More HVX truth

Dee Joslin · August 5th, 2006, 11:45 AM

Robert,

Guess where I'm going the week of the 20th. The Grand Canyon.
Guess which camera I have to take with me. The HVX200.
Guess what made me buy the HVX. The clips in this forum.

I, like many others here have not used the HVX on a set like the canyon so I'm disappointed to hear the results of your findings. I will be doing shoots at the canyon and in Alaska soon after. I guess I should consider selling the HVX or trading, since I've had offers from HD100 owners to trade.

Sounds like I should seel and step to the Canon.

I won't be able to sleep tonight. **SIGH**

Kevin Railsback · August 5th, 2006, 03:07 PM

I do pretty much nothing but nature and wildlife and I love the HVX.
It all comes down to what tool is right for you and what look you like best.

I've yet to have anyone look at my landscape footage on a HDTV and say "Gee, it doesn't look very sharp."

Robert Lane · August 5th, 2006, 05:28 PM

Hi Guys,

The reason I started the landscape testing to begin with is that I was contracted to shoot the Canyon from the heli. This is B-roll footage that has to be as close a match as possible to the FW900 Cinealta.

After reviewing the test footage and making the decision to change platforms I didn't keep the footage however, if you remember Chris, Barry and few others did the "Texas Shootout" for DV Magazine. They tested all the HD/HDV bodies side by side. Here's the link:

http://dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064

Go to the bottom of the page and find the samples of the water-splash next to the river edge. That sample clip shows exactly the kind of stuff I saw on my test. Pay special attention to the lower 1/5th of the frame - the blades of grass and the green leaves over the water. It almost looks as if the HVX is out of focus - but it's not! This is exactly the results I had on my landscape tests, regardless which mode I shot in or, what gamma/contrast/matrix settings I used.

Let me be very clear: There's nothing wrong with the HVX per se; it's very, very good at certain things and as I've always said, it's the poor-mans Varicam! Really - there is no other DVCPRO-HD camera that can do variable frame rates other than the $60k Varicam body - and it's not tapeless.

If I could afford to keep it and the H1 at the same time, I would, and I'd use it exclusively for studio work or, anything where the subject could fill at least 1/2 the frame. Heck, I did a spot for an airline and they loved the footage (too bad it wasn't destined for the US market), especially the slo-mo I did of their 747 landing into Sky Harbor at sunset.

But, since I had very specific needs not only for the Canyon shoot and a few other jobs that have cropped up, the HVX's weaknesses would prevent me from making the best footage possible for THOSE specific jobs. Eventually (hopefully later this year or first part of next) I'll be moving BACK to a DVCPRO-HD camera, such as the HPC2000 or even the SPX800, but I just don't have the budget for it today.

So it's not that I'm abandoning the Panasonic P2 system or the codec, I love both. I've just outgrown the HVX - much sooner than anticipated - and the H1 is a stop-gap until I can get into a bigger Panny body.

So Dee, Kevin, Leonard... you guys keep shooting the HVX or, get one if it fits your needs. I still like the "mini-varicam" a lot and still recommend it over the "other" HDV cameras.

If the HPC2000 were available now (and I could afford it) I'd be getting that rather than the H1.

Robert Lane · August 5th, 2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard Levy

BTW- where are you located, I sometimes need to suggest people in other towns or need to pick up gear when I visit myself.
I'd love your contact info.
If you don't want to share online email me at

<lenny@leonardlevy.net>

- Lenny Levy

Leonard,

I'm in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area. You can always reach me at:

robert@lumenosity.com

My big project right now is:

http://www.photosinaflash.com

The A and B-roll studio scenes were shot with the HVX. I'll use the H1 for all the location work and to keep my tapeless workflow I'll be using the new Nnovia QC Drive.

Robert Lane · August 5th, 2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Railsback

I do pretty much nothing but nature and wildlife and I love the HVX.
It all comes down to what tool is right for you and what look you like best.

I've yet to have anyone look at my landscape footage on a HDTV and say "Gee, it doesn't look very sharp."

Hey Kevin,

I've seen your site previously; I've always liked your high color contrast/chrome-look and feel to your images.

And you're preaching to the choir: I've always pounded measurbators with the same sermon - "it 'aint the camera that makes the image, it's the shooter". But as in this case, there are times when you push the limits of any camera's capabilities and learn that you're forced to "move up" to the next best thing to get what you need for a client.

Kevin Railsback · August 5th, 2006, 08:40 PM

Robert,

Couldn't agree with you more.

My thing is people should base their buying choices on their own research and their own needs.

For you the HVX doesn't do what you need it to do.

It's like you saying you don't like deep dish pizza and someone else says, Gee, I was gonna buy a deep dish pizza but since you don't like it, I'm not going to.

I like the look of the HVX, you like the look of the Canon. That's what makes the world and interesting place. If we all shot HVX's or Canon's everything would look the same.

That's like buying a Model T in any color you like as long as it's black.

That was my whole deal. I don't like the uber sharp look. You like a crisper image. Neither is wrong and neither is right.

Course, what the hell do I know. :)

Greg Boston · August 5th, 2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

After reviewing the test footage and making the decision to change platforms I didn't keep the footage however, if you remember Chris, Barry and few others did the "Texas Shootout" for DV Magazine. They tested all the HD/HDV bodies side by side. Here's the link:

Just a slight clarification here Robert, since you've mentioned it twice. Barry was not a participant at the Texas HD Shootout. That's nothing against Barry, just a factual clarification.

Adam, Barry, and a few other folks held a camera comparison in California before the Texas shootout occurred.

regards,

=gb= (one of the 'others' from the Texas shootout)

Robert Lane · August 6th, 2006, 08:34 AM

Kevin,

Actually, I like the look of the HVX for certain things; the H1 has more definition which aids in other types of subject material where the HVX is weaker. Like I say, I'd be in HD heaven if I could afford both - or better yet just get the HPC2000! (laughs)

Greg,

I keep forgetting that there were 2 shootouts, TX can CA. I've got so much on my brain with this big project I'm lucky to remember my name!

Dee Joslin · August 6th, 2006, 09:30 AM

Don't get me wrong. I agree with everything above as far as the HVX is concerned. For color, variety of modes/formats etc., the HVX is the one. However, I do mostly landscapes (aside from a few weddings, which, by the way, the HVX and FS-100 performed admirably at the one I did last week) and I don't know that I want to duplicate findings. I don't neccessarily need 24P in any mode for the majority of my work. I need detail and resolution. For the most part, the HVX fit the bill.

Now if the HD100 actually gives a better resolution and sharper HD image in 720P, then I would be willing to make the trade I've been offered. I prefer the progressive image over the interlaced but am not apposed to the Canon's SDI out.

I appreciate the testing others in this forum have done and, Robert, I hold your opinions and comments on the HVX in high regard. I guess I just need to evaluate which one makes more sense for my needs. I did, however, expect the HVX to perform better in the detail for landscapes area.

Robert Lane · August 6th, 2006, 10:27 AM

I posted this in the image gallery breifly, but this is an example of what the HVX is perfect for: great, if not totally perfect studio color! If the subject fills at least 1/4th to 1/3rd the frame you'll never have any "sharpness" issues.

Robert Lane · August 6th, 2006, 10:38 AM

Taken from the same studio setup as the other scene. This is where the HVX show's it's softness. Look at details on the table lenses and camera bodies and definition starts to fall off. Obviously it's not important to have fine details in this clip, but this is where distant landscape details would suffer from not being more prominent in the framing.

Geez, I just love the color on the HVX, especially for skin tones it's damned natural!!

Bill Edmunds · August 6th, 2006, 11:31 AM

Robert,
Do you have any frame grabs you could post here that illustrate what you're talking about? I assume that boosting sharpness/detail in the camera settings did no good?

Robert Lane · August 6th, 2006, 11:48 AM

Hey Bill,

You're looking at them above. The detail and detail coring were both boosted. The second image with the lenses has +5 detail and +2 detail coring adjusted.

"It is what it is", as my friends like to say. The HVX has detail softness that can't be compensated for.

Take a look at this image of various retail flm boxes - this clearly shows both the HVX's strength - color, and it's weakness - small details, in one image. The color on these items is amazingly gorgeous (and you can see some chroma noise) but the printing on the labels is not a clear as you might expect it to be. This image has the same settings mentioned above.

Robert Lane · August 6th, 2006, 11:50 AM

But, who cares about sharpness when you've got color like this??!! That's me, preaching to the masses about HVX color. (big laughs)

Bill Edmunds · August 6th, 2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Hey Bill,

You're looking at them above. The detail and detail coring were both boosted. The second image with the lenses has +5 detail and +2 detail coring adjusted.

"It is what it is", as my friends like to say. The HVX has detail softness that can't be compensated for.

Take a look at this image of various retail flm boxes - this clearly shows both the HVX's strength - color, and it's weakness - small details, in one image. The color on these items is amazingly gorgeous (and you can see some chroma noise) but the printing on the labels is not a clear as you might expect it to be. This image has the same settings mentioned above.

I should have enlarges the pix! Do you have the same shots from another camera for comparison?

August 5th, 2006, 03:07 PM	#17
Kevin Railsback Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Posts: 1,544	I do pretty much nothing but nature and wildlife and I love the HVX. It all comes down to what tool is right for you and what look you like best. I've yet to have anyone look at my landscape footage on a HDTV and say "Gee, it doesn't look very sharp." __________________ --==Kevin==-- http:naturephotostudios.com.com

August 5th, 2006, 08:40 PM	#21
Kevin Railsback Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Posts: 1,544	Robert, Couldn't agree with you more. My thing is people should base their buying choices on their own research and their own needs. For you the HVX doesn't do what you need it to do. It's like you saying you don't like deep dish pizza and someone else says, Gee, I was gonna buy a deep dish pizza but since you don't like it, I'm not going to. I like the look of the HVX, you like the look of the Canon. That's what makes the world and interesting place. If we all shot HVX's or Canon's everything would look the same. That's like buying a Model T in any color you like as long as it's black. That was my whole deal. I don't like the uber sharp look. You like a crisper image. Neither is wrong and neither is right. Course, what the hell do I know. :) __________________ --==Kevin==-- http:naturephotostudios.com.com

August 6th, 2006, 10:27 AM	#25
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	HVX Strength I posted this in the image gallery breifly, but this is an example of what the HVX is perfect for: great, if not totally perfect studio color! If the subject fills at least 1/4th to 1/3rd the frame you'll never have any "sharpness" issues. Last edited by Robert Lane; August 19th, 2006 at 12:32 AM.

August 6th, 2006, 10:38 AM	#26
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	HVX Weakness Taken from the same studio setup as the other scene. This is where the HVX show's it's softness. Look at details on the table lenses and camera bodies and definition starts to fall off. Obviously it's not important to have fine details in this clip, but this is where distant landscape details would suffer from not being more prominent in the framing. Geez, I just love the color on the HVX, especially for skin tones it's damned natural!! Last edited by Robert Lane; August 19th, 2006 at 12:32 AM.

August 6th, 2006, 11:48 AM	#28
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Hey Bill, You're looking at them above. The detail and detail coring were both boosted. The second image with the lenses has +5 detail and +2 detail coring adjusted. "It is what it is", as my friends like to say. The HVX has detail softness that can't be compensated for. Take a look at this image of various retail flm boxes - this clearly shows both the HVX's strength - color, and it's weakness - small details, in one image. The color on these items is amazingly gorgeous (and you can see some chroma noise) but the printing on the labels is not a clear as you might expect it to be. This image has the same settings mentioned above. Last edited by Robert Lane; August 19th, 2006 at 12:32 AM.

August 5th, 2006, 11:45 AM	#16
Dee Joslin Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Scranton, PA. Posts: 91	Robert, Guess where I'm going the week of the 20th. The Grand Canyon. Guess which camera I have to take with me. The HVX200. Guess what made me buy the HVX. The clips in this forum. I, like many others here have not used the HVX on a set like the canyon so I'm disappointed to hear the results of your findings. I will be doing shoots at the canyon and in Alaska soon after. I guess I should consider selling the HVX or trading, since I've had offers from HD100 owners to trade. Sounds like I should seel and step to the Canon. I won't be able to sleep tonight. SIGH

August 5th, 2006, 05:28 PM	#18
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Hi Guys, The reason I started the landscape testing to begin with is that I was contracted to shoot the Canyon from the heli. This is B-roll footage that has to be as close a match as possible to the FW900 Cinealta. After reviewing the test footage and making the decision to change platforms I didn't keep the footage however, if you remember Chris, Barry and few others did the "Texas Shootout" for DV Magazine. They tested all the HD/HDV bodies side by side. Here's the link: http://dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064 Go to the bottom of the page and find the samples of the water-splash next to the river edge. That sample clip shows exactly the kind of stuff I saw on my test. Pay special attention to the lower 1/5th of the frame - the blades of grass and the green leaves over the water. It almost looks as if the HVX is out of focus - but it's not! This is exactly the results I had on my landscape tests, regardless which mode I shot in or, what gamma/contrast/matrix settings I used. Let me be very clear: There's nothing wrong with the HVX per se; it's very, very good at certain things and as I've always said, it's the poor-mans Varicam! Really - there is no other DVCPRO-HD camera that can do variable frame rates other than the $60k Varicam body - and it's not tapeless. If I could afford to keep it and the H1 at the same time, I would, and I'd use it exclusively for studio work or, anything where the subject could fill at least 1/2 the frame. Heck, I did a spot for an airline and they loved the footage (too bad it wasn't destined for the US market), especially the slo-mo I did of their 747 landing into Sky Harbor at sunset. But, since I had very specific needs not only for the Canyon shoot and a few other jobs that have cropped up, the HVX's weaknesses would prevent me from making the best footage possible for THOSE specific jobs. Eventually (hopefully later this year or first part of next) I'll be moving BACK to a DVCPRO-HD camera, such as the HPC2000 or even the SPX800, but I just don't have the budget for it today. So it's not that I'm abandoning the Panasonic P2 system or the codec, I love both. I've just outgrown the HVX - much sooner than anticipated - and the H1 is a stop-gap until I can get into a bigger Panny body. So Dee, Kevin, Leonard... you guys keep shooting the HVX or, get one if it fits your needs. I still like the "mini-varicam" a lot and still recommend it over the "other" HDV cameras. If the HPC2000 were available now (and I could afford it) I'd be getting that rather than the H1.

August 6th, 2006, 08:34 AM	#23
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Kevin, Actually, I like the look of the HVX for certain things; the H1 has more definition which aids in other types of subject material where the HVX is weaker. Like I say, I'd be in HD heaven if I could afford both - or better yet just get the HPC2000! (laughs) Greg, I keep forgetting that there were 2 shootouts, TX can CA. I've got so much on my brain with this big project I'm lucky to remember my name!

August 6th, 2006, 09:30 AM	#24
Dee Joslin Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Scranton, PA. Posts: 91	Don't get me wrong. I agree with everything above as far as the HVX is concerned. For color, variety of modes/formats etc., the HVX is the one. However, I do mostly landscapes (aside from a few weddings, which, by the way, the HVX and FS-100 performed admirably at the one I did last week) and I don't know that I want to duplicate findings. I don't neccessarily need 24P in any mode for the majority of my work. I need detail and resolution. For the most part, the HVX fit the bill. Now if the HD100 actually gives a better resolution and sharper HD image in 720P, then I would be willing to make the trade I've been offered. I prefer the progressive image over the interlaced but am not apposed to the Canon's SDI out. I appreciate the testing others in this forum have done and, Robert, I hold your opinions and comments on the HVX in high regard. I guess I just need to evaluate which one makes more sense for my needs. I did, however, expect the HVX to perform better in the detail for landscapes area.

August 6th, 2006, 11:31 AM	#27
Bill Edmunds Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Conway, NH Posts: 574	Robert, Do you have any frame grabs you could post here that illustrate what you're talking about? I assume that boosting sharpness/detail in the camera settings did no good?

August 6th, 2006, 11:50 AM	#29
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	But, who cares about sharpness when you've got color like this??!! That's me, preaching to the masses about HVX color. (big laughs) Last edited by Robert Lane; August 19th, 2006 at 12:32 AM.