About to Buy

Cyberpulse

Cyberpulse

Member
Hey guys, this is my first post, so some of my questions might be somewhere else on the forum, so sorry if they are. Okay, I'm really new to filmmaking so I have a few questions before I buy the DVX100.

1.) Which is better? The DVX100a, DVX100b, or Canon XL-2
2.) How good is the DOF (Depth of Field) on the DVX?
3.) What do you need to capture the video from tape to your computer hard drive?
4.) What kind of video card do I need on my computer?
5.) What is a 35mm adapter? What do they do? And what kind should I buy?
6.) What kind of tripod do I need? What do you recommend?
7.) What kind of external microphone would you recommend using?

Thanks a lot!
 
Personal Preference

Personal Preference

1. Depends on what you're after. I kinda told you last time i believe that the XL2 is expensive, big and buff, gets you lots of attention (Good for getting clients) whilst the DVX is more handy and what-not - Truer to the indie camera tradition. The DVX A is cheaper and the previous model whilst B is the newer so there's really not much difference between all of them (Image quality wise) if u think about it - more of personal preference. Arguably it's only the ergonomics and image you want to project that makes the difference. Think of it like apples vs. oranges.

2. DOF on the dvx is good but not as good as the xl2 in my opinion because of the interchangeable L lenses though others will probably disagree.

3. You need a firewire or IEEE3994 (Something like that) wire to capture video from tape to the computer

4. A fast one =P

5. 35mm Adapter is basically a platform harnessed to have greater depth of field on a camera through the use of SLR lenses. there are a whole lot of different brands like SG Pro, M2, etc. Again its all personal preference there.

6. You will definitely need a fluid head tripod. i recommend the bogen-manfrotto 501 or 503 for starters. its very infamous amongst indie filmmmakers as a really good tripod.

7. Again this depends on your budget, but for shotgun microphones i recommend the Senheisser 416 or the Oktava mk12. They're generally very good well-rounded (Literally) shotgun mics.

Hope this helps!
 
1. This article outlines the difference between the A and B version. Obviously the B version is an improvement over the A. The XL2 vs. DVX is subjective, you'll need to do some research and decides for yourself.
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/100b/
2. The DOF on DVX is just like any 1/3'' camcorder. That is to say it's quite poor. Which is why we have 35mm adapter.
6. 501 as a minimum, but 503 is highly recommended.
7. Check the yellow stickies in the audio section of the forum.
 
The Depth of Field on the DVX has a tendency to be deeper than on a film camera, or other more expensive "larger" format digital cameras. Whether that is GOOD or BAD is up to how you use it.
 
TheComo said:
for DOF,u can zoom in alot, and u can get some nice DOF picture
Click to expand...

my point was that shallow or deep depth of field isnt always necessarily "good" or "bad." it seems like people throw around the term depth of field around here but dont exactly know what it means.
 
Exactly.

If shallow DOF was so freakin' great, why would Welles and Toland have flooded the stages with light and shot such deep images? (causing many directors and auteurs to laud the amazing cinematography)
 
DeSica said:
Exactly.

If shallow DOF was so freakin' great, why would Welles and Toland have flooded the stages with light and shot such deep images? (causing many directors and auteurs to laud the amazing cinematography)
Click to expand...

DOF is an artistic choice. You can get the image looking more 3d if you're able to isolate your subject. I personally think it's pretty but other directors might not choose to use it. Sometimes I get the feeling that people speaking against DOF (not referring to anyone in particular, just an observation) does so rather arrogantly like they're rebelling against the mold when there's really nothing to rebel against. If anything, you guys just saved a bundle on a 35mm adapter :thumbsup:.
 
jade8472 said:
DOF is an artistic choice. You can get the image looking more 3d if you're able to isolate your subject. I personally think it's pretty but other directors might not choose to use it. Sometimes I get the feeling that people speaking against DOF (not referring to anyone in particular, just an observation) does so rather arrogantly like they're rebelling against the mold when there's really nothing to rebel against. If anything, you guys just saved a bundle on a 35mm adapter :thumbsup:.
Click to expand...

DOF is an artistic choice like water is wet (unless frozen)...ergo, it should go without saying. It seems like some people just assume that shallow depth of field is a sign of quality or something, when I think they are responding to the fact that it helps video mimick the look that most films have had in the last 40 years. When we shoot video, we don't want it to look like video (usually), so every little bit helps. When you shoot film, you never have to worry that it's going to look like S-VHS...

When we discussed common apretures for shooting scenes in school, we were told that most times they go for f.4 - f. 5.6. That provides enough room to get your important stuff in focus, while blurring out the background elements that might otherwise distract the viewer's attention. Yes, we are talking about art, but it is largely being made in a what is commonly called a factory town, and that mentality permeates thorugh much of the product.

Time and the cost of lighting may have contributed to this convention, as well as the move to more location shooting, and auteur-style cinema( of which Kane is supposedly a beacon, go figure). How many lights could Cassavetes lug around?

I happen to like shallow depth of field. Style for it's own sake is another matter.
 
i agree fully with you DeSica.. i have nothing against shallow depth of field, i'm just on a rampage of being a jackass trying to get people to understand exactly what they are even talking about.

Depth of field can not be described as "good" or "bad." It can be shallow, deep, appropriate, dramatic.. etc, but never "good" or "bad"
 
I know exactly what depth of field is. What I meant by good, is how far you can go with it. Andrew Kramer even said DOF can be better on some camera than others. DOF is like a piece of artwork, it can be good or it can look awful.
 
yes it can make a shot look good or awful, but to say a camera's depth of field is good doesnt make sense. the depth of field is a dynamic property... it could be good or bad.
 
Nathan.Buxton said:
yes it can make a shot look good or awful, but to say a camera's depth of field is good doesnt make sense. the depth of field is a dynamic property... it could be good or bad.
Click to expand...

We're arguing semantic here. When someone asks how "good" is the DOF, we automatically know that they're talking about the ability to get the background out of focus. What they use it for is something else entirely.
 
jade8472 said:
We're arguing semantic here. When someone asks how "good" is the DOF, we automatically know that they're talking about the ability to get the background out of focus. What they use it for is something else entirely.
Click to expand...

well, no.... an amateur would think that. Someone who told a professional camera operator that a certain cameras DOF is "good" would be looked at funny.
 
I used an XL2 for a year before buying my DVX.. The XL2 does have a better depth of field imo (mainly because of the 20x zoom), but that is one of the few advantages the XL2 has. The DVX is much more user friendly, lighter, easier to film with and produces fantastic results.. I have not regreted buying a DVX100A in the least - it is an excellent camera!
 
Nathan.Buxton said:
well, no.... an amateur would think that. Someone who told a professional camera operator that a certain cameras DOF is "good" would be looked at funny.
Click to expand...

Every one of your posts is an anti-shallow focus tirade. Although you have a point, no one is going to listen because they've already made up their mind. The other thing is, you don't have a very good point.

Also, a professional camera operator would either be shooting 35mm or ENG, and in either of those fields the depth of focus is constant camera to camera and controlled via ND filters. But for amateurs (and this site is dominated by amateurs, or those who are pros in one field but hobbiests in another), the term is fine--if inaccurate.

Plus, a shallow depth of focus is nice:

But what about Citizen Kane? Well, if you have Gregg Tolland to light your backgrounds then be my guest. If you are shooting on a soundstage go for it. But most of us don't have hundreds of thousands of watts of light at our disposal, nor do we have people to build every last set, so we need depth cues and a softer background to get rid of imperfections.

Also, video has way less dynamic range than film and particularly in the highlights, and while blown highlights look fine out of focus (soft) they look harsh and distracting while in focus. A soft focus background also gets rid of "strobing" in tracking shots.

What about cinematographers who want a deeper depth of focus? People keep quoting Emmanuel Lubezki as saying he wants a deeper depth of focus, but I've read the ASC article where he says this and he basically just says he wishes there were a format with a sensor size between 16mm and 35mm so he could make his AC's life easier. Also, he chose to shoot that movie with Super 1.85, an unusual format and rarely used format with an atypically shallow DoF.

The whole "film look" thing is exaggerated and a misnomer, but look at any film and then look at video posted here. Why is it a sin to want your work to look better? f2.8 on a dvx is ike f16 on 35mm, and that's pretty extreme deep focus. If we accept that selective focus can be used as a story telling tool, we have to also accept that limiting someone to f16 or deeper basically destroys that tool.

No one wants a 35mm adapter because they want to keep everything super shallow, they want it because it gives them selective focus--at the cost of exclusively shallow focus. You'll notice most indie 35mm films have a shallow focus, too, because lights and sets aren't as good. And most of the best shot films of the last year had a medium shallow focus, too.

If we were all shooting with 2/3'' sensors and t2 lenses you'd have a point, but while maybe as a "professional" you can shoot 35mm whenever you want, most of us can't. And I'm sure your job description doesn't include condemning those who try to make their movies look better. Yes, "film look" is inherently silly; the best looking digital movies, imo (Sin City, etc.) embrace their digital roots. But some people get some pretty great footage with digital video, and ignoring that is far sillier.
 
Cyberpulse said:
I know exactly what depth of field is. What I meant by good, is how far you can go with it. Andrew Kramer even said DOF can be better on some camera than others. DOF is like a piece of artwork, it can be good or it can look awful.
Click to expand...


Dude....less Andrew Kramer, more Andrew Sarris.
 
Cool as he is, Sarris never shot a film. You're spouting big names but not saying much of value. I don't know who Andrew Kramer is but I'll actually take his word on this one. (The term is bokeh, btw, and it's probably relating to lenses not cameras but I suppose the dvx and xl2 have built in lenses. And it's also subjective. Different people like different looks--zeiss versus cooke, etc.)
 
ok i agree i have been too hard on this. You have some very valid points there policar, one's i hadn't really thought of.

First, let me clear this up, i am not a professional cinematographer. I am an amateur as well. I have worked with film before, and have worked with professionals before, but i am still just an amateur alike.

But honestly, in my opinion, the stock DVX is superior to a DVX with a 35mm adapter. From the results I have seen, overall i believe this to be true.

i will not post again on this subject as people seem to be getting offended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top