Why this criticism of DVX-100?

Status
Not open for further replies.
filmtovideo

filmtovideo

Well-known member
I saw this on another forum but couldn't get an answer as to why the person
feels that wide shots with the DVX-100 (and Mini-DV in general) "fall apart"?
Anybody agree with this:

As a DP who started in film and still prefer to work with film whenever possible, i was very suprised to see how nice the footage from my DVX100 turns out. 24p +the gamma curves and some nifty cinematography and this thing can handle itself against alot of the "big-boys". prob is, with most DV, wide shots fall apart, paticularly day-exteriors, on the big screen they look awful, and i've had to shoot some 16mm or s16 for those scenes (usually a stock with a 200asa or higher). so as far as "seamless" cutting to 35mm....forget it. however, no DV camera has shot more features/TV and mid-budget productions than the DVX-100. the fact that the ASC testing of the cam gave it thumbs up, along with several positive AC articles re:the DVX in action, makes it a solid choice for a small amount of dough.
 
Yeah I get where he's coming from. It's a lot harder to light a wide shot well, particularly on DV. Hot spots are more of an issue with this medium and those are harder to control in your wide shots.
 
That "fall apart" is probably in reference to resolution. There just aren't enough pixels in miniDV for epic wide landscape type shots. There won't be enough detail and it'll look like mush on a big screen. When dealing with the 720x480 resolution, it's best to keep wide shots brief if you use them at all, and to stick with medium shots and close-ups, where the low resolution can really shine. You need to work to DV strengths and minimize its weaknesses, and you can get far.
 
Correct, the wide shot's "falling apart" is talking about lack of resolution... while you can get decently wide shots to look good... REALLY WIDE shots just don't on DV.
 
Joshua Provost said:
That "fall apart" is probably in reference to resolution. There just aren't enough pixels in miniDV for epic wide landscape type shots. There won't be enough detail and it'll look like mush on a big screen. When dealing with the 720x480 resolution, it's best to keep wide shots brief if you use them at all, and to stick with medium shots and close-ups, where the low resolution can really shine. You need to work to DV strengths and minimize its weaknesses, and you can get far.
Click to expand...
sure..
 
John_Hudson said:
Why ?
Click to expand...
why??.. i've always refused to shoot any SD.. and the answer is above-posted where "that fall apart" is well-scrutinized by joshua.. and sure :D quoted by myself..

edit
and it's true: the doors have been open but only wide open when you'll have true HD.. not fake ones..
 
Last edited:
filmmaker1977 said:
why??.. i've always refused to shoot any SD.. and the answer is above-posted where "that fall apart" is well explained by joshua..

edit
and it's true: the doors have been open but only wide open when you'll have true HD.. not fake ones..
Click to expand...


Do you consider HD from an HVX-200 "true" enough to be acceptable to
your standards?
 
I'm sure he can answer for himself.

I'll say, though, that if none of the sub-$10K HD cameras qualify as "real" HD, then you're talking about $60-100K cameras, and I wouldn't exactly call that "wide open."
 
The doors aren't open any wider because of High Def than they are/were with SD

Everyone thinks newer technology is going to give them that magical break but those that have the true talent and ambition have already made things happen. I think of a film like Pieces of April shot on the PD-150 and it get's Patricia Clarkson as Oscar nod. Or the legendary 28 Days Later.

Open Water, Blair Witch, November, ....

We're talking about the Eli Roth hack in another thread; but whatever he is, he wasn't sitting around waiting for magic technology. He went and wrote Cabin Fever , found investors and made a movie.

Wes Anderson made a short film called Bottle Rocket

Jared Hess made a small balck and white short called Napolean Dynamite that got the big one financed

-

This rant is off topic and maybe best suited for another thread; but everytime I hear 'This new camera / technology (High Def, Red ...) is going too open doors for us; I cringe.

High Definition isn't going to make or break anything.

All things being equal ? High Definition will have an impact. But all things are not equal.

(They call me the motivational guru)
 
filmtovideo said:
Do you consider HD from an HVX-200 "true" enough to be acceptable to
your standards?
Click to expand...
no.. that's why i didn't buy it..

AllAroundFilmLV said:
4:2:2 HD Video Im assuming
Click to expand...
dvcpro100 is an old codec but yes, it is a 4:2:2.. but this is not the chip + lens (though good glass for the price..) etc
 
Last edited:
sure.. he can answer for himself..

sure.. he can answer for himself..

David Jimerson said:
What's "fake" HD?
Click to expand...
lower res, ex. hvx.. smaller noisy chips, ex. 1/3".. and so on.. high res is not just res..

David Jimerson said:
I'll say, though, that if none of the sub-$10K HD cameras qualify as "real" HD, then you're talking about $60-100K cameras, and I wouldn't exactly call that "wide open."
Click to expand...
you're wrong.. you have the 2/3" SI (since $12,500), 1/2 (since $20,000) without mention the red.. and the upcoming cameras.. wait and see.. but just succeeding this last stream.. the others you can go and shoot w/out fake promises..

John_Hudson said:
The doors aren't open any wider because of High Def than they are/were with SD

Everyone thinks newer technology is going to give them that magical break but those that have the true talent and ambition have already made things happen. I think of a film like Pieces of April shot on the PD-150 and it get's Patricia Clarkson as Oscar nod. Or the legendary 28 Days Later.

Open Water, Blair Witch, November, ....

We're talking about the Eli Roth hack in another thread; but whatever he is, he wasn't sitting around waiting for magic technology. He went and wrote Cabin Fever , found investors and made a movie.

Wes Anderson made a short film called Bottle Rocket

Jared Hess made a small balck and white short called Napolean Dynamite that got the big one financed

-

This rant is off topic and maybe best suited for another thread; but everytime I hear 'This new camera / technology (High Def, Red ...) is going too open doors for us; I cringe.

High Definition isn't going to make or break anything.

All things being equal ? High Definition will have an impact. But all things are not equal.

(They call me the motivational guru)
Click to expand...
fine viewpoint.. i stand it too.. but don't forget why dogma95 trumped.. or your legendary boyle's example.. btw, he didn't shoot all from dv.. why didn't he?

tv image talk was what trier began with the kingdom series (a danish tv order)
 
Last edited:
Forgot about the SI -- $12,500 box-only, sure. But that's still not "wide open."

Anyway, all this talk of "fake" HD seems like trolling to me. HD is resolution, period. The sub-$10K cameras achieve it. Maybe other factors aren't to your liking, but the resolution is there. Calling it "fake" is simply picking a fight.

Choose your words more carefully, because right now, you're simply spreading FUD.
 
David Jimerson said:
Forgot about the SI -- $12,500 box-only, sure. But that's still not "wide open."
Click to expand...
no, i don't forget.. because you don't need more to capture.. just your editing tool.. that is, a powerful laptop.. still, you're forgetting the other examples..

Anyway, all this talk of "fake" HD seems like trolling to me. HD is resolution, period. The sub-$10K cameras achieve it. Maybe other factors aren't to your liking, but the resolution is there. Calling it "fake" is simply picking a fight.

Choose your words more carefully, because right now, you're simply spreading FUD.
Click to expand...
it's not.. if it was the case, it wouldn't be now.. it wouldn't be a general mention.. it wouldn't be me.. see my past over here.. i've points not trolls.. :D

i've just been calling the bulls for their names because you've asked.. that's just my opinion.. why do you think i'm with red instead your beloved hvx?.. i know it hurts but not all have your opinion..
 
filmmaker1977 said:
no, i don't forget.. because you don't need more to capture.. just your editing tool.. that is, a powerful laptop.. still, you're forgetting the other examples..
Click to expand...
What I meant was, I forgot about the SI. But I wasn't referring to capturing options; the $12,500 price is outside the scope of "wide open" by itself, but you still need to add a lens to that besides. "Wide open," to me, means something accessible by amateurs and hobbyists, and cameras above $10K don't fall into that category for me. If you're spending that much for a camera, you'lre probably expecting to see a return on it right away. Most individuals would not or could not spend that much.


it's not.. if it was the case, it wouldn't be now.. it wouldn't be a general mention.. it wouldn't be me.. see my past over here.. i've points not trolls.. :D
Click to expand...
Calling the 1/3" cameras "fake HD" IS trolling. It's purposely incendiary, and it's not accurate. There's nothing "fake" about it. These cams deliver the resolution. Like I said, other things about them might not be to your liking, but that doesn't mean they're not HD.



i've just been calling the bulls for their names because you've asked.. that's just my opinion.. why do you think i'm with red instead your beloved hvx?..
Click to expand...
I didn't mention any specific camera, and certainly not the HVX. The FX1, the Z1U, the V1U, the XL-H1, the XH-A1, the HD100, the HVX -- all HD. Not fake. Saying they are "fake HD" does nothing but stink up the Internet with falsehoods, because someone's going to believe it and spread it somewhere else.



i know it hurts but not all have your opinion..
Click to expand...
Don't care if they do or not. I do care that FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) not be spread, and calling those cameras above "fake HD" is FUD. They are all HD. You personally may not care for them, but not all have your opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top