HVX200 looks like cristal clear video. DVX more filmic

P

PIMP

Well-known member
Am I wrong?

I am thinking about jumping on the HVX200 bandwagon. Someone told me the HVX200 looks liike the dvx 100 on steriods. But i must say the HVX200 footage i have seen doesnt look filmic to me. Maybe i am wrong, because i havent seen it on a regular tv or hd tv just on my computer screen. But i have been burning clips posted on this site to view. And a lot of them look really detailed video. It doesnt have the dvx film look we all love. Maybe i am wrong like i said, i havent seen it besides this computer screen. Altough i did see some footage of a guy on a couch, and its a M2 testing clip to show the diffrence of the hvx200 with and without the M2 niko lense.
And that clip looked good, even when it was without that expensive lense. So can you tell me if i am deluded, since i have yet to see proper hvx200 footage.

I am going for a film look.

thanks

PIMP
 
Find someone in your area who has a camera, and test it for yourself. You can't compare highly compressed downsized footage from a website, burn it to a DVD and make comparisons. Borrow a camera and try to watch some DVCPRO HD footage on an HD monitor.

If your DVX still looks better to you, then keep shooting with the DVX. I have both, and the HVX is MUCH better and has MUCH MORE of a filmlook to it than the DVX - in my opinion.

But form your own by testing them both in comparable circumstances, and then tell us what you think.
 
kenn michael said:
Find someone in your area who has a camera, and test it for yourself. You can't compare highly compressed downsized footage from a website, burn it to a DVD and make comparisons. Borrow a camera and try to watch some DVCPRO HD footage on an HD monitor.

If your DVX still looks better to you, then keep shooting with the DVX. I have both, and the HVX is MUCH better and has MUCH MORE of a filmlook to it than the DVX - in my opinion.

But form your own by testing them both in comparable circumstances, and then tell us what you think.
Click to expand...

Like i said i am not saying i am right. I am just asking a question to see if i was right or wrong. So the HVX2000 looks good for film look like the dvx100?
 
it's all very difficult to say certainly. I've not used the dvx, but I've seen movies made with it, and I own the HVX.

I think the main difference between the two is that the dvx has slightly more dynamic range, and the hvx has lots more resolution (and true widescreen). In my opinion the HVX is the only way to go, but it still sucks that we lose a little latitude, since that is now the only barrier to hinder video to look like film. (video now has widescreen resolution, depth of field (with the M2) and progressive images to match film, but like I said miss dynamic range/latitude)
 
I have both, I have seen the final master on both, and I really cannot see your argument on this. I think you have to go back to the source on the clips. Who shot it, did they know how to shoot with the camera, are the settings the same to fairly compare the two cameras. I just did a shoot with a band in LA and the footage was like film, without any extra attachments. With proper knowledge of settings in your camera, you can make it look like film....on both cameras. The HVX will afford you more resolution and color. The more I work with the HVX the better I get. When I am lazy, the footage looks like crap, but when I take the time to set it up right....WOW, I didn't know my camera can look like that!
 
There are so many things to take into consideration - i will start the list
-chroma
-gamma setting
-detail level
-coring
etc etc

and then there is
-the operator
-lighting
-composition

when used properly the HVX is extremely filmic
 
I used a DVX100 for more than two years and now own an HVX200. I can say that the HVX manages to look even more filmic than the DVX. Film is higher resolution with more color data and lattitude than a DVX can provide. An HVX200 is esentially a DVX with higher resolution, twice the color space, a wider lattitude, and true film-like framerates. Why would the HVX200 seem less filmish?
 
Because the HVX is so young I think most of the clips you are now seeing on this site are "test" or "First night out with the HVX" kind of thing. The DVX, now that's it's in a matured age, has many more Movie type of clips on this site. Clips with definitive subjects and story lines and motivated lighting. Also I think most HVX test are shot at 1080i or 30P also. I sure some nice 24P productions are in the pipeline. Also I heard the HVX has a least 1/2 - 1 stop more of latitude over the DVX. But I have yet to test this... hmmm, I guess another oppurtunity for a test clip.
 
It depends on what your definition of film look is. If it's narrow DOF then you won't get that with most any camera without an adaptor.
Opinions run the gamut here. Some say it's not sharp enough and some say it's to sharp.
For me like Goldilocks, the HVX is just right. I can sharpen it up if I want or I can soften it up an make it look more like film.
 
You're dead wrong! I stepped up from the DVX and say the HVX looks a lot more like film for the reasons previously stated (resolution, color space, latitude -- particularly on the high end). The HVX can look like pristine video with the right gamma and frame rate settings. But when you shoot 720pn at 24fps, and you know how to tweek the rest of the settings, you're gonna get a really great "film look."
 
I never understood why "video" is such an insult. In the immortal words of John Hudson... dont take it so personal guys, it is just his opinion =o) I suspect what he is seeing is in the "clips" people are posting which are generally more technical in nature. Most people are not posting "scenes" or finished works, mainly just clips. A clip of a flower in your backyard prolly doesnt look as film-like as say, a finished produced narrative scene.



ash =o)
 
In the immortal words of Disjecta

See

Xlcinema.com

and the work Dman and Elton are doing; wow

Like Ash says "Choose your weapon; but choose wisely"
 
Yeah, funny, huh? I just shot something in 1080 60i and I'll be damned, it does not look like film at all. I guess I'll just sell it.:crybaby:
 
Someone's selling ya a bag of bad good there, bro. The HVX kills the DVX on the rather slippery slope of calling something more "filmic". Kind of an arbetrary thing... but the HVX gives off some WOWs. IMHO the DVX gives of a bunch of "VERY NICE" slurs but not even in the same league.... That's why I jumped over from being a Canon guy.. and I think a lot of others.
 
Ursa said:
I think the main difference between the two is that the dvx has slightly more dynamic range...
Click to expand...

Funny. I thought the HVX was touted as having more dynamic range than the DVX. Where did you find this argument? Has anyone else found this to be true?

Certainly i find the HVX has FAR more dynamic range than my old DVX.



Rhydon
 
I've heard numerous people indicate that the HVX has more dynamic range. Also, while I haven't actually tried to shoot the same scene with both cameras (I haven't bothered with the DVX since I bought and HVX), it certainly looks to me, from what I've been seeing on my screen, that the HVX has a higher dynamic range (looks like an extra stop at least).
 
I've shot many a sky with the DVX. Took the HVX out and found that bright skies were holding their highlights much more than the DVX (while exposing for something on the ground). No specific measurements to report, but I was capturing a wider range than I was with the DVX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top