hi all, I've been a fan of the dvx100b for a long while and recently Ive been re-inspired to start making films again. I'm thinking about buying the dvx for shorts and low-budget features for festivals - but i'm hearing so much of HD this and HD that and future proofing this and that and all that. The only affordable HD cam I llke right now is the canon xh-a1 and I just don't want to pay that kinda money for a camcorder. Do any of you folk think its a bad decision buying a standard def camera now with HD around? Coming from an artists point of view i think not, no way. Personally, if a movie is interesting or cool or whatever I would'n care if it's in stadard def or watever. But stiil not sure if I should buy the dvx or wait for a HD cam that i like and can afford....what you think?
have i missed the party?
- Thread starter worley
- Start date
RallyMonkey
Active member
Two things to remember:
A good film is a good film, no matter what it's shot on. As long as you're willing to put in the time and effort to make sure the image looks good.
Secondly, if the DVX was good enough to use 2-3 years ago, it's not like the quality of the camera has deteriorated, it's still good enough to use now.
Of course, many would disagree, personally, I went with the DVX, but that was due to not being able to afford the HVX, and not being able to wait until the HMC.
A good film is a good film, no matter what it's shot on. As long as you're willing to put in the time and effort to make sure the image looks good.
Secondly, if the DVX was good enough to use 2-3 years ago, it's not like the quality of the camera has deteriorated, it's still good enough to use now.
Of course, many would disagree, personally, I went with the DVX, but that was due to not being able to afford the HVX, and not being able to wait until the HMC.
Jason Ramsey
Admin
I'll trade you your "outdated" 1DsII for my Pentax Optio A20 :evil:
later,
Jason
later,
Jason
dory_breaux
Todd Wannabe
No, the quality of the camera does not deteriorate. However, the standard of what people want to see goes up.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
You just answered your own question.
renegadewill
Well-known member
Another thing you have to remember is that the best film motion comes from the dvx's true progessive 24p. Not this 24f stuff that most hd cams claim as 24p. I went dvx because I do not have the money to buy a new full hd ready comp. My horrible little dell can easily turn out professional sd not a problem. Now, for 24p 720p. I bet my computer would just start smoking. I saw this short film from northridge shot on panavision 35 and the acting and direction was crap. I looked like a "video skit" with a big budget. The blair witch is the best example for this argument. Tons of people have nicer cameras, but are their films as good as the blair witch shot on a hi8 cam. I think hi8 maybe digital 8. The dvx still fools people sometimes, so who really cares. If they think it is film why tell em it isn't.
I was in your exact shoes a year ago. I would say if you can afford to wait... do so. The DVX is great but definitely has its limitations. For instance, we have certain wide shots where you can't clearly see the actor's lips moving. In 720p, this wouldn't be an issue.
As a separate thing, it kind of depends on the aesthetic. Bands still record on 4 track for a certain lo-fi sound. If you're doing something gritty, handheld and urban then maybe the DVX is actually better. If you're doing a period piece, you probably really want the extra resolution.
As a separate thing, it kind of depends on the aesthetic. Bands still record on 4 track for a certain lo-fi sound. If you're doing something gritty, handheld and urban then maybe the DVX is actually better. If you're doing a period piece, you probably really want the extra resolution.
ZazaCast
Major Contributor
Gritty? Maybe you should go watch some of the time fest movies, like "Four"...you're not going to find grit there. I've seen images that have blown me away from the DVX (all models). Granted, you can get grit from any format if you'd like... but I would never describe the DVX as gritty!
RallyMonkey
Active member
This is true, to a point. Yet, if a movie is good, I don't think I would ever turn down watching it due to it being shot on a camera that is 3 years old. If you can afford it, than there's very few reasons not to get a high quality HD camera. But if you can't, then go for the camera you know you like the picture of, instead of settling for a camera you don't like as much just because it is HD.
thank for the input folks, the hmc-150 cud be an exciting cam but will prob cost twice as much as a dvx. Ive been reluctant about buying the dvx with hd around the corner. But dont think i'll feel like paying 3500/4000 for hmc-150 so mite be dvx. I really think it's not the best of times to be buying a camcorder due to the shift in formats. and you wanna feel like you made the right choice and not regret it later. I suppose you bite the bullet and buy a dvx and get on with it or save the extra cash and buy the hmc-150 if its any good
Sorry Ill let you all get back to your praise of the DVX in a moment (great camera and you can pick up a second hand one right now for a GREAT price).
Will, your point above is misleading and inaccurate. 24f comes from Canons iteration and its as good as 24p. I just ask you to get your facts straight or at least use the equipment regularly before you state an opinion on it. I shoot most regularly on my HPX500 and mix with a few wides (depending on light) I shoot from my Canon A1 that shoots "24f" looks EXACTLY the same.
so TV still excepts work on standard def? I was thinking that just around the corner they'll be mostly interested in hd cos that will be the broadcast norm. Not that i'm making stuff for telly but thought if ya get lucky you could have a short or watever broadcast on tv. I suppose this is a stupid question concerning the next good few years until hd is everywhere.
Jason Ramsey
Admin
yup. 24f of the canons looks just the same as 24p on the dvx in terms of cadence.
I think sony had a "24f" that was real crappy and there are other "imitations" of 24p from diff. manufacturers that really suck, but Canon's is the real thing.
Later,
Jason
I think sony had a "24f" that was real crappy and there are other "imitations" of 24p from diff. manufacturers that really suck, but Canon's is the real thing.
Later,
Jason
double the price of a dvx would be an hvx. and the hmc being hd with the market moving towards hd will hold its value better than the dvx's for resale should u decide to upgrade.
cliff6948
Active member
I say wait a little longer and as soon as the hpx and hmc drops you will probally be able to pick up an original hvx for fairly cheap...thats what i think im going to try and do. They are already down in the low 3000 range, in good shape and some even with a p2 card, and maybe its just me but i think the extra 1000 is totally worth it.
Cliffs point I think is valid. But, a cheap DVX now wont drop hugely over 6 months if you wanted to resell.
But most TV broadcast is still done in SD. And if you were lucky enough to get a short screened I think you would find it on a SD broadcast. Unless your in Japan.
telemaine
Active member
Very true.
However for what you want to do (and it pains me to say it) I would go with the DVX. Your content is primary.