Pana Mojo vs. Sony Sharpness

I have an HVX200a, and use it mainly for narrative filmmaking. It's fine for other work too, but I think if I intended to do mainly HDTV style stuff (Discovery Channel etc.) I'd probably prefer the EX-1 (which in fairness I've only fiddled with very briefly at B&H). Aside from the HVX's significant price advantage, I still have the sense that it makes a more film-like image than any of its competitors. And it's plenty clean and plenty sharp.

Then there's the controversial image issues with the EX1 (rolling shutter, jello-vision etc.). Haven't yet gotten a clear handle on what that adds up to. One of these days I'll get my hands on one for an extended trial and see for myself. Until then I remain uncertain as to how significantly those issues would play out in real-world filmmmaking scenarios. Some say it's a deal breaker, others say no...

Things will keep improving no doubt, and at some point a switch to a better camera will be called for, but at the moment I don't think the EX1 is the one for me.
 
Is there any chance Canon could jump in the gap, delivering a HD camcorder, that records an AVCintra on SD/CF cards...?
Like an XH-H2?
 
I always thought that the HVX200 was a little noisy, not sensitive and a little soft. I also hated the LCD screen for focusing.

It sounds like the latest version of the camera improves my first 2 complaints, but I don't think that resolution has improved. Is the LCD screen better?

I have owned both cameras. I love the HVX200 film gammas. It's true that the EX1 presets are not as good right out of the box, but they can be tweaked to look just as good as the HVX (in my humble opinion).

The LCD screen on the Sony is awesome.

I feel like you can always soften an image, but you can never go the other way. The Ex1 was the right choice for me.

The Rolling Shutter can be a problem in some situations. I don't shoot footage with a lot of flashes in it, so it's not a big deal for me. I have a Sony HDV camera that I use for shooting family video. It has rolling shutter. I can see the half frame flash, but normal people don't notice it.

As always, the best thing to do is to test both cameras and see which is best for you.

I just read a Panasonic brochure in a magazine. They have some great new P2 products (cameras) that shoot something better than DVCPRO HD at 1080. It looks promising, but the price is high. Search the web for more info.
 
I don't mean to be argumentative here, but there are two points here I'd *really* like to have a better understanding of from owners of the HVX200a.

1. I've heard time and again that the HVX image is more film-like. Can anyone quantify what that means exactly? Is it grain, is it the inherent softness of the image, what is it?

2. Perhaps more defineable, I have heard several times how the HVX enjoys a significant price advantage over the EX-1. Perhaps I am doing my math incorrectly, but could someone run down the price of shooting 1 hour and 3 hours of video on both platforms assuming that a new video buyer is buying one camera or the other and has no investment in either camp?

Thanks.



Ted Spencer said:
Aside from the HVX's significant price advantage, I still have the sense that it makes a more film-like image than any of its competitors. And it's plenty clean and plenty sharp.
Click to expand...
 
Perrone, Have you had to send your EX1 in for any of the myriad of technical glitches. My buddy just informed me that he had to send his in for vignetting issues. Have you experienced that and or can quanify the build quality. It's been highly documented on the boards. There were a lot of inital build and quality problems with the EX1... something that hasn't happened at all with the HVX.. so I do wonder about the longterm stand-up ability. I"m looking at the EX1 but I wonder if it's built like a tank like the HVX or if it'll be a two year and dead cam.
 
I have not had to send in my EX1 for anything. However, of the myriad of teething pains associated with the early models, Sony seems to have clamped them down remarkably well. My unit has the battery drain issue but it's not worth it to send the unit in. For someone else it might be.

I would not say the EX1 is built like a tank. If it were, it would be 8 pounds. Based on what I have seen with other Sony cameras in this price range, the longevity has been fine. Sony also seems to be quite protective of the CineAlta branding, so I don't think they'd put out a rubbish camera. I also look at guys like Phillip Bloom who carries his EX1 off the hip, and frankly will put that camera through more abuse in a month, than I will in a year. His seems to be holding up just fine.

I have not owned an HVX so I cannot speak to it's build quality. I can say that my first generation DVX has been bulletproof. We'll see over time how the EX1 does.

Justyn said:
Perrone, Have you had to send your EX1 in for any of the myriad of technical glitches. My buddy just informed me that he had to send his in for vignetting issues. Have you experienced that and or can quanify the build quality. It's been highly documented on the boards. There were a lot of inital build and quality problems with the EX1... something that hasn't happened at all with the HVX.. so I do wonder about the longterm stand-up ability. I"m looking at the EX1 but I wonder if it's built like a tank like the HVX or if it'll be a two year and dead cam.
Click to expand...
 
i take a slightly different approach to the sharpness issue, ive found that the codecs used when rendering out make a huge difference, u can get amazing images from the hvx if you have a good quality codec and know how to set it up for example., the camera on its own produces amazing images.. but when it converts it to dvcpro.. then u edit it. add plugins and render out on a basic mpeg encoder your quality gets butchered, so my advice is to take some time and find a pro encoder so your final footage will hold up as close as possible to the original. my main complaint i think with the hvx is that in 720 mode it shoots 960x720 and i usualy render out a 1280x720 frame.. so it stretches a bit, i know there is not a huge loss in this.. but persoanlly i think every little loss adds up in the end.
 
Last edited:
I've used an HVX200 for a short film and documentary and now own a EX1. Here's my thoughts:

If you do a lot of low light work, need the best resolution for under 10K and shoot event work that requires long recording times then the EX1 is the camera for you.

If however you do short films/commercials or work where lighting conditions are controlled then I'd stick with the HVX200/a.

The Panasonic cameras have a image straight out of the camera that are very much like Kodak motion picture film. It's hard to describe but that's the best way to put it...video that looks very close to film. The images produced from the camera aren't necessarily true to life but they have a polished feel that is just cool.

I'll be mixing footage shot with the HVX200 with footage shot with the EX1 for this feature length documentary I'm working on. For the interviews and any closeups that were shot thus far everything looks and sounds great on my 57" HDTV (even downconverted from its native 1080/60i down to 720/60p). But looking at any wide shots that were done (and there's a decent amount of that) the HVX200 came up short and will be re-shot with the EX1.

The last remaining interviews that will be done with the EX1 should look a bit more professional with its inherent shallower depth of field due to the 1/2" chips. The talent should love the precision skin detail setting with the EX1 that the HVX200 lacked.
 
PerroneFord said:
I don't mean to be argumentative here, but there are two points here I'd *really* like to have a better understanding of from owners of the HVX200a.

1. I've heard time and again that the HVX image is more film-like. Can anyone quantify what that means exactly? Is it grain, is it the inherent softness of the image, what is it?

2. Perhaps more defineable, I have heard several times how the HVX enjoys a significant price advantage over the EX-1. Perhaps I am doing my math incorrectly, but could someone run down the price of shooting 1 hour and 3 hours of video on both platforms assuming that a new video buyer is buying one camera or the other and has no investment in either camp?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Since you quoted my comment in your post, I'll take a shot at a response.

1. I can't speak from authority on the specific technical details that give the HVX a more film-like look (to my eye), but I believe it's a combination of the 4:2:2 color depth and Panasonic's proprietary Cine-like "scene file" and Gamma algorithms. Earlier on it was also attributable to its true 24 frame capability, but I understand the EX-1 has that now as well, so it wouldn't apply there. It's true that the HVX's image is softer than the EX-1's, and film is often somewhat soft too (and sometimes razor-sharp), and that could play into my impression as well. As others have pointed out, sharpness can be subtracted, but not added without creating other issues.

Otherwise, it's really just my eye (and others') I'm talking about, and I acknowledge that if I had some time to play with an EX-1 I might change my mind (or not). What I've seen thus far of footage from it looks a bit video-ish to me by comparison.

2. The price difference was strictly concerning the cameras themselves. Media cost difference is a valid point, and one I haven't personally done the math on.

And who knows...I may become an EX-1 owner (or whatever it evolves into) myself some day. It certainly looks like a great camera.
 
Thanks Ted.

I wasn't trying to knock you here. It's just something that I see over and over and I really wanted to try to get a handle on it.

Regarding the film-like image, I've seen a lot of work from the HVX. But to be honest, nearly everyone I know who shoots it for narrative does so with 35mm adapters, filters, etc. A large proportion of the EX1 buyers simply aren't there yet. So it seems a bit ingenuine to compare the "film-like" nature of one over the other on posted footage. What I'd really like to see if someone shooting an EX1 with it's cine-based modes, through a 35mm adapter and good glass, and maybe with a pro-mist or something like you'd actually use on a film camera. I'd be interested to know how that image looks.

Regarding the costs to shoot, when I did the math, the cost to shoot 50 minutes with the HVX and P2 cards was over $1k more than shooting with the EX1. Stretch that to 3 hours and the gap grew to over $2k. That's a pretty significant jump. So when I hear people tout the HVX because it's "cheaper", I am wondering if they are looking at the real costs to shoot with the camera.

None of this is to say that the EX1 is better, or the HVX isn't good, etc. It's not about that. They are different cameras. But I have been rather disappointed with the comparisons I've read thus far for the most part. They have not been anything like apples to apples comparisons.

The EX1/EX3 are great cameras but certainly not for everyone, and I believe their scope is more limited than that of the HVX. I do think they bring some things to the table that make them excellent for a certain group of shooters. To be honest the HD-SDI out and the true 1080p were HUGE for me. The ability to preserve my investment in my firestore was another.

If I was shooting mostly narrative, I really don't know which way I would have gone. The HPX looks very promising in that regard.

To be honest, the thing that scared me off that path (both the HVX and the HPX) was the P2 workflow and cost. I simply couldn't afford it. And the HMC just wasn't going to be available in time.

Different choices for different shooters. It's REALLY nice to have so many great choices these days!


Ted Spencer said:
Since you quoted my comment in your post, I'll take a shot at a response.

1. I can't speak from authority on the specific technical details that give the HVX a more film-like look (to my eye), but I believe it's a combination of the 4:2:2 color depth and Panasonic's proprietary Cine-like "scene file" and Gamma algorithms. Earlier on it was also attributable to its true 24 frame capability, but I understand the EX-1 has that now as well, so it wouldn't apply there. It's true that the HVX's image is softer than the EX-1's, and film is often somewhat soft too (and sometimes razor-sharp), and that could play into my impression as well. As others have pointed out, sharpness can be subtracted, but not added without creating other issues.

Otherwise, it's really just my eye (and others') I'm talking about, and I acknowledge that if I had some time to play with an EX-1 I might change my mind (or not). What I've seen thus far of footage from it looks a bit video-ish to me by comparison.

2. The price difference was strictly concerning the cameras themselves. Media cost difference is a valid point, and one I haven't personally done the math on.

And who knows...I may become an EX-1 owner (or whatever it evolves into) myself some day. It certainly looks like a great camera.
Click to expand...
 
Ah come on, enough sillyness with the 'true 1080p' statement... i am surprised anyone can be confused at the differences between these cams.

They speak for themselves, EX sharp as glass, hvx more organic (and hence why many say filmic.)

Can the EX look filmlic? of course it could do - i'm yet to be totally convinced myself though, the promo's philip bloom shot get the closest ;) The biggest mojo for the EX is that incredible sharpness, it stands out! For many though - the detail in the resolution, is just part of the picture.
 
PerroneFord said:
Thanks Ted.

I wasn't trying to knock you here.
Click to expand...

No worries...I didn't take it that way.

Regarding the film-like image, I've seen a lot of work from the HVX. But to be honest, nearly everyone I know who shoots it for narrative does so with 35mm adapters, filters, etc. A large proportion of the EX1 buyers simply aren't there yet. So it seems a bit ingenuine to compare the "film-like" nature of one over the other on posted footage. What I'd really like to see if someone shooting an EX1 with it's cine-based modes, through a 35mm adapter and good glass, and maybe with a pro-mist or something like you'd actually use on a film camera. I'd be interested to know how that image looks.
Click to expand...

I've seen a great deal of footage posted from the bare HVX, as well as having plenty of my own to look at, so I'm reasonably satisfied that I have a fair impression of the differences. Again though, if I had an EX1 to work with, I am willing to admit the possibilty that I could change my mind.

If I was shooting mostly narrative, I really don't know which way I would have gone. The HPX looks very promising in that regard.
Click to expand...

Narrative is the key path for me. I'll do other things for sure, but not as a primary goal. Regarding the HPX, its output quality should be fundamentally identical to the HVX200A, which is why I bought one rather than wait for the 170.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Narrative is the key path for me. I'll do other things for sure, but not as a primary goal. Regarding the HPX, its output quality should be fundamentally identical to the HVX200A, which is why I bought one rather than wait for the 170.
Click to expand...

The big difference for me would have been SDI output since I am going to have to feed that to our closed caption encoders. If the HPX would have had SD cards and I could have guaranteed shipment before Sep. 30 back in June, I'd have one now instead of an EX1.

I think a large proportion of users on this site are narrative shooters. So I try to keep that in mind when I read responses here. Most of my work is PSA, long-form, and event shooting, so I have mostly different needs. I'm just dabbling in narrative work.

Thanks for your openness in your responses. I've enjoyed this conversation quite a lot.
 
PerroneFord said:
Regarding the costs to shoot, when I did the math, the cost to shoot 50 minutes with the HVX and P2 cards was over $1k more than shooting with the EX1. Stretch that to 3 hours and the gap grew to over $2k. That's a pretty significant jump.
Click to expand...
Yes, but people don't traditionally shoot that way with the HVX, so it's almost a false argument. I've done hours of footage working off just two 4GB cards. Not that I'd recommend that to anyone anymore! :)

The better argument would be to compare the HMC150 against the EX1, since it's the same imagers as the HVX, and it records a long-GOP 4:2:0 format just like the EX1 does. So your numbers would be:
EX1 plus 3 hours of footage (40GB of SxS): $8749
HMC150 plus 3 hours of footage (32GB of SD): $3609.

That's a gap of $5,140, if you want to compare long-GOP 4:2:0 to long-GOP 4:2:0.

Use the right tool for the job, and compare the right workflow to the right workflow.

Different choices for different shooters. It's REALLY nice to have so many great choices these days!
Click to expand...
Agreed, and we should try to focus on that whenever possible. There is usually one right choice for each shooter's needs.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
The better argument would be to compare the HMC150 against the EX1, since it's the same imagers as the HVX, and it records a long-GOP 4:2:0 format just like the EX1 does. So your numbers would be:
EX1 plus 3 hours of footage (40GB of SxS): $8749
HMC150 plus 3 hours of footage (32GB of SD): $3609.

That's a gap of $5,140, if you want to compare long-GOP 4:2:0 to long-GOP 4:2:0.
Click to expand...

While I won't disagree that the 150 would be cheaper to shoot, the HMC150 was not available in the time I had to make a purchase, so it was a non-consideration.

Barry, as you well know, the EX1 doesn't HAVE to be a long GOP camera (yes I know it costs more to record it), so I take some exception to comparing it to a camera that does nothing but. But really it doesn't matter. I know where I'm at, and I know where you're at.
 
Barry, as you well know, the EX1 doesn't HAVE to be a long GOP camera (yes I know it costs more to record it), so I take some exception to comparing it to a camera that does nothing but
Click to expand...
This makes no sense to me. The EX1 only records long-GOP and only long-GOP, same as the 150 does. If you want to record anything else, you'd have to use an external recorder, same as you could do with the 150 (either an HDMI recorder like the Intensity or NanoFlash, or through a lossless HDMI->HD-SDI converter to go to the Convergent XDR or Wafian). So where is there a difference?
 
The problem with this debate (HVX vs. EX1) is that people take sides because they plunked down money or are going to plunk down money on there "One" camera that they plan on shooting everything with. Which is the right camera for you.....The Panasonic with a Mojo factor or the Sony with the sharper, bolder image that may show rolling shutter issues in certain situations.

It is my view, That there is no "One" camera that is perfect for everything. If you have a job that requires features that your camera is not good at...... Rent the one thats better !

frisco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top