No announcement yet.

Is there still value in shooting SD?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    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.


      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.


        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:

        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...")


          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.


            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.