Parkour-Advertisment and Making of filmed with HPX500 and HVX200

xandix said:
Too many Projects arent good. :angry:
But Parkour is very "hip" and (in Germany) there is a big "Underground Scene" .
So i think this would be so in other Countrys, even so in HongKong?.:undecided
Click to expand...

True, that's why I put some of the projects on hold and concentrate on a feature which I'm shooting soon with a friend.
There has been a parcour group in Hong Kong for some time now. Some of them played Capeoeira in the same group as me so that's how I got to know them. Before that I never thought Hong Kong would have a parcour group. But I guess it's all over the world now.

- The scream of the woman at the beginning. Looked pathetic.
- There was not enough parkour stuff
Can't wait till I'm there. Would love to do a project that involves some parkour, as I am into parkour/tricking myself. Sadly I've been injured during the last few months.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree about the screaming, was a little bit weird. But all in all I think it was very well made. Simon, I guess that's what our first project is going to be then :) Can't wait too, was itching to do a parcour project for a long time now.
 
This is an excellent example to refer to if anyone questions the viability of the HPX500 (or the HVX200, for that matter)... I have read many posts here and elsewhere questioning these cameras, and their ability to deliver quality images... This answers those questions perfectly.

I own both of these cameras, and use them regularly, happily. Alas, I do not own the cine-style lenses used here, but if you look at the behind-the-scenes video, you'll notice many of the key action shots were made with the 200, and that lens is fixed.

I've mentioned elsewhere that maximum resolution isn't he only factor to consider in purchasing an "affordable" camera. The look is important, and the well thought out look of this spot confirms this.
 
That may be true, but whatever is being "hidden" is apparently not a problem with a 35 blow-up. It's possible to find fault by scrutinizing almost anything... My basic philosophy is - if it works, it works, and if it works, don't fix it.
 
Please don't read that I am trying to find fault. I really liked the production.

I have noticed over the years that things like detail, sharpness and noise do get hidden when viewing at smaller than original size over the internet.

This statement is geared more towards the cameras used.

No pixel peeping, just would rather see the full resolution version on a T.V. to see the final image.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I have noticed over the years that things like detail, sharpness and noise do get hidden when viewing at smaller than original size over the internet.
Click to expand...

I've get the video in the original Size (1280x720) to Youtube (as an MPG4).
When you go in Youtube to "HD" (and you have a fast Computer and Grafic Card) you can see the "original". But "Not really" because you see an Flash Video that is converted from an MPG4, that was convert from DVCProHD (or DNXHD).

The Reason, why we get the HPX500 and HVX200 was the ability from that Cameras to make SLOMO (50FPS and 60FPS), an important Feature for us on this Advertisment-Shooting. Also that the 2. Cameramann was an big HVX200 User with many work on it. He was the Ideal Man for the "running Scenes" and the" fast and Heavy Work ". Also there was clearly, that when we get the HPX we get the Cinestyle Zooms because of the wishes from the customer to get an "fine Look" of the Beach Scene.

In the Post, my Footage from my Canon HDV Camera XHA1 (I'll do the Making Of Shooting with it), was visible sharper in the AVID (than the HVX and HPX). But it is another "Look".
And some Clips from the HVX that i used for the Making of is Colorcorrected to "the Look" of the XHA1.
The minor "Pixel-Resolution" of the HPX and HVX is no obstacle to blowup to 35mm. Because the Customer isnt able to see the difference, while he dont see if it can (in Theory) sharper.
So the Customer is satisfied with the "Nice Look", and he dont misses any "sharpness".
 
Xandix: It's interesting what you say about the resolution of the Canons. I sold my XL H1 and three lenses when I purchased the 500. I had shot several docs with the XL (one which was on national PBS) after modifying it to be more hand-holdable, and I really liked it, was amazed by HDV, and never had a single (predicted by many) drop out after shooting over 150 Sony Digital Master tapes.

After I got the HPX500, I was disappointed at first because in side-by-side comparisons the (recently shot) material from the Canon was noticeably, apparently sharper - and I emphasize the word "apparently".

After working with the Panasonic cameras (I bought a 200 as well) I started realizing how much I really like the "tactile" feeling, much more like what I've expected from 16mm film in the past. I also realized that, by using the CINE-D gamma, I was, in essence, causing the image to look less sharp - I assume that's why many prefer CINE-V - but it's that more subtle contrast (from D) that effectively imitates film.
 
Mac, I have found the same that the gamma settings really affect the detail perception in the final image.

For what I shoot, the SDnorm gamma gives me the right amount of shadow detail and clean look. This is paired with the Cine V color matrix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top