Why this criticism of DVX-100?

[filmmaker1977]

don't go flame each other here..

don't go flame each other here..

What I meant was, I forgot about the SI. But I wasn't referring to capturing options; the $12,500 price is outside the scope of "wide open" by itself, but you still need to add a lens to that besides. "Wide open," to me, means something accessible by amateurs and hobbyists, and cameras above $10K don't fall into that category for me.

i meant "higher res".. different meanings.. no problem.. but the lens is a no point.. SI can use cheap but effective HD fujinon glass.. red too.. in the case, SLR lenses.. do you want more cheaper than this?.. but my only concern is: this is not the right place for this discussion (thus, let's drop it!)

Calling the 1/3" cameras "fake HD" IS trolling. It's purposely incendiary, and it's not accurate. There's nothing "fake" about it. These cams deliver the resolution. Like I said, other things about them might not be to your liking, but that doesn't mean they're not HD.

it depends what is for you HD.. but when someone like graeme has been posting the same than i posted..

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=697807&postcount=5

..why do you say nothing?.. when you people said nothing at all!!

I didn't mention any specific camera, and certainly not the HVX. The FX1, the Z1U, the V1U, the XL-H1, the XH-A1, the HD100, the HVX -- all HD. Not fake. Saying they are "fake HD" does nothing but stink up the Internet with falsehoods, because someone's going to believe it and spread it somewhere else.

lol.. my words don't have such range.. nor target.. but i didn't mention all of these examples.. only the hvx.. you for sure don't.. but someone did it.. or more correctly, asked me..

Don't care if they do or not. I do care that FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) not be spread, and calling those cameras above "fake HD" is FUD. They are all HD. You personally may not care for them, but not all have your opinion.

i don't like FUD either (at all).. but i insist, i never did it even if it is your opinion and actually my view is quite the opposite.. i care.. simply someone asked (to a former student of mine..) why?

(..a former student and young man who gave his opinion.. the same that i taught him.. so it is my point too..)

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Jeez Filmmkaer1977

You seem emotional (and hostile). What gives ? Please tone down the angst.

-

fine viewpoint.. i stand it too.. but don't forget why dogma95 trumped.. or your legendary boyle's example.. btw, he didn't shoot all from dv.. why didn't he?

Dogme95. That's a failed movement; not a technology.

-

The last few minutes in 28 Days Later was shot 35mm. I'm not following the point in noting that ?

 

[filmmaker1977]

Jeez Filmmkaer1977

You seem emotional (and hostile). What gives ? Please tone down the angst.

nope.. not at all.. maybe because the english isn't my mother tongue, it seems so.. if you're saying i believe it.. you're the english speakers.. but nothing more than that.. i'm not a newbie over here.. (but i'm not being hostile when i want to make the point like that.. it's only a matter of expression in a different language.. try mine! )

Dogme95. That's a failed movement; not a technology.

if it is failed or not, it's your opinion not mine (again: not being hostile.. my goodness.. :grin but it was only possible because the video was there.. video language.. its basics.. that's why i mentioned the kingdom series as being the first (unofficial) production (a danish tv order) where all began.. and please give me a break.. you all know how this has influenced the film grammar of the blockbuster.. yes, the blockbusters and their typical anonymous director..

i already know what you think about bays and co.. i've been reading it.. and if i'm not posting there it's exactly because i wouldn't like to waste my time in flame wars about the obvious.. well, i wouldn't say so obvious :cheesy: but..

and fortunately, i'm not the first saying this here.. i already read it in these same threads the same from others.. there are smart people who know what has been the filmmaking language movement.. there, the video has had an important role.. whether we like whether not..

The last few minutes in 28 Days Later was shot 35mm. I'm not following the point in noting that ?

yes, it was.. imo, SD video is good for close-ups.. when you need to go forward, it didn't go well.. mostly, wide shots..






edit
different approaches.. no big deal.. but when the discussion is valid it is good to exchange ideas.. for ex. it could seem i agree with such provocative thread's title but i wouldn't buy it (the title.. the title.. :laugh

imo, DVX is the best SD video camera ever.. and if i wouldn't buy it (and i'm saying this only now) it is because the HD cameras are out there.. or i could have other options..

quoting that guy: "the doors have been open"..

i'd just go further the doors will be "wide open".. since there are good perspectives for the future.. i think this was from where this health discussion began..

 

[J.R. Hudson]

My mistake FM77

Sometimes your babelfish comes across in blunt force. No worries!

-

I do not doubt the influence of technology in cinema history; I am merely reminding (Myself!) that technology is not neccasarily my saviour; only I can save myself from failure

 

[Noel Evans]

it depends what is for you HD.. but when someone like graeme has been posting the same than i posted..

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=697807&postcount=5

..why do you say nothing?.. when you people said nothing at all!!

In fact graeme didnt say it was fake HD. If you read his post he was referring to RED as having a true 1080P .... he is referring to the PROGRESSIVE MODE not weather or not its HD.

So now that you know you're alone on that point, I have to say it's absolutely innacurate to call a 1/3" HD camera non HD. HD refers to resolution, not colorspace, not chipsize, not latitude. Please check your facts before TROLLING.

 

[filmmaker1977]

In fact graeme didnt say it was fake HD. If you read his post he was referring to RED as having a true 1080P .... he is referring to the PROGRESSIVE MODE not weather or not its HD.

So now that you know you're alone on that point, I have to say it's absolutely innacurate to call a 1/3" HD camera non HD. HD refers to resolution, not colorspace, not chipsize, not latitude. Please check your facts before TROLLING.

c'mon, did you read my content?.. it doesn't seem so..

second, this kind of "so now that you know you're alone on" this or that is flaming my dear.. wrong move.. and it seems what i won't post because i won't 'play your game'.. it seems what you can find in some periods of the history.. check the facts because what i've always been saying is: "THIS IS MY OPINION" (have i this right or cannot i because after my explanation and john's understanding you didn't understand yet?)

on what graeme said it was: "It will be real 1080p - not any of those fake ones".. misunderstood as you wish.. your right.. my bad.. to my needs, my HD is 1080p at least.. but if we're speaking on 720p i'd say that jvc is native and hvx a good compromise..

edit
your in your own.. but don't flame ok?