Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Champaign, IL, USA
    Posts
    1,219
    Default
    I'll largely echo Firehawk's experience. I had a matching pair of decent SD ENG-style JVC DV5000 cameras with about $15K invested in them when I bought my first HD camera with flash memory in 2010. This was the rather low-end Panasonic HMC80, which had some definite limitations but was at least a full 3-chip 1920x1080 camera recording on SD cards. I wanted to dip my toe into HD and see whether it interested me.

    After I got that camera, I never took the JVCs out of their cases again. I got tired of them taking up space and sold them at a huge loss about six months later. I'm not a snob about it, and I still enjoy looking back at projects I did in SD in the past. But there was nothing I was doing that didn't look much better shot on even that entry-level HD camera, so there was no reason not to use it. And as much as the picture quality, getting tape out of the workflow was hugely liberating.

    I could never go back to an SD camera today. In fact, I've passed on a couple of local broadcast jobs that would have involved working exclusively in SD studios.

    - Greg


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member Al MacLeod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    884
    Default
    Depending on what you shoot, SD 4:3 is probably dead...SD shot with squeeze widescreen may have some life left. Really, most stuff people watch on their HD flat panels are plain old dvds (SD) containing wide screen content. If I buy a movie, depending on cost I might get a blu ray but SD dvds are still the mainstay of rental/netflix and will be for some time. Just saying.
    Carbonized Member


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,018
    Default
    yes but hd or greater material downrezzed to sd/dvd still looks vastly better than material ORIGINATING in SD, for sciencey reasons i cant explain.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    144
    Default
    I think I may still have a use for the DVX... the native 4:3 could give me easy access to an imitation of '90s television, which could come in handy...

    Though I think as a primary medium, it's run its course, as far as popular consensus is concerned (which is actually 13 years... from '02... could you believe that?)

    I have a thing for 4:3, or 1.33. I've never truly understood the rationale behind 16:9 aside from being a gimmick to get people back into the cinemas, so.

    And Gus Van Sant did a wonderful thing with Elephant and Last Days. My love for 1.33 only deepens through Savides's lens.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,018
    Default
    i think a lot of people (including myself) just think the 16:9 aspect is more interesting compositionally. its also supposed to represent the "golden mean" (look it up) although I think someone posted an article on here saying the idea of the golden mean was disproven.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member EDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    674
    Default
    I don't use the DVX but I have a Sony VX2000 that I still use sometimes. Here's my 2 cents:
    With everything being photoshopped or CGId these days miniDV tape footage, straight from the camera, can be perceived as being less likely to be modified, and therefore more useful in legal matters.
    SD cameras such as the DVX and the VX2000 were really good in low light.
    SD is ideal for "behind the scenes" footage.
    MiniDV is still being used professionally in 2015 in some parts of the world. I discovered this when I went to the Philippines.
    If you're an editor you never know when someone is gonna hand you a miniDV tape. I personally have a lot of valuable content filmed on miniDV and might use it someday.
    Well lit SD still looks great. Finally, I still watch 360p on YouTube from time to time. If the content is great, and there's no other way to watch it ( often because it was filmed 15 years ago ), I put my prejudices aside and enjoy it anyway.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,867
    Default
    Yeah. 4X3 has some uses.
    I originally disliked 16X9 but I soon realized it was because of the hassle of having to deal with and mix both together in projects.
    Once I wasn't having to mix 4X3 and widescreen I quickly liked 16X9 better. For instance , shooting dance recitals and theater 16X9 is much better for framing.
    The reason most people like widescreen has been because they are always trying to look more like film and motion pictures are widescreen. It's easier to frame shots creatively.
    There are other reasons such as the widescreen more closely matches the viewing field of a human with 2 eyes.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    144
    Default
    That's true, about tape's austere appearance, as it were...

    Though, where veracity is concerned, anything can be done. Especially since that aesthetic is now available as an easy app filter (see: http://rarevision.com/vhscam/)

    When you say "professionally", EDV, what's the capacity that it's still being used as? Storage? Broadcast?

    Well, from what I know of film history, apparently widescreen was adopted by the cinema industries to compete with television. At least from an economic point of view.

    Aesthetically, the golden mean seems like a valid reason, although I wonder why they didn't start with that in the first place. Compositionally I find that the possibilities with widescreen are vast, although no less than, say, academy ratio. In the end it's a square and a rectangle, apples and oranges, and I don't think there's necessarily a superior one over the other (at least not mathematically, in my subjectivity.) Where similarities are concerned between the human perspective and a screen's ratio, I theorize that it's not because our eyes see horizontally per se, but that historically we've settled horizontally and not vertically as much, hence the constructed perspective of a "widescreen world". I actually think it's more like a big circle, our field of view, but since vertical construction is not nearly as prevalent and accessible as a horizontal sweep of the eye, it's easier to do the latter (and thus also where many horror films earn their badge: "don't look up...")


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Look ma no hands HorseFilms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mankato, Minnesota
    Posts
    8,878
    Default
    The DVX still has that mojo. The only reason I made the switch to HD (the AC90 has the mojo, too) was to get away from tape.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,867
    Default
    I kept 1 out of 4 of my mini dv Panasonics, which was my barely used ag dvc60, thinking I might someday use it. Never use it. Don't miss selling the others. But since I kept it, I now have extra batteries for my ac90a.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •