Why Panny's got my Fanny

D

Doc Holliday

Member
There's been a whole lot of talk here about what is better and res and noise and whatnot. And I'm here to chime in about the old hvx, though I haven't seen it yet. Many moons ago, I got my hands on a dvx100 for a pro project I was working on and I said to myselfl, "There is nothing in the world that takes video like this thang short of a sony 900 or Varicam or such." Since then much of the world has agreed. People at TBS and CNN (yes I live in ATL) are shooting dvx instead of digi beta -- not for budget, but because it LOOKS BETTER. Is there more resolution? No. Is there more grain? Yes... It is an ugly little box of a cam, but I don't look so much at it as I do the footage it makes. I had a boss once that swore he could make footage from a PD150 look as good as a dvx in post. He spent HOURS AND HOURS trying, and every once in a while would say... "see."... but noone saw. There is much you can do in post -- I have spent the last 10 years of my life in post, but what you learn sooner or later is that it is VERY difficult and time consuming (money) to match in post what is done in camera. I still have not seen footage shot by ANY other sd mini dv cam altered in post (or in cam setting) that looks as good as you can get from the dvx w factory default. I'm sure it can be done and it is all subjective, but panny got something right, and I'm thinkin' they've still got it right. Tweak away at your Canon all day. I don't believe that the image will compare.

If it does, I'll get one. But not just for the 15% increase in res, or because I will look so "pro" while holding such thing. But I'm glad there is classy competition, because it will keep panny and all others workin' hard!

The end.
 
All I can say about Canon and the H1 so far is that it reminds me so much of the DVX vs XL1/2 argument back in the day. You had those few knuckle heads that kept clamoring over the resolution boost the XL gave them and that was their only interest. So many of them bought their XL's and twiddled with the in cam settings trying to mimic the DVX's look but never got it.

Every clip I've seen so far from the H1, even the H1+Mini35 footage, has that digitally enhanced sharpness to it. Which I HATE. H1 owners continue to brag about their newly found resolution advantage and forget who won the fight with a 1st round K.O. back in the day....Panasonic and the DVX. Now the champ is back and better than ever and he's dressed all in black. Thank you for the HVX! :thumbsup:
 
Mr. Blonde said:
All I can say about Canon and the H1 so far is that it reminds me so much of the DVX vs XL1/2 argument back in the day. You had those few knuckle heads that kept clamoring over the resolution boost the XL gave them and that was their only interest. So many of them bought their XL's and twiddled with the in cam settings trying to mimic the DVX's look but never got it.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking the same thing.

I bet alot of the flap will die down some once the cameras are out in quantity. We're starved beggars staring inside a restaurant window commenting on which dish is better and why.
 
This is basically what I said in, I believe, my second post. I keep looking for Canon H1 footage that looks anything close to the HVX footage, and I can't find it. Honestly, the best looking footage after the HVX is the JVC100U. If the HVX doesn't come out by next Christmas, I might have to forsake my $500.00 deposit at Specialized Communications and switch to the (by then) third generation of the JVC.
 
I am a proud soon to be owner of an HVX200 so keep that in mind when I make the following statement.

The XL2 created a significantly more robust and cleaner signal over the DVX. I owned both and in 16x9 it was a huge difference. Yes the DVX had more vibrance and in-camera "mojo" no doubt. But the statement about 15% Iincrease in res is a little vague.

I sold my XL2 and I am now shooting with my old DVX. Do I like the color rendition? Yes. The resolution? Just plain stinks after having the XL2. Until you shoot with a higher res imager you don't realize how much more detail you see. Once you get used to it you see the flaws of a lower res image and it really is hard to deal with.

Again...I am getting the HVX....but it will be higher res than the DVX and have the mojo. If resolution isn't that important then why get an HVX at all? Just keep shooting with a DVX.
 
icicle22 said:
If resolution isn't that important then why get an HVX at all? Just keep shooting with a DVX.
Click to expand...

In the coming months, years it (resolution) will be more important.
I hear everyday about a new friend getting an HDTV. Most of my friends and co-workers ask me "What's the difference between 720P and 1080P?" They ask me because I am Mr. Video to them. Now my clients (smaller ad agencies) are asking. "Should we shoot in HD or just standard." Most of the spots I do are here today and gone in 6 weeks so it does not matter...yet. But in the next year we may see a bigger shift to HD and if you all are like me - I am pushing clients to shoot and edit HD.
 
steindj said:
16:9 in SD.
Click to expand...
You can do 16:9 in a DVX as well, it's just letterboxed instead of natively widescreen. What's the difference? Greater resolution. And the poster responded, "If resolution isn't that important then why get an HVX at all?" Therefore, resolution is still your reason from that response.
 
It's very easy to distinguish the flame fan-boy from the unbiased, open, individual. I know its dvxuser.com... (DVX,HVX rules here) but grow up people!
 
Haakon said:
You can do 16:9 in a DVX as well, it's just letterboxed instead of natively widescreen. What's the difference? Greater resolution.
Click to expand...

Uh, not quite. At least not to the film-out service that I was planning on using. They preferred 4:3 to letterbox because they didn't want the camera to do the cropping on the frame. They didn't want squeeze mode for some reason (can't remember). I think I told them I'd wait for native 16:9 and they said that would be best if I didn't want to have to tape the viewfinder. I agreed.
 
I actually like cameras with 1 pixel x 1 pixel resolution, as long as they have good film-like grain... Of course we all want lots of res, but there is more than res out there. Color space for one. I would take the canon or hd100 over the dvx for sure (though the dvx still looks better when you're drunk) But I'll take a little drop in res for a big push in color, true progessive, and whatever. (Oh, and that whole flame fan-boy thing hurt my feelings)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top