Who went from the DVX to a DSLR?

I sold my DVX two weeks ago after buying a 7d about a month before that. I love it but I still think I need a true video camera so I will be looking for a HPX or HVX. I sold my DVX after coming to the reality that SD is a dying format and if I continued to hold on to my DVX it would decrease in value to the point where I'll be selling it for a couple hundred. I'd rather have sold it now and bought a lens with a decent amount of money than wait too long.

I did immediately miss my DVX though after I sold it.
 
Michael Carter said:
Transcoding will not make your footage "better";

But grading, transitions, effects - most of them add information to your footage. Going with a codec that's designed to deal with those additions will give you a better final product. It may be so subtle as to be unnoticeable - but in the case of grading, from mild to extreme - it's often the difference between a successful grading job or a failure.

A good analogy is retouching 8-bit images; for large final use or for serious color correction, the first thing you do is convert to a higher bit depth. Your final delivery will be 8-bit, but the ability to do smooth changes between colors, and to really finesse the image? It's the difference between (higher-paying & career building) professional work and "hey, I have Photoshop". (And in the case of Photoshop, higher bit rates slow your workflow - at least ProRes speeds things up...)

Are the people that are loudly supporting H264 editing making a living with this stuff?
Click to expand...

I agree, but you are assuming that software filters somewhat inherit colour space (8-bit, 10-bit) from source media and use it throughout the grading process. As far as I know, this isn't the case. Grading will take whatever you feed it (4:4:4, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, raw etc.), convert it to bitmap in computer memory (16-bit RGB), do whatever it does (grading, aftereffects etc) and then dump it into whatever format you ask it to save output file (necessarily dithering 16-bit back into 8-bit when needed).

Thus, I don't see the reason to do recode 8-bit 4:2:0 lossy source into 10-bit 4:2:2 (less)lossy one, as both will be converted on-the-fly into 4:4:4 RGB 16-bit once NLE is to do it's stuff. Only gain with ProRes is that's easier on CPU when editing but you pay it with bigger files, extra transcoding step and (albeit "visually lossless") loss of information.

Photoshop analogy retouching 8-bit JPEG:

1. Import 8-bit 4:2:0 JPEG directly into Photoshop, convert to 16-bit RAW, do the layering, export to whatever you fancy.

vs.

1. Re-compress 8-bit 4:2:0 JPEG into 10-bit 4:2:2 PNG, import PNG into Photoshop, convert into 16-bit RAW, do the layering, export to whatever you fancy.

In both cases, picture will be converted into 16-bit before layering. Doing the extra loop trough 10-bit PNG won't improve the picture.
 
Grimreach said:
I went from a DVX100 to a 7D and love it. With the 5D Full Frame Sensor getting a firmware update to handle 24p. I wish I would have waited lol Nothing is wrong with 550D or T2i either
Click to expand...

FF really doesn't make as huge of a difference for video as everyone makes it seem, I actually hear a lot of people saying they'd prefer to use the 7D over the 5D for video. As far as photos go, however...
 
I assume that the above disputers vis-a-vis H.264 vs. ProRes are NOT using Adobe Premiere CS5 with a mercury compliant video card like I am.

Because with the above combination the need for ProRes has absolutely been mooted. H.264 footage direct from the HDSLR plays as smoothly as waving bye bye to transcoding.

I copy the footage to my hard drive and start editing, it works like SD DV video. Most of the commonly used effects like colour correction are realtime, and I can stick about 4 -5 layers together (4-drive SATA raid.)
 
Ben_B said:
What codecs have you been (not) using? Transcoding to a professional codec like ProRes will not degrade the picture.
Click to expand...

Transcoding to Prores does in fact reduce fine detail if you pixel peep. 422 HQ, 4444, they are lose some degree of detail when you zoom into 100%. I've spent DAYS comparing footage full screen at 200% zoom. Cineform is actually ALMOST perfect though, as far as keeping all the detail from the native h.264

One nice thing about 422 is that you can go above 100% IRE to get brighter ( albeit non broadcast safe) whites and colors than the HD 709 codec allows. h264 is capped at 100%
 
I'm sorry, but no manual audio control means I'm EXTREMELY skeptical about getting this camera. For those who made the switch, how bad is the T2i audio compared to a dvx?

Also, can you get wide DOF with this camera, or am I going to be stuck with shallow DOF?
 
diego1235467 said:
I'm sorry, but no manual audio control means I'm EXTREMELY skeptical about getting this camera. For those who made the switch, how bad is the T2i audio compared to a dvx?

Also, can you get wide DOF with this camera, or am I going to be stuck with shallow DOF?
Click to expand...

Don't be skeptical, yes the DVX audio is much better...but a T2i plus Zoom H4N is MUCH cheaper than a DVX...and getting into dual system makes it much more convenient to record audio, plus PLURALEYES will sync your audio seamlessly, it's available for FCP VEGAS and soon CS4 and CS5.

Yes you can get deep depth of field easily, you just need a wide lens.

IMO, the t2i gives FAR superior images to the DVX - not just in shallow DOF and lowlight, but in its general HD picture quality. It's worth the workarounds. For anyone who's ever shot film, DLSR's are not dissimilar.

There are compromises on EVERY camera. On RETURN OF THE KING EXTENDED DVD, Elijah and the other hobbits talk about shooting an emotional scene, then watching the rushes the next day (not as immediate as digital) and seeing the whole scene was shot OUT OF FOCUS! They has to reshoot it - just shows even on the biggest of films there are compromises.
 
Last edited:
I bought my DVX for about $800, so it's not exactly cheaper. I think I'll keep my DVX, and just try to save up for a DSLR. By the time I save up, we'll probably already be into the next generation of VDSLRs :P
 
diego1235467 said:
I'm sorry, but no manual audio control means I'm EXTREMELY skeptical about getting this camera. For those who made the switch, how bad is the T2i audio compared to a dvx?

Also, can you get wide DOF with this camera, or am I going to be stuck with shallow DOF?
Click to expand...

Audio on the T2i isn't usable for anything other than syncing to an external recorder or youtube. (maybe if you got a beachtek????)
 
That's what bums me out. Although at this point it looks like I'll just keep my DVX and save up for a T2i independently without selling it.

So I guess once I get it I could use the DVX as a pseudo sound recorder...
 
Grunf said:
Thus, I don't see the reason to do recode 8-bit 4:2:0 lossy source into 10-bit 4:2:2 (less)lossy one, as both will be converted on-the-fly into 4:4:4 RGB 16-bit once NLE is to do it's stuff. Only gain with ProRes is that's easier on CPU when editing but you pay it with bigger files, extra transcoding step and (albeit "visually lossless") loss of information.
Click to expand...

No, the point here is having more bit depth while you're grading/editing/etc - if you do heavy color work in 8-bit, you can easily get all kinds of banding and artifacts. In higher bit levels, there's more depth for the software to choose colors. You'll still go OUT to a final 8 bit - but you won't have the banding & artifacts you get from working 8-bit.
 
diego1235467 said:
That's what bums me out. Although at this point it looks like I'll just keep my DVX and save up for a T2i independently without selling it.

So I guess once I get it I could use the DVX as a pseudo sound recorder...
Click to expand...

That's entirely doable - thing is, you still get all the hassles of tape. and more time/wear on your heads (I'm more concerned with time as I'll be selling my DVX before long). But in a pinch, it's a very nice audio recorder/mixer. You could record to the transport, or probably come out via firewire into a laptop. You could use the audio outs, but then all your audio is going digital-analog-digital, you might want to avoid the extra conversion.

The DVX has really nice converters & preamps; a better option if you have a laptop would be to look into (one of the zillions of) USB or Firewire audio interfaces out there. You should be able to get something with dual XLRs, phantom power, etc for $100-$200.

From there it's a dedicated recorder, but something like a zoom with built-in mics? I wouldn't go there personally; you need to be able to choose mics or wireless, be able to use 2 different mics at the same time and choose/mix them in post, and you need built in phantom power (or a little battery powered phantom box) and some sort of level control, metering, and headphone monitoring.
 
snp said:
First of all, there is no "vs". Just finished a production where I used the HVX200 for all the interviews (backlit white silk background) and 7D for all the (720 60P) b-roll slow-mo. Both have cameras have distinct characteristics and edit perfectly together. Next production I may use the 7D for interviews (shallow depth of field) and the HVX200 for b-roll. It'll be a long time before I get rid of either one - they go well together as long as you realize each one's capabilities.
Click to expand...
I don't own a DSLR yet. I used to own the DVX. Have upgraded to the HPX170 and am now thinking about adding a DSLR to use for certain projects and as a 2nd camera to complement my HPX. What do you guys think is an easier / faster workflow for post, a T2i or a GH1?

Anyone with experience using one of these in addition to an HPX170 or HVX200A?

@SNP and Dalethompson, I have an HPX170 and am considering getting the T2i which I may use on some projects as a 2nd camera. I know you are both using the HVX200 (and SNP, you're using the 7D) but the HVX200 and HPX170 are quite similar as are the 7D and T2i (for video image at least), so I thought I'd ask you two how you feel about matching the 2 cameras footage together. Do you think they match and edit well together? Any obstacles I should know about in terms of setting them up to match or matching them better in post or in terms of workflow for editing the 2 together?

Thanks in advance everyone, I'd appreciate any info you can give me.
 
I personally don't see the point in buying a GH1 anymore with the T2i out, unless you want to stock up on 4/3 lenses and are planning on buying the AF-100 later on. The T2i not only gets superior video but far superior stills. But that's just me.

On a side note, does anyone else feel that GH1 owners are extremely touchy/defensive? Whenever I even slightly hint that I think the GH1 is not a lesser form of a deity in the GH1 forums I get flamed to no end.
 
Rising Phoenix said:
First of all, there is no "vs". Just finished a production where I used the HVX200 for all the interviews
Click to expand...

Ahh, but the newer-gen high-def cams, with tapeless workflow... that's another animal. This was the DVX - to - SLR thread. Tape based SD with loads of compression.

If I had an HVX or similar cam, the gruelingly long comparison post I added here would be different... and much shorter.
 
Jester2138 said:
I personally don't see the point in buying a GH1 anymore with the T2i out, unless you want to stock up on 4/3 lenses and are planning on buying the AF-100 later on. The T2i not only gets superior video but far superior stills. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

After finally getting a DSLR myself (Canon T2i for now), I am not sure I'm all that excited to pony up nearly 6 grand for an AF-100.

If the next iterations of the GH1, 5D mk III or whatever they call it, and the eventual replacement for the 7D add enough video-friendly features (manual audio controls, articulating LCD, more video-like focus assist functions, and no stupid recording time limitations), then I'm not too sure I'll really be feeling like I need to spend a ton more on something like an AF-100. Although, I'm sure the AF-100 will be amazing, and for those that want and need what it will have to offer, a worthwhile purchase.

I guess it is still too early to make such a decision.
 
Nektonic said:
and no stupid recording time limitations
Click to expand...

That's the one feature you may not see soon - Nikon had stated with the D90 that's it's an import tax restriction, that video cameras are taxed differently than still.

Though I wonder how many $$ that really equates to?

I remember a Detroit muscle car that was released to meet some horsepower restriction (gas guzzler tax?) - it had a linkage in the carb that could easily be changed (hacked in today's terminology) to bump the HP up to the full potential of the motor. Seems like a manufacturer could do something along those lines, and then "leak" a fix out to, say, Magic Lantern.
 
Its FAT32 limit not some tax limit.It will stay like that.
What they can do is start to record new file when file is close to 4gb,so you wont lose a second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top