Is The DVX102AE considered a Broadcast-quality Camera?

Yeah, they're not a powerhouse by any means. Originally, most seemed to come to the games to see the stars of the opposing teams - hence, the reason I mentioned Shaq. ;)

However, after shooting several of their games, the team kind of grows on you after a while and you find yourself becoming a fan. Chris Paul, from Wake Forest, is a standout rookie on the team. Desmond Mason is a powerful dunker when he gets the opportunity. They definitely need a quality big guy inside.
 
Through experience it's not all about image quality, AD converters, clarity, etc...The DVX is a great camera that, in my opinion, can yield broadcast quality images...BUT in a broadcast environment there are things that it lacks...primarily in CCU or Triax connections, among other things...trying to build a studio setup around a small camera such as that would definitly look interesting if possible...These 'other things' or for better words Professional Features is just one of the reasons real broadcast cameras are more expensive.
 
NO. It's not a broadcast camera. simple as that.

Yes, many things have been shot on it and then upressed for broadcast, or even in some countries not upressed and broadcasted. But not here.
 
andybiz_2005 said:
Yep Terry_Lasaster,
...But since the DVX has a 25 progressive recording mode, it is true that it can be suited for budget movie making? I know that the Sony HVR-Z1P costs alot more (RM25,000), but does not have a progressive recording mode & hence not suited for making movies with, even though it is more expensive. In fact, it's suited more for HD.
Click to expand...
the dvx100 won the cinematagraphy award at sundance in 05, film is called "November".

is it 35mm quality - no.

but neither is 16mm.
 
Nope. Not broadcast spec.

In fact, even the "profesional" term has to be streched to cover any 1/3" camera.

In cetergorizing it, I (and most others) would still call it a "Prosumer" camera.


..Now as to is it's footage broadcast? sure, do pros use it, sometimes, but it's not a profesional or broadcast camera. They do cost from 20-60 grand, without glass.

- Mikko
 
SalaTar said:
HERE


Feed that via 3600 metres of cable next to 1400 volts...
I have fun with "Broadcast quality"
Click to expand...

Salatar... if you have personal experience with cams like this then you should start a thread on it. I'd be very interested to hear your experiences and see some footage or grabs.

I posted some B&W stuff a long while back that I shot with a 1/3" Sony cam like this... with a 1/2" Canon lens that goes to F 0.9... yeah GAINS light! The shots are amazingly sharp. I hate to say it but way sharper then my DVX.

It's kind of a special use thing... but I've always been intrigued by this stuff. I'll bet a lot of guys on the forum didn't know you could get a fully HD cam for under $1K with an F of around 1.0... and a 1/2" ccd... oh but no transport, ps, or other traditional DV controls... still you just run it to a deck.

It's a just a really cool toy guys... not trying to say one of these cams can replace an HVX or DVX... not even close... but the images are wild.


As for the broadcast thing I think that's a loaded question. No news organization is going to buy a bunch of DVX cams and call it news, but a DVX is more then good enough to supplement the other 1/2" and 2/3" cams... for the occasional cut or side story.
 
I'm sure real professionals would say that it's not broadcast-quality but I beg to differ... As far as I know "Broadcast-quality" isn't a documented technical term as such, so it's more a question of whether or not the camera is good enough for the project at hand and the requirements that the project sets forth. Here in Denmark, Zentropa (Lars von Triers filmcompany), uses the DVX to shoot "Klovn" a show very much inspired by "Curb your Enthusiasm". Link: http://zulu.tv2.dk/klovn/ (danish website).
 
Common gys...its a good camera...and you can broadcast the DVX footage, 'if needed'....I think thats all about it...
 
Broadcast-quality Camera Versus Movie-making Camera

Broadcast-quality Camera Versus Movie-making Camera

Hi Ya'll,

OK, I'm now more clear about what a broadcast-quality camera is & what it is not. The DVX is not considered broadcast-quality, but more of a pro-sumer model, which is still considered professional & I must say it is a real good camera :)

Anyway, I was wondering what's the difference between a broadcast-quality camera & one that is capable of movie making. I know that cameras that can record in the progressive mode is one of the pre-requisites for it to qualify as a movie-making camera. Any other factors?

Since the DVX can record in progressive mode, can it be used for movie-making on low budgets? Can broadcast-quality cameras also be used to make movies, provided it has progressive recording capabilities?

What differentiates a broadcast-quality camera from a camera suited for movie making? Thank y'all for your advice.

Andrew
 
mikkowilson said:
\it's not a profesional or broadcast camera. They do cost from 20-60 grand, without glass.
Click to expand...

Mikko - I'd be careful about defining something as 'professional' by price tag.
Times change....

I'm not arguing about the DVX one way or the other...I"m just saying that only because professional gear costs X amount does not mean it will always be so. If that were the case, then someone should tell Walter Murch he's not editing with professional equipment.

:thumbsup:
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Mikko - I'd be careful about defining something as 'professional' by price tag.
Times change....
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that. To my knowledge, there is no definition of what a "broadcast camera" is. There are very precise "broadcast specs" in terms of image and sound, and the DVX is certainly capable of achieving those.

Now, you also have to account for a certain amount of snobism in each profession (don't misunderstand me : I'm not saying here that Mikko is snobbish :beer: !), and for reluctance vis-à-vis change, which is a constant of humanity in general.

I guess that, for someone used to working with Arri 35 mm cameras equipped with the most expensive prime lenses only, a 2/3"-CCD (that small ??), 20-pound shoulder ENG camera with a basic Fuji or Canon zoom will be considered a piece of you-know-what... :happy:
 
Lensmith said:
Many here are confusing "broadcast quality" as only referring to the electronic specs of the video and audio produced when that really doesn't cover the true difference between the gear.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point.

If you plan on a real career, you need real tools which will last. Not tools which break easily and need to be replaced after a year or two of normal wear and tear.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can go with you on the completely - even though I agree somewhat with the spirit of what you're saying.

The thing is, you only need tools which will last if you can't pay them off quickly.
A DVX can pay for itself in well under a year.
If it lasts two years...I don't see any problem with that.

Yes, lower pricetag lower lifespan... but while we go through a SD to HD migration it might not be a bad idea for some places.
 
Cameras and editing equipment is normally broken down into three catagories.

Broadcast quality
Industrial quality
Consumer quality

Yes, the broadcast quality also had a higher price tag but the reason was it was built to last with day to day use. Stronger parts which would take a beating while being used on a daily basis.

Industrial quality gear put out the same kind of picture but was not made to take the abuse of day to day work. Money was saved producing the equipment at the factory using lesser materials. Lots more plastic. That lesser material cost is reflected in the sale price.

Consumer quality was camera gear designed for the consumer who is not doing day to day work. More likely just pulling out the camera to shoot a party or special family event. It was made with the lowest level of materials which would never in anyones wildest dreams, considered able to stand up to day to day wear. If you did try it, the gear would break and quickly come to the point where it was cheaper to simply buy a new camera rather than repairing it.

Many here are confusing "broadcast quality" as only referring to the electronic specs of the video and audio produced when that really doesn't cover the true difference between the gear.

Of course now we are seeing television stations and low budget production companies buying the "lesser" gear to produce programming. There is nothing wrong with that or the product they produce but there is a long term, life span difference between the different labels which are important to anyone running a business who has their eye on the long term budget and economic survival of the company.

Some broadcast companies are now struggling to survive. The same as many small market television stations. They have no choice but to use gear which was never designed to last.

There are reasons to buy the lower priced gear but there are also reasons to pay for what you need.

If you plan on a real, long term career, you need real tools which will last. Not tools which break easily and need to be replaced after a year or two of normal wear and tear.

The other way of thinking is to buy the lesser gear and never worry about repairing it. Just buy a new one when it breaks but...I've never known any person or company who claimed that, then lived up to it when the equipment failed.

Worse, is when you're out on a shoot and you have an equipment failure. Running off to buy a new camera is not a solution when you are being paid to produce material "now". It's similar to buying an inexpensive race car and then expecting everyone else in a professional formula one race to stop and wait for you in the middle of a competition, while you run down to the dealer to buy another car or engine.

I offer this explanation, not to insult anyone who can't afford more expensive camera equipment, but to explain the mindset behind the marketing and the needs that marketing is addressing.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
That's a very good point.



I'm not sure I can go with you on the completely - even though I agree somewhat with the spirit of what you're saying.

The thing is, you only need tools which will last if you can't pay them off quickly.
A DVX can pay for itself in well under a year.
If it lasts two years...I don't see any problem with that.

Yes, lower pricetag lower lifespan... but while we go through a SD to HD migration it might not be a bad idea for some places.
Click to expand...

Hello Luis,

Sorry, I realized I wanted to add some thoughts the moment I hit reply, so I deleted the post...but your fingers were quicker than mine.

You are correct. The key being to use the tool which is right for the job.

During the latest hurricane here in Nicaragua, many of the local news agencies have tried to save money by using the SONY PD-170. Everyone got sent to the coast to get video of the storm. Every single one of the PD-170 went down. Not a single one lasted the duration of the storm which cost several people money.

They were using equipment which could not stand the temperature and humidity change. Nor did it handle the rain well. Even my Betacam had problems but I didn't miss a shot...or a paycheck.

There are many cases where a smaller camera is "better" but also cases where spending less money will put you at a disadvantage in real world conditions.

Of course I'm dealing with a third world environment but...we get quite a few independent documentary makers who forget there are no handy camera stores around to buy new things or even get them repaired when problems arise.

In a perfect world, there would always be time to recover from a problem. It's the difference between those who consider the big picture and those who narrow their view to accomodate only specific variables like purchase price without considering all the conditions which come into play with any production.

I am the proud owner of a DVX100A which I've used happily to make a buck. In fact, I paid it off in only one month of work...but I have no desire to fly back to Miami and buy a new camera every year or two. Because of that, I have to take very good care of both my cameras. They both have plusses and minuses which have to be considered before I decide which to use to make a buck.

I love my little DVX100A but it is not the camera which is "best" all the time. Even when it comes down to picture quality compared to my aging BetaSP. Having both gives me flexibility and a safety net which I need being so far away from first world equipment sources and repair facilities.

My DVX100A will not survive in a riot situation down here...which we have on a regualr basis. It will be too easily broken and doesn't have the zoom needed for it, or me, to survive. It's got a lot more plastic in it's construction and one rock or mortar shell would put me out of business. I can't afford that. My Beta has taken hits before and kept working. Under controled situations I love my smaller DVX but, for now, I can't rely on it to do the job I need done every time my clients call.

I happily admit having the DVX100A has brought me more clients who are on tighter budgets which I didn't get before. I can't charge the same for the DVX100A that I do for my Betacam...even though one is much newer than the other.

There's a reason for that which factors into not only what I purchase, but also which one I shoot on any given day. Sometimes...I even use both!

I want to be very clear. I am not insulting anyone who shoots only with a "smaller" camera. This is not about "whose is bigger" or arrogance. I'm trying to explain the thought process behind the decision as to which camera is best for what job and how there are many other variables to consider besides simply focusing on purchase price and location to a camera store when things go wrong. Many times equipment lifespan and durability are the make or break point in that process, trumping price.
 
TV = 60i this means sixty interlaced fields or frames per second. Each frame has half the information - every other line - of the photographed image in that 60th of a second. Because of out persistence of vision (look at a light bulb then blink) we don't notice that its only every other horizontal line because before that image fades from our eye the next image is occurring and they overlap and blend to make ostensibly a single frame, hence the reason people sometimes say that video is 30fps. Its this way because it was initially easier to broadcast - like some kind of compression.

this differs from film in two ways
1 -- each frame of film is a whole progressive image, a photograph. This is why you can hold up a film strip and see little pictures.
2 -- film travels at 24 "progressive-like" frames per second.

Enter the DVX
The DVX was the first miniDV camera that could record at the same rate as film.
This gives the video a more film-like feel and motion that is easily discernable to the eye.

It also records full progressive frames just like film - no interlacing.

Finally the DVX has a variety of "S" shaped gamma curves, or attempted simulations thereof to help make more filmic video. In Video, the gamma curve -- the way the camera handles light - is flat, in film it is "S" shaped. I can't explain the difference exactly but I know it when I see it. Suffice it to say that video neither handles nor renders contrasty situations well and film does. The "S" Gamma curve is a part of this. This is probably the weakest area of Video vs. Film "quality" as it can be more difficult to not to overexpose skies, etc.

So shooting video for a film look, you need a camera that has REAL (not fake) 24p, or 24p advanced. You need a camera with good cinelike gamma. Beyond that there is how large of chips you can afford which will handle color more effectively (this is the same for video and is a qualitative not quantitative issue) and then personality like traits for each camera - the DVX for example is said to have "mojo" which I believe is a combination of a warm shift which renders skin tones well and an impressive selection of gamma settings.

One final thing that makes a DV camera good for film is native 16X9 -- which the DVX does not have, XL2 does, so you can have the native 16X9, or better IMO cinegama, color "mojo", and film motion. Not having 16X9 sucks.

So you want a camera with
24p ADVANCED
(biggest must for me)
Great Cine-like Gamma
(a lot can be done in post)
and then native 16X9 (widescreen) would be ideal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top