Does the DVX200 have a future?
- Thread starter bjewett
- Start date
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
The article was good and the videos were excellent. But this is something I don't think they are mentioning. It was posted by someone in the viewing room. "You know the GH2 had serious help behind it. 1) it had the Hot Rod Cameras PL mount on the front, the best by far! 2) The GH2 had a $100,000 Fujinon lens on it. 3) GH2 had super duper hacked Firmware and most importantly 4) GH2 had talented DPs.
I picked the GH2 right behind the F65, and ahead of the Alexa. I make my living shooting, I saw the shootout in one of the recorded screenings, I was not featured on camera. "
The GH2 was hacked and had a $100K lens. So it is not the typical GH2 that most people will shoot with. Still very impressive. In some ways the lens on the DVX200 could be though of as a weak point in this context of high end cinema lens.
I seen the hack and lens as well - but lets face it, what if anything did the lens contribute to the actual shot - possibly nothing other than a stop. For the most part, there was really nothing in the scene to where that lens would help the GH4 to a degree that you would not had achieved with one of our run of the mill lens. Regarding the hack, there is nothing in a hack that would stop the noise, that's a bi-product of the sensor. Also lets not lose site of the fact no one else was using $500 lens's like us either.
While the lens sells for $100K, you have to keep in mind that's a "Hollywood" price, somewhat like the over-priced Red, you just don't get a $100,000 of better picture using that lens. Surely the clincher in this whole test was the Iphone with nothing to add other than the talent of good lighting.
Youtube is now loaded with hundreds of videos where the GH5 is kicking the Red's butt, you can also see that Red is now discounting their cameras just like a number of other high-end camera manufactures, looks like us little guys with our cheap cameras are moving up the food chain!
Regards - Mike
While the lens sells for $100K, you have to keep in mind that's a "Hollywood" price, somewhat like the over-priced Red, you just don't get a $100,000 of better picture using that lens. Surely the clincher in this whole test was the Iphone with nothing to add other than the talent of good lighting.
Youtube is now loaded with hundreds of videos where the GH5 is kicking the Red's butt, you can also see that Red is now discounting their cameras just like a number of other high-end camera manufactures, looks like us little guys with our cheap cameras are moving up the food chain!
Regards - Mike
The point of my earlier post about the “Camera Shootout” was, get to know the tools you have and only buy those that you really need. If you currently have DVX200 and GH5 your well positioned to handle all small and intermediate jobs.
However, if you want to compete for “Big Budget Agency Jobs” don’t go half way, you’ll need to step up your game with a RED, Alexa or Sony, camera’s that cost the Agency 10 times more than yours. Agencies are incentivized to spend money so they can make money; they’re paid a fixed percentage of the total cost on each project they work on.
However, if you want to compete for “Big Budget Agency Jobs” don’t go half way, you’ll need to step up your game with a RED, Alexa or Sony, camera’s that cost the Agency 10 times more than yours. Agencies are incentivized to spend money so they can make money; they’re paid a fixed percentage of the total cost on each project they work on.
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
The lens has everything to do with the quality of an image. Probably more so than the processor. You need to brush up on cinema lens and why they cost so much. No, it is not just Hollywood pricing.
Hundreds of videos showing the GH5 kicking the Red's butt? Did you actually spend a week watching them? Yes, it is possible to get quality out of a cheaper camera, but there are obvious limits. High end cameras obviously have a place in production. Also note that "guys with our cheap cameras are moving up the food chain" is a double edged sword and it does not mean you are moving up. It means ease of entry to the business, more competition, and that the quality you can get with your camera does not help you obtain jobs, because everyone has that same quality. By the way, this post is about the future of the DVX200 and not the GH5
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
Your point is well taken, and the post is a excellent story. Just pointing out that the GH2 they used was not the garden variety. Thought that fact was relevant.
Yes the DVX and GH5 can handle the small and intermediate jobs. When you talk about the highest quality and broadcast, then the extra expense of a high end camera is usually insignificant to the total budget and costs, and does deliver a better image. Some people seem to ignore the reality of the ability of a higher end camera. And yes, the differences in quality seem to be narrowing, but they do exit.
Thanks for the helpful suggestion on brushing up, however I’ve been brushing up for over 40+ years, so you’ll find my comments are made from experience rather than a good guess.
You missed the biggest point of the shoot-out - its not the camera, its the guy who’s behind it. Even with all that talent and expertise they all missed the the opportunity to light it correct, I seen multiple mistakes with all the shots. The biggest mistake which every guy made is when the guy leaned over to kiss the girl on the close up, be totally blocked all her light making her almost disappear, very difficult to watch and that was the key ingredient to the script, him getting to her.
This Red camera Halo is nothing but a three letter word to make the pencil heads at the production houses appear they know what their talking about. Bottom line, you take the over-inflated - over priced Red with the make believe $100,000 valued lens, and I’ll take my $2500 GH5 and I’ll shoot anything you like and I’ll match and maybe even shoot a better product than you - brush up on that offer!
Regards
Last edited:
Jason R. Johnston
Well-known member
It is indeed all about the skill/talent of the person behind the camera. However, you can’t tell me that that same person’s work couldn’t benefit from having the best tools. I would much rather use an Alexa with an established, professional crew than by myself with a GH-whatever. On the other hand, I’d much rather work with a GHx and a dedicated, professional crew than an Alexa by myself. It’s all about the people. That’s what actually makes working in this industry fantastic.
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
BS - I did not miss crap and understand the point. But stupidity is stupidity, when someone says all the lens means is an extra stop. Duh. Forty years? Maybe you should retire.
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
Agree. And to add, it is also about content. Sometime a great story can compensate for a small lack of production quality. And the highest quality production can suck without a story. And if someone gave me an Alexa I would grab it with both hands faster than you can blink.
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
Pencil heads? Ha ha, guess that is why you are still working, can't seem to appreciate the business side of business. Over valued lens? When you show us your last Hollywood success, maybe I will take you serious. Until then, stop getting so excited over your GH5. Guess you missed the point. This is about the future of the DVX200 and not the GH5.
DMC,
Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, but you really need to get up to speed on on today’s “Real Life” camera results. Shortly after the GH4 was released, the “RED” bubble busted. Today, low end cameras like the GH4/5, Cannon and others will provide just as good and in many cases even a better product than the Red. Bottom line, the GH would have positioned itself along or ahead of the RED either with or without the big budget cinema $10,000 lens that cost $100,000.
All the nasty rumors about the GH using the expensive lens, has been over-emphasized by Red owners who dropped $100K a camera to help heal the Red’s wounds after this major "A" beating it got in this shoot-out and all the videos now surfacing on YouTube. Now I’m not knocking a Red product, they build great “accepted” equipment, what I am saying is there is now alternatives that cost only a fraction of that price that can provide the same results.
Regarding the lens, Its important for you to understand that precision glass, coatings and workmanship in a lens will pass more light, so it does make a difference. While I understand there are many other differences such as edge-to-edge sharpness, element design, flaring and aberration, etc.,etc., when we look at a digital image, we’re looking at people and objects, we’re not looking at a focus chart so all the “Perfect-ness” of a $100K lens means absolutely “Zero” in real life, there really is little to no visual difference in the end-product of an expensive lens verses an affordable one.
Sorry dude, I’m with Mr. Coppola on this one!
Regards - Mike
Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, but you really need to get up to speed on on today’s “Real Life” camera results. Shortly after the GH4 was released, the “RED” bubble busted. Today, low end cameras like the GH4/5, Cannon and others will provide just as good and in many cases even a better product than the Red. Bottom line, the GH would have positioned itself along or ahead of the RED either with or without the big budget cinema $10,000 lens that cost $100,000.
All the nasty rumors about the GH using the expensive lens, has been over-emphasized by Red owners who dropped $100K a camera to help heal the Red’s wounds after this major "A" beating it got in this shoot-out and all the videos now surfacing on YouTube. Now I’m not knocking a Red product, they build great “accepted” equipment, what I am saying is there is now alternatives that cost only a fraction of that price that can provide the same results.
Regarding the lens, Its important for you to understand that precision glass, coatings and workmanship in a lens will pass more light, so it does make a difference. While I understand there are many other differences such as edge-to-edge sharpness, element design, flaring and aberration, etc.,etc., when we look at a digital image, we’re looking at people and objects, we’re not looking at a focus chart so all the “Perfect-ness” of a $100K lens means absolutely “Zero” in real life, there really is little to no visual difference in the end-product of an expensive lens verses an affordable one.
Sorry dude, I’m with Mr. Coppola on this one!
Regards - Mike
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
You do not upset me. Hope you are not on drugs, because you statement telling me to get up to speed is either delusional or arse N ine. You seem to be in the dark regarding the need for various levels of quality. You come across like a hot shot bragging how great and experienced you are, but go off topic. This is about the future of the DVX200 not the GH2, 4, 5, or the Red.
Jason R. Johnston
Well-known member
There is totally a noticeable difference in image quality between a ~”$100,000” lens and a ~”$500” stills lens, especially once the image begins to move. Not only that, but the operational characteristics are immensely different. The reliability of a relatively inexpensive stills lens is always questionable compared to that of a much more expensive motion picture lens, which is also a key factor in the decision to use such a lens.
Generally, those lenses are rented, anyway, so the people paying for it are actually the rental house. Same goes for the big, expensive cameras. And I mean cameras you can actually buy if you wanted. I don’t mean the Panavision stuff which can only be rented.
I am a cinematographer and I’ve had the pleasure of using Cooke Panchros, and Zeiss Ultras, as well as Compact Primes. I’ve not used any of the big zooms (those would be the $100k lenses, primes are maybe $40-80k, except for the CP.2’s I used which are $4-10k, depending on a few things and if they are SuperSpeeds or not. The point is I know for a fact that these handmade lenses are absolutely worth their price in both image quality and reliability/build. Do I wish they were cheaper? Absolutely, but I get why they’re pricey.
I also get why stills lenses are so cheap: they aren’t intended for motion picture use so they exhibit abberation and poor control as a result of minimal engineering. They only need to be great stills lenses, they are merely passable as motion picture ones. On a shoot where every moment is money burning, I’d much rather nail the focus on a single take with a rented motion picture lens, than to be frustrated using a stills lens with questionable reliability. I’d rather drive in the race with a legit racecar than in an affordable family sedan that really really wants to be a race car.
Luckily there are relatively inexpensive and decent-enough options to own like the older CP.2’s, the Xeen line from Rokinon, and the APO cine primes from SLR Magic, which I own a set of. Proper cinema lenses that are a joy to use...just not as joyful as the crazy-expensive versions you’d usually rent.
Anyway, as long as UHD 4K and 10-bit 4:2:2 (externally recorded) MP4 (or whatever the actual codec is) are relevant, the DVX200 will have a useful, long life. Especially for those of us who are a fan of the classic unibody camcorder design. Want a DVX200 minus the lens? Look at EVA1. But don’t think it’s either/or. Having both a camcorder and a cinema camera is where you get he most options.
Generally, those lenses are rented, anyway, so the people paying for it are actually the rental house. Same goes for the big, expensive cameras. And I mean cameras you can actually buy if you wanted. I don’t mean the Panavision stuff which can only be rented.
I am a cinematographer and I’ve had the pleasure of using Cooke Panchros, and Zeiss Ultras, as well as Compact Primes. I’ve not used any of the big zooms (those would be the $100k lenses, primes are maybe $40-80k, except for the CP.2’s I used which are $4-10k, depending on a few things and if they are SuperSpeeds or not. The point is I know for a fact that these handmade lenses are absolutely worth their price in both image quality and reliability/build. Do I wish they were cheaper? Absolutely, but I get why they’re pricey.
I also get why stills lenses are so cheap: they aren’t intended for motion picture use so they exhibit abberation and poor control as a result of minimal engineering. They only need to be great stills lenses, they are merely passable as motion picture ones. On a shoot where every moment is money burning, I’d much rather nail the focus on a single take with a rented motion picture lens, than to be frustrated using a stills lens with questionable reliability. I’d rather drive in the race with a legit racecar than in an affordable family sedan that really really wants to be a race car.
Luckily there are relatively inexpensive and decent-enough options to own like the older CP.2’s, the Xeen line from Rokinon, and the APO cine primes from SLR Magic, which I own a set of. Proper cinema lenses that are a joy to use...just not as joyful as the crazy-expensive versions you’d usually rent.
Anyway, as long as UHD 4K and 10-bit 4:2:2 (externally recorded) MP4 (or whatever the actual codec is) are relevant, the DVX200 will have a useful, long life. Especially for those of us who are a fan of the classic unibody camcorder design. Want a DVX200 minus the lens? Look at EVA1. But don’t think it’s either/or. Having both a camcorder and a cinema camera is where you get he most options.
Last edited:
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
You are 100% correct. Also when an image is blown up in a movie theater, the abboration is magnified significantly beyond what we see on any youtube or vimeo video. Also cinema lens are created as a set and the lens should all be the same length from wide to long lens, that way the mat box position is not interupted when changing lenses. Yep, and lenses like Cooke have a look that cannot be duplicated. Excellent post JR, you know your stuff
DMC,
It’s important for you to note, this discussion on a "Shoot-Out" of professional cameras (similar to the DVX200) competing against broadcast equipment and in some cases exceeding their performance and lenses, has everything to do with this thread and the DVX200’s current status and “Longevity” of the DVX200 in this industry. While the DVX200 was not part of that test, it shares a lot of the same Panasonic technology of the GH family.
Its also equally important for you to note that just because a guy owns DVX200, does not necessarily mean he's new to the industry to be talked down to, as you’ve done in your reply above. While its not my M.O. to share my contributions on this forum, this might be the exception to show the diversity of owners who own the DVX200. Rest assured, while you were playing with your VHS camcorder making home movies, I had already directed and/or produced thousands of 16-35mm film and video productions for the biggest agencies and worked with top names in the industry.
Also to my credit, is a number of high-end video production studios I built, designed and wired in the Miami area, such as Mark III Productions, then the most advanced video, film and music recording facility in South Florida. Located just one block from Criteria Music Studios, I worked with the biggest names in music such as greats like the Bee Gees and hundreds of others. I also designed and built the first Mobil production vehicles in South Florida with full 1” a/b/c roll capability with digital effects. My trucks were so advanced, networks would hire us for gigs like; Dodgers Spring training, and many live location shows since no other vehicle in S Florida could provide on-location post with effects prior to the feed.
While I can’t show you a Hollywood feature hit, I can show you something far more difficult than producing a feature, such as my contributions to the motion picture industry designing the world’s first aerial drone with a video down-link system in 1976. In the 80’s, I designed and built the world’s first Military aerial drones with 12-18 ft rotor spans for front line video data acquisition and surveillance. I contracted this same equipment to numerous government agencies, such as Martin Marietta / Lockheed in the design of laser guided weapons from an aerial platform and Night Vision Laboratories, designing the worlds first “night vision un-manned drone platform”. I also designed the first motion picture aerial drone called “Heli-Cam” with a 100 lb. payload with my own stabilization to support full size film or broadcast cameras.
For the past 40 years, I have been continually active in the motion picture business and have a good handle on the “real world” of production and equipment costs. Regretfully, yourself and many others are confused on broadcast & film equipment and fail to realize there is an unwritten rule, that if it carries a “Broadcast badge”, the cost could be some 10 times that of the same equipment in the Professional field. It’s the same thing as the Military paying $6,000 for a $200 water pump.
When comes to broadcast, its important for you to understand there is no such thing as a Fujinon lens being worth even a fraction of its $85,000 cost. This lens like the a $100K Red which lost its “A” in the shootout, is a fictional value to where guys that fork over the bucks to buy this “make believe equipment” and the Pencil Heads at the production companies can justify charging $250,000 for a 30 sec spot that most guys on this forum could shoot the same product with a GH5 or DVX200, for $10-20K and make money.
Evidently, you missed the whole point of Mr. Coppola’s Shoot-Out, because in no uncertain terms, he exposed the same exact thing in his results of what I’m talking about here. The shoot-out titled “Revenge” clearly illustrated the facts comparing broadcast to professional equipment, and left all the experts and a few manufactures sitting on their hands with the results. Get ready dude - its already happening, you’re going to see all that over-priced equipment come tumbling down, the results are out and YouTube videos are showing the results.
As I said before, I’m with Mr. Coppola on this one!
Regards - Mike Mas
www.rotory.com
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
Just because you are a techie drone nerd does not make you an expert on the subject of feature film making or broadcast production. Stop blowing your horn and promoting yourself. Wow, what an ego. Too bad you don't seem to have any experience as a DP to your credit. The post is about the future of the DVX and all you want to do is tell us how great you are and you know everything. Not impressed. You sound bitter and full of anger towards people more successful than you and seem to hate high quality equipment. But you have not worked on a feature film where quality is important. You don't seem to understand that their is a difference in quality and cost. You talk down to people such as myself, thinking we do no know that it is possible to get good results from less expensive equipment. You are only posting the obvious, but your bitterness regarding quality equipment and people you call pencil heads seems to be a sign of jealousy. Did you fail and now you are trying to come back? What ever your drama is, it seems negative. Tired of you telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and that I need to get to speed. So pipe down a bit mike mass.
There will always be outsiders daring to challenge the establishment, for this discussion the establishment is Professionals in the Film and Broadcast Industry.
Is it arrogance or the fear of competition, either way it boils down to a “Good Old Boys Club” and outsiders are not welcome.
We see this same scenario in Politics, Sports and in our everyday lives it’s just the way our world works. The outsiders challenge is, be smarter and work harder it’s all about competition and winning. This is the best example of that I can think of. http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...c-gh2-video-better-than-red-arri-says-coppola
Is it arrogance or the fear of competition, either way it boils down to a “Good Old Boys Club” and outsiders are not welcome.
We see this same scenario in Politics, Sports and in our everyday lives it’s just the way our world works. The outsiders challenge is, be smarter and work harder it’s all about competition and winning. This is the best example of that I can think of. http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...c-gh2-video-better-than-red-arri-says-coppola
As I mentioned, It was never my intent to share my contributions. I’m not looking for any awards, seniority or position on this forum. I feel my past few posts show that my interest was genuine to learn and share information on camera technology.
It was non other than DMC’s own demeaning tone to elevate himself above new users that created the problem. In his negative reply, he asked for my Hollywood Hit, so I gave it to him, a task far greater than just standing behind a camera directing others.
Finally, everyone is free to call drone aircraft what they wish, in the Military, drones save countless lives every day. In the world of motion pictures, they have opened up a whole era in the field cinematography. I’m pleased my efforts for the past 40 years was part is a part of this effort.
My apologies to the other members and administrators of this forum for this distraction!
Mike Mas
It was non other than DMC’s own demeaning tone to elevate himself above new users that created the problem. In his negative reply, he asked for my Hollywood Hit, so I gave it to him, a task far greater than just standing behind a camera directing others.
Finally, everyone is free to call drone aircraft what they wish, in the Military, drones save countless lives every day. In the world of motion pictures, they have opened up a whole era in the field cinematography. I’m pleased my efforts for the past 40 years was part is a part of this effort.
My apologies to the other members and administrators of this forum for this distraction!
Mike Mas
Design Media Consultants
Well-known member
First on several posts you told me I need to get up to speed, etc. etc. You also claim to have made several thousand low light videos, have 40 years of experience, been in broadcast production, etc. etc. So yes you are promoting yourself. And I see nothing to show for all those claims. The fact remains, you were the one who first posted demeaning comments towards me. Also in this post you imply that all I do is stand behind a camera directing other. Wrong. Just get a grip. Stop posting derogatory comments towards me, if I post something you do not agree with you can state your view, but don't tell me I do not know what I am doing and need to get up to speed. And maybe stop acting like you are the authority if you have no experience in that particular
area.