HD100 vs. HVX on the Las Vegas Strip

Thanks Barry!

Those comparison shots were real eye openers. With JVCs comeback (from recent reviews favoring its performance), I started to question my decision to back the HVX. I believe Panasonic got it right (for me at least) when it came to workflow, ergonomics and compression (DVCPro), but I wasn't sure of the actual image and its resolution. However, after looking at those images you posted, I was amazed of the differences in quality between the two. Good stuff!

Thanks again.
 
Justyn said:
I shot a christian concert this morning and I was blown away by the results. The same band I've shot 20 times in SD.... and now it looks like it was off MTV.. BET... VH1. Just simply stunning under concert lighting.... I'm also so so so happy at the cameras ability to resolve our most deadly enemy.. RED CONCERT lighting. It's not just a bloody red blur with no discernable features... It's beautiful red with details and highlights... Enough to tickle anyone's fancy....


I was also able to record for over 2 hours with the P2store. It's so easy and not nearly as big of a pain as I thought it would be....
Click to expand...

Hey Justyn - I guess this is off-topic, and maybe should be a new thread - but can you provide some more detail on this? I'm very interested in stage-lit, live situations - can you talk about your settings and workflow some more? Thanks!
 
If you want to use these tests to make the argument that the HVX looks HD in these situations that's fine, but to go on from that and conclude other things doesn't seem accurate to me.

This almost makes me want to go to Vegas and run this test myself... it's a cool test.

I think it's accurate when it's said that the HVX at +7 is about like the JVC at -6. -6 looks oversharpened to me though, -7 or min is probably better.

To me, better tests are when you try to make each camera perform their best as opposed to making them theoretically look alike. Unfortunately that means you'd really have to be well versed in each camera to do a good comparison. You probably won't set your detail to +7 on the HVX due to the noise despite the extra sharpness... so the net reality is it looks softer in many situations. That's my experience anyway. (Individual units may perform differently. I saw that in 35mm camera gear all the time.)

Shoot different scene files, focal lengths and exposures and THEN take a look at your results. In this test a particular HD-100 scene file was chosen. I'm not sure that would be the optimium HD-100 scene file for this test. But the HVX scene file appears to be close to what I think of as the best HVX setting for me so far. You'd really have to do exposure tests to see where each camera performed best... it's pretty clear the HVX wanted to be just about where it was but that doesn't mean the HD-100 necessarily would.

In my continued HVX testing I've found the Cine-D/CineLike with +2 or +3 chroma looks pretty good on my HVX. My horrible Rennaisance stuff was all Cine-V. It turns out that's a really bad setting for bright daylight and vibrant colors (contrastier and chroma at -2). Once I got a Gretag/MacBeth Color Chart up alongside a resolution chart it became a lot easier to see what was going on with the standard HVX scene files and then tweak those. I can see why people like DSC Labs charts, vectorscopes and really nice HD Monitors around. :-)

I think it would be smart for any of these camera companies to let users have software program access to gamma curves and settings. Then you'd really see people squeezing the best stuff out of them.

I don't think any of these cameras is a category killer. I hoped the HVX would be when I bought it. I don't find the HVX to be particular easy to focus, whereas I do find the HD-100 incredibly easy and accurate by comparison. It turns out that's a really big deal if you just want to grab your camera and shoot some guerilla handheld where you're tracking moving objects.

To finish - I read one cinematographer say something like "Grab the cameras and go with the one that feels best in your hands. If you love your camera you'll make the best pictures with it despite what any spec sheet says."

Maybe that's what it comes down to.
 
I am currently using the hvx as an additional camera on a 2 hour television movie for the lifetime channel. Our main cameras are panavised cinealta 900/3 . we had a fairly long steadicam shot set up and we had a few minutes of a wait so I ran the hvx (handheld) with the stand ins. We shot it 1080/24p. i played it back with the steadicam shot and it was almost indistinguishable from the sony with the panavision glass. It was extremely impressive. the DP, gaffer and myself were amazed at the quality of the 1/3 chip and 24p of this camera. I would have liked to take the classic soft off the sony for unfiltered comparison, but the 1080 image of the hvx was as sharp as the cinealta. I had not realized how good this camera looked because I hadn't had a good Hd monitor to look at it with. This camera is so good that we are shooting a splinter unit with it.

I am convinced that this camera is a good additional camera and certainly strong enough for most braodcast applications. So let the techies tweak and the stoners stone.

cheers
 
ullanta said:
Hey Justyn - I guess this is off-topic, and maybe should be a new thread - but can you provide some more detail on this? I'm very interested in stage-lit, live situations - can you talk about your settings and workflow some more? Thanks!
Click to expand...


Ullanta.. I sent you a PM about what I've done so far and i'd be happy to share, but I'm still shaky on the best settings and overall workflow. Still not able to cut until I get FCP 5 bundle. I know we'd all benefit from a thread.. and will be so cool to be able to download the scene files.

I'll post some footage soon. I have so much crap I have shot and besides seeing it live, I haven't had the chance to edit.. do any CC or savor the glory... especially since I mostly have been using the viewfinder in B and W. I think I've shot about 50 cards worth of material.. and I have 2 clients crap in the midst of that. I'll be out of town for a few days and back to shooting HD after that. I have to do a live 4x3 switch streamed to the web.. certainly will be LD.. Low def. AAAAAGHHHH.
 
endmarks said:
I am currently using the hvx as an additional camera on a 2 hour television movie for the lifetime channel. Our main cameras are panavised cinealta 900/3 . we had a fairly long steadicam shot set up and we had a few minutes of a wait so I ran the hvx (handheld) with the stand ins. We shot it 1080/24p. i played it back with the steadicam shot and it was almost indistinguishable from the sony with the panavision glass. It was extremely impressive. the DP, gaffer and myself were amazed at the quality of the 1/3 chip and 24p of this camera. I would have liked to take the classic soft off the sony for unfiltered comparison, but the 1080 image of the hvx was as sharp as the cinealta. I had not realized how good this camera looked because I hadn't had a good Hd monitor to look at it with. This camera is so good that we are shooting a splinter unit with it.

I am convinced that this camera is a good additional camera and certainly strong enough for most braodcast applications. So let the techies tweak and the stoners stone.

cheers
Click to expand...


That is good news. My buddy Jethro said the same thing.. and that the HVX was very very close to the quality of the cinealta..
 
Man the HVX looks so much better in everyway compared to the JVC. Better resolution, better color, more accurate color, just a better overall look, more lattitude. The JVC had terrible CA on headlights and bright lights, broke up bad on fine gradients, etc... Hell my Sony Digital8 looks better than the JVC did.

And these were just still shots. I have yet to see any side by side comparisons on moving footage between the 4 cameras but that's OK I don't need to the HVX wins hands down!
 
Barry_Green said:
I got all rankled up by someone on another forum suggesting that the HVX is barely more than standard-def.

Strap on the gloves, boys, and let's go boxin'.
Click to expand...

Well I guess they did annoy you... remind me not to piss you off... :-)

Seriously, nice work... you didn't mention it specifically, but you also showed the major problem that we experienced with HDV and smoke. The overall color cast is also something we saw. Holding detail under theatrical light changes is also an area where HDV has challenges... all of which your shots showed...
 
Anders Holck said:
Just my 2c:
The luma res is so close, but the fidelety of the color in the HVX shot is just so much better.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the vertical smearing... your shots show it even better. Some people will say "I don't shoot lights" but it happens with any specular highlight... like anything with chrome!
 
Justyn said:
I was also able to record for over 2 hours with the P2store. It's so easy and not nearly as big of a pain as I thought it would be....
Click to expand...

So, you were able to switch P2 cards without jostling the camera? I haven't quite figured out how to change them without moving the camera...
 
Cuantos the Wrestler said:
Very nice Barry.

The very first thing I noticed was the detail of the bosom on the billboard in HVX-Strip-1. Look at the shadow and 3-D feel of the HVX where as the JVC muddled the red dress into a flat splat (HD-100-Strip-1).
Click to expand...

I missed that... that's an important one... complete loss of detail in that dress...
 
Barry_Green said:
Magnificent illustration. My friend just bought a Lotus Esprit Turbo. It's a four-cylinder. It's a world-class supercar, but it's a little four cylinder turbo. It is, shall we say, fast! :)
Click to expand...

The Lotus Elise Turbo, has a 4-cylinder Toyota Cellica engine in it. It's amazing the performance they got out of software (EMS) with the relatively humble stock power plant. It's mind-boggling performance for a car that gets an average of 36 MPG! The Esprit is awesome set of wheels too.

Speaking of sharing parts, electronics manufacturers often purchase parts and pieces from each other to make camcorders and other consumer electronics. It helps a lot with keeping costs down.

I remember reading a review of a popular Panasonic camcorder, where the reviewer complained about the viewfinder. I know for a fact that the LCD viewfinder component was actually manufactured by Sony (got to see the inside when the cam was destroyed on Dust to Glory)

The DSP on the HVX is quite clean and it's one of major factors separating the look of the HVX from the other cameras on the market. Say what you want about the lens or native resolution of the HVX, think of the DSP as the ECU/EMS on the Elise Turbo.

I.
 
I missed that... that's an important one... complete loss of detail in that dress...
Click to expand...

Interestingly that was the first thing I noticed (What's on my mind? :happy: )

The difference is night and day.
 
The two things I noticed first were the dress and drink detail in the LED wall - it's a dramatic contrast between the two. The HVX seems to render a very realistic image of that frame. There is considerably more visible graduation in the HVX still of the LED wall.

The 4:2:0 doesn't hold up here - I also wonder about what this indicates from a contrast ratio capability. Her blue drink has a flatly rendered result in the HD100, while the HVX turns in notably deeper looking graduation. The garnish in the HVX is clearly a lemon twist, while the HD100 is a... uh... white spot?

Your eyes cannot help but fixate on the vertical smearing in the street lights, chromic abberration in the headlights and general loss of information around highlighted areas with the JVC.

What is remarkable is how the rampart wall is a blue blob on the JVC. Of course, as Barry said, the explosions really seal the deal.

Great work on this, I'm even more energized about the HVX for having looked as these pictures.

e
 
Last edited:
Well, how about the rottary engine of the Mazda RX-7? It's a 1300cc engine that can get your car to 270KM/h!
 
Couple of things...

Please post the raw stuff. The m2t's and the MXF please, not the transcode. I'd like to take a look.
I though you knew to shoot the stock lens on an HD-100 @ F2.8 to F4. F1.4 certainly will be CA riddled on the stock lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top