sdx900 vs hvx choice

K

kgg

Active member
We are looking to rent a cam-or finding a DP with one. We had planned to use a DVX--but then considered renting a SDX-900, until we heard of the HVX a couple of months ago(and we wont be shooting for a few months so we have the time to look into our options--would like to see more image comparisons--especially a side-by side with the Canon HL-H1 like was done with the DVX vs Xl-2 a while back).
We dont intend the final product for film out(and even if the opportunity arose we are going for an early 70s exploitation feel, not David Lean) but the better we can get the raw material, the nice it would be opton-wise down the road.
But as for the rental choices--one place has the sdx-900 for $350 a day(canadian) and the hvx for $300.(including 2 4 gb p2 cards).
What advantages does the SDX offer over the HVX?

DVX-SDX-HVX--my mind is in danger of going MIA. :eek:
 
The SDX is a 2/3" chip camera, which makes the depth of field soo much nicer, it has a much cleaner image and it's a shoulder camera (which might be good in some ways). It also has more latitude than the HVX.

The HVX has a higher res image, and is a lot more compact, and tapeless. It is a 2/3" chip camera, so that the depth of field is awful. The DOF issue can be delt with by using a 35mm adapter, but again, that adds to the cost and you will lose more light - even more noise in the picture.

If I were you, I'd go with the SDX, but that's just my cup of tea.
 
Yeah I heard about the new HVX--it wouldnt get into my rental realm until a year from now I reckon. :( On the other hand--in a year another camera will be announced to come out so I can never win. :)
So the SDX 900 has less resolution but greater depth of field--and the HVX--with an adaptor, gives you greater depth of field--but reduces the image res--right?

Formasa sure does look great--in fact it was an article about that film that introduced me to the SDX-900.
 
The HVX with an adapter not only reduces image res, it also reduces lighting a lot, depending on the adapter.
 
Ah right right. That would pose a major suck problem since a lot of shooting will be at night.
You know--they say dont mix formats--but it would be kind of nice to use the HVX without an adaptor for stuff that doesnt need depth of field-and use another cam like the SDX for stuff that does. If the difference is too strong--cant I just dumb it down in post?
 
I would say go with the SDX for your shoot. If you have a few months before the shoot, it wouldn't hurt to do some tests (if you have the money to rent for a day or two). Unless you needed the variable framerates of the HVX, I would say stick with the SDX. Do people ever use HD lenses with standard def cameras? It seems like they would be alot clearer, and possibly allow you to get the most out of the camera. I am sure that mixing the resolutions in post wouldnt be *that* hard to do, as long as you figured out some settings to get the images to look the same visually, and then work on the resolution difference in post.
 
Last edited:
Well, I see no reason really to mix the two of them. The SDX will in most ways produce the best footage. Although if it's a money problem, it can't be too hard to match them in post.
 
I was thinking in terms of the HVX's advantages in res without an adaptor for things that dont need it(a fair bit of the film would be shot in front of a greenscreen as well). Especially for close ups.
Just looking at all options(and even Canon's HL X1) but reading all the data is giving me a headache. I like the screen grabs I have seen for both the Canon and HVX-and cant decide between them(I dont like the X1 video look--but like its res vs the HVX look and softer res). If its a simple thing to make it more film like in post--I would probably opt for the Canon over the HVX, but alll the factors involved in compression and lost res for both makes me think I will just wait until I see more side by side HVX-HL comparisons--and hear about film out options-but then, if the SDX still trumps both.....I am more interested in having a nice respectable early 70s Exploitation film look than something superclean(but want to keep options open :) . Then the issue of whether its better to shoot at a higher frame rate and magic bullet it later and
ahhhh! eye strain!!!
 
i came across this same dilemma a few weeks ago and went with the SDX. the 2/3" CCDs really make a difference. i'm really glad i went with the SDX. the footage looks faaaaantastic. the SDX rental price just dropped significantly which allowed me to rent an HD wide angle lens as a bonus. it looked so good i ended up using it the whole time. and during the shoot, the clients even commented on how impressive the camera looked (which is always nice).

go with the SDX.

the only time i might go with the HVX over the SDX is for a film out. but that's a big maybe because i've never seen the two back to back on a film out.

what does everyone think about the SDX v.s. the HVX for film out? would you stick with the SDX still?
 
Last edited:
I rather have the HVX over the SDX for a few reasons. 1. Size. The HVX size makes it a lot easier to handheld/etc. 2. format. Since the sdx's highest res is dvcpro50 and the hvx can go as high as dvcproHD, whats not to like? plus the frame rate etc. Just my opinion though.
 
Its tough..but I have lots of time and maybe another option...I am now thinking..if I could schedule the film to be shot in about 10 days, maybe I could rent a ..gulp, varicam. I would definitely need a good DP for that though.(and I have to do composite work for the post--my ceiling is about $30-35 000 canadian for the whole project.(but trying to keep the production end to a round $20)
These people used it--but I am not impressed with the quality--seems like an awful waste for something set entirely indoors:
http://www.fivestrangers.com/
 
billiamfilms said:
I rather have the HVX over the SDX for a few reasons. 1. Size. The HVX size makes it a lot easier to handheld/etc. 2. format. Since the sdx's highest res is dvcpro50 and the hvx can go as high as dvcproHD, whats not to like? plus the frame rate etc. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

About shooting handheld, I actually think that handheld footage from a heavy, large shoulder camera looks a lot better than handheld shots from a lightweight, small handycam-camera.

Just my openion, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top