HVX or EX1?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

someday

Well-known member
Hi,
i have a problem.

I own the HVX which has a great image look.
But the EX1 has way more resolution and just a little bit less noisy (it is noisy too!)

So i have those choices:

A) i sell the HVX and buy the EX1

B) i keep the HVX and i upgrade from Letus35 to Extreme, i add a Nikon 85mm 1.4, a focus assist, a pair of lights.

I LOVE THE EX1 RESOLUTION; BUT I HATE THE VIDEO LOOK.
Would it be possible to make the EX1 look more filmik successfully?
 
Last edited:
A) is what I did.

"Video look" is a meaningless term when applied to a 24p video camera. As long as the cadence matches film (90% of the "film look," in my professional opinion), the color can be tweaked.

These days, with telecine and DI, film has many looks - it gets strecthed pretty far in all directions. And maybe it's time for a new look?

Buy the EX1. Unless you have issues with the "rolling shutter," the price or the ergonomics, you won't regret it.
 
HVX you already own, CCD (no rolling shutter), (from what I understand) more robust tapeless workflow and takes more full advantage of the tapeless workflow.

EX1, you don't already own. Sharper, Higher res, larger imaging blocks. Better low light,cleaner image overall. Tradeoffs being rolling shutter, higher price tag, things mentioned above.

Just comes down to which you prefer. Absolute best picture you can get under controlled circumstances

or

reliable, repeatable results, with better workflow and ergonomics rather than the best picture out there
 
Jason, just your personal opinion, and you can expand on it as much as you want - specific reasons would be great, but:

If you have neither of the above, but come from extensive experience with the DVX, which of the above two camera would you pick. (Assuming that you do not have a project currently planned in which you KNOW the rolling shutter would harm a scene).

Thanks.
 
The rolling shutter is the only way to raise the shutter speed? Is it visible only on flashes or continue light?
 
I would go B....Then you have a good 35mm adapter, another nice lens and some more useful tools.....

Wait till you see what Panasonic brings out in response! Then choose.
Unless you're in a rush to spend.....
 
someday said:
The rolling shutter is the only way to raise the shutter speed? Is it visible only on flashes or continue light?
Click to expand...

You should watch this clip from Philip Bloom. Especially near the end he shoots various shots of Vegas-style flashing lights. I can't see any problems, and he certianly seems happy with his camera. YOu can also check out these shorts. There are several sections shot without the 35 mm adpater that should give you a fair idea of what the camera can do in the right hands.

I know that I really like the footage that Philip shoots (but he can also make an HV20 sing). I don't own either camera (I have an A1), if I was upgrading today, I would likely choose the EX for the higher res, better LCD, low light, larger capacity cards (more footage) , etc. I am not worried about slo-mo flash bulbs and police lights for my shooting , so far, that seems to be the only tangibe knock I can find. The delay in playback doesn't bother me as I don't do that in the field.

Having said all of that, I am not sure you will get real value out of upgrading from a camera in the same class. For me, either the HVX or the EX is a appreciable upgrade (tapeless workflow, better codecs). Not sure about the leap you are contemplating.

Good luck with your choice.

P.S. If you get a 35mm adapter, I would budget for an external monitor (if you don't already own one). It is very hard to work well without one IMO.
 
Last edited:
What kind of work do you do?
What are you looking for from a camera?
What is the final distribution media of the majority of your work?

Without knowing what you need it's difficult to give any advice.
 
Devon, My desires are going to be different than yours, but here goes. Personal opinion.

Ok. I really love the fact that I can easily edit the DVCPRO HD codec. I can run multiple streams through EDIUS on my laptop and edit all day long without a hiccup. My limited editing experience has always come from that school of drop anything on the timeline and go, so that's one thing that I weigh pretty heavily in my decision, and one reason that long GOP is not very attractive to me. Now, if I just had tons of money to throw around on tip top systems of my choice, then maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue. But, for me... ease of workflow, and edit and saving a lot of time with the tapeless workflow and ease of my NLE handline the footage is a big deal. It's up there on my list. I love that I can stick a card in my laptop and start editing right away, even while the transfer to the hard drive is happening.

Ok, so that's one main thing. Or, two really. Ease of Edit, and workflow benefits. I know what P2 can do, and if I didn't know better I would assume both systems had the same benefits. However, they don't. I've not personally used the EX so take it as you will, but it appears from what I have read about the EX SxS workflow and know about p2, that the P2 workflow is more robust and probably mature (not just b/c it's older)... just sounds like the EX missed the boat on some of the benefits that a tapeless workflow can offer.

When I bought my camera's I switched NLE's only b/c I wanted a system that was going to allow me to take full advantage of the tapeless workflow that P2 offered. I bought into the system entirely and didn't want a setup that would only give me *some* of the benefits. In otherwords, I chose a completely unfamiliar NLE over one that I was familiar with just to accomodate the workflow... just to give you an idea of how important that is to me in my decisions for what I want.

Anyways, off on a tangent there. In those two areas, I would choose HVX.

In picture quality (sharpness, resolution, and clean-ness), an LCD that I can actually focus with (something that is very attractive to me), iris ring on the lens (also quite attractive to me) it's the EX.

So, it's a tough decision. Personally, being able to know what I know from my experiences with the HVX workflow, I know what I would pick.

But, if I were coming from a DVX or whatever, and didn't know much about either system, and price wasn't an issue, I would assume that the tapeless workflow of both systems is the same (but, it isn't... I wouldn't know that if I hadn't used one of them for over a year now). That would leave ease of edit for me and comparing picture quality.

Like I said ease of edit is very important to me. I want to save a lot of time in the workflow and the edit.

This is way longer than I intended it to be :)

If I were ignorant of the differences in workflow, and the picture quality struck me as that much better than the hvx, I might be willing to put aside my ease of edit... But, that would be tough (for me and only me) that's right up there with picture quality for me.

If I knew the differences in the workflow between the HVX and the EX, I would probably give up the picture quality to have my time saving workflow and easier edit.

Way too long, but hopefully you can make heads or tails of it. :)

opinion was asked for and so opinion was given. please take it as such and nothing more. If my opinion is based on incorrect facts, then feel free to clue me in :)

EDIT: Someday - for a better understanding of what rolling shutter is and the difference between cmos and ccd, please check out the articles section. There's a good article by Barry with tons of links to other info on it.

Later,
Jason
 
My desires are going to be different than yours...
Click to expand...

Of course.

...opinion was asked for and so opinion was given. please take it as such and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Perfect. Thank you very much for taking the time for that. I'm looking at systems up to $10k ans as a DVX owner, the HVX was just the logical next step. As news systems come out, however, I certainly need to consider them. That is primarily why I want to hear the opinion of HVX users. While there may be a bit of bias in there, at least there is a comparison with knowledge of a system I had been planning on.

There are three sides to consider and I wouldnt expect any one of them to be "correct". Those sides are:

HVX owner (non EX owner)
HVX owner now EX owner
And EX owner (non HVX owner)

And while the middle group may think they are the only unbiased, all three groups will come with some bias.

Thanks again.
 
The question of resolution seems to be key to most folk about the EX, not unlike the excitement of one digi stills cam over another that increases the mega pixils, with less regard to other factors of digital film look reproduction.

I think if you ask anyone that has bought an hvx, kept an hvx, or gone to buy an EX (such folk never satisfied with the hvx) then are you just seeking to be convinced? Because nobody will be that objective lol.

You already have a very objective comparison of the hvx and ex from barry green.

If i was a filmmaker i think the hvx (given depreciative value $) would be money saved, instead by investing in accessories such as the adapter, or a monitor and others, that stretc its potential even further - IF digital filmmaking is your goal.

To work regressively with a variant for of the hdv codec, and the issues it has in workflow (imo) compared to the ease now in which hd dvc pro can be edited, is a headache i can do without.

As a filmmaker I light my work, so the light hungry hvx (as some would exaggerate) is not a concern. Lit - it produces the most beautiful filmic images i have seen from a $10k under cam. With reduced p2 card prices, new models and so many accessories in design and being designed, its just got an incredible future.

Those that say - it doesnt matter that the EX is video looking because all video cameras are - simply in denial. The success of the dvx and the hvx for filmmakers has rested on a unique aesthetic look, not just in cadence but in colour reproduction and many others, that resembles that all so sought after filmic look. The truth of this is obvious, its why the cameras have been a success, and why the images it creates are credible 'filmic' look to ordinary audiences. Some may try to deny this, but the truth rests simply with the success of the cameras and of the micro films produced on them.

So, unless your getting excited by numbers alone, I would if i don't have access to test an ex, wait to see what films come out on it. The bloom stuff is gorgeous but, it is nice looking sharp video to me. Certainly the EX comes with more design compromises that would make me uneasy!

So if you are looking for the cam that can make corporates and creative films i'd enhance your HVX package.

If you high resolution 'video' look footage, useful for corporates, reality style tv, most documentaries, and are doing videography (where the 1/2 chips help!) then go with the EX.
 
Last edited:
Well I went for (A) this week and haven't regretted it at all.
Some good points have been made on this thread, and really it's down to you in what you are going to use the camera for.

As for EX1 workflo with FCP, it couldn't be easier. It imports in simply and edits simply, same as P2.

The camera is well built, similar in weight to the HVX and a tad shorter. It produces magnificient images. I also think that it can produce beautiful film like images in its 24P mode. Colour is tweakable so once I have owned it and got used to its settings I bet I can produce an identical image to the HVX, albeit sharper due to the superior lens and half inch chips.

With the added bonus of longer recording times on SxS cards (70 mins on a 16 Gb card) and Sandisk also producing them, the price of SxS cards is likely to get quite low soon.

Its your decision at the end of the day, and you are asking the question on a Panasonic forum!
 
Ich I mean im getting another hvx for my company, while you steve are happy with your EX purchase so, when it comes down to it, as is obvious, there are folk passionate, confident and utterly chuffed with their models.

I disagree with the quality of the image, its higher res but at the cost of qualities that endear me to the image and cadence produced by the hvx. Likewise mem cards are getting bigger and cheaper for p2 too, a tapless industry format that is more widely supported.

The size of the pannie forum is testimony really to the number of users, and filmmakers who have already invested in the qualities of, namely the dvx and hvx.

However neither camera is plainly 'bad' or would produce 'rubbish' in the hands of a skilled operator.

In fact, I can't help but think its rather lazy to simply post 'which is best?' hehe, because already there is stacks of information about the hvx, and stuff coming in from the EX, while such posts rarely get more than rhetoric and repeated expressions of opinion.

If your a filmmaker wait for EX short films etc, see what you like about them, talk to the filmmakers on what they did. The opinions of EX owners, and HVX owners are KNOWN. Bar the odd juvenile remark of the excited new purchaser hehe the facts themselves, are already out there.
 
someday said:
The rolling shutter is the only way to raise the shutter speed? Is it visible only on flashes or continue light?
Click to expand...
No, the rolling shutter has nothing to do with shutter speed. It has to do with the WAY the frame gets exposed, and its effects are by no means limited to flashes! It can affect panning, tilting, motion matching, any moving shot. It can be affected by strobe lights, flashes, low-frequency fluorescent lights, maybe even HMIs. It can be affected by vibration. There are lots of things a rolling shutter can do to your footage, and you'd be best served to educate yourself on what the rolling shutter does and how it can affect you. I took the time to write up an article on it, as I believe the Rolling Shutter is the most significant change to affect video shooters (in a negative way) since the introduction of long-GOP. It'll work fine for many circumstances, but it'll fail in others, and if you're intending on using rolling shutter cams you'd better know what those circumstances are.

http://www.dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD
 
Barry_Green said:
No, the rolling shutter has nothing to do with shutter speed.
Click to expand...

Barry, with all due respect - you're wrong in this statement. When you set shutter OFF (i.e. make it equal to the lenght of time of a single full frame), the partial exposure from flash and alike is greatly reduced if not eleminated.
 
lawriejaffa said:
The truth of this is obvious, its why the cameras have been a success, and why the images it creates are credible 'filmic' look to ordinary audiences. Some may try to deny this, but the truth rests simply with the success of the cameras and of the micro films produced on them.
Click to expand...


I have been around film for the past 20 years. 16m and 35mm. For projection and to Telecine for broadcast. I have DP'd and hired DP's form all over the place. I've shot at frame rates form 3 fps to 2200 fps. with shutter angles as varied. The HVX, while a great camera, does not look like film. It looks like a different kind of video.

We have always strived to achieve the most detailed, properly exposed negative possible (except the super low frame rate stuff) knowing that we had the tools available in post to manipulate the image to our liking. I chose the EX1 for that very reason. I want as much resolution as possible.

Then as we say, we'll fix it in post.

vince
 
Vince - yes, agree 100%

Once you have the time sampling the same, the rest is all about what you do with it in post. There is nothing about the HVX's image that can't be replicated (and improved upon in my opinion) by the EX1 with the right workflow.

The only key difference is the so called "rolling shutter." That is a fundamental difference, but not one that should detract from the "film look," given that film cameras have a form of rolling shutter, approximately (yes - even Panavision cameras can get "partial exposure" from stray camera flashes).

One argument in favor of the HVX is that is gives such a good look "out of the box." I think this is 100% true, but there are so many controls you can tweak within a few minutes of unboxing the EX1 and in post, a few hours after unboxing it.

The goal with film technology (which I have also used for 20+ years) has always been greater fidelity, sharpness, noiselessness/low light capability. Only since video started threatening film (first in industrial and news in the early 80s, and now for feature production) did the "film look" come into play as a marketing tool to delay it from being outmoded.

I am in favor of the new look that all of these cameras offer, with their amazing sharpness, depth of field and so forth, rather than trying to hold on to the "film look." But if you must make your video look like film, the EX1 is just as capable at the HVX. More capable if you want to make it look like 35mm film rather than 16mm.
 
gaffney film said:
The truth of this is obvious, its why the cameras have been a success, and why the images it creates are credible 'filmic' look to ordinary audiences. Some may try to deny this, but the truth rests simply with the success of the cameras and of the micro films produced on them.
Click to expand...
I have been around film for the past 20 years. 16m and 35mm. For projection and to Telecine for broadcast. I have DP'd and hired DP's form all over the place. I've shot at frame rates form 3 fps to 2200 fps. with shutter angles as varied. The HVX, while a great camera, does not look like film. It looks like a different kind of video.
Click to expand...

You did read the red marked part, right?
 
In my experience doing this, ordinary audiences don't really notice (or care about) a credible film look.

Anyway, not nearly as much as we do.

Audiences have been trained to associate 24 frame cadence, crushed blacks etc. with high quality because on television, the "feature presentation" has these qualities, while the soaps and news do not. But most of that look is temporal. Color, gamma etc. are only a small component of the film look. The TV viewer has lots of control over this aspects of your imagery but no control over the cadence - that's the constant.

The EX1 can do the 24fps cadence just as well as the HVX.
 
If at all possible: Rent an EX-1. Strap your Letus to it, spend a few hours playing with it and matching it to your HVX.

Then? Go out and shoot in daylight with the adapter and without, plug both into your HDTV (if you have one) directly from Camera and see which image you like better. Shoot at night, test the stuff that excites you about the EX-1.

Test various shutter speeds, motion, etc. Nothing scientific. In the end, the one that you like the most is the one that you should choose.

Much better solution than askin' other people is findin' out for yourself. I mean, it's YOUR money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top