This content has been marked as final. Show 28 replies
Noticeably, most likely. It kind of depends on the footage, but the simpla answer is that the EX1 is better, saving at a higher data rate, etc.
Editing in 10 bit with Prospect HD might make effects applied to the footage look a lot better than the 8 bit Aspect HD.
"Editing in 10 bit with Prospect HD might make effects applied to the footage look a lot better than the 8 bit Aspect HD".
Might? Wont it also bumb up the HDV image to Full HD?
By "might" I mean that you will see differences on many effects, but not necessarily all effects. It also depends on the ultimate output if the difference is worth worrying about.
Bump up? Well, it won't make it look better than the original. But Prospect does allow you to edit at 1920X1080.
If there is going to be any foliage in the outdoor shots, I would not even consider HDV--it looks like VHS compared to XDCam footage--the picture is too complex for the HDV CODEC to handle properly.
However, if it's a scene with clean white walls, very few details and good lighting, you should be okay.
Nonsense. I have shot and edited some fantastic HDV in outdoor settings.
> Nonsense. I have shot and edited some fantastic HDV in outdoor settings.
and compared directly with the EX1? A side by side comparison?
This brings up the interesting question:
If you shoot HDV on the Z7 or the JVC 111 or one of the top HDV cameras, bump it up to Prospect HD (Full HD) and compare that to EX1 footage, how obvious will the difference be?
Beyond that, if you then go on to compare EX CAM footage to X.D CAM FULL HD footage, what difference do you see here?
I don't need to compare HD CAM and X.CAM footage because I have already tested the difference. It is minute and non-noticeable. To me X.D CAM sets the standards.
> If you shoot HDV on the Z7 or the JVC 111 or one of the top HDV cameras, bump it up to Prospect HD (Full HD) and compare that to EX1 footage, how obvious will the difference be?
I've never done any testing, but from the tests I have read and the results I have seen, it is quite noticeable. DOF, sensitivity, dynamic range, level of detail, absence of CA, low light capabilities and less noise/grain are significantly better with the EX1.
On the whole the difference between HDV and XDCAM (both HD and EX) is far greater than the difference between XDCAM and HDCAM.
My response had to do with the know-nothing post of Mark's. Comparing one to another there will be some differences perhaps, but to say that it looks like VHS in comparison is utter nonsense.
The fact you can get many of the older HDV cameras like the JVC 100 or the Z1 for very good prices makes the HDV vs EX1 comparison relevant. What we are really interested in is the end result, after editing; Not the initial difference.
There needs to be more than just a 10% difference in the end result to make it worthwhile to spend twice as much on a new camera. When you read a review they will tell you a new camera is great for dailies but they don't really tell you to what extend the final product picture looks better. Is it 10%, 30%?
Ideally one would have to look at it on a large projection screen after final edit (in other words once it goest through the Prospect HD, colour correction and effects). Whatever you see as a final result should be the decisive factor. My Question remains the same: If you bumb up HDV to HD during acquisition using Prospect HD, once you are done applying colour correction and effects how much difference do you really see in the end?
Invest some of time and effort if it is important to you...do a comparison test. (You want to take someone elses opinion instead!)
I do not see how anyone else can anyone else quantify this in percentage terms that you can relate to or mean something. Too many variables in the process and in the end it is "subjective".
Isn't taking other people's opinions what these forums are all about?
"My response had to do with the know-nothing post of Mark's. Comparing one to another there will be some differences perhaps, but to say that it looks like VHS in comparison is utter nonsense."
Your lack of professionalism with that ad-hominem attack detracts from your normally respectable image on the forum, and, is only a matter of opinion.
Yes, you CAN shoot decent looking outdoor footage on HDV, if it contains simply architectural subjects. I, however, did a slow pan in my back yard the other day, which is 95% foliage in the shot, and I was appalled at how badly the HDV CODEC handled it. It DID hit me with that "VHS" look, after I was accustomed to XDCam's quality. I shot a lot of XDCam footage in the woods here, and it all looks photographic quality. The HDV doesn't even come close.
Simplify the scene... white wall, talking head in front, and HDV does just fine.
Another thing seldom talked about is that HDV is still an INTERLACED format. Even if two fields are the same as in 24pA, the fact is that NLEs still treat it as interlaced and things like scaling the image (digital zoom/pan through a scene destined for SD delivery) degrade noticeably because Premiere has to smooth the interlaced images before scaling. That, coupled with the fact that there seems to be no such thing as 24p HDV that is really 24p and edits as such, make HDV pretty much a poor format for any serious commercial work. HDV is a 60i world. It might fake 30p reasonably well, but do any transforms on that footage and the interlacing causes nothing but problems.
>Isn't taking other people's opinions what these forums are all about?
It can be, but that's not the point. What Craig was saying, and I agree on this one, is that you probably shouldn't take someone else's word for it on something this big. Do your own tests, keep your own council.
Nice review Mark!
Says Jim the "Anti-HDV Advocate"
Don't use Prospect. Shoot HQ 1920x1080 HD on the EX1 at 30p, then edit natively in CS3.
I think Mark's comments are very useful and helpful. I'm leaning more and more towards forgetting about HDV altogether.
Or shoot HQ 1920x1080 at 24p.
All arrows point at the EX1.
The arrows always have. If you can afford one. If you already own the FX1 or Z1 it can be harder to justify upgrading. And the price is higher than the Z1 by a considerable amount. About 50% more.
The only reason to go with HDV is price. It is a good intermediate step, and it irritates me when people say it is bad, when they haven't lived with it for almost four years like I have.
But if you can afford a better camera, buy or rent a better camera. The EX1 is newer, and is now editable. There is no reason not to go that direction when a single shoot makes you more money than you would spend on the camera.
>Isn't taking other people's opinions what these forums are all about?
Yes and no...
Noting other peoples opinions is good research but "taking" them is up to you. For something important I would be testing first to save myself from "nasty surprises".
I frequently test equipment, techniques, workflows,fx, lighting, laboratory etc and also have been involved in many elaborate tests over many years. They have all been valuable and worthwhile. Cheap insurance.
There is no Plugin that can fix a f**k up (including the beautifully named 'Magic Bullets').
Choice of camera boils down to two things:
1. The client's wishes.
2. What you're willing to work with.
#1 is all over the field--there are a lot of clients out there who don't know there's a world beyond PD150/DSR250, so if you can make money with such a camera, great.
#2 is about what it takes for you to enjoy your work; if you find one camera format getting long in the tooth and you're bored with the same limitations and find yourself wishing you could do more, see more and have more efficient workflow, you find ways to make it happen or put up and shut up and let your business become like a job and a drudgery.
I'm not super-rich, but I find things to liquidate and use to finance the EX1s. I've also gotten donations from well-off people who like to see me succeed with the right tools. If it matters and is important to you, you will find a way to finance the camera you feel will allow you to work with a high degree of satisfaction and inspiration, which does affect the quality of your work.
>I've also gotten donations from well-off people
Mark, buddy. Introduce me...
Mark, can you intruduce me? I think I deserve it more than Jim.
We have another problem. We are shooting a feature. There is no client per say. As director I decide what I want. So I need to make an educated guess. I could shoot this on a JVC, a Z7 or and EX1.
Each has advantages:
JVC 101: A real camera with 24P. You can get them cheap. However it is HDV and the viewfinder is monochrome.
Z7: Great viewfinder and 25P. But still HDV and almost as expensive as the EX1.
EX1: Half inch lens, great viewfinder, and HD format. It is expensive and the flash cards are 500 Euros for 16GB (a ripoff). Plus I have to get Prospect in post.
> I think I deserve it more than Jim.
Maybe, but I live a lot closer.
Yes but this is about *** kissing. Not about geography.