dvx vs hvx

Barry Green,

I would like to say THANK YOU!

Not only for answering all my questions, but for always being so great about this new and confusing technology....you speak to people in a way that makes them understand and want to learn more.

I know I sound a bit sappy, but I sincerly appreciate your time that you have taken to answer all my questions

It really means a great deal to me

PS all the people's stuff you told me to check out....you should put together a section on here where we showcase the best of the best so people can see what both the hvx and dvx have to offer. I am constantly amazed at how great both of these cameras are!
 
Another option is you upconvert DVX footage to HD. They do it with 35mm and 70mm film projects. It's not cheap but certainly can be built into your operating budget.
 
"In resolution, yes. In other ways, no, not really. The color and gamma that made the DVX so popular is all still there in the HVX, but... it's also there in the DVX too. The HVX has twice the color sampling, and a longer lens and a wider lens and 4 channels of uncompressed audio and variable frame rate choices, so as an overall tool, even if the image was exactly the same, the HVX is still the more flexible, more powerful choice. Which is why it's $2,000 more.

For SD origination, especially in 4:3, it's not a knockout blow. The DVX still holds its own just fine, and in some ways (such as sensitivity) it offers advantages.

But (and here's the big but): if any of us who own both were to shoot something important, "for keeps" type of stuff... I think you'd find that just about every one of us would reach for the HVX first. Yes it's $2,000 more, but you get a lot for that."


Well, it is not really $2000 more - if you include that you will have to get more P2 cards and an hd deck. Plus it will depend on what NLE you are working on as well - you will probably have to upgrade (ie.e. get a Mojo, hardware card, and etc.,)

Since everyone here is a stickler on the look, I was wondering if you showed the final project in SD DVD if the public would notice the difference - they are the ultimate end user anyway.
 
You don't need an HD deck at all, and the cards are optional as well; you can shoot standard-def DV to tape just like the DVX does. So if you were considering a DVX, you could consider an HVX used as a DVX as well.

And no, you don't likely need to upgrade anything for editing; FCP and EDIUS Broadcast work just fine, presuming you're using a modern (i.e., reasonably fast )computer.

As far as the difference on DVD -- if it's a 16:9 DVD on a 16:9 TV having been originated on DV50, yes I'm sure some people would see the difference, and a lot wouldn't. If it's a DV DVD, there will be less of a difference.
 
Barry_Green said:
You don't need an HD deck at all, and the cards are optional as well; you can shoot standard-def DV to tape just like the DVX does. So if you were considering a DVX, you could consider an HVX used as a DVX as well.

And no, you don't likely need to upgrade anything for editing; FCP and EDIUS Broadcast work just fine, presuming you're using a modern (i.e., reasonably fast )computer.

As far as the difference on DVD -- if it's a 16:9 DVD on a 16:9 TV having been originated on DV50, yes I'm sure some people would see the difference, and a lot wouldn't. If it's a DV DVD, there will be less of a difference.
Click to expand...

Well, you need the hardware card for Edius, and at least the Quad G5 for HD - otherwise it is going to be render hell.

If you want to shoot with the DVC codec you need the cards, and the cards are expensive.

If you downrez, and I think even you stated before, that the quality is really not different at all in SD DVD.

And SD DVD is still the prevailing format in DVD land. And may be for another couple of years.
 
You do not need *any* hardware card for Edius.

And you don't need anything for a G5 either. In fact you don't need a G5 at all.

Have you actually used either of these systems? You can edit on a G4 in realtime in DVCPRO-HD. A Dual G5 2.0 system can support multiple streams of HD, realtime, off the internal hard disk. Stock with no upgrades, full-screen, full frame rate, multiple streams with transitions in between. No hardware cards at all. No Kona, no nothing, just an out-of-the-box G5. And a G4 can handle at least one stream full-screen full-rez.

I'm running Edius on a cheap Pentium M 760 laptop, no upgrades, no hardware card, a cheap Dell laptop, and it runs realtime with DVCPRO-HD. I've run Edius on a 2.6ghz Pentium IV (hardly a modern system) with no sort of accelerator card, and done realtime DVCPRO-HD editing on it. I've seen someone use a 1.3 GHz G4 laptop to edit DVCPRO-HD in realtime.

Perhaps you're confusing DVCPRO-HD with HDV? HDV is enormously processor intensive. DVCPRO-HD is very easy to edit.
 
If you're making features, "low-light" sensitivity should never even enter the picture, because you control how much light there is. Scene too dark? Add more light.
 
actually, i have one reason that makes me not as attracted to the HVX as i should be: focusing. it is such a hassle on HD and i mostly shoot sports and it would be such a pain. but its still an AMAZING cam for everything else, and i would <3 to have one
 
I would like to see a sticky in the footage forum with a collection of links to the best HVX clips. I have quite a few, but I surely also missed quite a few of the best samples.
 
I don't want to confuse the issue but Barry's wealth of knowledge may come in handy so I will ask a quick question. What is your take on the HVX up against an Andromeda modified DVX. If have heard opposing views as to what is the better option but since I have a DVX and I'd like to go HD......?? Any thoughts?
 
My take is to nag Juan to produce an andromeda modification for the HVX.

Andromedized DVX is interesting, but ... I dunno, just doesn't seem like the best of all worlds. It's still 4x3. To get 16x9 you have to use the anamorphic adapter, and that's not the most pleasant of tools to use.

Whereas with an andromedized HVX, you'd get 1920x1080 at variable frame rates up to 60fps. You'd get better resolution than the andromedized DVX because you'd have 60% more pixels to work with, and the CCDs in the HVX are vertically spatial-offset whereas the ones in the DVX aren't.

I think the andromedized HVX would be the no-brainer of all time, I think there'd be a surprisingly high percentage of HVX owners who would get their HVX andromedized.
 
Defenitely, an andromeda modified HVX would be killer. Few people could resist such a beast. The bit of reading I have done in regards to the andromeda DVX does seem really interesting. Any ideas about whether the claims of additional stops are true or not. It would be interesting if the modified HVX achieved similar results in latitude gain but at the higher resolution. That would be nice machine to play with. You might know this too Barry so I will ask, are there a lot of people pulling uncompressed HD off the HVX right now? I am assuming they use a raid to edit, or offline? I am really interested in the ucompressed HD workflow but being stuck in the middle of Canada I have no access to the bootcamps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top