HVX200 versus SDX900

D

DAVO KORNFLAKE

New member
HI, This is my first post. Hope this is not is stupid question.

Today I was offered the option of a sdx900. I had planned to wait for the dvx200 to shoot my first feature. Hopeful of film out/HD .

Noah ( I know you have used the sdx900 so that;s why I mention you) - anyone.. If you had the choice based on presumed dvx200 quality vs sdx900 which way would you go.

Factors I can think of:
1. SD vs HD;
2. ease of post- FCPro
3. type of camera ( physical profiles are quite different)
4. colour space same;
5. chips size probably different.

Thoughts anyone.

Thanks for your time.
 
The only area where the HVX200 really beats the SDX is in shooting to HD resolution. And that's with 1/3" chips and fixed lens. I firmly believe the SDX uprezzed would give an HVX in native HD a serious run for its money.

Factor in the greater range of photographic creativity you can achieve with interchangeable lenses and it's an even tighter race. If you must deliver HD and can't afford VariCam the HVX is likely the simpler way to go. If you are in SD for now and want best image quality- rent the SDX.

I will personally own an HVX and use it for my personal projects. However when I get ready to do another feature it will be very hard for me to resist the SDX as it did me so right on Formosa.

Noah
 
I have to second Noah on that. The HVX will be an great camera for the money. but don't forget, it's still is a prosumer camera. Yeah, some are saying profesional, but 1/3" with a fixed lens is really on prosumer level. And please don't give me the "if you can make money ith it, it's professional" usual deal. You know what I mean. It's more of a high end prosumer.
As Noah says, resolution is the biggest advantage of the HVX. Besides resolution, I think the SDX900 wins hands down in everything else. I also heard it converts really nice to HD. When are you shooting your feature? The best thing would be to do a test, shooting in similar situations as you will for the film and have it trasnferred to film, HD or whatever is your end format. But I can almost see the SDX already winning. Bigger chips, better lens, better latitude, more dof control, better electronics, signal processing and dsp, better low light performance. Basically better everything. Only the resolution. But chances are in the end of the day, the other advantages would make up for it after upconverted.

If you would shoot now, but is considering delaying it to wait for the HVX, because you are not sure about the SDX, besides looking a the facts, just think, Panasonic will not shoot themselves in the foot. They won't make a 6k camera to outperform their 25k one.
 
What are you shooting?

I am shooting a feature. I was waitinf for the HVx but yesterday a potential DOP suggested the sdx900. The more I looked at it the better it looked.
 
Thanks for the help.

I have researched the hvx through to post for a feature but not the sdx900. If anything I would presume the sdx900 will be cheaper. Is that about right?

Is the old sdx900 forum still kicking Noah?

If I want more info on the sdx900 where do you suggest I go? All of a sudden I have a stack of questions to ask not relevant to the hvx200.

Like:

What additional lenses would people recommend?
It really looks more like a 'set up' kind of camera compared to the hvx200 turn it on and get on with it. Some of this feature will be road movie. For a 2nd camera could I consider the hvx?

thanks again
 
DAVO KORNFLAKE said:
I have researched the hvx through to post for a feature but not the sdx900. If anything I would presume the sdx900 will be cheaper. Is that about right?
Click to expand...

The sdx is definitely not cheaper..retails for about $25,000 vs the HDX at $5995, don't forget, the HVX will have a bigger brother coming out soon, the HDX400 which will have the 2/3 inch ccd set n all.
 
Mr. Blonde said:
The sdx is definitely not cheaper..retails for about $25,000 vs the HDX at $5995, don't forget, the HVX will have a bigger brother coming out soon, the HDX400 which will have the 2/3 inch ccd set n all.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was not clear enough. On a question of purchase HDX is defintely cheaper. The potential DOP for our feature would provide a SDX . So I was trying to do a comparison in Post costs of the 2 cameras and also just a usage in the field comparison. Before this DOP came on board I was gonna buy the HDX and shoot myself. So now I am trying to analyse the merits of the 2 cameras from shoot through to film out.
 
Davo,

Go over to www.cinematography.com, and under the Video Forums you will find an SDX900 home. There are a couple of owner operators over there.

And frankly the HVX will be a good second camera to the SDX. It will not be as good, on a comparison basis using DVCPRO50 to DVCPRO50. A 1/3" camera is not a 2/3" camera.

Best,

Jan
 
Mr. Blonde said:
The sdx is definitely not cheaper..retails for about $25,000 vs the HDX at $5995, don't forget, the HVX will have a bigger brother coming out soon, the HDX400 which will have the 2/3 inch ccd set n all.
Click to expand...


We haven't even seen footage from the 200 and a now there's news of a 400 coming out soon?

Is this true?
 
Mr. Blonde said:
The sdx is definitely not cheaper..retails for about $25,000 vs the HDX at $5995, don't forget, the HVX will have a bigger brother coming out soon, the HDX400 which will have the 2/3 inch ccd set n all.
Click to expand...


Coming soon? The HVX itself is about 6 months away. That's already not soon. If they bring a 2/3" Version, I doubt they would announce it before NAB2006 and probably ship it fall 2006. That's the soonest I an see it comeing, maybe even later.
That's not soon for somebody who already has a project. Besides I wouldn't wait for a Vaporgear camera.

The HVX would sure be a good second camera for the SDX900. But if you waiting for the HVX anyways, I would just make a test and be sure. But as I said before, I think the SDX will kick the HVX's butt, whatever the HVX is in DVCPRO50 or DVCPRO-HD mode.
 
Mediacre said:
Coming soon? The HVX itself is about 6 months away. That's already not soon. If they bring a 2/3" Version, I doubt they would announce it before NAB2006 and probably ship it fall 2006. That's the soonest I an see it comeing, maybe even later.
That's not soon for somebody who already has a project. Besides I wouldn't wait for a Vaporgear camera.
Click to expand...

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=87887&catGroupId=14616&modelNo=AJ-HDX400&surfModel=AJ-HDX400

However, to call it the HVX's "bigger brother" is misleading.
 
That's ann 1080i camera. It has nothing to do with the cine cameras family. It's also 42k, I might as well get a varicam. I thought he meant the camera eceryone is talking about which would close the gap between the varicam and HVX, which would need to be another cine style HD cam.
 
I'll bet that SDX still puts out a more pleasing picture than the hvx. 2/3 chips are a world's diference from 1/3.

But if you can afford the $650 day rate on an SDX, I'd shoot super16mm.
 
I differ on that. Shooting 16mm you're then looking at a very long and expensive route to finishing your project. With the SDX it's load footage and edit, done and image quality IMHO blows 16mm away.
 
o.k. I'm a bit late to the game- but how would you "uprez" SD footage to HD?
Is it similar to a 16mm film blow-up to 35?
and how is it done- on Avid or FCP?
 
I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Kadner about 2/3" video vs Super16 (standard 16 maybe), especially when going to 35. 480 lines is your limit with SD, and I think that's the crucial difference. But neither is here nor there, really, because both will get you a perfectly acceptable image.

I'll be bold and say that you need to look at what options you can swing, post-production wise, and let your cinematographer pick. The camera is his tool, after all, and you'll get the most out of him when he's comfortable and happy. Sure, a good DP can use any camera effectively, but what's he most used to? Will using a small camcorder like the HVX lull him into complacency? I know I feel like that sometimes with the DVX, based on form factor alone. It isn't something to be proud of, but the tools can make a difference in how you think and work, and I know that, all things being equal, I'd rather shoot with an Aaton XTRprod than a DVX.
 
DAVO KORNFLAKE said:
Today I was offered the option of a SDX900. I had planned to wait for the dvx200 to shoot my first feature. Hopeful of film out/HD.
Click to expand...
That's an EXCELLENT question!

If I had the choice, I would PROBABLY shoot with the SDX900 at 1/48th shutter @ 24p in its native 480p SD resolution over the HVX200. The primary benefit is the 2/3" CCDs, plus the shallower depth-of-field you'll obtain with the larger CCDs. I asked an engineer friend at NAB essentially the same exact question--he recommended shooting 480p (e.g., an SDX900) over HDV, hands-down. But when compared with the forthcoming 100-mbit HVX200 signal, I'm not so sure the SDX would be the automatic winner (although it seems like it would be). A critical deciding factor may be that the SDX900 will prove to have significantly superior dynamic range over the HVX200. Also, the SDX900's chroma SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) and sensitivity may prove to be significantly better than with the HVX. Just as in digital still cameras, in addition to mere pixel counts, there are a lot of other factors which can affect overall picture quality and suitability-to-task for the application. It will be interesting to A/B the images from a standard-definition 2/3" SDX900 with a high-definition 1/3" 100-mbit HVX200 when the product actually launches. I'll be shooting my first SDX900-acquired short "film" soon, and I'm really excited to get the opportunity to put this much-talked-about camera through my own series of real world tests. (I'm probably going to buy an HVX200 later this year anyway, even though I have access to an SDX900).
 
In a perfect world, and perfectly controlled situation, I can see the HVX200 looking as good as the SDX. But filmmaking is never a perfect situation, specially "low budget", and neither is the world perfect. :grin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top