HVX 1/3 HD vs SDX 800/900 2/3 SD?

Gibby said:
NBC Shooter, please don't take offense at what I've posted.
Click to expand...
None taken, Gibby! As both you and others have pointed out, 1/3" cameras certainly have advantages due to form factor, etc. . . . I never said they didn't. The NBC show I work on has used PD150- and DVX100-acquired footage countless times. If I can figure out how to attach .JPGs here from some screen grabs from footage I've shot with my VX1000/VX2000/DVX100, I'm sure everyone would agree, they're VERY noisy in the blues. This is when viewing footage shot in broad daylight at 0 dB (some night exteriors, but still at 0 dB), first-generation, Firewire-right-out-of-the-camera-to-a-monitor. I agree, in many applications, this noise isn't that noticable, but, I tend to shoot very moody kinda stuff for my personal work, and boy that noise is distracting. When your mom or girlfriend looks at your footage and says, "That looks noisy," then it's noisy!

For example, say you're shooting an interview with a caucasian subject filling most of the frame in broad daylight with, say, a PD170 or something--you're attention isn't on the sky behind the subject, it's on the person. Some of my footage is ALL sky (moody, dawn, colored clouds kinda stuff), and when 100% of the viewers' attention is on the blue-orange gradient of color of a beautiful cloud-filled sky--the noise is very noticable. So, again, my personal work tends to be very visual-based. The impact of my work tends to be highly dependent on the quality of the visuals.

Again, not to turn this into a 1/3" CCD-bashing thread, it's just that for the material I tend to shoot (lots of magic hour stuff), even at 0 dB, these cameras have a very "fluttery" noise pattern that makes a BVW400 at +9 dB look super quiet, in comparison!
 
Have you looked into any of the chroma smoothing filters, I believe Nattress is working on one.
Personally though, and this is an opinion, so understand I respect yours, I feel the noise of the DVX is very grain-like. Certainly it's there and visable, even at Odb, but I find the structure it gives the image pleasing. It helps define the image plane and has a gritty 16mm look when the contrast is bumped in post. In all honesty I find the 2/3" cameras too smooth. However I don't think gaining them helps in this regard, it's better to do some post FX. My 2¢.
 
evinsky said:
It helps define the image plane and has a gritty 16mm look when the contrast is bumped in post.
Click to expand...
Believe me, when I want grain, I love it. When I want noise, gimme all you got. I love gritty, grainy stuff too. But when I want pristine, clean, quiet washes of color . . . the noise is just too distracting for the type of pieces I'm trying to create. Never heard of that application, though--I'll have to check it out--thanks! I wonder if using it comes at the expense of some high-frequency resolution?
 
Barry_Green said:
Plus, the DSR450's 24p mode is only 2-3. It doesn't have 2-3-3-2, which means it doesn't allow you to edit on a 24p timeline losslessly; you *have* to uncompress/recombine fields, which means it'll take a guaranteed recompression hit. 2-3-3-2 lets you edit 24p losslessly, but the Sony doesn't offer that.
Click to expand...
Barry:

You're usually right ONLY about 99.9999999999% of the time, EXCEPT on this one (THANK GOD)! From page 23 of the Sony DSR450WSL Operating Instructions:
"[The Sony DSR450WSL's] camera scan mode indicator . . . 24P 2.3.3.2 24 frame per second, progressive mode (converted to 60i at 2-3-3-2 pulldown)." YES!!!!!!

Thanks, Brian, for sending that PDF!
 
Barry! :cry:

...you're...you're human!

I was just beginning to believe that you were really an underground all-knowledgeable super-computer.
 
Hey, no fair guys -- that brochure is new! :) The one where I got my info from said nothing about 2-3-3-2 to tape.

Oh well. Glad to see Sony's offering it -- it's definitely the best way to go for editing!
 
Barry,

It isn't on a brochure, it is in the Ops Manual. In other words, the customer has to find the Ops Manual before they can figure out this simple piece of information. Still I wonder if they have installed the falg for easy extraction? Anybody know?

Jan
 
NBCshooter said:
Thanks, Brian, for sending that PDF!
Click to expand...
So I'm not misunderstood, I still think it's the least desirable camera on the market... As Barry has pointed out, you could get the same specs (probably better because of Panny's experience in CineGamma) with an AJ-SPX800 going firewire out to a $300 MiniDV recorder... AND, still have an easy upgrade path to DVCPro50 when the budget permits.

I just don't see why anyone could be excited about the Sony DSR450WSL, truthfully.
 
BrianAWells said:
I just don't see why anyone could be excited about the Sony DSR450WSL, truthfully.
Click to expand...
Well, again, thanks for the info, Brian, but I still think the DSR450 is an incredible value at $15K for a 2/3" widescreen, 65 dB SNR, 850-line (800-lines in 16:9), f/11 @ 2,000 lux, 24P camcorder of this class. I know, the SPX800 is a beautiful piece of technology, but a $300 Sears DV camcorder hanging off the side of the camera would just be too unwieldy for my shooting applications! Is there a Firestore solution for the SPX800 for either DV25 or DVCPRO50 bitstreams? Anyway, if I decided on an SPX800, I wouldn't be able to resist buying some P2 storage media, and that would really blow my budget.

If I were to spend any more than what I'm planning to spend on the DSR450, I would go with a full-blown XDCAM PDW530 instead so I could rent it to NBC when the network converts to XDCAMs next year.

Now, I have yet to see a street price on the SPX800, but it lists a bit more than the DSR450 does at $19,500 (vs. the DSR450, which I think lists at $18K). If Panasonic had some attractively priced PAKs, or if a B-stock SPX800 body were to become available, I certainly could be persuaded to change my mind.
 
NBCshooter said:
Now, I have yet to see a street price on the SPX800, but it lists a bit more than the DSR450 does at $19,500 (vs. the DSR450, which I think lists at $18K). If Panasonic had some attractively priced PAKs, or if a B-stock SPX800 body were to become available, I certainly could be persuaded to change my mind.
Click to expand...

Hi,

If you like to contact me offline and tell me where you live, I can probably set you up with a demo and get you pricing. Since you will only be looking at getting DV25 on the DSR450, you could look at the FS4 from Focus Enhancements and that supports the DV25, not the DV50, but you would at least be able to record to DV50 when the time came n to P2.

I can only say that the DSR450, while being a nice camera, does not look anything like this, the SPX800 or the SDX900 as far as the Gamma curves go and in the SPX there is even a News Gamma.

Anyhow if indeed you are serious, send me a private message.

Best regards,

Jan
 
NBC, definitely go for the demo and see for yourself. All these sorts of cameras can be set up exactly how you need them. Most film gamma curves in cameras are achievable using the set-up menus. It is a given that a rep from a company will say that their product is better, especially when it is a Panny rep vs Sony! ;)
 
Simon Wyndham said:
NBC, definitely go for the demo and see for yourself. All these sorts of cameras can be set up exactly how you need them.
Click to expand...
Yup, I agree. I've demo'd or shot with all of these cameras except the new DSR450 and SPX800. I really like how the DSR500/D30/D35/D50 camera heads look. To me, those camera heads make super-rich, "Sony chroma" (I've always kinda liked that garish "Sony chroma" over the more "filmy Ikegami chroma" look anyway for some reason), super sharp, pretty pictures.

We used an SDX900 on a shoot couple months ago and did NOT hire a DIT. I had a brief conversation with the rental house before delivery, but for whatever reason, no matter how we white balanced, the camera continued to photograph greenish (when compared to the three other BVW600s shooting next to it). We had keyed with KinoFlo 2900K 2-bank, 2-foot units, and used standard Tungsten backlights and specials. Not a slam against the SDX900--just wondered if anyone else had noticed this white balance issue with the SDX900 under Kinos.
 
NBC, since you are in LA I can recommend going to check out the SPX800 at Birnes and Sawyer. As far as I know they are the only rental company in town with it. We shot a commercial with it a couple of months ago and it worked brilliantly. I'm talking with a friend in OC that owns a bunch of aging BetaSP and seriously looking at the 800 as the next logical upgrade. I found that the "News Gamma" on the 800 was very similar to the "Sony chroma" you mentioned. Much more punch in the reds and blues. I've shot with the SDX900 a few times in cinegamma under Kino and have never noticed a problem, did you check to make sure your Matrix and RGB gains were zero'd out? It sounds like the guy before you dialed in a look that white balance couldn't overcome.

-David C. Smith
LA / OC D.P.
 
filmstox said:
I've shot with the SDX900 a few times in cinegamma under Kino and have never noticed a problem, did you check to make sure your Matrix and RGB gains were zero'd out? It sounds like the guy before you dialed in a look that white balance couldn't overcome.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was very weird. Using the auto white only, we couldn't get a "good" white balance. This SDX900 came straight from a major rental house (Plus 8 Digital, I think), so I would assume everything was set to default, but who knows--I never checked (I was the L.D. on a 5-camera shoot, AND I had to operate the track dolly camera, a BVW600). Have you shot with the 800/900 under the warmer 2,900K Kinos or just the standard 3,200K Kinos?

Anywho, by getting the DSR450, I'll still save as much as perhaps $6,000 in the camera head and the P2 cards. I'm pretty sure the DSR450 will be "good enough" and I can put that saved money in much needed extra grip and police car rentals.

Oh, by the way, I'm borrowing my friend's SDX900 for the next few weekends for the zombie short (which probably WON'T get shot anyway since my actress/girlfriend is ****ing nuts!). So, hopefully, I'll be able to give it a fairer, more comprehensive evaluation than was possible on a one-time, multi-camera shoot with no DIT!
 
i love the 900...it is a great bridge from SD to HD. I've gotten great film transfers.

i also use the sony DVW 790...

i loves my SD cams.
 
Shallow depth-of-field capability is the #1 reason I want to shoot with 2/3" ccds.
Had a project lately. Could borrow either a MiniDV Canon or an really, really old Betacam (not SP). I choose the Betacam, and everybody said: "Wow! That looked filmish!!!".
Well .... Shallow depth-of-field
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top