HVX200 vs HVX200a -- a side-by-side low-light comparison

Is it just me or are the shot with the HVX200A a little more "washed out" than the original?

Is it just the exposure? I don't want to sound like a noob, but I noticed this on the original OGG file comparison. I love the HVX's punchy colors, we're not losing anything with the A are we?
 
I should have posted the larger images. On our shots you definitely see a brighter image at the same exposure which is what I wanted to demonstrate.

Dropping the 200-A to match the "desired" exposure demonstrates the same color as the 200, but with less noise in the saturated or dark areas. The solid green had significant improvement.
But as I said, I still like our regular 200 as well.
 
Cool. I'm personally waiting for the HPX170. Now that I know it's going to be September, I'm even more excited. I've been working on a long term project, and I have a feeling it will have been through 4 different cameras by the time it is final cut. :) DVX100 GL1 HVX200 and HPX170. lol

Either way, I think we should thank this thread for showing the real world examples of the new chipset.

I primarily shoot with available light. I'm working on changing that, but I have yet to find a lighting kit that doesn't lend an "artificial" look to the footage. I also shoot a lot in very low light. The noise bothers me, but not as much as that "hollywood" look.

I even had a pro lighting guy from PBS (freelance NW) help me out, but there was no way to get the look I wanted with added light. Therefore, I MUST have a camera that can handle low light or my world will come to an end :(

I'm very much looking forward to the waveform/vectorscope/SDI, etc. Also, I never use the tape deck.

I'm so torn about the whole thing, with scarlet coming out. But who knows how long until an actual delivery date. CMOS + unknown workflow (red said it will not be like RED one), so if I have to do two flips, so be it, but who knows.

Also, is it just me or does panny just have this wonderful look that no one else has. Don't get me wrong the RED one is awesome. Different thing entirely. But look to look, it looks much more like a--hmm, I don't know, it's almost it's own thing. Panny just, like I said, to ME, it has this wonderful warm filmic look that goes beyond specs. It's just a beauty.

EX1 looks awesome, so does RED one, but they're different.

It's sort of like INLAND EMPIRE, Lynch chose the pd150, because that's the look he wanted, and it worked SO well for the film. I don't know, so torn between the RAW philosophy and the P2 workflow.

"Too much information is getting through. The old drugs aren't working, we need to make new drugs."
 
I know nobody's posted in this thread for a while, but I did my own comparison of the HVX200 and HVX200a this morning. Instead of real-world performance, I wanted to push it to the limits, though. In this video, there is only some indirect light from a 150 watt bulb about 12 feet away with a barrier in between the light source and the footage. So, unrealistic super-low light levels with Cinelike-D gamma (I saved the scene file on the 200 and loaded it on the 200a, just to be sure I had the settings the same).

Before anybody complains, this is in Apple Intermediate Codec, so it can only be viewed on a Mac, but I'll try to get it converted later. (I'm at my "real" job now)

http://realtoreelvideoworks.com/videos/CameraCompare.mov
 
PatrickR said:
I know nobody's posted in this thread for a while, but I did my own comparison of the HVX200 and HVX200a this morning.
Click to expand...

Another very interesting comparison, and the most "torturous" test I've seen so far. It really shows the two at the absolute threshold of sensitivity, where the 200 is essentially "blind" and the 200a "sees". It's a simply massive difference at that level, and not a meaningless one for real shooting situations at all. Fascinating.

It perfectly illustrates what convinced me to sell my 200 and buy a 200a. Thanks for taking the time to create it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top