Is the DVX100 obsolete technology?

Barry Green · October 7th, 2006, 02:30 PM

But your claim only works if all other things are equal, and they're not. A PD170 or DVX is about two stops faster (at least in interlace mode) than an Z1U or an HVX. So if you were buying strictly to use as SD, you'd be making a significant sacrifice by using the HD model.

I'm not saying "go buy SD", but I am saying that SD in the industry is far from dead. Extremely far from it. May not make much sense to those of us on the "bleeding edge" but that's what the facts are.

David Jimerson · October 7th, 2006, 03:02 PM

Right. Considering the very fact that you can offer HD cameras at the same price point as SD-only cameras, why wouldn't you do it? Even if they weren't capable of shooting SD, you can still reach the SD market with no problem shooting only HD.

However, I don't think SD-only consumer cams are going away any time soon.

EDIT: "Right" was for Kevin's post . . . .

Jarrod Whaley · October 7th, 2006, 03:03 PM

SD will only be obsolete when HD is actually distributable (via BD or HD-DVD or whatever) to a public in which the majority of players and display devices are actually compatible with HD. It seems like it may still be quite a while before that happens.

I don't mean to get anyone riled up here, but to me HDV has always seemed like such a deeply flawed and frankly inadequate transitional format--maybe good for consumer use, but somewhat questionable for pro acquisition. The funny thing is that the sales of HDV cams don't seem to be driven by consumer desire for HD content so much as they are driven by the "penis envy" of video-oriented gadget freaks. No offense, seriously.

I say all that to say that it seems that it will still be a while before Joe Average dumps his 4:3 set for an HD display. Until that happens, you're going to get every bit as much use out of a DVX or XL2 as you would out of an xh-G1 with the footage downconverted to SD for practical use. I wouldn't call HDV capability a means of "future-proofing" at all, since I think that few would argue that HDV is the format we'll eventually end up using when HD is more widespread. When an affordable HD acquisition format with intraframe compression and a half-decent bitrate comes along, HDV will be a heck of a lot less attractive an option.

At any rate, as far as SD goes, I think that for reasons explained by previous posters, the XL2 is a much better choice than the DVX for the anamorphic 16:9 alone, even with other factors aside.

Tim Le · October 7th, 2006, 03:53 PM

If these new 1/3" HD cameras were super expensive then an SD only camera might make sense. But they're not. They're only a couple of hundred dollars more than their high-end SD counterparts. IMO you are getting an incredible bargain with these new HD cameras from Sony and Canon when you consider the XL2 and DVX100 are still selling for around $3600 new. They are feature packed and they shoot a better image. Wouldn't any imaging professional (or enthusiast) want to shoot a better image to begin with?

But again, if you already have an SD camera and you're happy to get the most out of it, keep using it. The question is, for someone who wants to buy a camera RIGHT now, does an SD or an HD camera make sense in the high-end 1/3" category? I still say go HD unless you really need the inherent higher sensitivity of SD.

Peter Jefferson · October 11th, 2006, 05:09 PM

as a new buy, i believe theyre on their last legs, however.. and its a BIG however.. there are many factors to take into consideration.

Distribution, acquisition codecs, editing codecs/formats etc etc...

persoanlyl SD is NOT obsolete. Many of my cleints would prefer a well shot, well composed SD 4:3 presentation as opposed to a badly shot HD equivalent. For web based material 4:3 is still king due to frame size.

For HD, the DVX with Vegas scales beautidully, IMO barely (apart from th3 slight softness) noticable when put side by side with a JVCHD101, so scaling progressive SD up to 720p IS viable. For me it is anyway...
I also prefer the camera outright. The colour space (im in PAL land) and the acquisition codec (ie DV) despite its shortcomings, is still vastly superior to HDV MPG2 IMO...

Obsolettion will come when people do not need somethign filmed. If someone needs SOMETHING filmed, then the camera wotn ever be obsolete. Compared to the mad rush of HDV and resolution, people have lost focus on whats important.

the my toy is better than urs debate will always run rampant, however in the end, its quality that counts and for a camera of this range, the DVX100 is probably THE best of the bunch. Depsite the argument for 16:9 and low light performance, i am yet to see ANY camera of this range perform the way this does.

Cole McDonald · October 11th, 2006, 06:54 PM

Lots of noise currently about HD. Most folks still have SD tv's in their house though. I've shot stuff on my XL1s that has been projected in a theater. While it didn't look as good as a 35mm print of a professionally shot film, it looked just fine to me on the Big Screen. SD is not the latest and greatest, but it still captures images, it still is editable and most of all, your audiences eyes won't melt out if they view it (depending on your subject matter). LONG LIVE miniDV! (until I can afford HDV).

Kevin Shaw · October 12th, 2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

Many of my cleints would prefer a well shot, well composed SD 4:3 presentation as opposed to a badly shot HD equivalent.

That's a trivially obvious statement. A better observation is that most people don't care enough about newer acquisition formats to want to pay much extra for them, even well-shot HD which would put 4:3 SD to shame. C'est la vie.

Quote:

For web based material 4:3 is still king due to frame size.

What makes you say that? Most of the movie demos I've seen lately on the internet are ultra-widescreen format, with 4:3 mainly used places like YouTube. If anything, widescreen internet samples offer a more professional look using lower bandwidth, because you don't have to encode as many lines of resolution.

And round and round and round we go. 4:3 video is definitely dying and SD as a whole will follow behind it with time.

Damien Ryan · October 16th, 2006, 04:31 AM

You cannot get a HD camera at the same price point as an SD.

I recently had to purchase my first camera, and in the end the choice came down to the fact a) I wanted to do music videos, and b) 4000 AUS was really my upper spending limit.

I just couldn't afford to plug any higher, and the closest HD cam I liked the look of was the FX-1, which weighed in at 4800$, lowest price.

800$ is a huge difference in my budget, and the DVX was well suited to my need. I'd cerntainly prefer it to have HD, but I need a tripod and a bigger hard disk too, and HD was just more pricey. Simple as that. And as long as there are people entering the bottom of the market, there is a market for SD cameras.

And claiming that television networks and the like wont accept SD footage, thats crap. Most audiences cant even tell that LOST is cropped when displayed on a 4:3 telly in my area. You honestly going to tell me that average audiences will notice the extra resolution?

Boyd Ostroff · October 16th, 2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien Ryan

You cannot get a HD camera at the same price point as an SD.

I guess the price structure is different in your country. Here in the US, B&H Photo sells the DVX-100 for $3,150 and the HDR-FX1 for $3,150. Or you could get the HVR-A1 for $2,200...

Bob Zimmerman · October 16th, 2006, 07:42 AM

really all you have to do is go into Best Buy and see what is happening. Wide srceens, plasmas HDTV. This week's ad had 15 widescreens and five 4:3 TV's.

Yes 4:3 will be around for awhile, but as more and more people buy these big TV's they will want HD programs.

All these new camera's will do 16:9 and 4:3 so you have a choice.

Elijah Griffin · October 17th, 2006, 02:46 AM

Well i feel that it is a matter of preference... We mostly know that HD has it's benefits, however, we mustn't fail to recognize that HD and its counter parts (HDV, P2, etc.) have much growing to do on both consumer and profesional end... For ppl like me who aren't ready to jump into the HD pool there are tools like Instant HD which yeild impressive results (although with some minor softness to your picture w/o being finetuned) in uprezzing SD to 720p and the like... I use the DVX a whole lot and I have found ways to compensate for those "rez-losses" that come with cropping to 16x9, 2:1, 2:35 aspect ratios and so on; i am confident that while HD grows it shall not leave SD in the dust...

Just two pennies from me...
-eli

p.s.- let's try and remember that we (as the pros) can get away with what i call "resolution murder"- no average joe is ever gonna take a pixel count or point out whether or not scene "a" was shot on a HVX100 and scene "b" was done on the DVX100b because of the apperent rez didn't match up... there are an unlimited number of possibilities that we can create that will suffice...
Now the RED camera is freaky, however... 4k- how the hell do you play it back???( that's a question not to be answered here- i don't wanna wreck this forum...:-)

Paul Cypert · October 19th, 2006, 07:58 PM

The main reason networks continue using the equipment they have is it'd be way too costly to upgrade everytime something new came out. I've been in high end studios still using G4's for example. But that doesn't mean that someone buying now with different options shouldn't buy something a little bit fresher if they can...I guarantee if they were buying today these networks would be using the 16X9 HD cameras over the SD 4:3...You don't say, hey I should buy this just because there are folks who are still using it. They're using it because they have it...not because it's the best out now...

The DVX is a great camera and has a great online pressence...but given the option to "future proof" a bit more I'd take it. If I already had it I'd continue to shoot the crap out of it (maybe buying a widescreen adaptor).

Paul

Luis de la Cerda · October 19th, 2006, 08:41 PM

I just wrapped an SD production shot almost entirely in HD with the XL-H1 as the main camera and sony HC-1 as B camera. Some inserts were done on the DVX and I'm sad to say most didn't make the cut. Even down at SD res, the resolution and color rendition difference looks appaling. Most of what I do involves selectively stabilizing footage and upscaling a bit here and there for effect purposes (I do cars mostly). The difference is that with SD originated material, this means blowing up, while HD means I'm scaling down and still covering my frame. Huge difference. But even with untouched footage, the color, contrast, resolution and noise characteristics of XL-H1 originated HDV leave DVX imagery in the dust. It's kind of sad to say, but the old and trusty DVX won't be joining me next time around. I even used to rent a SDX900 as my main camera for most shoots and now I can't justify it. While my delivery format will remain SD for a long time, HD has really changed my SD delivery quality. Red, I think, will do the same for HD delivery, and I'm planning on purchasing one when HD delivery finally becomes a reality.

October 7th, 2006, 03:02 PM	#17
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	Right. Considering the very fact that you can offer HD cameras at the same price point as SD-only cameras, why wouldn't you do it? Even if they weren't capable of shooting SD, you can still reach the SD market with no problem shooting only HD. However, I don't think SD-only consumer cams are going away any time soon. EDIT: "Right" was for Kevin's post . . . . __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

October 7th, 2006, 03:03 PM	#18
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	SD will only be obsolete when HD is actually distributable (via BD or HD-DVD or whatever) to a public in which the majority of players and display devices are actually compatible with HD. It seems like it may still be quite a while before that happens. I don't mean to get anyone riled up here, but to me HDV has always seemed like such a deeply flawed and frankly inadequate transitional format--maybe good for consumer use, but somewhat questionable for pro acquisition. The funny thing is that the sales of HDV cams don't seem to be driven by consumer desire for HD content so much as they are driven by the "penis envy" of video-oriented gadget freaks. No offense, seriously. I say all that to say that it seems that it will still be a while before Joe Average dumps his 4:3 set for an HD display. Until that happens, you're going to get every bit as much use out of a DVX or XL2 as you would out of an xh-G1 with the footage downconverted to SD for practical use. I wouldn't call HDV capability a means of "future-proofing" at all, since I think that few would argue that HDV is the format we'll eventually end up using when HD is more widespread. When an affordable HD acquisition format with intraframe compression and a half-decent bitrate comes along, HDV will be a heck of a lot less attractive an option. At any rate, as far as SD goes, I think that for reasons explained by previous posters, the XL2 is a much better choice than the DVX for the anamorphic 16:9 alone, even with other factors aside. __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com

October 11th, 2006, 06:54 PM	#21
Cole McDonald Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA Posts: 1,675	Lots of noise currently about HD. Most folks still have SD tv's in their house though. I've shot stuff on my XL1s that has been projected in a theater. While it didn't look as good as a 35mm print of a professionally shot film, it looked just fine to me on the Big Screen. SD is not the latest and greatest, but it still captures images, it still is editable and most of all, your audiences eyes won't melt out if they view it (depending on your subject matter). LONG LIVE miniDV! (until I can afford HDV). __________________ Web Youtube Facebook

October 16th, 2006, 04:31 AM	#23
Damien Ryan New Boot Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Melbourne Posts: 5	Pricing You cannot get a HD camera at the same price point as an SD. I recently had to purchase my first camera, and in the end the choice came down to the fact a) I wanted to do music videos, and b) 4000 AUS was really my upper spending limit. I just couldn't afford to plug any higher, and the closest HD cam I liked the look of was the FX-1, which weighed in at 4800$, lowest price. 800$ is a huge difference in my budget, and the DVX was well suited to my need. I'd cerntainly prefer it to have HD, but I need a tripod and a bigger hard disk too, and HD was just more pricey. Simple as that. And as long as there are people entering the bottom of the market, there is a market for SD cameras. And claiming that television networks and the like wont accept SD footage, thats crap. Most audiences cant even tell that LOST is cropped when displayed on a 4:3 telly in my area. You honestly going to tell me that average audiences will notice the extra resolution?

October 17th, 2006, 02:46 AM	#26
Elijah Griffin Tourist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NY, NY Posts: 1	For SD heads Well i feel that it is a matter of preference... We mostly know that HD has it's benefits, however, we mustn't fail to recognize that HD and its counter parts (HDV, P2, etc.) have much growing to do on both consumer and profesional end... For ppl like me who aren't ready to jump into the HD pool there are tools like Instant HD which yeild impressive results (although with some minor softness to your picture w/o being finetuned) in uprezzing SD to 720p and the like... I use the DVX a whole lot and I have found ways to compensate for those "rez-losses" that come with cropping to 16x9, 2:1, 2:35 aspect ratios and so on; i am confident that while HD grows it shall not leave SD in the dust... Just two pennies from me... -eli p.s.- let's try and remember that we (as the pros) can get away with what i call "resolution murder"- no average joe is ever gonna take a pixel count or point out whether or not scene "a" was shot on a HVX100 and scene "b" was done on the DVX100b because of the apperent rez didn't match up... there are an unlimited number of possibilities that we can create that will suffice... Now the RED camera is freaky, however... 4k- how the hell do you play it back???( that's a question not to be answered here- i don't wanna wreck this forum...:-)

October 7th, 2006, 02:30 PM	#16
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	But your claim only works if all other things are equal, and they're not. A PD170 or DVX is about two stops faster (at least in interlace mode) than an Z1U or an HVX. So if you were buying strictly to use as SD, you'd be making a significant sacrifice by using the HD model. I'm not saying "go buy SD", but I am saying that SD in the industry is far from dead. Extremely far from it. May not make much sense to those of us on the "bleeding edge" but that's what the facts are.

October 7th, 2006, 03:53 PM	#19
Tim Le Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 350	If these new 1/3" HD cameras were super expensive then an SD only camera might make sense. But they're not. They're only a couple of hundred dollars more than their high-end SD counterparts. IMO you are getting an incredible bargain with these new HD cameras from Sony and Canon when you consider the XL2 and DVX100 are still selling for around $3600 new. They are feature packed and they shoot a better image. Wouldn't any imaging professional (or enthusiast) want to shoot a better image to begin with? But again, if you already have an SD camera and you're happy to get the most out of it, keep using it. The question is, for someone who wants to buy a camera RIGHT now, does an SD or an HD camera make sense in the high-end 1/3" category? I still say go HD unless you really need the inherent higher sensitivity of SD.

October 11th, 2006, 05:09 PM	#20
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	as a new buy, i believe theyre on their last legs, however.. and its a BIG however.. there are many factors to take into consideration. Distribution, acquisition codecs, editing codecs/formats etc etc... persoanlyl SD is NOT obsolete. Many of my cleints would prefer a well shot, well composed SD 4:3 presentation as opposed to a badly shot HD equivalent. For web based material 4:3 is still king due to frame size. For HD, the DVX with Vegas scales beautidully, IMO barely (apart from th3 slight softness) noticable when put side by side with a JVCHD101, so scaling progressive SD up to 720p IS viable. For me it is anyway... I also prefer the camera outright. The colour space (im in PAL land) and the acquisition codec (ie DV) despite its shortcomings, is still vastly superior to HDV MPG2 IMO... Obsolettion will come when people do not need somethign filmed. If someone needs SOMETHING filmed, then the camera wotn ever be obsolete. Compared to the mad rush of HDV and resolution, people have lost focus on whats important. the my toy is better than urs debate will always run rampant, however in the end, its quality that counts and for a camera of this range, the DVX100 is probably THE best of the bunch. Depsite the argument for 16:9 and low light performance, i am yet to see ANY camera of this range perform the way this does.

October 16th, 2006, 07:42 AM	#25
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	really all you have to do is go into Best Buy and see what is happening. Wide srceens, plasmas HDTV. This week's ad had 15 widescreens and five 4:3 TV's. Yes 4:3 will be around for awhile, but as more and more people buy these big TV's they will want HD programs. All these new camera's will do 16:9 and 4:3 so you have a choice.

October 19th, 2006, 07:58 PM	#27
Paul Cypert Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bangkok, Thailand (work in US in the summers) Posts: 89	The main reason networks continue using the equipment they have is it'd be way too costly to upgrade everytime something new came out. I've been in high end studios still using G4's for example. But that doesn't mean that someone buying now with different options shouldn't buy something a little bit fresher if they can...I guarantee if they were buying today these networks would be using the 16X9 HD cameras over the SD 4:3...You don't say, hey I should buy this just because there are folks who are still using it. They're using it because they have it...not because it's the best out now... The DVX is a great camera and has a great online pressence...but given the option to "future proof" a bit more I'd take it. If I already had it I'd continue to shoot the crap out of it (maybe buying a widescreen adaptor). Paul

October 19th, 2006, 08:41 PM	#28
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	I just wrapped an SD production shot almost entirely in HD with the XL-H1 as the main camera and sony HC-1 as B camera. Some inserts were done on the DVX and I'm sad to say most didn't make the cut. Even down at SD res, the resolution and color rendition difference looks appaling. Most of what I do involves selectively stabilizing footage and upscaling a bit here and there for effect purposes (I do cars mostly). The difference is that with SD originated material, this means blowing up, while HD means I'm scaling down and still covering my frame. Huge difference. But even with untouched footage, the color, contrast, resolution and noise characteristics of XL-H1 originated HDV leave DVX imagery in the dust. It's kind of sad to say, but the old and trusty DVX won't be joining me next time around. I even used to rent a SDX900 as my main camera for most shoots and now I can't justify it. While my delivery format will remain SD for a long time, HD has really changed my SD delivery quality. Red, I think, will do the same for HD delivery, and I'm planning on purchasing one when HD delivery finally becomes a reality.