DVX100A vs SDX900

H

helicon

New member
I'm wondering how these two cameras compare?

DVX100A with Anamorphic Lens, 24p

vs

SDX900 16:9, 24p

Does anyone here have any experience with the SDX900?

Any side by side frame grabs, or wmv comparisons?

As far as image quality goes, how much better is the SDX900?

Would the average person (TV, Movie, DVD watcher) be able to notice a huge difference?

.

I have no experience with either camera, but I have read quite a lot of info on them.

Having trouble finding any images to compare, so any help would be great...

Thanks!
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

I don't have any full-screen grabs to show you, but I own a dvx100a and I've shot for commercials with an sdx900. The difference is night and day. The dvx is a great indie camera and I love it, but the sdx (a $30,000 camera) is simply amazing.

The image detail and color capture quality on the sdx900 is great. Usually you shoot, capture to your NLE software, color correct every shot, and depending on your quality needs you take to a vendor with an Avid Symphony suite for finishing.

We used the sdx900 for several commercials and found that we didn't need to color correct any of the shots. The image quality was so good in fact that we decided that we could finish most of the spots in-house using 8-bit 4:2:2 compression, saving us upwards of $30,000, and the stuff still looked great.

Comparing raw footage, yes I think that the average person could tell the difference. The dvx100 is a wonderful little camera, capable of great looking footage for its pricetag, but if you have a budget to use the sdx900 and your image quality needs are high and you don't mind working with a much bulkier camera (it's heavy too), then by all means opt for using it.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

In marketing terms the DVX100 is a professional DV camera and the 900 a professional DVCAM camera. But in reality the DVX is a home video camera and the 900 a professional camera. One can not even compare them. Remember, any camera in the same price range is really just about the same camera with a different box and different features. COmpare the prices and you'll know why the 900 is so much more.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

That said, I've seen better looking footage come from the DVX on certain occurences than from the SDX. It really does come down to the operator, and if money's an issue, the DVX can get the job done. The SDX is still just DVCAM, so while the controls may be better, it's still just 4:1:1 DV in the end, which is the biggest downfall of both cameras.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

Not to go against what Mike was saying, but DVCpro50, which is what the SDX is, is actually recorded in 4:2:2 color space, which is another advantage that the SDX has. But like he said, it really comes down to the operator and even the editor. Even with better color information, if your a bad color corrector/editor, then it still won't look good.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

The SDX is still just DVCAM, so while the controls may be better, it's still just 4:1:1 DV in the end
Click to expand...

Meaning no disrespect, that's not true.  The SDX900 is switchable between DVCPRO and DVCPRO50.  DVCPRO50 is a 50 Mbps 4:2:2 signal with 3.3:1 compression and four 48KHz audio channels.  In contrast, DV/DVCPRO is a 25 Mbps 4:1:1 signal with 5:1 compression and two 48KHz audio channels.

IIRC, DVCAM is a Sony proprietary standard that no Panasonic cameras support.  DVCPRO is similar, in that it encodes a normal DV25 signal to a faster running tape, but I believe that DVCPRO and DVCAM are not compatible.

Edited to add: scharky beat me to it.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

[quote author=Mike_Donis link=board=nws;num=1103779564;start=0#4 date=12/23/04 at 19:11:49]That said, I've seen better looking footage come from the DVX on certain occurences than from the SDX.  It really does come down to the operator, and if money's an issue, the DVX can get the job done.  The SDX is still just DVCAM, so while the controls may be better, it's still just 4:1:1 DV in the end, which is the biggest downfall of both cameras.[/quote]

The SDX900 is a DVCPRO50 Product, and as such, has less compression and twice the color resolution. 3.3:1 compression vs 5:1 and 4:2:2 color to 4:1:1. DVCAM is a a wide track DV format, 5:1, 4:1:1, manufacturered only by Sony, although all of the Panasonic machines will play back this Sony only format.

If you have seen better footage coming out of a DVX, then the SDX operator was a fool. The SDX is more along the quality of DigiBeta, not DVCAM.

Best regards,

Jan
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

Fair enough - I just meant that the two cameras are capable of being confused with one another - the difference isn't so great between the two that you'd necessarily notice the difference - on a side-by-side shoot, yes most definitely - but viewing one to the other at different points make it difficult, especially for the average viewer. Then again, the average viewer can get fooled that the DVX or SDX is 16 or 35mm, as well :P

Not trying to downplay the SDX, it most definitely is a better camera - but operator's differences will make more of a difference on the final product IMO than the cameras themselves.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

Hand your average idiot a paintbrush and Picasso an etch-a-sketch, and we all know who's going to produce the masterpiece. They're all tools when in the right hands, can create great footage.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

I've seen still grab comparisons between the SDX900 and the Sony FX1, and it was still like night and day. The FX1 is nowhere near the SDX900 in quality, so forget comparing to he DVX. Don't get me wrong, I like the DVX (and really dislike Sony in general), but high-res is high-res and when you come down to numbers, even the best DV can't produce miracles.
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

While this is true, it is standard Def, in Progressive mode it offers a lot of resolution, in addition to that twice the color resolution. The FX1 is a nice camera but the resolution on the frame to frame can change dependent on how much motion vs. detail, this is due to the compression algorithm. The SDX is frame independent in its compression scheme and frankly while I have not put the SDX up against the FX1, I buy this, that there is something inherently more pleasing about the SDX's picture. I have seen both projected on large screens and the SDX looks more like High Def than the FX1 does on a 25' screen.

FWIW,

Jan
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

that doenst make any sense SD not matter what cam it comes from will just fall apart when blown up, it just doesnt have enough pixels, dont believe me? then try playing a Hollywood DVD ona projector at 25' its just not going to hold up..

on the other hand the Z1 (i think) was shown on a 62' foot and reports says it held up pretty well.

PS DVX100 VS SDX900
c'mon its a 2/3" its gonna have a shallower DOF, thats gonna be a give away!
 
Re: DVX100A vs SDX900

I think a lot of people mistake the words looking "sharp" and looking "good".
First of all saying that you heard a report that something looks good, really does not give much basis to your statement. Especially when the statement just before yours was a first hand witness. Second, just because something is sharp doesn't mean it looks good. Third, hollywood DVD's are highly compressed, at 8mbps your not dealing with a whole lot of information. And when projecting footage onto a large screen, it is not uncommon to have gone through an uprezzing process. I have no doubt in my mind that an uprezzed DVCpro50 progressive scan footage can hold it's own to an mpeg2 25mbps compressed HD data stream. Each frame on the SDX is being compressed individually, and there is litterally more than twice the information in each frame. Seriously, no $3000 - $4000 camera should be compared to a Pro $25+grand camera. To the average consumer, you probably could slide it past, but not to someone who knows what they are looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top