Camera Expert
Well-known member
The bit rate specs are in the first post of this thread. It would be nice if Panasonic gave us higher bit rates before the camera is released.
NEW more detailed info on the DVX200 (4/24/2015)
- Thread starter atroa
- Start date
This camera looks way more interesting than the JVC LS300.
If it records 10 bit 422 internally at least in HD I will buy one. I know you can down sample 4K to get 422, but not 10 bit. It only works for color resolution. So if it is only 8 bit for HD and 4k we are stuck with 8 bit. It would also be nice to have 10 bit for 4K. 420 is ok for most things but 8 bit gives you bad banding. 10 bit is more important than 422.
If it records 10 bit 422 internally at least in HD I will buy one. I know you can down sample 4K to get 422, but not 10 bit. It only works for color resolution. So if it is only 8 bit for HD and 4k we are stuck with 8 bit. It would also be nice to have 10 bit for 4K. 420 is ok for most things but 8 bit gives you bad banding. 10 bit is more important than 422.
philiplipetz
Veteran
bloggers, but not Canon, have said that the XC10 has a smart hot shoe that would accept a third part XLR adapter since Canon will not make one similar to the Sony.
Bassman2003
Veteran
But the whole point of the DVX200 is to be the anti-DLR for large sensor video. If you want that then the XC-10 will never work for you.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Once again use an external recorder. They are very cheap now and tend to add a much better screen for focusing. I understand this may not seem optimal to some people but it is a perfectly solid option that will in fact give you 10 bit HD 4:2:2 at a quality typically higher than that of most similar internal codecs. I understand the desire to have an internal codec but it isn't as if you don't have any options with the DVX200. You have plenty of options.
philiplipetz
Veteran
Once again this this is a clash of the DSLR bolt on whatever you need mentality versus the give me what I need ethos people hope for in the DVX200. The bolt on mentality extends to extensive post processing of footage. While bolt on gives much greater flexibility it forgoes ease of shooting and delivery. The cinema world with big crews and budgets goes bolt on and so low end filmmakers emulate this approach, but is it really the best approach for small crews and budgets? Especially if there is a large sensor camera with shallowish DOF delivered in as an all in one. However, it remains to be seen if the IQ and codec stream of the DVX200 eliminate the need for post processing.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
That may have been true at one point but now many external recorders have start and stop triggers from the camera. With this capability there is little extra effort in recording to an external recorder. It is as easy as hitting the start and stop button on the camera. Not sure why you would require a large crew to do that. I just don't understand the complete lack of desire to even consider such a device as an option. While some of you cannot fathom using a process or device to get around what you consider a limitation of the camera, there will be plenty of people who don't mind down converting 4k in post or using an external recorder for higher quality HD.
This camera is clearly not for you since you are not willing to use other tools or processes readily available to you to get around this minor limitation. If broadcast specs are really that serious of a concern for you and you do the volume of work where you have to quickly turn around footage within minutes why on earth are you even looking at a camera clearly targeted to the prosumer market of corporate, documentary and wedding videos? There are plenty of other more expensive cameras that don't compromise. While the DVX200 may not work for you it will clearly work for a lot of people who:
A. Don't mind 4:2:0 8 bit, like most people the camera is targeted towards.
B. Don't mind shooting 4k and down converting in post for 4:4:4 8bit.
C. Don't mind Using an external recorder for HD or 4k 10bit 4:2:2.
While maybe not 100% as convenient I am willing to bet there will be a flood of new content creators in the market pounding at the doors of whatever broadcast work they can get and doing equal if not better quality with a few simple processes that will impress even the most strict stations. The DVX200 may not work for you but there will be plenty of others who it will work perfectly for.
Spartacus
Veteran
Good roundup!
Two of the above points have been the case for years and haven't stopped the C100 from becoming a sales hit.
One of the above even sets the DVX200 drastically apart from the still brand new C100mII.
I was planning on upgrading to the C300II, but the DVX200 checks a lot of boxes at a much lower price.
Hell, I could even add a URSAmini and still have a significant amount of cash left.
Times are getting better and better for owner/operators
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I'm digging the BMD Video Assist, simply because it will downconvert 4k and record to the same SDXC cards as the camera.
Bassman2003
Veteran
If these devices can trigger off of the DVX's internal record message you make a compelling argument. But, on the other hand, if you are going external then other less ergonomic cameras come into play to some extent. Really a lot of options these days!
joe 1008
Veteran
Hopefully the internal conversion to HD is of high quality. As I understand it, when capturing in 4k the 5 axis IS is somewhat limited.
Isn't that kind of a standard today? Please correct me if I'm wrong.