HVX200(a) test vs HPX170

S

Spiral

Active member
I thought I would post some test footage because there seems to be a few curious folks out there who want to see. Both shot at same f-stop, settings, and light.

First is HVX 200(a)
hvx200a-wb.jpg



and second is HPX-170.

hpx170-wb.jpg


Before someone jumps on me about matching my settings as close as possible, I double checked everything, including scene files, f-stop, lighting, white balance, focus, gamma settings.....the basics.

This posting is for those who are simply curious, like me. There are probably little tweaks here-and-there that could set these two closer, but I found that (right out of the gate,) the tonal range with the HVX200(a) was slightly better, whereas the HPX-170 gave me those "nice blacks" I keep hearing about (but loosing some details in them.) We did this a few times and the results were the same. Could this be due to the larger diameter lens on the 200a vs the 170?

Thoughts??
 
Last edited:
I don't know but the ensuing discussion would be enhanced by two screen captures that are actually the same size.


Just sayin ;)
 
Much better.

I'd say the HVX definitely makes the subject look more stoned. :D


Or at least a few iris stops down.
 
That's what I was thinking. I actually like the look and range of the HVX better than the 170, even though it's the newer sibling.
 
if its true what they say (that internally the 200a and 170 are identical) then logic would say that its just a matter of the glass. and thus a matter of taste.

the question i have is can you (via in camera settings) achieve the perceived "greater range" of the 200a image with the 170 - without introducing noise?

id say thats the challenge...
 
One *might* imagine (from the threads about matching the two via the coring setting,) that this can be adjusted, however, I should mention that this test is with the HPX-170 set at the prescribed "coring +2"

But yes, Tomato/Tomaaaato, I suppose. If you like the deep rich blacks, then maybe image 2 is for you. I come from 16mm, where the greatest tonal range is the detail that we tried to strive for, unless you were shooting Noir.
 
wgzn said:
if its true what they say (that internally the 200a and 170 are identical) then logic would say that its just a matter of the glass. and thus a matter of taste.
Click to expand...
Internally those two are most definitely not identical. They have the same chipset, but the software and processing is different. At the same settings, the images do not look the same. And the coring is definitely different from the 170 to the 200A; the 170 is tuned to be sharper, about 40 lines of res sharper, at the expense of a little bit of noise being more visible; you can equalize them out by going +1 to +2 on the coring on the 170.

So -- point is -- you can't match them identically by setting the same settings.
 
Thanks Barry! Always a pleasure to have you chime in.

As posted, I set the coring to +2 on the 170, yet the images still seem a bit different. But your explanation of them actually 'being' different in the processor realm makes sense now. (I knew my eye wasn't that bad!)

Wqzn had a good question. I know you have done extensive shoot-outs with these cameras (thank you, btw,) ....Can the tonal range of the 200(a) be achieved with the 170, or does the 170 naturally produce richer blacks that give more contrast but less tonal range? If so, could the wider diameter lens on the 200(a) be responsible?

Thanks again!
 
You can definitely match them to be basically identical. You just have to spend some time with a monitor with two inputs so you can A/B back and forth, or, much preferably, use Adobe OnLocation to split-screen and then view the vectorscope and waveform and use those to calibrate them to be the same.
 
This is helpful to know, thank you. A wee bit of work to shoot with HVX200(a) as second camera, but nice to know it can be done. Thanks again for chiming in, Barry!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top