Jump to content


Disappointed in first tests


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Ken Maskrey

Ken Maskrey
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2006 - 07:54 AM

Recently, last weekend in fact, I shot side by side 35mm and HVX200 both indoor and outdoor and fuji vs kodak stocks for the 35mm. While the HVX is good, it's just not good enough. By that I mean primarily the wide depth of field. And yes, I understand that a 1/3 inch CCD is much less that a 1.5 inch wide piece of film, but I was hoping for so much more...or at least a little bit. The 4:2:2 color space is very nice, and it's very cool using P2 cards for a quick transfer, but...

I had been hoping to do a hybrid shoot, or maybe just use the DVX for pickups here and there to speed things along. From the results, I doubt that is even gonna be viable.

Anyone else feel the disappointment?
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 15 April 2006 - 09:26 AM

Recently, last weekend in fact, I shot side by side 35mm and HVX200 both indoor and outdoor and fuji vs kodak stocks for the 35mm. While the HVX is good, it's just not good enough. By that I mean primarily the wide depth of field. And yes, I understand that a 1/3 inch CCD is much less that a 1.5 inch wide piece of film, but I was hoping for so much more...or at least a little bit. The 4:2:2 color space is very nice, and it's very cool using P2 cards for a quick transfer, but...

I had been hoping to do a hybrid shoot, or maybe just use the DVX for pickups here and there to speed things along. From the results, I doubt that is even gonna be viable.

Anyone else feel the disappointment?


Hi,

What were you expecting for $6000 lens included?

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 April 2006 - 03:06 PM

Hi,

Also I think there's an unnoticed disparity here between "better than" and "exactly the same as".

Phil
  • 0

#4 Scott Fritzshall

Scott Fritzshall
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 April 2006 - 05:52 PM

I guess I would be disappointed if I had been getting all of my information about HD from George Lucas, and hearing about how it's better in every way and blah blah. But really, I've got to echo the question of what exactly you expected for a $6000 camera. The HVX is pretty neat for what it is (even taking into account the disappointing CCD specs), but it is not even close to a replacement for film. Think of it maybe as a cheaper B-cam to use on Varicam shoots.
  • 0

#5 Hans Kellner

Hans Kellner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Other
  • Northern California

Posted 15 April 2006 - 06:37 PM

While the HVX is good, it's just not good enough. By that I mean primarily the wide depth of field.

If DOF is the primary issue then you might consider using a 35mm adapter with the HVX. There are some good clips and discussions about using the HVX and using one with adaptors over on dvxuser:

http://www.dvxuser.c...isplay.php?f=57
  • 0

#6 Matt Lazzarini

Matt Lazzarini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto, ON

Posted 15 April 2006 - 10:49 PM

Have you tested the Canon XL H1? The lens is superior to the HVX, and from what I've read online in terms of comparisons, the picture quality is superior as well. I've been using it on doc/ENG type shoots and am really impressed with its quality (gotta love HD/SDI out!) though the infinity focus of the lens gets annoying quickly.

I have heard though that there's supposed to be a manual 16x HD lens coming out later this year.
  • 0

#7 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Producer
  • Lemiert Park(Hollywood), CA.

Posted 30 April 2006 - 03:15 PM

Have you tested the Canon XL H1? The lens is superior to the HVX, and from what I've read online in terms of comparisons, the picture quality is superior as well.


Blast, yes you are correct on the image quality. However, the XL-H1 does not solve the DOF problems. Still fairly deep, thus videoish as is all these 1/3" camcorders. *sad face*
  • 0

#8 Daniel Stigler

Daniel Stigler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Berlin, Germany

Posted 30 April 2006 - 03:58 PM

The lens alone makes so much of a difference. Last year i worked on an imagefilm for a car company where we used a 435 to shoot the POV of the driver and a Sony Z1 for the POV of the car. Both cameras were linked to a Sony Watchman, flat settings. If you believe it or not, just the picture of the 435's video assist system looked way better on the Watchman than the picture from the Z1 did. The quality of the endproduct from the Z1 and the 435 (Kodak 5245, Zeiss Ultra Prime) are completely uncomparable.
  • 0

#9 Will Novy

Will Novy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 May 2006 - 03:55 AM

Recently, last weekend in fact, I shot side by side 35mm and HVX200 both indoor and outdoor and fuji vs kodak stocks for the 35mm. While the HVX is good, it's just not good enough. By that I mean primarily the wide depth of field. And yes, I understand that a 1/3 inch CCD is much less that a 1.5 inch wide piece of film, but I was hoping for so much more...or at least a little bit. The 4:2:2 color space is very nice, and it's very cool using P2 cards for a quick transfer, but...

I had been hoping to do a hybrid shoot, or maybe just use the DVX for pickups here and there to speed things along. From the results, I doubt that is even gonna be viable.

Anyone else feel the disappointment?

The truth still stands that the HVX200 isnt the best HD cam out there. But for price, i'd buy it. As for compairing HD to film, the recently shot "slient hill" was shot not only with 35mm but HD as well. I cant tell the difference, not even with DOF. So i guess HD is climbing the ladder faster than most people thought. (they used the cinealta for the HD footage)
  • 0

#10 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Producer
  • Lemiert Park(Hollywood), CA.

Posted 01 May 2006 - 11:21 AM

the recently shot "slient hill" was shot not only with 35mm but HD as well.

Wow, I didn't know that. Good info!
  • 0

#11 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 May 2006 - 12:08 PM

As for compairing HD to film, the recently shot "slient hill" was shot not only with 35mm but HD as well. I cant tell the difference, not even with DOF. So i guess HD is climbing the ladder faster than most people thought. (they used the cinealta for the HD footage)

I believe the only sequence in "Silent Hill" that was shot in HD was one in which a cigarette lighter was used for the key light.
  • 0

#12 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 01 May 2006 - 12:24 PM

Digital's big alure in low light shooting is that it doesn't get grainier. It has more noise, but for some reason people don't seem to pick up on noise as much as they do grain. Take for example "Collateral". Despite it having video smear, greenish skintones, and a depth of field that looked not only deeper but "different" than that from 35mm film, it definitely looked smoother than had they shot 500T with a one or two stop push. I hear that they have at least considered shooting the night footage with HD on MI-3, and Michael Mann took the same approach he took in "Collateral" with the upcoming "Miami Vice", shooting HD for night scenes and film for day, which I personally think is ashame because I love the look of the TV show, with kind of a gritty look, as they finished on film, and really bold saturated colors that are uniquely filmic.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#13 David Beier

David Beier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 10:25 PM

A couple things:

1. You really are kidding yourself if you're hoping a $6,000 camera can compete with 35mm film. It's just not gonna happen. The fact that it can even be close is amazing. I havn't seen a filmout from the HVX200 but I know some who have and tell me that it looks about as good as Super 16mm. Keep in mind, Lucas has been raving about Cinealtas that run for $115,000, not $6,000. And yes, even in those cases they don't look quite as good as 35mm though I've heard Panavisions new Genisis is completely indistinguishible from 35mm.

2. I get tired of hearing people complain so much about DoF. I think young filmmakers simply use it as a crutch and student filmmakers tend to think it can somehow make their poorly shot, video-ish stuff suddenly look like film. It's not gonna happen. DoF can be used well if it's done right but I personally think deep focus offers possabilities for much more powerful visuals. Look at the work of Welles, Kurosawa, and Frakenhiemer. All deep focus and some of the most visually stunning stuff I've ever seen. The bottom line is the DoF should be an artistic choice, not a cheap attempt to cover up bad composition or pretend video is film.

3. I definatly wouldn't say the Canon XL H1 produces a better image than the HVX200. The Canon is sharper, that's to be sure. The lense is debatible as I've heard many argue that they prefer the HVX200 lense. The HVX200's real strength lies in a nicer gamma curve that looks much more like film to my eye as well as the DVCPro HD codec over HDV. This means that it has twice the color space, pure frames (which means less motion artifacts), and requires less processing power to edit. The HVX200 can also do true slow motion and fast motion. Ultimatly, I think these are more imporant and make for a better image. Resolution is important but I'd rather have better color, gamma, and motion any day.

P.S. I'm aware the Canon XL H1 can do an uncompressed output with a deck and such but if I could afford the hardware neccesary for that kind of thing then I'd probably just rent a Varicam or Cinealta. It's a nice feature but out of my price range especially since the XL H1 is already 9k more.
  • 0

#14 Phil Aupperle

Phil Aupperle
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Director
  • Brooklyn, New York

Posted 24 May 2006 - 08:41 PM

Anything recorded in HDV codec is already ruined, IMO. I do a lot of HD post, so I look at all kinds of HD originated footage. HDV is full of visible artifacts, and the color space makes color correction almost impossible, forget about shooting ady effects shots that require keying or tracking. It is the same data-rate as regular DV, only with many more pixels. Think about that.

If the Canon has an uncompressed out, that's awesome--I've always been a big Canon fan--but it's hardly a camcorder if you're using it that way. Why not just rent the new Arri if you want to be tied to a huge deck?

The HVX looks great, and I think the shutter angle controls in "film camera" mode coupled with the true 24pn mode + over/undercrank modes make it a far more powerful tool than any comparably priced video camera I've ever seen. DVCProHD is a great codec as far as robust image and ease of workflow.

My .02
  • 0


Ritter Battery

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Visual Products

The Slider

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

The Slider

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc