The 6 cams in side by side comparison

L

limo991

Carbonite Member
A side by side comparison after matching exposure and color to a degree. Not perfect but stil useful.









 
Those images don't do the HVX200 any favours at all. The F900 is clearly in a differnt class, but looking throough them the HVX lags behind at the back.

Still, time will tell.
 
Bullet time? :)

Bullet time? :)

Anyone good with bullet time effects? I think a video can be made out of the 6 frames:) The camera position (order of the frames) is as presented in this comparison. They are very close to each other. It should provide a very smooth result. The girl is changing expression and posture but this could add to the effect:)
 
that s weird ..... the 2 last grabs show very blurry f900 footages. it s difficult to have an opinion if some shots are out of focus.
 
It could be a little bit out of focus at that point since it has a larger sensor but the blurriness is mostly caused by low MTF, loss of contrast and chromatic abberations from the lens on the Cinealta. I don't remember the www.dv.com article mentioning what lens was used but I have seen better ones. The light that is supposed to hit just one pixel in a theoretically perfect lens is spread quite a few pixels at the corner of this lens at this particular setting.
 
That's it. I've had it. I'm going straight to Vegas and putting $5000 on green. F900, here I come. If that doesn't pan out, I guess I'll just have to go red later on... Jannard red.
 
Wow! The F900 kick the poop out of the other cameras.

Still, I like the "smoothness" (that's a technical term) of the HVX200 image over the others.
 
Because the sharpness was at -7, when you up it to 0 the detail/sharpness is much more visable and pleasing.
 
I didn't do the test:)

I don't think there is an out of focus issue in any of these shots. But the cameras don't really resolve enough for 1920x1080 so they will appear blurry. Scaling a dvx100 to 1920x1080 would appear more blurry than any of these cameras. That's how it works.
 
None of these cameras have the same "referenced" 0 detail setting.

-7 detail looks softer on the HVX, just because it goes lower, that's all we can say.


You can't judge by these pictures.

...i mean, the Varicam looks "so so" here...but does it mean it looks dull normally ?

Gheeeezzz, i've seen footage from the Varicam that look amazing.

Look at the Singer's clip, the HVX is very sharp.
 
900H X 800 V

not bad...heh heh...

but it's for a 4:3 framing.
So it is not lpph though...

in a 16:9 screen, you'll still see a total 900H X 800V if you use the anamorphic lense.
If you crop for 16:9 , there is still 900H X 528V...still super !

now, from left to right (full image), the HVX still pushes a total of 550H lpph X 1.34 = 737 lines (very conservative).

HVX 16:9 is 737H total ( very conservative) X 650V


...so,,,i guess Andromeda could do something incredible with the HVX.
 
Not only that though, look at the quality of the image. No compression artifacts, and yes I realize the other tests are jpgs, but it still has a cleanness to the image that is not present in any of the other cameras, except maybe the F900. I uprezzed the image in photoshop to 3200x2000 just to see what would happen, and I have to say, it is freaking amazing looking. There is absolutly no artifact to be found.
 
Who's talking HVX? I would say in straight 24P the DVX Andromeda beats the HVX hands down. Also, I don't see the benefit that the HVX could have, as Panasonic is already pixel shifting (I'm sure) the image. Also even if it could be higher resolution, there would be no way to capture it. I'm going for the Andromeda absolutly, my DVX needs an overhaul.
 
the problem with the Andromeda...it is not really portable...

...if i understand correctly.

But the image is fantastic !
 
For me personally this isn't an issue. For others it may be, but in the long run, to me anyways, it's the picture that counts, even if I am teatherd to a monitor or a laptop, which I usually am anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top