Is my HVX obsolete?

David Jimerson said:
OK, filmguy. I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but there is no fruit to be harvested in what will amount to a "nuh-uh!" and "uh-huh!!!" exchange. I still think you're using the word "aesthetic" to mean something different than I do, and I have no idea what you must consider "filmic" to say the HVX isn't, but there's no point in going around and around about it. I'm entirely content to let people look at the images and make up their own minds; I really don't care what anyone shoots with.
Click to expand...

Hey, no worries, and I'm sorry anything came off wrong. You are right, we can agree to disagree and let the images speak for themselves.
 
In the hands of a skilled cinematographer, almost any camera can look good. I admit there is some awful stuff out there shot with the HVX, but the same applies to the 5D, AF100 and yes, even the RED. If in doubt... you need to check this out:


Speaking of the RED, and also, the BMCC... have you noticed how these state of the art cameras have adopted SSD media ( which is very similar to P2 media ) ? There is a reason for it... solid state media is superior... if in doubt... go check the 5D RAW issues users are having with their wimpy little sd cards...
 
Last edited:
EDV said:
"The whole DSLR revolution is creating a generation of people that rely on the sensor's low light capabilities, instead of the craft of lighting a scene. Web compression: Like it or not, YouTube is becoming the new CableTV... and anything goes there."

Even broadcast production values are going into the crapper with the onset of cheap DSLR's and GoPro's in reality shows and even dramatic series. There is so much handheld, shaky **** going on that it makes me seasick to watch. Jump cuts are all the rage. And don't forget to throw a few jerky zooms in to sweeten the pot. Whatever happened to solid, well-lighted, and well-composed images shot with high-end cameras and lenses for that "broadcast look"?
Click to expand...
 
I own an HMC150 and shot with the HVX200 a lot for work. I also own a GH2.

At times, the footage from the GH2 makes the HMC stuff look *very* bad. The HMC has always been annoyingly soft, noisy (relative to DSLRs) with crappy looking highlights when they clip.

At the same time, when footage is well lit and fits within the dynamic range of the HMC, I actually prefer it's color science to the GH2. GH2 colors have always bugged me a little bit.

The web is the great equalizer. Most people upload low bitrate 5mpbs sources to vimeo/youtube which end up getting recompressed to look like garbage. A lot of the technical advantages that the GH2 has (sharpness, less noise) go out the window. Taking the time to upload high quality sorces goes a long way towards making cameras shine, but most just watch the 360p version and don't bother.

I wouldn't say the HVX/HPX/HMC is dead just yet.
 
I read a lot of posts here and hardly comment-but I'd like to jump into this with some recent experience.

I just edited a short project that was shot on Canon DSLRs (5d MKII I believe). I am editing on a nice 22 inch monitor. Several years ago I had shot basically the same thing with my HVX and HMC150 and inevitably I had to go back and grab a couple of stock shots. What I found was that I actually preferred the older panasonic images. Dramitically more. They seemed more cinematic (!) and natural.

The DSLR video did not seem to have any dynamic range advantages which for me is the only reason to upgrade. Also, even after some (admittedly very basic) color correction and levels work the DSLR were still way more contrasty. The colors seemed smooth and plasticy without those subtle color details (if that makes sense) Not quite as natural as the HVX/HMC but close. The DSLRs did seem to have more detail and less depth of field-but I'm not sure either is necessarily a huge advantage. The soft and noisy video coming out of those old cameras actually added to the image-I know it shouldn't be so but it is. Shallow DOF, in this case especially, made it harder for the guys to keep the right thing in focus.

I think the shallow DOF and resolution issues have become misnomers for quality in the video world. And I had been lusting after the latest and greatest since first getting my HVX. Yes low light is important, and those DSLRs certainly kicked the crap out of the HVX there. But they still don't look filmic. Are those cameras worse than an old HVX? Of course not. But they not so much better that I need to rush out and buy one just to stay on top (and out of money).

So to answer the question: no the HVX is not obsolete. And when (if) it is, so will most of the DSLRs.
 
I just re-watched a commercial DVD that I shot in 1080i on the HPX170 (the HVX's cousin) a couple of years back and am still very pleased with how it turned out. The combination of CCDs and the Panasonic mo-jo makes for a gorgeous organic image. For DVD you couldn't ask for a better camera and not too shabby for web work either although I wish it had 1080p60. For those who have never shot with this camera it is hard to explain how good the image looks. I will be getting a modern b-cam of another make soon and am interested in comparing the two.
 
Last edited:
Many have ignored what good shooting is, choosing a cameras aesthetic first. "28 days Later" and "Iraq in Fragments" were two cinematically impacting films in my life. Both were out in the wild, and not in controlled studios.

Also, the term 'filmic' has evolved since miniDV days. And at one time the DVX100 was comparatively filmic. I think the term still applies. The 720p Varicam doesn't have the DR nor large sensor, but I still like its image and aesthetic. I would even call it filmic ;)

We have now seen filmguy123's work, while full of nice shots, some prevalent over exposure issues in a documentary, and a zombie music video that looked video-ish despite using a more 'filmic' video camera.

In my video work, I have never sought after the film look. Never made sense to me, as it looks counterfeit that way.

Seems like some of the guys in this post were going over board saying the HVX is 'obsolete', which is the OP question. It is definitely not obsolete, but maybe merely outdated.
At least we all agree: Video cameras are getting better
 
Last edited:
The HVX literally still "going strong" in 2013..!

2lvfj41.jpg
 
The images still hold up, I'll have shots from the original HVX on my reel for a while...but I sold it while it still retained some value.
 
People complain about the cost of P2 media but to me, the P2 workflow is one of the main reasons I would use the HVX or any other HPX camera.
 
I own a Red Mx and a Red Epic, and there are still shoots which are better served with our EX1 - so I guess same thing.
 
I shot a handful of commercials on the HVX200 back in the day, most with a Letus 35mm adapter, and I certainly remember being delighted with the image quality at the time - HD! A 35mm format (via ground glass)!! Pannie colours!!! It was lovely. We later moved on to the HPX500 simply because it was safer and easier to shoot with than the HVX/Letus bazooka.

But I did shoot one creative project on the HVX back in 2009, in fact outside of little homemade/high school short films - I'm pretty sure it was the first properly creative thing I ever shot. It was a dance film, and it opened two sell-out screenings of dance films. I shot it in 720p because I could fit more footage on to the P2 cards, it was easier to edit, and let's face it who had any way of watching HD video anyway?! 720p scaled down nicely to DVD.

When I compare it to modern cameras, there's really no comparison - even a crotchety, ancient old stills camera like the 5DII blows it out of the water for detail and apparent image quality (even with a comparatively MUCH more limited codec).

But the HVX got the job done, and for certain content I'm sure it would continue to do so even now.

I cringe a bit at the image quality of it now (and the less-than-silky moves I got from the non-fluid tripod head I had to use!), but I was pretty content with how the dance film I did on it turned out at the time:

 
Not the latest thing but it makes for a good Facebook cover :tongue:

2h4jk89.jpg


Rather than selling my HPX to buy a DSLR, I chose to rig it and extend its usability for a couple more years. HPX can do everything now... macros, ultra-wideangle shots, portraits, wildlife... I'm glad I didn't sell it.
 
Well how about bringing back the 35mm adapter section from the dark and inaccessible depths of "The Vault" first? That way the 3 or 4 of us who still use these adapters will have somewhere to call home again! Seems like a fair enough request? We practically have a section for every other kind of audio-visual technology...
 
wish I had that kind of influence (or any influence at all...). the 35 adapters are on the wane and that's when the best deals present. I like cheap, inexpensive, bargains and steals. not real steals...you know what I mean. that last photo you posted was a nice looking piece of kit. I wanna see it do its stuff. :)
 
Well hopefully the moderators can take notice of my request and put it in the "maybe" basket. But If cheap and inexpensive is what you're after... the M3 may not be for you. It still will set you back at least $1300. Fully accessorised ( Canon, Nikon, PL mounts + extras ) maybe double that. I'll post some M3 samples in a separate thread... hopefully, not in "the Vault" though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top