HVX or EX1?

Status
Not open for further replies.
matthew77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Different conversation altogether, so I won't start that one. Everyone knows post has been a MAJOR part of filmmaking. Nobody's denying that. But the do-it-in-post mantra's usually not what people coming from film think.

Anyway. This thread needs to be closed. The poster has decided, no need to keep goin.
 
Shhhh.... don't tell Hollywood!

For some reason they just don't have the "Cool" enough "FILM" cameras to do color grading and special effects in post.

Maybe you could sell your super secret "do it right the first time in film" to them?


You would be sure to make a fortune!
 
I can see why one would want to create a look in the camera. But at the same time if your shoot with accurate color and not going overboard, it will be easier to create another look if you choose.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Shhhh.... don't tell Hollywood!

For some reason they just don't have the "Cool" enough "FILM" cameras to do color grading and special effects in post.

Maybe you could sell your super secret "do it right the first time in film" to them?


You would be sure to make a fortune!
Click to expand...

Why do you make so many ignorant posts on these boards? I've noticed you're a massive proprietor of HVX vs EX-1 "ARGUEMENT" thanks to the way you post. You should probably look into thinking before you post, as comments such as these not only make it seem like you haven't bothered studying and researching, but you can't handle adult discussion.

Aside from that, I work daily with people that shoot film DAILY, and will always shoot film over video if given the chance. These people are seasoned commercial and narrative professionals and although I am not them, the things they teach me are mirrored in interviews and discussions of other professionals. One major thing is that younger people tend to rely on post workflows for everything and how far-fetched is that?

To say that most people shooting film aren't shooting for a look in Camera is to say that you haven't bothered doing your studying or researching. Sure, you FINISH in post. Effects, etc. I'm not saying THAT. I'm talking about core image. To dig into my post beyond that (thanks Stevet for your maturity through-out the HVX vs EX-1 lame wars) is childish and speaks to why DVXuser moderators have, many times before, debated on DELETING all NON PANASONIC FORUMS.

Cause people can't seem to keep it together.

matthew77 said:
I'm busted. In fact I've never actually worked in film.
Click to expand...

What's with the flagrant ignorance here? You people get really childish sometimes. I never said you hadn't worked in film, I said I was surprised at your approach to POST, being someone that worked with film.

Next time there's a debate on deleting sub forums? I'm pro for getting rid of the rest of the cameras. There's rarely ANYONE in any of these subforums (aside from a few named and long-time visitors) that can handle anything anyone says.
 
Kholi said:
I'm talking about core image.
Click to expand...

And I think that's been exactly my position. If you ask your friends that work in film, they will tell you, in all likelihood, that they are striving to achieve the best core image possible based upon the next step. Could be a lab finish, a DI, or a telecine.

What they are most likely to want is as much detail on that negative as is possible.

Perhaps my using the term "Fix it in post" was flippant - what isn't is my respect for the film process and the discipline it involves.

vince
 
Indeed. Fix in post is something which often happens due to errors at what not, but mostly it's enhance in post.

I shoot pretty neutral for most of my stuff as I know I will get a chance to grade it later. If I work for a client whom I know will have no grading and just want it to look as good as possible out of the camera, that is when I play with paint and stuff in the menus.

Video editing has changed so much over the years. In the old days when you did something as basic as a dodge white balance it was a nightmare to fix, now you can pretty much do what you want to a point! As long as the shooter has given you good basic material.

I have worked as an editor cutting other people's rushes. i don't enjoy it, but often then it really is fixing in post!!!
 
HERE you can download the highly noisy raw EX1 footage (not only the night footage but the lake footage has highly noisy trees.

I tried to alter some colors and the noise became higher than the HVX noise after color correction.


My conclusion is that EX1 codec suffers when color corrected a lot more than HVX codec.

And let's talk about Cinealta.
I HATE cinealta. All Hollywood movies done with cinealta are so UGLY.
Of course i'm comparing cinealta with Technicolor/Arri, so this is a nonsense as here we are talking about Cinealta and HVX.

If EX1 had low noise AFTER color correction, if EX1 had nice colors, i would buy it NOW.
But i suspect that correcting those UGLY pictures will drive to high noise. At this point it's worse than the HVX
 
Kholi said:
Why do you make so many ignorant posts on these boards? ...
Click to expand...

You are personally attacking me and flaming me. This is against the board rules. Please remain on topic and just discuss the facts and argue on the merits.



Kholi said:
... I've noticed you're a massive proprietor of HVX vs EX-1 "ARGUEMENT" thanks to the way you post. ...
Click to expand...

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. In fact, I merely ask questions that are almost exclusively follow ups to what the much more experienced posters have presented.



Kholi said:
.... You should probably look into thinking before you post, as comments such as these not only make it seem like you haven't bothered studying and researching, but you can't handle adult discussion.
....
Click to expand...

You are personally attacking me and flaming me again. This is against the board rules. Please remain on topic and just discuss the facts and argue on the merits.



Kholi said:
...

Aside from that, I work daily with people that shoot film DAILY, and will always shoot film over video if given the chance. These people are seasoned commercial and narrative professionals and although I am not them, the things they teach me are mirrored in interviews and discussions of other professionals. One major thing is that younger people tend to rely on post workflows for everything and how far-fetched is that?

....
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you have friends and professional contacts that can share a great deal. That's pretty darn cool. I would imagine they have several reasons to shoot on film including their personal comfort and familiarity with a format they have used for ages. Film is fantastic for what it is. Soon enough it will be eclipsed by digital. But that's an entirely different thread.

As to post... I think that the emerging best practice is to shoot as neutrally as possible within a given set of parameters so the filmmaker has the greatest amount of latitude to adjust, tweak, grade, and manipulate his images.




Kholi said:
....
To say that most people shooting film aren't shooting for a look in Camera is to say that you haven't bothered doing your studying or researching. Sure, you FINISH in post. Effects, etc. I'm not saying THAT. I'm talking about core image. ....
Click to expand...

???? I don't get the personal attack and animosity.

Again...

I think that the emerging best practice is to shoot as neutrally as possible within a given set of parameters so the filmmaker has the greatest amount of latitude to adjust, tweak, grade, and manipulate his images.



Kholi said:
....

To dig into my post beyond that (thanks Stevet for your maturity through-out the HVX vs EX-1 lame wars) is childish and speaks to why DVXuser moderators have, many times before, debated on DELETING all NON PANASONIC FORUMS.

....
Click to expand...

That would be their editorial choice. Totally up to them. But, I highly doubt they will shut it down because you chose to go off on a film is king tangent in an HVX or EX1 thread. That's why they are called threads after all. The wander a bit and are not linear.



Kholi said:
...
What's with the flagrant ignorance here? You people get really childish sometimes. I never said you hadn't worked in film, I said I was surprised at your approach to POST, being someone that worked with film.

....
Click to expand...

Umm.... wow....



Kholi said:
...
Next time there's a debate on deleting sub forums? I'm pro for getting rid of the rest of the cameras. There's rarely ANYONE in any of these subforums (aside from a few named and long-time visitors) that can handle anything anyone says.
Click to expand...

There are very few people ranting, and flaming and blowing things way out of proportion.

In fact, I can really only think of 1 ....
 
someday said:
HERE you can download the highly noisy raw EX1 footage (not only the night footage but the lake footage has highly noisy trees.

I tried to alter some colors and the noise became higher than the HVX noise after color correction.


My conclusion is that EX1 codec suffers when color corrected a lot more than HVX codec.

And let's talk about Cinealta.
I HATE cinealta. All Hollywood movies done with cinealta are so UGLY.
Of course i'm comparing cinealta with Technicolor/Arri, so this is a nonsense as here we are talking about Cinealta and HVX.

If EX1 had low noise AFTER color correction, if EX1 had nice colors, i would buy it NOW.
But i suspect that correcting those UGLY pictures will drive to high noise. At this point it's worse than the HVX
Click to expand...


Thanks Giovanni.

I will download it and check it out.

I most definitely agree that each of us has our own individual personal aesthetic and we must make those personal choices.

It's what makes art so interesting and ultimately so beautiful.
 
philip bloom said:
Indeed. Fix in post is something which often happens due to errors at what not, but mostly it's enhance in post.

I shoot pretty neutral for most of my stuff as I know I will get a chance to grade it later. If I work for a client whom I know will have no grading and just want it to look as good as possible out of the camera, that is when I play with paint and stuff in the menus.

Video editing has changed so much over the years. In the old days when you did something as basic as a dodge white balance it was a nightmare to fix, now you can pretty much do what you want to a point! As long as the shooter has given you good basic material.

I have worked as an editor cutting other people's rushes. i don't enjoy it, but often then it really is fixing in post!!!
Click to expand...

Definitely a different perspective. Of course, now there's more room to do things in post where you have more options so it goes both ways. I've heard a round-table arguement (no lie, with DGA guys literally cutting into each other) about how Do it in post is sloppy. Like, you don't know what you want in the first place so you rely on post. It's strange to be this really young kid at a table of older guys talking about this then gettin' onto DVXuser and lookin' at all the "Do it in post" threads.

I suppose it's more of a that was then, this is now thing. Bloom makes a good point about it.

Vince -- Sorry for misunderstanding your words. I agree one-HUNDRED percent about the discpline that narrative production (film or video) takes. That's pretty much what I was goin' at. Sorry about that.
 
Someday,

I think most people will disagree with you on HVX vs. EX1 noise, and if you tried the camera you would probably disagree with yourself.

Also, Technicolor (who process the film) and Arri (who pass it through a camera gate) have less to do with the beautiful imagery than Kodak (who manufacture the film) and Zeiss, or Cooke, or Angenieux or Panavision (who make the lenses).
 
Agree with Kholi here, there is a long tradition of getting the best possible image in production, whether that is to enhance flexibility in post or to make decisions (akin to grading) more in camera are equally relevant and dismissing them (or being so sarcastic that it sounds as if one were dismissing) this vital process deserves the slapped bum!

The lame ex/hvx wars stuff is stupid and its lead to a bit of negativity effecting other posts and topics imo like this one.

I'm personally fed up of the bending of people's words, mathew77 you engage in this for example with your reply about post production being vital since day one in film, well duh obviously, but you say it as if Kholi's statement were oblivious to it.

Its tit for tat, about winning petty squabbles than discussing like gentlemen ;)

Now I'm a producer and an editor (who is married to magic bullet, aftereffects and the tutorials of videocopilot) however - the priority of production image aquisition is pre-eminent, all post can do is put lipstick on babes or pigs hehe.

For that reason Mathew77, the mojo has to come in aquisition (for filmlooks) to me the EX has a different mojo, but fear not, its not without its own mojo.

There both incredible cams, great value for money and amazing imo for different things, to say one is generically better (as you allude too mathew77) is a self serving form of egotistical caress that I think is quite unnecessary here ;) That is the only fact that 'most' will probably agree on ;)
 
lawriejaffa said:
Agree with Kholi here, there is a long tradition of getting the best possible image in production
Click to expand...


And this is the problem:
EX1 has a bad noise/codec architecture: fixing it in the post isn't as easy as it could seem.

And again if you want to have the best image possible in production, you won't accept a hugly colorimetry.

and about latitude: (dynamics), the EX1 seems to have WAY LESS LATITUDE
 
I'll check ur links someday cheers,

Ah well look, gents for fear of us getting into an endless foray of debate lets simply accept that none of us seem to debate without provocating sillyness. Its sad to say haha, but if we're honest, (and as superior as some would like to think they are from this process) we all obviously love our cams, hate any others, and should instead focus on making movies - what do ya say? hehe
 
Jeez what are you? his tag team partner? Give it a break already...

Kholi's a respected member of this board, and this sillyness is quite enough!

chamberlain2.jpg
 
Last edited:
lawriejaffa,

I agree that beauty comes from acquisition, as well as in post. As a shooter, one should pay very careful attention to what one puts before the lens, in terms of lighting, composition, etc.

But to have your acquisition stained by some sort of camera mojo as opposed to being a transparent view of what you have set in front of the camera is less than ideal.

Kodak do not set out to make their film stocks with mojo. They make their film stocks so that they are sensitometrically balanced and record the truest possible image. Because film is photochemical is has its idiosyncrasies.

With these new digital cameras we have the opportunity to bring home a truer version of what we saw and created on the shoot. I favor the camera that lets me bring more of that home with me, and spares me from its particular mojo.

Sometimes, after a shoot, there's enough on-set mojo captured already. Sometimes I know that my mojo will be as collaboration between shooting and post. I always want the camera that brings home the most on-set mojo for me to work with.

As these cameras advance, we will be able to capture more of that on-set mojo and bring more of it home with us. The EX1 currently clearly does this - it has higher resolution, lower noise and and greater dynamic range than its predecessors.

And when the Panny HVX300 rev B comes out I will likely buy it, as I am sure it will let me capture even more of my on set mojo, and color it with even less of its camera mojo.

That's all I have to say on the matter.
 
Look Mathew honestly,

Like i say, the EX has higher res, less mojo in its imagery, weird to hold, funny workflow and rolling shutter... thats enough for me, for others the noisy hvx, lower res than EX etc makes it enough for them.

So...

The HVX is better than the EX
and
The EX is better than the HVX

People have GOOD reason to believe one or the other, and may well change from one to the other with frequency.

To be better than the EX the HVX200 doesnt need a revision, it already will be to most wanting what it does better and vice a versa? Get me?

So its so subjective and there is so no smoking gun, that means we're both entitled to be right mathew since we're both subjective? Get me?

So lets have a cigar and script a movie!
 
I think we've already written a scene's worth of dialog. It will need some revision though, before it goes into production.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top