Better Cinema Look - EX1 or HVX200?
- Thread starter katyam
- Start date
- Status
Michael T
Well-known member
If your gonna talk about wizards and magic the old saying in Magic is ( Its not what you do but how you do it that counts ). This is the hardest principle to teach people. They all want to go and do without practice or understanding. This is why the master can take simple things and create true magic. One magician does a magic trick and another performs a miracle. Its not the guitar thats in Al Dimeola's hand its the music he plays that counts. Some people can use inferior equipment and produce riveting entertaining content thats beautiful and exciting to watch.
rawfa
Veteran
That is a nice image. Maybe you can write better than you think, Timur. ;-)
emotepix
Well-known member
Interesting thread.
We keep on going round in circles and dodging the issue here.
Okay, given an incredible Merlin who is equally powerful in making film-like images with an HVX or an EX1, which wand do you think that Merlin would be better off using?
Which is the better wand?
Not the favorite, not the more wandlike, the more film like?
Not the Red or the SI, HV20, HC1, or any other camera. Not 16mm or 35mm either, just between the HVX and the EX1?
I haven't owned either of the two yet, that's why I'm asking.
Yes, there are several schools of thought about buying equipment. My school goes like this: "learn it the hard way. Take the old equipment you already have access to and shoot, shoot, shoot. Or, better yet, learn it the easy way -- buy the best equipment you can just about afford, read all the manuals, and then shoot, shoot, shoot."
I've read a lot of Phil Bloom's stuff, and a lot of Barry's stuff too. I know what they prefer, and people like those two can use whatever camera they want to.
So I'm asking the HVX people and the Sony people too. Trying to be unbiassed, even though I'm a Leica person myself.
So - not asking which is cheaper, more cost effective, more affordable.
On the sole basis of the topic stated on this thread, which yields the better cinema look for indie feature film makers who:
a) want to own (not rent) a sub $8k camcorder;
b) shoot and edit themselves (assume at least a competence at modern camcorders);
c) don't have large crews;
d) shoot scripted material (and use film camera discipline, not pray and spray);
e) finish to DVD nearly all the time at the moment, but Blu Ray or HD DVD pretty soon, for sales or pre-sales purposes or to distribution entities only, (i.e. NOT principally for television end use) and
f) if/when their films do get sold, need to bump the existing footage to DI/35mm for cinema viewing
??
put simply, which of the two camcorders would yield a better DI?
We keep on going round in circles and dodging the issue here.
Okay, given an incredible Merlin who is equally powerful in making film-like images with an HVX or an EX1, which wand do you think that Merlin would be better off using?
Which is the better wand?
Not the favorite, not the more wandlike, the more film like?
Not the Red or the SI, HV20, HC1, or any other camera. Not 16mm or 35mm either, just between the HVX and the EX1?
I haven't owned either of the two yet, that's why I'm asking.
Yes, there are several schools of thought about buying equipment. My school goes like this: "learn it the hard way. Take the old equipment you already have access to and shoot, shoot, shoot. Or, better yet, learn it the easy way -- buy the best equipment you can just about afford, read all the manuals, and then shoot, shoot, shoot."
I've read a lot of Phil Bloom's stuff, and a lot of Barry's stuff too. I know what they prefer, and people like those two can use whatever camera they want to.
So I'm asking the HVX people and the Sony people too. Trying to be unbiassed, even though I'm a Leica person myself.
So - not asking which is cheaper, more cost effective, more affordable.
On the sole basis of the topic stated on this thread, which yields the better cinema look for indie feature film makers who:
a) want to own (not rent) a sub $8k camcorder;
b) shoot and edit themselves (assume at least a competence at modern camcorders);
c) don't have large crews;
d) shoot scripted material (and use film camera discipline, not pray and spray);
e) finish to DVD nearly all the time at the moment, but Blu Ray or HD DVD pretty soon, for sales or pre-sales purposes or to distribution entities only, (i.e. NOT principally for television end use) and
f) if/when their films do get sold, need to bump the existing footage to DI/35mm for cinema viewing
??
put simply, which of the two camcorders would yield a better DI?
Last edited:
Stevet
Veteran
There really is no winner here. You just need to decide on what is important to you. At this point just look at the pros and cons of each camera. They have been mentioned quite a few times in this thread, EX1 threads, and other HVX threads.
The large pro for the HVX200 is due to its codec, every frame will be equal in quality (intraframe) and it offers 4:2:2.
The EX1 high pros are higher sensitivity due to 1/2" chips, native 1920x1080 rez, SDI 10 bit 4:2:2 (recently confirmed by Cineform).
As far as overall features, they are very close. You can buy into the HVX200 cheaper right now, so if you're on the fence, the HVX200 may be the way to go due to it will cost less.
Having said that, look closely at the work flow. This can greatly affect cost.
The large pro for the HVX200 is due to its codec, every frame will be equal in quality (intraframe) and it offers 4:2:2.
The EX1 high pros are higher sensitivity due to 1/2" chips, native 1920x1080 rez, SDI 10 bit 4:2:2 (recently confirmed by Cineform).
As far as overall features, they are very close. You can buy into the HVX200 cheaper right now, so if you're on the fence, the HVX200 may be the way to go due to it will cost less.
Having said that, look closely at the work flow. This can greatly affect cost.
BobDiaz
The Professor
Good points.
I also agree with Stevet, both cameras have shown to produce great results. So, it really becomes a very subjective thing to say this camera produces a better look than the other. Some will pick the HVX-200 and others will pick the EX-1. However, lighting will play a greater factor for the look, than the choice of the camera.
I do NOT believe that there is "one size fits all" camera. Each camera has its strong and weak points, so it more a matter of understanding what are each camera's strong/weak points and finding the best match for your needs.
IMHO: Both are very good cameras, so you can't go wrong with either one.
Bob Diaz
emotepix
Well-known member
Thank you again.
Has anybody actually tried the EX1 to DI yet?
Comparative workflows are what I'm trying to get details on so I can make a valid comparison. "Look closely at the workflow" is what I'm doing here. The best way I know is to ask a wizzard who's doing it already. I've been editing professionally for years and still don't know everything about all my tools.
I've done P2 edits on FCP and Avid, but not MXFs. P2 edits are a pain, IMHO.
However, I can't even get MXF test clips to play on my machines with the (correct and current) Sony drivers and players installed, and I have both Win and Mac machines. And I don't particularly like Vegas.
Is there that much difference in the colorspace comparing SDI outputs tethered? I'm using Conduit Live for my matte work. Maybe that will be the tie-breaker for me, as well as the best platform for the new wavelet boxes...
Has anybody actually tried the EX1 to DI yet?
Comparative workflows are what I'm trying to get details on so I can make a valid comparison. "Look closely at the workflow" is what I'm doing here. The best way I know is to ask a wizzard who's doing it already. I've been editing professionally for years and still don't know everything about all my tools.
I've done P2 edits on FCP and Avid, but not MXFs. P2 edits are a pain, IMHO.
However, I can't even get MXF test clips to play on my machines with the (correct and current) Sony drivers and players installed, and I have both Win and Mac machines. And I don't particularly like Vegas.
Is there that much difference in the colorspace comparing SDI outputs tethered? I'm using Conduit Live for my matte work. Maybe that will be the tie-breaker for me, as well as the best platform for the new wavelet boxes...
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep i think the cineform offers a benefit for the EX if one purchases yet another product for their cam.
For the cam's alone, the hvx stands out for its codec, and now i suppose, its global shutter! The resolution both cams use is attained by different technology and so the real hd, native hd arguments i think are better deciphered by the best looking image than the best looking number.
I use Premiere CS3 and the latest update makes editing pimps easy for me, never found that a problem, i'm wary more of the editing requirements and workflow of hdv (of course that was the Sony Z1 i used!)
it's almost like the computer cpu days of athlon vs intel and how their clockspeeds were determined haha.
I'm really looking forward to trying the EX, but i think anyone that has a 2/3 cam (or take the hpx5oo for example) would wonder at the fuss we make. Bar the practical differences Barry has highlighted with filming different emerging technologies (as placed within our cameras) the general quality to the skilled operator will be all very good.
For the cam's alone, the hvx stands out for its codec, and now i suppose, its global shutter! The resolution both cams use is attained by different technology and so the real hd, native hd arguments i think are better deciphered by the best looking image than the best looking number.
I use Premiere CS3 and the latest update makes editing pimps easy for me, never found that a problem, i'm wary more of the editing requirements and workflow of hdv (of course that was the Sony Z1 i used!)
it's almost like the computer cpu days of athlon vs intel and how their clockspeeds were determined haha.
I'm really looking forward to trying the EX, but i think anyone that has a 2/3 cam (or take the hpx5oo for example) would wonder at the fuss we make. Bar the practical differences Barry has highlighted with filming different emerging technologies (as placed within our cameras) the general quality to the skilled operator will be all very good.
Last edited:
tnle2
Well-known member
I think this is good advice. Another thing to think about is all the other factors other than picture quality. These forums tend to concentrate a lot on the picture quality of the cameras. But also look at workflow and how you operate the camera. Handle it, use it, see if you like it. Like any tool, if you really like how it feels or if you really like how to operate it, you're more likely to use it
emotepix
Well-known member
Tim, thanks, and I've been doing this as a pro since 1975.
I've tried out both cameras, like the feel of both, and can make money operating both.
Guess in a perfect world I'd get both and switch according to how I feel.
But in your own philosophy of "no one camera good for all" I would own a DSLR/35mm SLR set, a 6x6, a 6x9, a 4x5, a couple of Super 8's, a Super 16, a 35mm sperical, a 35mm anamorphic/Super 35, and some high definition cameras. So That's what I have in my cupboards at the moment. I had many more stills cameras when I was doing that, but switched to motion pictures in the mid 80s. I've had my motion picture cameras pretty much since then, and use them whenever I can. However, as we all know, the digital gear goes out a lot more these days, for most of us.
Now, for the "some high definition cameras" shelves of my cupboards, the Red One will eventually be the high end, and I already own some of the lower end cameras (HC1, V1u, HD110) .
Now, which medium range hand held form camera to complete the picture?
Aye, there's the rub.
And yes, we're on the DVX forum. I know.
I still have a Leica SL2 and Leica Rs as well as an M2/35 that I will never sell...
I've tried out both cameras, like the feel of both, and can make money operating both.
Guess in a perfect world I'd get both and switch according to how I feel.
But in your own philosophy of "no one camera good for all" I would own a DSLR/35mm SLR set, a 6x6, a 6x9, a 4x5, a couple of Super 8's, a Super 16, a 35mm sperical, a 35mm anamorphic/Super 35, and some high definition cameras. So That's what I have in my cupboards at the moment. I had many more stills cameras when I was doing that, but switched to motion pictures in the mid 80s. I've had my motion picture cameras pretty much since then, and use them whenever I can. However, as we all know, the digital gear goes out a lot more these days, for most of us.
Now, for the "some high definition cameras" shelves of my cupboards, the Red One will eventually be the high end, and I already own some of the lower end cameras (HC1, V1u, HD110) .
Now, which medium range hand held form camera to complete the picture?
Aye, there's the rub.
And yes, we're on the DVX forum. I know.
I still have a Leica SL2 and Leica Rs as well as an M2/35 that I will never sell...
Stevet
Veteran
Dennis, was this your test? If so, nice job, you put a lot of work into this.
The only question I have is, why was the white balance not matched?
The HVX is on the warm side, the EX is on the cool side.
Look at the garage door on the EX1. It looks way cool.
I would of adjusted the white balance to match the HVX.
I tend to run my cameras warmer than viewed by eye.
Of course, you can always adjust in post, but we don't have the original files.
Again, I'm not saying it's your test, I just can't help ask why they were not matched?
The only question I have is, why was the white balance not matched?
The HVX is on the warm side, the EX is on the cool side.
Look at the garage door on the EX1. It looks way cool.
I would of adjusted the white balance to match the HVX.
I tend to run my cameras warmer than viewed by eye.
Of course, you can always adjust in post, but we don't have the original files.
Again, I'm not saying it's your test, I just can't help ask why they were not matched?
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, I like dreaming about new "better" Cameras. Sharper images (come on, HVX IS kinda soft), less noise, etc so on so forth and more...
But, if you've ever seen HVX+Adapter projected on a huge screen, you know that at this point it really doesn't matter what cam you pick up and shoot with. I have to remember what I saw on the Kodak screen of my own amateur-ass footage and wish i could've taken a picture of it blown up like that, but trust me... once you see it you really do get the gist of "Time to find a good story."
From here on out, EX-1's VERY sharp and great lowlight image. SCARLET's probability in the removable lens department amongst other options, and whatever else comes down the road... all that? It's Icing on the cake.
On the HVX200 vs EX-1 Comparison: In all fairness, EX-1 is a new camera. Someone on this site once pointed out the NEW CAM PHENOMENA, which is High, Low, High.
High -- Camera gets released, everyone's on pins and needles, some of the footage looks great and it's time to go and buy a new camera for a lot of us. (I'm guilty of this)
Low -- Suddenly the Camera has a lot of issues, the footage isn't as appealing as you once thought and it's just another tool.
High -- People start learning how to use it and kick out great footage once again, and it's officially part of the tool set for SOME people. A lot of us didn't whip out our wallets, sell our cameras, and are back to being happy with what we own til the next cam release gets us all in a fuss. (Yeah, that's me too.)
The test is cool, it's also from a new EX-1 owner that may need to learn it as well as he knows his HVX200.
But, if you've ever seen HVX+Adapter projected on a huge screen, you know that at this point it really doesn't matter what cam you pick up and shoot with. I have to remember what I saw on the Kodak screen of my own amateur-ass footage and wish i could've taken a picture of it blown up like that, but trust me... once you see it you really do get the gist of "Time to find a good story."
From here on out, EX-1's VERY sharp and great lowlight image. SCARLET's probability in the removable lens department amongst other options, and whatever else comes down the road... all that? It's Icing on the cake.
On the HVX200 vs EX-1 Comparison: In all fairness, EX-1 is a new camera. Someone on this site once pointed out the NEW CAM PHENOMENA, which is High, Low, High.
High -- Camera gets released, everyone's on pins and needles, some of the footage looks great and it's time to go and buy a new camera for a lot of us. (I'm guilty of this)
Low -- Suddenly the Camera has a lot of issues, the footage isn't as appealing as you once thought and it's just another tool.
High -- People start learning how to use it and kick out great footage once again, and it's officially part of the tool set for SOME people. A lot of us didn't whip out our wallets, sell our cameras, and are back to being happy with what we own til the next cam release gets us all in a fuss. (Yeah, that's me too.)
The test is cool, it's also from a new EX-1 owner that may need to learn it as well as he knows his HVX200.
Dude... despite its flaws, the Z1 is still hugely popular and is being used by Tens of thousands of people..... Same for the HVX, A1, H1, HD200..... The EX will fit right in, awesome in someway, flawed in another, but just right for one particular application.
Stevet
Veteran
Yes,
I'm willing to bet this is stock with no cine curves selected.
Also, once again, the white balance was set on the cool side for the EX1.
Take a look at Phil Blooms stuff. This is very filmic. Please define "something strange".. LOL
Also, if you own the A1, there's really no need to upgrade.
I'm willing to bet this is stock with no cine curves selected.
Also, once again, the white balance was set on the cool side for the EX1.
Take a look at Phil Blooms stuff. This is very filmic. Please define "something strange".. LOL
Also, if you own the A1, there's really no need to upgrade.
Last edited:
Yes,
I'm willing to bet this is stock with no cine curves selected.
Also, once again, the white balance was set on the cool side for the EX1.
Take a look at Phil Blooms stuff. This is very filmic. Please define "something strange".. LOL
Also, if you own the A1, there's really no need to upgrade.
i've watched the "EX1vsHVX_720pMotionBig.mov" sample, and there is something strange in the upper right corner of the image (the sky) around 00:00.23 sec. like a too strong knee just in this area. or edge enhancement.
thanx for the comparison anyway!
i know we have to be careful because we don't really know the conditions and the settings. the EX1 seems to be a very nice camera. but imo the soft look of the HVX is more filmic on my computer screen. the EX1 is too sharp for what i consider a cinema look. i think it can be powerfull for someone who is transferring his feature to film. but for dvd export i prefer HVX. just personal opinion.
you're right i will keep my A1 for a while
- Status