New dvc80 questions

Steve D. Taylor · March 9th, 2004, 07:40 PM

Thanks for the added words of encouragement. If I ever get noticed for anything I make, I'll certainly upgrade! For now, I'll concentrate on story and production value.

Thanks all, and I'll keep "lurking" around this forum for tips!

Steve.

Zac Williams · March 10th, 2004, 03:32 PM

I'm much in the same boat in trying to justify the extra grand (or more) for a DVX100A over a DVC80. Both are basically the same solid camera with the big difference (and it is a big one) being progressive.

The funny thing about the DVC80 is two years ago it probably would have been the hottest selling camera out there. If I'm not mistaken several features and shorts have been shot with Sony PD-150s and even PD100A. Several Dogma95 films come to mind as do a couple of projects that Ethan Hawke was involved in. David Lynch also shot a Sony Playstation commerical with a PD-150. Since both Sonys mentioned above shoot only interlaced, I think it stands to reason that a transfer to film can be done and be commercially viable.

Does that mean it will look as good as DV shot in 24P and transferred? No. In any case shooting 60i and then going to film is far superior than shooting an XL-1S in frame mode (pseudo progressive) which leaves you without any film option as does 30P from what I understand.

I may have just talked myself into a DVC80. Besides for the occasional wedding video or mini-doc the result will be pretty close with a little deinterlace.

Just my two cents and enjoy the DVC80.

Stephen van Vuuren · March 10th, 2004, 03:56 PM

Zac:

While I agree the the DVC80 is a great cam for 60i, note that the progressive is not the primary difference now between it and the DVX100a.

The new "a" model has a number of refinements and improvements to the lens, zoom motors, control, electronics (12-bit DSP being huge), gamma curves/settings and other items that are not on the DVC80 and for some people may be huge reasons to spend the extra money, even if they don't shoot progressive at all.

Unless the DVC80 is gets a similar revamp, the DVX100a model is hard to beat at $1000 (or $10000) more or even $1000 less.

Zac Williams · March 10th, 2004, 05:50 PM

Well put Stephen on the additional reasons that the DVX100A may be the way to go. Now I'm scratching my head again. After NAB, I'll have to see what the camera budget looks like and make the choice one way or another. Now the DVC30 is in the equation it is even a little more complicated.

Thanks.

Steve D. Taylor · March 10th, 2004, 06:16 PM

I would have waited for the dvc30, but more $ and smaller chips. 1/3 chips are nice.

Rodger Marjama · March 10th, 2004, 07:37 PM

Even though I would differently pic the DVX100A over the DVC80 or the DVX100 (in fact I did), *IF* you can wait until NAB, you may be happy you did.

As for the DVX100A...

The really, really, really important stuff it has over the DVC80 and the DVX100 is the 12 bit A/D converter and in-camera 16:9 mode. Coupled together, unless you know footage was shot using this mode, I guarantee 95 out of 100 will say it was shot with an anamorphic adapter and maybe most of the 5 who said it wasn't would probably say they could tell it wasn't because it was to sharp and not enough barrel distortion ;>).

Unless you've shot 16:9 with this camera, you really need to before going any other way. Yeah, I know, you don't do 16:9 -- While you will in a short while, guaranteed. It is the most newest thing right now cause everyone who sees 16:9 says HDTV! And we all no HDTV is coming like a runaway freight train.

So, your going to have to shoot in it anyway, so why not just sneak a the extra bucks now and not feel bad about it later? But like I said, if you can wait for NAB, that may still be the smartest move of all.

-Rodger

Martin Garrison · March 10th, 2004, 11:51 PM

I disagree. $1000 bucks. If it was a $15k camera, that wouldn't be much, but we're talking about a %50 budget increase.

If you're already happy with your mics, your light kit, and your sticks, and you don't have any need for a jib or a dolly, then I guess it's a good investment. Otherwise deinterlacing in Vegas looks good. Color correction and gamma adjustments are best done with an undo button handy.

The local screening theater here will let you bring in a DV deck to connect to their projector, might as well keep it interlaced. And as has been mentioned, if you really want to spend the money on transfers to film, plenty of great transfers have been made from 60i video.

Just my opinion,
Martin

P.S. The one feature that almost sold me on dvx100, was the focus guide numbers. That I would use often.

March 10th, 2004, 03:56 PM	#18
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	Zac: While I agree the the DVC80 is a great cam for 60i, note that the progressive is not the primary difference now between it and the DVX100a. The new "a" model has a number of refinements and improvements to the lens, zoom motors, control, electronics (12-bit DSP being huge), gamma curves/settings and other items that are not on the DVC80 and for some people may be huge reasons to spend the extra money, even if they don't shoot progressive at all. Unless the DVC80 is gets a similar revamp, the DVX100a model is hard to beat at $1000 (or $10000) more or even $1000 less. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

March 10th, 2004, 07:37 PM	#21
Rodger Marjama Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 101	Even though I would differently pic the DVX100A over the DVC80 or the DVX100 (in fact I did), IF you can wait until NAB, you may be happy you did. As for the DVX100A... The really, really, really important stuff it has over the DVC80 and the DVX100 is the 12 bit A/D converter and in-camera 16:9 mode. Coupled together, unless you know footage was shot using this mode, I guarantee 95 out of 100 will say it was shot with an anamorphic adapter and maybe most of the 5 who said it wasn't would probably say they could tell it wasn't because it was to sharp and not enough barrel distortion ;>). Unless you've shot 16:9 with this camera, you really need to before going any other way. Yeah, I know, you don't do 16:9 -- While you will in a short while, guaranteed. It is the most newest thing right now cause everyone who sees 16:9 says HDTV! And we all no HDTV is coming like a runaway freight train. So, your going to have to shoot in it anyway, so why not just sneak a the extra bucks now and not feel bad about it later? But like I said, if you can wait for NAB, that may still be the smartest move of all. -Rodger __________________ Rodger Marjama www.speedwing.net

March 9th, 2004, 07:40 PM	#16
Steve D. Taylor Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Washington Posts: 44	Thanks for the added words of encouragement. If I ever get noticed for anything I make, I'll certainly upgrade! For now, I'll concentrate on story and production value. Thanks all, and I'll keep "lurking" around this forum for tips! Steve.

March 10th, 2004, 03:32 PM	#17
Zac Williams New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Pleasant View, UT Posts: 15	I'm much in the same boat in trying to justify the extra grand (or more) for a DVX100A over a DVC80. Both are basically the same solid camera with the big difference (and it is a big one) being progressive. The funny thing about the DVC80 is two years ago it probably would have been the hottest selling camera out there. If I'm not mistaken several features and shorts have been shot with Sony PD-150s and even PD100A. Several Dogma95 films come to mind as do a couple of projects that Ethan Hawke was involved in. David Lynch also shot a Sony Playstation commerical with a PD-150. Since both Sonys mentioned above shoot only interlaced, I think it stands to reason that a transfer to film can be done and be commercially viable. Does that mean it will look as good as DV shot in 24P and transferred? No. In any case shooting 60i and then going to film is far superior than shooting an XL-1S in frame mode (pseudo progressive) which leaves you without any film option as does 30P from what I understand. I may have just talked myself into a DVC80. Besides for the occasional wedding video or mini-doc the result will be pretty close with a little deinterlace. Just my two cents and enjoy the DVC80.

March 10th, 2004, 05:50 PM	#19
Zac Williams New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Pleasant View, UT Posts: 15	Well put Stephen on the additional reasons that the DVX100A may be the way to go. Now I'm scratching my head again. After NAB, I'll have to see what the camera budget looks like and make the choice one way or another. Now the DVC30 is in the equation it is even a little more complicated. Thanks.

March 10th, 2004, 06:16 PM	#20
Steve D. Taylor Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Washington Posts: 44	I would have waited for the dvc30, but more $ and smaller chips. 1/3 chips are nice.

March 10th, 2004, 11:51 PM	#22
Martin Garrison Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 173	I disagree. $1000 bucks. If it was a $15k camera, that wouldn't be much, but we're talking about a %50 budget increase. If you're already happy with your mics, your light kit, and your sticks, and you don't have any need for a jib or a dolly, then I guess it's a good investment. Otherwise deinterlacing in Vegas looks good. Color correction and gamma adjustments are best done with an undo button handy. The local screening theater here will let you bring in a DV deck to connect to their projector, might as well keep it interlaced. And as has been mentioned, if you really want to spend the money on transfers to film, plenty of great transfers have been made from 60i video. Just my opinion, Martin P.S. The one feature that almost sold me on dvx100, was the focus guide numbers. That I would use often.