I just bought the DVX100A a few weeks ago. I didn't get so much time to use it. Now i see the HVX200 is coming soon. Is it really that much better than the dvx? All i really want is that look of film. Is the HVX better in achieving that? Anyone who knows if thats one of the main features that is better on the HVX than DVX let me know. Thanks :thumbup: .
HVX200 really better?
- Thread starter videoav
- Start date
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Since no one has had their hands on a working model, or seen footage shot with the HVX any answer to your questions would be speculation, at this point.
Do you want to do film output on cinema screening? One of the things we can say is that it will record at higher resolution, so it should provide a far sharper picture on a big screen. It can also shoot at 60 frames per second in 720p (the lower of its HD resolutions). This will provide true "film-like" slow-mo.
As David says, it is guess work to comment on the how its footage will look colour or latitude wise.
As David says, it is guess work to comment on the how its footage will look colour or latitude wise.
Sean Michael
Well-known member
No one's seen any footage, but if it's not better, I would be shocked. What's the point of shelling out $6k (plus P2 cards?) if it's not better?
The more pertinent question may be, is it better for your purposes?
Footage shot with the HVX should make a nice transfer to film, where the higher resolution will be appreciated. So if you're shooting an indie feature with major distribution ambitions, the HVX will be very attractive.
If you're shooting stuff intended for SDTV, there's probably no significant difference. The increased resolution of the HVX will be useless.
If your material is intended for HDTV, obviously the HVX will have the resolution.
There will always be something new on the block. I wouldn't worry about your dear old (new) DVX. It's still a fantastic camera with stunning potential. Enjoy it.
The more pertinent question may be, is it better for your purposes?
Footage shot with the HVX should make a nice transfer to film, where the higher resolution will be appreciated. So if you're shooting an indie feature with major distribution ambitions, the HVX will be very attractive.
If you're shooting stuff intended for SDTV, there's probably no significant difference. The increased resolution of the HVX will be useless.
If your material is intended for HDTV, obviously the HVX will have the resolution.
There will always be something new on the block. I wouldn't worry about your dear old (new) DVX. It's still a fantastic camera with stunning potential. Enjoy it.
IN THEORY, it’s much better for several reasons.
1) HD. Much higher resolution, which won’t make a difference on a normal TV screen, but will make a difference on HD screens and also for transfer to film. The higher resolution will also be better for effects editing.
2) DVCPRO50 for SD. While the same resolution as the DVX, it operates in the 4:2:2 color space, while the DVX operates in the 4:1:1 color space . . . which means that with DVCPRO50, you have twice the color information as you do with the DVX. This will make a BIG difference when it comes to color correction and chroma keying.
3) Tapeless recording, even in SD. (‘nuff said!) And there’s still a mini-DV deck.
4) Native 16:9, for full-resolution widescreen without an expensive lens adapter.
5) 13x instead of 10x zoom.
Those are some of the highlights. The HVX actually has a 16:9 DVX inside of it, and it’s really very much like having four different cameras at once – the DVX, a DVCPRO50 DVX, a 720p HD camera, and a 1080p/1080i HD camera.
And yes, it will do 24p and 30p, like the DVX, in all modes, and in 720p, it will do a number of frame rates ranging from 4 fps to 60 fps.
So – IN THEORY – it’s an HD DVX. Everything you love about the DVX and much, much more.
But as we haven’t seen footage, we don’t KNOW if the HD 24p will have the slap-you-in-the-face-because-it’s-so-cool film look that the DVX does. It SHOULD, but we don’t know that for sure . . . yet.
1) HD. Much higher resolution, which won’t make a difference on a normal TV screen, but will make a difference on HD screens and also for transfer to film. The higher resolution will also be better for effects editing.
2) DVCPRO50 for SD. While the same resolution as the DVX, it operates in the 4:2:2 color space, while the DVX operates in the 4:1:1 color space . . . which means that with DVCPRO50, you have twice the color information as you do with the DVX. This will make a BIG difference when it comes to color correction and chroma keying.
3) Tapeless recording, even in SD. (‘nuff said!) And there’s still a mini-DV deck.
4) Native 16:9, for full-resolution widescreen without an expensive lens adapter.
5) 13x instead of 10x zoom.
Those are some of the highlights. The HVX actually has a 16:9 DVX inside of it, and it’s really very much like having four different cameras at once – the DVX, a DVCPRO50 DVX, a 720p HD camera, and a 1080p/1080i HD camera.
And yes, it will do 24p and 30p, like the DVX, in all modes, and in 720p, it will do a number of frame rates ranging from 4 fps to 60 fps.
So – IN THEORY – it’s an HD DVX. Everything you love about the DVX and much, much more.
But as we haven’t seen footage, we don’t KNOW if the HD 24p will have the slap-you-in-the-face-because-it’s-so-cool film look that the DVX does. It SHOULD, but we don’t know that for sure . . . yet.
Zig_Zigman
Well-known member
I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes, it's better. ;-)
but if you want "film" get a film camera. I haven't seen a vid camera yet that looked like it. Well, I suppose Genesis would be close...
but if you want "film" get a film camera. I haven't seen a vid camera yet that looked like it. Well, I suppose Genesis would be close...
Feroxfilm
Member
"If you're shooting stuff intended for SDTV, there's probably no significant difference."
Makes me wonder ...
"Once upon a time in Mexico" was shot with a Sony 900. The pictures was great on the DVD. You could really see what HD is all about.
It wouldn`t be right to say tha DV and HD wont make a difference when it comes to DVD release
Makes me wonder ...
"Once upon a time in Mexico" was shot with a Sony 900. The pictures was great on the DVD. You could really see what HD is all about.
It wouldn`t be right to say tha DV and HD wont make a difference when it comes to DVD release
A lot of people naturally make that assumption, but 720x480 is 720x480 no matter what it started with. In terms of resolution, anyway; color space makes a difference, as do larger imagers, etc. But that's not a function of resolution; it's a function of other factors. A 2/3" inch camera looks better than a 1/3" camera, even if both are in SD.
Can you tell a difference, on a standard TV, between Jay Leno's show and David Letterman's show? Leno is shot in HD; Letterman isn't.
Can you tell a difference, on a standard TV, between Jay Leno's show and David Letterman's show? Leno is shot in HD; Letterman isn't.
Feroxfilm
Member
Point taken.
What is, in your eyes (you the members) the best 2/3" inch camera around.
I`m looking for a great SD camera, for my production. With 24 (or 25) p, cinegamma, the works. It have lots of bluescreen in it.
PS - I don`t have Leno on my channels, but Letterman looks great here in Norway.
What is, in your eyes (you the members) the best 2/3" inch camera around.
I`m looking for a great SD camera, for my production. With 24 (or 25) p, cinegamma, the works. It have lots of bluescreen in it.
PS - I don`t have Leno on my channels, but Letterman looks great here in Norway.
abeljerrod
Active member
Feroxfilm said:
Take a look at the Panasonic SDX900. Fantastic SD camera with 24P, cinegamma and a plethora of other great features. They've been around for a while and these cameras are renting and selling like crazy!
Barry_Green
Moderator
The "best" 2/3" camera title would probably be the Sony F950. But that's high-def, and north of $100,000.
For the best 2/3" SD camera that suits the needs you specified, Jerrod's right on the money, look at the SDX900. With true 24p, genuine CineGamma, and twice as much color sampling, it's like the ultimate turbo DVX. Goes for about $27,000 (without lens).
An alternative that I find very appealing is the SPX800. Basically the exact same camera, but using P2 instead of tape. It's $20,000; plus you don't need a deck. The SDX requires a DVCPRO50 deck (if you're using DVCPRO50 mode, and trust me, if you had that camera you *would* use DVCPRO50). A DVCPRO50 deck is around $7,000. So with the SPX you save $14,000 as compared to the SDX. You'll have to spend some of that savings on P2 cards though. Even so, you'll end up with a fully configured rig for about $10,000 less than the SDX. So if tapeless works for you, the SPX is a great option. If you *need* tape and 3-hour recording capability, the SDX is the bomb.
For the best 2/3" SD camera that suits the needs you specified, Jerrod's right on the money, look at the SDX900. With true 24p, genuine CineGamma, and twice as much color sampling, it's like the ultimate turbo DVX. Goes for about $27,000 (without lens).
An alternative that I find very appealing is the SPX800. Basically the exact same camera, but using P2 instead of tape. It's $20,000; plus you don't need a deck. The SDX requires a DVCPRO50 deck (if you're using DVCPRO50 mode, and trust me, if you had that camera you *would* use DVCPRO50). A DVCPRO50 deck is around $7,000. So with the SPX you save $14,000 as compared to the SDX. You'll have to spend some of that savings on P2 cards though. Even so, you'll end up with a fully configured rig for about $10,000 less than the SDX. So if tapeless works for you, the SPX is a great option. If you *need* tape and 3-hour recording capability, the SDX is the bomb.
And the SPX800 shoots 24p now!
Feroxfilm
Member
SDX900
• Three 2/3" 520,000 Progressive CCD imagers
• 24P/30P/60i recording capability
• Captures film-like 24-frame images using CineGamma
• 50 Mbps DVCPRO50 3.3:1 compression/25Mbps DVCPRO 5:1 compression switchable
• Switchable 16:9/4:3 aspect ratios
• 12-bit DSP (6 pole matrix, 12 pole color correction)
• 18MHz sampling frequency
• Dual Stage Filter Wheel
• High Sensitivity: F13 at 2000 Lux
• Minimum illumination: .11 Lux at +48dB gain
• Shutter speeds and Synchro-scan shutter
Looks really good. Thanx guys.
As for:
"It's not about the toys"
Look at "Festen" (can`t remember the US name) - a dogme film shot with a tiny MiniDV handycam. It`s not about looks at all. But the filmmakers scanned the video to film, so the look is very 24p. Anyway - the film has won lots of prices. Shows that the toy isn`t the most important thing. Character and story is. You can`t save that with editing etc. Read lots of "How to write a screenplay". Put the books down for a while. Meditate on the text. Then write. With Final Draft, saves you time and makes the writing more fun.
Then rewrite, rewrite etc. The audience will forgive you the quality of the picture, if the characters and the story is good.
But sound is more important if you work that way. That`s my experience. When I don`t have the cash do to film on high end gir, I use a LOT of time with sound design.
• Three 2/3" 520,000 Progressive CCD imagers
• 24P/30P/60i recording capability
• Captures film-like 24-frame images using CineGamma
• 50 Mbps DVCPRO50 3.3:1 compression/25Mbps DVCPRO 5:1 compression switchable
• Switchable 16:9/4:3 aspect ratios
• 12-bit DSP (6 pole matrix, 12 pole color correction)
• 18MHz sampling frequency
• Dual Stage Filter Wheel
• High Sensitivity: F13 at 2000 Lux
• Minimum illumination: .11 Lux at +48dB gain
• Shutter speeds and Synchro-scan shutter
Looks really good. Thanx guys.
As for:
"It's not about the toys"
Look at "Festen" (can`t remember the US name) - a dogme film shot with a tiny MiniDV handycam. It`s not about looks at all. But the filmmakers scanned the video to film, so the look is very 24p. Anyway - the film has won lots of prices. Shows that the toy isn`t the most important thing. Character and story is. You can`t save that with editing etc. Read lots of "How to write a screenplay". Put the books down for a while. Meditate on the text. Then write. With Final Draft, saves you time and makes the writing more fun.
Then rewrite, rewrite etc. The audience will forgive you the quality of the picture, if the characters and the story is good.
But sound is more important if you work that way. That`s my experience. When I don`t have the cash do to film on high end gir, I use a LOT of time with sound design.
I agree and also think that the HVX will be a great camera, yet I'm finding it so difficult to make the choice between the HVX and a really maxed out DXV 100a. I want to purchase aftermarket products for the DVX such as a really nice matte box and follow on focus. I also was thinking of using the price difference to purchase nice sound/audio equipment. Do you think it's really worth the wait for the HVX? I'm interested in shooting documentaries and full length features that I plan to have converted to film. Please advise on the pro's and con's of both. ThanksJubal28 said: