PDA

View Full Version : Should I take a pass on the DVX-200?



nightfall
01-25-2016, 01:55 PM
I am looking to purchase three DVX200's to replace my AC-160's, but with all of the problems brought up in the reviews and on this site should I wait or maybe take a pass all together? Have the firmware updates cleared up the problems? Is there an alternative you recommend? I shoot mostly multi-camera event videography.

Bassman2003
01-25-2016, 06:02 PM
Do you like the reach of the AC-160's lens?
What do you want to improve upon by making the move?

Greg Smith
01-25-2016, 09:27 PM
Two questions to be answered:

1) Do you need UHD/4K, or think it will be important to you in the near future? If so, the DVX200 makes sense.

2) Do you often use and need the long end of the AC160's zoom range, or require the sweep of a 20X zoom in your shots? If so, the DVX200 is not for you.

There are many other less significant reasons why you may like or dislike the DVX200 compared to the AC160, but these seem like the two most important feature differences that could make or break your decision.

With the latest firmware and third-party scene files, I'd say that the early picture quality issues with the DVX are very close to being solved, and it will only get better as we all learn how to tweak the settings in the future.

- Greg

Mike Harvey
01-29-2016, 07:26 AM
I would like to point out that the iZoom on the DVX200 allows the lens to effectively become about a 19x zoom without losing resolution when shooting in 1080. The flip side is you lose on the wide end when engaged. That may or may not be an issue for your events.

Vaughan Wood
02-02-2016, 07:39 PM
Another thing not mentioned here is the ability to shoot in a much higher bitrate than just AVCHD.

If you are shooting something with a lot of definition in it and use a setting like 100 MBs there is a huge ability to add some sharpening and bring out that extra definition that is in the file.

When editing up stage shows with lots of girls in stage gear, you can really see that extra detail, even when exporting right back to DVD.

Cheers,

Vaughan

nightfall
02-04-2016, 03:06 PM
This is my primary reason for upgrading to the DVX200 and also shooting VLOG. If we have someone make a mistake in exposure or color at an event it can be really difficult to get the AVCHD 160 footage back to looking good. I would throw my GH4 into this setup as a static camera and it should be able to match the DVX200's pretty well should it not? How does the DVX200 stack up to the 160 in terms of low light in a choir or theater setting?

Vaughan Wood
02-04-2016, 04:02 PM
How does the DVX200 stack up to the 160 in terms of low light in a choir or theater setting?

I think it is just as good, and the gain is certainly cleaner if you need to push it.

I recently replaced a cameramen on a three camera shoot of a dance concert using the DVX200 shooting 4K and used it for both wide and (mid shots in editing). Just kept tights shots shot with AG160.

One less cameraman to pay and a lot less camera colour correction needed! It worked well, but my computer wasn't powerful enough to run one track of 4K and two other tracks in multi cam in real time.

Now having spent $2000 building a new computer I can run 2 4K tracks and one AVCHD in real time in multicam so I'm set for the next few years using 2 4K cameras for concert work.

Seems the only way to go!

Cheers,

Vaughan

Mike Harvey
02-11-2016, 09:06 AM
I would throw my GH4 into this setup as a static camera and it should be able to match the DVX200's pretty well should it not?

I did something similar on Friday... DVX main camera, GH4 getting tights/cutaways, and a third GH4 shooting wide in 4k. Still editing the project together, but sent client rough of main presentation this morning. It took some tweeking in post, but most of that was due to my own error and still being new to the DVX. At 50mbs, I managed to get the shots all looking almost identical in post. Next shoot for client I think I'm going to go ahead and shoot in V-Log, and I'm fairly confident I can get it so you can't tell the difference.

nightfall
02-15-2016, 12:47 PM
If there is any chance you could save your work matching as a LUT and make that available that would be a great tool. It would be great to mix GH4 with DVX-200 footage and quickly match them as a LUT and then fine tune from there. I have gotten my GH4 to somewhat match with my AC-160's but it isn't great. Weren't there presets to match these two in Barry's book?

Bassman2003
02-15-2016, 02:07 PM
Nightfall, you have not answered any of the questions posed to you. Without more info it is tough to add much. I would say check out the PX270 but I do not know what you are after.

Mike Harvey
02-15-2016, 02:12 PM
My GH4 was setup using a slightly modified "Natural" setting (sharpness and contrast were decreased). The DVX200 was setup using Barry's GH4 Natural scene file, tweaked to match my modifications to the GH4 scene file. I did minor amounts of work in post to match.

nightfall
02-17-2016, 12:18 PM
Bassman, I do like the reach of the 160 I'm just not sure that the DVX would be too short for my needs and I guess if it were I could use that HD mode where the zoom is further. The main upgrade i was looking for is more latitude in my footage for color and exposure, if you make one mistake with AC-160 AVCHD you are screwed and there doesn't feel like a lot you can do with color without hitting a wall. My dream camera would be a camera like the 160 except with all of those DSLR cinema improvements which it looked like the DVX was going to be. I take that back my dream camera might be a Black Magic URSA Mini but with zoom capabilities and using a codec like ProRes with V-LOG for post taking that indie film capability into event videography. I would hope that Canon would put out something it just takes them forever and seems to be too expensive when it comes out. As far as the PX270 I'm just not interested in that older way of doing it with less control of the image and having to use P2 cards ugh! It feels like I have been saying this for years though and that something like the DVX should have come out a few years back and be more developed by now. I took Mike's suggestion and have done two shoots with the GH4 in 4k and I absolutely love the feature of being able to reframe shots when going down to HD. I do have V-Log on my GH4 with a 2.8 lens but I am finding it hard to use because the exposure difference (it being better to overexpose V-log files by 1-2 stops) isn't conducive to shooting in a darker place like a church or an auditorium. Maybe I just need a different lens, does the DVX have work the same way with exposure in V-LOG? I would also consider the Sony FS5 but I don't think it has a zoom lens either and will get too pricey when putting together multiple cameras. My worry is purchasing a DVX and having the image look pretty much like a AC-160, I can spot when people are using these cameras online or on tv immediately and they never somehow look pro to me and it's a look that I am tired of. Yes it does the job for event videography but it feels so bland when you compare it pro productions. Recently I watched some DVX footage in HD online and I could not distinguish it from the AC-160 so the more latitude and control to change the image would be welcome.

Bassman2003
02-17-2016, 01:10 PM
Thanks for the info. I do not quite understand your view of the PX270 as being "the older way of doing things"? I own PX270s and just had a DVX200 in house and in my view, the PX270 has a way better image along with being 10bit 4:2:2. The menu is as extensive or more. Micro P2 has been great and is not that expensive.

If you like the AC160 style of camera but want more latitude the PX270 is that camera. But it is not a 4k camera. The PX270 has everything going for it except shallow DOF (if you need that look).

nightfall
02-17-2016, 03:21 PM
Thanks I will check it out!

topher5
02-29-2016, 06:39 PM
Ummm... the DVX200 4K footage becomes 4:4:4 in a 1080p timeline?
Isn't that enough colour? More bokeh too.
Does the ACS160 have Vlog like the DVX200?
DVX Noise is more filmic or favouring the luminosity channel rather than chromatic.
But the AC160 does have a nice eyecup viewfinder.