Is the DVX better than the HVX?

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
I should clarify that. Is the DVX better than the HVX for film-like images?

Everybody made this big deal about HD when it came along but it seems to do the one thing that it's not supposed to do in order to create a more film-like image; make everything a lot clearer. Film has a softness to it and HD does not contribute to a "soft" feeling image.

About the only advantage I can think of is if some heavy CC is done in post. Because so far I've seen a lot more "film-like" images from the DVX than the HVX. If there are some examples out there to prove me wrong, let me know. I know there are a millon "technical" things someone could throw at me as to why the HVX is better. But I'd like to *see* examples with my own eyes.

Edit:
Uh, never mind. I just saw this:
http://www.andrewoh.net/videos/illegal trailer lg.mov
 
Last edited:
Ummm.... yeah... just check out the "HVX clips, screengrabs" section.

Enough said, and I'd gladly trade you my DVX for your HVX if you're interested :evil: :evil:
 
HD is just too clear and too crisp for my taste. I just purchased a DVX-100B on ebay used with 56hrs. It was babied and I couldn't be more pleased with its 480p capabilities. I know the XH-A1 and HVX both can do excellent 720p and above but I love the organic look of the DVX, plus, I just love the low light capabilities of the 100B and beefed up tape mechanism. To me, its shelf life is far from over.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there are some amazing photographs in the Illegal trailer. He used the M2 adapter with the HVX and said that he boosted the gain (although I don't know how often), and that adds grain, which can help in our quest for the ambiguously-named "film-like" look.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it's always easier to dumb down great footage than to pull non-existant resolution from low quality footage. If you want your HVX to look like a DVX, downconvert the HD to SD. (Or shoot on tape with the HVX--hands down the best SD footage I've ever seen). Or use matte box filters or post filters (Magic Bullet, anyone) to dirty your footage. It's still more versatile than a DVX. Not that I'm knocking the DVX, because I think it's a great camera. But the HVX is that and so much more.

I like Robert Rodriguez's take on the subject: let HD be HD. Don't try to adapt new technology to old aestetics; make new aestetics. There is a special feature when Rodriguez pulls Danny Trejo (his cousin/actor) up in front of a large crowd and says something to the effect of, "You can't shoot this face on film. This is an HD face."

The only thing I would change about most prosumer HD cameras is the small chip size that limits Depth of Field decisions. And the avaliability of multiple frame rates (yeah, HVX!). And the ability to change color density. Ok, there are some things that I would change... but at least we're on the right track, no?
 
I feel like this is obvious, but it hasn't been mentioned.

Lighting. Film is about contrast, the difference between light and dark. You light poorly and it doesn't matter what camera you use. I've seen amazing stuff with the DVX, and it was due to talented people who lit the shi* out of their films. I've seen poor DVX stuff work that was poorly lit and shot.

I've seen good stuff come out of the HVX but the difference is a lot fewer people own the HVX and can afford the P2 cards, so there's less material floating around out there.

Lighting. Lighting. Lighting...
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I feel like this is obvious, but it hasn't been mentioned.

Lighting. Film is about contrast, the difference between light and dark. You light poorly and it doesn't matter what camera you use. I've seen amazing stuff with the DVX, and it was due to talented people who lit the shi* out of their films. I've seen poor DVX stuff work that was poorly lit and shot.

I've seen good stuff come out of the HVX but the difference is a lot fewer people own the HVX and can afford the P2 cards, so there's less material floating around out there.

Lighting. Lighting. Lighting...
Click to expand...

ditto.

it's what you make of the tools you have, you can push the DVX pretty far.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I feel like this is obvious, but it hasn't been mentioned.

Lighting. Film is about contrast, the difference between light and dark. You light poorly and it doesn't matter what camera you use. I've seen amazing stuff with the DVX, and it was due to talented people who lit the shi* out of their films. I've seen poor DVX stuff work that was poorly lit and shot.

I've seen good stuff come out of the HVX but the difference is a lot fewer people own the HVX and can afford the P2 cards, so there's less material floating around out there.

Lighting. Lighting. Lighting...
Click to expand...

That's it
 
My Vote goes to the HVX

My Vote goes to the HVX

The HVX is AWESOME! With the right filters in FCP it kicks DVX butt. I had a DVX100a and once I tested out the HVX at B&H I knew I had to get it and I have been LOVING it ever since.

Just my 2 Cents....

_Red
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top