Thinking about purchasing DVX10B: Advice plz

alpha54

alpha54

Active member
Hey guys,

This is my first post, but I've been reading these forums heavily the last couple of days as I'm thinking about purchasing a DVX100B. I'd love to go with the HVX200, but at the moment its just too expensive.

My current camera is a Sony TRCV950, and it has served me well, but I think its time for me to move on to the DVX100B.

I'd be getting the PAL version of the camera, and I love everything I've been hearing about it, but I've got a few questions. I know most of them have probably already been answered somewhere on these forums, but I'm pretty new to proper video and film-making, so I'd be helpful to have things explained to me in layman's terms. :)

First off, the one thing that bothers me about the DVX100B is its lack of 16:9 CCD's; I'd mainly be filming short films so a widescreen aspect is important to me. Should I invest money for the Panasonic anamorphic lens, or should I just use the camera's squeeze mode? What are the pros and cons of each?

The more I look at films (both Hollywood and independent), the more I realise that static tripod shots are pretty rare; most shots are dynamic and mobile. I'm therefore also looking at an affordable steadicam solution; preferably pre-built but I'd be willing to follow a DIY guide if its easy to follow and to acquire the needed parts? Any suggestions?

There's probably loads more questions I need to ask, but those two are the most important to me at the moment, so any help in answering them would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance for your help guys; this seems to be a great, friendly community with lots of knowledgeable users, so I plan to be staying a while!
 
alpha54 said:
the one thing that bothers me about the DVX100B is its lack of 16:9 CCD's; I'd mainly be filming short films so a widescreen aspect is important to me. Should I invest money for the Panasonic anamorphic lens, or should I just use the camera's squeeze mode? What are the pros and cons of each?

The more I look at films (both Hollywood and independent), the more I realise that static tripod shots are pretty rare; most shots are dynamic and mobile. I'm therefore also looking at an affordable steadicam solution; preferably pre-built but I'd be willing to follow a DIY guide if its easy to follow and to acquire the needed parts? Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
1) Congrats on your upcoming purchase and welcome to the club!

2) You lose some resolution by not having true 16:9 CCD's. But you also save $3,000 (by not getting the HVX200 just for that feature). I wouldn't get the Panasonic anamorphic lens because it is notoriously difficult to focus properly. Just use the DVX100B's squeeze mode and up-rez your footage with Photo Zoom Pro software:

http://www.trulyphotomagic.com/shortcut/site/content.php?page=ourproducts&section=product_serie_info&cat=3

3) A popular camera-stabilizer for the DVX100B is the Steadicam Merlin:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=382099&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

or Steadicam Jr (although the camera may be a bit too heavy for this one):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=200990&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

p.s. I enjoyed visiting Gamla Stan
 
CineAlta said:
2) You lose some resolution by not having true 16:9 CCD's. But you also save $3,000 (by not getting the HVX200 just for that feature). I wouldn't get the Panasonic anamorphic lens because it is notoriously difficult to focus properly. Just use the DVX100B's squeeze mode and up-rez your footage with Photo Zoom Pro software
Click to expand...
Yes, I heard about the focus issues. Does the autofocus not work with the anamorphic lens? Looks like squeeze mode would be easier to use, but this page http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook/ has a picture comparison that states that squeeze mode can result in blurry images while using the anamorphic lens will produce clear images.
CineAlta said:
3) A popular camera-stabilizer for the DVX100B is the Steadicam Merlin
Click to expand...
That looks really nice; I take it the performance is worth the price once I've learned how to operate it properly?
CineAlta said:
p.s. I enjoyed visiting Gamla Stan
Click to expand...
The old town is rather nice, isn't it! :)

Thanks for all your help so far btw, its greatly appreciated! I also just remembered another question I was planning to ask; what exactly is a matte box for, other than making the camera look more professional and blocking out the sun? Or is that all its sposed to do? What about filters; are they worth it or should that sort of thing be adjusted in post? I've been colour grading my footage in post production until now, but I'm wondering whether I'd get nicer results if I use filters once I get my DVX100B.
 
alpha54 said:
Does the autofocus not work with the anamorphic lens?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. Barry Green will know. He's the world's foremost expert on DVX & HVX cameras, and has written the textbook which Panasonic includes with every DVX100B. Jarred Land will also know (shoots B-unit footage for Steven Spielberg films).

As I understand it, the anamorphic lens will look better than squeezed and up-rezzed footage, but it is difficult to use, and the difference in resolution may not be worth the trouble, depending on your production needs.

alpha54 said:
what exactly is a matte box for, other than making the camera look more professional and blocking out the sun? Or is that all its sposed to do?
Click to expand...
A matte box is mainly for blocking out glare, and stray light, from hitting the lens at unwanted angles and causing diffraction effects. It is also used as a platform for professional (square filters), which can be pulled on or off, more conveniently than having to screw round filters everytime. Some matte boxes can be more expensive than your camera! They come in all different shapes and sizes (16:9, 4:3 etc).

Here are some ideas for matte boxes (from inexpensive to expensive):

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=45519
http://www.cavision.com/matteboxes/4x4bellows/4x4bellows.htm
http://www.vocas.com/
http://www.16x9inc.com/cgibin/eDatCat/169store.cgi?user_action=list&category=Products;Chrosziel;HD/SD%20Solutions;%20%20Matteboxes



alpha54 said:
What about filters; are they worth it or should that sort of thing be adjusted in post?
Click to expand...
That's personal preference I guess. But, remember, doing an effect in post is only an approximation, or simulation, of actually doing the effect with filters (eg soft, diffusion, net, polarizer etc). If your budget allows, I would suggest using actual filters first, and only fixing in post if necessary.

alpha54 said:
The old town is rather nice, isn't it!
Click to expand...
Yes. But not as nice as Swedish girls! :)
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the club ! I recently sold my 100A for a 100B and have been very happy about it since.

I agree with what's been said above about the anamorphic lens. I've always shot squeeze mode and obtained excellent results. I shot my last project 4:3 and letterboxed it in post and I can't say I saw any significant improvement in picture quality over 16:9 squeeze.

As far as a stabilize is concerned, and since you're in the EU, I will recommend the one I have, which is the "Aigle" (Eagle). It works extremely well and is less expensive than its US counterparts. The English version of the website is here : http://www.laigleparis.fr/home.htm and they have online movies which show you how to set it up and use it. Freom what I understand, it is available in Sweden. I did a complete review of it (in French, but with many pictures) here : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cinedv/steadicam.htm

Also, think about dollies... Stabilizers are great tools but not so easy to master ! :)
 
The anamorphic must not be used with autofocus, unless you want to guarantee that your footage will be out of focus(!)

Focusing with the anamorphic is not easy if you don't have the charts and guides. With the charts and guides it's easy, but -- well, let's put it this way, I sold my anamorphic adapter and got a 100B instead. Squeeze looks good enough in most circumstances; the anamorphic can really draw out some extra resolution but it can be quite limiting too. With squeeze there's no limitations, except that the ultimate resolution isn't quite as high as it could have been.

However, a 100B in 24p/squeeze is going to be as high-resolution as your old trv950 was with its "native 16:9" mode anyway.
 
Thanks for clearing that up; I guess squeeze is the way to go then.

Monglane, that stabiliser looks really nice; how does it perform on its own without the vest; just the handheld component? The whole setup is a little too expensive for me at the moment, but just the Imperator would be fine.

Also, has anybody heard of this stabilising system? http://www.indicam.com/ Its affordable and it looks like I'd do a good job.

Another thing I've been thinking about is sound; because I know how important good audio is to make the final product shine. I'm considering getting a Sennheiser MKE 300 Video microphone; it mounts onto the camera's hot shoe. Is it any good? Digital Creative Arts recommended it.
 
alpha54 said:
Monglane, that stabiliser looks really nice; how does it perform on its own without the vest; just the handheld component? The whole setup is a little too expensive for me at the moment, but just the Imperator would be fine.
Click to expand...
This subject has been discussed many times in the Hardware section. A handheld stabilizer is, in my opinion, much more difficult to operate for more than a couple of minutes, unless you have a very strong camera arm and shoulder. That being said, it does work fine for some but is a disappointment to others...[/quote]

alpha54 said:
I'm considering getting a Sennheiser MKE 300 Video microphone; it mounts onto the camera's hot shoe. Is it any good? Digital Creative Arts recommended it.
Click to expand...
I do not know that mic. It is described as a "short shotgun" but has a supercardiod pattern... and it looks like it connects through a minijack where the DVX has XLR sockets. Whatever you do, remember that a mic mounted on the camera will pick up motor noise in quiet situations ==> buy at least one of those metal "arms" to move the mic away from the camera's body.
 
alpha54 said:
First off, the one thing that bothers me about the DVX100B is its lack of 16:9 CCD's; I'd mainly be filming short films so a widescreen aspect is important to me.
Click to expand...

i bought the dvx100b recently. it's a fantastic camera. for 16/9 try photozoom you will be surprised!! don't use an anamorphic adapter you will loose freedom and easy of use. and if your short is good enough to be transfered to film, the extra resolution of an anamorphic adapter will not change anything. the movie "festen" won all the prizes and the dv image was awfull. if it's not good enough you will not loose any resolution on a dvd. i won't put money in a mattebox either. it's expensive for what it is. i personaly think it's just a snobish accessory like "look, i'm a professional filmmaker" :) if you need to put filters, do your own stuff with tape or whatever. imagination and cleverness are superior to accessories. i have a glidecam as a steady. it's a very nice product. i will also buy a 35mm adapter from cinemek, and you can't use the anamorphic adapter with the g35, so if you're still hesitating and have to choose between these two to obtain a film look go g35!! if you really want to spend money buy lightings. a dvx100 with bad lighting will give a videoish look, a bad dv camcorder with very good lighting can look like film. but even for lighting you don't need to buy fresnel, hmi, ....., you can make your own lighting accessories and it can makes a unique look far better than "pro" things. a guy on this forum say last week "now that we have hvx200 we can do films!" ..... strange way of thinking. even with a still camera a very talented guy could make an award winning movie with frame by frame (and in high HD!!).
 
Thanks for your replies guys, you've been incredibly helpful!

Just wondering though, are there any cheaper stabilising solutions that work well? I guess when it comes down to it, I'd be willing to spend the money for the Merlin, but I'm just wondering if there's a more affordable option. :)
 
Alpha54,

The one domain in which you can regularly expect to get more for less money is electronics. Anything that's mechanical will not benefit from such technological advances and price drops. Some stabs are outrageously priced, some are more reasonable, but in most cases you get what you pay for.

I'm not trying to discourage you to buy a handheld but, having been down that road myself, I can only recount my disappointment at not being able to produce the clean, fluid shots I had in mind with my handheld and no previous experience of that kind of device.

I encourage you to think about how many shots you think you'd use it for ; would there by any practical alternatives ? Could you use a makeshift dolly or a wheelchair ?

I'm saying all this because, based on my own experience, handhelds are disappointing, whereas vest-type are just fantastic. If there's any way for you to wait a while until you have enough money saved to buy a vest-type, that, IMHO, is the way to go.
 
Ok mate, that makes sense. I guess in that case, I will probably build one of those $14 Cam Stabilisers; and just use that until I am willing to purchase a vest solution. I wouldn't want to spend money on a proper handheld stabiliser, only to be disappointed by it!
 
alpha54 said:
Ok mate, that makes sense. I guess in that case, I will probably build one of those $14 Cam Stabilisers; and just use that until I am willing to purchase a vest solution. I wouldn't want to spend money on a proper handheld stabiliser, only to be disappointed by it!
Click to expand...

i dont totally agree about stabilisers ..... i own a glidecam 2000 and it's very useful. a very nice product. go to their website and look at the demos. all depends on your precision in adjustements. but the guy from the shop explained me very well how to ajust the weight and it s fantastic. you can push your arm forward very quickly and the angle of the cam doesn t change. of course it s less sophisticated than 10000$ steady but i was very surprised how well it works for that price. you have to practice but when you know how to use your product its just crazy.
 
Out of the three choices what is best, squeeze, letterbox in camera or 4:3 in camera them letterbox in post? Which would loolk the best on a widescreen TV? I would think 4:3 then you have the option later.
 
Zim said:
Out of the three choices what is best, squeeze, letterbox in camera or 4:3 in camera them letterbox in post? Which would loolk the best on a widescreen TV? I would think 4:3 then you have the option later.
Click to expand...

i would say 4:3 and letterbox in post. then you can move your footage verically if you want to erase a mic, ..... and then use photozoom. you can find some good threads here about the "4:3/letterbox in post/ photozoom" operation.
 
That's a good point... I don't know, just seems like it would be easier to record it in a widescreen mode in the first place.
 
alpha54 said:
I don't know, just seems like it would be easier to record it in a widescreen mode in the first place.
Click to expand...
You're quite right about that. It *does* make it easier to frame, especially if you don't have that much experience. However, shooting 4:3 with the intent to letterbox in post does give you more options (reframing vertically in post is one), and in order to help you, you can buy the clever little LCD stickers from AspectCorrect. I have, and they're great little tools.
 
100, 100a, 100b all have the same size flip out screen right? Just want to make sure. I am going to use AspectCorrect for the next few shoots. I like to shoot 4:3 and letterbox in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top