Dvx100B vs. Canon xh-a1

"Don't expect HDV to die too quickly."

Actually we're already seeing the end of HDV. I'd be suprised if camera manufacturers put many more HDV cameras on the market, if any. HDV is going to be replaced by AVC-HD (which is being developed by Sony and Panasonic-both already have AVC-HD cameras on the market). HDV is Mpeg-2 whereas AVC-HD is Mpeg-4. It is going to replace HDV VERY soon. Consider HDV a dead or dying technology. 5 years from now people won't even remember it ever existed.

It seems that there is a lot of talk about needing HD now. Some people are dissing the DVX left and right because it isn't an HD camera. Well, let's look at HD for a minute; what do we do with our HD footage? Here are the options as I see it (I welcome discussion on this):

1) You shoot for HD broadcast (like Discovery HD, Food HD, etc.). Though if this is the case you probably aren't using a sub $10,000 camera, you are using a Varicam or an F900.

2) You are producing HD content for DVD distribution, either with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Unfortunately, these technologies are currently VERY expensive and practically NOBODY is taking advantage of it because the costs are WAY too high. How many people do you know have recently dropped a thousand bucks on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player? I'm talking consumers here. They'll invest in the technology, but not until it signifigantly drops in price. We have a while to go.

3) You are planning to blow up to film. Honestly, in my most humble of opinions, this is a waste of time and money. The majority of film festivals are now accepting digital submissions and there is a huge move in the theater industry to get rid of their film projectors (my brother works for Christy Digital and IS replacing film projectors for digital ones like crazy). Film is dying a slow death (though I'm sure it will outlive HDV). Please see #2 for DVD submission options to festivals.

4) You are shooting for the web. I don't know about you, but even with broadband speeds being what they are, I don't have time to sit for a 100+ MB download so I can watch a two minute movie trailer (or whatever) in 720P (larger download and longer wait if 1080). Anyone who designs for the web will tell you, people will leave your website if they are not gratified quickly. There are very few things I will sit and wait for online, large downloads are not one of them. Plus, in order to even see the thing at full resolution, you need the right software and hardware. You are asking a lot from people when you ask them to download HD content; you'd be suprised how many people still haven't broken the 800x600 barrier.

5) You are shooting for a corporate client that will be showing your footage internally on their plasma screens (Not using DVD as a deliverable-don't ask, I don't know how else they'd do it either). If you have this client, congratulations. It means you are getting paid to shoot HD that will actually be broadcast in HD. Your footage will look great and everyone will be happy. Too bad there aren't enough of these clients to go around.

So, where does this leave us? Well, it means that everyone else who shoots HD is downconverting to SD so that the footage can be used. So the big question is WHY SHOOT HD TODAY?
Personally, my next camera purchase will be an HVX. Why? Not for the HD capabilities, but because it shoots DVC Pro 50. Which is kick ass quality SD with NO DOWN CONVERSION. Sure, like everyone else, despite having practically no immediate use, I'll still shoot HD with it from time to time. Mostly because HD is a cool buzz word to throw around clients (who ultimately won't spend the money for it).

My verdict: Unless more HD options become available there is no good reason to invest in HD. I'm sure more than 90% of us do not fit into the 5 scenarios I've listed above. We live in an SD world and the DVX is a great SD camera.

And I can predict that the next post will start something like this: "I completely disagree with everything you just said".
 
Last edited:
HDV as a format is developmentally dead, sure. The big manufacturers are putting their energy into AVC-HD.

But HDV camcorders will stick around as long as people keep buying them. And, much to my surprise, Sony has introduced new HDV models even after announcing that AVC-HD was the better/superior format! So as long as customers buy them, they'll keep making them.
 
Gauranga said:
"Don't expect HDV to die too quickly."

Actually we're already seeing the end of HDV. I'd be suprised if camera manufacturers put many more HDV cameras on the market, if any. HDV is going to be replaced by AVC-HD (which is being developed by Sony and Panasonic-both already have AVC-HD cameras on the market). HDV is Mpeg-2 whereas AVC-HD is Mpeg-4. It is going to replace HDV VERY soon. Consider HDV a dead or dying technology. 5 years from now people won't even remember it ever existed.

It seems that there is a lot of talk about needing HD now. Some people are dissing the DVX left and right because it isn't an HD camera. Well, let's look at HD for a minute; what do we do with our HD footage? Here are the options as I see it (I welcome discussion on this):

1) You shoot for HD broadcast (like Discovery HD, Food HD, etc.). Though if this is the case you probably aren't using a sub $10,000 camera, you are using a Varicam or an F900.

2) You are producing HD content for DVD distribution, either with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Unfortunately, these technologies are currently VERY expensive and practically NOBODY is taking advantage of it because the costs are WAY too high. How many people do you know have recently dropped a thousand bucks on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player? I'm talking consumers here. They'll invest in the technology, but not until it signifigantly drops in price. We have a while to go.

3) You are planning to blow up to film. Honestly, in my most humble of opinions, this is a waste of time and money. The majority of film festivals are now accepting digital submissions and there is a huge move in the theater industry to get rid of their film projectors (my brother works for Christy Digital and IS replacing film projectors for digital ones like crazy). Film is dying a slow death (though I'm sure it will outlive HDV). Please see #2 for DVD submission options to festivals.

4) You are shooting for the web. I don't know about you, but even with broadband speeds being what they are, I don't have time to sit for a 100+ MB download so I can watch a two minute movie trailer (or whatever) in 720P (larger download and longer wait if 1080). Anyone who designs for the web will tell you, people will leave your website if they are not gratified quickly. There are very few things I will sit and wait for online, large downloads are not one of them. Plus, in order to even see the thing at full resolution, you need the right software and hardware. You are asking a lot from people when you ask them to download HD content; you'd be suprised how many people still haven't broken the 800x600 barrier.

5) You are shooting for a corporate client that will be showing your footage internally on their plasma screens (Not using DVD as a deliverable-don't ask, I don't know how else they'd do it either). If you have this client, congratulations. It means you are getting paid to shoot HD that will actually be broadcast in HD. Your footage will look great and everyone will be happy. Too bad there aren't enough of these clients to go around.

So, where does this leave us? Well, it means that everyone else who shoots HD is downconverting to SD so that the footage can be used. So the big question is WHY SHOOT HD TODAY?
Personally, my next camera purchase will be an HVX. Why? Not for the HD capabilities, but because it shoots DVC Pro 50. Which is kick ass quality SD with NO DOWN CONVERSION. Sure, like everyone else, despite having practically no immediate use, I'll still shoot HD with it from time to time. Mostly because HD is a cool buzz word to throw around clients (who ultimately won't spend the money for it).

My verdict: Unless more HD options become available there is no good reason to invest in HD. I'm sure more than 90% of us do not fit into the 4 scenarios I've listed above. We live in an SD world and the DVX is a great SD camera.

And I can predict that the next post will start something like this: "I completely disagree with everything you just said".
Click to expand...

good post.
 
A1 or DVX? The 'good old' DVX is a 4:3 SD cam. That is not only SD, it is 'old' 4:3 SD. The A1 is an 16:9 cam, it can shoot 4:3 SD also, and it shoots 16:9 SD and 16:9 HD. It has an 20x lens. So if you think HD is one step to far, and SD is the way to go, I hope it is native 16:9 SD. That is the A1.

After shooting one month with the A1 and the 20x lens, returned to a Panasonic with a 12x lens and oh Boy... Was it ever possible to shoot with that lens? You miss that long reach and you never want that 12x lens in return, never.

AVC-HD? it's starting, but today xx number HDV cams are build and sold. It outnumbers everything, and many new cams arrived in the last 6 months. You can't edit AVC-HD so it is not workable for any professional or prosumer.

I see AVC-HD as HD-DVD and Blu-ray, it is there, it is 'the new kid on the block' they will tell you that it is ways better, that DVD and CD are dead, but no one is using it, you can't work professionally with it, it takes years to grow and to develop.

And even than, again newer technology comes in, and AVC-HD is 'old', that is named progress. In the 'IT meets TV' world , all is changing more rapidly than we ever experienced in the classic TV industry. Look at the slots in portable computers, the P2 cards want fit them, it is changed.

HDV is tape oriented and is mature. As long as tape is being used, HDV is used, and its basics (i.e. HDV = MPEG-2) will live for many, many years to come.
And the A1 outnumbers the DVX in many ways. Even if you decited to downconvert it. It is way sharper, without any problems than normal DV.
 
What the people do not understand is that high definition televisions are a really hot technology. Almost everyone at my work either has a high definition television or they know someone who has one. So far HD televisions represent about 70 percent of the current marketshare in dollars. So the next question is are consumers really going to be satisfied hooking up a standard definition DVD player to their new big screen Plasma. And I think the answer once the consumer becomes educated will be no. So far the Playstation 3 is a really hot technology and it comes standard with the Blu-Ray burner. I think people that are really serious about video production will have to invest in that $1000 Blu-Ray burner for their PC. One can expect that by next Christmas HD players will really take off.
 
Right you are Barry!

I see the future of HDV like this:

-Delevopment of HDV stops and resources are placed towards AVC-HD (this has already happened).
-Manufacturers drop prices of HDV cameras to make room for new stocks of AVC-HD cameras.
-People buy cheap HDV cameras.
-HDV cameras sell out and the only thing left to buy is AVC-HD cameras.
-5 years from now development of AVC-HD stops and resources are placed towards...
 
I'm addicted to this thread.

edit: oh and I too am shocked by the insurgence of HD TVs. About a year ago, I figured people would REALLY take their time getting an HD TV - even longer than it took them to move from VHS to DVD. But this is really a different day, and I'm seeing everyone around me dropping 3-6 Gs on a new TV. The advertising has been relentless and people are feeling pressure.

Every time I see talk of HD TVs on commercials or CBS news talking about how they're moving to HD, it pisses me off because I know my camera is just a step closer to going out of date. Even still, my tax return is going towards new lights and maybe a new lens. I'm far too in love with my 100B to part with it yet (along with my Zenith 30 inch 1990 4:3 tv =)
 
Last edited:
Just walk into any Costco and you'll know that HD is here and now. The question of distribution is still up in the air, but consumers are buying HDTV's like crazy now.
 
So if you have a widescreen do you watch everything letterboxed or stretch it? I don't have a widescreen.
 
Wow, some very logical & well though out responses - this is a great thread...

We have a 32 inch (100cm) HD LCD TV/monitor which is part of my editing suite and you know what??
The only way I can discern between HD & SD content is when I'm watching the screen no further than 12 inches (50cm) away. Move away any further than that and it becomes a challenge to tell between the two.

So unless you are uprezing to film or projecting in a home theatre, there does not seem to be any point in HD for the consumer, particularly when in most lounge rooms the TV is usually about 3 metres away??

Back to the issue at hand:-
Don't make the same mistake we did; we got an XL2 to use alongside our DVX, but found such a vast difference is colour response particularly when filming in low light that we're now budgeting to buy another DVX. Don't get me wrong the Canon has superior resolution to the DVX but the DVX produces an image that is more organic, warm, gee I don't know how else to describe it, it just has something magical about it.

Has anyone done a comparison between the DVX & A1 in terms of light & colour?
 
The DVX even beats the HVX in low light which makes sense so the A1 is worse for sure. For color it depends on what color you want. A1 with tweaking can give you amazing color although its not that way out of the box, DVX gives that Panny look people love out of the box with rich color and realistic renditioning.

Ide say A1 is the winner though because for what you get, the price is perfect when compared to DVX. HDV or not I wouldn't buy a DV SD cam right now. (unless you only need SD of coarse, then by all means go for the DVX)

- Kyle
 
Sigh...again with the whole color issue. It's been mentioned time and time again that the A1 color isn't any "better" or "worse" than the DVX/HVX, it's simply different. Trying to compare colors between these cameras is just comparing apple to oranges; there's simply no point of reference unless people already decided to choose the Pannasonic look as the benchmark, and then what's the point? All of these cameras will get you the look you want with a little work; but there's no such thing as the perfect color rendition.
 
Your misunderstanding what I meant. I myself am seriously considering buying the A1 and it can do amazing color that can match the HVX/DVX with some work. What I meant was the HVX/DVX have a more realistic look out of the box thats all. A1 and most Canon cams (I previously had XL2) normally have a flat or video looking color look to them when first turned on. Nothing again'st the A1 at all. Sorry if I made it seem that way.

- Kyle
 
Nothing wrong with rehashing old info, after all, repetition is a good learning tool - especially for us older folk ;-)

peace
 
Gauranga said:
"Don't expect HDV to die too quickly."

Actually we're already seeing the end of HDV. I'd be suprised if camera manufacturers put many more HDV cameras on the market, if any.
Click to expand...
Outside of small form factor Id have to agree.

HDV is going to be replaced by AVC-HD (which is being developed by Sony and Panasonic-both already have AVC-HD cameras on the market). HDV is Mpeg-2 whereas AVC-HD is Mpeg-4. It is going to replace HDV VERY soon. Consider HDV a dead or dying technology. 5 years from now people won't even remember it ever existed.
Click to expand...
Id say it fairly safe to say that HDV has almost (or has) seen the end of its development, but its not dead or dying until the users stop using it, just like the DVX and SD, Id say that day is much closer.

It seems that there is a lot of talk about needing HD now. Some people are dissing the DVX left and right because it isn't an HD camera. Well, let's look at HD for a minute; what do we do with our HD footage? Here are the options as I see it (I welcome discussion on this):

1) You shoot for HD broadcast (like Discovery HD, Food HD, etc.). Though if this is the case you probably aren't using a sub $10,000 camera, you are using a Varicam or an F900.

2) You are producing HD content for DVD distribution, either with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Unfortunately, these technologies are currently VERY expensive and practically NOBODY is taking advantage of it because the costs are WAY too high. How many people do you know have recently dropped a thousand bucks on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player? I'm talking consumers here. They'll invest in the technology, but not until it signifigantly drops in price. We have a while to go.
Click to expand...

Originating in HD or HDV and with a good downconversion process offers better colour space than SD - in turn much more than the DVX brings to the table. And when you are talking such a small price increase for a HDV cam that produces far superior images then why not use its capabilities? Its almost comparable to saying well most broadcasters are still broadcasting in SD whats the point of getting a HDTV? (In my mind this argument probably carries more weight insofar as SD looking like rubbish on a large screen HDTV.

A solid point someone made was get the DVX and spend the other money on lights etc. A good point as the image alone does not a good production make.

3) You are planning to blow up to film. Honestly, in my most humble of opinions, this is a waste of time and money. The majority of film festivals are now accepting digital submissions and there is a huge move in the theater industry to get rid of their film projectors (my brother works for Christy Digital and IS replacing film projectors for digital ones like crazy). Film is dying a slow death (though I'm sure it will outlive HDV). Please see #2 for DVD submission options to festivals.
Click to expand...

This is true, its not something people need to rush out and do just for festival submission. There are many options right now.

4) You are shooting for the web. I don't know about you, but even with broadband speeds being what they are, I don't have time to sit for a 100+ MB download so I can watch a two minute movie trailer (or whatever) in 720P (larger download and longer wait if 1080). Anyone who designs for the web will tell you, people will leave your website if they are not gratified quickly. There are very few things I will sit and wait for online, large downloads are not one of them. Plus, in order to even see the thing at full resolution, you need the right software and hardware. You are asking a lot from people when you ask them to download HD content; you'd be suprised how many people still haven't broken the 800x600 barrier.
Click to expand...

Personal choice, but its nice to offer options to people, from a business persepctive. As well as proper archiving the future will change - HD WILL become the standard and people can then come back and pay you to output the HD originated format, pure speculation on that point but theres no reason why not.

So, where does this leave us? Well, it means that everyone else who shoots HD is downconverting to SD so that the footage can be used. So the big question is WHY SHOOT HD TODAY?
Personally, my next camera purchase will be an HVX. Why? Not for the HD capabilities, but because it shoots DVC Pro 50. Which is kick ass quality SD with NO DOWN CONVERSION.
Click to expand...

That would be a waste of the superior colour space that can be acheived. HVX material shot in HD and downconverted is superior to its SD footage. And its the same with just about any HD cam.

Sure, like everyone else, despite having practically no immediate use, I'll still shoot HD with it from time to time. Mostly because HD is a cool buzz word to throw around clients (who ultimately won't spend the money for it).

My verdict: Unless more HD options become available there is no good reason to invest in HD. I'm sure more than 90% of us do not fit into the 5 scenarios I've listed above. We live in an SD world and the DVX is a great SD camera.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a client base thats not prepared to pay for much. That doesnt mean HD doesnt offer you more options in post. The DVX is a great SD camera. But it simply can not match HD originated material after down conversion. Simply put (referring to the original post) the A1 image downconverted to SD simply leaves it for dead, and even moreson in 16:9.

And I can predict that the next post will start something like this: "I completely disagree with everything you just said".
Click to expand...

Not everything. Only the points where your statements were not based on factual information. Yeah it is a cool buzz word that has many practical uses. By buzz word you mean the general public is aware of HD, thus they want it even if they will only see the SD output.

My opinion is why buy SD when the price of HD isnt too much more? There are a number of reasons. As mentioned whats your overall production going to look like, your sound etc. But these things are commonly available for rental, but rental isnt always convenient and even owning a minimal light kit gets you practicing and learning. So I would suggest if youre going to buy the A1 and then be strapped for cash then its not the best overall production decision and there is a great SD camera, that does give solid imagery which will leave you with change - the DVX.

The other reason is if you are just getting started using a camera. HD cameras require spot on focus, they require solid lighting. The DVX is going to be far more forgiving as a new shooter.
 
Last edited:
Not XDCAM, HDCAM SR. Which is a tape. I don't know if they did any direct-to-computer stuff, but the ROTS camera was the Sony F950R recording to HDCAM-SR, IINM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top