DVX Experts Poll 2006

Darren_Wharton

Darren_Wharton

Member
Hi calling all EXPERTS…just for fun..!!!

Just wondering, with all the great cameras available now….I would like to ask a question to knowledgeable guys within DVX user’s pages…..if given the chance…….which camera would you use to make a Hollywood movie or Indie film release tomorrow. The ‘Film Look’ I would say has to be a priority:

You can only choose between the cameras discussed within these pages…... ie

HVX200 & DVX 100’s
JVC HD100
Sony HD cams FX1 Z1
Canon XL...models XL2...XL H1…..

Please state choice of camera and why..!



Looking forward to the answers..

Happy New Year everyone…..

Darren Wharton

www.darrenwharton.demon.co.uk
 
A "hollywood" style movie? No question whatsoever -- HVX200. Real high def, 1080/24p, variable frame rates, the best dynamic range of the bunch, and it's the only high-def camera on the list that can reliably be used with a mini35 (if you so choose to do so). Obviously the XL2 and DVX can use the mini35 as well, but they're not high-def, and like it or not, high def is a selling point with distributors (at least until they're flooded with lousy high-def movies).

There are certainly cameras out there that I would pick before an HVX, but not at its price range, and certainly none of the others on that list.

Unless by "Sony HD cams" you mean the F900 or F950, but I don't think you do -- I'm pretty sure the only Sonys you're including are HDV models, right?
 
If the end product is a filmout, then probably the XLH-1, but I'd want to spend more time with it before I made that decision final. XLH is showing, in my own comparisons, to be resolution king. However resolution is no good is the codec can't hold up. XLH latitude seems about par for all the recent cameras, lens performance is exceptional.

In close second (and maybe 1st, depending on how XLH-1 HDV shows to hold up in tests) would be the HVX

The JVC is king for ergo, and would be my top choice if final distribution is DVD, HD-DVD, or broadcast IF you could get the 13x lens for it.
 
Not head to head shooting, but I have native footage from all and have been able to view back-to-back on my broadcast HD monitor. I've also had my hands on each for more than a few minutes at a time.
 
Nate, I'm trying to put together something for next week, HVX/XLH1/HD100/Z1/CineAlta/F900. Don't have a date yet, but if I got something like that going, would you think you might be available to bring the HD100 along for some testing?
 
Darren, unfortunately Your question does not go to evereone. Why?
If You would ask me, I would prefer the JVC GY-HD100 for now. For me it makes the most like film looking images. Look at some clips, Stephen L. Noe has posted so far (for instance the following one: http://www.planetliquid.us/video/Users/stephenlnoe/hd-100scenefiles.wmv). Tim Dashwood had made some great scene files for it.
The pictures of the Sony and the Canon look videoish to me, and the film look of the HVX200 I also do not like so much. I cannot say, why. It is all very subjective.
 
Your right,...!

Your right,...!

Thanks Robert,

Your right ...!!!!

I should have asked everyone...it's just that I'm familiar with the guys on the list and their work. But thanks for your message...! I have edited my original message...

Actually, I was hoping that someone would say the JVCHD100, I also think Stephen’s clips look awesome, 16:9 HD 24P plus they are recorded onto mini DV which to me is a huge plus.

I agree with what Barry is saying about the HVX, but those P2 cards are a little off putting financially at the moment..

Cheers my friend,

Darren Wharton
 
HVX200 & DVX 100’s
JVC HD100
Sony HD cams FX1 Z1
Canon XL...models XL2...XL H1…..

Good question!

I haven't played with the HVX200, so I can't really speak to it. I own a DVX100a, and I've used all of the others.

I've never liked the XL series. Good lens, but everything else felt flimsy. Unless you're doing multicamera work (which we do, but we use studio cams), there's very little in the H1 to justify the cost.

Love the DVX, of course. I sometimes pick it over our Betacam and (gulp-- how many people know this antiquated format?) M2 cameras, depending on the type of shoot.

I think the JVC is a knockout & will probably be the next camera that I buy. We haven't bought them for the station as B-cams for HD shoots, as we shoot HDCam (1080) & the JVCs only do 720. No one likes the idea of doing any more rendering than is absolutely necessary.

The Sonys shoot a great pic (intercutting it with HDCam *can* be reasonably unnoticable), but they're not shoulder mounted. That matters sometimes, although again, I was able to overlook that for my DVX.

We're seriously looking into & waiting for the XDCam HD gear due next year. If price isn't an issue-- around $20K per camera-- it might be worth looking at.

Right now, if I had to pull the trigger (and I'm assuming that you're not intercutting with 1080), it's the JVC.

David Kuznicki
Production Manager, WGTE-TV30
 
The only thing, I do not like at the HD100, is, that its resolution seems to be smaller than on the XL H1 respective HVX200. Or is that a fallacy?
 
Robert_Niemann said:
The only thing, I do not like at the HD100, is, that its resolution seems to be smaller than on the XL H1 respective HVX200. Or is that a fallacy?
Click to expand...

Not exactly a fallacy. Again, we're talking 1080 interlaced vs. 720 progressive. Somewhat different beasts, but both flavors of HD. I'm of the opinion that there is no percieved resolution difference between the two, but I know people who think quite the opposite. The only reason that we're not integrating the two is due to rendering times with the conversion.

Personally (also) I'd rather deal with progressive than fields, but that's just me.

David M. Kuznicki
Production Manager, WGTE-TV30
 
Darren_Wharton said:
The ‘Film Look’ I would say has to be a priority:
Click to expand...
If "film look" is the top priority then it is very hard to beat the HD-100. I am lucky enough to have been working on a film transfer with this camera's footage. It is worthy.

"Hollywood Style" hmnnn... There are alot of genre in hollywood style movies. Each camera will have it's plus in different areas. I've tried to find the best balance of good and bad and 'good enough'. To me, the HD-100 strikes the best balance of $$$$ outlay to workflow needs to output of final product (whether SD DVD, HD-WMV, DivX, HDTV TS, or film transfer).

These camera's are somewhat agnostic in the fact they have HD SDI or HD YPbPr output to any device that will capture its feed. Untethered I like the image characteristics of ProHD. Uncompressing the ProHD to 2VUY (422) has been excellent. The one caveate is 8 bit. If I could change one thing it would be to replace the 8 bit with 10 bit. David Newman of Cineform and Aspect HD to the rescue with 10bit and once again the agnostic nature of these camera's shines through.

Something that let's the XL-H1 trump the crowd is HD-SDI. I'm sure you'll see that show up on more new HD camera's now. Something that allows the HVX to trump the crowd is it's Variable frame rates. The thing that allows the HD-100 to trump the crowd is that it can do all the things the others can do (HD-SDI with use of converter and Variable frame rates with the use of Cineform) but it is much less expensive overall.

ProHD is affordable right out of the gate, plus it can morph into any of the other cameras. This includes morphing into the Z1 because the BR50 deck will output excellent 1080i from the 720p content. The price of the deck and camera (around $8200) is pretty much all you need to get up and running because the workflow accomodates just about any NLE and the hardware requirements are not much more than DV25. Brilliant!

Big budget Hollywood would rarely (if ever) choose any of these camera's because there are much higher end choices. These camera's are more suited for: drama, episodics, commercials, nature, sports, Independent producers, and playout. This type of production is where I live.

all the best
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top