Tim Scarpino
Member
Barry, it does.
Thanks for your time and consideration and have a great weekend.
Tim
Thanks for your time and consideration and have a great weekend.
Tim
The 3 way shoot out
- Thread starter Jarred Land
- Start date
Sean Sawyer
New member
JVC GY-HD100U, anyone?
JVC GY-HD100U, anyone?
This article is by far the best I have seen on the pros and cons of these cameras. It has really helped me as far as which of these three is the best for my purposes. My question is, how do you think the JVC GY-HD100U will compare when it is released? It seems as if it is intended to combine the best aspects of the three cameras reviewed here. Disregarding the price tag of course, which seems pretty strong...
JVC GY-HD100U, anyone?
This article is by far the best I have seen on the pros and cons of these cameras. It has really helped me as far as which of these three is the best for my purposes. My question is, how do you think the JVC GY-HD100U will compare when it is released? It seems as if it is intended to combine the best aspects of the three cameras reviewed here. Disregarding the price tag of course, which seems pretty strong...
Barry_Green
Moderator
When the HD100 and HVX come out, we will be performing another 3-way test, comparing the HD100 against the Z1 against the HVX. The HD100 isn't really in direct competition with the FX1 or DVX, since it costs about twice as much as those cameras. Even the XL2 is substantially less expensive than the HD100.
A proper comparison would be HD100 vs. HVX vs. Z1, as all three carry retail prices within 5% of each other ($6295, $5995, and $5946). All have dual XLR's, high-def, etc.
A proper comparison would be HD100 vs. HVX vs. Z1, as all three carry retail prices within 5% of each other ($6295, $5995, and $5946). All have dual XLR's, high-def, etc.
alansglass
New member
Which camera?
Which camera?
Really appreciated your article. I hope I can get just a little more advice. I am a still photographer, not by trade, but for the love of it. I have a Canon 1d mk2 and several lenses. I shoot mainly high school sports of my own kids. I purchased a Canon GL2 last year for the soul purpose of videoing my sons J.V. football games. I always shot in 30p. I figure he probably has one more year of organized sports left and I would like to film his varsity year in the highest possible resolution to keep for all time sakes. The GL2 did an adaquate job compared to most of the other parents filming, but I would like to upgrade to a prosumer model. Besides, the reds didnt come out right and our team colors are, yes, red. I have 2 home theaters set up in my home. A 110" (wide) projection DLP and a 50" plasma. Both HD. I do need a minumum 20x zoom and would like to know how these 3 cameras performed with add on lenses. Most games are at night under cheap stadium lights and that really scares me about the FX1. :lipsrseal I dont need to burn copies and would be glad just to watch them in one of my theaters. 16x9 is also a plus as I have to film from the top of the stadiums and could get the whole playing surface. I would probably sell it after the season. (I know, I'll take a big loss) Budget 3-5k. Your opinon is greatly appreciated. Alan
Which camera?
Really appreciated your article. I hope I can get just a little more advice. I am a still photographer, not by trade, but for the love of it. I have a Canon 1d mk2 and several lenses. I shoot mainly high school sports of my own kids. I purchased a Canon GL2 last year for the soul purpose of videoing my sons J.V. football games. I always shot in 30p. I figure he probably has one more year of organized sports left and I would like to film his varsity year in the highest possible resolution to keep for all time sakes. The GL2 did an adaquate job compared to most of the other parents filming, but I would like to upgrade to a prosumer model. Besides, the reds didnt come out right and our team colors are, yes, red. I have 2 home theaters set up in my home. A 110" (wide) projection DLP and a 50" plasma. Both HD. I do need a minumum 20x zoom and would like to know how these 3 cameras performed with add on lenses. Most games are at night under cheap stadium lights and that really scares me about the FX1. :lipsrseal I dont need to burn copies and would be glad just to watch them in one of my theaters. 16x9 is also a plus as I have to film from the top of the stadiums and could get the whole playing surface. I would probably sell it after the season. (I know, I'll take a big loss) Budget 3-5k. Your opinon is greatly appreciated. Alan
rreichenfeld
Active member
Nice Article
rreichenfeld
Active member
Extremely Helpful
Extremely Helpful
I must say, for a novice DVX owner, that article cleared up alot of issues for me. I must say the authors did great research and delivered great information. Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbup:
Extremely Helpful
I must say, for a novice DVX owner, that article cleared up alot of issues for me. I must say the authors did great research and delivered great information. Thanks for clearing that up. :thumbup:
admanscott
New member
How about 30fps video?
How about 30fps video?
Your excellent article on the three way shootout was VERY informative and helped me understand the differences between the DVX (we own three) and the new Sony HD cam.
One question....I know that this is a forum for filmmaking with the DVX, but your article did not touch too much on how 30fps video looks. We use our cameras for commercial production, shooting mostly in 24p, but our videographers have complained that the "video" look suffers vs. Betacam substantially in contrast, etc......so much so that they have taken to lugging our old warhorse Betacams around a lot lately.
I know the Betas have chips that are twice the size, but are we not understanding the tweaking of video in the DVX like the dumb guys we can be?
How about 30fps video?
Your excellent article on the three way shootout was VERY informative and helped me understand the differences between the DVX (we own three) and the new Sony HD cam.
One question....I know that this is a forum for filmmaking with the DVX, but your article did not touch too much on how 30fps video looks. We use our cameras for commercial production, shooting mostly in 24p, but our videographers have complained that the "video" look suffers vs. Betacam substantially in contrast, etc......so much so that they have taken to lugging our old warhorse Betacams around a lot lately.
I know the Betas have chips that are twice the size, but are we not understanding the tweaking of video in the DVX like the dumb guys we can be?
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Great article, guys. Very informative.
I have to admit that I'm a little bit frustrated by the lack of 24p combined with native 16x9 in any of the cameras. I don't care so much about 4:3 vs 16:9 televisions (although ultimately that’s where most people will see my project). I'm prepping for an indie feature and I want to frame it in 16x9 24p and would prefer not to go with the anamorphic adapter. The DVX seems to be almost perfect, except for that lack of 16x9. The goal for the project is to go the festival route with the (unlikely, but still hopeful) goal of distribution. So I want the filmic look as well as widescreen framing of the flick. The HVX may be the ideal solution, but that would push production back quite a bit. Hmmm, stuff to think about.
Thanks for the insightful article.
Cheers,
Josh
I have to admit that I'm a little bit frustrated by the lack of 24p combined with native 16x9 in any of the cameras. I don't care so much about 4:3 vs 16:9 televisions (although ultimately that’s where most people will see my project). I'm prepping for an indie feature and I want to frame it in 16x9 24p and would prefer not to go with the anamorphic adapter. The DVX seems to be almost perfect, except for that lack of 16x9. The goal for the project is to go the festival route with the (unlikely, but still hopeful) goal of distribution. So I want the filmic look as well as widescreen framing of the flick. The HVX may be the ideal solution, but that would push production back quite a bit. Hmmm, stuff to think about.
Thanks for the insightful article.
Cheers,
Josh
Barry_Green
Moderator
Take another look at the XL2. It's 24p and native-res 16x9.
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Thanks, Barry. I'll definitely do that. I keep reading taht the 24p in the XL2 doesn't quite live up to the results of the DVX. However, I need to test this for myself. I like the lens better on the DVX, but of course I can switch lenses on the XL2. That means more money, but I could shoot sooner rather than wait for the HVX. As you can tell, I'm full of indecision at the moment!
Cheers,
Josh
Cheers,
Josh
Barry,
Forgive me for my ignorance of 16:9 framing, but I have some questions I could never seem to clear up on my own.
Assume I want to shoot a short film in 16:9 mode on the DVX. When I output the footage to a 4:3 display, how will it turn out? I would imagine the image looking squashed (i.e. people looking skinny). So if that is the case, if I output the same footage on a 16:9 television, will I see a full undistorted image?
If my thesis is correct, then how would I go about making the footage acceptable for both displays (ideally, letterbox on 4:3 with black bars on top & bottom with no stretching; and a perfectly filled image on 16:9)?
I'm very lost as to how the DVX frames the picture. Would the DVX need a special anamorphic lens to execute this? But you don't have the option of changing the lens? Are all the ratio formats dealt with on additional hardware/software? Do DVD recording programs resolve anything? I need schooled.
Love,
Laron
Forgive me for my ignorance of 16:9 framing, but I have some questions I could never seem to clear up on my own.
Assume I want to shoot a short film in 16:9 mode on the DVX. When I output the footage to a 4:3 display, how will it turn out? I would imagine the image looking squashed (i.e. people looking skinny). So if that is the case, if I output the same footage on a 16:9 television, will I see a full undistorted image?
If my thesis is correct, then how would I go about making the footage acceptable for both displays (ideally, letterbox on 4:3 with black bars on top & bottom with no stretching; and a perfectly filled image on 16:9)?
I'm very lost as to how the DVX frames the picture. Would the DVX need a special anamorphic lens to execute this? But you don't have the option of changing the lens? Are all the ratio formats dealt with on additional hardware/software? Do DVD recording programs resolve anything? I need schooled.
Love,
Laron
I've been reading for a few hours online and have come to understand that the DVX basically does the work of an anamorphic adapter, but doesn't preserve as much quality as one would.
A source: Panasonic Adapter
Where I'm stuck at now is the process I'd need to take in order to make the "squeezed" footage look good on both 16:9 and 4:3 displays, as I've stated before. Could you fill me in with any info on how to make this a success to DVD?
Thanks,
Laron
A source: Panasonic Adapter
Where I'm stuck at now is the process I'd need to take in order to make the "squeezed" footage look good on both 16:9 and 4:3 displays, as I've stated before. Could you fill me in with any info on how to make this a success to DVD?
Thanks,
Laron
Barry_Green
Moderator
The DVX's "squeeze mode", and anamorphic adapter, both result in an image that would look squished on a 4:3 TV, and "right" (i.e., undistorted) on a widescreen TV.
You cannot make one image that looks right on both. It is impossible. No camera can do it.
So, what you do is, you burn your project to DVD. DVD players have built-in circuitry that will automatically stretch or squeeze the image, including adding letterbox or "pillarbox" bars, so that it looks right on either type of television.
So, shoot squeeze or anamorphic, and render that out to a 16:9 MPEG-2 file on a DVD. The DVD player will know whether it's hooked up to a 16:9 TV (in which case it plays the image full widescreen) or a 4:3 TV (in which case it'll unsqueeze and letterbox the image).
In other words, you don't have to worry about it. Just shoot and author your DVD properly, and the DVD player will take care of the rest.
You cannot make one image that looks right on both. It is impossible. No camera can do it.
So, what you do is, you burn your project to DVD. DVD players have built-in circuitry that will automatically stretch or squeeze the image, including adding letterbox or "pillarbox" bars, so that it looks right on either type of television.
So, shoot squeeze or anamorphic, and render that out to a 16:9 MPEG-2 file on a DVD. The DVD player will know whether it's hooked up to a 16:9 TV (in which case it plays the image full widescreen) or a 4:3 TV (in which case it'll unsqueeze and letterbox the image).
In other words, you don't have to worry about it. Just shoot and author your DVD properly, and the DVD player will take care of the rest.
ProfD
Well-known member
3-way comparison
3-way comparison
Guys...thanks so much for your well-written and thoughtful comparison of these 3 cameras. I've been comparing various cam's for the last month or so and have been overwhelmed by the various marketing sale-pitches, advertising statements and even over-statements from the various competitive camps.
You guys managed to put it into real terms that I could understand. Thanks.
btw...I was leaning towards the XL-2 prior to reading your comparison, but now I'm sold that the DVX-100A is the best choice for my needs and aspirations at this time.
Thanks,
Prof. D.
West Monroe, La.
3-way comparison
Guys...thanks so much for your well-written and thoughtful comparison of these 3 cameras. I've been comparing various cam's for the last month or so and have been overwhelmed by the various marketing sale-pitches, advertising statements and even over-statements from the various competitive camps.
You guys managed to put it into real terms that I could understand. Thanks.
btw...I was leaning towards the XL-2 prior to reading your comparison, but now I'm sold that the DVX-100A is the best choice for my needs and aspirations at this time.
Thanks,
Prof. D.
West Monroe, La.
cool, no problem Prof.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The XL2 definitely accentuates green more than the other cameras did, in its stock configuration. But, judging colors based on the default setting is unnecessarily limiting -- all three cameras provide very extensive adjustments to color and image. You can basically configure them to look like just about anything you want.
I have a direct-to-DVD project I am producing. It's a vegetarian cooking video. A "film look" isn't important for this project. But picture quality is, and so is low cost.
I'm intending to purchase two cameras for the production. Initially, I was sold on the Sony Z1U. I wanted to purchase a Z1U and an FX1. I've been searching message boards and websites for information and comparisons with other cameras. This article is one of the best I've read.
All of what I've read aside, I need to see actual footage from these cameras (DVX100A included) that SHOWS a comparison. I found a website (http://filmguideseattle.com/hdr-fx1.htm) that shows comparison footage (including the DVX100A & HDR-FX1). In that comparison the FX1 looks sharper with better color both in HDV & DV modes. Can you recommend any other sites with comparison footage?
Thanks.
I'm intending to purchase two cameras for the production. Initially, I was sold on the Sony Z1U. I wanted to purchase a Z1U and an FX1. I've been searching message boards and websites for information and comparisons with other cameras. This article is one of the best I've read.
All of what I've read aside, I need to see actual footage from these cameras (DVX100A included) that SHOWS a comparison. I found a website (http://filmguideseattle.com/hdr-fx1.htm) that shows comparison footage (including the DVX100A & HDR-FX1). In that comparison the FX1 looks sharper with better color both in HDV & DV modes. Can you recommend any other sites with comparison footage?
Thanks.