dvx vs hvx

[Ronster]

I have an odd question:

what is better the dvx or the hvx?

hvx seems to have a higher resolution but at a cost

here are some of the disadvantages:

doesn't work as well in low light

seems way more difficult in post ( in terms of dealing with the footage in editing and this whole dissolve issue etc.)

in the end when you watch your project on dvd don't you just down convert it anyways? if so....wouldn't it just be better if you shot it on dvx?

I'm trying to figure out the advantages of HVX over DVX....

HVX seems like a lot of hastle for a product that is almost the same as DVX....am i way off?

i've seen stuff on the hvx and it looks great, but the dvx looks great to me too....the quality looks comparable between the two cameras...but the HVX seems to have a lot of post issues (down converting, editing problems, etc).........

I own a dvx and want to buy an HVX but am just not sure if it is really worth it

could I get some reasons why the hvx is vastly superior....and could someone address the whole issue of having to down convert to burn to dvd....because if that is the case and you shot hd and down convert to standard def to burn a dvd...how much quality difference is there between the hvx and dvx in that respect?

I want to compare hvx to dvx

 

[volcano]

Each time you rent a crap Hollywood movie from Blockbuster, you are watching a downconverted DVD. You seem to forget the whole purpose of purchasing a HVX: Shooting high-def, which the DVX is incapable of doing anyway...
Enough said

 

[Boomerang]

It is not about which is better....they both are great.

Look more into what your needs are. Do you have clients requesting HD or maybe you want to work in widescreen and not suffer res loss. Maybe a tapeless format could help save you time on a job. Future projects that would benefit from being shot in HD now once the format is mainnstream. VFR is great.

Your needs will dictate what camera is better.

If you do not see the difference than maybe you do not need to spend the cash right now.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I'm reopening this thread.

I encourage you to actually read the many thread's that answer all of these question's. The 2 cameras could not be any different with the HVX having so many more benefit's. The DVX100 is a gift from the DV God's but is still SD at the end of the day.

I know you're looking for the quick answer, but as mentioned above 'What are your need's ?'

HD ?

Tapeless aquisition ?

What is your Budget ? The HVX is $5000.00 and then some ...

 

[Curnsie]

Ronster
I see where you are coming from. I have these same questions, and I have realised that forums like these are helpful with technical issues. However, when it comes to helping you make a decision over which camera to buy, IMO its down to these factors; money and needs.

If you need HD, then go with the HVX. If not then stick with the DVX.

I personally think that the HVX will provide future proof filming and true 16:9 in SD and HD. It bugs me that the DVX is not true 16:9 when I consider that 90% of the people I know have widescreen TV's.

There, I've answered my own questions on this matter also!

Andrew

 

[andy_starbuck]

I have both an HVX and a DVX.

If you put the HVX in "tape" mode it does everything the DVX does *except* it does not provide slow shutter for smearing effects. Side by side it looks like widescreen "squeeze" mode on the DVX crops to 320 pixels and stretches the image, whereas the HVX downconverts; so its widescreen squeeze mode is sharper. The DVX has better low light performance. The HVX has a sharper richer image.

If you shoot HD to a P2 card and then use in-camera dubbing to downconvert from HD to SD on tape, then you can use Variable Frame Rate recording and Interval recording to produce a 16:9 slow-motion or fast-motion clip that dubs to DV tape in squeeze mode. So if you have a P2, then you can still get to undercranking and overcranking in widescreen DV.

Now all that is on the Tape and Dub side of the HVX, out to DV. So that's comparing apples and apples.

Additionally, you get the P2 HiDef side of the HVX. And that's a whole other world of value and features, including the ability to record in DVCPRO50, with twice the color space of DV, and nine more recording formats. The HVX is the "Swiss Army Knife" of video cameras. It will work well in many applications.

Unlike the cameras that use HDV codec, the DVCPRO-HD codec seems to work with the same performance in HD as I get with SD on a Mac G5 in Final Cut.

Summary; for SD shooting, I think the HVX is comparable to the DVX, with a few minor different strengths and weaknesses.

For HD shooting, you need to know whether you want HD or not. Because I see no performance loss in post using HD over SD, and downconverting seems to be painless as well, I am apt to more often shoot in HD unless I really need a tape backup.

 

[Barry_Green]

Here's my summary: if you can afford the extra $2,000 then get the HVX. It offers a lot of value for the extra cash. HD, DVCPRO50, variable frame rates, longer lens, wider lens, true 16:9, all sorts of benefits.

If you can't afford the extra $2,000 then the decision is really made for you already. And the DVX has proven to be an excellent SD camera, it's no slouch by any means.

 

[Ronster]

I want to explain my situation to perhaps get even better insight to all of your thoughts. I value your guys opinion on this matter.

I want to shot a horror feature in a few months. I am trying to do the debate between film and hvx or dvx......I know HVX is better (hd, variable frame rates, etc., but I have heard a lot about it not performing well in low light situations. That said this is a feature so we will be lighting, but I was hoping to get away with minimial lighting. Just not sure if the HVX can hang?

That is the basis for my whole post. I know both the dvx and hvx are amazing...trust me I have done some stuff on my dvx that has made production companies in LA ask me what film stock I was shooting on.

My concern is that could the dvx be a better camera for this feature than the HVX due to the low light situation......I like the fact the hvx has all these extra features, but at the end of the day is the image going to hold up in low light?

money is not the issue at all in this matter

If you guys could chime in on this....I would really appreciate it

 

[Ronster]

after this thread was locked...an indvidual sent me a private response and he had some good insight.....I am going to include it in this text and would like to know what you all think.

Hey there,

I just wanted to write you a message in response to your DVX vs. HVX topic since John unexplainably closed it and I thought my experiences could help you some.

I had a DVX for a solid three years and used it on all kinds of productions so I know the ins and outs of that camera extremely well, and I've had the HVX for almost 5 months now - just recently wrapped a feature with it, and feel very capable of weighing the pros and cons between the two.

In my opinion, the difference between the cameras is far less than most people would like to have you think. The advantages of the HVX are (slightly) higher resolution, the P2 workflow, and variable framerates. That's about it. It's actually worse than the DVX in several areas, including sensitivity (it's darker and performs more poorly in low light), weight, increased picture noise, and codec artifacts (compression) that is very visible in dark areas of the frame.

You are dead on that nearly everything you shoot will have to be downconverted for SD... I actually own a 1080 CRT HDTV, and haven't been able to watch a single frame of edited HVX footage on it, because - well, there isn't a way to do it yet! Of course in time devices like Blu-Ray will help to rectify this, but they're extremely expensive and won't be widely adopted for several years.

Knowing that, you're essentially going to have to put everything on DVD (an SD format) for anyone to see your work. If that's the case, why not just shoot on a DVX when you get better low light capability and better codec compression? Well, in my opinion, you might want to do just that. There have been several situations where I actually miss my DVX because I like the picture so much better. So why do I even bother with the HVX then?

Well, the answer is actually the workflow. It's not the HD that's the HVX's saving grace (the "HD" resolution of the HVX is almost laughable... yes, it's bigger, but it's uprezzed and not very sharp), but rather P2 that makes the HVX such a joy to use. Being able to pull up any clip you shot, instantly on set is a blessing. Not having to capture a single frame of footage ever again is an even bigger blessing. The fact that at the end of the day everything is on a drive ready to be edited and nothing else has to be done? That's priceless.

In my opinion, the HVX is little more than a P2 DVX... the picture quality just isn't that much better to justify calling it much else. Is that worth $2,000 more just for the camera plus another $500-$2,000 extra for P2 cards just so you can use it? Well, that's what you have to decide for yourself. I had already bought the camera and I can't stand shooting on tape anymore, so for me there's just no going back. But be careful of the hype, because it's definitely a pricey investment and the gap between the two cameras is much less than you might think.

Hope that helps.

 

[Barry_Green]

Suffice it to say that several of us will choose to disagree with some of those poster's assertions.

But, on some points, definitely correct -- if you know for a fact that you're only going to go to DVD, well, the DVX makes fantastic-looking DVDs. The HVX can make a higher-res 16x9 than the DVX does, but the DVX is no slouch. And the HVX is slower than the DVX; the DVX is about a stop more sensitive. Noise is about comparable between the two of them.

If you're doing your own distribution, and you're making your own DVDs, then there's not an overwhelming case to go for the HVX; the DVX can do just fine. The HVX would give you better color resolution and better vertical resolution, but the DVX is $2,000 less.

If you're trying to sell your feature to distributors, HD will open more doors than SD will. Call your potential distributors and get their take on the whole thing.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

In my opinion, the HVX is little more than a P2 DVX... the picture quality just isn't that much better to justify calling it much else.

Huh ? The HD is laughable ? What the ..................? Compared to the DVX ? What the .... ?

-

At least were getting somewhere other than 'Which one is best?'

You want to shoot a Horror feature but are concerned about Low-Light performance. If I loaned you an Aaton Minima S16 would you'd be concerned about Low-Light performance ?

If you give those CCD's something to work with (Light it like you mean it) you'll be fine.

-

To say the HVX HD is laughable to the DVX SD is laughable in itself. I'd totally shoot with the HVX for a Horror Feature for Sharpness and Latitude alone.

-

Did those link's help that I sent you regarding Low-Light, Noise and Workflow ?

 

[John Trent]

Ronster,

I want to thank you for your persistence and for relaying the message that had to be sent to you privately. I also want to thank that private messenger for taking the time to share his information and opinion.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

And your thanks is thanked for thanking.

So you agree with the PM'ers opinion or .............. ?

I'm still stuck on the HD being laughable part.

 

[Ronster]

But, on some points, definitely correct -- if you know for a fact that you're only going to go to DVD, well, the DVX makes fantastic-looking DVDs. The HVX can make a higher-res 16x9 than the DVX does, but the DVX is no slouch. And the HVX is slower than the DVX; the DVX is about a stop more sensitive. Noise is about comparable between the two of them.

Barry if you could go into more detail on the HVX being slower that would really help

I don't care about the cost difference...I care about the quality of my image more than anything.

my goal is to make a feature that will be seen at film festival, theaters, and then dvd's....most likely will go straight to dvd's, but will the hvx look better on dvd than the dvx?

My bottom line question is in low light situations which image will look better...dvx or hvx?

PS barry I do appreciate your responses......you are always very objective and know your stuff

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

Wow...

OK just to chime in real quick because something doesn't seem to be coming across the right way...

The HVX is a HD DVX. It offers a lot of additional features, but that is the difference between the two.

Now for your film project, especially a horror film, you are going to need A LOT OF LIGHT. Your scene will have to be lit and then in post you can play around with the depth and overall look, but you are going to want a lot of light.

This has nothing to do with the camera, just to do with the talent of the operator.

-Jeremy

 

[Ronster]

You want to shoot a Horror feature but are concerned about Low-Light performance. If I loaned you an Aaton Minima S16 would you'd be concerned about Low-Light performance ?

NO John I would not be concerned with film in low light at all....I know with the new vision2 500 stocks and a lens that opens to 1.4 I can shot with relatively no light and get a beautiful image. see this attahced link

everything for the most part was shot with only practical lights....maybe a kino flo here or there to augment light

the parking garage stuff was just shot wide open under the sodium vapors as well as the stuff of the guy going up the light panel stairs

http://www.thebuzzla.com/movies/Offset.mov
super 35mm
zeiss super speed lenses 1.3
vision 2 500T

So John,

I don't know if the HVX can hang in those situations like film can

 

[Ronster]

To say the HVX HD is laughable to the DVX SD is laughable in itself. I'd totally shoot with the HVX for a Horror Feature for Sharpness and Latitude alone.

-

Did those link's help that I sent you regarding Low-Light, Noise and Workflow ?

John,

I'm not sure where you are coming from on the laughable front (between dvx and hvx and HD and SD)?

to me the proof is in the pudding and no one has presented me any good pudding here

I spent like 3 hours going through hvx (scene/grab section) and watched a bunch of people shooting themselves on their bike with the hvx.......not too impressed

the one project my buddies shot on hvx (A music video) looks great....but it didn't look 10 times better than the dvx....I would say about a 15 or 20 percent difference in quality.......that in itself is substantial.....but you make it sound like hvx and dvx are like super 8mm and super 35mm and that is just not the case

I also notice that you seem really into this word HD......HD really means nothing to me.....what matters is the image I get.....a good friend of mine got in a huge debate with me about the Sony Z1U and the DVX......he said that you can't compare the two...."it's like apples and oranges" sound familiar?

...."the Sony is HD and kills the DVX" he said....but to me the Sony Z1U with all its HD still looked like crappy VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!! The DVX's resolution might not be HD....but it looks way more filmic and cool....so at the end of the day to me.....I don't care if it is HD....What has the best image not the most lines of resolution!!!!!!!!

If I was doing a narrative or music video I would shot the DVX before the sony z1u or the digi beta cam even if their resolution is higher.....they don't look as cool as the dvx....

The HVX looks great...I'm not denying that.....is it vastly superior to the dvx??????

....if it does....please show me the footage because I spent 3 hours going through your pages on the hvx screen grabs and didn't find squat

A suggestion I have is put up a section that highlghts the best HVX has to offer and the best that DVX has to offer.....just a thought.

When I saw Rich Lee's video that he shot on DVX for the artist "Buckfast" I was sold.....I was so impressed at what that camera was capable of.......you guys should have a section highlighting work like that on both the dvx and hvx

thats my 2 cents and not bad for a forum that was locked a day ago

PS I checked out all your links you sent....a lot of the information wasn't on this specific topic and some were dated 1/20/06.....I beleive the HVX was barely on the streets when some of those threads were posted......

I feel what we are talking about right now is super relevant

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry if you could go into more detail on the HVX being slower that would really help

Simple -- the DVX responds about equivalent to ISO 640 in progressive-scan mode, and the HVX responds at about ISO 320. That's pretty much across the board. The DVX delivers equivalent brightness in half the light. All the 1/3" HD cameras are slower than the equivalent/comparable SD versions; the Sony is about ISO 160, the Canon about 200-something I don't remember exactly, and the JVC is just under 320.

I don't care about the cost difference...I care about the quality of my image more than anything.

Then you want the HVX.

my goal is to make a feature that will be seen at film festival, theaters, and then dvd's....most likely will go straight to dvd's, but will the hvx look better on dvd than the dvx?

On DVD? Yes, in 16x9 mode, but not by a tremendous amount. It'll have a stop more dynamic range, similar color saturation/quality, but better color sampling. So yes it should be better.

But if the festival is projecting off of a high-def source, the HVX will look dramatically better than the DVX. We've been showing HVX footage off of a projector at the HD Bootcamp lectures, and I don't think anyone has ever said anything negative about the footage, usually they say something like "OH MY GAWSH, THAT'S FROM AN HVX!??!!"

My bottom line question is in low light situations which image will look better...dvx or hvx?

The DVX image will be brighter. The HVX image will be sharper. They'll have comparable levels of noise.

 

[Barry_Green]

NO John I would not be concerned with film in low light at all....I know with the new vision2 500 stocks and a lens that opens to 1.4 I can shot with relatively no light and get a beautiful image. see .... I don't know if the HVX can hang in those situations like film can

The HVX is ISO 320, and its lens opens up to 1.6. But it's a lot less grainy than most film stocks. I would suspect it's less grainy than Vision 2 500T. Somewhere on the truck where all my stuff is loaded I have some shots in Vision 2 200T and some HVX shots of the same scene, but it'll be a week before it gets here and probably another couple of weeks before I can find anything.

16mm is grainy. People complain about the noise of the HVX, but it's cleaner than just about any 16mm stock. I would expect that even Vision2 500T is going to be noticeably more noisy (i.e., grainy) than HVX footage; I would figure 200T Vision2 is probably more of a match. But, 500T is going to be 1/3 stop faster than the HVX, and 1.4 is faster than 1.6, so it's not a direct comparison.

 

[Barry_Green]

to me the proof is in the pudding and no one has presented me any good pudding here

There's lots of good pudding. Go back to the original kitchen table/desert 1080 footage, look at the cheerleader stuff, look at Anders Holck's music video, look at Kevin Railsback's wolves and cougar footage, look at anything that's on the HD BootCamp demo reel (which you can only see at a bootcamp, but if you get a chance to it might answer your question definitively).

the one project my buddies shot on hvx (A music video) looks great....but it didn't look 10 times better than the dvx....I would say about a 15 or 20 percent difference in quality.......that in itself is substantial.....but you make it sound like hvx and dvx are like super 8mm and super 35mm and that is just not the case

I wouldn't say 10x either. I would easily say twice, probably three times. It all depends on how large you're viewing it. The larger the display, the more the difference will show. On a 13" TV you're not going to see a big difference. On a 60" HDTV you'll see a huge difference. It's not a case of Super 8 vs. Super 35, no. But it is a big difference. And the bigger you view the footage, the more different it looks.

The DVX is a fantastic SD camera. The HVX is a DVX plus much higher resolution (and a bigger price tag, and a different workflow).

a good friend of mine got in a huge debate with me about the Sony Z1U and the DVX......he said that you can't compare the two...."it's like apples and oranges" sound familiar?

...."the Sony is HD and kills the DVX" he said....but to me the Sony Z1U with all its HD still looked like crappy VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!

Here I agree 100%. The Sony is indeed high-def, and its high-def image is sharp and detailed, but it looks absolutely "video" in comparison. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you're going for, and if you're shooting live events and stuff it's quite appropriate. But it is totally apples and oranges.

The DVX's resolution might not be HD....but it looks way more filmic and cool....so at the end of the day to me.....I don't care if it is HD....What has the best image not the most lines of resolution!!!!!!!!

Again I agree. It's all about the image. Which is why the HVX is outselling the competition by huge margins. It may not have the absolute pixel count of the Canon, but it's got the overall most pleasing image. And it's a lot higher def than the DVX is. If you like the DVX, you'd love the HVX (if having more resolution is something that appeals to you).

If I was doing a narrative or music video I would shot the DVX before the sony z1u or the digi beta cam even if their resolution is higher.....they don't look as cool as the dvx....

You're preaching to the choir here, and that's why this site has grown so massive!

The HVX looks great...I'm not denying that.....is it vastly superior to the dvx??????

In resolution, yes. In other ways, no, not really. The color and gamma that made the DVX so popular is all still there in the HVX, but... it's also there in the DVX too. The HVX has twice the color sampling, and a longer lens and a wider lens and 4 channels of uncompressed audio and variable frame rate choices, so as an overall tool, even if the image was exactly the same, the HVX is still the more flexible, more powerful choice. Which is why it's $2,000 more.

For SD origination, especially in 4:3, it's not a knockout blow. The DVX still holds its own just fine, and in some ways (such as sensitivity) it offers advantages.

But (and here's the big but): if any of us who own both were to shoot something important, "for keeps" type of stuff... I think you'd find that just about every one of us would reach for the HVX first. Yes it's $2,000 more, but you get a lot for that.

When I saw Rich Lee's video that he shot on DVX for the artist "Buckfast" I was sold.....I was so impressed at what that camera was capable of.......you guys should have a section highlighting work like that on both the dvx and hvx

Agreed, Rich's work was amazing on that video, and there are others who have extracted just as much from it -- look for work by Bob Gundu, Neil Rowe, Patryk Rebisz, Spidey's film "CPU", Jack Daniel Stanley's films "Shed" and "The Odd Squad", anything by Curugon, Similo from Macgregor, etc. The quality of work from the DVX is just amazing; don't forget that a DVX film won the Best Cinematography award at Sundance a couple of years ago, and won it again last year in the Doc category.

But in cases like that, it's not just about the camera. For the five or 10 best zombiefest and sci-fi-fest entries, there were dozens of films that looked mediocre to awful. From the same camera.

I say let's have Jeremy (CPU) and JDS and Bob and Curogon lay their hands on an HVX and see what they can deliver. I do not think you'd be disappointed.