So I go into the Camera store today, and come out more confused! at DVinfo.net

Corey Callahan · August 9th, 2006, 12:07 AM

Hey guys,

For the last two months I have researched, and asked numerous questions regarding the HVX, and up until today, thats what I was sure I wanted.

I can only research so much before I actually go into the store and try the camera, to see what its actually like.

Well, at the beginning of the day, I was positive I wanted it, and now I am not so sure.

In Canada, the HVX averages 7 grand, and the sales rep actually reccommended that I might just want the Panasonic AG-DVX100B. To make a long story short, I really have one question....

What are the most notable differences between these two cameras?

Panasonic AG-HVX200 vs. Panasonic AG-DVX100B

Im under the impression they are quite similar, but I am more interested in getting the most for my money....7 grand vs 4.

Any thoughts?

Scott Auerbach · August 9th, 2006, 12:52 AM

DVX has no high def capability, no P2 capability, and limited frame rate capabilities. They're really entirely different beasts. If all you ever shoot is mini DV, I'd save your money and get the DVX, which is a decent little unit.

Jon Fairhurst · August 9th, 2006, 02:27 AM

Another difference is that the HVX is true widescreen. The DVX only records SD 16x9 on 360 lines, rather than all 480 - unless you get the anamorphic adapter.

If you want true widescreen SD, consider the Canon XL2. It has a 16x9 imager.

I've just gone through a similar decision tree. We went with the Panasonic GS500 for $730 USD. It's got three (little) CCDs, does a reasonable 16x9 and has a Frame Mode that gives a 30p output (with some detail compromises).

The GS500 is a high-end consumer camera though. It has a focus ring, but many of the adjustments are buried in the menus. Then again, the viewer doesn't care where your buttons are, if the picture is good.

The main shortcoming of the GS500 is that the 3 CCDs are 1/4.7", rather than 1/3". That means more noise, less sensitivity and crappy depth of field.

The advantage is that it's cheap. We'll save up for the next gen HVX (hopefully with a higher res imager, less aliasing and cheaper P2 cards). Had we bought a DVX, we'd need to sell it to get the HVX. We plan to keep the GS500 as a "behind the scenes" camera.

BTW, our main output is 480 x 270 widescreen for the web. The SD500 should be up to the task. We'd prefer a higher resolution camera though, since we eventially want to be able to do great chroma keys. And the P2 workflow would be great. And the variable frame rates would be nice. And the XLR inputs. And the manual controls. And the...

Leonard Levy · August 9th, 2006, 11:39 AM

If you expect to be shooting much standard interlaced SD video (480/60i) the HVX has some major problems with excessive artifacting (jaggies). This is a serious limitation especially as it is often used as a second camera to 2/3" Beta or DV cameras.
It is also less sensitive than a DVX100B by at least a stop.
Again if you plan to shoot mostly SD or aren't prepared for the tapeless workflow, go with the DVX.

Corey Callahan · August 9th, 2006, 12:48 PM

Just to add a followup....

Even if I wanted to use the P2 card system, would you not agree that its quite difficult to even use?

16 minutes (from what I read) is the amount of time you get on one card when shooting in HD, so really you can grab 32 mins of footage (with 2 cards plugged in)

Thats really a strike against it when it comes to corporate work...I guess that the HD function of the camera is only effective right now for news gathering and documentary work.

Your thoughts?

Jeremy Rochefort · August 9th, 2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey Callahan

Thats really a strike against it when it comes to corporate work...I guess that the HD function of the camera is only effective right now for news gathering and documentary work.

That unfortunately is the fact at this moment in time. Until the price of the P2 cards come down (or you add on a Firestore), it puts it a tad on the pricey side for most.

Another option would be the Z1 or FX1 from Sony which offer 16:9 and are also HDV cameras.

Corey Callahan · August 9th, 2006, 05:38 PM

Even with the firestore though, if you had hours of footage to sift through on the computer, you still need the harddrive space to hold onto all of that media correct?

Jeremy Rochefort · August 10th, 2006, 02:08 AM

Correct - on average its about 13Gb/hour for HDV

Corey Callahan · August 10th, 2006, 01:06 PM

Thats not really too bad......I expected worse

Richard Bacevac · August 10th, 2006, 01:59 PM

That's really not bad.Ithink I had same for DV footage,
12GB/hour or maybe I'm mistaken??

What is the recomend PC setup for handling HDV footage??Just bigger HDD??Or even dual core CPU??

Sam Jankis · August 11th, 2006, 01:13 AM

To be clear, the HVX doesn't do HDV... but DVCProHD.

August 9th, 2006, 12:07 AM	#1
Corey Callahan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 23	So I go into the Camera store today, and come out more confused! Hey guys, For the last two months I have researched, and asked numerous questions regarding the HVX, and up until today, thats what I was sure I wanted. I can only research so much before I actually go into the store and try the camera, to see what its actually like. Well, at the beginning of the day, I was positive I wanted it, and now I am not so sure. In Canada, the HVX averages 7 grand, and the sales rep actually reccommended that I might just want the Panasonic AG-DVX100B. To make a long story short, I really have one question.... What are the most notable differences between these two cameras? Panasonic AG-HVX200 vs. Panasonic AG-DVX100B Im under the impression they are quite similar, but I am more interested in getting the most for my money....7 grand vs 4. Any thoughts?

August 9th, 2006, 12:52 AM	#2
Scott Auerbach Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 291	DVX has no high def capability, no P2 capability, and limited frame rate capabilities. They're really entirely different beasts. If all you ever shoot is mini DV, I'd save your money and get the DVX, which is a decent little unit. __________________ DP/Editor, Sputnik Pictures \| Atlanta HD video and RED digital cinema production

August 9th, 2006, 02:27 AM	#3
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Another difference is that the HVX is true widescreen. The DVX only records SD 16x9 on 360 lines, rather than all 480 - unless you get the anamorphic adapter. If you want true widescreen SD, consider the Canon XL2. It has a 16x9 imager. I've just gone through a similar decision tree. We went with the Panasonic GS500 for $730 USD. It's got three (little) CCDs, does a reasonable 16x9 and has a Frame Mode that gives a 30p output (with some detail compromises). The GS500 is a high-end consumer camera though. It has a focus ring, but many of the adjustments are buried in the menus. Then again, the viewer doesn't care where your buttons are, if the picture is good. The main shortcoming of the GS500 is that the 3 CCDs are 1/4.7", rather than 1/3". That means more noise, less sensitivity and crappy depth of field. The advantage is that it's cheap. We'll save up for the next gen HVX (hopefully with a higher res imager, less aliasing and cheaper P2 cards). Had we bought a DVX, we'd need to sell it to get the HVX. We plan to keep the GS500 as a "behind the scenes" camera. BTW, our main output is 480 x 270 widescreen for the web. The SD500 should be up to the task. We'd prefer a higher resolution camera though, since we eventially want to be able to do great chroma keys. And the P2 workflow would be great. And the variable frame rates would be nice. And the XLR inputs. And the manual controls. And the... __________________ Jon Fairhurst

August 10th, 2006, 02:08 AM	#8
Jeremy Rochefort Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cape Town, SA Posts: 159	Correct - on average its about 13Gb/hour for HDV __________________ MJ Productions Never let the need for money outweigh the need for Quality, Friendly and Professional Service

August 9th, 2006, 11:39 AM	#4
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	If you expect to be shooting much standard interlaced SD video (480/60i) the HVX has some major problems with excessive artifacting (jaggies). This is a serious limitation especially as it is often used as a second camera to 2/3" Beta or DV cameras. It is also less sensitive than a DVX100B by at least a stop. Again if you plan to shoot mostly SD or aren't prepared for the tapeless workflow, go with the DVX.

August 9th, 2006, 12:48 PM	#5
Corey Callahan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 23	Just to add a followup.... Even if I wanted to use the P2 card system, would you not agree that its quite difficult to even use? 16 minutes (from what I read) is the amount of time you get on one card when shooting in HD, so really you can grab 32 mins of footage (with 2 cards plugged in) Thats really a strike against it when it comes to corporate work...I guess that the HD function of the camera is only effective right now for news gathering and documentary work. Your thoughts?

August 9th, 2006, 05:38 PM	#7
Corey Callahan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 23	Even with the firestore though, if you had hours of footage to sift through on the computer, you still need the harddrive space to hold onto all of that media correct?

August 10th, 2006, 01:06 PM	#9
Corey Callahan New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 23	Thats not really too bad......I expected worse

August 10th, 2006, 01:59 PM	#10
Richard Bacevac Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Czech republic Posts: 47	That's really not bad.Ithink I had same for DV footage, 12GB/hour or maybe I'm mistaken?? What is the recomend PC setup for handling HDV footage??Just bigger HDD??Or even dual core CPU??

August 11th, 2006, 01:13 AM	#11
Sam Jankis Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Pete, FL Posts: 223	To be clear, the HVX doesn't do HDV... but DVCProHD.