cheezweezl
Veteran
i spotted the genesis once but other than that they looked the same...
although i can always spot the genesis on the big screen. for tv or dvd though, very close to film.
HPX500 is video - say it like it is
- Thread starter shivrajs
- Start date
i spotted the genesis once but other than that they looked the same...
although i can always spot the genesis on the big screen. for tv or dvd though, very close to film.
we are lucky to have someone like you patiently answering questions and allegations...
BTW do you have any secret info on a adapter/relay lens for the HPX? and or footage...
Thank you,
shivraj
Adam J McKay
Veteran
I have watched some films that I didn't know were genesis in theaters. I could tell with superbad, and I think it would be much easier to tell with digital projection, but as far as transfering to film goes they are pretty close.
Then again, were talking about panavision.
Then again, were talking about panavision.
always feel like any hot highlights in the frame are a dead giveaway on digital...
joe 1008
Veteran
I see on your homepage that you got an HPX with a wide Angenieux lens. A bit offtopic but: Is this lens also long enough to provide you shallow DOF?
cheezweezl
Veteran
it's funny you say that. when i saw superbad and i saw the blowout from the light coming thru the windows at the grocery store, i immediately thought "genesis". i went home and pulled it up on imdb and yep....
what is funny though is when i saw cloverfield digitally projected, allthough the whole movie looked digital, it had a consistant look. funny because i know they used the genesis, the viper, and the HVX200!! pretty cool that they got the hvx to look that good.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Film vs digital is not very complex. But we can't say a single parameter will give the film look. I would say that in the right hands a low compression I-frame ccd 2/3" camera such as this one, is perfectly capable of being filmic.
It's a little out of topic, but I will explain my view.
1) Progressive scan for 24p. Most cameras have it today and if it's sampled every 1/24sec it looks right.
2) Exposure technique. CCDs have global exposure, rolling shutter CMOS can look strange in some situations. Film actually sits somewhere in the middle so CCD is actually better that film in this department.
3) Saturation quality. Large pixel CCDs have it, CMOS usually needs a lot of correction to emulate the richness of color, especially in low light and high sensitivity modes.
4) Motion quality. CCds have it. CMOS can distort motion due to rolling shutter. Uncompressed video has excellent motion. Compressed video, especially GOP can have it if it's not hugely compressed. As an exmple HDV has unnatural softness in motion. CCD and uncompressed/low compression recording = problem solved.
5) Resolution. Not very important. 16mm is filmic. Ultra soft 8mm is filmic. Today's HD is similar to 16mm or better, so no problem there.
6) Shallow DOF. Not very important. Lots of cinema masterpieces do not even contain a single shallow DOF shot and they still look very filmic. Most older films have an infinite DOF look in most scenes. Anyway, 2/3" cameras have serious shallow DOF capability with the right lenses.
7) Production value, photography, camera motion, etc. Extremely important. The video production will probably lack in these departments due to lack of money, crew, equipment etc.
8) Exposure tolerance. Extremely important. Being a digital medium using AD converters, the exposure needs precise control and some headroom to not saturate the ADs but still get a high level signal. Everything above a point is lost, so we stay away from that point. Film is VERY forgiving in that department, and the penalty is usually noise not lost image information. Digital needs control and precision.
9) Dynamic range. Not very important these days. The new sensors in professional camcorders are very capable at 10 to 11stops and have gamma curves that get close to film dynamic range. Most film scenes are not lit to go that far in contrast ratio. When there appears to be a problem in dynamic range, the previous factor (overexposure tolerance) is to blame. Film shooting is more likely to make good use of gradated ND filters (up to +3 stops tolerance in a bright sky perhaps) and filters in windows and control lighting better.
10) Color precision and overall look, skin tones etc. CCD is very capable if the camera is properly engineered. With the affordable in camera and post processing we have today, even CMOS can get filmic color quality.
11) Sensor artifacts, smear for CCD and rolling shutter for CMOS. Avoid bright lights pointing directly to the camera and the large pixel CCD is very filmic. If it's an 1/6" consumer ccd it will probably smear with anything, so it will be useless.
It's a little out of topic, but I will explain my view.
1) Progressive scan for 24p. Most cameras have it today and if it's sampled every 1/24sec it looks right.
2) Exposure technique. CCDs have global exposure, rolling shutter CMOS can look strange in some situations. Film actually sits somewhere in the middle so CCD is actually better that film in this department.
3) Saturation quality. Large pixel CCDs have it, CMOS usually needs a lot of correction to emulate the richness of color, especially in low light and high sensitivity modes.
4) Motion quality. CCds have it. CMOS can distort motion due to rolling shutter. Uncompressed video has excellent motion. Compressed video, especially GOP can have it if it's not hugely compressed. As an exmple HDV has unnatural softness in motion. CCD and uncompressed/low compression recording = problem solved.
5) Resolution. Not very important. 16mm is filmic. Ultra soft 8mm is filmic. Today's HD is similar to 16mm or better, so no problem there.
6) Shallow DOF. Not very important. Lots of cinema masterpieces do not even contain a single shallow DOF shot and they still look very filmic. Most older films have an infinite DOF look in most scenes. Anyway, 2/3" cameras have serious shallow DOF capability with the right lenses.
7) Production value, photography, camera motion, etc. Extremely important. The video production will probably lack in these departments due to lack of money, crew, equipment etc.
8) Exposure tolerance. Extremely important. Being a digital medium using AD converters, the exposure needs precise control and some headroom to not saturate the ADs but still get a high level signal. Everything above a point is lost, so we stay away from that point. Film is VERY forgiving in that department, and the penalty is usually noise not lost image information. Digital needs control and precision.
9) Dynamic range. Not very important these days. The new sensors in professional camcorders are very capable at 10 to 11stops and have gamma curves that get close to film dynamic range. Most film scenes are not lit to go that far in contrast ratio. When there appears to be a problem in dynamic range, the previous factor (overexposure tolerance) is to blame. Film shooting is more likely to make good use of gradated ND filters (up to +3 stops tolerance in a bright sky perhaps) and filters in windows and control lighting better.
10) Color precision and overall look, skin tones etc. CCD is very capable if the camera is properly engineered. With the affordable in camera and post processing we have today, even CMOS can get filmic color quality.
11) Sensor artifacts, smear for CCD and rolling shutter for CMOS. Avoid bright lights pointing directly to the camera and the large pixel CCD is very filmic. If it's an 1/6" consumer ccd it will probably smear with anything, so it will be useless.
Last edited:
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
There are a number of guys on this list that have made films with the HPX and for that matter the HVX. There were films that debuted at Sundance that were made on the HVX. I have images made with the HPX, but I am not able to post them anywhere as that is outside of the Permission that I was given on the image use, which was to play it at shows.
Best,
Jan
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Yes, although if I want to compress space a significant amount, I switch out to a Canon J series 20x SD lens.
Buck Forester
Well-known member
I haven't seen any video from the HPX500, but I would think you could get real nice shallow DOF action with 2/3" chips with a good, fast lens.
steviestefan
Member
As many guys here mentioned, i believe the HPX500 is far better that the HVX200 in emulating film. It is therefore one's ability to scratch deep into his brains to grab the best of settings coupled with good paraphernalia like the adapters, good lenses and good knowledge of what you really think is the right look of film. but the mark between the super 16mm has been surpassed long time, a lot of guys will still agree that most hpx500 footages with good settings & primes and lighting look pretty better than the traditional super 16.
Also somebody mentioned about the hvx500 at 720p getting close to super 16, was that with the adapter or it was with the SD lenses? The later would be correct.
Also somebody mentioned about the hvx500 at 720p getting close to super 16, was that with the adapter or it was with the SD lenses? The later would be correct.