No HVX for me

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll toss in another 2cents.

All this talk of wanting extra resolution, shaper images, this and that.

Where is your footage going mainly going to be seen? Are you going to be doing extensive CG work to your video? Do you plan on making film outs?

I mean...if you answer yes to the last quesiton you are looking at the complete wrong set of cameras to begin with. Can it be done, yes. But if you have the time and money for film outs, then there must be time and money to shoot on much higher quality camera for a better film out (Varicam, F900.)

If you answer yes to the CG questions...I'll make the same statement as above, or yes, in this case you want the camera you can get with the most resolution to work within.

Now, think about my first question...very subjective. But at the same time, if this is all going to end up going through mpeg2 compression to DVD, then I'm going to say you are really just pixel counting at this point (anyone in here who is into photography will know what I mean by that.) And on top of that WHAT are you going to be watching it on? HDTV? NTSC? Plasma, LCD, CRT, DLP, LCoS? Because seriously I don't think plasma is great. To me plasma is very soft, and lacking in true blacks. LCD is better, but hard to calibrate, CRT...always the best, and LCoS....unless its a Sony XBR model, don't love em. DLP...people loves these, I still fail to see the hubub. Oh, and front projection....which to me is the end all be all of crappy looking viewing.

So, that needs to be considered as well.

I mean sure, we ALL want the VERY best image we can get. But in the end its not just what all the technical specs, and numbers tell us...because thats just what they are...numbers.

Its about what your eyes tell you. If it looks good, then it just LOOKS good, regardless of what engineers in white labs coats say.

With that said, I haven't serisouly mulled over footage shot from a Canon vs a JVC vs a HVX. But right now...I say the HVX has the best overall "look" and user functionality. You can disagree...you are free to do so, that is why there is more then one manufacturer. But Just in highlights and hotspots alone, the way HVX was designed to handle such thing...something very telling of video, they managed to nail it in very filmic looking manner.

So, sure you want the extra resolution...but why?
 
Resolution?? I guess if you could show all your work back in some uncompressed format then it might be more important than the recording medium. I rented all the flavors of HDV and tried to find the best post-delivery combo. I was never happy with the DVD's I delivered. It looked like nice sharp video with minor artifacts running around. Some clients even commented on some of the wierd motion artifacts when actors were walking around. The footage would like nice if the camera or actors never moved. So, I waited and bought the HVX. The actual product I deliver to 95% of my clients is SD DVD, for now. The resultant DVD's delivered from the HVX, FCP, DVD SP combo are the best bang for the buck.
 
A like or dislike of more resolution is a subjective thing. My finished films are delivered via 42" or 50" plasmas for now but that will change as prices come down and better viewing technology becomes available.

I want to get the best camera in its class when I shell out cash. I like more resolution for the same reason the cinematographer wanted to shoot Capote in Super 35mm or why they shot Baraka on 70mm film. I like to shoot vistas and a lot of my work is in wide angle shots of nature. I can really see the limitations of DV when I shoot SD so when I see the way the Canon can render the kind of detail it does, I wish the Panasonic could do the same because I really like the design of the camera plus the variable frame rates. I also love the incredible support found right here on this board. I don't know if I'm ready to give all that up but damn, that Canon has a beautiful image. I haven't been able to gauge the cadence in 24fps because if there is any hint of it looking more like video than the DVX, that would be a complete deal breaker for me.

The expense and convoluted acquisiton of the Canon pretty much takes it off the table anyway for me. It's not going to stop me from ogling.
 
disjecta said:
A like or dislike of more resolution is a subjective thing. My finished films are delivered via 42" or 50" plasmas for now but that will change as prices come down and better viewing technology becomes available.

I want to get the best camera in its class when I shell out cash. I like more resolution for the same reason the cinematographer wanted to shoot Capote in Super 35mm or why they shot Baraka on 70mm film. .
Click to expand...


If only 70mm was still shot a lot today. Its a very big deal, today, when someone wants to even think of shooting tests on 70mm(65mm.)

As for Super35mm , you get more information out of anamorphic ;) Its just costlier and harder to deal with.
 
Thanks for starting this thread, D. Interesting how in learning this game your eyes become trained and more sensitive. I'll now unavoidably be looking at background detail (and where it aids the shot). I've seen so much nice footage from the HVX (and JVC), this becomes another factor to weigh. Aaarrrgh me head!

Considering this is the first gen of prosumer HD cams, I think each company has done well. I'll probably be waiting to see what the future holds.

Speaking of which, I think picture detail will become more relevant as we move to HDdvd and Blu-ray. Portable high density storage will surely be another consideration.
 
I'm sure it's been mentioned a million times, but what are people using to view footage that they are comparing? I just bought one of those tiny Sanyo HD 1 HDV cameras to shoot video of my new kid and when I played it back on the 24" Dell Monitors I just about ****. I thought about sending it right back. The noise was terrible. Now granted, I didn't expect much from this camera because of the size of the CCD's, it's price, etc. but come on it's still claiming HD. Then I hooked it up to my sub $2000 HD plasma and it looked 10 times better.

So, in my long winded way if everybody is watching this footage of the HVX, JVC, etc and always doing it on LCD monitors could a lot of the noise and resolution issues be coming from the monitors themselves? I've heard it alluded to, but nothing definitive. What i can't understand is that some still pics and such look unbelievable on the Dell's but other things with motion don't look too good.

any thoughts.
 
insanityfw said:
So, in my long winded way if everybody is watching this footage of the HVX, JVC, etc and always doing it on LCD monitors could a lot of the noise and resolution issues be coming from the monitors themselves?
Click to expand...
For whatever technical reasons, both plasmas and LCDs make video look like noisy, blocky, artifacty crapola. One engineer told me it was a "scaling" problem (when the display's picture elements do not exactly match the input signal's "resolution." Another told me that plasmas and LCDs simply "can't do gray scales." Refresh time, the nature of plasma and LCD technology versus the "smooth" analog display technology of CRTs--I don't know. Again, I don't know what the real reason(s) is/are, but all I know is that video ALWAYS looks like crap on today's plasma and LCD displays.
 
I just don't agree with that. I've seen some beautiful footage on my plasma broadcast via HDV on INHD.

Well shot relatively noiseless video is just that. In my experience, neither plasmas or LCDs actually add noise that wasn't there to begin with.
 
disjecta said:
I just don't agree with that. I've seen some beautiful footage on my plasma broadcast via HDV on INHD.
Click to expand...

This is subjective.

I don't buy into plasmas and never have. They have gotten a lot better, and I have been impressed by newer sets (mainly by Samsung.)

BUT plasmas have NEVER looked to my eyes. Unless you are watching some SUPER saturated music video or commercial they just look washed out and soft to me.

And yes very noisy as someone else said.

Some of it refresh, some of is scaling, the lack of grayscale/true black deals with how the photons are being charged throught the display, and is inherent of plasma.

I took a small hiatus from freelancing for a few months last year to tech a known rental house, and I used to hook a Varicam up to a broadcast Panasonic plasma...People would walk and say it looked so good. To me, it looked like sh*t. But hooked up to a HD CRT....gorgeous.

Plasmas are just a notch above in house front projectors in my opinion.
 
The Sarlacc said:
This is subjective.
Click to expand...

It is like emptiness, 16.075 x emptiness is still empty and worth nothing. It is what you see what you believe. (this is my karma for today)
That is subjective.
 
The Sarlacc said:
All this talk of wanting extra resolution, shaper images, this and that.
///
So, sure you want the extra resolution...but why?
Click to expand...
“Resolution? We don’t need no stinkin’ resolution!”

I have to admit that I am surprised by these comments.

When did resolution and image performance take a backseat to camera features? Don’t get me wrong, variable frame rates, non-GOP compression, and tapeless workflow are VERY desirable attributes, but at the end of the day, Disjecta simply wants the best image possible from the sub-$10k class of cameras.

Lords knows, I too have vacillated over this like a virgin on Prom night. So I feel Disjecta’s pain. I (and I assume Disjecta and many others also) wants to believe in the HVX. For me, I am leaning towards the HVX, but resolution and issues regarding “the thing we dare not speak of” :) are still a concern for me.

2004_the_village_016.jpg


I am paying very close attention to the shoot out going down in Texas.

I also feel HDV gets a worse rap than what it deserves. Are there better formats out there? You bet! However, within the last year, I have seen some stunning images come from this format and I am utterly amazed at some of the comments towards it. For many users, it’s a suitable, if not desirable, alternative for the time being.
 
Last edited:
I mean sure, we ALL want the VERY best image we can get. But in the end its not just what all the technical specs, and numbers tell us...because thats just what they are...numbers.

Its about what your eyes tell you. If it looks good, then it just LOOKS good, regardless of what engineers in white labs coats say.
Click to expand...

I think these really should be the words we live by. I've seen footage from both and honestly the JVC simply doesn't look any sharper to me than the HVX. The Canon definatly looks sharper to my eye but, as you said the extra 3K cost along with the irritation of digitizing the footage and dealing with it (24f?) just isn't worth it. More importantly, the stuff I think people really do notice (color and motion), the HVX does much better. I go see a lot of movies and like most of us with an interest in cinematography, I'm damned now in that I constantly look over every visual detail (not just the choice of angles or lighting which is fun but the damn image quality which is mind numbing). I'm sure most of you guys do this too. How many films can you recall seeing that looked pretty soft because of a bad print or crappy projection? I can recall quite a bit. Did anyone notice? Not really. I saw the Inside Man recently. The focus was clearly soft (they fixed it about half way through) but I forgot about it pretty quickly. What blew me away however where the interrigation scenes with some AMAZING lighting (gorgoues diffusion with some pretty highlights and some very saturated colors). I think these things count a lot more as far as image quality goes in the eyes of most viewers. Nothing is EVER sharp enough for me. I've learned that by buying new PCs. Resolutions get higher and higer and, for about five minutes, the highest resolution looks great on your desktop or in videogames. After about ten minutes however, you're totally used to it. When the next resolution comes out a little later and you try it, you can never go back to the old one. On the other hand, things like gorgeous colors never really have dulled in my mind. I play videogames (sorry to use these as an example but they are a good one) with what I though had great colors five years ago and I'm still just as impressed.

I want to get the best camera in its class when I shell out cash.
Click to expand...

A very understandible statement.

I want to get the best camera in its class when I shell out cash. I like more resolution for the same reason the cinematographer wanted to shoot Capote in Super 35mm
Click to expand...

Interesting you bring up Capote. Remember the climax where Perry talks about the murders? Notice that for most of his close ups, Perry is kind of out of focus? This was really noticible when I saw it at the theater and less so but still prevelent in the DVD (I'm guessing they cleaned it up digitally but he still looks a bit soft, even on a small screen). I've seen HVX footage that looks sharper than Perry did in that scene. Does that change anything? Did that stop it, for me at least, from being the most powerful scene in the movie? On the other hand, I think if the colors had been wierd and the motion messed up, it would have been far more distracting.

Like I said, resolution will only get higher and higher and people get used to what they see. Colors and motion however are things that are more constant. That's why a DVX100 film can still get best cinematography at Sundance.
 
Ranger said:
“Resolution? We don’t need no stinkin’ resolution!”

I have to admit that I am surprised by these comments.

When did resolution and image performance take a backseat to camera features? Don’t get me wrong, variable frame rates, non-GOP compression, and tapeless workflow are VERY desirable attributes, but at the end of the day, Disjecta simply wants the best image possible from the sub-$10k class of cameras.
Click to expand...

Well, if you weren't taking me out of context then you would understand the point I am making.

No where did I mention the features of the camera OR the resolution taking a backseat.

Did you even read my post?

Bottom line is all 4 cameras (H1, H100, Z1U, HVX) are all in the same ball park resolution wise. One will always have a better overall resolution then another.

BUT lets factor in how complete product will be viewed...and the fact, that especially for now, everything has to be brought down to SD....Which really makes a few extra lines of resolution bunk.

Like I stated, unless there is truly an express NEED for the extra resolution it's just pixel counting.
 
Ranger said:
I also feel HDV gets a worse rap than what it deserves. Are there better formats out there? You bet! However, within the last year, I have seen some stunning images come from this format and I am utterly amazed at some of the comments towards it. For many users, it’s a suitable, if not desirable, alternative for the time being.
Click to expand...



Let's see....if you have dropped frames...15 frames gone...bye bye, unasable.

And MPEG2 compression :barf:
 
The Sarlacc said:
BUT lets factor in how complete product will be viewed...and the fact, that especially for now, everything has to be brought down to SD....Which really makes a few extra lines of resolution bunk.

Like I stated, unless there is truly an express NEED for the extra resolution it's just pixel counting.
Click to expand...
HD DVDs are just around the corner and I guess to reiterate my point, I am looking for the best HD camera I can get. I'm not looking to produce SD content, it's only going to be a matter of months before HD can be feasibly distributed.

It's just plain silly to consider SD as the only output option in a purchase of this size for me. This camera is all about future planning.
 
you should of seen the footage we where projecting at Bootcamp today... it blows away anything in the class, even the 720p stuff.

JVC is a good camera, but remember the money you save by not going to P2 cards will get eaten in needing to buy a new lens for the JVC.. and or/ about 6 months worth of tape stock.
 
Okay, don't rub it in. I spent the entire day cleaning my house...I really don't need to hear things went really well...okay? :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
bootcamp was incredible.. great people and as usual its nice being able to meet everyone in person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top