Sanyo HD1 is better than HVX ???

Go for it but don't expect the same versatility and don't expect the cam to perform up to the HVX.
 
umm... no mpeg4 is not better than DVCproHD... and I doubt the lens has anything on the HVX
 
Oh most definitely better than the HVX... no comparison.
I think we all secretly knew that Sanyo all along was going to sneak in at the last second and steal Panasonic's thunder. So sleek and slender and it even fits in my pocket. And who needs all those fancy features like XLR inputs, variable frame rates, fancy HD Leica lens, 1080P and P2 recording... purely for amateurs!!! How about that 720P? There's zero indication that it records video at 5 megapixels which means only one thing... obviously it records at much higher resolution! It only makes sense! It even takes pictures. What professional videographer is going to go out on a shoot without a camcorder that can take still shots???? Ludacris!!! What were we all thinking!!???
That's all the sarcasm I can squeeze out at 1:30a.m. Somebody else take over.
 
After I've read about Sanyo, Hvx200 seems more and more a piece of junk (8000 euros only the camera in Italy, an important thing for Usa customers that bought this baby at lowest price on the market, so I undestand that it's more tollerated, more allowed if hvx200 it's a piece of junk or bad camera. Considering the price of the camera in the Usa market, Hvx200 could be also a sort of pricey noised webcam. :(
I still hope that professional test made by professional people will be made soon. So I can relax and again feel in love with Hvx200 (to say the truth I still hope Panasonic resetting the camera, make tweaks on it for the Pal market, because now it's not usable).
Actually Xl H1 it's the best cam, according to pappas footage.
If Hvx200 could reach that wordeful pappas footage without problem as Xl H1 I'm not worried, but we oughta know if we must spend on 10.000 or 20.000 dollars/euros for the lighting to reach that qualityl.
Latitude it's important (Barry told me that Hvx200 outperforms in this stuff) , but more I see footage coming from Hvx200, more it reminds me as VGA colour quality, 800*600, splashed with noise into 1080 resolution...
 
Stay cool Danilo,

I think you are passing the line here and many of your arguments are not funded.
Be patient, but the sample images you were showing from the Canon that in your opinion are filmic....well, probably in Italy, where we both live, somebody can say that, but in the US (ya know Hollywood is there) nobody can accept it.

Regards
 
PieroD said:
but the sample images you were showing from the Canon that in your opinion are filmic....well, probably in Italy, where we both live, somebody can say that
Click to expand...

Piero hai visto queste? /Piero, did you see this framegrabs? :

http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms

If you add guerilla35 adapter on it, I'm pretty sure it will be so stunning that you can't believe on it.
This Xl H1 footage is already stunning considering that there's no 35mm adapter on it.


PieroD said:
but in the US (ya know Hollywood is there) nobody can accept it.
Click to expand...

My theory about spend 20.000 euros in lighting lamps now is founded...with hollywood lighting also the cheapest camera in the world works great :(
I've seen almost all the footage shot with Hvx200 here, not considering the first preproduction model footage (it was nice and good but no phenomenal), what this camera performs now is what I'm worried about. Preproduction models maybe work better than final model, considering the noise and quality we've seen from simple footage's people. This footage surely need to be more considered to make an opinion of the camera than the old footage (Bar's footage, Karate footage, Guitar footage) shot with preproduction model with 20.000 euros of lighting...or masters of director of Photography.
Think about it.

Many Regards,

Danilo
 
Danilo Del Tufo said:
Piero hai visto queste?


Dear Danilo,

if you go at the bottom of the page, there are two stills, of the same scene shot by kaku with the Canon and the Pana.
They were shot in different light conditions, but anyway you cannot say that the Canon one looks better.
Look at the trees: in the Pana's still you can discriminate between individual leaves, with the Canon not. That says something about the resolving power of the system.
The antenna and the sky are not there with the Canon, with the Pana you get them with a good color information. That says something about latitude.

Cheers
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Piero, I'm not expert guy.
If you can help to choice the right camera, I'm happy about it.
Here there're not italians people as myself, so I'm pretty alone and I must use all my patience to understand what english native people say about cameras.

Piero what do you think about Dvcam 2/3" ccd camera with 25p (around 20.000 euros) I've seen some, I don't remind the names.
Are they better to buy this Hvx200 or Xl H1, considering the size of chips?
For filmaking purpose?

Thanks :)
 
Dear Danilo,

2/3" will always be better than 1/3", but at what price? Better start to experiment with cheaper systems at the beginning. A good photography and lighting is always necessary with whatever camera system you will use. For this reason many people in this forum, which are using the DVX 100, know that with porperly prepared scenes and good lighting, that camera gives wonderful results in SD. Therefore we are waiting to see if the HVX 200 will have the same quality in HD. To judge we need properly prepared and lit scenes and frankly, what I've seen so far from the samples is not really representative of the eventual results that could be achieved.

Cheers

Piero
 
Seriously speaking though, these cameras are going to replace MiniDV thats my view on this, because I've been following these "pocket cams" for a while now, and at first they where nothing more than mere webcams in fact they could barely record 340*240 at 15 FPS, then they started to get better, first they started uppin the frame-rate, then finally stopped at 30 FPS, then they staretd to work on there frame size and upped it to 640*480 (NTSC) and they ACTUALLY looked OK when conencted to a TV.

Yes I know no serious use in any pro at all, BUT for home use they actually make more sense and the funny thing is that these things go fo less than $200.

I have had a look at this Sanyo and this will be a Hit, it does record 720P and will look good on a HD (no doubt about it) in fact it will look better than most normal MiniDV.

At the moment if you want consumer HD (with all the people buying HD sets in the UK, due to the SKY-HD release) People are going to want consumer HD point and shoot camcorders and Other than the Sony HC1 this is the next thing available (and probably a whole lot cheaper)


Bottom line:

Compared to the HVX200 this is a pixelvision dont even bother comparing it, its just wrong on some many levels.

Compared to an average miniDV (we need some footage first) but if you had the choice of just fun messing around type shooting then what would you have ? a tiny HD camcorder or some other miniDV camcorder ?

Anhar
 
Danilo Del Tufo said:
If you add guerilla35 adapter on it, I'm pretty sure it will be so stunning that you can't believe on it.
This Xl H1 footage is already stunning considering that there's no 35mm adapter on it.
Click to expand...


Well... I thought the objectives of the XL H1 are already from the 35mm product line ..... isn't it the Canon 35mm system? So why would you need an adapter?
 
cici said:
So why would you need an adapter?
Click to expand...
Why should I need a 35mm adapter?

The results of having the EF adapter is the equivalent of 7.2 multiplication factor with the EF lens you use.

A Canon 35mm EF 28mm lens, it will have the equivalent look of a 200mm telephoto lens.

With the 35mm adapter, the same lens will act as a 28mm with no multiplication factor, with the equivalent depth of field as it would on a 35mm camera.
 
Emanuel said:
Why should I need a 35mm adapter?

The results of having the EF adapter is the equivalent of 7.2 multiplication factor with the EF lens you use.

A Canon 35mm EF 28mm lens, it will have the equivalent look of a 200mm telephoto lens.

With the 35mm adapter, the same lens will act as a 28mm with no multiplication factor, with the equivalent depth of field as it would on a 35mm camera.
Click to expand...


The 35 is great. The 24p combined with the 35 makes such a world of difference that I damn near dropped the camera. I have been missing what film and money can do, but not so much any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top