Is a HVX worth it??????

Curnsie

Curnsie

Well-known member
Hello all,

I want a 24p camera with native 16:9.

I don't care about HD at the present time, and I will probably never go to film with anything I produce. P2 is great, but out of my price range at the moment.

The DVD100B looks great, except for the its fake (IMHO) 16:9 ability.

Is there that much of a resolution loss when using the 16:9 options on the DVX? Which is best, squeezed or letterboxed?

Most of my finished work will end up on DVD, and be viewed using LCD projectors or SD TV's!!

But then the HD HVX is future proof!! I would stretch for the HVX200 and use its SD 24p mode for now if I thought it was worth it...

Am I belly-aching over nothing here? Should I just go for the DVX100b?

Any advice would be great

Andrew :crybaby:
 
My feeling is to shoot in the highest possible format you can and downrez from there. So, if you intend to deliver SD DVD, future proof your work by shooting and editing HD and then encoding to SD DVD.

Ned Soltz
 
I guess it really depends if the projects have a limited shelf-life or if they have longer term archival value. If they have longer term archival value, then shooting 16:9 HD is essential. As nsoltz suggets you can shoot HD and edit/finish in SD. However, if the work does in fact have a limited shelf life, you can save a lot of money simply shooting SD with a camera that has a real 16:9 chip if 16:9 is a requirement (Sony Z1U, Sony A1U, Canon XL2, etc) for now, and when you need HD, move to whatever is the best camera at the moment.

That said, I really like the image quality I get with the HVX in both SD and HD modes, it really does produce specatular images either way, but there's a cost factor. If the only thing I was going to shoot was SD, then I might take a wait and see attitude. When it comes to cameras, computers, storage, etc. since prices are always falling and capabilities improving, you can optimize your capital expendatures by buying only what you need for the next year or two.

On the other hand, there's value in the OPTION of being able to shoot HD, and that's the beauty of the HVX. I'd say that the level of buyers remorse experienced among people who buy HVX cameras is very, very low. The format versatility in terms of frame rates and formats, the image quality, the portability, all contribute to an excellent camera. And by the way, for making progressive scan DVDs, the progressive image produced by the SD DVX camera is pretty respectable. So either way, SD DVX or HD HVX, you can't go wrong. It's really about optimizing how you use your cash vis-a-vis your project requirements.
 
I have both the DVX and HVX, and have used both at the same time.

The HVX is a significant amount better that the DVX in widescreen. The colours pop more on the HVX also.

I'v posted clips before of the cameras shooting the same material.
 
Thanks all,

What irks me is that in 3 or 4 or whatever years, there will be a HD camera at half the price with better features - and most importantly, HD will be more widely used, and by then my 2006 HVX will be outdated and I'll have to go thru the whole process again.

I seem to have come along in the start of the biggest transition on video/film since the move from B+W to colour. A year ago, I would probably have been happy with SD. Why did some bright spark have to invented HDV....

I should be used to this by now with PC technology!!


Andrew
 
You are correct, 3 or 4 years from now there will definitely be exactly what you describe -- better features, lower price, all that stuff.

But the thing is -- if you're buying it as a business tool, today's HVX will have paid for itself about 20 times over. So when it's time to upgrade, so what? You'll be so far ahead that the upgrade price will be minimal. I've had mine six months and already it's paid itself off three times over.

If it's a personal/hobbyist tool, well, that's a whole different question. You will never have the "latest & greatest" for more than a few months; something new will always be coming down the pike. So, think of it like a car -- get what you want, that does the job you need, that you can afford, and go from there (understanding that there will be a 2007 model, and a 2008 model, and a 2009 model, etc).
 
Exaclty Barry, you can always wait for something better, but dont want to spend a lifetime waiting, "you only live once" a wise man once told me when deciding to purchase some ben and jerry's ice cream, and i live by that motto
 
Curnsie said:
Hello all,
The DVD100B looks great, except for the its fake (IMHO) 16:9 ability.
Is there that much of a resolution loss when using the 16:9 options on the DVX? Which is best, squeezed or letterboxed?
Most of my finished work will end up on DVD, and be viewed using LCD projectors or SD TV's!!
Andrew :crybaby:
Click to expand...

Andrew, from what you describe, you are the perfect candidate for the DVX. Where your work ends up most will never know the difference in the resolution of the 16:9 and real 16:9, because it was shot progressively and that really makes a big difference in the look of the video.

Squeeze and letter box have about the same resolution, but one gives you a 16:9 image at the NLE and the other delivers a letterbox, 4:3 at the NLE. Does that make sense?

Best regards,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Andrew, from what you describe, you are the perfect candidate for the DVX. Where your work ends up most will never know the difference in the resolution of the 16:9 and real 16:9, because it was shot progressively and that really makes a big difference in the look of the video.
Click to expand...
Jan_Crittenden said:
Squeeze and letter box have about the same resolution, but one gives you a 16:9 image at the NLE and the other delivers a letterbox, 4:3 at the NLE. Does that make sense?

Best regards,

Jan
Click to expand...


Thanks Jan

You're right. I've made the decision that the DVX will be perfect for me at the moment. I'll use the money I'll save to buy good mics, 35mm adaptor, etc and of course a certain book on the DVX... you know the one.

Thanks all, you've been great help


regards


Andrew:dankk2:
 
Barry

But the thing is -- if you're buying it as a business tool, today's HVX will have paid for itself about 20 times over. So when it's time to upgrade, so what? You'll be so far ahead that the upgrade price will be minimal. I've had mine six months and already it's paid itself off three times over.

It'll be used to shot a few weddings - HD is not much good for that at the moment IMO

If it's a personal/hobbyist tool, well, that's a whole different question. You will never have the "latest & greatest" for more than a few months; something new will always be coming down the pike. So, think of it like a car -- get what you want, that does the job you need, that you can afford, and go from there (understanding that there will be a 2007 model, and a 2008 model, and a 2009 model, etc).[/quote]

I want to make a few short movies, strictly low or no budget, and from the example footage I've seen on this site, the DVX is perfect. the 16:9 issue will not be noticable on a SD TV or LCD projector. HD would be an unnecessary luxury for me.

Thanks


Andrew
 
Barry

It'll be used to shot a few weddings - HD is not much good for that at the moment IMO. I can see a market here for 24p film look weddings!

I want to make a few short movies, strictly low or no budget, and from the example footage I've seen on this site, the DVX is perfect. The 16:9 issue will not be noticable on a SD TV or LCD projector. HD would be an unnecessary luxury for me.

Thanks


Andrew
 
For 1/3" SD 16:9, the XL2 is prolly the best camera. The HVX does great 16:9 but is $2000 more and generally needs a little more light and is a bit noisier. The HVX does off the ability to upgrade to HD at some point. All that said, the DVX100b is a terrific camera for most applications.


ash =o)
 
Curnsie said:
[...] I can see a market here for 24p film look weddings [...]
Click to expand...
A wedding shot in 24P can be gorgeous, and the lower frame rate gives the piece a mythic, story-like feel of a magical event from the past, rather than the live here-and-now look of 60i video. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, some people like that live look, but I find the 24P more suitable for creating a romantic, storybook feeling.
 
cinemakinoeye

cinemakinoeye said:
A wedding shot in 24P can be gorgeous, and the lower frame rate gives the piece a mythic, story-like feel of a magical event from the past, rather than the live here-and-now look of 60i video. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, some people like that live look, but I find the 24P more suitable for creating a romantic, storybook feeling.
Click to expand...


So you would recommend 24p for weddings. I reckon this would be unique marketing angle. I've never seen it done here.

Andrew
 
Lets really end this topic, Cause, OF COURSE IT IS WORTH IT.. THE no question about it. ANYONE who works with this camera, will support it, and anyone who makes money off this camera will have it paid off in little to no time. I am sorry for being so blunt, but you are only going to find support for this camera here, and everyone who owns it, simply loves it.

NO CAMER is perfect. but this comes very close. And can be used in all areas of the industry. From: Motion Picture, Indy Film, Commericals, Music Videos, Weddings, Real Estate, Training Videos and the list can go on....
 
Curnsie said:
cinemakinoeye, So you would recommend 24p for weddings. I reckon this would be unique marketing angle. I've never seen it done here.
Click to expand...
I would, but let me tell you, among wedding videographers this advice is very controversial, even heresy. I once found myself at a meeting of the National Professional Videographers Association and vendors had set up the latest cameras for people to look at and I'm playing with this camera and I turned down the detail setting because I thought it looked terribly video-like and tacky and I was literally ganged up upon by a cackle of wedding videographers who insisted that cranking up the detail was the thing to do and how dare I soften the image. This was a crank-the-detail 60i crowd if I every saw one (I don't mean to imply all members of NPVA think this way, only the four people who ganged up on me) but the point was there's a wedding video look (very live look, video gamma, 60i, detail cranked beyond belief) that I think makes many wedding videos look, what is in my opinion, tacky.

The one and only wedding I've ever shot was shot with a pair of Varicams at 24p along with an DVX100 (on a Glidecam) also at 24p. It was a for a friend who was a photographer and appreciated image quality and the film look. I shot it as a favor for a friend, and only because it was for a friend who understood why the event should be recorded in 24p. I know saying these things could get me in trouble, but hey, I'm a progressive kind of guy who's allergic to interlaced video. After looking at the footage, I though, damn, it looks like a movie, not a tacky wedding video. This could be a serious differentiator in the marketplace. Making wedding videos that look like wedding films. I could go on and on as to why 24p looks more like story and 60i looks more like live events and sports, but suffice to say, the lower frame rate makes the image feel less-real, and thus more story-like.

A wedding video can be about one of two things: reportage, in which 60i would make sense, or a romantic memory, a story, and in that case, the feel of 24P would be more appropriate. Steven Poster wrote a classic essay titled "The Poster Theory: Film vs. Video" that appeared in the American Cinematographer Video Manual that explains this very eloquently.
 
Last edited:
The whole wedding thing is an entirely different mindset. I have done 2 celebrity weddings and they love the warm colors, shallow DOF and 24P I did them in BUT... I helped a friend who was in a last second bind by filling in for a 2nd camera at a wedding for him. Him and his wedding buddies ripped my stuff apart and IMHO none of them are very good.... so... just a matter of perspective...


ash =o)
 
cinemakinoeye said:
...60i, detail cranked beyond belief) that I think makes many wedding videos look, what is in my opinion, tacky.

This could be a serious differentiator in the marketplace. Making wedding videos that look like wedding films. I could go on and on as to why 24p looks more like story and 60i looks more like live events and sports, but suffice to say, the lower frame rate makes the image feel less-real, and thus more story-like.

A wedding video can be about one of two things: reportage, in which 60i would make sense, or a romantic memory, a story, and in that case, the feel of 24P would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. My own wedding video looks plastic. Its not even 16:9!!

My brother and I have been shooting reportage stills wedding photography for about 3 years now and keep getting asked whether we would provide a video service also to go with the photography. I would use 24p (or 25p in the UK) without hesistation, and I would make my clients very aware of what they are getting.

I think that with 24p/25p and some new ideas in post production, this would have very strong potential.


Andrew
 
cinemakinoeye said:
A wedding video can be about one of two things: reportage, in which 60i would make sense, or a romantic memory, a story, and in that case, the feel of 24P would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. My parents wedding was shot on a bolex k2 in the early sixties and I love the way that footage looks. Compared to the caffeinated video look of today there is no comparison. The footage is dreamlike and allows them to reminisce about that day in its most eloquent form. I think there is an argument that these videos should be shot MOS as well, without Uncle Fred drunkenly slobbering his best wishes to the bride and groom, but that is just my opinion.

On an unrelated note, thankfully I saved that bolex from the scrap heap some years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top