My DVX is going to ROT!

DCTBradJohnson,

I'm not saying that shooting HD isn't a good thing, I updated my gear for the same reasons you state; Shoot HD, deliver on both, customer thinks they want HD, yada yada. But not everyone shooting video can afford HD aquisition for their work. The cams are more $$, they are better in many ways, but they are still adding overhead to your biz. I would offer that good content will trump resolution, and the DVX can still do the work, and for cheap.

Consider this, what if you had an opportunity to deliver a SD project, say a corporate training video, and be profitable with a $1000 DVX. The probability is that the corporation doesn't care about a re-release on HD next year. Or, you could do it on a Red and lose a bunch of money do to all the overhead of a sophisticated workflow and the cost of the cam, even as a rental. The footage would look great and be future proof, unfortunately you didn't eat that week.

Oh ya, you can buy a BluRay burner for a MacPro with Roxio Toast included for about $300 from OWC. Works great.

Grant
 
One major thing to consider though is acquisition for editing and tape is a giant PITA. It's slow, very manual and often times there's issues that make you have to recapture footage... All of which have been greatly reduced with the solid state acqusition.... I can transcode 60 minutes of HD content in less than 6 minutes... I've imported over 20 hours of content in a less than 2 hours and all while I'm not doing a darn thing... with tape it's real time and it's a PITA.... I hate when I have to capture tape at this time...

The one major advantage to tape though is that it's instantally an archived copy... and with digital you have no physical medium to deal with....
 
As long as we can continue to make money from our DVX's, they're not going anywhere. They're paid for, they work, they're in regular use, and they make money. We do a lot more 16x9 these days - and we ingest in real time - but those are minor adjustments, they're hardly compelling reasons for us to scrap that part of our business and port it over to the HD bandwagon.

I don't know how important financial solvency is to anyone else here - but we like having the freedom that profitability brings. And part of the profitability equation is getting the most out of your gear: both in terms of knowing how it works and in maximizing its potential.
 
Fred.. you do have a point, but the SD ship has sailed... If you got an HD camera you'd be able to compete on more jobs and probably charge a lot more money. I still see people shooting with the XL1 and I sold that camera in 2004 and have moved from the DVX to the HVX to the 150 and now to the AF100/ GH2. If you flip a camera within 2 years of owning it then you'll get about 75 percent of your money back....

I understand too well about the need to be solvent but within 2 weeks of owning my 150 it was paid off from one client....
 
Justyn, I agree with you for the most part, and JustFred too for that matter. Both points are valid, it really depends on your business model.

Justyn, do you deliver your content in HD?

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
DCTBradJohnson,

But not everyone shooting video can afford HD aquisition for their work.

Grant
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this! For me the DVX is an amazing tool for starting out on and learning how to operate professional controls. Personally there is no way I could afford a HD workflow at the moment. I've had my DVX for two weeks and made one test video. I've already got offers to record gigs, school plays and weddings and a doc on a film festival. Considering I consider myself very much an amateur at this stage on digital media I think the camcorders quality shines through (I haven't by a long shot mastered the cam yet).

There seems to be a lot of dumping on redundant technology here which is a shame. And also everybody seems to be about "the story". Personally I'm from a fine art background and I can tell you everything needn't be about the story. I use Super 8 film a lot because of its materiality. It yields beautiful imagery and has amazing ephemeral qualities that change physically every time it gets run through a projector. Now I know this isn't a good business standpoint but I'm just saying not everything needs to be about money and clients. Work can sometimes just be about making, destroying and observing that destruction as something brilliant. That quality is wonderful to behold.

As for the DVX not being able to hold its own for film... hahahahahaha are you kidding me? I watch super 8 and 16mm shorts (edited in camera) every year at festivals that could nock digital productions out of the park! The DVX is a spring chicken compared to film and is more than capable.

Kevin
 
I think the original response to this thread was correct..and has been sidetracked by the very loaded question. Don't let the thing rot in the bag. It's only "rotting" because you are not using and practicing your craft while you wait for a cool new fancy HD capable camera. Is HD better than SD?..well duh. But if you are not using the tools you already have at your disposal, maybe you don't have anything important to say in the first place.
 
This is true if you have a pencil, and a computer. But he only has the pencil, and it is "rotting". If you give up using the "pencil" because you are not happy with what it is writing, a computer won't help.
 
I honestly can't imagine a time where I wouldn't watch a film made on a DVX. It's past it's prime for resale value because the resale value is based on technological improvement, which is always rapid. The camera will always make great images.
 
This is an interesting discussion because it deals with a place where I find myself. I have two 100b's that I use for work (interviews and events related to magazine publishing) and for some concert recording at a local college. Most of my work shooting goes on the Web, so HD is of no particular advantage there. Concert footage goes on DVDs, so SD is good for that as well. I do my editing in Final Cut (I have both Pro and Express) and the tape to computer workflow is pretty bulletproof. Moreover, I don't reuse tapes so I have archives on everything I've ever shot. I did have one assignment where I had to have immediate transfer, so I bought an HDC-TM700. I like the camera but working with AVCHD files in Final Cut is not something you want to do. I really need a third camera (I don't count the 700), so should I be looking for a nice used 100b, or making the jump to HD? I'm certainly not going to buy the 150 because of the AVCHD file problem with Final Cut. That leaves a 200/200a, or a 170. I don't think I want a pure P2 camera at this point--it's just too much money, so the 170 is out. That leaves the 200. I can shoot tape with it in SD just like the 100's, and start buying P2 cards and accessories when I need them. The only problem is that even a used 200 or 200a costs twice what a nice 100b goes for these days. I'm trying to decide if HD is really all that important. I haven't made up my mind.
 
Though I didn't have two DVX100s, I did go through your same angst about a year ago with one DVX100a. It is a big jump, and not always a necessary one. In the end, I wanted tapeless workflow and 16x9 much more than HD, but that cam option doesn't exist. Your case is why they still make the HVX200a, it doubles as a SD tape based cam, and a decent HD cam. Though the HVX200a has less features than the HPX170, it does have that tape drive, but the tape drive is only good for SD. You will want to look at your own business model about the switch to HD and the costs, but I can tell you that when you start working with HD, you won't want to go back. Tapeless workflow is awesome, the the pictures are pretty, but there are a lot of hidden costs; field monitoring, backup, maybe better lighting, edit bay upgrades, yada yada. FWIW, the HPX will shoot SD, just not with tape, which is what I would do since the HPX has much more to offer, but you would need to migrate your backup plan.

On another note, I wouldn't be afraid of AVCHD, it works real well, which would open up the entire line of Panna AVCHD cams.

P2 memory is expensive, but unless you are really shooting long form, a $1000 worth of memory is plenty, and maybe you don't need that much. And unless you lose one or have a quirk, it is a one time buy.

I ended up with a HPX170 and then purchased a HMC40 for a B-Cam. After spending some time with the scene files, they cut together quite well AVCHD + DVCProHD. I have found the Panny mojo to really be quite similar. So I have two cams that cut together reasonably well, but get the benefit of very different form factors instead of having two identical cams. Don't get me wrong, if you are doing lots of multicam shoots, identical cams is better, but for how I use them, this works for me.

There are lots of used HVX200 models for sale at reasonable prices, and for a bit more, quite a few HVX200a models which has the same upgraded imager as the HPX170. You might go for a used model, which gets you started in HD, keeps your SD workflow for the moment, and make it a B-Cam when you are ready to make the big switch.

Angst is a bummer.

Grant
 
This is a great thread but ultimately I agree with ggrantly. It all depends on what you are delivering to. But eventually the DVX will become an antique because everything is being shot in HD.
 
Justyn -

When we need HD, we rent or team up with an HD shop. The DVX's are almost cash cows at this point and there are some really interesting developments in small cameras coming onto the market. So it seems a good time to be patient.

It would be another story if clients were clamoring for HD, but they aren't. And with so much content going online - and onto handhelds - HD does sometimes seems a trifle over hyped, doesn't it? What's better on your iPhone: beautifully shot SD or mediocre HD?

You're absolutely right that HD will make more sense as time passes - but I don't think it's hit the tipping point yet for the majority of corporate video production.


pwelander -

Sounds like we're in similar situations with similar decisions to make. There are a lot of 100b's on eBay and elsewhere with low hours at reasonable prices. Treated properly, these are wonderful cameras. They'll become icons like the VW Beetle or the original iPod.

We'll likely buy a few used dvx's - at these prices, why not? We can always find a use for them. While we wait for the AF100


And in general -

If I thought for a minute that switching our entire operation to HD would make more money - not probably but pretty much a sure thing - I'd be on the phone to the leasing guy today.

As they say, there's a time to sow, there's a time to reap. There's a time to spend money on a whole new setup, and there's a time to suck as much out of the existing, fully functioning equipment as possible.

That big sucking sound? Yep. That's us. And we're doing the happy dance: more than doubled 2009 revenue this year.

Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year.
 
justFRED said:
What's better on your iPhone: beautifully shot SD or mediocre HD?
Click to expand...

Nothing about the recent crop of HD camera is "mediocre"...if you're shooting mediocre HD footage it won't make a difference but beautiful shot SD next to beautifully shot HD looks like crap. Even on an iPhone.

working with AVCHD in Final Cut is a complete pain in the ass, that's why you transcode to ProRes with a program like MPeg Streamclip, Magic Bullet Grinder, or Voltaic. Dumping to computer + transcoding takes less time than a traditional capture, and the media is reusable. Can't see how tape really stacks up to that?
 
nicksnow said:
Nothing about the recent crop of HD camera is "mediocre"...if you're shooting mediocre HD footage it won't make a difference but beautiful shot SD next to beautifully shot HD looks like crap. Even on an iPhone.

working with AVCHD in Final Cut is a complete pain in the ass, that's why you transcode to ProRes with a program like MPeg Streamclip, Magic Bullet Grinder, or Voltaic.
Click to expand...

Nick -

No argument that well shot HD makes for a prettier picture than well shot SD. But few people are seeing them side by side. And most of what we do - talking heads - is just fine.


nicksnow said:
Dumping to computer + transcoding takes less time than a traditional capture, and the media is reusable. Can't see how tape really stacks up to that?
Click to expand...

Tape? That's just for backup. We pull directly from our cameras into digital recorders and switchers.

You're not saying that recording live to digital media is slower that dumping to computer and transcoding? I must be missing something.

Will we move to HD? Of course. Will we move to HD because it's cool? No. Because it's trendy? No. Because it will improve our bottom line? Yes. Then and only then.

Look, I don't know about anybody else's capital expense business model, but I know mine and it's pretty simple: 1) double annual gross income and annual revenue, 2) spend strategically to accomplish item number one, 3) make sure the gear we have isn't collecting dust.

One of my pals owns a more traditional film and video production company and they moved to HD three years ago. It was the right thing for him to do, and made a considerable difference on his bottom line. In our case, our clients would look at the increased cost and opt for SD for now, thank you very much.

He'd have been an idiot to take my approach. And vice versa.
 
im waiting for my AF100 but still keeping my dvx...my main reason is that when i need to send a colegue to do a shoot(a wedding for example)and th client doesnt mind it on sd i wount b comfortable letting them carry my AF100 around,id rather let them shoot with th dvx n save me from a cardiac arrest in case something goes wrong hehe
 
im waiting for my AF100 but still keeping my dvx...my main reason is that when i need to send a colegue to do a shoot(a wedding for example)and th client doesnt mind it on sd i wount b comfortable letting them carry my AF100 around,id rather let them shoot with th dvx n save me from a cardiac arrest in case something goes wrong hehe...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top