Of course.
Of course, just like you'd expect with any other camera. And the DVX200's are.
What is there not to know? There are six scene files pre-programmed into the camera. Choose one you like. If you don't see one you like, modify them more to your liking. Or ask around if anyone else has developed any scene files for you to try. This is no different than it's been since the original DVX100 came out in 2003.
Things are always happening behind the scenes.
Okay, look -- I'm writing this from a hotel room in the middle of absolutely nowhere, no cell service, on a job. I'm not "silent", I'm working, and simply do not have access to the camera, video clips, or anything else, nor do I have time to address a whole lot of fears or whatever. My call time is 3:15 a.m. I'll do what I can, but there is no "grand conspiracy" or "going silent" or whatever!
Or maybe he is actually, you know, working? Having a day job, etc? Maybe he doesn't have endless quantities of time to produce comparisons? Maybe he'll get to it when he can? Maybe his GH4 is rented out, or his DVX200 is, or ... a whole lot of potential things.
The case of skin tones turning yellow and getting a glowing yellow highlight around grossly overexposed hotspots has been greatly improved.
I think the biggest problem with that is -- I don't see anything to be "scared" of. Why are there "fears" at all? Sheesh, again, I point out that I put up an "accurate" scene file against a DVX200 "stock" scene file, and most people preferred the stock scene file, and at least one said that it was "greatly improved"...
With apologies for the aforementioned grumpiness...
And what exactly is it that you find to be "whatever is wrong with this camera"? I don't want to go chasing red herrings. Tell me exactly what it is that you're seeing, and contrast it to how some other camera performs that you think the DVX200 should be doing. You show me a side-by-side, in controlled environments (not some youtube shot by somebody else) as to what it's doing "wrong", and I'll try to figure out what's happening and how to fix it.
I have sent what I hope is a final version in for release. I don't know when it will be made available.
And what, specifically and in detail, is that "main issue" that "everyone" is seeing? I'm not being mocking, I'm saying that I don't really know what it is that you're talking about, so if you spell it out clearly in such a way that I can duplicate it, and show me an example of another camera in the exact same scenario that does it "right", then I can maybe try to figure out what the problem is.
If I knew specifically what the issue was, maybe I could do that. I am on this current job through Wednesday, so Friday is probably the earliest that I could take a stab at whatever it is that you want done. But I need very specific examples, and ideally examples from a readily-available camera so I can put them side-by-side in the same light and see what the differences are and try to make whatever changes may be necessary.
Can't see it, don't know what you're referring to, but that sounds absolutely impossible. The image is much cleaned up in the new firmware.
Really? Look -- first, there are six scene files in the camera already. Second, if I'm not mistaken, there has never been an "exposure meter" in any Panasonic professional camera, ever, except the AF100. So is it a "strange omission" that it's not in the DVX200? Or, as the evidence indicates, was it more a case of a "strange inclusion" that they put it in the AF100? If you want an exposure meter, why not just turn on the histogram? Seriously... you're questioning the reviewer's experience level? I'm so not on the same page with you on things like this.
