Premium Members Erwin Landau Posted February 3, 2007 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Oh also... it was interesting that they complained how shitty my transmission was. Always this little DV shoots that complain the most about my Transmitter and receiver... when the camera cost less then my Tx and Rec combined they complain... Erwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Fabrice Maurel Posted February 3, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 I say wasted because the image just didn't look any better than that from the other prosumer cameras on the market. I don't care about any of the info out there, I have access the best HD monitoring equipment on the market, and I was never able to definitively prove that amongst themselves, any of the cameras with the exception of Canon XL H1 had a better, sharper, less noisy image. Make the data rate a full HD 400 Mb/S, it still looks prosumer... From the post production point of view (My day job...), the whole point of using the HVX200 as oppose to other prosumer HD cameras is the 4:2:2 color space. I agree that other cameras look as good (whatever good means), but if you want to add color grading later on, or digitally manipulate your video, anything less than 4:2:2 will break down very quickly. Furthermore there isn't any magic cameras, I have seen incredible things done with dv cam. The magic usually comes from the one using it... I do believe that in the right hands, any cameras can be great. Enough of always blaiming the equipment for poor results! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Lawrence Karman Posted February 3, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Oh also... it was interesting that they complained how shitty my transmission was. Always this little DV shoots that complain the most about my Transmitter and receiver... when the camera cost less then my Tx and Rec combined they complain... Erwin Sometimes you just can't win. Is that a weight plate you've added to fly this lightweight cam on the XCS sled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Sydney Seeber Posted February 3, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 the whole point of using the HVX200 as oppose to other prosumer HD cameras is the 4:2:2 color space. This is turning into 2 different threads, it seems... I avoid the HDV codec entirely... I capture in analog HD with an Aja card, which, while making the image a tiny bit softer, eliminates the issue of a crappy codec... I can make pretty much any color space I want, but the original image is pretty compressed, so I don't get too crazy with the file sizes from these smaller cameras... It's worth it. Soon, pretty much all of these cameras will have at least HDSDI out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Fabrice Maurel Posted February 3, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 the whole point of using the HVX200 as oppose to other prosumer HD cameras is the 4:2:2 color space. This is turning into 2 different threads, it seems... Seems that way... :) I avoid the HDV codec entirely... I capture in analog HD with an Aja card, which, while making the image a tiny bit softer, eliminates the issue of a crappy codec... I can make pretty much any color space I want, but the original image is pretty compressed, so I don't get too crazy with the file sizes from these smaller cameras... It's worth it. Soon, pretty much all of these cameras will have at least HDSDI out... My point about 4:2:2 is what happen to your video if you manipulate in post... You can capture it at whatever codec or bit depth you want, it will still breakdown the same, it will actually be worst since by going to analog you are loosing even more info... You can't make up what is not there in the first place. That said, I can totally believe that capturing analog may give you an interesting look and feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Erwin Landau Posted February 3, 2007 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Hi Doc, I made that weight plate a couple of years back for my PRO Lite and my 3A arm as pretty much everything was to light for my Gold springs... A scrap metal piece from Industrial metal supply, the velcro serves as rust protection and is very handy for cable management. ($11.50) After machining, weighs in at exactly 15 lbs. Bought the Tripod adapter from Samy's ($60.-) to protect the weak threaded adapter. Machining (5 holes) was $50.- bucks before I mentioned it was a Camera weight, then he quickly changed his invoice to $150.- Use it still with my Ultimate makes for a nicer flying rig and brings the gimbal higher up the post, especially with a single Trimpac at the bottom. Actually a Camera with the Mini35 with Cine lens and mattbox is almost the exact weight as just the camera with the plate... Take care, Erwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Lawrence Karman Posted February 3, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Thanks for the detail, Erwin. I figured with the PRO 35 and all the external BS it would be heavy enough not to need the additional iron weight. When I flew this camera I knew I would be running around with it for hours at a time. I knew it would be too light for my rig and didn't want to add the extra weight. I would have liked to have used the Flyer but I wound up using Garrett's prototype for the Flyer, a converted SK which flew the thing beautifully. I see you used a Preston. I can't remember for sure but I think I used a LAN control for focus and zoom which I attached to the gymbal and did it myself, video style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Lukas Franz Posted February 3, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 Hey Guys, we're talking about a camera that makes images in HD for less than 10k. Think back of what you paid for a pro DV camcorder some years ago. You never could have compared DV with Digital Beta or other broadcast tape formats. So, today in the time of HD we're still comparing small handheld camcorders with big high end cameras, where only the lens costs double the price of a small camcorder. What makes the difference between the images of the hvx200 and the images of the varicam? We all know, it's having got the same compression to the video signal. And we also know, that the quality of an image isn't made only by the size of the CCD or the electronics following. The most important part for a good image still comes from the lens. Well, I really think that the hvx200 (with mini35) is a great alternative to 16mm or 35mm for smaller budget projects. You definitely get a big bunch of features with that small camera for a really good price. Maybe some HDV camcorders take similar image quality or even better like the Panasonic, but they are all in the same price range. Take the F900 or the Varicam, those cost 6 times the price or even more. So, for all of you guys working on film for many years, sooner or later we all have to accept HD and its teething problems. I whish you all a recreative Sunday and a good week. Tomorrow I will go to a one week workshop in Locarno, Switzerland with Garrett and Jerry, which I'm really glad about. Take care. Lukas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Jaron Berman Posted February 4, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Lukas, you have some interesting points. But still, I don't think anyone's directly comparing DV to Digibeta, or an HVX-200 to an F950. What has happened is a pretty widespread acceptance of lower quality because of the consequent lower price. TV used to be dominated by Betacam and veteran ops. That was before reality. And unfortunately, low-end reality has sent a ripple of bad ideas upstream. Ideas like: underpaid, inexperienced crews, consumer gear, unsafe situations, and lackluster editing. But it's cheap and sadly, money talks. So a lot of the comparisons "as good as 35", "same codec as" and "looks close to as good as" are used VERY subjectively to try and justify the fact that a $5000 camera looks good enough. HD is a HUGE catchword right now. The HVX has a lot of clever features, and uses a proven codec, but like you mentioned, it lacks a true HD lens and chip. Still - noise, color response, latitude, and resolution actually do have a lot to do with the chip, and the HVX chip is more super-dv than mini-hd. About the only thing that the HVX and Varicam have in common is DVCPRO-HD... it's not just the lens. As for the HVX+mini35 as a great alternative to 35mm..... that's also pretty subjective. If you're referring to the D.O.F., then yes, it's a pretty good approximation. If you're talking about latitude or resolution - it's still an HVX, minus a bit of resolution at the adapter. Also, that setup is (rental-wise) close in price to a proper camera and lens. The HVX, as well as all the HDV cameras are definitely going to be more and more on our radar. And yes, eventually some sort of digital medium will replace film. But saying that film is dead because the HVX (with enough tricks) can get the same D.O.F as 35... well that's kinda crazy. It is a proof of concept that digital aquisition is getting better, but there's a LONG way to go at the bottom end. And as for the RED abortion, it doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members JobScholtze Posted February 4, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 And as for the RED abortion, it doesn't exist. Explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Jaron Berman Posted February 4, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 A lot of people have been talking up the RED, but the fact of the matter is it's not real, not yet. It may or may not deliver what they say. Personally though, I'm sick of HD discussions ending with "yeah, but the RED blows all that away." Some day, it may... and it may even be soon. But as of now, it's a chip on a test bench, some ridiculous CNC millings, and a few thousand people who have formed a religion around the RUMORED specs of this thing. Those who think that a $17,500 camera body is the magic bullet that's going to make their projects leap from home video to the big screen... I'm sure that 35mm-like D.O.F. and 4K resolution are the only things stopping them. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea to try and stir things up. I'm just curious how a company with no experience is going to do everything (chips, form factor, lenses, batteries, storage, mounting) better than all of the individual companies who have spent years and billions of dollars specializing in getting one or two things right. I'm sure Zeiss/Arri agree that sunglass lenses are in the same realm of complexity as master primes. It's obvious that cameras like the D20 or Genesis are so big and expensive because Arri and Panavision are simply not thinking outside the box. Lower-cost digital aquisition will be the reality, just not quite yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Alec Jarnagin SOC Posted February 5, 2007 Moderators Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Guys, There are a million places on the web to argue about HD versus film/ RED versus everything, etc. This IS a Steadicam forum. This particular thread is for cameras and that is why I've kept my mouth shut thus far, but I think this thread is off topic. Please keep it Steadicam related (i.e. how the HVX-200 is great/ sucks on a Steadicam). Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Lawrence Karman Posted February 5, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Guys, There are a million places on the web to argue about HD versus film/ RED versus everything, etc. This IS a Steadicam forum. This particular thread is for cameras and that is why I've kept my mouth shut thus far, but I think this thread is off topic. Please keep it Steadicam related (i.e. how the HVX-200 is great/ sucks on a Steadicam). Thanks, I hear the RED is awesome on the Steadicam! :rolleyes: While you are right, Alec, I have to admit I do find this discussion interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Alec Jarnagin SOC Posted February 5, 2007 Moderators Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Lawrence, you have a point too. I'm merely a moderator - not a dictator. To me, it felt like things were being reduced to "DV is great; film is dead" versus "Yuk - DV; Film is good." Surely a topic that has been beaten to death, but I just took another look and realized there have been more participants than I thought (I thought many of the posts were back and forth between two individuals). I can yawn and move on with the best of them! But do try and get Steadicam in there too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Jaron Berman Posted February 5, 2007 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Apologies, I definitely lead things off topic a ways. Open mouth, insert foot. I did fly the HVX recently with the Movietube, and have to admit that from an operating standpoint it's a bit easier than the mini35. The C.G. is quite a bit higher, and it feels heavier as well. I think the best thing about the Movietube + hvx is that it angles the camera up quite a bit, so the whole unit stays fairly compact in length. The times I've used the Mini35 it always seemed pretty long. Just my 2c. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.