DVX100B or HVX200 to 35mm? at DVinfo.net

Jim Bivins · February 23rd, 2007, 01:16 PM

I hope this thread title does not mislead, I'm looking for advice on which camera would best suit my needs.

The big issue, I guess, Is which of the 2 will transfer best to 35mm? SD is definately more affordable, and would allow me a little more monetary room for an M2 Mini35 and appropriate lenses, as well as any other extras I might need. I'm just concerned with the image quality when blown-up, colors, detail and such.

HD would seem, in my mind, to hold up better, but my budget will be pushed, and maybe exceeded. Is SD 'good enough', or would it be worth it to go all the way with an HVX200?

Any input is appreciated, I hope I made my concern clearly.

Thanks
Jim

Gene Brockhoff · February 24th, 2007, 01:35 PM

Hi Jim. We have been making a documentary for the past two years where we started out with a DVX and jumped ship to the HVX mid stream. There are many factors involved. We used an anamorphic adapter on our DVX which matches up very nicely up-rezzed to the native 16x9 of the HVX in 720p24. In fact I might say at least for the interviews that the softness of the DVX in SD with the anamorphic adapter is preferrable to the HD interviews. We shot one interview with the Red Rock mini-35. Although the shallow depth of field was a help for that shot (He was right in front of a bookcase) His eyes were very soft. These problems are compounded in a film blowup. The HVX also opened up an artistic eye for us because of the variable frame rates. The color is lush and the definition is great at least for the b-roll. It depends on what you are shooting and what your project lends itself to. Either way, you can't go wrong but I would get an anamorphic adapter instead of the MINI-35 if you go the DVX route.

Benjamin Richardson · March 1st, 2007, 07:05 PM

HD has resolution comparable to 16mm film. theres a big jump from the dvx to hvx in price, but not so big a jump in resolution. The hvx has 540 by 960 pixels, and uses pixel shift to achieve the desired resolution. Then on top of that you have to deal with the expensive and hindering P2 cards. Although the hvx seems to have a strong following. If you're budget conscience on these two cameras the 35 transfer is going to be a shock- its expensive.

So why isn't the Canon XL H1, or XH A1 being considered? Both with censors that have 1440 by 1080 active pixels, and gorgeous lenses that will resolve every bit of that resolution. Film out tests have been done with the H1 and they've been great, check in the November '06 digital video magazine.

Ash Greyson · March 1st, 2007, 07:56 PM

I think the subject "film out" comes up way too often on forums such as these. Use whatever will make your movie the best, it will not live on film, it will live on DVD. If you get lucky enough to actually get a film out, the distro company will pay for all the uprezzing, etc. Tech specs wont matter as much as the perceived marketability of your film.

My current doc which actually will probably see a limited theatrical release, is all SD but on 16:9 cameras, the XL2 and HVX (to tape). I think 16:9 is the way to go, all the HDV cameras, the XL2 and the HVX do great 16:9 SD. It seems to me like you are talking about a narrative film, which is almost impossible to get distributed theatrically. HD might make the difference to some people, it is hard to say but if you really think you are going to be in theaters, I would say HVX all the way. You might even consider renting a 2/3" CCD camera.

ash =o)

PS by the way, even just in SD mode the HVX/HDV/XL2 cameras give you ONE THIRD more resolution tha nthe DVX

February 23rd, 2007, 01:16 PM	#1
Jim Bivins Tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Posts: 1	DVX100B or HVX200 to 35mm? I hope this thread title does not mislead, I'm looking for advice on which camera would best suit my needs. The big issue, I guess, Is which of the 2 will transfer best to 35mm? SD is definately more affordable, and would allow me a little more monetary room for an M2 Mini35 and appropriate lenses, as well as any other extras I might need. I'm just concerned with the image quality when blown-up, colors, detail and such. HD would seem, in my mind, to hold up better, but my budget will be pushed, and maybe exceeded. Is SD 'good enough', or would it be worth it to go all the way with an HVX200? Any input is appreciated, I hope I made my concern clearly. Thanks Jim

February 24th, 2007, 01:35 PM	#2
Gene Brockhoff Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Oakland CA Posts: 46	Hi Jim. We have been making a documentary for the past two years where we started out with a DVX and jumped ship to the HVX mid stream. There are many factors involved. We used an anamorphic adapter on our DVX which matches up very nicely up-rezzed to the native 16x9 of the HVX in 720p24. In fact I might say at least for the interviews that the softness of the DVX in SD with the anamorphic adapter is preferrable to the HD interviews. We shot one interview with the Red Rock mini-35. Although the shallow depth of field was a help for that shot (He was right in front of a bookcase) His eyes were very soft. These problems are compounded in a film blowup. The HVX also opened up an artistic eye for us because of the variable frame rates. The color is lush and the definition is great at least for the b-roll. It depends on what you are shooting and what your project lends itself to. Either way, you can't go wrong but I would get an anamorphic adapter instead of the MINI-35 if you go the DVX route. __________________ "We are basically free, but who we think we are is not" Ram Dass

March 1st, 2007, 07:05 PM	#3
Benjamin Richardson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Syracuse, NY Posts: 143	HD has resolution comparable to 16mm film. theres a big jump from the dvx to hvx in price, but not so big a jump in resolution. The hvx has 540 by 960 pixels, and uses pixel shift to achieve the desired resolution. Then on top of that you have to deal with the expensive and hindering P2 cards. Although the hvx seems to have a strong following. If you're budget conscience on these two cameras the 35 transfer is going to be a shock- its expensive. So why isn't the Canon XL H1, or XH A1 being considered? Both with censors that have 1440 by 1080 active pixels, and gorgeous lenses that will resolve every bit of that resolution. Film out tests have been done with the H1 and they've been great, check in the November '06 digital video magazine.

March 1st, 2007, 07:56 PM	#4
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	I think the subject "film out" comes up way too often on forums such as these. Use whatever will make your movie the best, it will not live on film, it will live on DVD. If you get lucky enough to actually get a film out, the distro company will pay for all the uprezzing, etc. Tech specs wont matter as much as the perceived marketability of your film. My current doc which actually will probably see a limited theatrical release, is all SD but on 16:9 cameras, the XL2 and HVX (to tape). I think 16:9 is the way to go, all the HDV cameras, the XL2 and the HVX do great 16:9 SD. It seems to me like you are talking about a narrative film, which is almost impossible to get distributed theatrically. HD might make the difference to some people, it is hard to say but if you really think you are going to be in theaters, I would say HVX all the way. You might even consider renting a 2/3" CCD camera. ash =o) PS by the way, even just in SD mode the HVX/HDV/XL2 cameras give you ONE THIRD more resolution tha nthe DVX