DVX vs high end cams?

R

Realdvxuser

Well-known member
Hi all

A pair of questions that keep bugging me and I still have not been able to find a proper answer to:

I own a DVX, very happy with it for making all kinds of promotional and corporate videos. Yet I feel that the camera is probably not very suitable for making commercials (the ones on national tv, not the ones you see on your local channel and are often crap from concept to execution). I figure most high end commercials are shot on film anyway, but probably not all. Can anybody give me insight in what kind of digital camera's ARE used for this type of work? (maybe a few examples?)

Next thing: let's say you have all your shots perfectly lined out and lights are beautifully shining on your product. What exactly would be the difference in the picture when comparing DVX to a higher end cam? And what kind of camera's would make a significant improvement over the DVX and would be suitable and 'accepted' for broadcast? What pricerange are we in then?

If I were to buy a camera that would be a good step up from the DVX, what do you think should I be looking for?

Thanks a lot for any information and thoughts!


--
yohenk
 
Search teh web for "broadcast" cameras. Formats like: DigiBETA, DVCPRO-50, BETACAM-SX, XD-CAM in SD and HDCAM, DVCPRO-HD, XDCAM-HD in HD are the tools of the trade.

Any the basic rule of thumb is that a Broadcast camera has 2/3" CCDs.

- Mikko
 
A lot of commercials are shot on film, in fact most are. The budget for a national commercial is typically higher per shooting day than most features, so the cost of shooting film is an insignificant part of the total costs.

As for high end digital camera's that are up to the task, the two most obvious are the Sony F900/950 and the Panasonic HDC27. These are typically too expensive to own ($65,000 - $105,000 without glass) and most productions rent them (just like they do the film cameras that they use).

As for a "step up" from the DVX, I would suggest something like the SDX900, which can be found in the used market for $12,000 - $15,000. Both the DVX and SDX are SD cameras, but the difference in the resultant images is considerable.
 
With Pro lighting and everything they use on a film set, the DVX looks great.

The only thing you run into is the Rez. I've seen and heard of a decent amount national commercials already being shot on the HVX.

were talking mattebox, filters, beautiful lighting, the whole sh-bang.

Even some of the films you've seen have been shot on the hvx
 
Thanks Mikko. That basic rule is very helpful.

However then I still wonder about the true differences within this camera range as well, as they still vary from say 15,000 to 80,000 dollars.

And will the 15,000 dollar be a significant step over the DVX? And if yes, what is the biggest difference I can notice?
 
Thanks guys, very helpful indeed.

Nathan Presley brings me to another question: what exactly does a mattebox do besides making your camera look twice as impressive?

Cheers!
 
yohenk said:
Thanks guys, very helpful indeed.

Nathan Presley brings me to another question: what exactly does a mattebox do besides making your camera look twice as impressive?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Appearance aside, the purpose of a mattebox is two fold.

1st - it helps to prevent lens flare by blocking light from striking the front lens element from other than the intended subject. This can be accomplished with many things cheaper than a mattebox.

2nd - it is a place to mount filters. Most matteboxes have one of more "stages" that can rotate for filters that have orientations (like a polarizer). You can always use lower cost screw on filters.

A mattebox is a great asset to add to a camera, but its functions can be emulated by other means.
 
Spots and FIlm and Reality

Spots and FIlm and Reality

I read with great interest all of the post sand decided to add my 2 cents. If you are going to compete in the world of National spots, do yourself a favour and rent. Unless you are prepared spend significant bucks it is a tough game as an owner. If you are creating spots ...writing and directing..get a 100b and use it to do demos .There is growing interest in the "Guerrilla " style as well as many major production companies are engaging new people to produce "Viral" commercial material . These are in the lower end production/camera range.
It is true and I have seen the results of simulated film style with the wonderful stuff from many inventors , the M2 etc. These are great and I am sure that the results would be more than enough for Mr. Kansas drinking beer and watching CSI Duluth. But the Commercial types are picky...
The issue is the player s need in the commercial production biz for glitz. They all work for agencies, agencies get a percentage of what is spent and therefore most of the time spending is good and they are totally into what the scene(the set and gear and crew) looks like for their client.
Some I know will accept a Sony Hd setup with Prime lens and the usual army of people dressed in black , great craft services, awesome food and a huge package truck.However they are still shy to move from film. This will change but it will take a while. The producers are so conditioned to their routine..shoot...one lights...cuts...colour correction.. you get the point.
Make great content your way...people will love it!
Cheers
 
Cameras with 1/3rd sensors compared to higher end cams have poorer low light qualities. The FOV is significantly reduced with a 1/3rd sensor. Higher end cams should have better sensors able to produce better contrasts and highlights (all things being equal). Higher end cams should have better resolution as well. I could go on with the pluses since i am comparing the new Red camera , which IMHO offers the best bang for bucks of any high end cam to a 1/3rd ccd camera.

To be fair they are not in the same price bracket so what do you expect?

1/3RD ccds probably offer an easier learning path and you have auto focus to help should things go wrong. With the Red camera i suspect it will be all manual and a LOT harder to focus with for all sorts of reasons.

There is a lot of info out there so research and you will find.

Michael
 
I can tell you for a fact that here in Japan the HVX and Canon XL h1 are doing national commercial spots. Most notably I guess Canon promoted itself nicely to this end by shooting its Digital still cam commercials featuring Maria Sharapova on the XL h1. They were beautiful in all respects.

I also noted recently that an Australian TV show which is shot in a studio is using the HVX for all its street shooting. Check it out.. at the end the HVX makes an appearance top right corner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haPULpx6XPQ

This show is called Chasers war on everything... pretty funny check it out on youtube, this show airs on a National channel each week in Australia.
 
Last edited:
yohenk said:
Yet I feel that the camera is probably not very suitable for making commercials (the ones on national tv, not the ones you see on your local channel and are often crap from concept to execution).

If I were to buy a camera that would be a good step up from the DVX, what do you think should I be looking for?
Click to expand...
"It's Always Sunny in Philedelphia" is shot on DVX100 cameras, so in terms of broadcast, you're already there with what you have. In terms of commercials, I'm with the people that say rent. National commercials spare no expense and shoot 35mm. I was on a commercial that spent $2 million dollars for the three day shoot. If you are shooting local commercials you are fine with the DVX. I would step up to the HVX if anything. Other than that, it really doesn't matter as long as the concept and execution are great.

Good luck!
 
Great thread, been thinking about using my DVX for commercial purposes because I work as an advertising art director and I do mostly print stuff, but I was thinking some freelance commercial video shoots would be immensely fun and challenging.
 
Wow thanks all, great feedback!

I think it is indeed true that content and concept go first at all times. I've had some jobs where the clients were really sceptic when I showed up with the small camera. In the end I have never heard them comment negatively about the images. Now I solve this by telling them at the intake, with which camera I shoot and by referring it to as 'existing technology but now in a new, smaller package'. Then it is no problem at all. However this is for corporate presentations and event registrations etc, not for really high end stuff.

One final, yet major question to me:
If I create things in a compositor like Boris, Shake etc. and I want to output that in the best possible ('broadcast') quality, can I use the DVX for putting it on tape without loss of quality? I'm not sure how this works with regard to codecs etc...Does the mini-DV tape simply function as storage of a digital file, or does it also put in the mini-DV codec on all the graphical images?
 
If you want to export the video to camera (DVX in this case) it has to be in DV-avi format, which means standard DV25 quality, which is slightly less than high-end formats (Digibeta is 4:2:2 compressed, DV25 is 4:1:1 in NTSC and 4:2:0 in PAL). So the answer is "DV tape is not a free form data storage medium, it stores DV video data only".

It is also possible to use miniDV tape as a data tape with special computer programs, but you would not want to do that. This is highly non-standard and your client would not be able to read the data.
 
Thanks Petrus. So my best bet (since I do not have a Beta-deck here) would be to export a file (AVI or MOV), and get the file to a company that can output this to Digibeta? Is that correct, or does anyone have other suggestions?
 
I know some guy that shoots with dvc30 for main TV station in my country. They also complained about the size of the camera, but if you showed up with dvc60 wich is the same as dvc30 only shoulder mounted, they won't say a thing. When I looked at the footage from dvc30 on TV I thought it was shot with some Beta or something, the quality is excellent.

Also, the guy that sells the DVX in my town said they used it often for music videos for MTV and commercials. So if you are not in HD, you'll be safe choosing the DVX100B.
 
yohenk said:
Thanks Petrus. So my best bet (since I do not have a Beta-deck here) would be to export a file (AVI or MOV), and get the file to a company that can output this to Digibeta? Is that correct, or does anyone have other suggestions?
Click to expand...

A lot of what I am seeing want a final output for broadcast on DVCpro50 even if its shot on DVX, XL h1 or digibeta. The HVX shoots in this mode....

So to anwer your question... you would most likely to take your uncompressed file somewhere and have it converted.
 
Really, the DVX *could* shoot a national commercial, in the hands of a talented DP, just as most of the Prosumer cameras can. If you're doing it professionally though, a DP (which is pretty much a necessity on a good shoot) will prefer a higher quality camera, and the differences may be noticable. All in all, it's much, much more important to have great lighting and a talented DP than to have a Varicam or an F900.
 
You might want to consider getting a used Sony DXC D30 or DXC D35 with a good lens. The lens and the 2/3" chips really make a big difference, you won't believe how good DV can be (well it's DVCAM, but the compression is the same as DV). You should be able to get this camcorder and a good lens for less than 10,000 USD, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top