Why doesn't the DVX have 16:9 yet?

John Trent said:
I agree. Why pay almost double for an HD cam if your not going to shoot HD? I've read shooting SD with an HD camera will produce softer footage than footage orignated on a plain old SD cam...unless you shoot HD and then down convert...which means working with P2...which means even more money.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

John Trent said:
American Cinematographer has an article about a shoot with a HVX where the camera man calls it poor in low light. He had to buy a new more powerful light kit. I think it's only 1 1/3rd slower then a DVX but I read 1 stop means you need twice as much light (correct me if I'm wrong, here). And gain is a no-no on Panasonics. I guess that beautiful color and gammma have a price and it's name is NOISE. Hey, if you got the green - go for HD, but for the real low budget filmmaker a 16:9 DVX would be a Godsend.
Click to expand...

A DP that is worth his salt would not complain about HVX noise. He would instead praise its Dynamic range, color richness and organic image. Infact the HVX noise argument is absolutly rediculous. ITs a myth purpetuated by people who have not seen HVX footage on a good ( read expensive) monitor. They are buying 700$ monitors then wondering why their images look like trash. Its funny that people cant get past this. SHoot some 16 / 8mm film, and then come over to an HVX and talk about lowlight capability and Noise problems.

------ on another note, a professional DP who is working with digital ( which needs less intense lights anyway) should have been prepared to over light and keep as much image data as possible for the post production process. Thats silly that he had to "go get bigger lights".

John Trent said:
Canon didn't worry about having a 16:9 SD cam along side it's HD cam.
Click to expand...

Thats because CAnons HD camera is $10,000 dollars where its SD cam can be had for $3,500.

John Trent said:
Sony sells the FX1 - HD (with16:9 sensors of course) CHEAPER THAN THE DVX. The DVX is overpriced at this point in time. Keep the price the same AND INCLUDE 16:9 CCD'S, I say.

I hope Jan responds to this thread.
Click to expand...

Thats just for the AMetuer HD version. The camera is not a professional camera. IT has no balanced audio, and its controlls are not of the same caliber.

The DVX equivalent in terms of control is the professional Z1u, it costs about $5,000.

The proof is in the pudding. The DVX is a great selling camer and will continue to be because its benefits out weigh its drawbacks.

:)
 
Panny has the best 16:9 SD camera in the market in the SDX900. The DVX falls in the pro-sumer realm and companies need to keep space between their product lines. I dont know why people are complaining. Stretch or crop your DVX or buy an XL2 or HVX. It doesnt make a lot of sense for Panny to release a $3500 - $4000 16:9 DVX when there is already a $3000 4:3 version and a $5000 16:9 HD version...

By the way, I use an HVX quite a bit and the footage is VERY noisy... you can work around it but in general, like the DVX100a, it is noisier than most cameras in its class.



ash =o)
 
AshG said:
Panny has the best 16:9 SD camera in the market in the SDX900. The DVX falls in the pro-sumer realm and companies need to keep space between their product lines. I dont know why people are complaining. Stretch or crop your DVX or buy an XL2 or HVX. It doesnt make a lot of sense for Panny to release a $3500 - $4000 16:9 DVX when there is already a $3000 4:3 version and a $5000 16:9 HD version...

By the way, I use an HVX quite a bit and the footage is VERY noisy... you can work around it but in general, like the DVX100a, it is noisier than most cameras in its class.



ash =o)
Click to expand...

You mentioned specifically the Dvx100a? What about the DVX100b?

And, yes, just crop the footage.
 
I'm cutting my teeth on a DVX100A and I think it's a great sort of "entry-level serious" camera, but yeah, native 16:9 would definitely be on my wish list. But I expect to move to HD anyway in a year or two as I get skills and start to take on bigger stuff.

If I had to choose one SD prosumer-level cam and stick with it for say the next four years though, I have to admit this is one of the things that makes the XL2 look pretty good on paper at ~3650. God I hope I don't get banned. :banned:
 
If you look at the different CCD/16:9 solutions on the cameras. You se that they are very different and not the best there is they are compromisses. First of all they are 1/3 ccd. And 1/3 ccds is not the best thing a camera can have. So look a bit on the differences.

DVX100 uses a 4:3 ccd with as many pixels as a 4:3 SD picture would want. So less res for 16:9 bigger sensors than most prosumer cams out there.

FX1/Z1 has a 16:9 ccd with lot more pixels than SD cams. Downside is that it is an interlaced chip and its sensor is smaller.

Xl2 uses 4:3 ccd with more pixels than a 4:3 sd picture can show but enough pixel for the cropped 16:9 image. So more res but smaller sensors. So basicly the XL2 is a 1/4 ccd widescreen cam.

Sure some people will only look at the res and dont care for dynamic range, colors or progressive etc. For them a DVX can seem overpriced, but for many people that knew what they want the DVX is a perfect cam.

Sure i would have gladly pay an extra 1000 for true 16:9 but many people would not. And if you want to produce filmlooking DVDs the dvx is the cam for you.
 
And anyway, most people watch TV on their, 4:3 tv's anyway. Even if you shoot Cropped or letterboxed "16:9" and show it on a 4:3 TV its gonna be as sharp as the TV set itself can show anyway.


Now on a widescreen TV thats a different story. But i only know 2 people with HD TV's. And only one of them watches HD on it.
 
Kholi said:
You mentioned specifically the Dvx100a? What about the DVX100b?

And, yes, just crop the footage.
Click to expand...


Panny didnt make a big deal about it, I supposed to not hack off 100A owners but the 100B has a very noticeable improvement in noise. The colors also hold detail better than the 100A, especially reds and blues...


ash =o)

PS one of my conspiracy theory friends thinks they used the same CCDs in the 100B and the HVX, he surmises they are just cropping the 4:3 out of the 16:9 CCD as the XL2 does, hence the bigger CCD = less noise. His production company is called Grassy Knoll so you do the math!
 
MovieSwede said:
Xl2 uses 4:3 ccd with more pixels than a 4:3 sd picture can show but enough pixel for the cropped 16:9 image. So more res but smaller sensors. So basicly the XL2 is a 1/4 ccd widescreen cam.
Click to expand...


That is just plain wrong... the GL2 is a 1/4" CCD camera. Pretty amazing how much bad info there is about the XL2 on these forums. The XL2 uses large oversized 4:3 CCDs that are 960X720. When "cropped" for TRUE 16:9 they are 960X480 (960X576 for PAL). After the crop it is still a FULL SIZE 1/3" CCD. If you shoot in 4:3 it crops the sides of the 16:9 portion of the CCD effectively eating into the CCD size but it is still closer to 1/3" than 1/4". Do you say the SDX900 is a 1/3" camera when used to shoot 4:3? Of course not...


ash =o)
 
AshG said:
Panny didnt make a big deal about it, I supposed to not hack off 100A owners but the 100B has a very noticeable improvement in noise. The colors also hold detail better than the 100A, especially reds and blues...


ash =o)

PS one of my conspiracy theory friends thinks they used the same CCDs in the 100B and the HVX, he surmises they are just cropping the 4:3 out of the 16:9 CCD as the XL2 does, hence the bigger CCD = less noise. His production company is called Grassy Knoll so you do the math!
Click to expand...
Who wants to take apart the HVX and 100b?

AshG rocks all day long.

When you get ready to sell your H1, JVC, or HVX-- PM me. =DDD
 
I just sold one of my DVX100b's =o) I think he is crazy, I think they use the same chip as the 100A just some improvement with the DSP or something...



ash =o)
 
AshG said:
That is just plain wrong... the GL2 is a 1/4" CCD camera. Pretty amazing how much bad info there is about the XL2 on these forums. The XL2 uses large oversized 4:3 CCDs that are 960X720. When "cropped" for TRUE 16:9 they are 960X480 (960X576 for PAL). After the crop it is still a FULL SIZE 1/3" CCD. If you shoot in 4:3 it crops the sides of the 16:9 portion of the CCD effectively eating into the CCD size but it is still closer to 1/3" than 1/4". Do you say the SDX900 is a 1/3" camera when used to shoot 4:3? Of course not...


ash =o)
Click to expand...

My point is that it has a 4:3 CCD and dont use the entire 1/3 ccd sensor. So even if its not small enouh for 1/4 it aint big enough for 1/3. And yes the same goes for the 900 it doesnt uses the entire ccd surface when it shoots 4:3.

What do you base your info that the XL2 sensor is oversized? The only info ive read is that it has more pixels on the surface area. Not that the surface area is bigger than 1/3.
 
MovieSwede said:
My point is that it has a 4:3 CCD and dont use the entire 1/3 ccd sensor. So even if its not small enouh for 1/4 it aint big enough for 1/3. And yes the same goes for the 900 it doesnt uses the entire ccd surface when it shoots 4:3.

What do you base your info that the XL2 sensor is oversized? The only info ive read is that it has more pixels on the surface area. Not that the surface area is bigger than 1/3.
Click to expand...


Semantics... it is a 1/3" CCD camera. The 16:9 part of the CCD is the only ACTIVE part of the CCD, the rest are inactive non-firing pixels. It is not 1/4" CCD as evidenced by the lack of noise and light sensitivity. By the way, most 1/3" CCD sensors are not exactly 1/3" anyway. My beef was your assertion that the XL2 was not really a 1/3" CCD camera... that is like saying the HVX is not really an HD camera.


ash =o)
 
I think Panny should just stop the rebates, tapes, DVD (sorry Barry), software, etc. and throw an AGLA-7200 for $4500 MSRP, $3700-$3900 street.
and there u have it true 16X9 SD, Cine Switch technology for any type of filmmaker.
BTW I bought my 100b at DVexpo west in December 05 and one of the reps said they were close to 100,000 DVX's in the world, making this Panasonic's best selling professional video camera. remember that was Dec. 05
 
Well not everybody gonna need the adapter it can even produce worse picture if ou cant handle it.

But sure they could take an alternative package for 16:9 freaks.

But as I said resolution is only a part of a great picture.
 
From what I've heard, Panny is bringing a successor to the DVX cam in true 16:9 format (ccd), but it is not going to be HD.
 
digitial dan said:
From what I've heard, Panny is bringing a successor to the DVX cam in true 16:9 format (ccd), but it is not going to be HD.
Click to expand...


Seems like it could be done now. The HVX has 16:9 and you can shoot SD with it in 16:9. I haven't replaced my XL1s yet.
 
Heck Panasonic's very own consumer cameras are starting to have true 16:9
Check out the review of the GS500:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-PV-GS500-Camcorder-Review.htm
Unlike the GS300, which uses a crop-and-zoom technique (cutting information from the top and bottom to create a 16:9 frame) to obtain a 16:9 aspect ratio, the GS500 has true widescreen.
If Panasonic were to release a DVX with true 16:9, this would certainly kill a LOT of Canon's sales, possibly forcing them to release an XL2s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top