Taylor Moore
Veteran
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm
Great technical review of the DVX 100 with 35mm film output.
Great technical review of the DVX 100 with 35mm film output.
Review by ASC on DVX 100
- Thread starter Taylor Moore
- Start date
Re: Review by ASC on DVX 100
Here is a link to the high rez (720x486) frames from the article that are on my site.
http://www.24p.com/ASC_Pictures.htm
Here is a link to the high rez (720x486) frames from the article that are on my site.
http://www.24p.com/ASC_Pictures.htm
Taylor Moore
Veteran
Re: Review by ASC on DVX 100
Thanks for posting this!!!!
Pretty damn impressive for a $3200 camera.
Thanks for posting this!!!!
Pretty damn impressive for a $3200 camera.
Flintstone
Well-known member
Re: Review by ASC on DVX 100
In first picture (with the 3 cameras on tripods), the middle camera does not appear to be a DVX100, but rather a Sony PD150.
In first picture (with the 3 cameras on tripods), the middle camera does not appear to be a DVX100, but rather a Sony PD150.
Flintstone
Well-known member
Re: Review by ASC on DVX 100
Ah! But why bother testing the PD-150? We all know it can't compete with the DVX100!!!
Ah! But why bother testing the PD-150? We all know it can't compete with the DVX100!!!
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Review by ASC on DVX 100
Hi,
I read this article a while ago and found it interesting. It did however have its own quirks.
Why compare a S16 camera with a 4x3 video camera? Shouldn't they have either added an anamorphic adaptor or more usefully compared it to a standard 16mm camera.
I found there no point in have the 35mm camera there at all - we know it blows the weeds out of the other two formats, but what about a pro-dv type camera. DSR-500ws or even digibeta?
Besides these and a couple of other things it was informative.
Hi,
I read this article a while ago and found it interesting. It did however have its own quirks.
Why compare a S16 camera with a 4x3 video camera? Shouldn't they have either added an anamorphic adaptor or more usefully compared it to a standard 16mm camera.
I found there no point in have the 35mm camera there at all - we know it blows the weeds out of the other two formats, but what about a pro-dv type camera. DSR-500ws or even digibeta?
Besides these and a couple of other things it was informative.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Review by ASC on DVX 100
They would have loved to have the anamorphic adapter there, but none existed at the time that article was written.
Why use Super16? Because anyone making a film nowadays would choose Super16. Yes it put the DVX at a disadvantage, a disadvantage that would have been overcome with the addition of the anamorphic adapter, but still, it's the equipment someone would choose to use. Nobody who had a choice would shoot a film on a standard 16mm camera if intending for blowup (S16 requires a 3x optical blowup to fill the 35mm frame, but R16 requires a 5x optical blowup). So they were comparing the available equipment as one would actually choose it.
I was surprised the DVX was as competitive as it was. I can't wait to see how a blowup looks with the anamorphic adapter.
They would have loved to have the anamorphic adapter there, but none existed at the time that article was written.
Why use Super16? Because anyone making a film nowadays would choose Super16. Yes it put the DVX at a disadvantage, a disadvantage that would have been overcome with the addition of the anamorphic adapter, but still, it's the equipment someone would choose to use. Nobody who had a choice would shoot a film on a standard 16mm camera if intending for blowup (S16 requires a 3x optical blowup to fill the 35mm frame, but R16 requires a 5x optical blowup). So they were comparing the available equipment as one would actually choose it.
I was surprised the DVX was as competitive as it was. I can't wait to see how a blowup looks with the anamorphic adapter.
Re: Review by ASC on DVX 100
The article was requested by the magazine to compare all the formats since everyone at the time (and still now) will say DVX100 is like film! Well as many of us know, film comes in many flavors so the point of the test was to compare all the formats when the output was intended for film, HD or SD. The S16 was posted as 4:3 for the video tests as you can see from the frame grabs on my site. THe anamorphoc did not exist, the article was deliverd in December for an April issue and the lens was just announced at NAB of that year (April) when the article hit the streets.
For the film outs, everything was assumed to be 4:3 as well using the full frame of each format for resolution. 35mm is also 4:3, it' only the projector that crops to 1.85.
Michael
The article was requested by the magazine to compare all the formats since everyone at the time (and still now) will say DVX100 is like film! Well as many of us know, film comes in many flavors so the point of the test was to compare all the formats when the output was intended for film, HD or SD. The S16 was posted as 4:3 for the video tests as you can see from the frame grabs on my site. THe anamorphoc did not exist, the article was deliverd in December for an April issue and the lens was just announced at NAB of that year (April) when the article hit the streets.
For the film outs, everything was assumed to be 4:3 as well using the full frame of each format for resolution. 35mm is also 4:3, it' only the projector that crops to 1.85.
Michael