A little disappointed with my new DVX...

ryvac said:
Cameras don't make good films. You do.
Click to expand...

Very true, but I don't think that is really getting at the issue I was trying to articulate. All things being equal....I think we'd all agree.....use the best tool for the job. A good camera certainly doesn't make a good film, but an otherwise good film can be let down by a camera that is not up to the task (whatever that might be). If the film requires the look of 24p and the camera only shoots 60i....the result won't be as good as it could have been. Same thing with HD vs SD, etc.

pixelated said:
HD footage (more pixels) will always trump SD in pure image "pop". When seen side by side the difference can be stunning.

This is not necessarily a good thing. If you're interest is landscape photography, travelogues or sporting events, there's very little argument - Dump the DVX.
Click to expand...

Now this is getting at the crux of the problem for me. My main interest is in exactly this kind of subject matter (landscape mostly), which I suppose is why the HD footage from the HF-10 looked so impressive, right out of the box and left me feeling disappointed with the DVX footage I had gotten. It's that incredible detail....that "pop" that impressed me with the HF-10 when hooked up to my HDTV.

I doubt that I will be doing the kind of videography/cinematography that is more about telling a story, conveying emotion, using actors etc....it's just not in my skill set, I'm afraid.

The added snap, detail, resolution, sharpness from the HD footage is impressive in a video of Alaska's natural landscape etc. Fine detail has always been very important in the photography I do (a life long hobby, but just a hobby) which is why I prefer using a large format camera for my still photography (almost exclusively B&W).

I think I will stick with the DVX for now, develop an understanding of how to use all the manual controls it offers and then switch to a similar level of HD camera sometime in the future. Ultimately, I'd prefer not to be shooting on tape. So I guess an HVX or HMC makes more sense for me a couple years down the road, once I've figured out how to make the most of a camera like the DVX.

Thanks again to everyone for your comments and insights!

Gary
Eagle River, Alaska
 
Yes, the more I think about this.....the Panasonic HMC-150 looks like the camera that will best fit my needs and will be most like the DVX-100B in terms of manual controls etc...but deliver the HD image quality that suits my subject matter. A few thousand dollars more than the DVX....but hopefully, a used DVX-100B with low hours will be still be worth something in 6 months to a year. In the meantime....plenty to learn with this camera. And using the HF-10 will give me experience with editing AVCHD.

Gary
Eagle River, Alaska
 
bensonga said:
Yes, the more I think about this.....the Panasonic HMC-150 looks like the camera that will best fit my needs and will be most like the DVX-100B in terms of manual controls etc...but deliver the HD image quality that suits my subject matter. A few thousand dollars more than the DVX....but hopefully, a used DVX-100B with low hours will be still be worth something in 6 months to a year. In the meantime....plenty to learn with this camera. And using the HF-10 will give me experience with editing AVCHD.

Gary
Eagle River, Alaska
Click to expand...

I think you guy, what you really need is to rent a rig from Panavision, I recommend you the HD-900F. Forget about the DVX100b or the HF-10.
Go for it!!!

lol:laugh:
 
mars305 said:
I recommend you the HD-900F. Forget about the DVX100b or the HF-10.
Go for it!!!

lol:laugh:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion, but that's a little more camera than I had in mind just now.

Maybe someday.....when I get that call from National Geographic. :grin:

Gary
 
Eh, the 900F is going out of style. The new thing is the F23 by Cinealta. Just wait until the F35 comes out. Then you can basically own a Genesis.
 
dory_breaux said:
Return the DVX and wait for the HMC? Hmmm....
Click to expand...

I thought about that for a few minutes....but I should be able to learn alot over the next several months by using the DVX. Summers are short up here in Alaska....I'd hate to see another one go by, while waiting for the HMC.

Obviously, many people are getting excellent SD results with the DVX....even for the kind of subject matter I'm interested in shooting. I think much of the work on Steven Dempsey's "Water's Edge" DVD (Pine Lake Films) was shot with a DVX, before he moved to the XH-A1. I watched some of that again last night, just to remind me of how good the footage can be....in the right hands.

Gary
 
AK? Lucky you. I'd kill to be their haha.

Anyway, yeah, just get your focus as sharp as you can and you'll prolly be fine.
 
dory_breaux said:
Anyway, yeah, just get your focus as sharp as you can and you'll prolly be fine.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you should mention focus.....I hadn't really thought about that (I assumed the autofocus would get it, spot on). I just read this on Steven Dempsey's FAQ on his Pine Lake Films website:

Quote:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"How are your DVX100 wide shots so sharp[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]?[/FONT]
SD video is notorious for looking great in closeup but looking terrible when it comes to wide shots, particularly landscapes where there is a lot of detail. People have commented that my shots look unusually sharp for the format but there is no real secret except I avoid one common mistake.

When I go wide, I do not rely on autofocus, you may think what you are seeing in the viewfinder is sharp but, unless you are doing critical focusing or you know how your lens works, it most likely will not be sharp. This can make potentially great footage look like it was shot on a regular consumer camera.
Find out what your cameras universal focus setting is.it's not always going to be at the end of the focusing scale. For instance, on the DVX100A it is actually 97 but you will be hard pressed to tell your auto focus that. It loves to hunt around between 92 and 99 and it will always look terrible.

Zoom into the furthest detail, manually focus and then lock your focus. Zoom back out, now you are done with the auto setting for this shot. Closing down the iris as much as possible will help tremendously too because the depth of focus will be much larger and you can control this with ND filters."


That could explain a little about why my own DVX footage looks the way it does.....since it is almost all landscape shots at wide to medium focal lengths....thus far.

Gary
Eagle River, Alaska
 
I have the DVX100b and the XH A1. I still work in SD, and even when viewed on HD tv's I get compliments on how sharp the DVX footage is. And I am still very ameture at this point. I would stick with the DVX for now, proven time and time again to be phenomenal.
 
Kdawg said:
I have the DVX100b and the XH A1. I still work in SD, and even when viewed on HD tv's I get compliments on how sharp the DVX footage is. And I am still very ameture at this point. I would stick with the DVX for now, proven time and time again to be phenomenal.
Click to expand...
qft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top