Hey. Im kind of stuck in choosing one of these cams. I will be using it in a TV Studio for filming shows and for going outb into the feild to capture stories. Ill also be making a few short movies and a TV show of my own with my friends. I dont know if I should get the DVX100 or the DVC80. Would I actually use the 24p mode in the 100 ? Which would be better for what im doing ? If you could help me in deciding it would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Cory

Trust me on this.

Get the DVX100 if it's in your budget. You will have all the options of the 80 and then some. The 'then some' being 24p. If you start making films and it turns serious you will always be happy you have 24p.

I got the same question when i bought my DVC80, i would choose it over again, is an awesome camera, and it is for tv, you wont be using much the 24p process in tv, and if you need so, just use magic bullet or another 24p software based processing.

For all the extra money, that is like 800 bucks , get another battery, a nice bag, and a nice mic just like i did, and still you are saving like 300 bucks for any more extras.

The video quality and colometri of the dvc80 can beat, in my opinion all competition in 1/3" chips cameras segment. Including Canon XL1s, and Sony DVX2200, and PD150, and PD10...

I own a DVC80, and I too was tempted by the DVX100. I shoot mostly for TV and it was actually the DVX's *30p* capabilities that caught my attention: NTSC-paced progressive seems to be the lesser-heralded gem of the DVX.

Ultimately, though, it was my budget that made up my mind: I needed that extra $1000 to buy mics, batteries, filters, tapes, and other accessories. That said, I've been very happy with my DVC80 (and as I like to say often, I've been told by a number of broadcast professionals that the quality of the DVC80 is equal to the PD150...not that I have inferiority issues... :D )

But yeah, if you've got the money to burn, get the DVX100: as said, you'll get all the benefits of the DVC80 plus 24 and 30 progressive -- the conventional wisdom (and those who have actually used the DVX100 as well as Magic Bullet) says that the DVX100's "true" progressive is far better than software-based progressive. With something like Magic Bullet you are basically throwing away half of the picture, whereas with the DVX you keep the whole frame.

There is something to be said for buying the dvc80 and then using DV filmmaker to transfer to 24p. I mean, who knows who's algorithim is best, panasonic's or someone else?

Panasonic's is far superior, because it's not an algorithm, it's actual discrete 24-frame progressive capture. Using Magic Bullet or DVFilm's Maker software will involve blending 60i fields together to create a simulation of 24P. You'll never achieve the same kind of resolution possible from capturing in native 24P by trying to simulate it from interlaced fields.

If you like the progressive "film look", get the DVX, no question. It's everything the DVC80 is, plus a lot more (cinegamma, external device control, 30P, 24P, lots of other features). If you cannot possibly justify the additional expense of the DVX, go ahead with the DVC80 -- it's the best interlaced camera on the market today.

As far as 24P in TV work, I do exclusively TV work, and I use the 24P mode about 95% of the time. 24P looks like film that's been transferred to video, and is an excellent choice for television commercials, short films, feature-length movies, anything where you think the material would benefit by looking like it was shot on film.

Michael --

My understanding, as I put it, is that any post-production software is basically throwing away half of the video (by removing one of the fields and interpolating the difference), but that the Panasonic actually captures the full frame to begin with. Therefore, it's not about a difference in algorithims -- it's more akin to a picture taken with a digital still camera vs. deinterlacing a frame of video -- the still picture is more of a "pure" snapshot than the video frame.

(This is just what my understanding of the process has been; experienced DVX100 users may say differently.)

Not to mention that you're saving yourself a heck of a lot of time if you don't have to run a software app on your video. The main point being, though: if you can *afford* a motorcycle, then why buy a bicycle and jerry-rig a lawnmower engine to it?


EDIT: Barry beat me to the punch. Oh well.

True progressive scan CCDs will always be better than deinterlacing in post.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Britt : Michael --

if you can *afford* a motorcycle, then why buy a bicycle and jerry-rig a lawnmower engine to it?

-->>>

Next to Barry's reply; this one sums it up nicely.

Just got this camera a few days ago. Have only shot about one hour worth of tape so far, but I love it. It does much better in low light than I thought. It is also very smart by telling me when I need to turn on ND filters and which one! The white balance does an excellent job and is much faster than some of the older cameras I have used. It is also a great looking camera, sitting on my big tripod, it looks very impressive. The File Select menus are great! I can set these up for all kinds of different situations for whatever kind of look I want.
I am a little concerned with the sound levels that I am getting. Maybe it is just me, the speaker doesn't seem loud enough, even with the controls all the way up.
Overall, I love this camera and hope to buy another.
Craig