The 3 way shoot out
- Thread starter Jarred Land
- Start date
DVX100A-24P to Sony HDCAM
DVX100A-24P to Sony HDCAM
Very informative article. I am looking to purchase a DVX100A and record in 24P mode. We ultimately want to convert it to the Sony HDCAM format for a short film submission to Sundance. Was not sure what is the best way to do this. We cannot afford to go to film, so we are going to the only format that has the potential to be projected. I spoke with a transfer house that has the Alchemist. Unfortunately it only can take an SDI component input. I do not believe the DVX-24P can be played back on anything other than the DVX into the Alchemist. Since the Alchemist does not have firewire am not sure if we will be able to get the footage properly transferred to the final format required. The person at the company suggested perhaps we could go through the DSR1500, which will force it to be ntsc and then into the Alchemist which kinda defeats the purpose of recording in 24p in the first place. There is another device called the Ukon which can convert to all formats up or down, but the person at the transfer house indicated that the resulting footage through the Alchemist is always better than the Ukon. Has anyone tried this and what have you found is the best way to get to the Sony HDcam format?
DVX100A-24P to Sony HDCAM
Very informative article. I am looking to purchase a DVX100A and record in 24P mode. We ultimately want to convert it to the Sony HDCAM format for a short film submission to Sundance. Was not sure what is the best way to do this. We cannot afford to go to film, so we are going to the only format that has the potential to be projected. I spoke with a transfer house that has the Alchemist. Unfortunately it only can take an SDI component input. I do not believe the DVX-24P can be played back on anything other than the DVX into the Alchemist. Since the Alchemist does not have firewire am not sure if we will be able to get the footage properly transferred to the final format required. The person at the company suggested perhaps we could go through the DSR1500, which will force it to be ntsc and then into the Alchemist which kinda defeats the purpose of recording in 24p in the first place. There is another device called the Ukon which can convert to all formats up or down, but the person at the transfer house indicated that the resulting footage through the Alchemist is always better than the Ukon. Has anyone tried this and what have you found is the best way to get to the Sony HDcam format?
16:9 Anamorphic Lens for the DVX100a
16:9 Anamorphic Lens for the DVX100a
Your article talked about 16:9, but did not talk about the 16:9 anamorphic lens that adapts to the DVX camera. Has anyone tried this and does it work and how does it work? Also does it provide an output that rivals the XL2?
16:9 Anamorphic Lens for the DVX100a
Your article talked about 16:9, but did not talk about the 16:9 anamorphic lens that adapts to the DVX camera. Has anyone tried this and does it work and how does it work? Also does it provide an output that rivals the XL2?
iposiniditos
New member
AndySky said:
Very good question! I am about to buy a DVX and i'm very interested for this. If someone could be answer, it would be great.
Great article, thanks a lot!
xanterzinzur
New member
hdv on dvd
hdv on dvd
Are you sure you cannot distribute material taped on hdv on dvd? after all is mpeg.
hdv on dvd
Are you sure you cannot distribute material taped on hdv on dvd? after all is mpeg.
Very skewed results... =(
Very skewed results... =(
Dear Jared,
I was wondering about your results... I ran the same tests and while some of my conclusions are the same, I had a few issues here...
On your color charts, it appears as if you enhanced the contrast on the images for the DVX footage... On my tests, the saturation levels were not nearly as high. Was this done in camera or in post?? Either way, this is misleading.
I got a strong DVX bias from the article. I've been using both the DVX and the XL2 on a feature movie western, and all I can say is that the DVX has a very difficult time matching the 16x9 resolution of the XL2 (pseudo-anamorphic and all... it's still higher res).
Also, we tested the eyepieces of both cameras against an NTSC-calibrated monitor for accuracy and found that despite the 'bad joke' of an eyepiece, the XL2's LCD is nearly 95% accurate when matching colors. The DVX seems to skew everything off somehow.
Finally, have you looked closely at the red/green/blue response of the CCD's on your Macbeth color charts? LOOK CLOSER. You'll notice that the DVX has a problem with it's response to the primary colors. The Blue response is a bit dark.. the Green is hue-shifted. The Red as well. But the yellow response is very very poor and far too light. Have you considered what effect this has on footage? Look at the XL2 response (if you can see beyond the contrasted photos that I really have a problem with). The Red/Green/Blue response are the most accurate of all cameras. VERY IMPORTANT.
Also, if any of you are wondering... The DVX has an average ASA rating of 800 while the XL2 is about 200. This accounts for the amount of 'noise' that the DVX records in its images. The XL2 tends to be much smoother.
While the XL2 is a bulky camera, I have to say that after running my own tests against yours, this article, while very informative, is also misleading and biased. Again, I take issue with your photos of the Macbeth color charts. I did NOT get the same results and wonder if you enhanced the contrast of the DVX pictures. The DVX doesn't reproduce that type of saturation without a lot of help. It should look almost identical to the FX1 and XL2 pics, except for the actual color response.
This is just my two cents. My results and conclusions are quite different.
-John
Very skewed results... =(
Dear Jared,
I was wondering about your results... I ran the same tests and while some of my conclusions are the same, I had a few issues here...
On your color charts, it appears as if you enhanced the contrast on the images for the DVX footage... On my tests, the saturation levels were not nearly as high. Was this done in camera or in post?? Either way, this is misleading.
I got a strong DVX bias from the article. I've been using both the DVX and the XL2 on a feature movie western, and all I can say is that the DVX has a very difficult time matching the 16x9 resolution of the XL2 (pseudo-anamorphic and all... it's still higher res).
Also, we tested the eyepieces of both cameras against an NTSC-calibrated monitor for accuracy and found that despite the 'bad joke' of an eyepiece, the XL2's LCD is nearly 95% accurate when matching colors. The DVX seems to skew everything off somehow.
Finally, have you looked closely at the red/green/blue response of the CCD's on your Macbeth color charts? LOOK CLOSER. You'll notice that the DVX has a problem with it's response to the primary colors. The Blue response is a bit dark.. the Green is hue-shifted. The Red as well. But the yellow response is very very poor and far too light. Have you considered what effect this has on footage? Look at the XL2 response (if you can see beyond the contrasted photos that I really have a problem with). The Red/Green/Blue response are the most accurate of all cameras. VERY IMPORTANT.
Also, if any of you are wondering... The DVX has an average ASA rating of 800 while the XL2 is about 200. This accounts for the amount of 'noise' that the DVX records in its images. The XL2 tends to be much smoother.
While the XL2 is a bulky camera, I have to say that after running my own tests against yours, this article, while very informative, is also misleading and biased. Again, I take issue with your photos of the Macbeth color charts. I did NOT get the same results and wonder if you enhanced the contrast of the DVX pictures. The DVX doesn't reproduce that type of saturation without a lot of help. It should look almost identical to the FX1 and XL2 pics, except for the actual color response.
This is just my two cents. My results and conclusions are quite different.
-John
AndySky said:
I have used the anamorphic adapter with the DVX. I used it in conjunction with an XL2 for dual composition on a feature we're making.
Basically, so long as you are keeping your shots wide, the adapter is fine. BUT you'll have major issues once you start zooming in. The resolution gets lost/fuzzy in a hurry. It's a big problem for comping close ups from far away.
The adapter we used cost about $600 on B&H, so it's not a total piece of junk.
My advice is that if you want the best widescreen resolution, use the adapter, but beware the zooms. It WILL distort. Or just spring for an adapter that costs a small fortune with zero distortion.
Personally, if shooting widescreen, I'd say use an XL2 until Panasonic introduces its own native 16x9 (pseudo 16x9 or otherwise...). The results are MUCH sharper, especially with the Canon lenses (Canon still makes some of the finest optics in the industry). Adding any extra glass to the front of a lens is generally never a good idea.
Hope this helps.
-John
PANA-MAN
New member
AndySky said:
The XL2 is true 16:9. No gimmicks. The DVX uses a "squeeze" mode in order to achieve this effect which results in image degradation.
In short, yes, the XL2 has significantly higher resolution than the DVX in this mode.
In 4:3 they are near equal with the DVX having a slightly higher but not noticeable resolution advantage.
If you want more info check out the thread "XL2 nicer image than DVX?" thread posted in the XL2 forum section... I think.
Fx1
Fx1
Thanks for all the info on the FX1.
I just bought one about 5 weeks ago. Love the pictures but not to crazy about the audio
I used a XL1S for about 3yrs. and audio was great, the picture was just ok.
I just bought a Rode videomic from B&H i hope it helps with the audio
My main source of my living is audio recording and i use RODE pro studio mics
in the studio. I'll let you know how the mic works out.
DVXUSER is a great site, love it.
Fx1
Thanks for all the info on the FX1.
I just bought one about 5 weeks ago. Love the pictures but not to crazy about the audio
I used a XL1S for about 3yrs. and audio was great, the picture was just ok.
I just bought a Rode videomic from B&H i hope it helps with the audio
My main source of my living is audio recording and i use RODE pro studio mics
in the studio. I'll let you know how the mic works out.
DVXUSER is a great site, love it.
Fx1
Fx1
Hello
Well i got the Rode Videomic. It works very good.
I did a test to see at how far away i could be from the subject and still pick up their voice having them wisper, it was over 50 ft worked like a charm.
Then tested recording music worked very good.
Did not like the sound with the camera on auto audio (IT OVER LOADS)
but when i went to manual setting volume at 4.5 the music was very clean and clear.
what i would do is eq. at post
Thank You
joe
Fx1
Hello
Well i got the Rode Videomic. It works very good.
I did a test to see at how far away i could be from the subject and still pick up their voice having them wisper, it was over 50 ft worked like a charm.
Then tested recording music worked very good.
Did not like the sound with the camera on auto audio (IT OVER LOADS)
but when i went to manual setting volume at 4.5 the music was very clean and clear.
what i would do is eq. at post
Thank You
joe
I've used the DVXa for a couple of years now--renting at first and now I finally own one! I can't tell you how many times I've looked at my footage and thought "WOW!" It's not just that the camera comes as close as I can imagine getting to actual film, but the colors are so luscious and rich. I've been amazed at the shadowing and color details that this camera can interpret. It's a little rough on delineating full color-space, the way beta is, but the overall look and feel is stunning for the price and convenience. I expect 3-5 years from now, every DVX owner will be drooling over the first HDV camera to incorporate both the beauty of film with the sharpness of video.
InteractGrafix
New member
HD Camcorders HD-DVD
HD Camcorders HD-DVD
Hi,
I think you did a great review on these camcorders, but I think you are not up to date on your research about HD-DVD. It's coming fast and in 2006 even Laptops will have HD-DVD players. In about 2-3 years it will be the standard.
Check out this link to read up on the Toshiba mobile(laptop) HD-DVD drive.
:thumbsup:
http://www.hddvdprg.com/press/index.html#051003b
HD Camcorders HD-DVD
Hi,
I think you did a great review on these camcorders, but I think you are not up to date on your research about HD-DVD. It's coming fast and in 2006 even Laptops will have HD-DVD players. In about 2-3 years it will be the standard.
Check out this link to read up on the Toshiba mobile(laptop) HD-DVD drive.
:thumbsup:
http://www.hddvdprg.com/press/index.html#051003b
danstanbury
New member
Hi
The anamorphic lens for the DVX sounds quite problematic. Are postbox and squeeze solutions for 16:9 really not a credible alternative? Does any one know if the reduction in resolution using these alternatives would mean that broadcasters in the UK would not accept footage? That's what it comes down to for me.
Thanks
The anamorphic lens for the DVX sounds quite problematic. Are postbox and squeeze solutions for 16:9 really not a credible alternative? Does any one know if the reduction in resolution using these alternatives would mean that broadcasters in the UK would not accept footage? That's what it comes down to for me.
Thanks
Barry_Green
Moderator
That article was originally written and posted almost a year ago. I think it was first posted in November or December 2004. Jarred did a redesign of the site in June and re-posted the articles, but yes, that article is quite old.InteractGrafix said:
FREUDENBERG_FILMS
New member
I want to make a short film that will have a lot of bluescreen / greenscreen work. IS the DVX up to the challange or would the XL2 win hands down?
I have heard that the new HD cameras under $8000 ( thats in AUD by the way, Australian here ) do a better job for chroamkeying. My bet is the JVC GY-HD100u Would be best.....
My film will be a mixture of live action and star wars ( new prequals ) style effects.
Can anyone tell me what camera would best suit me....
Thanks, Mike
:thumbsup:
I have heard that the new HD cameras under $8000 ( thats in AUD by the way, Australian here ) do a better job for chroamkeying. My bet is the JVC GY-HD100u Would be best.....
My film will be a mixture of live action and star wars ( new prequals ) style effects.
Can anyone tell me what camera would best suit me....
Thanks, Mike
:thumbsup:
HVX200 would be the best solution. You have 4:2:2 color compression. DV is 4:1:1 and personally HDV is not all that great compared to DVCPROHD + you get variable frame rates. So...just be patient....and wait....it will all be worth it. I just wish I had the money to afford the camera :-(
in short unless its a scoop theyd think you were naive, 16:9 is a requirement now, though theyll always encourage someone who shows talent you can only put up so many hurdles for yourself, best to give yourself a break, another tip is to make personel contact and show your keeness, have somthing to show though!danstanbury said:
casonova197
New member
I wonder about what the article mentioned applying color correction and gamma after shooting with the hdvfx1. Im a big fan of the dvx, but even though hidef lacks the film look. Its still hires so if you do mess around with it your sure to have an all around better picture. Afterall the hires on the sony looks like it can sure look great if appyled all those gamma settings afterward. Looking way betta than what the dvx and xl2 can look like.
WesCoughlin
New member
No offense ( I found the article very good & detialed) but i felt a strong bias towards the dvx and against the xl2. The article mention how the fx1 was not in the same league as the other two. I just fell that some of the xl2 shots and color test where not probably set up with the right manual controls. I like the dvx for many reasons, but i just fell that canon has a advantage of image control and j produce a "little" better image over all; but not as well in lower light conditions when compared to the dvx. And the fact that canon has interchangable lenses is assume; but the writer seem to point out lots and lots of negetives. Even though the fx1 and dvx stock lenses dont even match the stock lens on the canon.