Renting HVx200 and XLH1 same day: Any suggestions?
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
MattC
Veteran
Mr. Blonde said:
I see, so when your original argument is shown to be crap, you go to this....
Ok, look, I never said that -3db on a camera will solve any and all noise problems. But it does help mitigate noise in most circumstances. All of these cameras, from what I've seen, exhibit noise and from my perspective it is an issue. One of the things I'm most disappointed about as far as the Canon goes (and that list is long) is the amount of noise it has compared to the XL2. Perhaps it's just a function of doing HD on 1/3" chips, I don't know.
For some people noise is acceptable up to a certain point, the feel it makes their footage more "filmic" or it just doesn't bother them. I'm not one of those people. I want a noise free image. And yes, I consider both the XL2 and the DVX to be noisy cameras, but I think the XL2 is noticeably less noisy. Not noiseless, not INCREDIBLY less noisy, but noticeably. I think I'm with NBCShooter, I would probably rather spend the money on an SDX and uprez rather than go with a 1/3" HD cam. Of course if I had to go with a 1/3" HD camera I would get the HVX. Not because I love it, but because I think it's the best one available.
In any case you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no interest in examining the pros and cons of various cameras or their features. If Panny doesn't do it, it's not for you. That's fine, but it's a rather ignorant position to me, and not one that serves the community the best. That is what I have a problem with regarding your posts, especially when you espouse nonsense and try to give it credence with nothing more than an obnoxious tone. I guarantee you this, if the HVX had a -3db option, you'd be singing it's praises over cameras that didn't....
Matt
Steve Roark
Member
getting back to the original topic...
getting back to the original topic...
This is probably a lot to ask for a short shoot, but here's my book of wishes:
Every lens has a 'sweet spot' which generally produces the best image. On slr cameras the rule of thumb is 2 or 3 stops from iris wide open. I'd be interested in seeing if someone can determine the optimal aperture for each lens at wide/medium/telephoto settings. Then I'd like to see someone light various scenes to match these aperture settings so the cameras can be tested in all their glory. I'm mainly interested in people shots, especially head-n-shoulders interviews with a soft key and some fill light. I realize a lot of this is subjective, but then I doubt anyone watching my productions will give a flying flip what gain I used or whether the resolution is 650 lines or 670...The clients just want everything to look better than real life and the audiences just want to see people get hit in the groin with a football (sorry, I digress...).
getting back to the original topic...
This is probably a lot to ask for a short shoot, but here's my book of wishes:
Every lens has a 'sweet spot' which generally produces the best image. On slr cameras the rule of thumb is 2 or 3 stops from iris wide open. I'd be interested in seeing if someone can determine the optimal aperture for each lens at wide/medium/telephoto settings. Then I'd like to see someone light various scenes to match these aperture settings so the cameras can be tested in all their glory. I'm mainly interested in people shots, especially head-n-shoulders interviews with a soft key and some fill light. I realize a lot of this is subjective, but then I doubt anyone watching my productions will give a flying flip what gain I used or whether the resolution is 650 lines or 670...The clients just want everything to look better than real life and the audiences just want to see people get hit in the groin with a football (sorry, I digress...).
Keep arguing guys-- it's fun.
Anyway as far as what Steve Roark wants to request--
I actually think I'm going to TRy to shoot a five minute short with one of the cameras or all of them. LoL Wouldn't that be funny?
No, seriously-- i want to shoot a short so I'll have to choose a camera to shoot saturday and sunday with.
To add to this, here's the camera line-up: DVX100a (old, but SD comparisons will help some people) Canon XLH1, HVX200, Sony Z1u.
Anyway as far as what Steve Roark wants to request--
I actually think I'm going to TRy to shoot a five minute short with one of the cameras or all of them. LoL Wouldn't that be funny?
No, seriously-- i want to shoot a short so I'll have to choose a camera to shoot saturday and sunday with.
To add to this, here's the camera line-up: DVX100a (old, but SD comparisons will help some people) Canon XLH1, HVX200, Sony Z1u.
thefilmaddict
Veteran
Here's a test idea (although I think that you already know about this one):
Using the lowest noise settings (see Barry's list), it would be great if someone could do a basic test using these settings. Perhaps someone could shoot a short clip of someone sitting down (perhaps interview style) lit using 3 point lighting. It would be great if this (much appreciated) test person could post the test footage uncompressed in a file format that can easily be read by Final Cut Pro. Perhaps the clip could be 20 seconds long. The first 5 seconds could be with just the key on, in the second 5 seconds the key and the fill, in the third 5 seconds, add a backlight, in the last 5 seconds turn on a background light. Don't blast the background with light, light it, but keep it a little moody. With that much lighting, the entire 20 second clip should be pretty clean. If the clip is only clean when all the lights are on (and the camera is at a decent f-stop), then this adds some problems for those of us that want to use this camera to shoot moody scenes.
Using the lowest noise settings (see Barry's list), it would be great if someone could do a basic test using these settings. Perhaps someone could shoot a short clip of someone sitting down (perhaps interview style) lit using 3 point lighting. It would be great if this (much appreciated) test person could post the test footage uncompressed in a file format that can easily be read by Final Cut Pro. Perhaps the clip could be 20 seconds long. The first 5 seconds could be with just the key on, in the second 5 seconds the key and the fill, in the third 5 seconds, add a backlight, in the last 5 seconds turn on a background light. Don't blast the background with light, light it, but keep it a little moody. With that much lighting, the entire 20 second clip should be pretty clean. If the clip is only clean when all the lights are on (and the camera is at a decent f-stop), then this adds some problems for those of us that want to use this camera to shoot moody scenes.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Moody scenes still use lights though. You need proper exposure somewhere in the scene in order for the CCD's dynamic processing to know what to do with the signal.
Even if it's a single backlit source (like the karate footage) you still have to have a light somewhere, ideally giving proper exposure to something.
-3dB on the HVX would be a great option, I asked 'em for it and was disappointed we didn't get it. Don't know if it could be a firmware update option, but I hope so; more options are always better.
For the mathematically inclined, -3dB means you need 50% more light. If you were going to shoot a scene with a 2K softbox, now you'll need a 3K for the same exposure. If you were going to shoot with a 650 fresnel, now you'll need a 1k. 6dB = double (or half); so if you went to -6dB you'd need twice as much light. Going to -3dB means you'd need 50% more.
Even if it's a single backlit source (like the karate footage) you still have to have a light somewhere, ideally giving proper exposure to something.
-3dB on the HVX would be a great option, I asked 'em for it and was disappointed we didn't get it. Don't know if it could be a firmware update option, but I hope so; more options are always better.
For the mathematically inclined, -3dB means you need 50% more light. If you were going to shoot a scene with a 2K softbox, now you'll need a 3K for the same exposure. If you were going to shoot with a 650 fresnel, now you'll need a 1k. 6dB = double (or half); so if you went to -6dB you'd need twice as much light. Going to -3dB means you'd need 50% more.
Steve Roark
Member
Kholi said:
There's a novel idea, a real world shootout...perhaps the most telling test of all...
Looks like Mr. Blonde is catching some zzzz's, when he wakes up, I'll remind him that the HVX is noisier than an HDCAM...I wonder if we'll feel the explosion in Europe???
BTW: Somehow, I knew Barry would have the exact specs on gain.
That's really how I feel, too, although financially it's the only realistic option for me at this time as well. I'm shooting a short feature in March and I keep going back and forth between the HVX and SDX (much like NBC shooter, although I have no interest in HDCAM) because of all of the concerns that people keep bringing up with the 1/3" HD chips. I really would like this movie to be shot in HD; I've had an HDTV for over a year now (1080 CRT at that), and watching SD anymore practically gives me hives. That being said, I'm also realistic in the fact that at least until a good year from now, most people aren't going to have Blu-Ray in their homes and I'm going to have to be distributing on DVD anyway.MattC said:
Problem is, I can't afford to BUY an SDX, and to be honest, even more than losing a smidge of noise, I am really, really enamoured with the P2 workflow. From the looks of most of the posts I read, maybe moreso than just about anyone else here. Obviously different approaches work differently for different people, but it just makes so much sense to me and I know it is something that personally, I will functionally feel completely comfortable with. That being said, at the end of the day I'll own my camera by going the HVX route (and have "unlimited stock" for any other project I shoot down the road).
I just finished putting together a reel of a bunch of stuff I've done over the last year and a half or so, comprised largely of DVX footage with some 16mm and a little bit of XL2 footage included as well. Taking a look back at it, I was really stunned by just how great the DVX stuff looks. It easily holds up to the 16mm stuff (on an SD monitor). To me, that just goes to show that while getting new/better tools will always be of interest to us as craftsmen, we already have amazing gear available to us with which we can shoot just about anything we want. It may not have 5 billion pixels or full-frame sensors, but those things are not essential to making a film that is full of emotion and meaning.
I realize this isn't a new concept and it's beaten to death quite a bit on these forums, but I think in this latest surge of arguing over the difference in 3db here and 2/3 stop there, we've lost sight of that (as we easily tend to do). I'm certainly guilty as well. I think the fact that just about no one still has this camera and we're fast approaching a month after they said they would be "shipping" (sorry, like others, I don't think sending out a test cam or two to some people in Japan constitutes as "now shipping!") has made matters worse; it's hard for any of us to form qualitative opinions on the choices when none of us have access to the choices with which to base those opinions on. From the bit of footage I've seen, however, coupled with the few positive reports that have slowly trickled in about using the camera in a real production environment, I think most of the nervous speculation probably is just a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt on our parts. Aside from that scene which looks like it wasn't lit at all, the "48 hour" short looked really good. And Barry has repeatedly said that he personally feels that the HVX can truly be considered an "HD DVX," even when it comes to the issue of noise.
I don't like waiting any more than anyone else (in fact, this last month has been pure torture), but I think we're at a point where we're all just overthinking every little thing. At the end of the day, we're going to have a capable HD solution in our hands for under $6,000. And I for one can't wait to bust out those P2 cards.
Kholi said:
Hi Kholi!
Some frame-filling close-up portrait would be nice (for seeing detail in skin, eyes, hair).
Of course: same person, same light, EXACLTY SAME FRAMESIZE (e.g. with marks on/beside the face to help you for getting the same frame).
No make up please, to see how cruel HD can be... :evil:
You'd make me a present with this close-up!
Yours - Cici
Haakon said:That's really how I feel, too, although financially it's the only realistic option for me at this time as well. I'm shooting a short feature in March and I keep going back and forth between the HVX and SDX (much like NBC shooter, although I have no interest in HDCAM) because of all of the concerns that people keep bringing up with the 1/3" HD chips. I really would like this movie to be shot in HD; I've had an HDTV for over a year now (1080 CRT at that), and watching SD anymore practically gives me hives. That being said, I'm also realistic in the fact that at least until a good year from now, most people aren't going to have Blu-Ray in their homes and I'm going to have to be distributing on DVD anyway.
Problem is, I can't afford to BUY an SDX, and to be honest, even more than losing a smidge of noise, I am really, really enamoured with the P2 workflow. From the looks of most of the posts I read, maybe moreso than just about anyone else here. Obviously different approaches work differently for different people, but it just makes so much sense to me and I know it is something that personally, I will functionally feel completely comfortable with. That being said, at the end of the day I'll own my camera by going the HVX route (and have "unlimited stock" for any other project I shoot down the road).
I just finished putting together a reel of a bunch of stuff I've done over the last year and a half or so, comprised largely of DVX footage with some 16mm and a little bit of XL2 footage included as well. Taking a look back at it, I was really stunned by just how great the DVX stuff looks. It easily holds up to the 16mm stuff (on an SD monitor). To me, that just goes to show that while getting new/better tools will always be of interest to us as craftsmen, we already have amazing gear available to us with which we can shoot just about anything we want. It may not have 5 billion pixels or full-frame sensors, but those things are not essential to making a film that is full of emotion and meaning.
I realize this isn't a new concept and it's beaten to death quite a bit on these forums, but I think in this latest surge of arguing over the difference in 3db here and 2/3 stop there, we've lost sight of that (as we easily tend to do). I'm certainly guilty as well. I think the fact that just about no one still has this camera and we're fast approaching a month after they said they would be "shipping" (sorry, like others, I don't think sending out a test cam or two to some people in Japan constitutes as "now shipping!") has made matters worse; it's hard for any of us to form qualitative opinions on the choices when none of us have access to the choices with which to base those opinions on. From the bit of footage I've seen, however, coupled with the few positive reports that have slowly trickled in about using the camera in a real production environment, I think most of the nervous speculation probably is just a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt on our parts. Aside from that scene which looks like it wasn't lit at all, the "48 hour" short looked really good. And Barry has repeatedly said that he personally feels that the HVX can truly be considered an "HD DVX," even when it comes to the issue of noise.
I don't like waiting any more than anyone else (in fact, this last month has been pure torture), but I think we're at a point where we're all just overthinking every little thing. At the end of the day, we're going to have a capable HD solution in our hands for under $6,000. And I for one can't wait to bust out those P2 cards.
And that's basically it. I don't even know much about any of these cameras, and I can accept what they can and can not do. My shootout has gone from personal to business, though, so they all need to be tested. Whichever one wins is what I'll use to shoot my own stuff on, so it's basically a double-edged test.
Unfortunately, doesn't look like we'll see an HVX200 here to test with. The only two places that had it to rent are pretty much booked up. We've got the DVX100a (which we own), the Sony Z1U, and the XLH1 lined up... if only we could get that damned HVX for a day or two.
MattC
Veteran
If your tests are to purchase one of these cameras I think you would be doing yourself and your company a great disservice if you did not include the HVX in the testing.
As to the issue of noise, one other thing, and this is just my personal opinion, I could be dead wrong, but to me, all noise is not equal. For example the noise on the DVX when low and controlled (good skills) can be kind of pleasing - like grain. Sony on the other hand delivers (IMO) a cleaner over all image, but when the Sony gets noisy it looks much worse (again, to my eyes). So take that for what it's worth.
I'm not bashing the HVX. I personally think it is amazing what Panasonic has been able to deliver. It's like the guy suggesting that the RED camera's a pipe dream. If I told you five years ago that Panny would introduce a camera like the HVX at this price point, you would have thought I was smoking crack. Yet, I'm not thrilled with it, but this is only because I think HD is so new that it needs to grow up a bit. For example, I couldn't use P2 to do some of what I do right now, but I love the idea of P2. A firestore should solve that problem in the short term, but think how great it would be if P2 media were cheap enough that, instead of a tape drive, you had a bank of P2 slots that you could fill for 2 hours of record time. Or that the cards could hold an hour of video apiece and fit in the same two slots that are there now. That day may not be that far away...
Also, I'm not sure if 1/3" chips are good for HD. I think CMOS may be the future, but who knows. Is Panny wrong for releasing a 1/3" HD cam? Not at all, they did amazing work and gave their customer base exactly what it wanted. But their next "prosumer" HD cam may not use them (say two years from now). HD for the masses is still in it's infancy and we're all learning what works and what doesn't - that's all I've been saying. I'm just glad that I don't need to go HD right now. Hopefully when I am ready, much of this will have been sorted out.
But like I said, if I had to Prosumer HD, it would be the HVX.
As to the issue of noise, one other thing, and this is just my personal opinion, I could be dead wrong, but to me, all noise is not equal. For example the noise on the DVX when low and controlled (good skills) can be kind of pleasing - like grain. Sony on the other hand delivers (IMO) a cleaner over all image, but when the Sony gets noisy it looks much worse (again, to my eyes). So take that for what it's worth.
I'm not bashing the HVX. I personally think it is amazing what Panasonic has been able to deliver. It's like the guy suggesting that the RED camera's a pipe dream. If I told you five years ago that Panny would introduce a camera like the HVX at this price point, you would have thought I was smoking crack. Yet, I'm not thrilled with it, but this is only because I think HD is so new that it needs to grow up a bit. For example, I couldn't use P2 to do some of what I do right now, but I love the idea of P2. A firestore should solve that problem in the short term, but think how great it would be if P2 media were cheap enough that, instead of a tape drive, you had a bank of P2 slots that you could fill for 2 hours of record time. Or that the cards could hold an hour of video apiece and fit in the same two slots that are there now. That day may not be that far away...
Also, I'm not sure if 1/3" chips are good for HD. I think CMOS may be the future, but who knows. Is Panny wrong for releasing a 1/3" HD cam? Not at all, they did amazing work and gave their customer base exactly what it wanted. But their next "prosumer" HD cam may not use them (say two years from now). HD for the masses is still in it's infancy and we're all learning what works and what doesn't - that's all I've been saying. I'm just glad that I don't need to go HD right now. Hopefully when I am ready, much of this will have been sorted out.
But like I said, if I had to Prosumer HD, it would be the HVX.
MattC said:
Trust me. It looks like we won't be getting an HVX200 for the test at this point in time, and it's irking me. I'll keep trying, though. Maybe It'll happen, maybe it won't. makes me sad, though.
As far as HD is concerned-- I agree with you. Shooting HD isn't even a major concern at the moment. The company's focused on SD material for commercials and DVD, so having HD material really isn't that big of a deal; yet. When it arrises, we'll have a camera that can produce the Hi-Def image we want, or we'll trade them off plus cash for a better camera. That's how that goes.
GAH I want to test the HVX right next to the XLH1, though. THIS SUCKS.
Mr. Blonde
RED Advocate
LOL put words in my mouth why don't you....MattC said:
The whole reason that I brought up the -3db banter is because Danilo continuously brings up -3db in his formula of fixing low light noise (which is the only situation that noise has been bothersome on the HVX)
In a situation with limited light you wouldn't want to use -3db. As Barry said you would lose half the light, meaning you'd need 50% more light to properly expose.
At -3db you'd probably lose more than just light as well, I'd imagine you'd lose detail also.
Pros and cons what are you talking about, wer'e talking about -3db eliminating the noise problem, which it just doesn't, no pros and cons here, just one simple statement.
LOL and when I come across as obnoxious, that is my intention toward yours and Steve's remarks, I see you as being obnoxious towards me as well.
My statement still stands, -3db will not solve all the noise problems especially in concerns with a low light situation. In an outdoor situation where you need less light sure -3db is great. But that's not the problem here, the HVX seems just fine and noise free outdoors with good light, but indoors with low light is where people are questioning the HVX's ability to obtain a non-noisy image.
I've never said that I wouldn't like the HVX to have a -3db option. I'm sure it will come in handy for certain situations. But you're making this conversation out to be something that it's not. You are very defensive when it comes to Canon obviously. I wasn't firing away at Canon in any way, just stating that -3db isn't the answer to this problem. It's great that the H1 has a -3db option and would love for the HVX to have it as well, but it won't solve the problem at hand. I say, light a scene properly and forget messing with gain in the first place.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, curve ball then: rent an SPX800? It's an SDX900 camera head that replaces the tape deck with P2 cards instead... basically a 2/3" P2-based SDX900.Haakon said:
Noise seems exactly the same to me, between an HVX and a DVX100B.
Barry_Green
Moderator
For clarity's sake, you wouldn't "lose half the light" -- that would mean a full stop down. You'd lose 1/3 the light. It requires 50% more, not double; so when you go to -3 you lose 1/3, not 1/2.
-3dB on the VariCam causes a drop in contrast ratio as well. Don't know about the Canons.
-3dB will result in lower noise, that's pretty much the whole point of it. How much lower, I don't know. But if you look at it in the aggregate, combining -3dB with the XLH1's already 2/3-stop lower sensitivity means that you will actually need somewhere around 2.5 times as much light with the H1 to get equivalent exposure. There is, as they say, no free lunch!
Yeah, that's really not that bad of an idea. I haven't looked into that too much, but I'm sure there is some place around here that has it for rent. Most places don't advertise the P2 solutions very loudly, but if there's one to be rented, it's got to be where I'm living.Barry_Green said:
I would just rather shoot HD at this point in time and I'm not too concerned about low light in this particular film so noise shouldn't be too much of a problem. The HVX seems like the obvious answer, but I want time to test the camera first and each day that passes means one day less to test. We're already deep in pre-pro. I'm high up on the EVS list for the HVX, so I've been expecting a call for the last two weeks, but I don't want to bother poor Rush with the same call I'm sure he gets every hour from the leagues of hungry shooters out there. I guess he thought he was getting a shipment on the 19th, but that has obviously come and gone without a word...
I had a 100A, not a 100B, and I haven't played with the "B" version at all. I'm assuming noise performance didn't drop from the older to the newer generation, which would mean you'd rate the HVX as better than the 100A as far as noise is concerned? To be honest, that's not the impression I've gotten from the footage I've seen, but I would be pleasantly surprised if that turns out to be the case. Watching that 48-hour film again showed some really nice colors (which I'm very happy about), but there really is a good deal of noise throughout - even in the areas with lots of light. Of course, we don't know what settings they used, but that's been the excuse for seemingly every bit of footage we get our hands on. Unless something gets posted that looks phenomenal, it's hard to really feel secure about going "full throttle" with the HVX without being able to test it first.Barry_Green said:
MattC
Veteran
No, I'm not defensive about the Canon - as I've repeatedly stated, I don't like the Canon. What you read as defensiveness is really just me thinking your an assmonkey. You were the one to start with the obnoxious tone - as it seems you always are...
Now, with regards to the -3db issue, again I disagree. I think all of these cameras exhibit noise - even when properly lit. And I think that an option for lowering the gain (while increasing the amount of light) helps to decrease the noise that I see in even well lit scenes. Make sense? Now maybe I'm wrong (although I'm pretty sure I'm right about the assmonkey part) so if I am, correct me and I'll declare myslef an assmonkey - but that's what I see in my experimenting with the camera setting. I don't think people should get the Canon because of this setting, I do wish the HVX had this setting - there's a difference....
Matt
Now, with regards to the -3db issue, again I disagree. I think all of these cameras exhibit noise - even when properly lit. And I think that an option for lowering the gain (while increasing the amount of light) helps to decrease the noise that I see in even well lit scenes. Make sense? Now maybe I'm wrong (although I'm pretty sure I'm right about the assmonkey part) so if I am, correct me and I'll declare myslef an assmonkey - but that's what I see in my experimenting with the camera setting. I don't think people should get the Canon because of this setting, I do wish the HVX had this setting - there's a difference....
Matt
Haakon said:
And it sucks, because where we live... I can't even find one to rent now. I'm about to call Birns and Sawyer again to see if anyone copped out of a rental.
I think it's just the way you said it earlier, Haakon: It's not going to matter what we shoot on if what we're shooting isn't up to par. It's been beaten to death, but it's just the truth. We all should stop worrying about it. And I'm saying this as I pull my hair out worrying about renting the damned HVX200.
MattC
Veteran
Kholi,
I don't think you can marginalize the format/codec, which it seems you'll be doing if you don't test out the HVX. 4:2:2 with uncompressed audio is hard to walk past, very hard. And have you seen Barry's dvcpro50 footage??? The difference is huge. Forget resolution for a moment, the color sampling alone makes you want to look at this camera and there is no other camera that can do it at reasonable cost.
I don't think you can marginalize the format/codec, which it seems you'll be doing if you don't test out the HVX. 4:2:2 with uncompressed audio is hard to walk past, very hard. And have you seen Barry's dvcpro50 footage??? The difference is huge. Forget resolution for a moment, the color sampling alone makes you want to look at this camera and there is no other camera that can do it at reasonable cost.