More HVX truth

Robert Lane · December 20th, 2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason E. Ramsey

is it too late to ask for one of your dvd's?

Jason

Not too late; I'll put you down on the list. Volume One is scheduled to start shipping in January. Tell all your friends; it's available now on Amazon as a pre-order.

Jason Ramsey · December 20th, 2006, 02:27 PM

Great! Thank you very much
Jason

Michael Schoenfeld · December 20th, 2006, 05:23 PM

Hey Robert,

Happy Holidays.....

I want one?

too late?

All the best,

Michael Schoenfeld

View my newest portfolio offerings at:

www.michaelschoenfeld.com

Barry Gribble · December 20th, 2006, 05:45 PM

I want one... looks great. No prob on the mislead, btw :).

Michael MK Siu · December 20th, 2006, 11:24 PM

Is it too late ? Can I still say I want one?

tks~

Robert Lane · December 21st, 2006, 01:12 AM

Both Michaels and Barry; you're on the list.

Cees Mutsaers · December 21st, 2006, 03:19 AM

I did not follow this thread for a while but what is the final outcome of how the HVX performs in landscape sceneries? Is it significantly worse than it's competitors or just very slightly after your handelings skills improved down the road?

Antoine Fabi · December 21st, 2006, 11:34 AM

If you dial detail coring to +7 (filter ON) , you will lose important small details.

If you dial 0 to -2 detail coring, it will look fine, not as much detail as the H1, but i'd say reasonable detail, and you'll have beautifull 4:2:2 color detail (the HVX strenght).

With detail coring set at +7, the HVX image looks evasive IMHO.

I always use 0 to -2, a lot crisper, and a much better image finesse.

Nathan Brendan Masters · December 21st, 2006, 12:16 PM

My take on this has always been that in the black areas the HVX looked noisy just from images I've seen versus any particular detail issue. Some people have said Panasonic cameras are generally noisy in black areas, (not something I've experienced with the DVX100 or maybe I'm not looking hard enough). Panasonic in the beginning ran HDV through the ringer but as it turns out all of these little cams did a fine job.

The killer for me was the workflow combined with storage issues. Honestly tapeless may be the hot new thing but tapeless is also a very expensive set-up for some. I was looking at the Sony FX1 very hard but the A1 just trumps this camera easily (for my needs) but the FX1, no matter what, can still be had for about $1000 less via ebay and I've seen some great stuff shot with the Sony and A1.

But how much does all this take away from the Panny? I don't really know. They are being used right now professionally and people love them, but while Panny got all the press, most of the articles on actual production seem to have been about the Sony or the JVC. (Nothing on the A1 yet but it's still very new). I could be wrong about this but I haven't seem many articles about people using this camera on low budget shoots etc.

I think the price point for the tapeless workflow still scares many people off. The whole idea of low end HD was "price". What I mean is this: If I buy the A1 today (which I can but I don't think it would be smart right now because prices usually drop again after Christmas) I pay $3669 (or whatever the going rate is now) and then another $50 for a pack of tapes and I'm ready to shoot.

To get HD from the Panny I have to buy into their whole tapeless structure, which equals another $500 - $1000 no matter how I spin it. I just dropped $1000 on the MacBook and my still have to drop another $1000 on the small Canon to edit 24f but I don't have to do that until I'm ready because I can (do the unthinkable) use the camera as a deck. But even if I do drop the extra $1000 that camera can be used as B-roll in certain situations, not just as some kind of storage device.

As for the quality this is no suprise as several shootout have been done and the A1 (actually the H1) and JVC came out on top in terms of sharpness. I actually like the way the JVC handles skin tones. The reason I don't get one of those is because I'm a run and gun "guerilla" action shooter so the small cams are best.

I am still on the fence. Wait and get the A1 or get the FX1 from eBay at the going rate. I am leaning toward the A1 since Sony made the imagers anyway it's almost a none issue. I am suprised at how the A! has become so popular so quick. I am a fan of HDV and I think it will future proof many of us for a good while. I still want to do a 1080i horror film though and since the A1 is 1080 and 24f that works out.

-Nate

Robert Lane · December 21st, 2006, 01:54 PM

Nathan,

If you're only considering initial investment costs when comparing camera system choices then you'll be in for sticker shock later on.

The truth is, the P2 workflow and equipment investment is actually much less over time than any tape-based format. XDCAM also has similar cost-over-time benefits but the ROI factor takes much longer for XDCAM since all the equipment costs are much higher than P2.

P2 doesn't require a special deck to "capture" the footage and there are a wealth of options in exactly how to transfer from the P2 card to the NLE or storage device. HDV tape requires either using the camera heads to capture/transfer or, having a deck that talks to the HDV codec. And of course, P2 is reusable, tape is not. (of course, technically it is, but nobody in their right mind reuses tape for a serious production)

And most importantly, the HDV codec requires a great deal more horsepower from the NLE system to work with, especially when it comes to any renders.

Comparing the HVX and P2 to an HDV-based system is comparing apples to oranges. There is no perfect setup for all uses in either system, but there is a perfect system for specific needs.

Nathan Brendan Masters · December 21st, 2006, 02:40 PM

It depends on a lot of factors. If I buy an A1 and a Firestore it would be pretty much the same as buying an HVX and several (many) P2 cards, so again it would still be cheaper overall. And while renting P2 cards is admireable and cheap it's not particularly convenient all the time. Owning your own equipment is always the way to go if you can afford it. If I get a call for tomorrow I can mount up and go. No renting. I've got the camera, lights, ect. I'd have to buy more tapes but that's 15 minutes or less in Walgreens or any of the video shops in Downtown Chicago.

It mostly depends on who you are and what your workflow is. And once I slap a Mack Warranty on there it's all good. Then storage. I store everything (at least all the takes) so the clips for a 90 minute action film takes up a ton of space. HDV is the overall better choice for my needs. With my DL DVD+RW burner and I've got enough space to create an HD DVD that will play HD on a standard DVD player connected to an HDTV. Check that out. With that set-up you just been pimped.

-Nate

Robert Lane · December 21st, 2006, 03:04 PM

As I said, there's a specific-fit-to-job for every system out there, and it would seem you've found your perfect fit with HDV; this forum has many categories dedicated to the HDV cameras and the associated workflow.

Nathan Brendan Masters · December 21st, 2006, 08:23 PM

Nothing against the HVX. I was just dropping my $.2 on the subject. Since we are talking about the "HVX Truth" I'm simply adding to what seems to be the intent of the original poster which is a lot of people think the HVX is "better" because of it's codec, but it's simply just one in a line of very useful cameras all with pros and cons. Not better or worse. I simply wanted to point out how HDV seemed to be (and sometimes even now continues to be) a codec under fire but those who use it work through it and seem to be making it great art. So please don't take this as a burn on the HVX. I was (and am) a supporter of Panny products in general.

-Nate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

As I said, there's a specific-fit-to-job for every system out there, and it would seem you've found your perfect fit with HDV; this forum has many categories dedicated to the HDV cameras and the associated workflow.

Mark Donnell · December 25th, 2006, 01:12 PM

Nathan - different cameras and different uses will always have enthusiastic followers. I continue to be stunned by the color delivered by the HVX. In my opinion it is unmatched by any other HD camera under $ 10,000, and produces life-like images that are phenomenal. Used for making a horror movie in low light, this would be useless, and the extra sharpness of the Canon or another camera might well be better. Different tools for different jobs ...

Matthew Sconce · January 2nd, 2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Donnell

Nathan - different cameras and different uses will always have enthusiastic followers. I continue to be stunned by the color delivered by the HVX. In my opinion it is unmatched by any other HD camera under $ 10,000, and produces life-like images that are phenomenal. Used for making a horror movie in low light, this would be useless, and the extra sharpness of the Canon or another camera might well be better. Different tools for different jobs ...

To make a Horror movie (lowlight) with the HVX, you simply flood light in and drop it in post. Very doable.

December 20th, 2006, 05:23 PM	#93
Michael Schoenfeld New Boot Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Utah USA Posts: 9	I want One? Michael Schoenfeld Hey Robert, Happy Holidays..... I want one? too late? All the best, Michael Schoenfeld View my newest portfolio offerings at: www.michaelschoenfeld.com

December 20th, 2006, 05:45 PM	#94
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	I want one... looks great. No prob on the mislead, btw :). __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

December 20th, 2006, 02:27 PM	#92
Jason Ramsey RED / Scarlet / DVXUser Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 29	Great! Thank you very much Jason

December 20th, 2006, 11:24 PM	#95
Michael MK Siu New Boot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 24	Is it too late ? Can I still say I want one? tks~

December 21st, 2006, 01:12 AM	#96
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Both Michaels and Barry; you're on the list.

December 21st, 2006, 03:19 AM	#97
Cees Mutsaers New Boot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: NB Posts: 15	I did not follow this thread for a while but what is the final outcome of how the HVX performs in landscape sceneries? Is it significantly worse than it's competitors or just very slightly after your handelings skills improved down the road?

December 21st, 2006, 11:34 AM	#98
Antoine Fabi Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada Posts: 108	If you dial detail coring to +7 (filter ON) , you will lose important small details. If you dial 0 to -2 detail coring, it will look fine, not as much detail as the H1, but i'd say reasonable detail, and you'll have beautifull 4:2:2 color detail (the HVX strenght). With detail coring set at +7, the HVX image looks evasive IMHO. I always use 0 to -2, a lot crisper, and a much better image finesse.

December 21st, 2006, 12:16 PM	#99
Nathan Brendan Masters Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Chicago, Il. Posts: 85	My take on this has always been that in the black areas the HVX looked noisy just from images I've seen versus any particular detail issue. Some people have said Panasonic cameras are generally noisy in black areas, (not something I've experienced with the DVX100 or maybe I'm not looking hard enough). Panasonic in the beginning ran HDV through the ringer but as it turns out all of these little cams did a fine job. The killer for me was the workflow combined with storage issues. Honestly tapeless may be the hot new thing but tapeless is also a very expensive set-up for some. I was looking at the Sony FX1 very hard but the A1 just trumps this camera easily (for my needs) but the FX1, no matter what, can still be had for about $1000 less via ebay and I've seen some great stuff shot with the Sony and A1. But how much does all this take away from the Panny? I don't really know. They are being used right now professionally and people love them, but while Panny got all the press, most of the articles on actual production seem to have been about the Sony or the JVC. (Nothing on the A1 yet but it's still very new). I could be wrong about this but I haven't seem many articles about people using this camera on low budget shoots etc. I think the price point for the tapeless workflow still scares many people off. The whole idea of low end HD was "price". What I mean is this: If I buy the A1 today (which I can but I don't think it would be smart right now because prices usually drop again after Christmas) I pay $3669 (or whatever the going rate is now) and then another $50 for a pack of tapes and I'm ready to shoot. To get HD from the Panny I have to buy into their whole tapeless structure, which equals another $500 - $1000 no matter how I spin it. I just dropped $1000 on the MacBook and my still have to drop another $1000 on the small Canon to edit 24f but I don't have to do that until I'm ready because I can (do the unthinkable) use the camera as a deck. But even if I do drop the extra $1000 that camera can be used as B-roll in certain situations, not just as some kind of storage device. As for the quality this is no suprise as several shootout have been done and the A1 (actually the H1) and JVC came out on top in terms of sharpness. I actually like the way the JVC handles skin tones. The reason I don't get one of those is because I'm a run and gun "guerilla" action shooter so the small cams are best. I am still on the fence. Wait and get the A1 or get the FX1 from eBay at the going rate. I am leaning toward the A1 since Sony made the imagers anyway it's almost a none issue. I am suprised at how the A! has become so popular so quick. I am a fan of HDV and I think it will future proof many of us for a good while. I still want to do a 1080i horror film though and since the A1 is 1080 and 24f that works out. -Nate

December 21st, 2006, 01:54 PM	#100
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	Nathan, If you're only considering initial investment costs when comparing camera system choices then you'll be in for sticker shock later on. The truth is, the P2 workflow and equipment investment is actually much less over time than any tape-based format. XDCAM also has similar cost-over-time benefits but the ROI factor takes much longer for XDCAM since all the equipment costs are much higher than P2. P2 doesn't require a special deck to "capture" the footage and there are a wealth of options in exactly how to transfer from the P2 card to the NLE or storage device. HDV tape requires either using the camera heads to capture/transfer or, having a deck that talks to the HDV codec. And of course, P2 is reusable, tape is not. (of course, technically it is, but nobody in their right mind reuses tape for a serious production) And most importantly, the HDV codec requires a great deal more horsepower from the NLE system to work with, especially when it comes to any renders. Comparing the HVX and P2 to an HDV-based system is comparing apples to oranges. There is no perfect setup for all uses in either system, but there is a perfect system for specific needs.

December 21st, 2006, 02:40 PM	#101
Nathan Brendan Masters Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Chicago, Il. Posts: 85	It depends on a lot of factors. If I buy an A1 and a Firestore it would be pretty much the same as buying an HVX and several (many) P2 cards, so again it would still be cheaper overall. And while renting P2 cards is admireable and cheap it's not particularly convenient all the time. Owning your own equipment is always the way to go if you can afford it. If I get a call for tomorrow I can mount up and go. No renting. I've got the camera, lights, ect. I'd have to buy more tapes but that's 15 minutes or less in Walgreens or any of the video shops in Downtown Chicago. It mostly depends on who you are and what your workflow is. And once I slap a Mack Warranty on there it's all good. Then storage. I store everything (at least all the takes) so the clips for a 90 minute action film takes up a ton of space. HDV is the overall better choice for my needs. With my DL DVD+RW burner and I've got enough space to create an HD DVD that will play HD on a standard DVD player connected to an HDTV. Check that out. With that set-up you just been pimped. -Nate

December 21st, 2006, 03:04 PM	#102
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,825 Images: 15	As I said, there's a specific-fit-to-job for every system out there, and it would seem you've found your perfect fit with HDV; this forum has many categories dedicated to the HDV cameras and the associated workflow.

December 25th, 2006, 01:12 PM	#104
Mark Donnell Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Silver City, NM Posts: 385	Nathan - different cameras and different uses will always have enthusiastic followers. I continue to be stunned by the color delivered by the HVX. In my opinion it is unmatched by any other HD camera under $ 10,000, and produces life-like images that are phenomenal. Used for making a horror movie in low light, this would be useless, and the extra sharpness of the Canon or another camera might well be better. Different tools for different jobs ...