Where does the HVX200 fit into Filmmaking?

[collie]

With a 10k price tag and 5k computer upgrade why not shoot the sdx900 for independent filmmaking instead.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach....html+dvcpro+hd+editing+hvx200&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I think Panny shot itself in the foot with independent filmmakers with the hdx200. The Sdx900 is an incredible camera that cost 20k to own and is great to rent for an independent feature film

The image from the Sdx900 filmouts beautifully. The hdx200 is not cheap.

At B&H Photo they said the hdx200 will cost people more money than they realize and if thats the case you should try to get a good deal on a varicam rental from Abel Cine in N.Y. instead.

I dont see the market for the Hdx200 for independent filmmaking. Panasonic would never make the 10k Hdx200 better than a 20k SDx900 which uprezzes great to hd or for filmout.

 

[filmstox]

I too love the SDX 900, but to compare its cost to the HVX isn't valid. 20k might get you the body (26k list) if you found a good deal, but you're still looking at another 4-10k for a lens. Great camera, different price tier completely. What I like about the HVX is it gives us a new set of features in a intermediate price range.

I don't see how offering more choices to customers at an unheard of value can be considered "shooting oneself in the foot".

As for the purchase versus rental argument, again look at a fair comparison, at the end of your varicam rental, you have no camera. So after shooting your HVX movie, sell the camera and numbers make more sense.

I know I will continue to shoot features on the Sdx but I imagine that the added value of the HVX will open the door for other projects too.

-David C. Smith
LA / OC D.P.

 

[Neil Rowe]

..id agree that people dont seem to really realize the total cost of actually oprerating the HVX in HD.. saying that its only a little more that the DVX. in reality ..the cam alone is apx 2x the cost of DVX - then add p2 card(s) or firestore or laptop - and then add any cost to bring your edit station up to the task of working with HD in a respectable manner. also add any accessories that need to be repurchases for lense adaptors and such since DVX adaptors wont fit.. blah blah blah.. all in all id say people should have apx at least 10k in hand to be ready to really use the HVX. whih is why the DVX isnt dropping in price any time soon.. theres a signifigant price difference between operating the 2. but all costs considered.. i personally think it will definitely be very much worth every penny.

 

[soarprod]

I recently played back a dvd output of a short film I did on my 92" widescreen projector. Edited 24pa on Premiere Pro 1.5.1, transferred from a letterbox capture and the rez holds up great - this is with 1/4 loss of frame on the top and bottom combined! I will buy the HVX just for the wide aspect, 16x9 CCD's alone - remember 6 months back, people wanted to buy the next DVX for just this feature alone. Add remote focus, better screen information on the LCD, better lens with more zoom. Just these features justify your increased cost - HD is just icing on the cake. I will probably just rent P2 cards initially since only larger budget shorts or features would need it.

 

[collie]

[fimstox QUOTE]I don't see how offering more choices to a customer at an unheard of value can be considered shooting oneself in the foot[
As for the purchase versus rental argument, again look at a fair comparison, at the end of your varicam rental, you have no camera. So after shooting your HVX movie, sell the camera and numbers make more sense/QUOTE]

Most people shooting a film rent there cameras not purchase.Yes at the end of the Hvx200 shoot you will own the camera where as the sdx900 and varicam rentals would have to go back but so what? sell the film and make more films.Also ,why not just rent the hdx200 if you are going to sell it back?

Yes Panasonic is shooting itself in the foot because with a great sdx900 which will look better i'm sure filmmed out compared to the hdx200 or rent a varicam for a short shoot,why do you need an expensive (shoot and edit ..sorry filmstox hdx200 is NOT cost effective) hdx200.Makes no sense,the problem is Panny made the sdx900 so good that any prosumer hd will not make any sense for a serious filmout
.A smarter move would have been a Dvx100c with 16x9 chip (720p) recorded to tape.At the end of the day shooting hvx200 will not be cost effective,not with a sdx900 or varicam rental available with proven incredible results.If p2 is so great why isnt anyone using the sdx800?

I remember film students parents spending over 50k on 16mm films that could have been smartly budgeted for 35mm instead.
Also, to filmstox...I doubt anyone would buy a hvx200, shoot a film with it and then sell it..makes no sense for all that trouble rent a sdx900,and are you going to sell all the computer upgrades also?.... Hvx200 sounds alot like it will be a very expensive camera to shoot and edit with...not to mention if it will even live up to the hype.
At the Panny open house one guy asked what happens if you delete a scene in the camera (by pressing just one button by mistake since there is no tape ,can you get it back)
The Panny designer from Japan was standing there and said in heavy accent ("scene...poof! ....gone..forever..) Everybody was kind of laughing because of the heavy accent but were wondering about not have a tape copy.

 

[Zim]

A smarter move would have been a Dvx100c with 16x9 chip (720p)
.[/QUOTE]

Does any camera in the under $5,000 price range do that? Maybe Canon has some plans like that. I think it would be a good sell.

 

[Jarred Land]

A smarter move would have been a Dvx100c with 16x9 chip (720p)


Does any camera in the under $5,000 price range do that? Maybe Canon has some plans like that. I think it would be a good sell.

Umm... that is exactly what the HVX is.. a DVX with 16x9 chips.. with a $5500 price tag, not horribly off of the $3500 of the DVX. remember, the HVX shoots SD as well, on tape, so in reality is becomes basically an upgrade on the DVX.

I dont thing Panasonic is shooting thier feet, maybe Sony or Canon's feet but to me this camera is nothing but sweet black love.

 

[taubkin]

You can edit DVCProHD with the same machine you edit HDV. Tell me about the computer upgrades you speak of. You can edit it in a powerbook. I think that is pretty sweet.

 

[Party_Pooper]

While I agree that they are in different price ranges, the SPX800 (p2 version of SDX900) is about 7K less than the SDX900. On top of that you don't need to worry about a DVCPRO50 tape deck which is also oodles of $$$. So I thought this was interesting.

I guess it just comes down to how much better the SDX900/SPX800 image is than the HVX200 (assuming it will be) and if the extra $ is worth it.

Also, I really don't understand why the SDX900 is more prominent than the SPX800. Anyone?

 

[Jarred Land]

While I agree that they are in different price ranges, the SPX800 (p2 version of SDX900) is about 7K less than the SDX900. On top of that you don't need to worry about a DVCPRO50 tape deck which is also oodles of $$$. So I thought this was interesting.

I guess it just comes down to how much better the SDX900/SPX800 image is than the HVX200 (assuming it will be) and if the extra $ is worth it.

Also, I really don't understand why the SDX900 is more prominent than the SPX800. Anyone?

The SDX is a standard def camera... its not HD like the HVX. If your only gonna be shooting SD, the SDX900 or SPX800 is gonna clean house on the HVX... although it would be interesting comparing a HVX HD blowup vs a SDX900 blow up.

The SDX900 is probally more prominent thatn the SPX800 because the SDX900 has been out for quite awhile now, and the SPX is pretty new.

 

[Jarred Land]

You can edit DVCProHD with the same machine you edit HDV. Tell me about the computer upgrades you speak of. You can edit it in a powerbook. I think that is pretty sweet.

Sure you can edit it, but not like you are used to edit DV. The new 4 core processors from AMD and Intel however have shown to dramatically increase editing power.

 

[collie]

Jarred you are wrong the hvx200 is not $5,500 .It is at least 8 to 10 thousand dollars,you can't have it both ways. Panasonic says the hdx200 P2 cards are not media but a part of the camera. So please stop quoting 6k prices.If p2 is a must part of the camera then please include it in the price quotes you are making. And the only 5k camera with 16x9 progressive is the canon XL2 which is probably the most underrated camera in this forum .With the sdx900 and varicam available to rent there is really no reason for a filmmaker to need the very expensive hdx200 that has a 1/3 " chip and a lens you can't change. Panny shot itself in the foot when it comes to filmmakers.

Please realize that panasonic is not your friend,neither is canon or jvc,they want your money! Panasonic has invested big money in the p2 technology and they need you to make a profit but the problem is they can't make the hvx200 better than a sdx900 because the sdx cost 10 thousand dollars more.It won't make financial sense.

Jan of Panasonic said the hvx200 will be a 2nd camera on a Sdx900 shoot,that is ridiculous, any filmmaker that is renting a sdx900 will not be renting a hvx200 as a 2nd camera on the shoot,they would just shoot the whole film with the sdx900! The Hdx200 will probably sell alot in the begining due to hype but in the long run no iindependent filmmaker will need it,to many better options around,I would be surprised if an hvx200 will have a better image than a sony fx-1 at 3 thousand dollars.

 

[MattC]

Jarred, I've asked about the HVX vs. the SDX and from what I gather from Barry and Jan in another thread, you would still be better shooting an SDX and uprezzing to HD.

While I certainly understand the concept of owning a camera like this, hell I do it too, I really don't understand the obsession with indie filmakers and buying equipment. You raise your funds, and put as much of it on the screen as you can. If the SDX is indeed the better way to go, you could certainly rent it for a movie for what it would cost to buy the HDX and media, no? Or will the HVX be that much better, in which case, why wouldn't the SDX price drop. I'm really a bit confused over this issue...

Matt

 

[Jarred Land]

Jarred you are wrong the hvx200 is not $5,500 .It is at least 8 to 10 thousand dollars,you can't have it both ways. Panasonic says the hdx200 P2 cards are not media but a part of the camera. So please stop quoting 6k prices.If p2 is a must part of the camera then please include it in the price quotes you are making..

Listen dude.. the camera's street price is $5500. And the P2 cards are on option not a necessity... you can use friggin old school dv tape if you want. It does have a tape bay and uses your 5 dollar tapes. Get it right.

And the only 5k camera with 16x9 progressive is the canon XL2 which is probably the most underrated camera in this forum

Wrong, see above. The HVX includes 16x9 chips. And yes, the XL2 is a nice camera, definately not "underatted" though.

Please realize that panasonic is not your friend,neither is canon or jvc,they want your money! Panasonic has invested big money in the p2 technology and they need you to make a profit but the problem is they can't make the hvx200 better than a sdx900 because the sdx cost 10 thousand dollars more.It won't make financial sense.

Actually Panasonic is my friend, Jan is my friend and the DVX is my friend. Your math is wrong too.

Jan of Panasonic said the hvx200 will be a 2nd camera on a Sdx900 shoot,that is ridiculous, any filmmaker that is renting a sdx900 will not be renting a hvx200 as a 2nd camera on the shoot,they would just shoot the whole film with the sdx900!

Lol.. this statement tells me you have never made a movie and dont understand the value of a B camera or second unit. The DVX used to be the SDX's little sidekick.
[/quote]

The Hdx200 will probably sell alot in the begining due to hype but in the long run no iindependent filmmaker will need it,to many better options around,I would be surprised if an hvx200 will have a better image than a sony fx-1 at 3 thousand dollars.

something tells me after this statement you bought the fx-1 and are pissed about it.

 

[Barry_Green]

Collie, you seem to have some sort of desire to discredit the HVX. You're making statements that simply can't hold up to a rational examination of the situation.

For example: the HVX is absolutely a $5995 camera. Panasonic never said the P2 cards were part of the camera -- I said that. That's the way *I* choose to view it, and I think people would have a better understanding of how the camera works if they think that way about it. But that's not Panasonic's claim, that's mine.

Now, what can you do with an HVX at $5995? Anything you want. Shoot DV, DVCPRO50, or HD. You just have to pipe the HD out to something to capture it -- whether that's a firestore, a laptop, a desktop, one of the hopefully-forthcoming "ghetto" P2 card replacements, or a tape deck. The camera itself is $5995, and yes it can be used from day one, and users could use it without ever buying a P2 card if that's the way they chose to operate. I personally think most people will buy it with some cards, as it will be much more convenient to use that way.

And the only 5k camera with 16x9 progressive is the canon XL2

For now. When the HVX comes out it will offer 16x9 progressive, and 24p, and also 4:2:2 and low-compression DVCPRO50. And when the JVC HD100 comes out, it'll be $5500 and offer 16x9 and progressive-scan at 24p or 30p.

With the sdx900 and varicam available to rent there is really no reason for a filmmaker to need the very expensive hdx200 that has a 1/3 " chip and a lens you can't change. Panny shot itself in the foot when it comes to filmmakers.

This is, with all due respect, ridiculous. How can Panasonic have shot itself in the foot, when the alternative you're offering is PANASONIC? Panasonic makes a variety of cameras, for a variety of purposes. If you want to look to someone "shooting themselves in the foot", why don't you examine the current Sony lineup?

The SDX is a fabulous camera, as is the SPX. But come on, they're not in the same ballpark, pricewise, as the HVX will be. An SDX is $27,000 for just the body. Then you have to buy a lens, a viewfinder, a power system -- an SDX is around $40,000 for a complete kit. And then what do you do with your footage after you've shot it? Do you want to capture it to a computer? Can't do that from an SDX. You have to buy (or rent) a DVCPRO50 deck for the duration of your capture sessions. That'll add a couple thousand to your cost.

How long do you plan on keeping/using the equipment? A three or four-week shoot? The rental on an SDX package might cost you $6,000 or $7,000 for that. That's money that's forever gone out of your pocket. Compare that with buying the HVX package for $10,000, and then selling it at the end of the shoot for $8,000 -- your total "rental" cost is now $2,000 instead of $7,000. And, of course, you don't need a deck, so the SDX package really costs you somewhere around $8,000 to $10,000, vs. the fixed cost on the HVX of maybe $2,000.

And, of course, you'll have shot high-def instead of standard-def. The SDX uprezzed may look competitive (or maybe even better!) than the HVX, we won't know that until we test it. But that's an additional cost you'll have to incur with the SDX, whereas with the HVX it's already done -- you already shot 1080/24p high-def.

they can't make the hvx200 better than a sdx900 because the sdx cost 10 thousand dollars more.It won't make financial sense.

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how camcorders are sold. The HVX is not in competition with the SDX. The SDX is a $40,000 camera system, with interchangeable lenses, 3-hour tape loads, CCU capability, etc. The HVX is a $6,000 handheld camera. There is probably no customer out there who needs what the SDX can do, who would instead say "well, hold on there a minute, I can buy this here HVX for 1/6 the price, so that's what I'll do"... that doesn't happen. There are reasons that BMW offers the 7-series (at $80,000) and the 3-series (at $30,000). There are reasons why Panasonic offers handheld HD cameras and big shoulder-mount SD cameras.

And, as for "financial sense", the HVX will probably outsell the SDX by a margin of 100 to 1. The market for shoulder-mount news-style/eng-style cameras is tiny compared to the market for handheld cameras. Economies of scale will play a factor in the HVX's pricing.

The Hdx200 will probably sell alot in the begining due to hype but in the long run no iindependent filmmaker will need it,to many better options around,I would be surprised if an hvx200 will have a better image than a sony fx-1 at 3 thousand dollars.

Your viewpoint is noted. I think it's fair to say that there are many, many, many, many, many, many, many of us who disagree with you 100%. The question becomes, if you are so enamored with the HDV/FX1 solution, why not just get that, instead of trying to discredit what Panasonic is doing with the HVX?

 

[Jarred Land]

Jarred, I've asked about the HVX vs. the SDX and from what I gather from Barry and Jan in another thread, you would still be better shooting an SDX and uprezzing to HD.

While I certainly understand the concept of owning a camera like this, hell I do it too, I really don't understand the obsession with indie filmakers and buying equipment. You raise your funds, and put as much of it on the screen as you can. If the SDX is indeed the better way to go, you could certainly rent it for a movie for what it would cost to buy the HDX and media, no? Or will the HVX be that much better, in which case, why wouldn't the SDX price drop. I'm really a bit confused over this issue...

Matt

Yeah I figure that as well but I still want to see it

As for rental SDX vs Buying.. thats a good point, you could of course do that but then you are left doing that every time. Then for movie number 2 you dont have that expense anymore and can put that 10k you just saved back onto the screen.

The SDX is really a pro camera... with pro lenses. Its not really in the same class and we shouldn't really be comparing them, but I cant help it.

 

[taubkin]

Sure you can edit it, but not like you are used to edit DV. The new 4 core processors from AMD and Intel however have shown to dramatically increase editing power.

I was refering to HDV, not DV. Sure, you will have to have 4 times the space just for starters, but considering the strain HDV puts on the processors, I'd say things are pretty much the same. And HDV is meant to be edited in consumer computers!

Now, I can edit DV in a 3-year-old computer. Not so with HD, but I just want to point out, it's really not that much of a strain. I'm sure my Powermac G4 can handle a DVCProHD short or commercial, even if it takes some additional effort.

It's going to be a kickass cam, I guess we all can feel it!

 

[RyanF]

I agree with Collie. You can say $5500, and you can say HD, but you shouldn't say them together. Jarred has been good about NOT saying them together but the implication is getting out of hand. This is a $5500 SD camera that you can upgrade to HD for a few grand or it's an $8-10k HD handheld camera. HD will probably cost too much for most of us.

What I'm most wondering is will it shoot DVCpro50 to DV tape? I don't think it's possible. But, THAT would make it worth $5500 in a heartbeat. How much better will the SD footage look with out DVCpro50 format? This camera will be worth buying for only one reason right now. Because other shooters in my field will be buying it and if I don't, I may not get work. It really all depends on how good that SD footage will be. So let's see some already.

amendments:
When I say it will cost to much for most of us I mean only me =), and if panny shot anyone in the foot that might be me to. . . If I have to pay 10k to keep getting work this year. =P Good job panny. . . great camera (hopfully). . . At least my raise won't take me into a new tax bracket!

 

[thisiswells]

I think Collie's "bronze member"should be changed to:
"I LOVE THE HVX200" or "FX1 SUCKS HARD" or "BANNED" for that matter. :evil:

 

[Barry_Green]

Jarred, I've asked about the HVX vs. the SDX and from what I gather from Barry and Jan in another thread, you would still be better shooting an SDX and uprezzing to HD.

I don't know the answer to that. I could see making an argument for both ways. I'd rather just get both cameras, shoot the same footage, transfer it to the same reel of film, and view it and compare from there, than worry about theoreticals.

Either way, I see it as a no-lose proposition for the HVX. If the HVX looks better, you can say "hey, I made a BETTER-LOOKING film print from a camera that cost 1/6 as much!" And if the SDX looks better, the HVX user can always say "well, yeah, what do you expect, that camera cost 6 times as much!"

While I certainly understand the concept of owning a camera like this, hell I do it too, I really don't understand the obsession with indie filmakers and buying equipment.

Because indie filmmakers, as a general rule, don't have the budget, the insurance policy, or the savvy to rent equipment. They buy their own gear and use it to learn on. They shoot their films over the course of six or seven months, shooting on weekends when they can get the cast together and everybody's available, trying to finagle time around people's work schedules, etc. Or waiting while someone's hair is growing out because they cut it too short, or waiting for a cut or bruise to heal because the actor decided to go motocrossing and ... well, you get the picture. You can't do a picture like that unless you've got your own gear and can pretty much shoot on a moment's notice.

The HVX is the camera for those who will own their own gear. The VariCam or CineAlta is for those wanting to shoot better quality, bigger-budget stuff, and who have the corporation and the insurance policy and the budget to handle such. And if you have a "real" budget, you're probably shooting 35mm anyway. I don't expect many big-budget films will be done on an HVX, although I could certainly see an HVX being used for insert shots/2nd-unit stuff on either an SDX or VariCam or CineAlta shoot.

If the SDX is indeed the better way to go, you could certainly rent it for a movie for what it would cost to buy the HDX and media, no?

Probably. But of course you could always sell the HVX at the end of the shoot and recover a large percentage (presuming 80%) of your investment -- that's something you couldn't do if you rented gear.

And the wisdom of each course of action remains to be demonstrated by a comparison test. Will the SDX be better? Will the HVX? Right now there's no way anyone could answer definitively.

Or will the HVX be that much better, in which case, why wouldn't the SDX price drop.

Because the two cameras are not in competition with each other. You might just as well ask why the $100,000 CineAlta price doesn't plummet, now that Sony offers the $3,000 FX1. No CineAlta customer is going to think of the FX1 as a reasonable alternative. And no FX1 customer is going to "save up" to get the extra $97,000 necessary to buy the CineAlta. They're entirely different products aimed at entirely different customers.