I think the low-light abilities are exaggerated?

[Neil Slade]

Hey Matt, didn't realize you had the same cam as I, DVX100--

anyway, I always use 1/24 speed shutter in low light with progressive.

It looks great. Gives me more light sensitivity without messing up the image.

Neil

[Matt Gettemeier]

Neil, man this is a blast from the past! I did the same thing so many other dvx buyers do when they very first get their new cam.

I freaked out a bit 'cause in the first few hours of dvx ownership I thought it didn't live up to the hype. Everybody does this! You see dvx threads all the time from people that expected to simply turn on the dvx and see magic, when in fact you do need to take over control of the camera FULLY to get the magic.

I re-read this whole thread and I'm a little embarrassed at my initial post!

I've REALLY got the low-light down at this point, and I was 90% of the way there within the first month... long after this thread faded away.

But since this thread has been revived let me just say that in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS... where I made a comparison to my old trv900 early in this thread? THAT IS A CRIME!... My trv900 was lacking compared to the dvx... It was an insult in every respect to compare the two.

Fact is the dvx is not on the level of cams such as the trv900... It's MILES past it. I know. I own 'em both. Color, detail, DOF, low-light, audio, clarity, mood... you can't come up with anything the trv900 even comes close to in the dvx. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get grain-free video in lowest light from a trv900... The image is LOADED with dancing pixels and grain. In the DVX it's easy to run out of light just like with other cams, but the difference is when you run out of light the black areas ARE black, unless you CHOOSE grain in exchange for subject information. For me having CLEAN, movie-quality darks is now mandatory...

If I had to go back to the trv900 as my main cam I'd lose my mind... the 900 was akin' to a decent tool... the dvx is more like a huge toolbox filled with all the best tools. (In comparison)

Since I started this thread I've done several projects with other people in my area and all of them use XL1s cams... I've been on jobs with 3 cam coverage... 2 XL1s and my dvx... The XL1s output looks TOTALLY like a video camera... In all fairness "Insomniac with Dave Attell" is one of my favorite shows and they use XL1s cams on that show so it's not like I'm saying it's a poor cam, 'cause it's NOT... But on the jobs I was part of, the XL1s footage looked like amature video.

Here we are 9 months after I initially got the DVX and I'm 10 TIMES as in love with this cam as the day I got it... maybe 100 TIMES... Once you get a handle on how to use the DVX it's on a whole 'nother level...

You'd be making a mistake to choose anything else in this price range.

On a side note... I've been trading sound files with people from all over the world as we've been testing mics... all of us are producing INCREDIBLE clarity and amazing files! Most of the other guys are using Sound Devices mixers and DIGITAL RECORDERS such as the Marantz PMD670... I'm making my files by plugging a mic into the DVX... THAT'S IT. Do you realize how amazing it is that all of our files are of similar quality? There are people using the very best field recording gear... double system sound... and I'm simply plugging in a mic...

Sheesh! What's not to love? [This is but ONE facet...]

I normally stay modest about this cam around my friends who use something else... but upon reading my comments from the very FIRST day I got it... I felt the need to let loose and say how much I really, really love this cam. If this part of the forum isn't a good place for it, then what is...

[Frank Granovski]

Matt, the TRV900 and XL1(s) are old cams with lower video effective pixel counts than the DVX100. Also, the TRV900 has 1/4" CCDs putting it a different class than the 1/3" CCD cams. Both the TRV900 and the XL1 are still excellent cams when in the hands of skilled videographers. On the topic of low light requirements, there is not a big difference between these 3 cams. Regarding lower shutter speeds, speeds lower than 1/60th result in lower resolution. I, however, agree that the DVX100 is a better cam than the other 2, until you feel the need for a different lens or the need to use a full range of lower shutter speeds.

[Matt Gettemeier]

Don't make the mistake of comparing the low-light performance of the trv900 to the DVX or else you are perpetuating the misinformation that's so prevalent on the internet. I bought a trv900 based on what I was reading, but there weren't enough people who were really telling it like it is.

Have you used both cameras? I owned a trv900, then replaced it with a DVX so I know what the specs are and how they perform.

You CAN'T get the low-light images from the 900 that you CAN get from the DVX.

Dancing pixels scream "amature". Simply being able to get information out of a low-light scene is fine if you're capturing UFO footage or some other scene where you're better off with grain, dancing pixels, and more information.

But the fact remains that you don't have a choice with a cam such as a trv900. You get grain and dancing pixels whether you want 'em or not. The lux ratings are deceiving unless you're blind to dancing pixels. With a trv900 a 40w bulb is "low light".

Use a flashlight or say, the light output from a small LCD like on a newer cell phone. Tape that from various angles in a dark room. When you play that back on your monitor and you see all the busy red and blue pixels all over the screen? You don't have to have that with a DVX. (And perhaps the xl1s, vx2000, pd150) but the trv900 can't lose the busy action. With a DVX if you absolutely need to see what's around that display you can switch on gain and see it... If, on the other hand, you want a totally clean image where you see the LCD/flashlight surrounded by BLACK. With NO dancing pixels or busy grain... you can DO that.

I was so sold on everything you read on the internet regarding the trv900 that I got one last winter/spring... just as they became unavailable 'cause you saw so many complaints about the replacement having smaller CCDs and worsened low-light.

So I got one and I liked it, but after a month or so I had a shot where I wanted a ghostly effect of evening light spilling into a room through a curtained window.

It's kind of hard to feel scared when you can't ignore all the blue and red dots vibrating all over the dark areas of the screen.

That was when I realized that I'd end up spending the cash needed to get to 1/3" chips...

If I could have edited this thread I would have re-worked the opening post. I don't want to be a part of any facet of the internet that spreads misinformation. Look up all the info on the trv900 and you'll find a huge group of people who are convinced that the trv900 is a classic that's BETTER then the newer 1/3" cams. On the FIRST DAY I got a DVX I thought, "Hmm, I guess the trv900 IS almost as good as a 1/3" 3-chipper...?" Wrong.

I shoulda' deleted this whole thread after the first few weeks I had the DVX. Look at the post dates. This thread died after ONE week and I forgot about it.

It's insane to compare the trv900 to the DVX on any level. Buy 'em, use 'em... If within' two weeks you still think a trv900 is comparable to the DVX then there's a serious problem.

BTW 60i is alternate fields 1,2,1,2, which gives video it's unfilm-like look. 30p is 1+2, 1+2, and here's a quote from dv.com:

"True progressive frames offer between 40 and 100 percent greater vertical resolution than interlaced frames."

There's a ton of articles on the resolution of true progressive. The "frame" mode of an xl1s is the one that's HALF the resolution.

Frank, before you get a chance to reply I want to say I LIKE you... with over 5000 posts you are obviously into DV... I'd said to another member (weeks ago) that if I win the lotto I'll send you my DVX. I think you'd have so much fun with it you'd go nuts.

[Rodger Marjama]

Hey Matt,

You sound a little pleased with the DVX now. Good. It's a very remarkable camera, with nothing else out there right now to compare it to -- even at 4 maybe 5 times the price.

I had been wanting/hoping/trying to get the DVX100 since it first showed up at WEVA back in 2002. Just never worked out where I could until about a month ago. Got the DVX100A and I have not looked back.

Since I had so much time to look, read, even edit full footage from this camera, I thought I'd be pretty prepared once I was able to get it. Man was I wrong. Until you actually hold it and shoot your first few frames, you basically only have a working knowledge. Something more mechanical, analytical. But when you do hold it, shoot those frames and look at what you actually did with your own hands and camera, then it hits you -- And for me it hit hard!

Rather then go through it all again, here's a link to a post I made 4 hours after receiving my camera.

http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/Y...4411;start=0#0

Enjoy the moment, we all hope it will continue for a lifetime.

-Rodger

[Frank Granovski]

if I win the lotto I'll send you my DVX. I think you'd have so much fun with it you'd go nuts.

Thanks! That reminds me, I have to get my tickets before 6:00. :-))

I'm having fun with my new DV Caddie at the moment! It's good for SLRs too!

http://www.dvcaddie.com