HVX200, or DVX100B, for SD only?

CineAlta said:
Thanks all, for your kind advice!

I have decided to get a DVX100B. As much as I'd like to join your exclusive HVX200 club, I don't think I'm in your same stratosphere. I'm just a poor indie filmmaker, and it sounds like most of you are rich network or studio guys.

In my humble experience, the most important quality-limiting aspect in my productions, is the level of my talent. I could rent a Panavision with Prime lenses, and if my talent is not convincing, I think it would look worse than if I had talented actors dramatizing a compelling story, but shot with an old Super 8 from the 60's. Just IMO (don't mean to be presumptuous or anything).

By going with the DVX, I'll still have a couple grand left over to get a good tripod, some lights, a good mic, matte box & some filters.

Hopefully, I can join ya'll in 3 yrs time. By then, I can afford upgrading my Mac for HD editing, afford P2's, and there'll be a viable distribution medium for my films (BluRay or HD DVD). Who knows, by then I might be buying an HVX200B :-)

Good luck with your HVX HD projects! I'll still be over on the DVX forums.
Click to expand...

This guy is too smart for his own good. Someone give him admin status.

If I didn't know better ( and I do ), I'd say this is some experienced DVXuser posing as a newbie to teach a few of you trying to decide how to spend your HVX money that it's how you use your paintbrush, not primarily what kind it is. (For the most part)

But, I know better than that.
 
CineAlta said:
But what I'm really wondering is, how they'll compare when both are originated in DV (and not down-converted from HD). Will the HVX200 footage still be superior (?better lens, ?cleaner electronics etc).
Click to expand...
In 4:3 mode it will be very, very similar, although the DVX will be a stop faster.

But in 16:9 mode the HVX easily produces a much higher resolution picture. Still a stop slower than the DVX, but another 150 lines of res is hard to argue with.
 
studiomuscle said:
Also, confused as I am right now, I suppose that shooting DVCpro50 is also in mxf format and would be difficult to edit in Avid edition (what I am using and loving today)
Click to expand...
Why would it be difficult? Avid has native DVCPRO50 and MXF support. It's no problem at all to edit DV50 in Avid Express Pro HD version 5.2.1. On the Mac it's a problem, since they only support version 4.8 right now, but on the PC Avid system DVCPRO50 is fully integrated and easy to edit.
 
Barry_Green said:
Why would it be difficult? Avid has native DVCPRO50 and MXF support. It's no problem at all to edit DV50 in Avid Express Pro HD version 5.2.1. On the Mac it's a problem, since they only support version 4.8 right now, but on the PC Avid system DVCPRO50 is fully integrated and easy to edit.
Click to expand...


If one were planning to reintegrate themselves back into the industry with the skill of an assistant or an editor what system would be more useful to learn Avid or Final Cut Pro Studio? Can they do the same things for about the same buck?
 
I'm getting the hvx (i think) for its SD capability in dv50. don' t forget the 16x9 format and the slightly wider lens.

however, you're absolutely right that talent will always be the single most important factor. if buying the hvx will crimp your audio budget, then get the dvx. viewers won't know or care that much about the the relative advantages of the hvx, but give them crap audio and they'll tune out.
 
Ralph nixon said:
If one were planning to reintegrate themselves back into the industry with the skill of an assistant or an editor what system would be more useful to learn Avid or Final Cut Pro Studio? Can they do the same things for about the same buck?
Click to expand...
I'm not the right guy to ask that question to. I now have both FCP and Avid but I don't know how to run either of them at all yet, I'm a complete newbie on both. I would say that momentum does appear to be on FCP's side though -- either that, or they just have better P.R. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
Why would it be difficult? Avid has native DVCPRO50 and MXF support. It's no problem at all to edit DV50 in Avid Express Pro HD version 5.2.1. On the Mac it's a problem, since they only support version 4.8 right now, but on the PC Avid system DVCPRO50 is fully integrated and easy to edit.
Click to expand...

I am not using Avid Express Pro HD but Avid Edition or better Pinnacle Edition 6. Still, if my budget would be 6000 euros than I think the HVX is just stretching it too much leaving no room for audio/tripod/firestore enhancements.

I know the HVX has higher resolution in 16/9, however it is not that important to me right now. And also I think the HX might be just a bit too steep to step up from a TRV900. As the price for the DVX's are so reasonable right now it looks like a rational choice.

Hendrik
 
Ah. Edition. Got it, sorry for the confusion.

It's my understanding that Liquid supports MXF and DV50, although maybe not with proper 24p support. But all the rest of it should work, shouldn't it? I don't know, I don't really know much about the Pinnacle Liquid lineup.
 
Barry_Green said:
In 4:3 mode it will be very, very similar, although the DVX will be a stop faster.

But in 16:9 mode the HVX easily produces a much higher resolution picture. Still a stop slower than the DVX, but another 150 lines of res is hard to argue with.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Barry!
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Okay - I'll be the lone dissenter on this thread I guess -

If you see no reason to shoot HD for the next 2-3 years then I would definitely NOT buy an HVX, unless you plan on shooting DVCPro50.

If your plan is to shoot only on MiniDV tape for the next few years, then by all means buy a DVX100B and save yourself a few thousand dollars which could be better spent on lighting gear, audio gear, or any other number of things.

There is really no way to "future proof" a camera purchase (yet).
You could 'future proof' your PROJECTS by shooting on HD but downconverting them to SD... at least you'd always have the original HD footage to go back to.
.
Click to expand...

Is it worth "future proofing" projects at this point. If the content is worthy and the look professional can't you upgrade SD to HD and sell it?
 
Informal viewing tests (HVX200 vs DVX100B)

Informal viewing tests (HVX200 vs DVX100B)

Hi, thanks again for everyone's advice. Well, despite reading all the professional reviews and hearing everyone's hands on advice, my curiosity got the better of me, and I just had to see for myself, in a real world comparison, which camera would look better for my specific needs (DV SD indie films in 4:3).

An authorized dealer in Southern California, just happened to have both cameras in stock, and was kind enough to let me shoot for an hour, and view the results.

This is a totally unscientific comparison, hugely subjective (my opinion and 2 other film/video techs), and may be completely worthless for others. But this is what I found.

I shot DV tape in both cameras at 24p. All the presets were set to default as much as possible, per the techs (white balance, auto iris, auto focus, gamma curve etc). I shot outside on a nice sunny day with blue skies, trees, grass, streets, cars, people etc) and inside (relatively dark soundstage area, with only a few normal room lights), people walking and talking.

For replay, both DV tapes were played back on the DVX100B through S-video (DVX100B apparently does not have component out) to a Panasonic high-resolution monitor. Here are my impressions:

Both cameras were virtually indistinguishable!!!

There were pros and cons to both cameras images.

1) The HVX200 was slightly, slightly, almost imperceptibly, crisper. I doubt the average home TV viewer, with a normal trinitron-type TV, would be as discerning.

2) The colors on the DVX100B actually looked better. The HVX200 looked a little more subdued, drained and cold (although the tech attributed this to different default white balance settings).

3) To my eye, the DVX100B looked lush and gorgeous, very "filmic." It was beautiful, with a convincing cadence. Made me think that I could shoot plain old asphalt and it would still come out looking nice. The techs concurred.

4) To my eye, the HVX200 images looked more sterile, clinical, hard, cold and exacting. Paradoxically, the HVX200 looked more "video" like! The techs agreed and thought this could be because of the default white balance, or other color settings? For some reason, that I can't quantify in words, it looked less forgiving than the DVX100B.

5) The HVX200 looked noticeably better in the indoor low-light (but I shot different parts of the room, so it wasn't an exact comparison because the lighting was not symmetrical).

Perhaps the lyrical, magical quality of the DVX100B footage that I liked so much, was actually because it was less accurate than the subdued HVX200? I'm not sure.

Conclusions: Like I said above, the images from the 2 cameras were virtually indistinguishable. But each had it's own character probably with its own strengths. IMO, the HVX200 would be great for nature and sports! But for indie films, the less-absolute images of the DVX100B, seemed more dreamy and "filmic."

Again, these are just my highly informal and subjective, unscientific opinions, based on an hour with each camera.
 
CineAlta said:
Hi, thanks again for everyone's advice. Well, despite reading all the professional reviews and hearing everyone's hands on advice, my curiosity got the better of me, and I just had to see for myself, in a real world comparison, which camera would look better for my specific needs (DV SD indie films in 4:3).

An authorized dealer in Southern California, just happened to have both cameras in stock, and was kind enough to let me shoot for an hour, and view the results.

This is a totally unscientific comparison, hugely subjective (my opinion and 2 other film/video techs), and may be completely worthless for others. But this is what I found.

I shot DV tape in both cameras at 24p. All the presets were set to default as much as possible, per the techs (white balance, auto iris, auto focus, gamma curve etc). I shot outside on a nice sunny day with blue skies, trees, grass, streets, cars, people etc) and inside (relatively dark soundstage area, with only a few normal room lights), people walking and talking.

For replay, both DV tapes were played back on the DVX100B through S-video (DVX100B apparently does not have component out) to a Panasonic high-resolution monitor. Here are my impressions:

Both cameras were virtually indistinguishable!!!

There were pros and cons to both cameras images.

1) The HVX200 was slightly, slightly, almost imperceptibly, crisper. I doubt the average home TV viewer, with a normal trinitron-type TV, would be as discerning.

2) The colors on the DVX100B actually looked better. The HVX200 looked a little more subdued, drained and cold (although the tech attributed this to different default white balance settings).

3) To my eye, the DVX100B looked lush and gorgeous, very "filmic." It was beautiful, with a convincing cadence. Made me think that I could shoot plain old asphalt and it would still come out looking nice. The techs concurred.

4) To my eye, the HVX200 images looked more sterile, clinical, hard and cold. Paradoxically, the HVX200 looked more "video" like! The techs agreed and thought this could be because of the default white balance, or other color settings? For some reason, that I can't quantify in words, it looked less forgiving than the DVX100B.

5) The HVX200 looked noticeably better in the indoor low-light.

Perhaps the lyrical, magical quality of the DVX100B footage that I liked so much, was actually because it was less accurate than the subdued HVX200. I'm not sure.

Conclusions: Like I said above, the images from the 2 cameras were virtually indistinguishable. But each had it's own character probably with its own strengths. IMO, the HVX200 would be great for nature and sports! But for indie films, the less-absolute images of the DVX100B, seemed more dreamy and "filmic."

Again, these are just my highly informal and subjective, unscientific opinions, based on an hour with each camera.
Click to expand...

that s also my point of view ..... hvx200 and the others prosumer hd cams look more videoish directly to the tv, because it s very sharp. the fact is, i think, that the hvx will look good when transfered to 35mm but the dvx100 look much more filmic when directly shown on tv. for my opinion, dvx look makes me think of tarkovsky movies style, kind of arty 16mm. hvx footages that i ve seen make me think of tv shows like desperate housewives but without such rich colors.
 
Barry_Green said:
in 16:9 mode the HVX easily produces a much higher resolution picture. Still a stop slower than the DVX, but another 150 lines of res is hard to argue with.
Click to expand...

Barry (or anyone else), this is an unsophisticated question, but would the HVX200 native 16:9 image still look better than DVX100B letter-boxed images up-rezzed with S-spline software? Just wondering if I could get the same effect with software?
 
Barry_Green said:
In 4:3 mode it will be very, very similar, although the DVX will be a stop faster.

But in 16:9 mode the HVX easily produces a much higher resolution picture. Still a stop slower than the DVX, but another 150 lines of res is hard to argue with.
Click to expand...



Careful Barry... you and many others are arguing that 150+ lines of rez D0OESNT matter all over these and other forums (when it comes to the HD cameras).

I would choose the HVX over the DVX for 16:9 SD but you can get an XL2 for around $3500 now that will do 16:9 SD quite well... No option to upgrade to HD though...



ash =o)
 
Why do I have to be careful? I'm talking about SD here. 150 lines is a lot, especially when you're talking about SD to SD -- the difference between 350 and 500 is huge. It's around 40%. That matters.
 
With PAL the differences would be between 461 and 576 pixels so mathematically the difference would be less obvious, am i right?

I am really leaning towards the DVX simply because my overall budget is around 6000 euros and this would need to include a decent (thinking MK66) microphone and decent tripod (manfrotto 525-503) and a g35 adapter for artistic improvisations :engel017:. If I would choose for the HVX I would have 100 pixels more in SD but not getting any decent accesoires.

And i am really not choosing for HD NOW today simply because the editing workflow is not yet convenient (working in Edition - would need to purchase Canopus Edius Broadcast) and the P2 storage is just too expensive for now. Personally HDV seems like an intermediate format to me which might be bypassed with true HD offers and several (cheaper) media cards of a plethora of vendors in a few years. I think I will improve my camera skills with the dvx and later in three years try to go for an HD upgrade if it will be necessary.

As said before, I shoot mainly for the web and DVD and most stuff is small movies, music video clips (uderground bands) and VJ stuff which do not require HD at the moment.

I am really thankful to all who are contributing to this discussion, my choice of camera is personal but i do appreciate any feedback. I guess I want to choose wisely and not brak the bank savings for now ;-)
 
HVX200 SD on DV, vs DVC Pro 50, Viewing Test

HVX200 SD on DV, vs DVC Pro 50, Viewing Test

Hi, further to my informal viewing test of the HVX200 vs DVX100B, for SD on DV tape only (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=45104&page=4), I went back and compared the HVX200 shooting 480/24p, to DV tape, as well as to DVC Pro 50 on P2 cards. The methodology and monitoring were the same as previously.

Surprisingly, I did not see any obvious differences. I was really surprised, and this runs counter to all the things I have read, indicating how far superior DVC Pro 50 is. Perhaps, the everyday, real-world footage I shot to compare was not critical (no closeups etc)? I'm not sure. But for my specific use of shooting indie films, there didn't seem to be any glaring differences.

Again, this is just my highly subjective, personal opinion, and unscientific comparison. Not sure if anyone else has had similar results?
 
Barry_Green said:
Why do I have to be careful? I'm talking about SD here. 150 lines is a lot, especially when you're talking about SD to SD -- the difference between 350 and 500 is huge. It's around 40%. That matters.
Click to expand...

Adam Wilts unbiased opinion says it is 540 versus 800 for the HVX versus the XLH, that it a 48% difference... even squinting and calling it 600 is a 33%+ difference barely less than the difference between 350 and 480...

That being said, I agree that the 350 vs 480 should be very noticeable, especially on a decent sized TV.



ash =o)
 
studiomuscle said:
With PAL the differences would be between 461 and 576 pixels so mathematically the difference would be less obvious, am i right?
Click to expand...

No, 16:9 letterbox is about 430 in PAL. We've used the internal "squeeze" on DVX100A for widescreen DVD projects... but it's noticably less defined than shooting proper 16:9.

This was my biggest gripe for a long time - that there were no SD prosumer camcorders that could do 16:9 (given that 16:9 has been common here in europe for quite a few years now).

If budget is an issue, have you thought about something like the Sony HVR-A1? It does DV, DVCAM and HDV. With enough light the picture is stunning. You can tweak the gamma in post for a more cinematic feel (I don't rate Sony's CineGamma, personally). The CineFrame25 mode is proper progressive (not line doubling like the Z1). It's 16:9. And best of all it's inexpensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top