DSR450 vs. HVX200 Final Decision . . .

Flintstone said:
I've also been struggling whether to get a good SD/DV cam vs. an average HD/HDV cam. Better to have good SD then BAD HD, right? 1/3" HD sensors is way to noisy for my taste. I currently have a DVX100B, it’s a good cam, but very noisy in low light, and that bothers me a lot.
Click to expand...
It's a tough choice. Affordable HD, but with 1/3" CCD noise levels and low sensitivity? Or great light sensitivity and low noise images, but only in SD-resolution? Huge trade-offs. I finally bit the bullet and made the decision. In the end, I'll be happy with the images I'll be able to photograph, that I couldn't with a a less sensitive camera. And saying, "light it right" simply doesn't work for me. I need to expose things I have no control over and would cost $$$$$ to really light properly (e.g., a row of high-rise buildings at night with streets lit only by mercury vapor).

And yeah, everybody's abandoned the 1/2" market. If you want to make digital "movies," I wouldn't consider anything but a 24P-capable camera. The DSR450 is the cheapest SD solution for that in either 1/2" or 2/3." When I first looked at the 1/2" JVC camera, I wasn't too impressed--it didn't look that much better than my VX2000, in my eyes. Plus, no 24P. The DSR500 is a solid 2/3" image-maker, but again, no 24P. It's a long shot, but some people are fire-saleing their BetacamSX cameras, which are VERY good cameras. Can't remember if any of those do 24P or not.
 
Last edited:
doccutter said:
Take the image into Photoshop, go to image size, and change it to 853x480. That will give you the correct aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I tried changing the pixel aspect ratio first in Photoshop, but it still didn't come out right for some reason. I did what you said.
 
So far, the DSR450 image is looking pretty good. Can you do a still of a person. I only ask because I remember thinking that the HVX200 had some pretty good images until people started showing pictures of... well... people. Suddenly, the stills looked very video like, and I hated it. Hoping the DSR450 does better.
 
Sure. I'll be posting quite a lot of stuff, but I haven't been feeling well this week, and I have to move to a new house. I barely could pull off that stupid picture of the drill! Well, you just motivated me. I am DYING to shoot a person as well! I'm going to take my camera to work today and ask to shoot one of the pretty PAs in the office. It doesn't have the "snap" of HD, but I love this camera!
 
Last edited:
Another one . . .

tomato.jpg


No correction.

Shot with same settings, except, detail is "off," and Simon Wyndham's "filmlook" settings have been applied in the camera's menus. I think it's out of focus slightly, since I was cutting the tomato, and shooting from a lock-off from sticks. This is at about f/2.8 with about 5 footcandles falling on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Deadzone said:
I only ask because I remember thinking that the HVX200 had some pretty good images until people started showing pictures of... well... people. Suddenly, the stills looked very video like, and I hated it. Hoping the DSR450 does better.
Click to expand...
I think with proper color grading, it can look amazing. I've been playing with various Magic Bullet Editor's plug-ins this morning, and the looks I'm getting look amazing. Will try to shoot that PA this afternoon.
 
Rezfactor,

Yeah, you can see your finger in perfect focus, the tomato is slightly defocused, but the image looks fantastic. What are the "filmlook" settings you are talking about? You may also want to play with the crispness setting, that allows you to have detail on, and have it only affect the brightest parts of the image. Keep posting images, and maybe a DVquicktime if you have the opportunity! I love what this camera can do with available light.
 
Well,

I couldn't figure out how to attach an image, but you can try what I did at home. Take the above image (taking into accound that it has been compressed twice, once to DV, once to JPG) and using the Image Size feature in photoshop, change the resolution to 1280x720. Now, what I'd like to see is some HVX footage compared directly with DSR 450 footage, uprezzed to 720p. It could produce some surprising results.
 
Here's the girl . . .

G2.jpg


No correction.

G2A.jpg


A little plus red and minus green (I forgot to turn the flourescents off) and a little contrast.

I literally lit this in five seconds. And I know, the background's lame--I forgot to turn the overheads off. She's keyed with a single 24" x 30" Chimera over an Arri 1,000W open-face unit. Normal office flourescents are lighting her hair and the background (doh!). There's more chroma in the shot when viewed on a CRT. Keyed at about 20 footcandles.
 
Last edited:
Well, believe me, it tore me apart spending this kind of money on only an SD camera. I almost cancelled my order the day after I ordered it. But I knew I just wasn't going to get the performance where I needed it from current HD offerings for my applications. As soon as I start shooting my real subject material, I think it will be even more clear why I made this decision.
 
doccutter said:
What are the "filmlook" settings you are talking about?
Click to expand...
There's a UK shooter here, Simon Wyndham, that owns a PDW510, which apparently is a very similar camera head to the DSR450. He posted some settings on his personal website. But I think I need to change them somewhat, since I'm getting a weird contour on the girl's face. Whenever you go from a lit area (face or tomato), to a light background, a dark edge is seen. Need to figure that out.
 
Rezfactor,

What are the jpeg settings you are using in Photoshop? As far as the contour goes, are you talking about screen left, the sort of bruise colored line between shadow and the midtones of her cheek? I don't see it in the uncorrected originals, so maybe it's a CC issue.
 
Yes, on her cheek. No, it's definitely in the video. I can see it in Premiere. In Photoshop, I just raised the reds +20, yellows +5, and minused some green -5, then added +20 contrast.
 
I think the stills look beautiful, easily as good as alot of HVX stills I've seen. I think you have a great deal more control of the image, a sweet 20x manual lens, and 3 hours per tape, not to mention all at 25mbps. It's a proven format, and it looks like it will easily uprez to at least 720p if you need it to. I think you made the right decision. At this point, I think I will probably make the same decision, once my client finally pays up. I'd still love to see some moving footage when you get the chance!
 
Whew! Thanks. I feel better now. I was having a big case of the SD blues last night. I was looking at some of the JVC HD100 footage here last night that Stephen L. Noe posted, and damn, that looked good. I guess it was a 35mm film-out I was looking at though. I mean, I know I wouldn't be happy with the JVC HD100, but, damn. I did have an HVX200 to play with for about a week, and was able to decide against it, so I guess I made the right decision.

I spent some time at the Teranex booth at NAB, and downloaded the Magic Bullet InstantHD software, and that stuff sure is impressive. I guess I just gotta just stop thinking about cameras now, and just start thinking about making movies!
 
Thanks for the screen grabs, Rezfactor. The black contour on certain transitions, especially noticeable on edges of faces, is a common Sony detail artifact in my experience. You might try turning detail black limit all the way up to 35 to make the line thinner. You might also do some tests with detail off, but aperture on.

The 450 is the first SD camera I've owned where detail off still offers decent natural sharpness and gets rid of the typical artificial detail enhancement artifacts.

For anybody considering purchasing a DSR-450WS, if you are interested in
watching a DVD of the motion/filmlook tests I did of windsurfers, send me a
private message with your address, and I will mail a DVD.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top