HVX200 vs. EX-1 for narrative?

mrmannn said:
Oh boy, I hope I don't get kicked to the curb and stomped for asking this one, hehe. I'm currently producing a short horror film, and the two cameras my director is seriously looking at are the HVX and EX-1. The facts the we both know: HVX has an inferior pixel count... sub true 720p even, correct? EX-1 can pump out true 1080p at 24fps, as I understand it. DVCPRO HD vs MPEG-2 Long GOP codecs, better color space in the HVX unless going SDI Out of the EX-1. That about cover it? Hehe.

Here's what we KNOW: we will definitely be shooting with a 35mm adapter, with theatrical/festival screenings a high possibility. When we're talking about "blowing it up" to fit a screen that large, wouldn't the EX-1 technically hold up better? I'm thinking pure numbers here, and a 1080p signal should hold up better than the HVX, right? I'm assuming it would hold up better than the HVX in both actually enlarging it via digital projection, as well as (the unlikely) 35mm blow up? What about the "resolution" loss you get when you shoot through a 35mm adapter? Is starting out at a much higher resolution a no brainer, in that case?

Another point: post/visual fx. There are going to be one or two visual FX in the short... is there a reason to choose one camera over the other? Color space? Does the long GOP codec have any issues with visual FX/post?

"S" Curve/Cine Gamma: My director and I LOVE the cinegamma look that comes stock out of the HVX... VERY film like in tone. Does the EX-1 have a similar "cinegamma/s-curve" setting? Minor point, but one we're concerned with, nonetheless.

Lastly, what about the post workflow? My director seemed very excited about being able to edit HVX footage natively in Premiere on set. Honestly, I was very excited as well... the idea that between setups, we get a working idea of how things are cutting together is both fantastic for the shooting process as well as keeping enthusiasm and energy levels up. With the EX-1, he tells me there's no way for him to edit on set on a PC (he's working off a beefy new quad core laptop), and as he's VERY set on editing in Adobe Premiere, we're kind of in the dark with how to post this film on anything but a Mac. Suggestions, thoughts?

All in all, I understand all too well that there's a heated "debate" between the HVX and EX-1, currently, but I'm not here to add to that, or even concern myself with it... I'm just concerned with what is best for my project. Oh, lastly, I forgot... for encoding/burning to Blu-Ray, is there are reason to go with one camera or the other? (Perhaps the new codec Sony employed has issues with authoring to Blu-Ray?) Sorry for the long post, but I figure you guys could point a lowly producer in the right direction :) Thanks for your time.

Steve
Click to expand...


I use both the HVX and EX1 all the time. They're both great cameras... each camera does certain things better than the other (although it's all a bit subjective).

If you shoot with the HVX and a 35mm adapter you're going to be losing anywhere from about 1 to 2 stops of light and this is starting from 320 ASA which isn't exactly fast to begin with. Better have some big lights and a generator if you plan on getting a decent exposure at night.

Also, you have probably heard that the HVX gets NOISY in the shadows and blacks... especially when the majority of the image is in the lower IRE's. To offset this you can use Raylight MXFX which helps to reduce grain by a substantial amount.

http://www.dvfilm.com/MXFX/index.htm


If you shoot with the EX1 your going to have a big advantage in the low light arena. It's faster than the HVX... Some people say it's only a half stop difference which is a very "conservative" number. It's at least 1 to 1.5 stops (depending on the mode you're shooting in and your tolerance for noise... boosting the gain). Remember the EX1 has a bigger chip... and it's CMOS too. So inherently it's much cleaner than the HVX's 1/3" CCD's. When you boost to let's say 3db or 6db on the EX1 it's not the same (in terms of noise) as boosting to 3db or 6db on the HVX.

The Long GOP thing won't affect you at all. IMO that's an old argument that's really only pertainent to some of the older HDV cameras. You won't break the codec and it's easy to edit. Whether I'm shooting DVCPRO HD or XDCAM I always cut in an Apple ProRes HQ timeline. It's very high quality, easy and it works without any problems.

Colorspace wise the HVX has it on the EX1.... but the EX1 has it in the resolution department. I personally think the higher ASA rating / resolution of the EX1 is a greater advantage than the color space of the HVX.
The both hold up well on the big screen.

If you really need the 4:2:2 colorspace with the EX1 than capture to a hard drive / laptop / AJA IO HD configuration. Using a macbook pro, FCP and the AJA box you can capture your footage as 10bit 4:2:2 color space Apple ProRes HQ direct to disk (directly into your FCP bin). Instant playback and instantly available for rough assembly on set. It works well and the results are very impressive.

http://www.aja.com/html/products_Io_IoHD.html
 
Last edited:
Luis Caffesse said:
Now seriously - why wait 18 months to shoot?
You could prep, shoot, and edit a feature between now and the time Scarlet is released.
(nevermind actually getting one in your hands).

Trust me, I'm as excited as the next guy by the specs - but that's all they are right now.
There will always be something better next year... always.
But you can't let that stop you from shooting this year.
Click to expand...


You're right, there's always gonna be the next great thing.

And the type of camera used isn't what makes a movie successful.

Actually, I might sound lame, but as long as you have true progressive [24p], you're OK to go, concerning quality. Of course - there are always better and more expensive options.

But no more interlaced, please!

DVX100b, HVX200, EX1, XL1 - they're all good cameras and would give very good results if in good hands.

I personally will be counting on HVX200+Brevis adapter for what projects I have till the birth of Scarlet. Because of the color rendition of the Pannys, the DVCPRO-HD codec [4:2:2], the reliability of its workflow [I'm acquainted with it, unlike the EX1], and... I like Panasonic more than Sony :).

My opinion was based on the fact that the Scarlet specs are just f*cking sexy! :)

I mean, it looks like a giant leap in technology:

3K [which gives clean 2K 4:4:4], up to 100 Mb\sec RAW ! recording, varispeeds up to 120 fps !!! [that one really blew me away].

I mean, IMO, this camera meets perfectly the 2K DCI standard and I think it will be capable of very cinematic results.

I also expect [hope for] low noise levels in the picture.

The only two problems are that the cam is one year away [I need it NOOOOW :)] and that fixed lens thing.

Nevertheless, it sounds incredibly, unbelievably promising...

But, seeing is believing.

We have to wait and see what it actually delivers.

...

So, if it's all set with the shoot, it's probably best to start now with the options available currently.

Or... :), if it's no rush... you could keep polishing your script for another year :)... and then shoot with the sweet, sweet Scarlet. :)

Scripts are tough f*ckers. I am afraid of scripts.
 
karapetkov said:
I mean, IMO, this camera meets perfectly the 2K DCI standard and I think it will be capable of very cinematic results.
Click to expand...

While it may meet the standards for Discovery Channel and all, keep in mind that just like RED, the firmware will have to build up as well as the prestige of the camera.

Another thing is the camera doesn't have a very friendly user interface as far as I can tell. Adjusting things from an orb at the back just doesn't seem fun to me!
 
IMHO, the HVX, from what I've seen between EX1 and HVX footage, delivers a more filmic look. Even tweaked, the EX1 has a very digital look to it.

I find the EX1 to look GREAT, so please don't get me wrong in terms of bias. They're both great cameras.

I think that the digital look will be embraced in the future. People in 10 years may say, "The film look ruins it!" For right now, people like the soft, dreamy, saturated and complex color of film.

The HVX closely replicates this. In terms of sharpness, there's no question. EX1 wins. But you have to deal with the Long GOP codec, and the rolling shutter.

The rolling shutter makes it less versatile, I think. It all depends.

If I were you, this is what I'd do....

1. Look at the footage and decide what you like better for your project.

2. take advice, but take it with a grain of salt. I think what you're after in this thread is whether the consensus is for the HVX or the EX1 in terms of film look. Or, more specifically, whether the EX1 is "good enough" for film look, or can be made that way in post.

Item 1 is vastly more important, but I empathize with the notion of asking peers for opinion. No one wants to make such an important decision in a vacuum.

I hope this helps and wish you the very best of luck on your project.
 
Funny this comment on EX... CMOS even with matbox and several kind of shutter doesn't do the job properly when used in dark with light source that is coming in and out... Absolutely not required for the kind of movie you wish to shoot... Go back with CCD technology 2/3 lens...
JackBauer


Bokes said:
I am one who sold my HVX for a EX.
I needed the low light ability and the EX delivers that much better than the HVX.
That said- I really miss that panasonic "look".
As it was said- Look at the footage and decide what looks good to your eye.

I can tweak the EX to come close to what I use to get with the HVX- but most stuff looks like real sharp video. The EX just doesn't "dream" the way the HVX does.
For me and my taste- sometimes sharp is too sharp.

I can't wait to test a HPX170
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top