Pana Mojo vs. Sony Sharpness

Spartacus

Spartacus

Veteran
Can someone help me out here:
I own two HVX200s. They work as expected and put out nice images. I primarily work in DV50. That actually was the biggest selling point for me at that time.
But when I watch HD productions (probably shot on the F900), even downrezed, what always strikes me is the sharpness and image detail.

I like the "Pana Mojo", but images I´ve seen from the XL H1 and lately from the EX1, just have that higher res (maybe more videoish) HD look like the big toys.

In a lot of situations (like music vids) I still prefer the Pana look, but eg an instructual video or documentary stuff can´t look sharp enough IMHO...

So is this all a matter of settings? Can I tweak the HVX to drop the "mojo" in favor of a more detailed and sharper HD look?
Would the HPX170 make a difference?
Or should I shop for an EX1?:huh:
 
I have no idea when people talk about how other cameras are sharper than the HVX and all that stuff. All I know is my HVX is pretty sharp and I am extremely happy with it.
 
Yeah I must agree that as much as I love my HVX other cameras like the ex-1 definitely have a sharper look. I prefer the mojo over sharpness, but thats just me and what I do. And the ex-1 wasnt around when I bought mine. Made the decision really easy... Doubt the 170 is any sharper really. I could be wrong though.
 
John Caballero said:
I have no idea when people talk about how other cameras are sharper than the HVX and all that stuff. All I know is my HVX is pretty sharp and I am extremely happy with it.
Click to expand...
As said, I´m happy too with the images the HVX puts out.
And of course, given proper focusing, HVX images are sharp as it gets.
Maybe it´s that "mojo" thing again, just the way the whole image is rendered.
But how is this done?
Is it in the hardware or can it be altered with settings?
Maybe it´s like filmstocks, when I want that ultra clear and crisp HD video look, I need to change to Sony...?
 
Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing. You can have a sharp smaller image, but if you up-rez it it won't be very sharp because it lacks higher resolution. You can also have a huge fuzzy image. With a higher native resolution, such as 1920x1080 output, you just have more options on how sharp and how big you want it. If someone says they don't like the 'sharpness' of the EX1 (legit claim), then it's pretty easy to take away that sharpness either in camera or easier yet, in post, but you still have a very high resolution image.
 
i just worked on a regional tv spot (for a certain red-haired, pigtailed fast food hamburger joint) shot on the hpx900. it was chosen because we had a bigger budget and the exec creative director thought it had more panache than the hvx200. though it was EXTREMELY sharp and well-defined. i thought it was WAY too much so - of both. at least for our intended use. i could have shot it with my lowly 200 and brevis combo and delivered a WAY better end product and for about $8000 less!

but big fast food clients are impressed by big cameras, lots of lights and bloated crews - so who am i to question? - PSSSSHT. whatever...!

let's not quibble over tools. dicing up cameras gets you nowhere. its a matter of the right tool for the job. after-all, no good artist uses just one brush.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the market for another cam and I might consider the Sony line again but I have to spend some time with it. I've universally hated the little sony cameras layout, ergonomics and lack of mojo but I have been impressed by it's image so I'm not too much of an HVX fanboy to not look into it. I do think though that us early HVX adopters picked the best camera that was available at the time.. hands down and if I waited to buy an EX1 then I would have lost out on tons and tons of money. So, that should be considered.. and if and when Panny comes out with something better than the EX1 or if the SCarlett kicks the EX1 booty, then those EX1 users should be given the cedit for buying the camera that was the best at that time... It's about what you can get at the time and for some people there are drawbacks and other decisions that may outweight sharpness.#


Overall it's a good time for all of us, but everything is subjective
 
I don't think it's a matter of "giving credit". It's simply a matter of buying a camera based on it's real merits. Fanboy stuff shouldn't really play a factor with people our age. We're not high school kids.

I bought a DVX when it was the best option available. I bought an EX1 because currently it is the best camera available at it's price. The EX3 is better. There are tons of cameras better than the two I have but I can't afford them.

Where things get dicey is when you see asinine comparisons (like comparing the EX1 to the HMC150) and people saying the HMC150 is better hands down. That kind of stuff just pisses people off, and is baseless.

Saying that one camera is "more organic", more "cinematic", more "whatever" smacks of the same elitism that we all face from those shooting even 16mm. Come on... These are the same people who want Zeiss lenses because they are sharper, or Letus Ultimates to preserve the sharpness, yet knock really sharp cameras.

If Panny decides to offer a full raster camera in the sub $10k market, I'm sure it will be great. But they don't. So there there it is.
 
Howeve, you claim that the EX1 is the "best camera available at it's [sic] price."

Assuming that "price' is the same as a HPX170, isn't your comment purely subjective?
 
He said F900, which is a Cine-Alta camera, also was Panavised. Which is a huge pet peeve. Panavision and Panasonic are two different things. Panny = panavision. It has only been recently that people started referring to a Panasonic by Panny or Pana.

But the HVX vs. an Panavised F900 with Digiprimes is night and day. They are nothing alike. Same with an F900 vs. a Red. Different type cameras totally.
 
Mattykins said:
But the HVX vs. an Panavised F900 with Digiprimes is night and day. They are nothing alike.
Click to expand...

Of course they are not alike. I was just trying to describe the HD look, I´m interested in.
The HVX, eg with an SGpro, puts out a beautiful cinematic image most indy filmers can be more than happy with.
So for recreating a "film"look it´s amazing. But for recreating or comming close to the look of eg the F900, the HVX just seems to lack the detailed image.
What I´ve seen so far from the EX1 comes far closer.
 
Everytime I buy a piece of equipment I buy it because either I want it or need it and because it gives me the final product I expect from it. I don't go around asking opinions from others. I just take a look at work done by others with the product. Go to photo or video shows where the companies are displaying the equipment. Go to the store, hold it in my hands, feel it. Do a little bit more of private research and then buy it.
Most of the time buying a professional piece of equipment is a personal choice and as an individual we should be capable to make a decision about it on our very own.
 
So you "don't go around asking opinions from others."?
But you join a forum and READ other peoples opinions?
What´s your point?

And I used to go to the IBC before buying new equipment. Very nice to have perfectly lit scenes, models and evrything set up in the best way possible.
But IBC is only once a year and I rather have 100 different "real world" reports from people actually using the product on their jobs and gigs.
If 80% of them agree on a piece of equipment or feature of it as being good or bad, it probably is just so.
 
I think that many of us approach as a combination of personal preferences ala John, and the input of real world users ala Spartacus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top