Well, I guess what I'm concerned about is that the 450 is a pretty new camera, with LCD panel and what have you, whereas the 900 comparatively older. The dealer with whom I spoke mentioned a whole kit, lens, viewfinder, power, etc. for a "comparable" price to the DSR, I think he even mentioned that he could get the dsr kit for 11k after the rebate. He did mention that the deck would be another 5-6k, so I'm not sure. What I like about the 450 is that I can use my existing deck, edit on my existing gear, and if I need to eventually uprez, there's always rental houses. Also, 3 hours per tape is pretty luxurious. I've normally used 120min DVCAM tapes in my 370, but I always know that possibility is there. The 900 is limited, I think, to 33 minutes, but if I'm even considering the eventual uprez, it does have double the color data. Weight is also a factor, I have some spine issues, so I'd like to err on the lighter side. I think the 450 is about the same as my 370, but I'm unsure. Anyway, I have a month or so to decide, before I'm out of the country with whatever I chose.
DSR450 vs. HVX200 Final Decision . . .
- Thread starter Ralph Oshiro
- Start date
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
doccutter:
When I last priced out an SDX900 with a lens, even after the price drop, it came out to several thousand more than the DSR450 kit (maybe $8,000?). There are TONS of DVCAM VTRs out there for a lot less than $5K. JVC makes one with a DVD burner and an internal HDD for about $1,300, but it only takes miniDV cassettes. Sony DSR11s can be had for only about $1,200 I believe. The pro JVC decks are nice too, and I think they're about $2,000.
Certainly the SDX900 is a proven image-maker, but Sony put plenty of "guts" into this DSR450 with lots of tweaking potential. And also, you get the benefit of a more modern camera with a built-in color LCD, in a better position (near the front of the body) than in previous Sony pro cameras that had built-in color LCDs. For now, I'll be shooting miniDV cassettes, and using my plain old VX2000 as my feeder "deck." At least, until I decide on which real VTR to buy.
When I last priced out an SDX900 with a lens, even after the price drop, it came out to several thousand more than the DSR450 kit (maybe $8,000?). There are TONS of DVCAM VTRs out there for a lot less than $5K. JVC makes one with a DVD burner and an internal HDD for about $1,300, but it only takes miniDV cassettes. Sony DSR11s can be had for only about $1,200 I believe. The pro JVC decks are nice too, and I think they're about $2,000.
Certainly the SDX900 is a proven image-maker, but Sony put plenty of "guts" into this DSR450 with lots of tweaking potential. And also, you get the benefit of a more modern camera with a built-in color LCD, in a better position (near the front of the body) than in previous Sony pro cameras that had built-in color LCDs. For now, I'll be shooting miniDV cassettes, and using my plain old VX2000 as my feeder "deck." At least, until I decide on which real VTR to buy.
Last edited:
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Jeff:Dino said:
Yes, I'm aware of this feature on the camera, and I think it's GREAT! All-electronic white balance is a very cool feature of newer cameras. And yes, I didn't even think of the extra speed you would get because of the lack of an 85 soaking up that extra bit of light. I'll have to trudge through the other forums to find some of Peter's pearls of wisdom.
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Holy crap! If you found a D600 to be noisy, then that DSR450 must CLEAN! I only got to play with a DSR450 for a few hours at NAB, and boy did that picture look pretty. At work, I've made composite dubs from BetacamSP tape, shot with a 400A, to DV using just a VX2000 and a RCA cable, and wow--the BVW400A footage transferred super clean, even on just a composite dub.Dino said:
Last edited:
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
I'll get around to consider buying into RED in about a year or two. In the meantime, I'm gonna start SHOOTING! And as unexpectedly low as RED is priced, it's still $17,500 for the body, plus, say, $7,500 for a RED zoom lens (I'm guessing), and $1,000 for a 1GB RED drive . . . that's still $26,000. Plus, I still have to buy a decent HD monitor. And then I'll have to upgrade my NLE hardware and software . . . And THEN, I have to wait AT LEAST until the end of the year, if not much longer . . .
That's still a long way from $12,000 including glass, bricks and a bag. Plus, I already have rental income coming for my recent purchase! Had I had the camera today (I get it Friday), I would've already gotten its first rental for a shoot tomorrow! When RED has shipping product in the pipeline with all the bugs worked out, and when I have a workflow solution to accomodate those huge bitstreams, then I'll take another look at the HD camera market.
That's still a long way from $12,000 including glass, bricks and a bag. Plus, I already have rental income coming for my recent purchase! Had I had the camera today (I get it Friday), I would've already gotten its first rental for a shoot tomorrow! When RED has shipping product in the pipeline with all the bugs worked out, and when I have a workflow solution to accomodate those huge bitstreams, then I'll take another look at the HD camera market.
Last edited:
Rezfactor,
Yeah, that's what's pushing me over to the dsr again, the fact that I can incorporate it into my existing setup with no change in workflow. I have a DSR 11, which is a finicky deck. At the post house where I used to work, we went through a few of them, but I baby mine and it's never failed me. I have it connected to a PVM monitor, not a BVM, but it does fine, 16:9 and component, blue only, etc. I got my dsr 11 4 years ago for 1600, I think they are a bit less now. I know that the SDX should be another 6-8k, but we'll see once I have the cash in hand.
If you're looking for a deck, the DSR 40 was quite robust, and if you can find some Bstock, very cheap now. The DSR 45 has an LCD panel built-in, which is of limited usefulness. I was always partial to the 70's, but they were always out of my range. They seem perfect for field editing, attached to a powerbook as a field monitor and deck. They also take the full-size DVCAM's.
Emanuel: How about these words:
Now, here, less than 20k.
Yeah, that's what's pushing me over to the dsr again, the fact that I can incorporate it into my existing setup with no change in workflow. I have a DSR 11, which is a finicky deck. At the post house where I used to work, we went through a few of them, but I baby mine and it's never failed me. I have it connected to a PVM monitor, not a BVM, but it does fine, 16:9 and component, blue only, etc. I got my dsr 11 4 years ago for 1600, I think they are a bit less now. I know that the SDX should be another 6-8k, but we'll see once I have the cash in hand.
If you're looking for a deck, the DSR 40 was quite robust, and if you can find some Bstock, very cheap now. The DSR 45 has an LCD panel built-in, which is of limited usefulness. I was always partial to the 70's, but they were always out of my range. They seem perfect for field editing, attached to a powerbook as a field monitor and deck. They also take the full-size DVCAM's.
Emanuel: How about these words:
Now, here, less than 20k.
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Thanks, Emanuel . . . I can't wait to start shooting with it! But I'm moving all weekend, and I'm only half-packed right now. I'm still gonna open the box Friday and power it up and check for dead pixels and such. Can't wait!
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Well, it was a tough choice. The F330 makes beautiful HD images, and I love that optical storage format. But, the F330 is over $20 with glass, and I basically traded the 330's HD capability for the shallow depth-of-field of the DSR450's larger 2/3" imager, and the increased sensitivity that comes with a larger, lower-density chip. So I saved over $10,000, got a larger CCD, and a faster camera (which is a feature I REALLY need for what I'll be shooting).Emanuel said:
Last edited:
Dino
Veteran
Today I shot windsurfers with my 450. I used 16:9, 24P, 1/48th shutter, film gamma 1, detail off, 1/64 ND, pola on the front of the lens, black net on the rear element, -3db, was at a 2.8 on long lens(Fuji 15X8BERM) and was astounded by how filmic the image was on a 100" Sony industrial CRT data projector, line doubled. It really looked like 16mm to me. Then an ex-engineer from KTVU-TV and now shooter came by and watched the footage, without me saying anything.
He was just as amazed. The motion, the water, the background, the lack of
any video artifacts, the organic look, the amazing signal to noise ratio even
on still frames, it was all so natural. Highlight handling was so smooth. He
said that if I told him I had shot on 16mm, he would have believed me.
I had thought 16mm in my mind, but without me saying anything, that's what
he said it reminded him of. This footage is the most filmic imagery I've ever
shot. It just never said video at any point, realtime playback, slow motion or
still. 24P with detail off is the key, plus latitude and great S/N ratio, and soft
depth of field on a long lens.
A friend is getting a JVC HDPro 100 HDV camcorder on Friday, and I want to shoot the same subject matter with the camera and compare it to the 450. Do they make rings for mounting nets on 1/3" lenses?
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com
He was just as amazed. The motion, the water, the background, the lack of
any video artifacts, the organic look, the amazing signal to noise ratio even
on still frames, it was all so natural. Highlight handling was so smooth. He
said that if I told him I had shot on 16mm, he would have believed me.
I had thought 16mm in my mind, but without me saying anything, that's what
he said it reminded him of. This footage is the most filmic imagery I've ever
shot. It just never said video at any point, realtime playback, slow motion or
still. 24P with detail off is the key, plus latitude and great S/N ratio, and soft
depth of field on a long lens.
A friend is getting a JVC HDPro 100 HDV camcorder on Friday, and I want to shoot the same subject matter with the camera and compare it to the 450. Do they make rings for mounting nets on 1/3" lenses?
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com
Emanuel,
After Lens, Viewfinder, and Power, the 330 breaks the 20k barrier, but it isn't too far over, especially if you factor in a deck with the sdx900. I just haven't heard rave reviews about the 330, it's 1/2 instead of 2/3, and 4:2:0, which I'm a little shy of. I don't do Blue/Green screen, but I worry about how the image will look blown up big.
After Lens, Viewfinder, and Power, the 330 breaks the 20k barrier, but it isn't too far over, especially if you factor in a deck with the sdx900. I just haven't heard rave reviews about the 330, it's 1/2 instead of 2/3, and 4:2:0, which I'm a little shy of. I don't do Blue/Green screen, but I worry about how the image will look blown up big.
Hey Dino,
I would be interested in your thoughts about the HD100 versus the 450 footage. I saw some uncompressed HD100 footage today. It look pretty good but definitely not like 16mm film. As the guy showing it to me said, it looks like "fideo". Right now, I'm contemplating what camera to buy, and if the 450 footage really does look like 16mm, then it would shoot to the top of the list. I have some doubts because a lot of people on this board said that the HVX200 produced wonderful footage that looked like 16, but I have found it to be very disappointing so far. I'm hoping the 450 will do better, and I'm willing to pay the higher price tag.
I would be interested in your thoughts about the HD100 versus the 450 footage. I saw some uncompressed HD100 footage today. It look pretty good but definitely not like 16mm film. As the guy showing it to me said, it looks like "fideo". Right now, I'm contemplating what camera to buy, and if the 450 footage really does look like 16mm, then it would shoot to the top of the list. I have some doubts because a lot of people on this board said that the HVX200 produced wonderful footage that looked like 16, but I have found it to be very disappointing so far. I'm hoping the 450 will do better, and I'm willing to pay the higher price tag.
Flintstone
Well-known member
Hey, NBCShooter, or should I say Rezfactor now,
I've also been struggling whether to get a good SD/DV cam vs. an average HD/HDV cam. Better to have good SD then BAD HD, right? 1/3" HD sensors is way to noisy for my taste. I currently have a DVX100B, it’s a good cam, but very noisy in low light, and that bothers me a lot.
At work, we have good old BetacamSP cams, and I've seen the DSR-450 at a Sony show: it's a great cam, handles just like an SP, image quality is very sharp; however, it's a tad over my budget. I've been eyeing 1/2" SD shoulder-mounts. The only one still in the market today seems to be the JVC GY-DV5100. Panny and Sony dropped their 1/2" models. Have you looked or tested that JVC model? Aside from not having 16x9 and 24p, what is your opinion on this cam? And are you aware of other 1/2" cams on the market (new, not used)?
Fred
I've also been struggling whether to get a good SD/DV cam vs. an average HD/HDV cam. Better to have good SD then BAD HD, right? 1/3" HD sensors is way to noisy for my taste. I currently have a DVX100B, it’s a good cam, but very noisy in low light, and that bothers me a lot.
At work, we have good old BetacamSP cams, and I've seen the DSR-450 at a Sony show: it's a great cam, handles just like an SP, image quality is very sharp; however, it's a tad over my budget. I've been eyeing 1/2" SD shoulder-mounts. The only one still in the market today seems to be the JVC GY-DV5100. Panny and Sony dropped their 1/2" models. Have you looked or tested that JVC model? Aside from not having 16x9 and 24p, what is your opinion on this cam? And are you aware of other 1/2" cams on the market (new, not used)?
Fred
Dino
Veteran
Flintstone,
If considering a good SD camera, you might look into a used Sony DSR-500WS or DSR-570. I would think $6-7K would be possible, or a new DSR-400?
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com
If considering a good SD camera, you might look into a used Sony DSR-500WS or DSR-570. I would think $6-7K would be possible, or a new DSR-400?
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com
Dino
Veteran
Deadzone,
I have been shooting tape for over 25 years, 16:9 since 1999. I have a very large 4"X4" and 4"X6" Tiffen filter inventory, and had two D600's for ten years
with many film emulation setup cards, so I've been chasing the elusive "film
look" for a long time. The 450 is the closest I've seen to 16mm done in camera.
If you want to see the footage I shot with my 450, give me your address and I can send a DVD. I intend to cut a one minute montage of 450 footage to stream on my site soon as well.
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com
I have been shooting tape for over 25 years, 16:9 since 1999. I have a very large 4"X4" and 4"X6" Tiffen filter inventory, and had two D600's for ten years
with many film emulation setup cards, so I've been chasing the elusive "film
look" for a long time. The 450 is the closest I've seen to 16mm done in camera.
If you want to see the footage I shot with my 450, give me your address and I can send a DVD. I intend to cut a one minute montage of 450 footage to stream on my site soon as well.
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Here's a frame grab from my new Sony DSR450:
I have the Fujinon 20x8.6 f/1.8 lens. This was shot at f/1.8 at the very long end of the lens. This was at 24P 2:3:3:2 at 0dB gain using the FILM gamma setting of "1." There is approximately 1 footcandle falling on the face of the drill (the side toward camera). Everything else in the scene is <5 footcandles (incident). This was saved out of Photoshop as a .jpg at a quality of "10."
I have the Fujinon 20x8.6 f/1.8 lens. This was shot at f/1.8 at the very long end of the lens. This was at 24P 2:3:3:2 at 0dB gain using the FILM gamma setting of "1." There is approximately 1 footcandle falling on the face of the drill (the side toward camera). Everything else in the scene is <5 footcandles (incident). This was saved out of Photoshop as a .jpg at a quality of "10."
Last edited:
Rezfactor,
Take the image into Photoshop, go to image size, and change it to 853x480. That will give you the correct aspect ratio. The problem you are seeing is due to the fact that you are shooting 720x480, but you are shooting rectangular pixels. PS and web browsers work in square pixels. You also may want to check out this site, it has a number of DSR450 specific tips. Good luck!
sonybiz.net/dvcam
at the bottom of the page, reference information, shooting tips.
Take the image into Photoshop, go to image size, and change it to 853x480. That will give you the correct aspect ratio. The problem you are seeing is due to the fact that you are shooting 720x480, but you are shooting rectangular pixels. PS and web browsers work in square pixels. You also may want to check out this site, it has a number of DSR450 specific tips. Good luck!
sonybiz.net/dvcam
at the bottom of the page, reference information, shooting tips.