HVX-200 Vs. Varicam- What do you think?

[Ryan]

That is my point. I am not putting down the HVX200, I am just saying that as far as quality go, they don’t compare.

And in the end, no the public might not see the difference (for the most part they actually don’t care).

There is a reason things cost more money, whether it be better parts, larger chips, more R&D.

I work for a company that has the highest end of everything. VTR’s, Camera’s. NLE’s, Compositors. And trust me, they don’t do it because they enjoy spending the money so it appears that they are spending money. They use High End stuff because they want the product to look the absolute best that it can at its origin, so that when it gets hit with all the compression and distribution issues, it can still look fairly well.

Do you think that people use the higher end equipment just because it looks like it is expensive, no, they use it because of the quality of the picture they get out of it. Because again, their budgets are tight as well, and if there was a choice to spend less money and achieve the same result, they would do it.

I do agree with Micheal in that you don’t have to spend the money on equipment to make good product. I have a DVX100 and make good product all the time, and it suits me fine in that my budgets are so low that I can make great profit off most jobs. Would I like an F900 or a Varicam, of course. Do I want the stress of having to answer to someone because it is their money I am using for the production, no.

[Ryan]

What makes the camera expensive is not what format it spits out on tape, it is how good the quality of the image is before it hits the higher end compressor that makes it better (higher end). Better glass bigger chips.

To use the car example again, the general principle behind cars has not changed since their creation. Four wheels, steering wheel. They get you from a to b. By your logic ferrari’s should cost less so that everyone can afford one. But what you don’t realize is the differences far out weigh the similarities. People don’t buy ferrari’s because they look like ferrari’s, they buy them because they drive like ferrari’s.

Same with the camera’s, people don’t buy them because of what they are, they buy them because of what they can do.

Ryan

[Pierre]

Tony-

The camera of choice isn’t ALWAYS indicative of the Fritos and soup special… I feel like that’s a generalization, but I know what you mean & I have been on “those” types of shoots before. I’ve also been on 100 million dollar movies from pre-production through post so I know that I’ve got a fairly well rounded idea of what’s out there.

Tony, I agree with you- both “sides” can learn from each other. I think that’s when great things happen.

I’m sure the HVX-200 will only be considered “professional” after someone like Steven Soderberg uses a few of em to shoot a feature… and then wins some awards (which will probaly happen). Then everyone and there mother in the idie world will be shooting on it… and they’ll say things like- it’s so inexpensive, lightweight and portable…. and look at the picture!

Thanks for your reply Tony!

Michael

[Toke]

[tony salgado] “For those who cannot or will not accept there is or may be a quality difference between a 2/3″ CCD camera versus a 1/2 or 1/3″ CCD”

Thinking about DoF, the difference between 480p 2/3″ and 720p 1/3″ (or 720p vs. 1080p) might be quite small, if the lenses are sharp enough, because 1/3″ has smaller SoC.
Anyone care to calculate?

Sensivity will be different though…

[Pierre]

(RYAN): “To use the car example again, the general principle behind cars has not changed since their creation. Four wheels, steering wheel. They get you from a to b. By your logic Ferrari’s should cost less so that everyone can afford one. But what you don’t realize is the differences far out weigh the similarities. People don’t buy Ferrari’s because they look like Ferrari’s, they buy them because they drive like Ferrari’s.

Same with the camera’s, people don’t buy them because of what they are, they buy them because of what they can do.” (End Quote)

First of all I

[Toke]

[Michael] “BUT I’M A CAMERA NERD AND WORK IN THE FILM INDUSTRY!!! MOST AUDIENCE MEMBERS ARE NOT LIKE YOU OR ME!!! AND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT!”

If the movies were made by consumer standards, how bad would they look if you look today’s films that are made with professional standards?

Average audience does not even realize the cuts and they surely not should be able to analyze the picture quality. Movie should be an emotional experience and PQ should be something that gives a feeling in subconsciousness.

[Accountclosedduetopolicyviolations]

This was one of the best articles I read on this forum.
Thanx Tony for that -jiri

[Accountclosedduetopolicyviolations]

[toke lahti] “Next step forward would be cheap 1/2″ 1-chipper with changeable lens.”
One of the best cameras 15 years ago was BTS with 1/2′ block.
The only problem was,there was not enough 1/2′ lenses that time.
…but you can always tell the difference between 1/2 and 2/3′ block.
1/2′ camera is also less forgiving in critical situations.
jiri vrozina

[Tony]

Jim,

I loved working with the BTS LDK 91,92 and 93 series cameras. One of the greatest looking analog camera heads ever made. However the design of the body itself left much to be desired as well as the size and weight when in camcorder mode.

For a 1/2 professional high end camera it had all the accessories and support gear I required for high end shoots. But the world of 1/2 BTS cameras are a world away from any prosumer 1/2 cameras today as we both know.

Tony Salgado

[Tony]

Opps,

I meant to say “Jiri” not “Jim” on my last post.

I apologize for the mistake.

Tony Salgado