DVX100 viable choice?

Azmyth

Azmyth

Veteran
Hi.

I'm a former professional wrestler, current musician, budding actor, and now beginning film maker.

I am wanting to film low budget indie horror shorts and features. In order to do that I want to purchase a camera. I do not have the option of renting, due to my location. Film and production is not prevalent here, which is why I am trying to "cause a scene".

I've done loads of research on what camera will give me the best results for the money.

I've narrowed it down to the following:

Panasonic DVX100 (any of the 3 variants will be fine.. )
Canon HV20/30 or 40

I've also narrowed it down to the following pros and cons...

DVX Pros:

Lots of manual controls
Has been a standard in many of the same types of films I want to create
Professional Look and feel
24p film look
XLR audio

DVX Cons:

Older camera, many claim is on its way out.
Standard Definition
Still expensive for its age compared to the other choice
would have to purchase used
Cannot afford any accessories outside of the camera at first

Canon Pros:

Newer camera
High Definition
Lower priced than the DVX for camera only
Can purchase NEW
Would be able to spend the extra money saved on accessories

Canon Cons:

Consumer camera, looks almost like a toy
lack of manual controls
no XLR audio
need good pc to edit footage


Now, given that. I've seen footage done with both cameras. Impressive stuff can obviously be done with both. My reservations are this. The DVX is older, and shoots in SD.. but obviously still is capable of creating amazing footage (SIMILO).. but, if SD is on its way out.. wouldn't it be a waste of money? On the other hand, the Canons shoot in HD... but are by no means professional cameras. In order to get the same look I'm undoubtedly going to have to buy a DOF adapter and 35mm lenses for it, plus a rails system.. easily making the canon cost nearly as much or more depending. At the same time, I'd most likely want to buy the same for the DVX anyway.. boosting its cost even higher. However, those are things that I can do without on the DVX until I can afford.. where as on the canon I almost need them out of the box.

I want to submit to festivals and attract decent people to work on my films (not just friends and family) and I'm afraid the canon will deter them from wanting to work on my films. I've seen some of the canons with all the fantastic extras.. and they honestly look more sophisticated than the DVX (albeit smaller) once pimped out.

So, I'm stuck between which camera I should put my money on.

I thought about getting the canon, and adapters.. simply because if the DVX is on the way out, and I can achieve the same results with either camera.. I could always update to a better HD camera later, and I'd have a plethora of lenses and such to use on it as well already.

I just want something that I can learn on, get alot of use out of, and make look good via lighting and good audio and be taken seriously with. I know that I will get those things from the DVX... but for how much longer?
user_online.gif
progress.gif
 
Depends on your budget, but if you're considering a DVX vs. an HV Canon, I'd say look at the HMC40. It's about halfway between them in price, it's high-def, it has most nearly all the goodness of the DVX, you can get an XLR adapter for it, it (supposedly) has the "Panasonic look), etc.
 
I apologize if I broke any rules by posting this in the canon forums too.

I figured I'd want to get their opinions too along with the DVX folks..

my budget is around 1500.00 give or take.

I know I can secure a used DVX100 with some accessories for about that, maybe a little over.

The one you listed is a nice, but a little outside my budget right now and would probably not be able to be found at a better price used since its newer.

The HV series by canon is the closest I could find to my price range in HD..

but, then I'd be looking at adapters, rails, lenses.. which could easily put the price the same or more than the DVX.
 
In addition to SIMILO (Which is always on my desktop just because I love to watch it) look up IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS - done on the DVX and it's theater quality.

You mentioned wanting to be able to attract good people to work with -
You'll need a camera like the DVX to do that. It has most certainly worked for me.
Also, you'll learn the very important controls that Pro camera's have.
It will be hard to be taken seriously as a 'film maker' with a dinky HV30 even if it does get good images.

If you have any success at all - you will be moving to a more professional camera quite quickly and the knowledge you will gain by working with the DVX will be immeasurable.

Good luck, and please post your progress.

~DPS
 
I think I have pretty much decided on the DVX and here are the reasons I have come to as a conclusion...

- I want to look professional, so I need to have a professional looking camera. I know as an actor, If I showed up at a shoot and saw them shooting with something I can buy at best buy for 500 bucks.. regardless of the footage.. I'm going to be second guessing my choice to work on the project. Its nothing against the camera, but as a musician as well.. while a great guitar player can make ANY guitar and amp sound good.. a professional guitar player will have professional equipment and will sound and look even better. Same applies here. I know that the DVX has been used to shoot features that I can go to blockbuster and rent.. so I know people will take me seriously if I use it. The HV cameras are consumer cameras.. the same ones people will shoot family vacation footage on. And, while it will look good.. I want to feel like a film maker not a enthusiast shooting his beach trip. (no offense meant to those people)

- Very few indie films currently are on Blu Ray. As long as DVD is more cost effective to produce, it will probably stay that way for a while.

- The only people I know who actually own tvs and technology that would take advantage of the HD, are in the minority from my research. It just hasn't gotten that wide spread yet. Even myself.. I have 2 tvs.. a 37" standard def in my bedroom, and a 32" HDTV in my living room @ 720p. I don't get HD programming, and I don't have a blu ray player. All my movies are still on DVD, and I only bought the HDTV for use with my XBOX 360 and yes I can tell the difference, when used that way because there is one. However, until I can afford the technology to really take advantage of HD movies.. I don't see a reason. How do they upscale these old movies like Ghostbusters to HD? Or is that even HD?

- Most of the packages I have seen for the DVX come with alot of the stuff I will have to buy extra with the other cameras. Even though the camera may be used, not having to spend extra money is always a good thing. with the DVX it will be ready to go from the day I get it. I can always upgrade pieces later.. but with the others, I will not shoot any sort of serious film with it without pimping it out first..

- I've heard that DVX footage is alot easier to work with, and I don't need alot of headaches trying to learn this stuff as a beginner.

- The DVX has a proven track record. I've even worked on productions where it was used to shoot, and the footage was great. Maybe the Canon's will start to be used later, but I highly doubt it. I think they are more suited as a B camera, or a point and shoot type camera where the picture needs to be good but not much else is worried about.

- Standard definition, and High Definition are 2 grey areas for all but the biggest camera and video nerds. I don't know of anyone who isn't in film who really knows the exact differences between the two. They know the "HD" logo. HD on youtube is def. not HD...The only way I know to get HD is to either buy a HD compatible satellite box with HD channels, or own a blu ray player.. both of which require a HDTV and to get the most out of it.. it needs to be 1080p. DVD's still greatly outnumber blu ray discs at all stores.. so its obviously still a in demand format.

I think thats enough reasons.. any others I should add?

If I really wanted to go HD.. I don't think the cheap way is the way to do it. HD just isn't cheap, period.
 
> The only people I know who actually own tvs and technology that would
> take advantage of the HD, are in the minority from my research.

You do not live in the U.S.?

> I have 2 tvs.. a 37" standard def in my bedroom, and a 32" HDTV in
> my living room @ 720p. I don't get HD programming, and I don't have
> a blu ray player.

Panasonic BD60 -- $200. Netflix -- less than $20 a month.

> How do they upscale these old movies like Ghostbusters to HD?
> Or is that even HD?

Film has resolution higher than HD. Even old movies look great when transferred to HD. Check out this site, read reviews: http://www.highdefdigest.com/ In particular: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1674/ghostbusters.html

> Most of the packages I have seen for the DVX come with alot of the stuff
> I will have to buy extra with the other cameras.

I think the HMC150 comes with pretty much the same stuff.

> I've heard that DVX footage is alot easier to work with,
> and I don't need alot of headaches trying to learn this stuff as a beginner.

If you have a fast enough computer (read: quad-core with 4GB or RAM, you can get one for less than $400) then AVCCAM is almost as easy. Almost.

> The only way I know to get HD is to either buy a HD compatible satellite box
> with HD channels, or own a blu ray player.. both of which require a HDTV and
> to get the most out of it.. it needs to be 1080p.

Get it from your cable provider for free as part of your basic package. Get it from over-the-air antenna. Get it from Netflix. Get it from ripped downloads. It does not have to be 1080p to be HD, 720p is HD too.

> DVD's still greatly outnumber blu ray discs at all stores..
> so its obviously still a in demand format.

HD is here and moving fast. Blu-ray discs already are priced on par with DVDs. Blu-ray players are priced on par with DVD players as of three-five years ago.
 
DPStewart said:
THAT is the killer statement.

You've obviously done your homework.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've been at this for a week now. Just surfing, googling, watching videos, reading reviews.

There's no doubt the canon's are good cameras for the market they are intended for. I even think they go above and beyond that market from a feature and image quality standpoint. But honestly, unless I have afford an HVX or something of the same caliber.. it doesn't get better than the DVX for a low budget film maker. I'll upgrade to HD at some point, that much is for sure. But right now, the DVX still makes exceptional films.
 
Of course, if you're planning a run of replicated DVDs, Blu-ray really isn't an option for the small-time player. Way too expensive.
 
David Jimerson said:
Of course, if you're planning a run of replicated DVDs, Blu-ray really isn't an option for the small-time player. Way too expensive.
Click to expand...
For a short movie an AVCHD disc may be an answer. These are not 100% compatible with all existing Blu-Ray players though. But as time goes by, compatibility will improve.
 
Cranky said:
> The only people I know who actually own tvs and technology that would
> take advantage of the HD, are in the minority from my research.

You do not live in the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Meaning?

Last numbers I saw, 52% of american households had an HDTV. I think that number's wildly inflated, because -- how do they know? Are they just taking the # of HDTVs sold, and dividing it by the # of households? If so, the numbers would be, I assert, wildly skewed. I, for example, have at least three HDTVs. I could easily see the number of households with HDTVs being at more like 30%, with people who have converted to HD more likely to have multiple HDTVs.

But, getting back to the original point: he said "and technology that would take advantage of HD". That's the big one. Let's even go with the assertion, at face value, that 52% of households have an HDTV. Do they have access to HD content? According to Harris Interactive's study, released June 18 2009, only 7% of Americans own a Blu-Ray player. Even if you add in the PS3 and count it as a blu-ray player, and even if you ignore the cross-pollination factor of those who own PS3s also owning blu-ray players, that still only brings the total penetration factor to 16%.

Furthermore, again according to Harris, those households who don't currently have a blu-ray player, aren't particularly interested in getting one. Only 7% of those without a player said that they intend to get one within the next YEAR.

Furthermore, according to a report by In-Stat, those who have HDTVs aren't necessarily even bothering to get the HD cable service. According to In-Stat, there are 39 million households with an HDTV installed, yet only about 56% of them have any sort of HD cable or HD satellite service!

The numbers really do point to the same thing we've been saying for years -- Joe Q. Public really doesn't care about HD. He's buying an HDTV only because that's the only kind of TV set to buy anymore, and he wants a thin/flat screen.

Granted, HD awareness is continuing to grow, but -- predictions of blu-ray overtaking SD DVD are laughable. Ain't gonna happen. Not until blu-ray discs sell for less than standard-def DVDs...
 
Cranky said:
> The only people I know who actually own tvs and technology that would
> take advantage of the HD, are in the minority from my research.

You do not live in the U.S.?

> I have 2 tvs.. a 37" standard def in my bedroom, and a 32" HDTV in
> my living room @ 720p. I don't get HD programming, and I don't have
> a blu ray player.

Panasonic BD60 -- $200. Netflix -- less than $20 a month.

> How do they upscale these old movies like Ghostbusters to HD?
> Or is that even HD?

Film has resolution higher than HD. Even old movies look great when transferred to HD. Check out this site, read reviews: http://www.highdefdigest.com/ In particular: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1674/ghostbusters.html

> Most of the packages I have seen for the DVX come with alot of the stuff
> I will have to buy extra with the other cameras.

I think the HMC150 comes with pretty much the same stuff.

> I've heard that DVX footage is alot easier to work with,
> and I don't need alot of headaches trying to learn this stuff as a beginner.

If you have a fast enough computer (read: quad-core with 4GB or RAM, you can get one for less than $400) then AVCCAM is almost as easy. Almost.

> The only way I know to get HD is to either buy a HD compatible satellite box
> with HD channels, or own a blu ray player.. both of which require a HDTV and
> to get the most out of it.. it needs to be 1080p.

Get it from your cable provider for free as part of your basic package. Get it from over-the-air antenna. Get it from Netflix. Get it from ripped downloads. It does not have to be 1080p to be HD, 720p is HD too.

> DVD's still greatly outnumber blu ray discs at all stores..
> so its obviously still a in demand format.

HD is here and moving fast. Blu-ray discs already are priced on par with DVDs. Blu-ray players are priced on par with DVD players as of three-five years ago.
Click to expand...

I think I need to explain better..

My original post was regarding a DVX100 vs. the consumer Canon HD camcorders.. because within my budget thats all I can afford. If I had 2500.00 or more to spend on a camera, I'd be all over the one you mentioned. I don't want to "wait" either.. because waiting just means more waiting, and more waiting.. if I am gonna wait for that camera, why not just wait for the next best one.. and then the next best one. It would be a never ending cycle.

I live in the US. GA to be exact. And, I know tons of people who have 720p tvs. I'm talking maximum capability here. 1080p, HUGE screens.. blu ray players.. that kind of thing.

I don't know many who have that type of setup, or even could point out the differences if you asked them to. Sure some can, but I don't believe those people are in the majority.

1500.00 is my budget.. give or take a hundred or 2.

in that price range, there is NOTHING that I can find that shoots in HD that will do what I want and be taken seriously by actors who might want to be in my films. If there is such a camera, I'd like to know about it.

If what your trying to say is that I should wait so I can afford the HD camera.. what are your reasons?
 
Barry_Green said:
Meaning?

Last numbers I saw, 52% of american households had an HDTV. I think that number's wildly inflated, because -- how do they know? Are they just taking the # of HDTVs sold, and dividing it by the # of households? If so, the numbers would be, I assert, wildly skewed. I, for example, have at least three HDTVs. I could easily see the number of households with HDTVs being at more like 30%, with people who have converted to HD more likely to have multiple HDTVs.

But, getting back to the original point: he said "and technology that would take advantage of HD". That's the big one. Let's even go with the assertion, at face value, that 52% of households have an HDTV. Do they have access to HD content? According to Harris Interactive's study, released June 18 2009, only 7% of Americans own a Blu-Ray player. Even if you add in the PS3 and count it as a blu-ray player, and even if you ignore the cross-pollination factor of those who own PS3s also owning blu-ray players, that still only brings the total penetration factor to 16%.

Furthermore, again according to Harris, those households who don't currently have a blu-ray player, aren't particularly interested in getting one. Only 7% of those without a player said that they intend to get one within the next YEAR.

Furthermore, according to a report by In-Stat, those who have HDTVs aren't necessarily even bothering to get the HD cable service. According to In-Stat, there are 39 million households with an HDTV installed, yet only about 56% of them have any sort of HD cable or HD satellite service!

The numbers really do point to the same thing we've been saying for years -- Joe Q. Public really doesn't care about HD. He's buying an HDTV only because that's the only kind of TV set to buy anymore, and he wants a thin/flat screen.

Granted, HD awareness is continuing to grow, but -- predictions of blu-ray overtaking SD DVD are laughable. Ain't gonna happen. Not until blu-ray discs sell for less than standard-def DVDs...
Click to expand...


I bought one for 2 reasons... less space, and better resolution on my xbox.. thats it. My DVD's still look just as good as they did on my SD tv and even better in some cases. I've seen blu ray on HD TV's and I really have a hard time justifying the cost vs. the extra gain in quality when for the average user its not all that noticeable unless you have the gear to run it on.
 
> Furthermore, according to a report by In-Stat, those who have HDTVs
> aren't necessarily even bothering to get the HD cable service.
> ...
> Joe Q. Public really doesn't care about HD. He's buying an HDTV only because
> that's the only kind of TV set to buy anymore, and he wants a thin/flat screen.

True. Many people don't know HD from stretched SD and what they buy is not a display for HD content, they buy a big-ass TV, bigger than Joneses have.

But let us not forget that all these big-ass TVs that people were buying like crazy until the crisis hit last fall, all these TVs are widescreen. And natively progressive. Which is why Hollywood movies look very good, and which is why so many people are happy with how their DVDs look. If you offer them 4:3 content they at best (for you) stretch it to fill the whole area of their TV, or they will simply sneer.

Hence my point that I already have made someplace else: widescreen progressive SD looks pretty good on a 50-inch progressive-scan widescreen TV, but 4:3 interlaced does not. 4:3 progressive is in the middle, it does not flicker, but it looks dated in the eyes of widecreen TV owners.

I believe that even if someone shoots in SD, he should shoot in widescreen.
 
Cranky said:
> Furthermore, according to a report by In-Stat, those who have HDTVs
> aren't necessarily even bothering to get the HD cable service.
> ...
> Joe Q. Public really doesn't care about HD. He's buying an HDTV only because
> that's the only kind of TV set to buy anymore, and he wants a thin/flat screen.

True. Many people don't know HD from stretched SD and what they buy is not a display for HD content, they buy a big-ass TV, bigger than Joneses have.

But let us not forget that all these big-ass TVs that people were buying like crazy until the crisis hit last fall, all these TVs are widescreen. And natively progressive. Which is why Hollywood movies look very good, and which is why so many people are happy with how their DVDs look. If you offer them 4:3 content they at best (for you) stretch it to fill the whole area of their TV, or they will simply sneer.

Hence my point that I already have made someplace else: widescreen progressive SD looks pretty good on a 50-inch progressive-scan widescreen TV, but 4:3 interlaced does not. 4:3 progressive is in the middle, it does not flicker, but it looks dated in the eyes of widecreen TV owners.

I believe that even if someone shoots in SD, he should shoot in widescreen.
Click to expand...


Did u take a look at my previous post.

Everyone makes great points.. but whats going to be the best for my purposes? I'm not planning on shooting documentaries, or weddings (at least not as a regular thing) I dunno what all this information applies to, but for my budget and for my purposes.. what would I buy? if not the DVX100.. and if I have to go outside my budget.. what should I buy and how much more expensive is it going to be.. and how long is it going to last before I had to do it again?
 
triplej96 said:
Hello Azmyth,

I just put a DVX100b package up for sale in the market place http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=182210.

It's a bit out of your budget with all the accessories but it would be a great start and perfect for low budget indie filmmaking. I would be willing to break up the camera and a few accessories if need be.
Click to expand...


Thanks I'll check it out.

meanwhile I'm still waiting on responses on why I should wait and save for HD.
 
what about a used canon xha1 ? thats almost as much as a dvx no? I duno. Anyway i have a dvx100b and luv it. Just buy a cam and start shooting :)....but i do agree that if u wanna attract people to ur project, a consumer handycam is not the way to go :)...unless ur gonna build a rig that u can barely even notice that its under there :)
 
so, lets say I were to decide to save up for like 3 more months...

and was able to afford something like a HVX200...

I have a 3ghz Athlon X2 Dual Core CPU, and 4 gigs of ram.
what all would I have to upgrade on my pc?

I have a radeon 3850 512mb video card. 2 - 512mb hard drives.

I also see these cameras use P2 cards, which are expensive in themselves.

Any other cameras that shoot HD with the same feature set, that shoot to tape?
 
1) Computer -- will work -- not dissimilar to my previous machine -- but obviously, now, there's much better.

2) Feature set, but to tape -- no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top