understand dynamic range, DOF, grain, etc. I'm only looking at resolving power.

In the still camera world, i've shot thousands upon thousands of frames using film and digital. I understand the differences.

But as I've written before, I take your point -- and David's, JP's and others -- about resolution not being the only criterion upon which one evaluates equipment or images.

Thanks for your insights and passionate response.
 
Your follow up questions suggest differently

"The essence of my query has been: ASSUMING a filmic look (24P/F, cine gamma, etc.), how do I get highest resolution/sharpness? "

We are all saying you cannot assume that - the cameras are not the same except for the resolution. The entire image is different
 
BenB said:
I do both video and still photography professionally. They are more a like than they are different. Motion blur is, in fact, a still photography factor used to get specific looks purposefully.
Click to expand...

this is a very different type of motion blur - it is in a single frame to make that frame look a certain way as a still image. Motion blur in video is used to connect or disconnect adjacent frames to render motion a certain way. The same attribute works differently in the different mediums.

For example - fast shutter gives a strikingly sharp image for still photography but gives studdery motion for video - same shutter for different aesthetic - and this is improtant in choosing cameras due to how they render that motion.
 
Ben, thanks for your post.

Ben, thanks for your post.

BenB said:
I do both video and still photography professionally. They are more a like than they are different. Motion blur is, in fact, a still photography factor used to get specific looks purposefully.

Could you see the difference between an HVX and some other digital camera on a theater screen? I don't know. But I do know that next to film, you could very easily tell, side-by-side, which was digitally shot and which was real film.

And I also know that side-by-side, in every test I've seen published, no other digital video camera in it's price range saturates and has the control and filmic look as the HVX/DVX cameras, regardless of what screen you show them on.

And I'm a huge Canon fan, too.
Click to expand...

I cut over to 100% digital still photography more than five years ago (remember the D30?). It was Luminous Landscape that really got me going. I then moved to the 1D, even though there wasn't a huge resolution advantage (and in fact had low-light issues) because of its vastly improved handling and responsiveness in capturing dancers mid-flight.

Just got a 30D, and it is fantastic, especially at the price.

I think the bottom line on this thread is that motion and still ARE more alike than different, but certainly those differences need to be respected. At the moment, a fully-kitted HVX would cost as much as an H1, and that is out of my reach. So far now, I'll continue to enjoy the DVX100b and get my next two projects shot on it. Who knows what will be available in six months?

Cheers,

D
 
smelni said:
Your follow up questions suggest differently

"The essence of my query has been: ASSUMING a filmic look (24P/F, cine gamma, etc.), how do I get highest resolution/sharpness? "

We are all saying you cannot assume that - the cameras are not the same except for the resolution. The entire image is different
Click to expand...

Exactomundo

Daddy-O says ASSUMING. But none of them are the same.

holding everything else aside
Click to expand...

But why ?
 
"I think the bottom line on this thread is that motion and still ARE more alike than different, but certainly those differences need to be respected. "

I rarely get so heated up here - but this statement is just so incredibly false - If it were true all photographers would be great cinematographers - and vice versa.

They are very different in so many ways from the artistic to the techinical that using the same parameters for the 2 mediums is comparing apples to volkswagons
 
DVXDaddyO said:
This site is overwhelmingly complete -- yet I cannot find the answer to this question:

Which of the "affordable" high def cameras (the HVX, the H1/A1/G1 or the HD100) will yield the absolute sharpest, highest resolution image in "filmic" mode (24P or 24F) in what I will assume is 1080p or equivalent?

Put differently: holding everything else aside (like variable frame rates), which camera/lens combination will yield the best large (movie theater screen) image?

Thanks in advance, and apologies in advance, too, if my searching capabilities aren't up to the challenge of finding the answer on my own.

DaddyO
Click to expand...
Hey DaddyO -

DV Magazine just recently held 2 excellent "shootouts" between the prosumer HD cameras. There's more information than you can shake a stick at about the cameras you are considering. They include lots of resolution information including both unbiased resolution chart images as well as information on "perceived" resolution. Plus lots of other information about the perfomance of these cameras.

I'm a little surprised no one else has pointed you to these articles:

Shootout 1

Shootout 2

Hope this is helpful!
 
Brent, much thanks for turning me on to the shoot out. WOW! Images do more than words can. I looked at the 720P and 1080 cam images. There are BIG differences in resolving power among the cams...

From what I can glean from the tests, the differences in resolving power were more significant than differences in dynamic range or colorimetry.
 
Last edited:
^
The shoot outs have a few minor problems. One is that even the reviewers admitted that the HVX200 as handicapped as far as detail settings went. The second is that trying to make all the cameras look alike just ends up making them look like crap. Sad but true. I've seen great imagry come out of the HVX200, XLH1, and HD100 (sorry but I hate the Z1/FX1) but the shots I saw there were embarassing. None of them looked anywhere close to what any of these cameras can really do. A much better way to analyze these things is go to the various sites and look at some footage that people have produced. Look at the BEST stuff and compare that rather than looking at tests designed to make the cameras look closer to each other.

Also, your logical problem DaddyO is that you continue to think that the cameras are more closer than not when it comes to everything but resolution. this just isn't the case. I'd actually say they are more closer than not in resolution but not in everything else. The XLH1, at best, has about 25% more resolution in 1080p than the HVX200 (number is a bit lower if you're messing with 24f). On the other hand, the HVX200 uses a 100mbs compression scheme over a 25mbs one. That's four times as space to deal with color and motion. How can you say these are comparible?

From what I've seen, here's my honest opinion. The HVX200, HD100, and Z1 all are about the same as far as resolution goes. I've looked at the images up close and really can't tell one from the other as far as that is concerned. The HVX200 excells with better motion (no artifacts), better color (filmic color and less compression), and better gamma (more filmic and more sensative). The Z1 handles low light better. Hoenstly, unless you can't afford P2s or REALLY need low light capabilities for weddings, I don't see much of a reason to go with the HD100 or Z1 over the HVX200.

As far as the HVX200 vs the XLH1, it's a bit harder to judge. While the XLH1 also uses crappy HDV tapes, it's codec is better than the HD100 and Z1 with less motion breakup (thanks to more I frames). Resolution wise, in 24f at 1080p, it has more resolved detail than the HVX200. Not a substantial amount but I can tell a difference. Will the average viewer care? Not really. Considering the soft focus that I've seen so many put up with in films. Considering that they were fine with stuff like 28 Days Later or Open Water both shot with much lower rez cameras, then I don't think they'll really notice, especially when it's only a 15-20% one in 24f. However, the difference is there. The HVX200 however still wins in terms of color, gamma, and motion (XLH1 has less breakup but still some). To be honest, if it just came down to these things, the cameras would be pretty evenly matched. The XLH1 is sharper but not WAY sharper and the HVX200 is prettier but not WAY prettier (assuming the XLH1 guy REALLY knows his settings which takes a lot of effort). What made the HVX200 the clear choice for me is Canon's post issues (something you claim to be important to you). Having to deal with a 25mb codec, even one that's good at hiding much of the compression, still is a ***** when trying to work with the footage and perform CC (you can push something so much further in 4:2:2 than you can in 4:2:0). There's also the 24f crap which isn't supported by many NLEs and also isn't supported by any HDV decks which means you can ruin your XLH1 head by constantly having to digitize and print footage. With these post hassles it's just not worth it especially since you'll have to do a lot more post work to get the Canon to look like the HVX in post.
 
David,

Thanks for your thoughtful and balanced post. It is true, in my own experience on the still side, that great images can be captured by almost any machine -- if the photographer matches its capabilities against the vision he's trying to achieve.

At the end of the day -- for me -- the XL H1 AND a comparably equipped HVX200 are simply too expensive, as I think they both end up in the $9-$10K range (for documentary interviews, I'd simply need too many P2 cards or a media manager, neither of which I can afford). I am willing to accept your assertion that the "XLH1 is sharper but not WAY sharper" if the HVX200 is properly set up, and that the HVX200 is "prettier but not WAY prettier" with the same kind of caveat.

But the newsflash, for me, is the potential represented not by the H1, but by the soon-to-be-released A1. If its imager is the same as the H1's but has the price point of a DVX and doesn't require P2 cards, then this is likely the camera for me. The ONE issue to my mind still open is -- as you suggest -- post work. I don't know that FCP (my editing software of choice) handles Canon's 1080/24F.

I'll add, by the way, that for me OPEN WATER was a terrible disappointment. The image was so shockingly bad that I could not overcome it. 28 DAYS LATER, on the other hand, I enjoyed immensely -- for me, at least, there was a much closer match between the narrative and the grittiness of the image (not just resolution, but things like desaturation) -- and I just liked the story and characters better.

Thanks again, all, for your thoughts and comments in this thread. I think it's time for me to get back to shooting!
 
^
Good luck. The AI actually looks mightly tempting at such a price tag though I'm really curious to see what it actually looks like. If it does what it should, that's great, somehow though I just don't get how a ditching interchangible lenses, SDIout, and a few other features suddenly makes a 9k camera cost 4k (especially when Canon has never been exactly cheap in the first place).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top