DV Info Net - Some of my first stage testing prints on HVX200-H1-HD100 etc

I would like to make a call out to those that have these cameras ( HVX200--HD100 --XLH1 ) In the next few weeks, I am going to use at a friends private lab an italian large printing system. The printer system cost like some 250,000 dollars.

I would like to have medium shots, Close up shots, and wide shots of actors or just people and scenes. However these need to be well shot and the highest caliber of quality in export frame. Focus tack sharp too....

If I select your frame for the very large test prints, I will fed-ex to you a full large duplicate print of those frames you sent me if I use them for my testing. No cost to you either.

I also would like to get the best res charts and if someone can; shots of a MacBeth color Rendition Chart ....

Please only progressive. No interlace frames.

Now to my original post; I just got back from picking up some of my first stage testing prints from the service bureau . I have not gone over them fully at all since I just got them up on one of my boards and I'm getting ready to go to dinner. I have much larger prints of these, however their machine went on the blink, so I didn't get the bigger prints and test strip prints too!

Before I put them up I gave them a quick look with the loop.

Simple the Cinealta ( this is not a surprise to me since I have used it ) Kick's the assss out of all of them. SIMPLE............

From my basic look over, and very first impressions.....

1. CineAlta f900.

2. Varicam.

3. JVC HD100. This camera performs very good. Much closer to a Varicam than it is farther away. I would get this camera, however, and this is a BIG however. The SSE issue. Nadda , never. My luck I would see it in every shot. I was the one who discovered the very faint vertical lines on the XL1 back in Jan 98. People from Canon came from the east to have me show them, because they couldn't see it themselves. Once they saw, it was obvious. I would not want to go through that with the HD100. The warm up trick, don't like that either. That takes me back to my saticon three tube camera days of the 80's. Simple JVC, you need to fix the problem 100%.

To be fair if the HVX or the H1 had this SSE issue, people would be screaming for a court yard hanging. They would fix it too, whatever it took. So JVC doesn't get an out in my book for being JVC. Just IMHO....

4. HVX200. Not as sharp as the HD100, however good. Image clean of noise. Now noise and codec artifacts are different. I see the dancing bees in the
shadows on some clips. However the HVX200 noise is not bad at all, less than the noise form the H1 ccd's. Noise comes from the ccd, artifacts come from the codec. Verdict not in on the HVX200.

5. XLH1. Can't explain this one. We felt these were not as good as they should have been. On the monitor it looked better then the print. More image noise, which you can see in the original files, especially on the Grey card. I am awaiting some new material to print from the H1.

To be fair and honest, so far my H1 prints I did on other frames to were missing the " Mojo " for still prints as John Hudson called it. Verdict not in on H1..

6. Z1U/FX1. People like to knock this one, however it has a clean image and yes it's interlace which sony dropped the ball on that IMHO, however you can pick up a FX1 for under 2,995 and have HD. That's a bargain. I have printed a lot of 8x10's and larger for testing last year, they actually look quite good for an interlace camera.

That's it for now I just wanted to share with you some of the testing. Some of my first stage testing prints on HVX200-H1-HD100 etc
Read first,

I would like to make a call out to those that have these cameras ( HVX200--HD100 --XLH1 ) In the next few weeks, I am going to use at a friends private lab an italian large printing system. The printer system cost like some 250,000 dollars.

I would like to have medium shots, Close up shots, and wide shots of actors or just people and scenes. However these need to be well shot and the highest caliber of quality in export frame. Focus tack sharp too....

If I select your frame for the very large test prints, I will fed-ex to you a full large duplicate print of those frames you sent me if I use them for my testing. No cost to you either.

I also would like to get the best res charts and if someone can; shots of a MacBeth color Rendition Chart ....

Please only progressive. No interlace frames.

Now to my original post; I just got back from picking up some of my first stage testing prints from the service bureau . I have not gone over them fully at all since I just got them up on one of my boards and I'm getting ready to go to dinner. I have much larger prints of these, however their machine went on the blink, so I didn't get the bigger prints and test strip prints too!

Before I put them up I gave them a quick look with the loop.

Simple the Cinealta ( this is not a surprise to me since I have used it ) Kick's the assss out of all of them. SIMPLE............

From my basic look over, and very first impressions.....

1. CineAlta f900.

2. Varicam.

3. JVC HD100. This camera performs very good. Much closer to a Varicam than it is farther away. I would get this camera, however, and this is a BIG however. The SSE issue. Nadda , never. My luck I would see it in every shot. I was the one who discovered the very faint vertical lines on the XL1 back in Jan 98. People from Canon came from the east to have me show them, because they couldn't see it themselves. Once they saw, it was obvious. I would not want to go through that with the HD100. The warm up trick, don't like that either. That takes me back to my saticon three tube camera days of the 80's. Simple JVC, you need to fix the problem 100%.

To be fair if the HVX or the H1 had this SSE issue, people would be screaming for a court yard hanging. They would fix it too, whatever it took. So JVC doesn't get an out in my book for being JVC. Just IMHO....

4. HVX200. Not as sharp as the HD100, however good. Image clean of noise. Now noise and codec artifacts are different. I see the dancing bees in the
shadows on some clips. However the HVX200 noise is not bad at all, less than the noise form the H1 ccd's. Noise comes from the ccd, artifacts come from the codec. Verdict not in on the HVX200.

5. XLH1. Can't explain this one. We felt these were not as good as they should have been. On the monitor it looked better then the print. More image noise, which you can see in the original files, especially on the Grey card. I am awaiting some new material to print from the H1.

To be fair and honest, so far my H1 prints I did on other frames to were missing the " Mojo " for still prints as John Hudson called it. Verdict not in on H1..

6. Z1U/FX1. People like to knock this one, however it has a clean image and yes it's interlace which sony dropped the ball on that IMHO, however you can pick up a FX1 for under 2,995 and have HD. That's a bargain. I have printed a lot of 8x10's and larger for testing last year, they actually look quite good for an interlace camera.

That's it for now I just wanted to share with you some of the testing.

This picture is one of the boards displaying some of the test prints so you can see what I'm doing..
http://i.pbase.com/g3/56/629656/2/55455508.IMG_1782.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/g3/56/629656/2/55455508.IMG_1782.jpg

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts