Dvx100 camera is not over

Yes, it seems like the saying "It's just a tool, it depends on how you use it!" is becoming a defensive mantra for people who are worried about their investments in old equipments. I'm all for the artistic aspects of it, but there are REASONS why companies continue to release better cameras.

By that same argument I should just stick to my Sony Hi-8 Handicam and never upgrade to anything else because "It's not about the camera, it's about who's using it!" I buy newer cameras because they are BETTER tools that gives me more OPTIONS, make my life easier on set and allows me to concentrate on the FILM instead of trying to fight the camera for more resolution, more low light performances etc. It's just ridiculous to hear people suggest that somehow the tools doesn't matter, that all you need is TALENT. That's just not the whole story.
 
metro2307 said:
I don't know that "November" and "Iraq In Fragments" would have been that much better with HD. I could be wrong. I think the look was right for both.
Click to expand...


Fair enough - though I don't think anyone would argue that they would have been worse.

But I hear what you're saying.
 
Of course there's always better cameras coming out. But, when I read this, I first thought of the posts I read that people were concerned the DVX was outdated. There's been other posts on here saying that it's not, but maybe he was trying to get an endorsement from Panasonic.

I still get calls for my DVX so until they stop or I get more money, then I'm going to stick with it. It's true about the lighting too. You can give someone who thinks they are a filmmaker a million dollar camera and give someone who is a filmmaker a $1000 camera and you know the answer.

I will say directordevin, you didn't need to use the caps, even if for emphasis, and spellcheck would've helped.
 
Stussey said:
You can give someone who thinks they are a filmmaker a million dollar camera and give someone who is a filmmaker a $1000 camera and you know the answer.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I don't think anyone is saying differently (at least on this site).

My point was, give someone who is a filmmaker both the $1000 camera and the million dollar camera and I'd be willing to bet I know which one he/she winds up doing better work with.
It makes no sense to compare cameras between different filmmakers of varying talent (which is the example everyone keeps putting forth)- of course someone with more talent will make better work than someone of less talent, even with a less expensive camera. But if you truly want to see how much difference a camera makes then you need to compare then between projects made by the same person.

That's all I was saying.
 
everyone on this forum is correct, but i was not trying to say that the hvx is better than the dvx thats was not what i was trying to say

all i said was that when making a film hd is not always the better format to use and it's true i seen the dvx out perform the hvx many times and thats only because the person operating the hvx had no clue how to use it thats all.

can the hvx produce better images when in the hands of the right person? of course but some of the people on this forum are not professionals, so when someone comes on the forum still asking about buying a dvx it's wrong to tell them well get the hvx because its a better camera.

both cameras are wonderful hvx dvx ex1 xlh1 xla1, it doesnt matter but i do not think that one is better than the other and if you think that the hvx never looked better than the dvx than that's crazy and impossible, so i guess if the dvx was in the hands of a professional and the hvx was not in the hands of a pro then the hvx will still be better, impossible.

and it's true it all does depend on how you use it, it's not an excuse for having old equipemnt it's just the truth and yes painting with light is the most essential part of filmmaking, it doesnt really matter what camera you use.

can you make a movie without good lighting yes but which is more effectuve? listen i didnt start this forum to create a mess but i guess you people who are shooting hd want to debate, i dont feel that way and i own both hd and sd lol .
 
markyf said:
Believe me, I 'waste' as much time as anyone on here. I'm definitely not the thread police, it's just the OP was one of the more ludicrous posts I've seen. Nothing against him, I'm sure he's a fine citizen and probably a talented and creative guy. But it would be nice if he had the same aspirations for his posts as he does for our filmmaking. That was utter DVXuser diarrhea. And he definitely didn't coin the term 'painting with light' either.

I'm not usually this crabby. Forgive me. :huh:
Click to expand...

hey i understand what your saying as well i understand that people like to come on the forum and debate about camera and i love all that stuff and if you read my messages you would know that i said nothing wrong about hd i love hd to me a camera is just a tool i use to tell me story,

and yes everyone wants a good camera and hd is a wonderful medium but only if used properly, whats the sense of buying an expensive hd camera if your not good at shooting.

mark pellenington the director of the foo fighters music video best of you shot the video with the dvx camera he could have used hd but he said in an interview what does it matter and it's true

it's just people are so stuck on more resolution more resolution and they feel an hd camera will solve all problems.

and by the way not everone has hd tv's to truly get the rich vibrant colors that hd produces.
 
Devin...I think the argument some are making is if the same person shot with the DVX, then the HVX, the preference would be the HVX and HD. In many cases, this would be true. Probably most cases. But there are exceptions.

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is an example of one series that hasn't even upgraded past the DVX100, unless they did so for the next season. There was a cop show set in New Orleans, I think, that floated a pilot and show or two, but was canceled. So, even given the choice, some will choose to use the DVX.
 
DIRECTORDEVIN said:
so i guess if the dvx was in the hands of a professional and the hvx was not in the hands of a pro then the hvx will still be better, impossible.
Click to expand...

Not only is that possible, it's simply a fact.
Of course the HVX would still be a "better" camera - but the resulting footage would not be.
A tool does not cease to be better simply because the operator cannot use it to its full potential.
But it is not accurate to say 'no camera is better than another simply because it depends on who is using it.'


Your argument is akin to saying that a Camry and a Ferrari are both great cars, and neither is better than the other, it's simply the driver that makes all the difference.
Could I beat a champion racecar driver if I were driving a Ferrari and they were in a Camry. Honestly, probably not, because I've never raced a car in my life.
So if an experienced driver wins with a Camry does that make it a better car?
Is it fair to say that the Camry actually outperformed the Ferrari?

Of course not - the driver outperformed.
And due to a lack of experience and knowledge from me, the Ferrari underperformed.

But the Ferrari is still a bettter car, any way you slice it.
I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

painting with light is the most essential part of filmmaking, it doesnt really matter what camera you use.
Click to expand...
I would say it's the most essential part of cinematography - not necessarily filmmaking as a whole.
I would still hold storytelling above the manipulation of light.
(and obviously both above the choice of camera).

can you make a movie without good lighting yes but which is more effectuve?
Click to expand...
I completely agree, and that is exactly my point when it comes to cameras.
Can you make a movie without an HD camera? Yes... but I would ask you the same thing...which is more effective?
listen i didnt start this forum to create a mess but i guess you people who are shooting hd want to debate, i dont feel that way and i own both hd and sd lol .
Click to expand...
Well, the long post outlining your position and the use of all caps added with the fact that you ended it by saying
"ANYONE WITH AN OPINOIN ABOUT WHAT I JUST SAID PLEASE REPLY"
made me think you wanted to open some sort of discussion on this.

Sorry if I was mistaken in that.



(and for the record, I still do a lot of work in both as well, SD and HD)
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Not only is that possible, it's simply a fact.
Of course the HVX would still be a "better" camera - but the resulting footage would not be.
A tool does not cease to be better simply because the operator cannot use it to its full potential.
But it is not accurate to say 'no camera is better than another simply because it depends on who is using it.'


Your argument is akin to saying that a Camry and a Ferrari are both great cars, and neither is better than the other, it's simply the driver that makes all the difference.
Could I beat a champion racecar driver if I were driving a Ferrari and they were in a Camry. Honestly, probably not, because I've never raced a car in my life.
So if an experienced driver wins with a Camry does that make it a better car?
Is it fair to say that the Camry actually outperformed the Ferrari?

Of course not - the driver outperformed.
And due to a lack of experience and knowledge from me, the Ferrari underperformed.

But the Ferrari is still a bettter car, any way you slice it.
I don't think anyone could disagree with that.


I would say it's the most essential part of cinematography - not necessarily filmmaking as a whole.
I would still hold storytelling above the manipulation of light.
(and obviously both above the choice of camera).


I completely agree, and that is exactly my point when it comes to cameras.
Can you make a movie without an HD camera? Yes... but I would ask you the same thing...which is more effective?

Well, the long post outlining your position and the use of all caps added with the fact that you ended it by saying
"ANYONE WITH AN OPINOIN ABOUT WHAT I JUST SAID PLEASE REPLY"
made me think you wanted to open some sort of discussion on this.

Sorry if I was mistaken in that.



(and for the record, I still do a lot of work in both as well, SD and HD)
Click to expand...


your right i did say reply in my message and the caps lock button got hit by mistake just didnt feel like retyping and your right the hvx camera is always going to be a better camera then the dvx and just because someone shot something better on the dvx does not mean its better then the hvx.

like i said before the hvx can create stunning images when in the right hands theres tons of people even on this forum who still own there dvx cameras and created tons of shorts, there's also some people who just bought the hvx and no nothing about working with hd, those are the people who get dissopointed thiking that he hvx will solve all of there poblems woking with hd is alot more complicated.

there's still some poeple who are still using tape on the hvx

and your right story is the most important part of filmmaking but that's the preproduction part not filmmaking,when your on production then lighting, cameras, is your best friend and the most essential part of telling your story and of coarse actors but lighting is the biggest actor in your film.

and for the record i'm going to say this one more time if we both write a story and you shoot it with the dvx and i shoot it with the hvx but you with the dvx adds moe production value, creative lighting that creates mood, i garantee the dvx will produce better results, thats a fact prove me wrong if you can.i'm still looking to see unprofessionaly shot hd look better then professionaly shot sd

and like i said if hd is in the right hands then hands down the hvx wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top