Lighting concerns

[notEworthy27]

This is not a versus thing. I just want to know from the experienced users of the HVX. Does the HVX need more light compared to the DVX? How is it so? Is it because of the cameras aperture opening? Meaning the DVX has a wider aperture setting compared to the HVX? How is the HVX in SD recording? Btw, I'm planning to buy a camera for my production thesis. I'm torn between the HVX-200 and the DVX100b. I hope you can help me.

 

[THoff]

Yes, it needs more light, between one and two stops depending on whether you are comparing the DVX in progressive or interlaced mode.

The reason for this is that the sensor size is the same (1/3"), but there are more photo sites. Smaller photo sites mean that they are less light-sensitive.

 

[notEworthy27]

so the HVX200 have smaller and more photo sites than the DVX? Does this also mean that this for the HD resolution? I'd to clarify something, comparing the DVX to the HVX in progressive mode, I will need one stop more of lights for the HVX?

One last thing, how should I differentiate the usage of each camera for filmmaking? Should I focus on HD or SD? And for that question, HVX or DVX?

 

[Lenilenapi]

HVX is not good for SD 480/60i interlace shooting . It has unacceptable interlace artifacting that creates jaggies on contrasty diagonal lines - very important to be aware of. progressive SD is fine.

 

[THoff]

The sensors of the DVX and HVX are both 1/3" designs, but the HVX records HD instead of SD. Naturally, the photo sites are smaller, and therefore less light-sensitive.

The HVX is one stop slower than the DVX in progressive mode, and two stops slower than the DVX in interlaced mode. There is no such thing as interlaced on the HVX, it always scans progressively and derives interlaced output from scanning at twice the required framerate and discarding half of each of the frames.

 

[TimurCivan]

FWIW the progressive SD out of a HVX200 looks amazing. its just a less sensitive camera.