renegadewill
Well-known member
I feel you andy, but the price point is what makes me wanna buy a t2i.
DVX is not HD - does that matter?
- Thread starter thegoldfi
- Start date
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Get one. I LOVE mine.
With all respect, that footage looks very bad. I once owned a Dvx as well and for the work I do ( Music Videos ) I could never go back...... Never
What didn't you like about the footage?
To my eyes, it seemed a bit underexposed, focus was off sometimes, and the coloring was different than what I would have done with it. However, I do not consider it "very bad" footage. These are the marks of personal choices and possibly user error.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
That footage on Vimeo looks wonderful. Very compressed though.
A dSLR or an entry level HD camcorder is a downgrade in many departments compared to the DVX. Shutter quality, audio, lens, usability, etc. If my output was DVD and lowres online clips, I would choose a PAL DVX over anything in affordable HD territory.
A dSLR or an entry level HD camcorder is a downgrade in many departments compared to the DVX. Shutter quality, audio, lens, usability, etc. If my output was DVD and lowres online clips, I would choose a PAL DVX over anything in affordable HD territory.
Not to derail this thread and please I do not want to get personal as this was only my opinion, but basically everything you mentioned is what I did not like. The Dvx and SD lose a lot of information when placed online.
The compression just does not look good and makes everything look really dark. After going HD about 1+ year ago I can't even look at SD footage anymore....
Also to comment on the above poster A Gh1 , T2i etc. Looks better than anything ever made on a Dvx..... Anything.
Nothing personal. Just pointing out the fact that one of a camera's main handicaps is its operator.
For example, there was no mention in my previous post regarding the fact that the post to which I was responding was written by someone who often asserts audacious accusations and opinions but cowers upon being gently probed.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
It looks better on a still without motion at HD resolution. But that's not everything in a camcorder.
Try producing a DVD encoding with PAL SD and any dSLR as input. The DVD from the SD camera will look ok while the DVD from the dSLR will have very serious alias amplified by the downsampling.
The SD camera captures a 4:2:0 SD image in DV, a low compression ratio intraframe codec that is an excellent source for DVD, same resolution and color sampling, and far less compression. The dSLRs capture more resolution but they only manage to do that with high compression ratios that compromise motion using a GOP compression method. I hope there is no news in that, DV depicts motion better than HDV downsampled to SD and dSLR codecs are not much better. The intraframe formats on dSLRs are very limited and very cheaply implemented.
Want to compare CMOS rolling shutter with CCD global shutter on anything that involves fast camera motion? Ever wondered why all those dSLR clips are on steadicam and using wide angle lenses? CMOS is incapable of the task.
Try to get the DVX zoom ratio using SLR lenses. What's the weight? The hassle? The problems? The cost?
Try to edit dSLR videos in multitrack. Is it even possible? How much does the solution cost?
Add good audio to a dSLR. Add the cost and the hassle.
Put all parameters together and you will see that a DVX makes more sense for some uses.
dSLRs are great. They are cheap because 1) the companies make money on the lenses 2) the rolling shutter CMOS sensors parts and integration cost very little money 3) they don't offer everything a camcorder offers. A dSLR is not the creme de la creme. It's a very compromised video recording solution that still costs serious money when you add everything required for serious production. Most users are better off with an affordable HD camcorder.
When you see someone with a normal camcorder, you believe it's because they can't afford an $1000 dSLR? They are not aware of their existance? They obviously find the camcorder has advantages in their production situation.
lol, your living in a fantasy world. The video quality speaks for itself..... Please find me ONE of the best material shot with a DVX then I will do the same with DSLR footage. Your failure to embrace better technology will leave you homeless....
j
Veteran
Yes you can shoot better footage with a DSLR than a DVX, but for the majority of shooting, I'm coming to believe that the DVX is superior in form and function.
I own both a DVX (original) and a 7D and I'm getting a lot more use (paid) out of my DVX. It's not what I expected but it is what it is. Should I have held off the purchase of the 7d and just rented from the local shop? Possibly...
(that'd be http://photosource.biz/ for you Will, they're off H street)
And yes, it is much easier to shoot and edit with the DVX. Most of the DSLR footage I'm seeing suffers from a LOT of over/under/out of focus shots and I believe it's due to the un-videocamera like form of the DSLR.
Just some thoughts...
I own both a DVX (original) and a 7D and I'm getting a lot more use (paid) out of my DVX. It's not what I expected but it is what it is. Should I have held off the purchase of the 7d and just rented from the local shop? Possibly...
(that'd be http://photosource.biz/ for you Will, they're off H street)
And yes, it is much easier to shoot and edit with the DVX. Most of the DSLR footage I'm seeing suffers from a LOT of over/under/out of focus shots and I believe it's due to the un-videocamera like form of the DSLR.
Just some thoughts...
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
I conclude that you didn't understand my post.
If a dSLR is such a hot video making tool:
1) Panasonic have the GH1. Why are they working on AF100 that costs 6,000 USD? Why do they have a $9,000 1/3" camcorder in their line?
2) Canon have a t2i (grossly inferior to a 5dII). Why did Canon introduce the XF series? Those are $8,000 1/3" camcorders.
3) Sony have NEX5. Why are they producing expensive 1/2" and ultra expensive 2/3" CMOS camcorders?
All these camcorders are not even CCD. A good 2/3" CCD camcorder package is $50,000 to $200,000. They are just rolling shutter CMOS integrations. Are these camcorders for stupid people who like throwing money away? No, they are CAMCORDERS. Far superior to a dSLR. Professionals buy these because they make better production tools, they have better image quality, they have better compression, they save time and money.
The market itself proves dSLR are inferior by paying 5x to 100x for those camcorders with the small sensors. The manufacturers themselves accept the dSLRs are inferior by producing and marketing these camcorders. It's obvious, isn't it?
Now, if you have no experience with a professional camcorder and if you don't care about production reality and true image quality is not important, a dSLR is pretty good. Especially if you don't have $10,000 to $200,000 for the high quality small sensor camcorder.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
What I find hilarious about this statement is Otis is an engineer designing a camera embracing better technology.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Ok, here is some 5dII material we all loved though some processing. It came from MVI_0492.MOV and was used on Reverie, it's the clips that were pulled from the Canon website. I believe we all accept 5dII has a very good codec for a dSLR. And I hope Vincent will not sue
And the same processing applied to an 8-Bit uncompressed image from my camera prototype. DNxHD and high end intraframe formats are not that far in quality. The original was 12bit, but I reduced to 8-bit since that's what the 5dII codec is limited to.
If differences like that were not important, nobody would buy anything more than a $1000 dSLR or a $1000 camcorder.
A professional will notice the motion blur is insanely high, a lot more than what the shutter setting would naturally produce and this blur is added by the codec's inability to track motion and its smoothing filters. This guy's face is not even recognisable until he stops moving at the end of the shot. There is aliasing and filtered blocking over anything that moves, even before the processing is applied.
Examine the 5dII image at 50% size, that's the 540lines high equivalent, the height of PAL SD practically. A PAL DVX would compete well IMHO, and digital beta SD would look FAR better.
And this is a locked shot on a tripod, it makes it easy on the 5dII GOP codec.
And the same processing applied to an 8-Bit uncompressed image from my camera prototype. DNxHD and high end intraframe formats are not that far in quality. The original was 12bit, but I reduced to 8-bit since that's what the 5dII codec is limited to.
If differences like that were not important, nobody would buy anything more than a $1000 dSLR or a $1000 camcorder.
A professional will notice the motion blur is insanely high, a lot more than what the shutter setting would naturally produce and this blur is added by the codec's inability to track motion and its smoothing filters. This guy's face is not even recognisable until he stops moving at the end of the shot. There is aliasing and filtered blocking over anything that moves, even before the processing is applied.
Examine the 5dII image at 50% size, that's the 540lines high equivalent, the height of PAL SD practically. A PAL DVX would compete well IMHO, and digital beta SD would look FAR better.
And this is a locked shot on a tripod, it makes it easy on the 5dII GOP codec.
andythefilmer
Veteran
DSLR's produce awesome footage for people like ME, and many others who are professional, but cannot afford a more expensive camera! Plus, the main upside of DSLR's are the fact that they have a very large sensor, which allows for shallow DOF without having to use a more expensive adapter... Other cameras are also designed for other uses that any DSLR cannot satisfy (HD/SD-SDI, XLR, the list goes on and on.....), so there really is no need to criticize them at all... Plus, many great shorts, features, docs, and other videos have been shot on DSLR's! Watch the season finale of the show "House"...
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
The usual excuse is that distribution compression cannot contain that detail anyway, but this is not true.
Here is the same processing applied to a bluray frame:
Impressive isn't it? This frame was even compressed to JPG when I started. It could even make good use of uncompressed. Any real-time GOP codec will compromise a bluray, even 50mbit ones. Bluray obviously maintains fine detail at its low datarate, because the codec is of very high quality, not a real-time dSLR codec compromised in every possible way. 5dII does not even have 20% of the image quality a bluray can contain (resolution+texture), perhaps even 10% when heavy motion is present. But it's still good for low resolution online clips or low quality 720p brodcast perhaps.
Understand the tool and embrace its capabilities. Don't be fooled by marketing, it's good for the cost, not compared to more expensive equipment. You generally get what you pay for. And a DVX is not that bad for some uses
Here is the same processing applied to a bluray frame:
Impressive isn't it? This frame was even compressed to JPG when I started. It could even make good use of uncompressed. Any real-time GOP codec will compromise a bluray, even 50mbit ones. Bluray obviously maintains fine detail at its low datarate, because the codec is of very high quality, not a real-time dSLR codec compromised in every possible way. 5dII does not even have 20% of the image quality a bluray can contain (resolution+texture), perhaps even 10% when heavy motion is present. But it's still good for low resolution online clips or low quality 720p brodcast perhaps.
Understand the tool and embrace its capabilities. Don't be fooled by marketing, it's good for the cost, not compared to more expensive equipment. You generally get what you pay for. And a DVX is not that bad for some uses
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Otis, while I respect what you are saying, I think it's something of a misnomer to state that the T2i is grossly inferior to the 5D. Clearly the 5D is better in a number of respects, and it's capabilities in poor light are vastly better, but the T2i on a cost bases might be the best bargain out there. Yes, if money is taken off the table, the 5D is certainly a better camera, but if money is taken off the table then these DLSRs are essentially 1-trick ponies.
Camcorders are NOT always the better tool. In fact, having used and owned several professional camcorders, I can unequivocally state they are NOT the better tool in numerous circumstances. If they were, we wouldn't be seeing films with $30M dollar or larger budgets getting anywhere NEAR DSLRs. Each of these is merely a tool with it's positives and negatives.
If I want to shoot and record 10bit images from my SDI port, I'll hook up the EX1. If I want buttery soft Bokeh, or I want to film in 5 footcandles of light, I'll bring out the DSLR. Two TOTALLY separate uses and two instances where the other camera simply could not do the job being asked. At present, a camera capable of doing BOTH these things is beyond the budget of most people here. At least in terms of purchase. What may be possible a year from now, or even a month from now is another matter entirely.
Camcorders are NOT always the better tool. In fact, having used and owned several professional camcorders, I can unequivocally state they are NOT the better tool in numerous circumstances. If they were, we wouldn't be seeing films with $30M dollar or larger budgets getting anywhere NEAR DSLRs. Each of these is merely a tool with it's positives and negatives.
If I want to shoot and record 10bit images from my SDI port, I'll hook up the EX1. If I want buttery soft Bokeh, or I want to film in 5 footcandles of light, I'll bring out the DSLR. Two TOTALLY separate uses and two instances where the other camera simply could not do the job being asked. At present, a camera capable of doing BOTH these things is beyond the budget of most people here. At least in terms of purchase. What may be possible a year from now, or even a month from now is another matter entirely.
It's not easy for someone to see the light, but a beautiful movie as seen above cannot be denied by anyone. This piece as we all know was shot on a Canon 5d + 7D.
Run all the test you want, their is a reason these HDSLRs are being used. If Canon themselves would have know people were going to be using them for movies they would have sold them more expensive. We stumbled upon this technology and I can never see myself going back.
I'm Done Here
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
So, there are $30 million feature films shot on dSLR? What films are those and who produces them? I would like to know who funds those films and why they compromise the photography in order to save pennies in the camera department. There is no logic behind such a decision. I would guess the budget of any such film is exaggerated by 20x at least and is directly funded by interests in the dSLR market.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Otis,
I take note that you are not in a native English speaking country, and I can only guess that my last post was not clear. I did not say that movies with $30M budgets were being shot on DSLRs. I said movies with those kinds of budgets have USED DSLRs in filming.
Among those are Ironman 2, and the upcoming George Lucas film "Red Tails". The implication that the Ironman franchise needs to "save money in the camera department" is beyond silly. And I would also doubt very much that their exaggerated their budget by 20x, lest the movie would not have gotten financed. I won't even speak to the idea that Canon was involved in funding a movie at that level to get their camera in it.
I am not someone who took up the idea of the HDSLR easily. I failed to see them as much more than a toy when they started, and to be fair, that's about what they were when first released. It wasn't until Canon started to pay some real attention to these cameras, mostly by prodding of people at ASC level, that they statted to become viable tools. To ignore this, is simply burying one's head in the sand. No, they are not the best cameras on the market. Nor are they trying to be. They ARE a viable solution for independent filmmakers who have a camera budget of less than US$10k. In that market, they are likely the best tool available right now for narrative filmmaking. With a $50k camera budget there are better options available. And certainly at the 100k level cameras like the Alexa can be considered.
Sony and Panasonic may be developing a more friendly layout around a large sensor and kudos to them for that. But right now, today, they are not available, and the 5D, 7D, T2i, D3s, GH1, etc. are available and getting the job done for quite a number of people. Read into that what you will.
Frankly, I don't see the new Panasonic bringing much more to the table for it's $6k in terms of narrative filmmaking. I can see how it will be a better fit for event work, or some other uses. But by the time you add a set of rails, external monitor, follow focus, mattebox, external power, and all the other things required for filmmaking, the form factor of the DSLR is just as viable as the larger form factor of the camcorder. .