HVX hungry

smelni said:
hey barry - I beat you to this one :)

But of course you showed the hard evidence - do you save these links in a list to post quickly :)
Click to expand...
No, I had to go search for them -- which is how you beat me! :)
 
KingsReign said:
I the DV article, I remember that the Z1 had the lowest Noise of the cameras, didn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes it was noticeably less noisy than all the others. That was the one thing it did better than the others.
 
area said:
Then, a pixel shift is applied, that causes noise, noise... noise again.
That's all I don't like about this camera.
Click to expand...
You do of course realize that the Sony you're so happy with also uses pixel shift, right? Just so we're clear here...
 
Barry_Green said:
You do of course realize that the Sony you're so happy with also uses pixel shift, right? Just so we're clear here...
Click to expand...

Right Barry, but not on both axis as HVX does, though. And it still starts from a higher resolution (960X1080 Vs. 960X540).
Anyway, I DO NOT love Sony, and I'm not on their payroll.
To be honest, I even hate their snobbish attitude towards competitors, and even customers.
While I love Panasonic's approach, especially towards filmmakers. That's why I had bought a HVX 200 (and I'm not a rich person).
But still, I think HVX can, and MUST be improved. How? I don't know,
maybe a -3db setting like the Varicam would help?
Maybe redesigning the CCDs?

And for sure: A BETTER LCD!!!
 
I am sure the HVX will have an upgrade path to new and better technology. We are just at the starting gate. Now instead of spending $60,000 for a camera that you can make money with you can spend $6,000. That would be about the same as $6,000 x 10 years = $60,000. The most I got out of my $60,000 cameras was about 4-5 years before they became too expensive to fix. And that was pumping in about $1500 per year on heads, etc.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top