|
|
08-08-2007, 06:25 AM
Although on summer vacations while we're all waiting for our RED ONEs scheduled for the 2nd part of 2007, here's some for chewing gum regarding the 2007 1st semestral's capture device hype:
http://www.owamba.de/rheiler/clips/TeasInnDay.mov
EDIT -- And here's something about the clip's info:
http://www.cinevate.com/phpBB2/viewt...hp?p=8535#8535
08-08-2007, 06:56 AM
Very impressive! Was that shot to tape or did you skip hdv compression? That looked like HDcam footage to me. Also I would love to see some before and after screen grabs. I want to see how dark your original footage was with the adapter. Thanks for sharing great job!
08-08-2007, 07:30 AM
That's fantastic!
08-08-2007, 09:46 AM
That looks great!!!
It really is a great little camera. I'm doing a horror film in November and my original idea was to use two or three HV20's with the Brevis.....but I just don't know if it's logical with so many other great camera's out there.
Then again, for such an inexpensive camera, it's amazing. Hell, not even accounting for cost it's still a great camera.
Thanks for sharing.
08-08-2007, 05:41 PM
It looked pretty good... But it's just a bunch of talking heads and just looked like good quality corporate video to me. I wouldn't really call it "cinelike". I'd really like to see the HV20 + Brevis put to some good cinematic use.
Amazing little camera and setup though. I've almost unloaded my Sony HC3 palmcorder several times in favor of an HV20. But I think I'm going to tough it out and buy whatever Canon comes out with in the next year or so that replaces the HV20. Afterall, I'll have my RED. :)
08-09-2007, 12:34 AM
Just out of interest, does that camcorder record full 1080p? Because they have the logo up there, but they also did with the HV20 (even though HDV only records 1440x1080)> I know you can get the full picture out the HDMI, but this is not (yet) viable in the field...Originally Posted by regista
Also, does this have the same rolling shutter problems that the HV20 did?
08-09-2007, 12:58 AM
First: it's an adapter and not a postpro-trick and it seems pretty on focus in my eyes. It's kind of rude to diss competitors without much knowledge of how it was shot anyway, isn't it?Hmmm, not very cinelike indeed... multiplied two layers, one blurred, desaturated and washed out with about 30% on the other? At least, I used this trick for a kind of filmlook sometimes.
08-08-2007, 05:59 PM
Hmmm, not very cinelike indeed... multiplied two layers, one blurred, desaturated and washed out with about 30% on the other? At least, I used this trick for a kind of filmlook sometimes. Some of the heads seems out of focus...
08-08-2007, 07:42 PM
Hehehe... No. AVCHD = shite. But it looks like the industry is going that way.
08-09-2007, 11:41 AM
I just bought a Panasonic 3 chip with AVCHD (miniDVD version) on clearance for $500 at Circuit City and haven't even shot anything with it yet. (I make underwater housings so I try a lot of these little cameras.)
It seems to me AVCHD will eventually be better as they raise the data rate but I've been telling people for a while that AVCHD in its current form wasn't as good as HDV since even though it is H.264 the data rate is too low to be as good. However, that is mostly speculation on my part based on some early reading - have you done much comparison?
edit: I just saw Regista's posts so I'm interested in everyone's evaluation. I'd like to know what to tell my customers - many don't want the expense and size of the FX7/V1 type of cameras and these Panasonics with 3 chip HD for about a grand are pretty attractive if the video recording is close. Where are the deficiencies? If you bring both HDV and AVCHD into final cut converted to a better format (say dvcproHD) are they similar or is one clearly better than the other.
I normally do more testing of my own, but have been pretty busy of late, and I'm fighting a couple of herniated discs, so I don't know when I will get to it.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
