Photos Of Hvx200 & Xlh1 Footage Displayed A $6,500 Dollar Pioneer Pro-1130hd 50" P

PappasArts

PappasArts

Veteran
Photos Of Hvx200 & Xlh1 Footage Displayed A $6,500 Dollar Pioneer Pro-1130hd 50" P

The HVX200 looked awesome on this 50" $6,500 Elite Plasma screen . It had an amazing look that was very rich and dynamic looking. It felt very very film like.

Here are photos taken of the plasma screen displaing HVX200 footage.

Link:
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms



Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/
 
jimagine said:
look at the title of your thread...I saw the XL shot but he must have missed it.
Click to expand...
The title of his thread is "Photos of HVX200 & Xlh1 Footage Displayed A $6,500 Dollar Pioneer Pro-1130hd 50" P"

He then states in his first post, "The HVX200 looked awesome on this 50" $6,500 Elite Plasma screen . It had an amazing look that was very rich and dynamic looking. It felt very very film like."

The next logical question, then, is, "What about the XL H1?"

mmm's post isn't confusing at all.
 
The images work fine... the point was that the post was a comparison and he only gave opinions about one of the two options.
 
Haakon said:
"The HVX200 looked awesome on this 50" $6,500 Elite Plasma screen . It had an amazing look that was very rich and dynamic looking. It felt very very film like."

The next logical question, then, is (...)
Click to expand...
"What about @big_screen after a blow-up to 35mm?"
 
Haakon said:
The images work fine... the point was that the post was a comparison and he only gave opinions about one of the two options.
Click to expand...

Following the link Pappas gave on the 1st post, I see no photos on the page..
By clicking the "no image" icon, all I get is 403 error.

That was what I meant.
 
Sorry. Scroll down past that no image icon. You'll see about 6 pictures there you can click on in the first entry.
 
No prob Haakon.

The first image I see on the page from top to btm is "SANTA CLAUSE CAME EARY THIS YEAR!" one. Are you talking about 5 photos below that ?
 
You're looking at this link, right?

http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms

The second entry says

1/9/2006: PHOTOS OF HVX200 & XLH1 FOOTAGE DISPLAYED A $6,500 DOLLAR PIONEER PRO-1130HD 50" PLASMA.

You'll see the images right under the line

........CLICK THUMBNAILS TO SEE FULL SIZE IMAGES
 
I can't see the photos either. The thumbnails have a X on them, and when you try to access them, a "Access Forbidden 404" message...
 
Weird. I guess I just got lucky... it's never shown an error when I pull it up.

I guess Michael is the only one that can tell you for sure...
 
Sorry I never talked about how the XLH1 looked on the Plasma.

Looking at my notes I felt that the H1 was ultra sharp and detailed but the image was flat. Now this can be adjusted via the menu, however I am waiting to try this. When looking at H1 footage you know that it's trying to be a 700 or 750 hdcam. It comes very close. The lens is the hindrance to some degree but not all....

If I went with the H1 it would have to be head only and get the 16x manual lens. The H1 is an awesome broadcast capable HD camera right out of the box. That's why Discovery Network approved the H1 for either SDI and HDV recording in all global markets in December after they had a two week test trial with it.. That's why ESPN wants to by a ton load so they can have more camera coverage for a much smaller production costs. That's why when you scope the H1, it's full spec. It's meant to be used in lower cost HD broadcast production. As well filmmaking if you want too. But I believe it was aimed at broadcasting first.

Now for filmmaking. We don't know. We do know that the DVX look can do it, MurderBall, November , Kstreet all had a very good look that was very film like. My friend Bob Stevers was the DoP on a film shot in NewYork with the DVX100a. I have the preproduction tests from that camera. Lets just say that it looks awesome. Love the imagery he got.

My DVX100 I got the first month it came out in 2002 was my favorite of the small form professional cameras and still is today. I sold this camera to my friend Barlow in 2003. It Gave me an image that was so sweet. Hands down the best of the bunch, and I have owned 99% of all DV cameras out there. Chris Hurd said I change cameras more than he changes his white t-shirts.

Now does that mean the DVX100a was better than the XL2.

Nope,

The XL2 is an awesome camera that had a great video look. It was a mini D-beta in full 16x9 full frame mode and had that video image to it even though it could do 24p.

I hate fixed lenses. That's no secret around here. Removable is my number one thing I look for. However the DVX's look is awesome. The DVX100a has the " look " that if your making films, it gets you closer with less hassle.

However, Canon imagery looks fundamentally different than Panasonic. Their philosophy on image Colorimetry and tone, etc have many polar differences.

The same goes for Fuji vs Kodak vs Agfa film stock. They all see the world different. Nikon Dslr's look different than Canons

Now the Canon XLH1 vs HVX200.

H1 is a XL2 with other improvements that just come with moving into the HD domain...

The HVX200 is a DVX100A or B with other improvements that just come with moving into the HD domain...

I love them all.

You might need to look at it like this: If you rented a Panavision camera with a built in stock; that was the Panavision Fuji Cam, or the Panavision Kodak Cam and the Panavision Agfa cam.

It would all depend on the look your going for and need.

Yes, you can massage any image, but the core foundation is very hard to change, these cameras as I said before just simply see the world with different eyes.


Neither image is bad, just different..............



I hope that helps.. Feel free to ask more questions....


http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArtsrts
 
Great post Pappas. Really like the way you talk and post things- straightforward and unbiased.

My question is this: I'm what you call a "one man band". I direct, produce and edit my own promotional videos. I've been doing them for the last year and a half with the DVX. I love the picture and colors, but really feel a problem with the camera noise. It is a lot more noticeable than with the PD170. I've got a fellow colleague that has a XL2 and did a DVD with xl footage that looked amazing. The color corrected stuff looked brilliant, and, above all, sharp and noise free.

My questions about jumping to HD is this: Am I to expect the same type of noise on the HVX? I remeber, back on the IBC reports, that Jan said something about the HVX being less noisy than the DVX. If the HVX is, let's put it this way, equal in noise to the ORIGINAL DVX, not the dvxa, than I would be happy (I had the original and found that the A upgrade was very very noisy). About the H1, can you color correct it to look like an HVX? Or can you change the camera settings for it to look like the HVX? And how about editing? Can I get same editing performance of dvcprohd and hdv from my dual 2.7ghz Powermac with 3gb ram?

I want to do my first serious (and hopefully award winning!:)) short this year, and while I'm in full pre-production, I really would like to get a camera that can fulfill both my Moviemaker dream and guarantee the most competitive tool for broadcast and TVspot production...

I know these questions bring very subjective answers, but I really would like to know your view from this.

Thanks in advance

Sérgio Perez
 
Hi Sergio, sorry for the slow response


What DVX do you have?

The HVX200 is and is not the same machine. Now some early reports from Evin Grant who I believe is the first to use a HVX200 on a paying gig since shipping mentioned the HVX200 when lit correctly is very noise free. When lit correctly. Well that's like s16 or some 35mm film too!


The XL2 is an awesome camera. I always liked it. My DVX100 was my favorite because it's look it gave and controls it offered in a small form professional camera were nice. When the XL2 came out, it became my top two in my number one position of small form cameras I liked.

The biggest problem here is your asking questions when I am grappling with the same decision which puts me in an odd dilemma of which camera to choose.

I luv both cameras.

I think H1 and HVX200 offer so much. The JVC is amazing too! I was privy to see some unreleased footage from a film done with the Hd100 and it's amazing looking.

The HVX has everything and more in it that made the DVX series awesome. The XLH1 has more than the last XL series. It's a XL2 that became HD with more features essentially.

The HVX200; P2, multi frame rates, DVCproHD, true progressive ccd's, are just some of the great things about the HVX200.

The XLH1 has tape ( I don't like tape ) never have. Tape is so 20th century. However, I like the long times to record and how cheap it is. The ease to archive as well. If I shoot 5 hours of tape in two days, I can shelve the tapes and not worry about unloading them. P2 is just a temporary holding zone for your footage. Not unlike Digital still cameras. On my DSLR, I always forget to unload the data. When I run out the door I realize that and have to wait 16 minutes to unload at the PC.

The removable lens is awesome to have. However I don't want the 20x at all. If I got the H1, it would be a head only when or if Canon offers it. Then get a 16x manual lens. Not everyone needs this option either... I do!

XLH1 image is flat out of the box. It's aimed towards the HD broadcasters just like most f900's are. Yeah f900's. When you first setup a f900 straight out of a box. It's has the video look.

Yep, that news-cooking channel- HGTV- ESPN look. Even the 24p looks just like it's 60i video look just now the temporal rate of 24. It's uuuuuglyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy; if your intent is to make films or drama tv. If it happens to be HD broadcast tv, then it's beautiful for striking news and home building shows.

This is the same thing with the H1 as the f900's , out of the box it's video. The H1 delivers beautiful HD imagery. Yummy! But not for films..

You have to learn your camera and dial in that look, the same as you do on a Sony f900 Cinealta.

See the HVX200 is filmlook out of the box. It appeals to our lazy side of our mind. It does not require the level of adjustments I have done on large scale HD cameras or the Canon XLH1. A lot people don't know that the H1 has a friggin ton load of adjustments in the menus. The Console SW also has a setup mode to really tweak the camera as well. However I'm even guilty of being a little lazy and wanting a camera that you lower the ped, sharpness a few knocks and set it too gamma d then shoot away. That's what it was like on my DVX100, it was GREAT! It was simple, it was easy.

That's why many people in the biz buy pre configured settings on memory cards that emulate certain film stocks characteristics that will kick your F900 into that look without hassle. I hope the same for the H1.

So It's hard for me to answer which would be best for you as I am loving both the HVX200 and the XLH1. I want both, however the budget only allows for one camera for now.

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site

XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms

http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top