Is this the camera for me?

[Dave Moseley]

Okay I need some opinions from people who've actually used the cameras being discussed on this site.

I'm looking at buying a 'professional' digital camera to replace the standard, home video-ish MiniDV thing I have now. I want to make my films look more professional. I had thought that the DVX100a was the perfect solution, until I got jumped on in this thread for suggesting it was a High Def camera. Whoops! I'm not sure how much it matters, since I saw this footage and was blown away by it. So in short, can someone please recommend the best camera for me?

• Must film 16:9.
• Must film 24p.
• Must have 'Cine-look' gamma settings.
• Must have auto and manual focus.
• Must have a microphone port for external mic (sounds obvious but my current one doesn't but a friends' does...)
• Is filming High Def that big a deal? If I filmed without it, would my film still be acceptable for most festivals and showings (assuming they're any good, but that's a completely different topic)?
• I'm in the UK, so if possible could you also point me to a good site to buy the camera from?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Barry_Green]

The DVX meets most of those criteria, but if you're in the UK and you "must" have 24p, then there's only one choice -- the JVC HD100. No other European camera offers 24P, they offer 25P -- which is the right frame rate for filmlook in Europe.

The DVX can shoot 16:9 but it's electronically stretched, vs. native chip acquisition.

 

[thisiswells]

• If I filmed without it, would my film still be acceptable for most festivals and showings (assuming they're any good, but that's a completely different topic)

Dave-

Please take this the right way. You don't really sound like the photographer type. It's almost moot to be concerned over real 16x9 or matted 16x9, or HD or SD, because none of those things really matter. There are great films shot in a variety of shapes and quality levels. I hear a lot around here about "story" and "photography" and I really believe those elements are important to a good film. Screen shape and frame rate are all parts of photography, but not the most important parts. What I'm trying to say is, if you have a good film, no-one will reject it because it was "only" shot on a DVX100a.

Thanks in advance!

You are welcome, sir! Hope this helps,
Brian

 

[Dave Moseley]

The DVX meets most of those criteria, but if you're in the UK and you "must" have 24p, then there's only one choice -- the JVC HD100. No other European camera offers 24P, they offer 25P -- which is the right frame rate for filmlook in Europe.

The DVX can shoot 16:9 but it's electronically stretched, vs. native chip acquisition.

Son of a. Seriously? It's looking more and more like I'm gonna need to rent out a camera and test it first; as long as 25P still looks 'right' though (I'm guessing it should, if it's the 'filmlook framerate' for Europe), then there shouldn't be a problem. Stretched 16:9 doesn't bother me either, it's what I use on my current camera and it looks fine on DVD.

Please take this the right way. You don't really sound like the photographer type. It's almost moot to be concerned over real 16x9 or matted 16x9, or HD or SD, because none of those things really matter. There are great films shot in a variety of shapes and quality levels. I hear a lot around here about "story" and "photography" and I really believe those elements are important to a good film. Screen shape and frame rate are all parts of photography, but not the most important parts. What I'm trying to say is, if you have a good film, no-one will reject it because it was "only" shot on a DVX100a.

I completely understand - story is always #1 for me. And I'm definitely not much of a photographer. I just like the cine/film look. I'm at the point now where I think I have a really good film story-wise, but I'm disappointed because it just doesn't 'look' as good as it could. And given the choice of filming a great story on a home camera, and filming a great story on a professional level cameras with film-quality framerate and color, I think everyone would pick the latter.

And what I meant about film festivals and whatever, I was just thinking about it being projected on a big screen and how ugly it could look; let's say 720 pixels wide being projected on a 7.2m screen, that's pixels 1cm each in size. Could a DVX100a film hold it's own standing next to a 35mm film?

Thanks for the replies so far

 

[Barry_Green]

A DVX will never compete with 35mm film, of course. However, having seen several DVX films projected in the theater, I can say that when it's well shot, the results are perfectly acceptable. Not super-super-stellar, but plenty good enough that a viewer would not be adversely distracted by the quality of the picture. The DVX puts up by far the best film-transferred image of any 1/3" SD camera out there with the only exception being probably the XL2.