A1U or keep my old DVX100A??

[raphbo]

What should I do? I am looking to get into a better camera than the DVX, the sony HVR-A1U is HD which is a huge plus even when going to dv. I can probably sell my DVX for about 2200 or higher so it makes it not too bad a deal for the A1U at 2849.00, what do you think I should do and why?

[meta4]

Have you looked at the Canon XH-A1 yet? It would benefit you to research both cameras as they are comparable yet different.

HDV is higher compression and long GOP compared to miniDV, so really you're stepping 'down' in codec stability, but with the added resolution you can down rez your HD into great looking SD.

Would you end up having to switch all your accessories and filters?

Do you like sony built products?

Are you willing to take a chance on new CMOS technology?

I would suggest finding out the GOP length of Sony's HDV codec. Canon uses only six intraframes, while Sony has been using 15. Basically the fewer there are, the more stable the codec is with data intense scenes and dropouts.

Would stink to have great pictures, but not be able to move the camera. (this is because camera moves cause full frame background movement, which is really taxing on intraframe codecs like HDV, especially 15 long GOP like sony)

[raphbo]

I have looked at a range of different options (including the Red even, the jvc hd200u and the hvx) though at this juncture I am not really ready to buy a camera for that kind of money, I just really wanted to do a semi straight up trade for the camera I have. The A1U seems like the best camera to trade to because of the price, I have seen some of the image shot with it and it doesn't look too bad. With the higher rez going down to DV would be much easier especially with the 2X zoom because of the extra info. I would always shoot as cleanly as possible 30p and use magic bullet to do any of my film conversion effects. I really like the ability to shoot green screen with the camera where as with the DVX it almost never really works out (even in a perfect lighting situation) too many jaggies and crap in the image, not enough fine detail.

The CMOS tech isn't new at all, it was invented 6 years prior to The CCD so I am really pretty comfortable with that. The fact that it eliminates smearing is what I like about it. it's much better technology as far as I am concerned. That is why I think the new 3 CMOS may be one of the best cameras coming out. Though there is the fact that SD shooting will be way better with the DVX100, but i am wondering if shooting in HD and down converting to DV in cinema tools or compressor would be better than shooting DV on the DVX100, especially since my dvx is the A.

[dando]

I have owned the A1 for a year now and I am about to sell it. It's a great camera, but the only thing that lets it down is that its not the best camera for low light situations. However, get it outdoors in nice natural light etc and it really shines! I think if it were a 3CCD it would be much better indoors and in dim light.
As for the XL H1, they don't compare, as the Canon is about $6000 more expensive!

[Mike Krumlauf]

SOLD my DVX100A yesterday for 2400 to get the A1U! :)

Everything i have seen from the A1 i think is amazing for the size of the camera, it looks just like Z1u Footage. :)

[Zim]

Good luck and let us know how it works out

[anthony jackson]

The new HVR-V1U Is the best cam out for the money

[rawfa]

SOLD my DVX100A yesterday for 2400 to get the A1U! :)

Everything i have seen from the A1 i think is amazing for the size of the camera, it looks just like Z1u Footage. :)

I used to have a FX1 and I think the A1 footage looks WAY WAY better.

[tyrrell48]

I'm in the market for a camera in the $2000 range.

I'm debating between the new Sony A1U or a used DVX 100a

My thoughts -

DVX 100a has proven its technology. Still looks great by the standards of today. I like the film look of 24p over the sharp look of HD.

Sony A1U is a new camera that's small and offers both 24p and HD technology. It's also compact.

Cons on both cams

DVX 100a doesn't have HD.

Sony A1U's CMOS technology is new. Sony doesn't have the best rep for pro-consumer cams in general.

Also on the editing front -
I have final cut 4, would upgrade to Final Cut Pro 4 HD for the Sony. However, I have a Powerbook G4 with 768 MB of memory. I'm concerned that my system won't be able to handle HD and the price balloning to compensate for the amount of memory needed to render HD to be unbearable, if possible at all.

I'm planning on shooting music videos and a feature length doc I plan trying to sell for distribution.

I'd really appreciate any tips or advice. I am by no means a "techie" person, but want to anticipate the true cost and value of the camera I purchase.

Thanks!

[Eastside Parkway]

I got an A1U over the summer and thought it was garbage. Horrible in low light, no manual gain, awful audio controls, no extendable viewfinder, painfully slow autofocus, and it's got one of those tape doors that require the camera to be removed from a tripod in order to change tapes. AND, the HDV format caused so many glitches with FCP that I eventually had to just capture it all as regular DV.

I took a chance with a new chip and a new format, and it didn't work out at all. I sold it last week and got a DVX100B, and haven't looked back.

[flinty]

where do your eyes come from,indoors hc1e yes not too hot but out doors dont make me laugh i would not go back to low reslution stuff like the dvx100 if you paid me,a good 3 chip hd camera costs little more

[wilsonedits]

I got an A1U over the summer and thought it was garbage. Horrible in low light, no manual gain, awful audio controls, no extendable viewfinder, painfully slow autofocus, and it's got one of those tape doors that require the camera to be removed from a tripod in order to change tapes. AND, the HDV format caused so many glitches with FCP that I eventually had to just capture it all as regular DV.

I took a chance with a new chip and a new format, and it didn't work out at all. I sold it last week and got a DVX100B, and haven't looked back.


same with me ...couldn't have made a better post myself....

dvx100b looks a million times better.... the low light level is just horrible for the amount of money the camera cost.

I currently have a dvx and an A1J and will be getting a rid of the A!J very soon infact anyone want it make me an offer !

[Vincent Wong Yoon Wei]

I shoot a debut feature for a local independent director using the FX1 last year in black and white. It is an amazing camera in low noise condition. Everything was shot Dogmar style and even without gain boost, all the low light footages turned out excellent.

This is where the Sony beat the DVX hands down. The camera excels in low light situation.

HD is a big plus too. Footages are very sharp and full of detail. After using the FX1 for a whole month, it took me a while to get back to the noticeably softer look of the DVX.

Few months later, when I was looking at an almost completed cut in the production studio on the big ass MAC LCD monitor, I was stunned. The contrast, the depth of field, the detail, it completely blew the DVX out of the water as far as image quality goes.

A few weeks later, at the press screening, projected from a DVD, I was really shocked. HDV, in its native form will look amazing. But after compressing to SD DVD, it looked worst that the DVX. Not by a little but a lot more worst.

Every was lost during compression. The resolution, the detail, the colour, all gone. Watching the same version projected from a DVD a second time at the public premier made me cringed even more. This was projected on a much bigger screen and it was even worse. All the detail and benefits of HD were lost in translation (and more). I had seen features shoot on the DVX projected on a bigger screen through DVD looking really amazing and comparable to stuff shoot on 16mm film. Not with compressed HD though.

My film lecturer (and mentor) shot a 30 minute short film with the same camera (or similiar) that George Lucas used for Star Wars prequal and experienced the same thing. When he saw it in the production studio on the Mac, the footages looked fantastic. After compression to DVD, he got the shock of his life. The compression introduced a lot of artifacts not in the original footages.

Therefore in conclusion, the benefits of HD can only be enjoyed on high resolution formats, i.e. HD DVD, HD TV, High resolution LCD...

SD just do not do HD justice (made it worse than SD actually).

For SD stuff, the DVX will do well. And with HD not picking up (at least here), the DVX will be good for a few more years.

[magichristopher]

My experience is so much different. I have the Canon A1 and when I downconvert it, it still gives the DVX a beating. A big beating. Sure the SD doesn;t look as good as the HDV version, but for SD it is crisp clean and void of artifacts.

[John Trent]

Vincent Wong Yoon Wei,

Could you please tell us what you used to downconvert the footage. What you downconverted it to, etc. Take us through the whole chain.

I'm thinking about taking the HDV plunge, myself, but all the downconverted footage I see on tv and the web looks fuzzy like it was shot through a heavy diffusion filter.

[Vincent Wong Yoon Wei]

Vincent Wong Yoon Wei,

Could you please tell us what you used to downconvert the footage. What you downconverted it to, etc. Take us through the whole chain.

I'm thinking about taking the HDV plunge, myself, but all the downconverted footage I see on tv and the web looks fuzzy like it was shot through a heavy diffusion filter.
I can't give any details since I wasn't the one editing it but to the best of my knowledge, they edited the whole feature on Final Cut Pro 5 in its native HDV form.

After it was done they just burn it to DVD. There is only two ways to burn to DVD on the Mac, either export the footage as quicktime and then burn in iDVD or export using the Compressor and then burn to DVD.

I will be the first to admit that on the big *ss MAC LCD the footages looks fantastic but not when it has been burned to an SD DVD.