HVX170 vs AF100 - You're kidding right?

Brian@202020 said:
My definition of "better" is more features, less drawbacks, ability to make more money from it, image quality, etc. I own or have many camera's readily available to me at all times so I can use the best camera for the job at hand. I have a RED MX, HPX170, GH1(3), and GoPro Hero HD. Plus I am getting the Af100 and the F3. I also have 5D's, 7D's, 1D's, HVX200's, HPX300's, HPX500's, etc available to me via deals I've made with local owners. I would bet money the AF100 will make me more money this year and fit the bill better than an other camera I own or easily have available to me. To me that means "better".
Click to expand...

Now that is a good definition of "better". It's better for your specific purpose, and that's exactly the time to go buying. Hope you have a great 2011!
 
LightMast said:
If the AF100's codec holds up well, I dont see needing a Nano or KiPro except for keying.
Click to expand...

To me, and this is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth, but to me, the difference between keying 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 is not nearly as huge as say 4:2:2 and 4:1:1. After pulling fairly decent keys with a Canon 5D and recently with the AF100 both in their native codecs, I was pleasantly surprised. Obviously, the more bits you can get the better and if you have the money for an off-board recorder then by all means get one. But I wouldn't be surprised if most people stick with the onboard codec. In my experience, where you really start seeing a huge difference for keying is when you've got a Cineon sequence or a DPX stack. But that usually means you've shot your footage with a MUCH pricier camera anyway ;)
 
The one I fell in love with instantly is Ultimatte Advantedge, but it's a $1000 keyer only plugin for AE and FCP and it will literally suck the RAM dry from your CPU. But it keys like a DREAM! After that one I default to Keylight in After Effects.
 
Brian@202020 said:
I don't think you understand pixel shifting. You really don't loose resolution doing that. There is a slight resolution hit due to the DVCHD codec tho. I would take the HVX200a or HPX170 hands down over any of the EX cameras and so would most people. I personally will always take 422 color space over full raster anyday. I will be using the Nanoflash almost always with my AF100 to get 422 out of it. It is a bummer I wont be able to use it for overcranking tho. I would think getting 422, full raster, and a shallow DoF would make the AF100 come out on top, but only with the Nano or similar device.
Click to expand...

Brian I think ALWAYS using the nano flash is over kill. Oscar gave his blessing on the AVCHD and if there's anyone I'm going to listen too about the codecs strength in post and how it holds up he's at the top of my list. I was planning on getting a nano for all my recording too but I think I'll save the money for something else and rent one when heavy FX work is being done.
 
Joe Walker said:
To me, and this is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth, but to me, the difference between keying 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 is not nearly as huge as say 4:2:2 and 4:1:1. After pulling fairly decent keys with a Canon 5D and recently with the AF100 both in their native codecs, I was pleasantly surprised. Obviously, the more bits you can get the better and if you have the money for an off-board recorder then by all means get one. But I wouldn't be surprised if most people stick with the onboard codec. In my experience, where you really start seeing a huge difference for keying is when you've got a Cineon sequence or a DPX stack. But that usually means you've shot your footage with a MUCH pricier camera anyway ;)
Click to expand...


I am an HPX170 owner. I have a Letus Elite adapter. I have shot with and without the adapter, have always been satisfied by the 4:2:2 palette. I have done some green screen work, was very pleased by the clean keying. However, I am still just starting, and can't afford having both cameras. I am still afraid to to the jump and sell my HPX set up. I have no complain with it.

But as an indie cinematographer, more and more people wants the DSLR DOF look. The 4:2:0 (versus the 4:2:2 of the HPX) and the dynamic range of the CMOS (versus CCD of the HPX) are the only two things that stops me from pre-ordering it without pre-testing...

I have seen the "verse" movie and tests of course. It is just hard to be confident without being able to compare with what I know...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top