Discussion of dv.com results
- Thread starter smelni
- Start date
Nik Manning
Well-known member
Okay Thread is kind of long so I don’t know if anyone touched on this. The 1080p cameras have roughly 2.5 times more resolution than 720p cameras. This means that on a 1080p monitor hvx200 would display native resolution. 720p cams like varicam and hd100 would be scaled 2.5 times adding pixilation.
So want I believe is.
So want I believe is.
- The hvx200 will look better on 1080p monitor and blown up to film because of less scaling than hd100 and even varicam.
- Varicam or hd100 will likely give better footage for TV HD 720p because they give a better 720p image.
- I use Photoshop everyday and if I scale something 2.5 times it does lose a lot of quality.
- Get the hvx200 and treat it like a varicam. Take the same time with it you would take with a varicam. I bet you can deliver on hdcam an pass it off as f900 footage. After some serious color correcting of course:thumbsup:.
Zig_Zigman
Well-known member
While I am a bit taken aback my the HVX's lack of performance, I would still do anything to AVOID TAPE in the workflow. So the HVX it is...
Danilo Del Tufo
Well-known member
FullRez said:
Hey Pappas, are you a geek?:grin:
Digigenic
Well-known member
I agree, the HVX does appear to come up a little shorter than anticipated, and the HDV alternatives have held up comparatively well, so far.Zig_Zigman said:
With regard to tapeless workflow, there is the firestore alternative for HDV. Not quite as cool and cutting edge as P2, but it is tapeless, and a little less expensive than P2.
There is one thing in particular for me that make the HVX completely irresistible, the variable frame rates for genuine slow motion.
Of course, it isn't a feature I'd use all the time, but it is one very valuable option to have at my fingertips, and it appears as though they'll be the only outfit offering that option for some time to come.
Elton
Veteran
Barry_Green said:
I don't know if anyone's addressed this, but this is a ridiculous exaggeration. You can actually capture uncompressed HD (most wouldn't) for a LOT less.
--older or current G5 ($2-3K)
--Decklink HD ($595)
--minimum 4 HD SATA RAID
--FCP Studio ($1,300)
Probably a minimum of $5-6k.
Jay Nemeth
Member
I scanned through this thread, anybody who was able to read every post truly has the stamina to be a filmmaker.
A few people remarked that the Varicam didn't look that great. I explained this on another thread, but I guess it got lost. I set the Varicam up as I would for a film out. The idea in the "12 stop exposure latitude test" was to see how much detail each camera could hold and in what exposure range. The Varicam was set to Film Rec with 500% dynamic level, and tweaked a little more. This set-up creates a washed out / low chroma image when viewed as an HD image. In fact, the panasonic monitors have a button on them called "Cine Gamma" that compensates for the flat image by counter-acting the film-out adjustments. This way, the eyes in video village can see a more accurate representation of the final output. Yes it's wacky, but it works! Did we need this setting for the chart and resolution tests? No, but I didn't want to have the Varicam in two drastically different set-ups that would confuse the issue. We did experiment with normal and cine Gamma on the little cameras, but there had to be some baseline.
So, I could have set up the Varicam to look much better subjectively, but it would have performed poorly in the latitude department.
Someone asked what my opinions are about all this.
1. The f900 is my first choice for shooting HD, hands down.
2. The Varicam is a gorgeous camera that is a pleasure to work with, and has some advantages over the f900.
3. I shot the images of the guy playing guitar in the desert, the pool room/bar scene, and dug the HVX200 so much, I bought one.
4. I was dissapointed in the HVX200 performance on the resolution chart.
5. I could care less about chart performance when the image blows me away.
I just got back from Hawaii where I directed a live to tape sporting event for PPV. I needed to get some HD footage of the event for promos down the road. I would have loved to have handed the HVX200 to the shooter, and say "have at it".....but it was a two hour event. No Firestore yet, so I brought my Sony FX1.
Are you shooting a movie? Stop complaining about the P2 card and it's cost. It is not a recording medium, it is a CONTAINER. When I'm going to shoot 40,000 feet of 35mm film, I don't order 100 magazines, I order 4. I put film in them, and when I've used up all the film, some nice young man (or woman) takes the exposed stuff out, and puts new stuff in emulsion side out. It's called turning the mag around, and that's all a p2 card is. It's a thing that holds 4 minutes of footage until you put it in something else, and then empty the container so you can fill it up again.
The really talented filmmakers can tell compelling stories with captivating images using their uncle's super 8 cameras. I've seen "film school" graduates using the best Panavision cameras and a 40 foot grip and 40 foot electric truck crank out the most god-awful images you can imagine.
Cinematographers spend a lot of time testing various stocks and emulsions, along with different filtration and lens choices to create the mood, style, and look of their particular project. We should all approach the tiny camera quest the same way. Pick what you like, not what 32 pages of a thread tells you is right.
Our test was a like dipping your toe in the jacuzzi, there are much more comprehensive tests coming with more real world images, and not just charts.
I did a Varicam shoot today and the camera looked incredible. The DIT's name was Dave Sorenson, and he did a great job. At the end of the shoot I told the Director that I had an HVX200, and asked if he had heard of it. He said, "are you kidding? We tried to rent one for this job, but couldn't find one." Ooops.
Sunday, I have an aerial job with a Sony F950. Tuesday, another Varicam shoot for the new reality TV show "Inked". I have an 11 day shoot with 2 F900's, but I am seriously thinking of doing it with 2 HVX200s. Why? The client simply wants to archive in HD, but finish the project in SD. I know they will be blown away by the pictures, and I can save them some money.
I love the look of the CineAltas, but I see Panasonic making long term business decisions that will ultimately start shifting some of the market share away from Sony. The move away from a spinning drum rubbing on oxide covered tape, is a big step in the right direction. A 1080p Varicam would be another great move.
My point in all this is that these cameras are just hammers. And when you build a house, you use a certain hammer to drive framing nails. When you build a rocking chair, you use a different hammer. I'll have used an FX1, a Varicam, an F950, and an HVX200 all in the span of one week.
After our 6 camera comparison, I could have returned the HVX or sold it or whatever and bought any of the other little cameras. I hate it that the resolution performance was so poor, but I love the pictures that this thing makes and the way it does it. Pick a camera, stop staring at the charts, and make your movie.
Jay
A few people remarked that the Varicam didn't look that great. I explained this on another thread, but I guess it got lost. I set the Varicam up as I would for a film out. The idea in the "12 stop exposure latitude test" was to see how much detail each camera could hold and in what exposure range. The Varicam was set to Film Rec with 500% dynamic level, and tweaked a little more. This set-up creates a washed out / low chroma image when viewed as an HD image. In fact, the panasonic monitors have a button on them called "Cine Gamma" that compensates for the flat image by counter-acting the film-out adjustments. This way, the eyes in video village can see a more accurate representation of the final output. Yes it's wacky, but it works! Did we need this setting for the chart and resolution tests? No, but I didn't want to have the Varicam in two drastically different set-ups that would confuse the issue. We did experiment with normal and cine Gamma on the little cameras, but there had to be some baseline.
So, I could have set up the Varicam to look much better subjectively, but it would have performed poorly in the latitude department.
Someone asked what my opinions are about all this.
1. The f900 is my first choice for shooting HD, hands down.
2. The Varicam is a gorgeous camera that is a pleasure to work with, and has some advantages over the f900.
3. I shot the images of the guy playing guitar in the desert, the pool room/bar scene, and dug the HVX200 so much, I bought one.
4. I was dissapointed in the HVX200 performance on the resolution chart.
5. I could care less about chart performance when the image blows me away.
I just got back from Hawaii where I directed a live to tape sporting event for PPV. I needed to get some HD footage of the event for promos down the road. I would have loved to have handed the HVX200 to the shooter, and say "have at it".....but it was a two hour event. No Firestore yet, so I brought my Sony FX1.
Are you shooting a movie? Stop complaining about the P2 card and it's cost. It is not a recording medium, it is a CONTAINER. When I'm going to shoot 40,000 feet of 35mm film, I don't order 100 magazines, I order 4. I put film in them, and when I've used up all the film, some nice young man (or woman) takes the exposed stuff out, and puts new stuff in emulsion side out. It's called turning the mag around, and that's all a p2 card is. It's a thing that holds 4 minutes of footage until you put it in something else, and then empty the container so you can fill it up again.
The really talented filmmakers can tell compelling stories with captivating images using their uncle's super 8 cameras. I've seen "film school" graduates using the best Panavision cameras and a 40 foot grip and 40 foot electric truck crank out the most god-awful images you can imagine.
Cinematographers spend a lot of time testing various stocks and emulsions, along with different filtration and lens choices to create the mood, style, and look of their particular project. We should all approach the tiny camera quest the same way. Pick what you like, not what 32 pages of a thread tells you is right.
Our test was a like dipping your toe in the jacuzzi, there are much more comprehensive tests coming with more real world images, and not just charts.
I did a Varicam shoot today and the camera looked incredible. The DIT's name was Dave Sorenson, and he did a great job. At the end of the shoot I told the Director that I had an HVX200, and asked if he had heard of it. He said, "are you kidding? We tried to rent one for this job, but couldn't find one." Ooops.
Sunday, I have an aerial job with a Sony F950. Tuesday, another Varicam shoot for the new reality TV show "Inked". I have an 11 day shoot with 2 F900's, but I am seriously thinking of doing it with 2 HVX200s. Why? The client simply wants to archive in HD, but finish the project in SD. I know they will be blown away by the pictures, and I can save them some money.
I love the look of the CineAltas, but I see Panasonic making long term business decisions that will ultimately start shifting some of the market share away from Sony. The move away from a spinning drum rubbing on oxide covered tape, is a big step in the right direction. A 1080p Varicam would be another great move.
My point in all this is that these cameras are just hammers. And when you build a house, you use a certain hammer to drive framing nails. When you build a rocking chair, you use a different hammer. I'll have used an FX1, a Varicam, an F950, and an HVX200 all in the span of one week.
After our 6 camera comparison, I could have returned the HVX or sold it or whatever and bought any of the other little cameras. I hate it that the resolution performance was so poor, but I love the pictures that this thing makes and the way it does it. Pick a camera, stop staring at the charts, and make your movie.
Jay
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
:laugh: We must select...and to read some like yours! :thumbsup:Jay Nemeth said:
Regarding your PRO report, I'd like answer you if your opinion is that FX1E/Z1U sucks or not? My problem: HVX or HD100 + Z1U to lowlight & noiseless when necessary. What's your PRO superior advice? Thx in advance!
Jay Nemeth
Member
Emanuel said:
I'm not so sure my report qualifies as "pro", but here's what I think about the FX1. It is an incredible 60i HD camera...........burdened with HDV as the recording format. But even with this limitation, the pictures are just incredible. It has that "picture window" effect we fell in love with when we saw the first NHK HD images back in the 80's. It's 24cf or whatever it's called is useless. If you want the 60i look, this is a great noisefree choice. I have heard of people doing the 60i to film transfer, but haven't seen it myself to know if it's a good choice for that.
It's slow, needs lots of light, that's a big deal to some people. If you're shooting a lot of motion, MPEG2 might be the deal breaker.
Jay
Jay Nemeth
Member
evinsky said:
Always use a metric hammer on cabinets.
Jay
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Thank you very much for your PRO POV! :thumbup:Jay Nemeth said:
Finally, a REAL unbiased opinion! :thumbsup:
Barry knew what he was doing when he invites you to his tests. It's public that I, as the great majority of us, we love our guru and it's not even a problem if we are working with the same equipment or not. Unfortunately, not all dvxuser.com members understand the significance of that way of to be. To be PRO or not, it seems to be the answer. As filmmaker not as techie-vendor. But you are the example of what we need@here. You speak as filmmaker, I'm grateful and this community too (period)
Here there is a useful report (as I don't know if you already read it or if you wish do it) and an open thread available to everyone wants to participate.
My idea: HD100@720p daylight stuff (blowlights handling, latitude, film-like feel, etc.) + Z1U@1080/50i lowlight needs like night footage plus handy doc work-like shooting plus shallow DOF with CineMek's G35 (HD100/Mini35 presents non-acceptable results, besides I like the Sony colors too -- my problem is its softness)
-> 50p -> 25p -> 24p for 35mm film-out purposes.
What do you think about this workflow? My point is the film-look provided for the HD100 & Z1U/G35 and the noisefree of the last one as available as necessary.
It's not the point, I'm in Europe@arthouse production. My point is if I can get a reasonable progressive from the 50i stream@post?...
[Regarding Z1U 'cause concerning HD100 I'm safe from this. Well, but not from uprezzing 720p to 1080i with HD100. However, it will be the same with the HVX variable frame mode use@720p...]
But with these standards will it be enough to get interesting results with 35mm@big_screen?
We know that you worked not with the HD100 unless testing it, however, from your Sony's HDV vs. HDCAM experience, what's your bet?
Thx again for your help and care!
Stevet
Veteran
Great post Jay.
I agree the HVX200 rez results from the dv.com tests are disapointing, but at the
same time a bit confusing.
Looking at some footage I've seen, it sure appears to be higher than those results indicate. I'm not saying the results are inaccurate. They are just puzzling.
Regardless, in the end, it's all about the picture.
Steve
I agree the HVX200 rez results from the dv.com tests are disapointing, but at the
same time a bit confusing.
Looking at some footage I've seen, it sure appears to be higher than those results indicate. I'm not saying the results are inaccurate. They are just puzzling.
Regardless, in the end, it's all about the picture.
Steve
wow.