Is there still value in shooting SD?

F

Fidelio

Active member
Hi all,

Simple question: is anyone still shooting on the DVX100, either professionally or as a hobbyist, and is there still value in shooting in standard definition?

I picked up a DVX100P a couple of years ago at a fairly good price, thought it'd be a good investment given the quality of images possible with the camera, but I found that over time I gravitated towards HD.

Now that I have a Blackmagic Pocket, I'm not sure if it's worth holding onto the thing or sell it, considering what I can do with the latter.

In a world where 1080p and 24p are pretty much standard and a basic requirement, am I just holding onto a piece of nostalgia, where acquisition is concerned? I still use the device for tape playback and capture, for legacy projects, but rarely as the acquisition medium now.

Beyond fringe or experimental filmmaking or specialty functions (e.g. expressly to show a "home movie" aesthetic, for instance), what advantages, if any, is there to possibly shoot new projects with it, considering that HD cameras are dime a dozen these days?

Thoughts?
 
i dunno. if you do client work, i can almost guarantee there are people who even NOW dont need stuff shot in HD. the advantage of an sd cam might be that you could offer a lower rate for those shoots as the sd cam rental fee would be lower. thats what I would do if i still had my XL2.
 
Hey Josh.

That makes sense. I don't do client work, no. Mostly just shoot for myself, so I'm wondering if I might just ditch the tape workflow all together, given the hassle.

It seems interesting, though, that there are still people who don't need (or, well, want) material shot in high definition.

Considering that even your run-of-the-mill camera can do it now, and seriously, 4K video in compact cameras...

What do you shoot on these days?
 
I had a DVX100 and I loved it. No rolling shutter, great features, and great color right out of the box.

But that said, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to still shoot in SD despite those great aspects. It's because of detail and resolution - wherein virtually every single image, photograph, and video we see nearly everywhere we look is sharper and generally showing more detail than SD video.

Now that's not to say that you CAN'T create nice images with it - you can. I have friends who still use closeups of themselves I shot on the DVX100 as avatars and profile pictures on various places like Linkdin, but those are presented very small, and in the end there is no way to get around 720x480 pixels.
 
Until three years ago or so I would always ask clients, "do you need this in HD?" If not, I had an XL2 I would use, and charge less as a result. It started acting up so I sold it two years or so ago, but up until then it still came out a few days a year to play. Yes, tape is a huge pain and cards are wonderful at alleviating that pain. Why would anyone ever consider SD in this era? Cause those nicer SD cams still have real audio inputs and certain image controls and a usability that you don't get with the ultra cheap HD/4K cams. Those functions are important for professional work.

Anyway, now I generally use a Sony EX1 unless something else is requested, in which case it might be a C100 or something.

All of that is moot if you're working on personal stuff. Yes, your stuff will look better and much more modern in HD, even 720p. Online, film festival projection, it will all benefit from the higher resolution.
 
Hey DPStewart, guess there is no beating the resolution issue, eh? Although that's interesting because while standard definition is more or less regarded having been superseded by high definition, at least from my impression of it, that's not nearly as much the case with film; particularly I'm thinking of 16mm or Super 16mm. It's of course not 35mm, but at the same time it also isn't rendered obsolete by the presence of 35mm (i.e. people still shoot 16, not just for cost or aesthetic reasons.)

Though one has to wonder if it has more to do with the arcane resolution of film, versus something that is objectively a certain size, which is no longer adequate? 16 is grainier and softer than 35, but plenty blow-ups happen and there doesn't seem to be much of a case against that; on the other hand, blowing up SD to a HD resolution might seem like an outdated or outmoded form of exhibition, at least divorced from a specialty use, and I question how much of that has to do with the de facto pros of a higher resolution and the low-entry cost of acquiring images on said resolution.

In that respect, is the continued use and veneration of 16mm the fact that it is still quite expensive to shoot film, because of its inherent values (greater latitudes, colours, etc.), or the fact that it's an adequate equivalent of, if not superior to, current high definition formats, and thus, still relevant?
 
Hey Josh, you're right... I could actually still at the very least use the DVX as a standalone recorder, given the XLR inputs. Though resolution-wise I wonder, for my own work, if I need to justify using SD considering the media landscape. It seems more and more as though there has to be a concrete reason for staying with the format, as opposed to the default go-to that's high definition now.

By the way, somewhat unrelated here, but are you aware of any firmware upgrades that are possible to do on the consumer's end? I just have the DVX100P, the original, but I wonder if the firmware's baked in or if it can be updated online or some such through connecting it to a computer.
 
Fidelio said:
Hey DPStewart, guess there is no beating the resolution issue, eh? Although that's interesting because while standard definition is more or less regarded having been superseded by high definition, at least from my impression of it, that's not nearly as much the case with film; particularly I'm thinking of 16mm or Super 16mm. It's of course not 35mm, but at the same time it also isn't rendered obsolete by the presence of 35mm (i.e. people still shoot 16, not just for cost or aesthetic reasons.)

Though one has to wonder if it has more to do with the arcane resolution of film, versus something that is objectively a certain size, which is no longer adequate? 16 is grainier and softer than 35, but plenty blow-ups happen and there doesn't seem to be much of a case against that; on the other hand, blowing up SD to a HD resolution might seem like an outdated or outmoded form of exhibition, at least divorced from a specialty use, and I question how much of that has to do with the de facto pros of a higher resolution and the low-entry cost of acquiring images on said resolution.

In that respect, is the continued use and veneration of 16mm the fact that it is still quite expensive to shoot film, because of its inherent values (greater latitudes, colours, etc.), or the fact that it's an adequate equivalent of, if not superior to, current high definition formats, and thus, still relevant?
Click to expand...

16mm film is WAAAAY finer in detail and resolution than many people think it is.

If you didn't know -
THE HURT LOCKER was shot on 16mm film.
SCRUBS the t.v. show was shot on 16mm film.
THE WALKING DEAD is shot on 16mm film.

The best high-def and greater digital cameras are STILL trying to equal the quality that can come out of 16mm film.
It's the super low ASA stock that is so amazing still.
Film with speeds like 64 ASA... Yeah, you need more lights than 20th Century Fox to light it...but when you do....
 
Oh, yeah. I'm not disputing that at all.

I guess I just find it interesting that the development of 35mm did not make 16mm obsolete in any way, and yet high definition seems for the most part to have overtaken the duties classically assigned to standard definition, given lower entry cost, higher resolution and improved latitudes.

I think I'd like to know why that is -- because SD wasn't meant to be in direct competition, because it was always supposed to be consumer/prosumer, etc.?
 
I asked a similar question a couple years ago. Even thought about keeping the DVX100B for the audio track since it has good pre-amps. Decided to sell it and glad I did. I never would have used it again. The DVX can do beautiful images and can even be up-ressed to decent HD (especially progressive material). But unless there is some specific reason to keep it....well...I decided to part with it.
I am glad to be through with tapes and standard definition.
 
I'll largely echo Firehawk's experience. I had a matching pair of decent SD ENG-style JVC DV5000 cameras with about $15K invested in them when I bought my first HD camera with flash memory in 2010. This was the rather low-end Panasonic HMC80, which had some definite limitations but was at least a full 3-chip 1920x1080 camera recording on SD cards. I wanted to dip my toe into HD and see whether it interested me.

After I got that camera, I never took the JVCs out of their cases again. I got tired of them taking up space and sold them at a huge loss about six months later. I'm not a snob about it, and I still enjoy looking back at projects I did in SD in the past. But there was nothing I was doing that didn't look much better shot on even that entry-level HD camera, so there was no reason not to use it. And as much as the picture quality, getting tape out of the workflow was hugely liberating.

I could never go back to an SD camera today. In fact, I've passed on a couple of local broadcast jobs that would have involved working exclusively in SD studios.

- Greg
 
Depending on what you shoot, SD 4:3 is probably dead...SD shot with squeeze widescreen may have some life left. Really, most stuff people watch on their HD flat panels are plain old dvds (SD) containing wide screen content. If I buy a movie, depending on cost I might get a blu ray but SD dvds are still the mainstay of rental/netflix and will be for some time. Just saying.
 
yes but hd or greater material downrezzed to sd/dvd still looks vastly better than material ORIGINATING in SD, for sciencey reasons i cant explain.
 
I think I may still have a use for the DVX... the native 4:3 could give me easy access to an imitation of '90s television, which could come in handy...

Though I think as a primary medium, it's run its course, as far as popular consensus is concerned (which is actually 13 years... from '02... could you believe that?)

I have a thing for 4:3, or 1.33. I've never truly understood the rationale behind 16:9 aside from being a gimmick to get people back into the cinemas, so.

And Gus Van Sant did a wonderful thing with Elephant and Last Days. My love for 1.33 only deepens through Savides's lens.
 
i think a lot of people (including myself) just think the 16:9 aspect is more interesting compositionally. its also supposed to represent the "golden mean" (look it up) although I think someone posted an article on here saying the idea of the golden mean was disproven.
 
I don't use the DVX but I have a Sony VX2000 that I still use sometimes. Here's my 2 cents:
With everything being photoshopped or CGId these days miniDV tape footage, straight from the camera, can be perceived as being less likely to be modified, and therefore more useful in legal matters.
SD cameras such as the DVX and the VX2000 were really good in low light.
SD is ideal for "behind the scenes" footage.
MiniDV is still being used professionally in 2015 in some parts of the world. I discovered this when I went to the Philippines.
If you're an editor you never know when someone is gonna hand you a miniDV tape. I personally have a lot of valuable content filmed on miniDV and might use it someday.
Well lit SD still looks great. Finally, I still watch 360p on YouTube from time to time. If the content is great, and there's no other way to watch it ( often because it was filmed 15 years ago ), I put my prejudices aside and enjoy it anyway.
 
Yeah. 4X3 has some uses.
I originally disliked 16X9 but I soon realized it was because of the hassle of having to deal with and mix both together in projects.
Once I wasn't having to mix 4X3 and widescreen I quickly liked 16X9 better. For instance , shooting dance recitals and theater 16X9 is much better for framing.
The reason most people like widescreen has been because they are always trying to look more like film and motion pictures are widescreen. It's easier to frame shots creatively.
There are other reasons such as the widescreen more closely matches the viewing field of a human with 2 eyes.
 
That's true, about tape's austere appearance, as it were...

Though, where veracity is concerned, anything can be done. Especially since that aesthetic is now available as an easy app filter (see: http://rarevision.com/vhscam/)

When you say "professionally", EDV, what's the capacity that it's still being used as? Storage? Broadcast?

Well, from what I know of film history, apparently widescreen was adopted by the cinema industries to compete with television. At least from an economic point of view.

Aesthetically, the golden mean seems like a valid reason, although I wonder why they didn't start with that in the first place. Compositionally I find that the possibilities with widescreen are vast, although no less than, say, academy ratio. In the end it's a square and a rectangle, apples and oranges, and I don't think there's necessarily a superior one over the other (at least not mathematically, in my subjectivity.) Where similarities are concerned between the human perspective and a screen's ratio, I theorize that it's not because our eyes see horizontally per se, but that historically we've settled horizontally and not vertically as much, hence the constructed perspective of a "widescreen world". I actually think it's more like a big circle, our field of view, but since vertical construction is not nearly as prevalent and accessible as a horizontal sweep of the eye, it's easier to do the latter (and thus also where many horror films earn their badge: "don't look up...")
 
The DVX still has that mojo. The only reason I made the switch to HD (the AC90 has the mojo, too) was to get away from tape.
 
I kept 1 out of 4 of my mini dv Panasonics, which was my barely used ag dvc60, thinking I might someday use it. Never use it. Don't miss selling the others. But since I kept it, I now have extra batteries for my ac90a.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top