Another "which camera should I buy"

D

DirectX

Member
I know you guys must be getting sick of this topic so I apologize in advance. I'm a brand new member and I'm new to the film world. I've never followed my heart until now and hopefully it's not to late (I'm 35). I've learned so much in the last month just from reading books, forums, etc that my head hurts :) Through research I've narrowed down my choices:

Panasonic DVX100b
Panasonic HVX200
Canon XHA1

I want to get the film look but I also want to make documentaries. HDV seems to be a great choice but it has a very "videoish" look to it maybe not suitable for an independent film. I've heard HDV is hard to edit. But then again a travel documentary would look great on it (a documentary as opposed to a feature film would probably be easier to get off the ground as a first project). HVX is my first choice but that means a lot more money for upgrades. Even the A1 would probably need an HD deck and HD DVD burner to finish the project. Plus I don't want to be this new person running around saying "look at me and my new HVX200". Just because I have a hammer doesn't mean I know how to build a house. Is the DVX100b the best choice for a beginner to learn focus, shooting, etc? Or Canon XHA1? Or should I bite the bullet and move back home and inhale secondhand smoke at mom's house for 6 months for the HVX? Sorry for this long first post, I look forward to getting to know everybody here. Thanks in advance,

Mark
 
DirectX said:
HDV seems to be a great choice but it has a very "videoish" look to it maybe not suitable for an independent film.
Click to expand...

The codec itself has nothing to do with the video or film look.

Basically you'll want to ask yourself how you're looking to distribute your work. If you're going to be selling DVD then there's little reason to get an HD camera. In a few years maybe enough people will have HDTV to justify delivering in HD, but right now SD is still very much the norm and the DVX does a fine job. But if you want to prepare for that future eventuality then the A1 and the HVX are both fine cameras. Except the differences in workflow for both is huge and you'll have to figure out which is best for you. The main difference of course is P2 cards vs. Tape.
 
Get a DVX.

It can deliver astounding pictures.

Best Cinematography at Sundance a few years back was "November" shot on a DVX, so don't let anyone tell you it cannot do the job. Any editor can handle DV.

HD is nice, but not a necessity right now by any stretch of the imagination.
 
get an hvx if you can afford it.....you can shoot standard and hd with it, plus the ability to shoot variable bit rates and frame rates....its the best of all those cameras all in one package.
 
BennisHahn said:
Get a DVX.

It can deliver astounding pictures.

Best Cinematography at Sundance a few years back was "November" shot on a DVX, so don't let anyone tell you it cannot do the job. Any editor can handle DV.

HD is nice, but not a necessity right now by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

How about 28 Days Later? It was shot on a Canon XL and it looks A LOT better than November.
 
Hi Mark,

Get the DVX, learn the craft and go from there. It really is all about the talent behind the camera, talent in front of the camera and a good story. Irag in Fragments, and Murderball, both Academy Award nominees were shot with the DVX100. But it wasn't the DVX that got them there it was the story and the talent.

My .02,

Jan
 
DirectX said:
I know you guys must be getting sick of this topic so I apologize in advance. I'm a brand new member and I'm new to the film world. I've never followed my heart until now and hopefully it's not to late (I'm 35). I've learned so much in the last month just from reading books, forums, etc that my head hurts :) Through research I've narrowed down my choices:

Panasonic DVX100b
Panasonic HVX200
Canon XHA1

I want to get the film look but I also want to make documentaries. HDV seems to be a great choice but it has a very "videoish" look to it maybe not suitable for an independent film. I've heard HDV is hard to edit. But then again a travel documentary would look great on it (a documentary as opposed to a feature film would probably be easier to get off the ground as a first project). HVX is my first choice but that means a lot more money for upgrades. Even the A1 would probably need an HD deck and HD DVD burner to finish the project. Plus I don't want to be this new person running around saying "look at me and my new HVX200". Just because I have a hammer doesn't mean I know how to build a house. Is the DVX100b the best choice for a beginner to learn focus, shooting, etc? Or Canon XHA1? Or should I bite the bullet and move back home and inhale secondhand smoke at mom's house for 6 months for the HVX? Sorry for this long first post, I look forward to getting to know everybody here. Thanks in advance,

Mark
Click to expand...

If it's docs you're wanting to make, and budget is an issue, I would suggest the XH-A1, simply because of the long form ease of use/cost per minute factor. If budget is an issue, I would not even consider the HVX right now, simply because to get the same kind of flexibility that HDV allows on the XH-A1, you'd need large storage, which can push the actual cost of the HVX closer towards 10K than the 5K pricetag belies. Besides, who wants to live their mom at age 35? As a DVX owner for years, I really think that unless they are able to position it for much cheaper than they are selling it right now, they have officially lost the position of the best value in it's price range, a title that would subsequently belong to the XH-A1 in that price range. Don't get me wrong, the DVX is legendary and will always have a place in my heart, but it's now offiicially overpriced at it's list price. Used, that perhaps is a different story. New: it's a non-starter in my mind.

Also, I think the time for prefered HD origination is drawing much closer than anyone is realizing right now, even despite the delivery woes/lack of uniformity this entails. At this point in time, I've got give it to Canon - they've got themselves a winner with the A1, for docs especially. Got to tell you, I do know quite a few other documentarians who didn't jump on the HVX bandwagon, simply because of the media cost - and the inability to run HD tape at will to get that one tiny moment. If having immediate editing access is desirable to you, you can always add a Firestore to the A1, which is also another argument FOR the XH-A1 in documentary settings - you can have two indentical copies, both in HD, without breaking the bank.

If it's narratives you're considering, then the move back to momma's house might be called for - this is where the feature set of the HVX really shines, otherwise, save your lungs and get an A1. There are documentarians who ARE shooting on the HVX obviously, but to me it just seems like the wrong camera for that. Perhaps Panasonic will come out with something aimed more at long form HD aquisition, aimed squarely at the niche that the A1 is building, but right now former DVXuser's are kind of falling into two camps, with narrative filmmakers pursuing the HVX, as which they should, but documentarians pursuing the XH-A1. It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.

In my opinion, the HVX/P2 combo, in documentary settings, seems a leap forward in technology, accompanied by leap backward in time in terms of workflow - the switching in and out of P2 cards, etc. (save for the immediacy of editing - which is a leap forward). Whether it's operator error or some kinks that still need to be worked out, this workflow lends itself more towards something that can have mulitple takes, and makes me quite reticent it in one-take only scenarios that happen when filming real life. The A1/Firestore combo can have the best of both worlds, in my mind. Do keep in mind some of the things that you'll be giving up by going with the A1 over the HVX are quite significant in narrative storytelling (multiple frame rates among the biggest), while for the most part insignificant in documentary filmmaking, unless you're shooting for NFL films. Hope that helps giving you a documentarian's perspective.

To wrap, I would drop a NEW DVX from the running, and actually consider getting that used (which can be had for what I am figuring the price of new DVX's should actually be - hope they actually don't drop the price before I sell mine). Narrative = get an HVX and an oxygen mask. Docs = A1. Oh, and in case no one cleared it up for you, the HVX and DVX shoot natively progressive 24P, while the A1 also shoots 24F, and interlaced method of aquiring 24P, all of which are arriving at same place - the motion of film, the integral part of the "film look". Some may argue that good lighting and shallow focus are what gives you a film look, and while those can contribute to one type of film look, they are not exclusive to film (ahem, soap operas) - and many films have been shot with bad lighting and deep focus. It is the progressive frame that gives that film look - and all three cameras are capable of delivering that.
 
Last edited:
DVX! I've got an HVX and for me to use it well I needed to get several p2 cards, a laptop, and now I'm looking into an HD monitor. Awesome camera, just be prepared for the "extras" to use it to its full potential. HDV is a pain to edit with on an average computer without something to convert it to something easily editable like Cineform. The DVX however has real live 24P, is smaller than the HVX (dont know about the A1) and uses inexpensive and readily available DV tapes to shoot on. Its not HD, but unless you are turning out broadcast or feature film material then I wouldnt be concerned about that.

Like Jan and others have pointed out its about content. If I was just getting into this with a limited amount of money I would spend the least total (editing system, accessories included) possible on a camera possible. Then you can spend more money on lights, sound, etc.
 
jdajda said:
HDV is a pain to edit with on an average computer without something to convert it to something easily editable like Cineform.
Click to expand...

Not true. Since 5.1.2, Final Cut Pro has had an easy preset for caputuring 24F 1080 HDV, without an intermediary like Cineform.

The top listed PDF document on the following link has the details for working with the A1/G1/H1 on page 32.

http://searchcgi.apple.com/cgi-bin/sp/nph-searchpre11.pl
 
Last edited:
how many movies made HDV have made it to the big screen? Just wondering.

The DVX is going to be around for awhile. I agree it is overpriced right now. Hopefully now that the $500 rebate is over we see something better and cheaper.
 
Zim said:
how many movies made HDV have made it to the big screen? Just wondering.

The DVX is going to be around for awhile. I agree it is overpriced right now. Hopefully now that the $500 rebate is over we see something better and cheaper.
Click to expand...

How long did it take before the DVX made it to the big screen with a smash success? If I remember correctly, it took quite a little while, there were still many DV films for film transfer being made on PAL XL-1's and PAL PD-150's at the time - the DVX made that unnecessary. That benchmark is not really a viable measuring tool of a camera's potential uses. Not to mention, it's NOT the camera that gets your movie transferred to film, it's the filmmaker, their ability to make compelling content, and a significant chunk of change either provided by the filmmaker or someone else who wants to pay for the transfer. $40,000, a pixelvision camera, some time, and a good story, will get you a 35mm film transfer, the main part of that equation being $40,000.

Right now, the A1 is at the stage of transfer to film that the DVX the first year after it's introduction - some tests, some transfers, but no biggie yet, still you KNOW it's going to happen, especially with docs, and more likely sooner than later. It's like comparing fishpoles by the size of the fish they have caught. We can resume the topic "has anything from the A1 been transferred to film that has been an Oscar winner or smash success?" in a few years, as that is an argument that has been bandied about in favor of the DVX - "Murderball" was shot on a DVX, it's therefore better than the A1. That's when we'll have the apples to apples comparison (A1 + three years or so, DVX now). Right now it's apples and orangutans. I would venture to bet that right now someone is using an A1 to shoot that very movie - when will it make it to the big screen? I really don't know their production schedule, or their budget, or if they even have the savvy to get THAT distributor, so I couldn't tell you.

Nonetheless, the DVX is a good way to get your feet wet, and a great value if purchased used. New, it's simply not worth it now, at least to me. A used DVX provides for the most pad for getting other gear, that is undeniable. On the other hand, if $3500 is what he wants to spend on a camera specifically, the A1 is the answer I would personally give, and I've owned and used a DVX for years. If he's really thinking that moving in with momma would be even tolerable at 35, being in debt for an HVX is going to be the least of his problems, so why not? It all depends what your total budget is, the aims for which you're planning on using the gear, and the amount of time you're planning to have it around.

As far as the film transfer comparison goes, I would be willing to bet cash money that going forward three to five years in time, we will have seen more transfers to film from the A1 (perhaps even pre-hdv conversion 4:2:2) than we will DVX transfers in that same timespan, which I'm guessing will both be less than the HVX transfers - especially in the narrative department. Although PAL XL-1 movies can, and still do get transferred to film, we don't see that nearly as much as DVX tranfers these days, right? The DVX will always have a place, for sure, it was the most forward thinking DV camera of it's time, something that makes it relevant to this day. That level of relevance has been diminshed though, make no doubt about it. We all love the camera, that's why we're here in the first place - but the bottom line is, it is a tool, and tools change in this business.
 
Last edited:
I agree too if spending $3500 I would get the A1. But with the rebate the DVX was around $2800. If Panasonic was smart they would drop the price or put on another nice rebate. $2,000 for a new DVX100b would be nice. I plan on DVD and internet work so HD/HDV isn't going to matter. Iraq in Fragments was uprezzed to HD using a DVX100 and looks great.
 
Even though I'm new to this I know that (for me) the story and the characters have to come first before anything else. It still amazes me to this day how many times I walk out of a movie saying "They raised millions of dollars for this?" Keep in mind these were shot on 35mm film and regardless of how good it looks, crap is still crap. I watched 28 days later last night and was amazed at the quality considering it was filmed using a Canon XL1 which is standard defintion (correct me if I'm wrong). The Canon A1 is HDV so wouldn't that look even better if transferred to film? I'm leaning towards the A1 with the intent of getting an HVX 2 or 3 years down the road. On the other hand if I find a used DVX for dirt cheap that will change ;) I just wish youtube didn't have such sub-par video quality as it makes comparing footage pretty much useless.

Mark
 
Zim said:
I agree too if spending $3500 I would get the A1. But with the rebate the DVX was around $2800. If Panasonic was smart they would drop the price or put on another nice rebate. $2,000 for a new DVX100b would be nice. I plan on DVD and internet work so HD/HDV isn't going to matter. Iraq in Fragments was uprezzed to HD using a DVX100 and looks great.
Click to expand...

Forgot about the current Canon rebate, knocking it down to $3250 over at B&H. So even at a $480 difference, I would still lean towards that A1. Agreed, about $2000 is right, I just hope it's not too soon, so I can get rid of my DVX. It could continue to hold a new purchase niche at that price point, although for how long, I don't know. Something tells me Panny is seriously considering that $3500 price point again, and a new product to place there. Can't wait to see what they might place there.
 
Listen, I have been in the film Industry for 2o years and Jan hit it on the head.
Anyone can make a movie but very few people can tell a story, It is about how well you can tell a story. and the DVX is your best bet to get your story out there. You can have the most expensive camera on the market and make crap. Or you can have a 1 chip camcorder and if the story being told good nobody is going to care about how you shot it and if it was a DVX or HVX or A1.
 
DirectX,

I would offer a few humble suggestions. I think it's not even worth mentioning anymore that talent behind and front of the camera is all that's truly required for anyone to get noticed. All of the available "affordable" cams can get you there.

Possibly the most important technical thing is to shoot a quality 16x9 widescreen image, even in SD, for transfer to HD. (which is what most festivals will be screening films from in the future)
With the dvx this requires an anamorphic adapter, (signifigantly increasing cost) electronic image squeezing or (ugh) cropping to 16x9 from a 4x3 image. The A1 and HVX can both give you excellent widescreen footage, and the option of HD if you want to add a certain amount of future flexibility with your material.

Sundance FF requires all digital films to be transferred to HDCAM for festival screening. I've seen dvx entries that looked good on the big screen from HD projection, and then I've seen HD entries. Guess which looked signifigantly better? With current uprezzing techniques, a quality SD 16x9 acquisition can somewhat hold its own on the big screen. But if you can acquire in an HD format, well, it just helps that much more. Consider this: An XL-H1 HDV feature called "The Signal" was picked up for well over 2 million at Sundance this year and is likely to have a theatrical release sometime in the near future. That means HDV's good enough because the talent and execution were there...and I'm sure even humble HDV origination didn't hurt either.

Forget film transfer. It's just not even a consideration unless you made a miraculous film that will be seen in theatres everywhere. A very deep-pocketed distributor would be taking care of this requirement, not you.

I'm sure the dvx won't be a hindrance to anyone's fledgling filmmaking career, but I would suggest reaching for the A1 or HVX--new or used.
 
Last edited:
Question, With the DVX i save the heads by playing back into my computer using a less expensive Pany cam. Now if one goes HD don't you need an HD deck to capture?
that would put much more wear on the heads?
 
Yeah we had to get a seperate deck at work. Its the Sony MV15u or something like that. Works fine for Sony 60i stuff but dont know about canon 24F. Or get a firestore for the Canon...
 
so then go A1 and wear the heads using for shooting and capture? or buy another HD can for capture to save heads. either way going A1 is much more expensive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top