Texas Shootout Finally up

WOW that is alot of great info there on all those cameras!
Thanks for all the hard work guys!

For my needs I have been very pleased with my HVX200.
 
Thanks Barry, but I wish I hadn't seen it. I was all set on getting my new girlfriend,the hvx but tests like this start giving me second thoughts again. My heart is saying get the hvx but my brain is telling me to get the hd100. Ahh, who cares what my brain say I'm getting the hvx anyway.
 
Firstly I'd like to say that I believe that these kind of tests are set up with the best intentions, and by - particularly in this instance - some very well informed and experienced practitioners.

But...and this is a big but, if my feelings toward the results of these kind of shootouts are indication of how some others may feel then, they always leave me feeling empty.

The first thing they set out to do is to try and standardize the testing procedure so as to place all the cameras on an even playing field. How is this a good thing? How, when you have a 720p camera capturing to version A of the hdv codec, a 720p/1080p camera capturing to a different HD codec, and two 1080i cameras capturing to version B of the hdv codec, are you seriously and without bias (unintentional as it may be) create an even playing field?

But it gets worse.

All of these cameras have quite elaborate and extensive menu options that radically affect how the camera captures images. To try and decide on a "standard" setting that will show all of these cameras off at their best is not only impossible, but can actually lead to some very misleading results, as even attested by Adam Wilt himself... "I think we discriminated against the HVX by using Cinelike D gamma and minimum sharpness..."

Wouldn't it be a better test of how these cameras shape up against each other by allowing all the cameras to be set and pushed to the best of their abilities, as opposed to artificially crippling them in the name of some sort of "standard"?

If each of the four cameras had two passionate owner/operators setting up and shooting the same enviroments and scenes (which is the only standard that needs to be kept constant so they are all shooting the same stuff) I believe the results of this test would be very different than how it is presently conducted.

What you would have is four teams of two that are completely biased toward their own particular camera, they would be trying as hard as they can to wipe the floor with their competitors. What a great enviroment to see how the camera can truly perform at it's best which, isn't that what we want, to see all the cameras pushed to the max. To try and homogenize everything so as "to be fair" seems to be holding back all of these great cameras.

What do you guys think?

Thanks.
 
" To try and homogenize everything so as "to be fair" seems to be holding back all of these great cameras.
"
I'm inclined to agree, Peter.
Let good, biased, proud operators shoot a variety of scenes at the same time under the same conditions and post those pics and results. Okay, there will be different "looks" but I think this type of result ("folks, once again we crippled one of the contestants and we shoulda done thisorthat to some of the others.... hence we have no clear winners - no clear losers") result twice in a row isn't really what we, or the market is really looking for.

Don't get me wrong - I find it really insanely, interesting reading and thank those involved profusely to allow the rest of us an immediate insight.
I really mean that, "Thank You."

One of the things I have taken out of this last test is, "I wonder how long the Varicam will last at it's present specs ..?"
The 350 looks interessssting ... but what a whopping Sony tax by the time you deck it out with lenses.
 
I 100 percent agree with you, however, although the test aren't perfect, we still got to see what the cameras can do in the hands of experienced camera people. I'm sure those people were capable enough to get most of what each camera can produce. After seeing the few tests I have, there is not a doubt in my mind the hd100 has a sharper image and a more film like look than the hvx. The hvx has better color and sound and a ton of other neat stuff and because of some short-circuit in my brain, I am going to buy one.
 
I like that idea Peter... as I know that the HVX has a different sweet spot.. and different strenght than the JVC.

What about giving each time.. a set, a couple of props and the same lighting implements/grip stuff and see who pulls off what... Just as long as one of them isn't Conrad Hall or something like that.... I'd be down with that.

A biased show-down sounds fab without charts and stuff I can't understand anyway.. Let's see who can make something stunning..
 
Scrappy said:
I 100 percent agree with you, however, although the test aren't perfect, we still got to see what the cameras can do in the hands of experienced camera people. I'm sure those people were capable enough to get most of what each camera can produce. After seeing the few tests I have, there is not a doubt in my mind the hd100 has a sharper image and a more film like look than the hvx. The hvx has better color and sound and a ton of other neat stuff and because of some short-circuit in my brain, I am going to buy one.
Click to expand...


See that's totally subjective. I think the HVX has a much more cinematic and pleasing look... I shot with the JVC and thought it looked more like video and couldn't handle the extremes as well.. but it was better in murky dark areas...

Each is a poision we all have to choose...
 
Its interesting seeing different opinions, but what i like the most is the fact that people are commenting on the look of the footage rather than the techincal quality of the footage.. as in the end, if we like it or not, the look of the finished product is what matters the most.
 
Justyn said:
Just as long as one of them isn't Conrad Hall or something like that.... I'd be down with that.
Click to expand...

I hope not, since he's dead now. That would be a scary camera test LOL
 
Im sorry to say this but I think this test is just crap.

It starts by saying that the cameras were all set to lowest detail setting - except for the sony which needed help.

Thats like saying - lets pick an arbitrary setting for which some cameras look better and others look worse.

It invalidated the whole test. You either need to maximize a setting or group of settings to get the best image OR you need to try to get the images to look alike - in which case you would not be showcasing what the cameras could do.

Silly silly test - just my opinion.
 
Smeini is right on target.
Barry later figured out that that JVC was more enhanced ( enhanced not sharper!) at lowest setting than the HVX at maximum. He also went back on his initial ( at the time of those tests) idea that you should run enhancement similar to the DVX at -3 or so. He changed that to recommend 0 or as high as +7 to taste. Even at +7 it doesn't look enhanced . So all the test data was shot with an HVX with the detail way too low . Kind of invalidates alot of it to me.
 
What I also find fascinating, is that they go to great lengths to set these cameras up so they are all on an equal playing field (as opposed to letting them all shine as individual cameras) then when they get to the end of the review they come out with a statement that "we were all surprised by how similar the images from these cameras are". I don't think that's the fault of the cameras, it's not anybodies fault, that was the way the test's were set up in the first instance.
 
This is funny... I remember I used to have the same argument with the XL2 against the DVX. My position was that people were not using the XL2 properly and all most the tests were cheating to the DVX strengths. When the technical info came out that showed the XL2 was actually the winner on paper, words like "mojo" appeared.

Now the situation is reversed... my feelings on all these tests? Big whoopie. Like I said in another thread, all you need to know is that there is no LOSER. These guitars are all good enough to record a nice song, so go do it. If it makes you feel better that Eddie Van Halen plays the same guitar then great... if it makes you feel better that some dude in Holland posts a terrific song played on the same guitar, then great. Bottom line, the tool is good enough and it is up to you to make it sing. No camera on earth ever made anything look great on its own....



ash =o)
 
G'day Ash.

AshG said:
These guitars are all good enough to record a nice song, so go do it. If it makes you feel better that Eddie Van Halen plays the same guitar then great... if it makes you feel better that some dude in Holland posts a terrific song played on the same guitar, then great. Bottom line, the tool is good enough and it is up to you to make it sing. No camera on earth ever made anything look great on its own....



ash =o)
Click to expand...

This is very true. As a matter of fact the statement that "No camera on earth ever made anything look great on its own...." I's probably one of the biggest truths and something a lot of people don't really like to hear.

But, and if I may continue with your analogy. If you took a Gibson Les Paul and Fender Stratocaster and gave them both to a good sound engineer, I am sure they would be able to (with some considerable tweaking) get them to sound "similar". But would this seriously be the best way to evaluate what these two classic instruments are truly capable of?
 
True, choose the tool/camera/instrument that is in your budget and is best for the project at hand or if you are buying and not renting... choose the one that is most suited to the majority of work you do.

I remember my first shoot with an F900, obviously a very capable camera but the footage looked like pastel-ish POO...


ash =o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top