Is the DVX100 obsolete technology?
 

Just wondering what people think the lifespan of the DVX100(A,B)?

At that price point, SD is probably not too far from the grave.

Depends on what you're doing with it. If you're wanting to put it to work today, and you're working in cable TV or local TV in the USA, there's a lot of life left in it -- I just got back from a two-day training camp at one of the biggest cable networks anywhere, at which they wanted to better learn how to use the veritable "fleet" of DVXs they use every day. MTV uses 'em every day. "Jackass 2" used 'em. Lots of places use 'em.

But the US broadcasts all SD in 4:3. If you're in a 16:9 country like England, the DVX probably isn't going to hold the same appeal.

Also depends if you mean buying one right now, or if you have one already.
If you already have one, you can still make good things with it, but if you would buy a new camcorder at this moment, it's maybe better to look at some HD cameras.

you can't make anything good with it if you buy it now,,only if you already have one?

I'm looking at 3 cameras, the Sony V1, DVX100B and the Canon A1.

The price of the DVX100 is probably around $1,000 cheaper with the rebate. I guess it depends on what you are planning on doing. I'm almost ready just to look for a good deal on a used DVX100B.

you guys insane.. SD is great!! I'm working on my 2nd documentary with the dvx100a..... fast to edit, compatible with all TVs... :D SD ROCKS!!

By "from the grave," of course, I meant that you probably won't see any more SD cameras offered at that price point -- not that the useful life of existing SD cameras is coming to an end any time soon.

I've gone on record before as saying I think HD is going to be a huge consumer flop.

Sorry, but any camera designed primarily to record 4:3 SD video is effectively obsolete as we head into the HD era. And while you can play 4:3 SD on any TV, most people with widescreen TVs have them set to 'stretch' such footage to fill the screen, which makes it look less than ideal. Hence the most useful compromise delivery format right now is widescreen (anamorphic) SD, which will play at the correct aspect ratio on both HD and SD TVs [given the way most people have their equipment set up].

You could put an anamorphic lens adapter on a DVX100 and get something useful out of it that way, but given the cost of doing that you'd be better off to sell the camera and put your money toward an HD camera.

And yet, major cable networks like TNT, TBS, MTV, CNN, TCM, and many others stubbornly continue to use this "obsolete" technology on a daily basis.

I get what you're saying, but it's a bit like saying a gasoline-powered car is obsolete as we move into the hydrogen era. Hydrogen *is* the fuel of the future (and, according to some wags, "it always will be"), but I'm buying a car next week and it's gonna be gasoline.

And the wedding companies I work for...

All use 4:3 SD and have no plans in 2007 to change that.

I wonder if 2008 will be different where I live, but I doubt it.

I was tallking to a guy at a reception the other day who plans on buying a HD TV. But 1st his 10 year old TV has to die before he upgrades. I laughed and said that is the way I feel about replacing my computer monitors with LCD screens.

"If ain't broke why fix (buy) it?"

The point is a lot of people where I live are not in the market for a new TV any time soon and care little about 16:9 and HD.

Last I checked Grey's Anatomy isn't 16:9.

Anyhow this debate surfaces every so often and usually ends with the same results. It all depends on you and your preferences, where you live, and what your clients want.

SD appears to be alive and well where I live.

Grey's Anatomy IS 16:9, as are most network shows.

It's true that they don't show it in SD as letterboxed 16:9, but it is HD and is 16:9 if you watch it in HD. Yep, they crop the sides for SD.

The SD DVDs are also anamorphic 16:9.

As a point of clarification -- yes the major broadcast networks (ABC/NBC/Fox/CBS) are shooting their big-bucks shows in HD. And a few cable networks are as well (DiscoveryHD, HBO, etc).

But for hundreds of cable networks out there, including some big ones, they're all shooting SD 4:3. That's what gets broadcast in America, so that's what they're shooting.

Not saying that I prefer it or that I think it's the best way to go, but I am saying that in today's market, that's the way it is. Some have gone HD, some don't even have it on their radar. So it all depends on who you're planning to work for, and how you're planning to distribute your work.

Well, live and learn.

Anyway, broadcast and event shooting are two different animals. Based on the area you live in, SD or HD may be, or is becoming, the norm. Where I live, as you can already tell, HD is not the norm for event shooting. This is my limited experience.

So to say SD is, or will be, obsolete technology all depends on the person and their awareness of the area he/she may live in. It is not a black or white answer.

I want to buy the new sony V1 next year, but I will probably buy the 2100. SD is not dead for me or for the clients and companies I work for. They are not asking for HD, so if I buy now, it is premature. Afterall, a sony z2 with 1 lux is most likely right around the corner. Hopefully, then my bosses and clients will want HD because I know I do.

Assuming something other than gasoline is the transportation fuel of the future, there will come a day when buying a car which only runs on gasoline would be rather silly. That day is here today for SD versus HD video cameras, unless you have a specific reason to buy an SD-only model. Of course if you already have an SD camera it makes sense to get as much mileage as you can out of it, but for any new gear HD is the way to go.

I don't think the gasoline analogy is good either. The hydrogen powered car can't run on gasoline. But these new HD cameras can shoot SD just fine or you can downconvert from HD aquired footage to SD. This future proofs (relatively) your camera and the footage. So unless you absolutely need some specific feature of an SD camera (like extreme low-light performance) or absolutely can't afford the price differential, I think it is much wiser to get an HD camera if you are in the market for a camera, especially when the V1U and XH-A1 are only about $4000.

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.

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 . . . .

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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...:-)

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

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.