HVX or EX1?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simon Höfer said:
You did read the red marked part, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. It means nothing. You cannot claim film look for a market segment. Either it looks like film or it doesn't. I say nope. The question is hvx or ex1. My answer is EX1. In fact, I like it so much I put my XL H1 up for sale.

vince
 
My God, you are all great! Thanks to all for your infinite pecious suggestions.

I try to answer to all toghether:

I hate with all my heart the video look and all those movies filmed with Genesis and so on.
I LOVE the film look for it's colorimetry, latitude, d.o.f., resolution, frame rate.

I'm aware that the only way to acheive that is to use an Arriflex and hire a great camera assistent and D.P.

I deciced instead, for now to avoid film, because my name is not Mr. Universal....

So i need a "cheap" camera that can acheive a look that IS NOT a perfect film look, because i'ts impossible, but has some great film features.

So i added a Letus to have that fantastic d.o.p.
I choosed a progressive camera not only for the great film effect, but because progressive footage has TWICE the resolution of interlaced footage (moving objects only)

I choosed the HVX200 because it was the only camera to offer all that (workflow has no meaning for me, picture aesthetics is the only thing that matters to me (and budget..!!) ) and to have GREAT COLORS AND COLORIMETRY.

All other video cameras produce so.... poor, cheap, videoish, UGLY colors (even the Genesis).

BUT: the HVX200 has so much noise, banding, and perfect resolution for downrez to SD, but noth good resolution for HD broadcasting.

My clients today don't need HD because the TV companies here in Switzerland do only partial or no HD broadcasting, and will switch to HD only in 2-3 years.

So my decision is a combat.....
 
I look at footage shot on the hvx, particularly films with the adapters and other goodies (grading etc) and when it comes together it works well to convince me im watching something that could have originated on film.

While Philip Blooms stuff hasn't - it looks great and is shot in a manner that avoids any of the greatest criticisms of the image reproduction of the EX, but nonetheless, good though it looked, it didnt have the same effect on me.

Gaffney, i think its self evident that the filmlook market segment of video cameras is more or less dominated by panny and the reptutation of the revolutionary dvx and hvx designs! Thats why other cam makers too have pursued first progressive frame rates, and solid state media etc

Mathew77, audiences don't care about a 'credible' film look? Thanks for the revelation, we can all dump our progressive cams, 35mm adapters, any dof tweaking in after-effects and grading and return to the VX1000! Yey ;) hehe

Its biggest advantage is 'sharpness' and the EX does this in thee most video like form, other cams don't. The filmic look is an aesthetic not based on the detail or resolution of an image, but yumminess and mojo it has. The HVX captures an immense amount of detail, and is a great HD camera for delivering 1080 or 720 for broadcast...

The EX is sharper, the reason some of u guys are jumping abou it, but for me i guess, if i was wanting to go up a league in resolution, it would really be with a more sophisticated camera than the ex, one without the incredible compromises its design has, or its irritating workflow. It just feels like a design that is stetching on its tiptoes imo...

So there is no definate winner, which sadly is what would be enquirers are often looking for presently on the forum!
 
Last edited:
Try this,
Borrow, rent, just get hold of an EX1. Take it to a theater play, or show under stage lighting. You will be blown away with the quality. The colors, and low noise are nothing short of amazing.

Also, as much as it will continue, I'm not sure why so much between the HVX200 and EX1. Since the EX1 is less than two months old, there's not much out.
The HVX200 has had a couple years of many cranking out decent footage.

When you get your hands on one of these and really get a chance to use it, it's easy to see why so many are selling their current cameras for the EX1.

If you absolutely can't live with the rolling shutter, this camera is not for you.

As far as winner, I did not know there was a contest. ;) These are only tools, they all make good images.
 
Well so far what ive seen hasnt blown me away into ordering one, but im still looking forward to testing one. I can see why folk get excited by the res benefit in particular! I mean you saw how that effected the marketing of digi slrs!

To say the hvx has been 'cranking out' decent footage does it a disservice, its pretty much revolutionised things, in image quality and workflow, so when i look to this new cam, (and i want to like it cos id buy it too if it rocked hugely) im just dissapointed its not made the same breakthrough.

I've not heard any professionals sing the praises of the EX as revolutionary or so much that it is the obvious camera of choice.

So of course test both cameras, for my buck you'll be amazed by the hvx colour reproduction, filmic looks, better ergonomics, easier workflow and better implimentation of solid state - and no rolling shutter issues :)

(The hvx is noisy though its hungry for light!)
 
Come'on man, the EX1 has been out two months.....LOL!!!

Also, Of course higher rez is better...
Try this test. Insert a 720x480 image in 1920x1080 framed window.
That small image has a net amount of pixels to make up the framed image.

Now, how is that smaller image going to look if you have to blow it up to fill the larger window (1920x1080).... Not well, for sure...LOL

lawriejaffa said:
To say the hvx has been 'cranking out' decent footage does it a disservice, its pretty much revolutionised things, in image quality and workflow, so when i look to this new cam, (and i want to like it cos id buy it too if it rocked hugely) im just dissapointed its not made the same breakthrough.
Click to expand...

You're joking right.... I gave the HVX200 a compliment....LOL!!!
Also, the HVX200 is where it is today since it WAS the only camera to offer an excellent feature package in a portable sub $10K package.

Don't worry I like the HVX200, although we sold it a month after owning it.
 
Last edited:
There both 1080p cams, with different ways of producing their image, and yes we know the ex has a higher resolution form of reproducing the image. Trust me i know lol i've seen the footage and it looks great on the sticks, and a bit funny off the sticks to me, with peculiar differences in colour reproduction, compression and rolling shutter artifacts.

So I prefer to imagine how that would look on a big screen not just the resolution... LOL

So don't worry, I do like the EX, just skipping it to buy a 2nd hvx and an hpx500 ;)

Handbags at dawn! lol


- sarcasm aside,

If the EX is weaker imo in areas then it obviously excells in others, and if i can learn how to bring the best bits (that it does and the hvx doesnt) then that would still be a great investment for my business. That is namely the high resolution, which could have great application for a variety of projects yep! Because having that in a camera of the EX's price is a big achievement,

I mean the hvx is cheap, and in the 'real world' so is the EX, there prosumers (if we're being honest) that can both deliver way way way above their weight.

So If I may steve, if I can pm you tomorrow with some questions about specific application I'd have for it, then you can let me know your opinion etc.

Cheers!
 
Yes, and the EX has more resolution BUT A LOT OF NOISE TOO!
I imported some EX raw footage and tweaked it in FCP.
Maybe it's the codec, but the already present and way disturbing noise became much stronger.
Remember that any MP4 footage out there in the web has no noise because those clips have half the resolution of the original clip and virtually all the noise disappears.
Don't trust mp4 footage, noise is masked and mp4 artifacts are too relevant.
So as i ALREADY have the HVX, and only for 6 months, i'm not shure that i want to trash other 4k to buy a camera that has just some more resolution, but nothing else.

I'm almost decided that i will simply wait for a new camera generation from either brand or any else, but that can really make the difference.


In fact i want THIS and THIS quality.... :violin:
 
Last edited:
lawriejaffa said:
Mathew77, audiences don't care about a 'credible' film look? Thanks for the revelation, we can all dump our progressive cams, 35mm adapters, any dof tweaking in after-effects and grading and return to the VX1000! Yey ;) hehe

Its biggest advantage is 'sharpness' and the EX does this in thee most video like form, other cams don't. The filmic look is an aesthetic not based on the detail or resolution of an image, but yumminess and mojo it has. The HVX captures an immense amount of detail, and is a great HD camera for delivering 1080 or 720 for broadcast...
Click to expand...

Yumminess and Mojo are great, but I'd rather have control over how yummy and mojoriffic my images are, in shooting and in post, rather than rely on my camera to create that yummerific mojofantastic look.

There is NOTHING that can be done on an HVX that can't be done with an EX1, except as regards the rolling shutter. Send me two images of the same scene shot on both cameras and I can grade them to appear identical. Except that the EX1 will have the option to make the image sharper (or not, if I choose).

You completely misunderstand what I mean about "credible film look." Cadence is very important and your VX1000 cannot do 24p. So I don't know what you are talking about there. The other aspects of the "film look" (the more mystical ones) are not noticed or understood by most audiences. And audiences are subject to very un-filmlike grading of film material since the advent of DI.

Film has amazing dynamic range compared to video. But the HVX does not have nearly the dynamic range of film and hence can never really look like it. Yet the EX1 has more dynamic range (for the same amount of noise) than the HVX, so it will likely get closer.

Regarding your comment: "I've not heard any professionals sing the praises of the EX as revolutionary or so much that it is the obvious camera of choice."

I am a professional. I have owned both cameras. I have shot film for decades. Count me as one professional who thinks the EX1 is a better camera than the HVX. I have no idea why HVX owners cannot grasp that the EX1 can maybe, possibly, be a better camera than the HVX. Actually try shooting with one instead of reading about it and maybe you'll agree with me.
 
gaffney film said:
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
Click to expand...

Good post Vince.

How anyone can say the HVX looks more like film than a Genesis is really odd. There is an inherent softness in the HVX HD image for obvious reasons. But colour reproduction and everything is really something that can be altered so much in post.
 
someday said:
Yes, and the EX has more resolution BUT A LOT OF NOISE TOO!
Remember that any MP4 footage out there in the web has no noise because those clips have half the resolution of the original clip and virtually all the noise disappears.
Don't trust mp4 footage, noise is masked and mp4 artifacts are too relevant.
Click to expand...

I had an HVX, I had so much noise in the images, all my sub $10,000 suffered noise to some extent. The EX1 is certainly not way worse, it is much better, it helps to be able to have -3db setting for gain.

As someone who has posted some of those MP4 footage, yes some noise does disappear when posting to the web. But there is hardly any to start with. There are picture profiles for all cameras which help minimise this. Find out what they are for your camera if noise bothers you, which it does for me!
 
Last edited:
Michael Friedman said:
You say that as if you are being offered a reasonable argument. The comments around the EX are approaching full blown hysteria.

In case you haven't heard, when you press record on an HVX, they immediately hand you an Academy Award. When you try it on an EX, your camera bursts into flames and you are thrown into jail. I don't know what Sony was thinking...
Click to expand...

I have to say this is my first hand experience of something like this.

I have been shooting for about 19 years professionally. But only really started looking at cameras other than Betacam in the past 3 years. Sure I have used DVCPro cameras, XDCAM and DVCAM cameras for my professional work but until a year and a half ago it was almost exclusively Betacam of some variety.

When I came to buying my first "cheap camera" I went with a Z1, I got it at a stupidly low price and EVERYONE uses them in the industry in the UK. I liked the HD picture but missed the lack of progressive.

I then bought an HVX. Loved the picture, the timelpase, the overcrank, the image. HATED the LCD screen, the fiddly buttons and menus, the 8 minutes per card and the high prices of them so all I could afford was two cards.

I shot a lot of stuff for Channel 4 in conjunction with a full size DSR for a series. I used the HVX with the Brevis and got some wonderful stuff from it. It is where my "Homeless Portraits" short originated. But, I always had to lug my Marshall around making the point of having a small camera not so great. Yes i understand lots of people use these cameras with adaptors and monitors for drama, when you can take your time and have help. For me it was always too fiddly and cumbersome.

Then JVC brought out the HD200 series. I bought the HD201e as was so thrilled to have something that flipped the image, was a proper camera in feel. Loved the organic picture quality and the LCD was not half bad. I still really needed the Marshall for Critical focus but once I had it set up once and locked foucs down I found I could actually more or less do without it. The HVX stayed in its bag since then.

Then for me the Holy Grail of cameras ideal for 35mm adaptors came out. The EX1. Superb at low light, cheaper workflow for solid state, still had overcrank and timelapse and has an LCD screen that you can actually focus using. The Marshall wasn't needed and for the first time in 15 months since since buying my first M2 I could now be a one man portable 35mm adaptor cam carrying shooter.

Not only was I blow away by the low light and screen, the menus were great, the lens was great and THAT picture, wow.

I have nothing against any camera personally and I don't understand why people take it all so personally. Everyone does have a right to their opinion and some people will NEVER have their minds changed. If someone offered my a Genesis or a Viper or even a Red I would say yes please and sing their praises to everyone. I don't. I have a £4000 camera that for the first time lets me film (in my opinion) the best filmic pictures I have ever done. I will continue to recommend the EX1 to everyone who asks. Something I couldn't do with my HVX as I just had far too many real world problems with operating it.

Sure, stick the EX1 in a lab and measure motion blur, find it weaknesses and exploit them. Poke and pull it apart. Look it's a £4000 camera and it's flawed in many aspects. it has to be otherwise why wouldn't anyone buy more expensive cameras?! Some people want full size, some people want tape, some people want longer lenses, some people want different colour sampling. There will never ever be a camera that will come out and please everyone.

I am so happy with me EX1, for me it's the best investment I have ever made. Soon i hope to be working on a feature length doco using it. I am happy enough with it to shoot a large proportion without the Letus and use the Letus when I am not running around handheld. With grading I can make it look great and match. The question was asked of me whether I would rather use the HVX because of a thread Barry Green started comparing them and people saying one was more filmic that the other. I said there is no way I could shoot this project on an HVX. That is my opinion, I don't like how the camera works and for me that is the biggest problem, but other people I am sure can get past this.

At the end of the day I want a camera that will give me the best image and make my life the easiest. For me that's the Sony. When Panny bring out an HVX300 and it blows the EX1 away I will most likely buy that. I always want to have the best tool for the job, as someone who has been through most of them, for me, today, it's the EX1. Tomorrow who knows!

EDIT: the quote at the top from Michael seems to have vanished from the thread...weird!!
 
Last edited:
Very good post Phil.

Would also like to mention the podcast on Freshdv.
http://www.freshdv.com/2008/01/xdcam-ex1-hands-on-first-impressions-podcast-discussion.html

Its over an hour of chat talking about the good and bad points of the EX1 and it compares the HVX with the EX1. One of the people is a Panasonice HVX fan, the other is slightly more pro Sony. Makes interesting listening. One point that came up was codecs. They scutinized the two codecs and discovered the 35Mb codec stood up better than 100Mb DVCPROHD, which suprised them both.

Take a listen.
 
Yah that was really interesting, and yep the codec macroblocking was interesting, that would warrant further investigation etc.

I think the guys gave a very fair assessment to the cams, there good lads.

What I'd find inconvenient is really not just being able to dump and edit the 35mg hvx, i mean what is your workflow for that philip?
 
The freshdv podcast was excellent.

This really layouts the EX1 for it's good and bad.

I'm looking forward to the day we can get a camera that offers this quality without the rolling shutter issues.
When this hits, regardless who makes it, there's going to be a lot of cameras for sale. :)
 
matthew77 said:
Yumminess and Mojo are great, but I'd rather have control over how yummy and mojoriffic my images are, in shooting and in post, rather than rely on my camera to create that yummerific mojofantastic look.

There is NOTHING that can be done on an HVX that can't be done with an EX1, except as regards the rolling shutter. Send me two images of the same scene shot on both cameras and I can grade them to appear identical. Except that the EX1 will have the option to make the image sharper (or not, if I choose).

You completely misunderstand what I mean about "credible film look." Cadence is very important and your VX1000 cannot do 24p. So I don't know what you are talking about there. The other aspects of the "film look" (the more mystical ones) are not noticed or understood by most audiences. And audiences are subject to very un-filmlike grading of film material since the advent of DI.

Film has amazing dynamic range compared to video. But the HVX does not have nearly the dynamic range of film and hence can never really look like it. Yet the EX1 has more dynamic range (for the same amount of noise) than the HVX, so it will likely get closer.

Regarding your comment: "I've not heard any professionals sing the praises of the EX as revolutionary or so much that it is the obvious camera of choice."

I am a professional. I have owned both cameras. I have shot film for decades. Count me as one professional who thinks the EX1 is a better camera than the HVX. I have no idea why HVX owners cannot grasp that the EX1 can maybe, possibly, be a better camera than the HVX. Actually try shooting with one instead of reading about it and maybe you'll agree with me.
Click to expand...

Not everyone goes by "Do it in post". For someone who's shot film for years, I'm surprised your mantra is anything but "get it right the first time".
 
One does not have to anything in post to get a "film look" when shooting film.

But, sorry, post has been a pretty important part of the filmmaking process since the advent of telecine and DI. Even if you hand over your film to your clients (as all commercial DP's do) they are going to drastically alter it in post.

And I did say "In shooting and in post", by the way. The EX1 has many settings to allow you to "paint" in camera, if you want to limit your post options that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top