Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just spent some time with both of 'em, and I largely mirror what Kholi says. In fact, I refuse to post static shots because that'll become what it's all about, and heck, we all know the EX1 is sharper than the HVX on a static shot, so why beat that horse? I was more interested in all the other factors that come into play.

If I was making something for the cinema, no doubt I'd go with the HVX. If I was shooting something for DiscoveryHD in 1080/60i, and I wasn't going to run into rolling shutter issues, then no doubt I'd lean towards the EX1. But if I had to work with SxS and that tedious EX1 rebooting between shooting and playback day-in and day-out, I'd kick it like a football and RUN back to the HVX/P2. :)

Your mileage may vary. Don't believe anybody's hype, use the product that best meets YOUR specific purpose. There are substantial advantages to an EX1 over an HVX (a half stop more sensitive, and a noticeably sharper/clearer image) and there are some substantial disadvantages (rolling shutter, reboot time, working with SxS), etc. There's some overlap between them, obviously, and there's a big price gap too. Pick the right one for you.
 
This reminds me a little of Barry's test shooting both the HVX and XH-A1 - both cameras look fine, more similar than different. Both pictures can be further tweaked, sure. Both cameras will do a plenty good job if you do a good job. It's almost moot to compare pictures, and more practical to compare features, like how you like the camera to your tastes for example.

Or as Barry said in another post (and Kholi echoes perfectly here) we've long ago passed "Good enough". Time to cowboy up and use any of these great tools to make great things happen.
 
Why do some want to tie low rez to a movie look. It only takes one gaze at highend motion picture to realize there is detail (yes, more than SD, LOL). You can have a filmic look with detail, .. It doesn't need to be blurry to have the look. Afterall, soft is only a click away in post. Also, a lot of the "look" everyone is always craving is done in post. DOF is another story, both of these cameras need an adapter to get there, althought the EX1 gets a bit closer on its own.
 
Why do some want to tie the HVX to "low rez" or "blurry"?

Of course movies have detail, and the HVX has plenty of that (intercutting an HVX seamlessly with 35mm on "The Departed" would kind of support that conclusion). What the HVX doesn't do is that hyper-sharp looking-through-a-window look. And neither does film.

Simply put, more detail does not make it look more filmlike, once you hit a certain threshhold.
 
I'm saying that by the time it got projected in the theater, through whatever process it went through, it was obviously "good enough." Nobody is going to argue that an HVX is as sharp or sharper than an EX1, obviously. But it was good enough to go into a shot in a major-budget Oscar winner for "best picture" so yes, I categorically reject the idea that it's not sharp enough to deliver the film look.
 
What an interesting thread.

However, this is an art form that constantly changes.

Just watched a copy of Snatch (2003 widescreen) and it looked like pure shyte.

The DVX100 looks better and the XH A1, HVX, and now EX1 with adapter are killing it as well.

Just absolute leaps and bounds; head and shoulders above film transfers of just a few years ago.


And to be honest, it's all absolutely moot at anyrate as the new distribution model is most certainly going to be direct to home theater.

To counter this, traditional theater owners will be "upgrading" to digital projectors with gimmicks like the new and improved 3D! but all in all I think the theaters are becoming a lost cause.

The new theater will be the 65" 1080p/120 with 7.1 surround. All self calibrated. All in the comfort and security of ones homes.

Here we will compete with"TV" images that on the whole are currently much sharper.

The bottom line will be what it really always has been.

Did you tell a compelling story, in a compelling way, without letting technology get in the way?



.
 
Last edited:
Well, we definately disagree here, that's for sure, and everyone I've ever met in this business.
Are you telling me rez chart shots on highend movie production cameras fall short of 600 lines?

You can ALWAYS take away detail, but you can't get it back!
Also, try turning any artifical enhancement off on any of these cameras and compare. Turning it down on the HVX200 is not a pretty thing.

I'm finding it amusing having image detail is a bad thing. 320x480 image holds less detail than a 720x480 image. Somehow I believe the 480 image will look better. ;)
 
Thing is that people need to realize that nobody's calling the EX-1 a bad camera or saying that what it offers over the HVX (cause, come on, it's got some reach over the HVX in aspects of the image department as represented by Phillip Bloom) isn't enough to justify its existence.

Just saying that there's more to consider than just lowlight performance and resolved detail.

Better Cinema look? Show me the EX-1 used on a short film instead of just tests and let's get to talkin' about that. Show me the EX-1 blown up to fifty or sixty feet in a narrative environment and let's chat it up.

Then and only then can you really see how the EX-1 performs in "cinema" land. We've seen it from the HVX... numerous times.

Dead Horse Beating Proverb #1337: Shooting RED ONE huh? What's the story about?
 
Stevet said:
The camera was just released one month ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my point: why is this topic even in existence? How can you even begin to speculate on which camera is the better Cinema look and why propagate (guilty as charged, m'self) the idea that you can even BEGIN to guess?

This question has been asked WAY too early. There's not even a MUSIC video shown yet. No pro work outside of Phillip Bloom's (Pro-looking is Pro enough). Seriously.
 
How is it not a huge deal to begin with? 2k, I agree, is pretty worthless in comparison to 1080. The FACT is that it was GOOD ENOUGH for the big screen. Granted, it was a very small portion of the movie, but there are other movies shot on less that were good enough to garner worldwide attention.

Don't try to turn wine into water.
 
Kholi said:
How is it not a huge deal to begin with? 2k, I agree, is pretty worthless in comparison to 1080. The FACT is that it was GOOD ENOUGH for the big screen. Granted, it was a very small portion of the movie, but there are other movies shot on less that were good enough to garner worldwide attention.

Don't try to turn wine into water.
Click to expand...

What made it good enough was the story. If that footage forwarded the story visually it could have been shot on Hi8.

I'm not trying to turn anything into anything. I'm stating facts about DI and 35mm. A properly exposed 35mm negative that is processed normally can be described as having between 4 and 6K resolution. But it's not digital so they're just reference numbers.

Comparing any of these cameras to that is a bit silly to me. You wanna have the film look? You know the rest.

v
 
Kholi said:
Thing is that people need to realize that nobody's calling the EX-1 a bad camera or saying that what it offers over the HVX (cause, come on, it's got some reach over the HVX in aspects of the image department as represented by Phillip Bloom) isn't enough to justify its existence.

Just saying that there's more to consider than just lowlight performance and resolved detail.

Better Cinema look? Show me the EX-1 used on a short film instead of just tests and let's get to talkin' about that. Show me the EX-1 blown up to fifty or sixty feet in a narrative environment and let's chat it up.

Then and only then can you really see how the EX-1 performs in "cinema" land. We've seen it from the HVX... numerous times.

Dead Horse Beating Proverb #1337: Shooting RED ONE huh? What's the story about?
Click to expand...


Yeah lets check the thread on that Paranormal Hour movie shot with the HVX too while we trash the EX. Ypu can make all the excuses you want about how it was shot but its soft soft soft. I can't believe whats being said about this new cam. I've seen it close up on a hd monitor and I will purchase one, warts and all.
 
More hair splitting if you ask me.

To counter this, traditional theater owners will be "upgrading" to digital projectors with gimmicks like the new and improved 3D! but all in all I think the theaters are becoming a lost cause.

The new theater will be the 65" 1080p/120 with 7.1 surround. All self calibrated. All in the comfort and security of ones homes.
Click to expand...

Now this I agree with.
 
Stevet said:
Well, we definately disagree here, that's for sure, and everyone I've ever met in this business.
Are you telling me rez chart shots on highend movie production cameras fall short of 600 lines?
Click to expand...
Of course not. What I *am* saying is that by the time the film print was released, the HVX footage mixed in just fine with the film footage.

You can ALWAYS take away detail, but you can't get it back!
Click to expand...
Absolutely agreed.

Also, try turning any artifical enhancement off on any of these cameras and compare. Turning it down on the HVX200 is not a pretty thing.
Click to expand...
Nor is it a pretty thing on the JVC HD100. So? The EX1 ships with a lot of enhancement by default, turn it off and it gets softer too (but still quite a bit more detailed than the competition).

I'm finding it amusing having image detail is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Has anyone anywhere ever said that? Come on, Steve, try to play fair. What was said was "they're both good enough." Yes the EX1 has more detail, but that doesn't mean it makes a more filmlike image. The amount of detail in an HD100, an HVX, or an XHA1 is enough to make a good-looking film print, and the HVX at least has been intercut in a major motion picture and worked fine.

If you want/need more than that, go right ahead, be my guest. But to characterize it in such a way as to say that having even more detail than we've currently got would make for a "better cinema look" just doesn't logically follow.

If you're going for a 4k projection, fine. But a theatrical release print has, on average, about 800 lines of res by the time you get it projected in the theater. That's what "cinema" looks like.

Now, let me turn it around -- are you saying that the high-detailed looking-thru-a-window look that the EX1 delivers looks anything at all like what you see in the theater?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top