Sony HVR 1ZU Versus DVX100B Versus HVX200

L

LearningVideo

Well-known member
Hello everybody.

This is an interesting topic for me. I hope I can articulate it with gentleness and fairness. Many years ago, I was reading about DV Cameras. In particular, DVX100, Canon XL1 and Sony PD150. I would read very long, but fascinating debates between the users and supporters of each Camera. The intention of the users was not simply to criticize other cameras but to try to give objective evaluation of what is the best one to buy. The defenders of DVX100 pointed out the reliability of their Camera, its small size, 24P, and other features. Canon users pointed out the removal lens feature, while PD150 pointed out the better low light handling. Then there were some people who were either trying to be diplomatic or were simply tired of debates and stated some of the following,

"rent the camera, try it, and the one you are MOST COMFORTABLE with is the right one for you."

"Camera is not everything, it is the operator. I would take a good operator over a good Camera anytime..."

Years have passed and I believe the majority would agree that the DVX100 is the better Camera, the most advanced and 24P was relevant. Despite the fact that so many people downplayed the 24p of the DVX in the past. Concerning, the lens of the Canon, who would get a camera and replace its lens with one which costs more than the price of the Camera itself when he is on a limited budget in the first place? Concerning low-lighting, how come it is not that of a big issue any more?

So if we want to evaluate the responses of the various users, we can say those who tried to be wise and diplomatic did not say the full truth, whether intentionally or not. THose who defended the other cameras could not see the real facts beyond their own loyality to their individual Camera.

Now with HD and HDV, the debate has shifted. We have new Cameras and new debate.

Sony HVR-Z1U versus DVX100B.

I still see many posts with very conflicting messages. Some people are trying to say that the Z1 is superior to DVX100b and therefore, there is no logical reason for MOST PEOPLE for MOST PROJECTS that somebody should pick the DVX over Z1 other than the price difference.

However, some insist that there is NO WAY no earth to GET decent 24P from Z1, and therefore, Z1 is NOT superior to DVX and cannot replace the DVX. They also downplay HDV, Vegas support for HDV, less noise and clear clean picture of Z1.

And some are more diplomatic who would repeat the same or similar statements as the one mentioned above.

Clearly, there is one group which is correct. Most other forums suggest that we at the DVXuser forums are more loyal to Panasonic and that explains some of the users strong defense of the DVX against Z1u, or at least our reluctance to accept that the Z1u has logically replaced the DVX in most of the use.

Or maybe the defenders of the DVX have good point about 24P. Or maybe it is truly it depends and comparison is valid.

The same can be said about the HVX200 verses Z1u or any other camera. I still read posts complaining that the HVX200 does not fair well with green screens in various forums. I hear very contradictory reports about the Sony Z1.

The point is, will it take many years to find the truth? Or will a brave and honest soul say the Truth?

I personally find this discussion very interesting and very relevant in a day in which I am very hestitant about buying a Camera. I already bought a Computer and Vegas and other equipments. I was going to buy the HVX but now I am not sure. I am tempted to buy Sony Z1U.
 
Last edited:
I'll give you my honest version of the truth. I own a Sony FX1 and used to own a Sony VX2000, which I purchased before the DVX100 was released. I do not own a DVX100 but I have seen it projected digitally on theatrical sized screen at Sundance this past January. It looked excellent and I would guess its picture quality would satisfy 95% of average moviegoers. I even thought that it might have been shot on HD or HDV so I asked the director. I would take the DVX100 over the VX2000 any day of the week.

I would not trade my FX1 for the DVX100 and here is why. I think the FX1 gives you more flexibility in shooting and converting in post than does the DVX100. In many situations, regular 1080/60i video is desireable and the FX1 is awsome in this regard. The DVX100 can't touch it in this area. I would also expect 1080/60i deinterlaced to 1080/24p using a decent NLE or other program would yield higher quality, higher resolution video than the 480/24p the DVX100 can generate. I would expect when digitally projected, most people would prefer the deinerlaced 1080i over the native 480p. I have not tested this so this is just my expectation and not fact. I would also expect 1080/60i video deinterlaced to 16:9 480/24p to look as good to or slightly better than the cropped widescreen 480/24p of the DVX100.

So the FX1 can generate high quality 1080/60i video which can be converted in post to high quality 1080/30p, 1080/24p, 720/30p, 720/24p, 16:9 480/60i, 16:9 480/30p, or 16:9 480/24p. The only thing that the DVX100 can absolutely do better is 4:3 480/24p. Even then it I wold expect it would be fairly close. You might could argue that the 24p generated from 60i video would not be true 24p and may have some artifacts, but is your average person going o be able to tell? I don't think they could. I think they would prefer the deinterlaced 1080i with it higher resolution. This was my rationale for purchasing the FX1 instead of the DVX100.

Now the HVX200 is a different story. I think the jury is still out on it. Most reviews of it do not paint it as the HDV-Killer that many thought it would be. Most the higher-end Prosumer HD(V) camera reviews have stated the picture quality is quite close and many of the differences between cameras being more a matter of preference than fact. I would probably trade my FX1 even-steven but I wouldn't pay any more for one. I don't like the limited size of the P2 cards or to be tethered to a storage device.

Just my 2 cents...
Greg
 
LearningVideo, you should establish your price point for comparison. The DVX is priced the same as an FX1, not a Z1. The Z1 is not the right camera to compare against the DVX, the Z1 should be compared against the HVX instead.

And in that comparison, you can let your eyes be The Truth you're looking for. The Sony shoots very decent 1080/60i, competitive with the HVX's. But the HVX does 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 720/60p, 720/24p, 720/30p, variable frame rates, DVCPRO50, and 4:2:2 color sampling, and 4 channels of uncompressed audio. The Z1 doesn't have an answer for any of that.

The Z1 is a fine product, and if you're looking for the ultimately lowest-noise picture, or all you really want/need is 1080/60i or 1080/50i interlaced video, the Sony does very well. For everything else, the HVX is just better.

To use your example from before: people defended their PD150 and VX2000 and said "the DVX is a fad." The PD150 was enormously popular until the DVX came out. When it caught on, the DVX destroyed the PD150 and VX2000 in sales.

The Z1 is a high-def PD150. The HVX is a high-def DVX. Do you think history will repeat itself? I do.
 
I want to thank you all very much for your kind contribution. After I read the replies, I realised I need to explain exactly what are my needs for now.

I am in the USA. I am producing programs that will be broadcasted to both Europe and North America (50i and 60i respectively). So I am producing programs in the USA for Europe and for North America. I have already invested in Sony Vegas 6 and a dedicated computer for it. I also found out that I will be using green screen. Most of the work will be an interview format. In the future, I will be using for short documentaries and I will be taking it to Europe as well to capture more speakers and more interviews. And I will be needing to use more Green screen. Eventually, some of the work will be placed on DVD for the general audience who are interested in the program that was broadcasted. So all of this may suggests that maybe the Z1 is the most suitable Camera. Well, many posts were suggesting that you really need progressive Camera- that's not DV- to truly do green screens without painful tricks and/or expensive software. This why I am asking about the 24p.

I have to be honest with you that I do not have lot of experience with much of this. I have spent months reading about this, especially this forum. I have learned a lot. So please forgive me in advance if I sound too naive. I am looking for reliable, repeatable, dependable and easy workflow to get the work done. I truly appreciate every comment you add.
 
Learning,

Comparing the Z1U or FX1 to the DVX100a/b isn't a viable comparison. You're bringing two interlaced HDV cameras, and the features they offer, against a standard definition progressive-scan unit.

I shoot HVR-Z1U constantly for HD broadcast television. In almost every instance, the Z1U acts as a complimentary field camera to the CineAlta F900 or F950. Recently, we shot in CineFrame 30, which is Sony's HDV "progressive-scan" equivalent. The results were certainly more cinematic looking than what you'll get with the standard 1080/60i setting.

As a fellow who has a significant bit of time in the world of celluloid, I'll tell you that no one in the <$10k market replicates the motion and color nuance inherent to film better than Panasonic does with their remarkable progressive-frame camera catalog.

If you intend to shoot narrative or sit-down interviews, you cannot go wrong with the DVX or HVX cameras. The question really becomes, "...do I need HD or not?"

The DVX 480/30p mode so closely resembles the look of 16mm NatGeo film (less the breathing, of course) that it's uncanny. Obviously, several films over the past few years have filmed-out from DVX-originated footage. For broadcast, literally hundreds of packages are shot almost entirely on the DVX100a/b.

I use Z1U all the time, but it isn't the camera I'd choose if I were making a one-or-the-other decision with the HVX. The HDV versus DVCProHD format comparisons notwithstanding, what you do not get with the Sony is any flexibility for developing unique looks or the capacity to tailor style appropriately to a given production. The HVX is literally a Swiss Army knife of a camera - and it actually has the ability to do most everything very well.

Dunno, seems like a no-brainer, but I know what it's like to agonize over these things.

e
 
Interesting debate. I own a Z1U, got it at the end of 04, really early in the game. Were I to buy a camera right now, I don't know what I would do. It would be the HVX or nothing (waiting because now is a tumultious time).

I can tell you this. If greenscreen is your thing. The HVX. That 4:2:2 color sampling well help a lot.

I was pondering trading in my Z1U and buying an HVX. I may still do it down the line. But right now I have found a 50i->25p workflow that works for ME. It may not work for you :)

If you have no plans to go to HD, then get the 100B, save a lot of money, put that money into a nice wireless mic set or a redrock M2 and some nikon film lenses.
 
Thanks

Thanks

Thank you all for the responses. I am getting the following impression:

1) HVX can do great green screens

2) HVX is more flexible than Z1 and for the most part it is better Camera EXCEPT when the need is for low noise interlaced picture in either 50i or 60i or both.

3) Z1 is a good Camera, but the owners of Z1 or FX1 would be willing to get HVX200 instead if they can make the decision now or if cost was not problem.

Imagine the following workflow:

1) NTSC HVX200
2) Camera is taken to Europe. Scence are recorded.
3) All editing and post is done in the USA.
4) Most common and final desired output is SD 50i and SD 60i for European and North American broadcast.

Would that still be feasable?

In theory, Is there one format that you would love to convert DVCPROHD to, in which it is ideal for Sony Vegas? Clearly the answer is not HDV.

If by miracle, you can get DVCPRO-HD into Vegas by miracle, then 50i SD or 60iSD from any progressive format... is very easy. Am I correct?

And if the final output is SD, does it make sense to use DVCPRO-50? It has 4-2-2, so in theory it should do green screens as well as HD? Well, Vegas have better support for DVCPRO-50? Or is there conversion from DVCPRO-50 to compatible format to Vegas? Maybe Raylight?
 
Last edited:
Man, I don't know why things like this keep being debated. Questions and answers exactly like the ones in here were already posted a billion times here. But people keep asking these same questions over and over again and the same people keep answering (including me). I think the best advice would be to see as much footage as you can from both your possible options and most important of all....go to a store near your place and shoot with both cameras....or rent them for a day. If you're going to buy a 6000$ camera I think it's worth to spend a couple of bucks more and actualy shoot a little with it. Sometimes I feel that treads like this must make the person who posted it even more confusing than they were in the first place.
 
rawfa,

I appologize to you for asking these questions. And trust me, I would love to rent NTSC HVX200, Z1, DVX100B for one week, travel to Europe, take some footage, and come back. Then buy raylight, canopus, Avid, and see what I can do. :)
 
Learning, no need to appoligize. It was not my intention to make you feel you should not have asked this question. It's just that every time I see a post like "HVX vs HL1" or "FX1 vs DVX" or something like this I know exactly what is going to happen and who stressful this particular tread is going to become. I know a lot of people here mean well, but some people tend to get really personal and agressive. I know that "on the paper" some cameras are better than others but I also know that each person has a different visual style and what LOOKS good for some may not look so goo for others. It all depends on your visual style. I tried all HD cameras except the HVX and I have to say that even if I had more money at my disposal I would not sell my Fx1 to buy any of the others (JVC, Canon, etc). I found them all to be amazing with incredible results but I simply don't see spending 3 times what the FX1 costs justifiable when I look at each individual footage. Like I said many times, I preffer to invest the aditional money on a 35mm adapter, lightning kit, etc. But I have to say that, even though I didn't try the HVX yet, I would be inclined to buy it because of it's variable framerates and vast cinegammas, cinelikes, etc. Just my humble opinion and I know that right now there must be 100000 people here ready to nail me to a cross and stone me to death.
 
the Z1U is switchable between PAL and NTSC. I am not sure if the HVX is and how that workflow would go. if you want 50i AND 60i from the same footage, you may want to research post options. There will be no one camera setting for all of them. My guess is a 23.98 timeline is your best bet, conforming that to 25fps and speeding up the audio 4%. 23.98 will pull down to 29.97 instantly with no timeshift. But learn your post production workflow before investing in anything.
 
zoostory,

So if I can capture 720 24P and somehow get into Vegas, I think I will be set to produce both 50i and 60i SD. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Well, sort of but not really. You could create 25p within 50i, and 24p within 60i. But neither would have the "look" of 50i or 60i, if that's what you need.
 
i'm sorry, I am an AVID and FCP guy and just not familiar enough with Vegas to answer as to its workflow options.

To be general: Do you want a video look, or a film look? If you want a video look. stick to the video broadcaste standard of your native country, and find a good way to convert it to the native broadcaste standard of the other country. Obviously, this has been done for years.

If you do want a filmic quality. Then I would do everything with a 23.987 timeline and work from there. pulling down to 50i and 60i.

If you were in FCP I'de suggest you go to http://nattress.com and look into his "standards conversion" option. I don't know what the Vegas counterpart to that is. But if you ask Graeme himself, who is a frequenter of these forums, he might be able to better aid you. He is a very smart guy.

The most important thing is to really know what you want. Where you want to show your stuff and how. DV, DVD, HD, digibeta, film, ipod, psp, internet. This world has a lot of options now. some transcent the PAL and NTSC specifications, some don't.
 
Barry,

Let me get you straight, does this mean that If the end result is 50i, I need to shoot 50i? Can't I shoot 24p, 30p or even 60p and get true 50i in post?
 
zoo,

immediately I am going PAL and NTSC standard SD. But I will be using green screens. I would like to use HVX in progressive mode and edit in progressive, but output 50i and 60i at the end.

And I will be using Vegas. By the way, I heard good things about nattress for FCP which I am planning to get when it becomes available on PC :) :) :D
 
Last edited:
If you shoot at 23.98 or 25 progressive frames per second, do all your post work, then cut them out to tape. the tapes will be 50i and 60i. That is how SD tape works. Your editing program should be able to handle the convert upon Digital Cutting to Tape.
 
LearningVideo said:
Let me get you straight, does this mean that If the end result is 50i, I need to shoot 50i? Can't I shoot 24p, 30p or even 60p and get true 50i in post?
Click to expand...
If you shoot 24p, and transcode it to 50i, it'll still look basically like 24p. Won't have the "immediacy" or "reality" look of 50i, which looks like 60i video.

60p could probably convert nicely to 50i.
 
Hello friends,

I want to share with you the conclusion of my investigation. I have decided to invest in HVX200. All Cameras mentioned are good Cameras. However, HVX200 is the camera that can do almost everything and can do most things better. And the issue is that I will be doing many things. Furthermore, my inexperience is an important factor. Many very good experienced camera operators can actually achieve great results with any Camera. I feel that with my limited experience, I am not that person yet. I thought that the HVX200 is the Camera that has diverse options and it does most of these options very well and exceedingly well.

DVX100b: Cannot have this camera because I need to do Green Screens. People with Great Experience can pull it with DVX. But HVX200 will be lot easier and lot better.

Z1u: Lack of support of true progressive when progressive is truly needed.

HVX200: I will be shooting 60i for work that does not require green screen. I will be shooting 60P for work that requires green screen. I will be shooting 24P for music video and documentaries. I will be shooting 60P in Europe.

There are of course some issues with Vegas and Panansonic. I am committed to HVX200 and I am committed to the Windows Platform. The next step is working out the NLE.

In the HVX200 technical forum, I have posted some information about a proposal of creating a conversion utility between HVX and Vegas. This is one possibility. Other possibility is trying raylight. Also I can switch to another NLE.

I want to thank you all for your help in this. Without you, I would not have been able to make my decision. I do have other questions beyond the choice of the Camera though. Your kind comments are really appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top