DVC PRO 50 in a HVX 200 or BETACAM SP in a SONY D35 at DVinfo.net

Alexandre Lucena · August 31st, 2006, 08:17 AM

If you guys were to shoot in SD which camera would you pick? It is said DVC PRO 50 is comparable
in quality with DigiBeta. I would like to read your opinions regarding the HVX smaller chips and other
considerations. Thanks

Alexandre

Benjamin Hill · August 31st, 2006, 08:40 AM

DigitBeta camera=better lens, bigger CCD's, bigger camera. $700 to rent, $30K+ to buy. Tapes $20-40

HVX's DVCPRO50=more compact (ease of use), tapeless recording, progressive frame rates (24p, 30p), $300/rent, $6K-$7K to buy with reusable P2 card(s).

For shooting interlaced DigitBeta will have the upper hand, but of course with a price.

Alexandre Lucena · August 31st, 2006, 12:23 PM

You are right Benjamin on DIGIBETA , my question though is whether an analog BETACAM SP precisely Sony´s D35 and a PVV3 recorder is comparable to HVX 200 in the DVC PRO 50 mode in terms of image
quality and colour spacing?

Benjamin Hill · August 31st, 2006, 04:32 PM

My bad, missed that detail...

Image quality: competitive. I'm sure you can find compelling arguments for why either one is the better choice. But the most obvious difference, right off the bat, will be the Betacam's higher grade lens and bigger CCD's. Bigger camera, bigger picture.

As far as color space, it would depend on how you digitize your Betacam footage, right? If you capture it a very high data rate you could have just as good or better color space than DVCPRO 50 on the HVX. But there are HVX users who might argue otherwise...

For my 2c, the lens and those CCD's will be what differentiates the look from those two cameras the most. The format will be a close call, and DVCPRO 50 might be a more practical format to use. Good luck in your project.

Scott Auerbach · August 31st, 2006, 04:45 PM

I used to own a 637A with PVV3, and shot with it for probably 10 years before switching over to the HVX. The picture off the HVX chips is definitely noisier than the picture off even the 637A's head. However, the DVCPro50 files in Avid in native mxf look identical (or better) to the images I'd get off Beta SP at 1:1 uncompressed, when you included the tape noise. We tend to forget how noisy SP is... just go down a couple of generations if you need a reminder!

I really think the image quality between the D35 and the HVX would be very comparable, if you ignore the potential differences in lens quality and depth of field. The HVX lens is good, but not superb. The biggest difference you'll probably notice is the near-infinite depth of field on the smaller cameras. It can be a real problem, creatively speaking.

Leonard Levy · August 31st, 2006, 11:39 PM

I'd like to say the HVX but I think abigger camera does make quite a difference. How will you be delivering. If you are going down to DV or Beta rather than staying in DCVPro50 or going to DigiBeta than maybe the bigger camera has the advantage.

Other issue are important - do you want interlace look or progressive.
Do Not shoot the HVX in interlace SD it has serious artifacting issues.
If you like Progressive- there's your answer.

Do you need lowlight capability - D35, Use of wide-angle lens, - D35
tape instead of P2 - D35.

Small compact low profile, cheaper, OK with P2 - HVX

August 31st, 2006, 08:17 AM	#1
Alexandre Lucena Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 56	DVC PRO 50 in a HVX 200 or BETACAM SP in a SONY D35 If you guys were to shoot in SD which camera would you pick? It is said DVC PRO 50 is comparable in quality with DigiBeta. I would like to read your opinions regarding the HVX smaller chips and other considerations. Thanks Alexandre

August 31st, 2006, 08:40 AM	#2
Benjamin Hill Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Iowa City, Iowa Posts: 670	DigitBeta camera=better lens, bigger CCD's, bigger camera. $700 to rent, $30K+ to buy. Tapes $20-40 HVX's DVCPRO50=more compact (ease of use), tapeless recording, progressive frame rates (24p, 30p), $300/rent, $6K-$7K to buy with reusable P2 card(s). For shooting interlaced DigitBeta will have the upper hand, but of course with a price. __________________ youtube.com/benhillmedia linkedin.com/in/benhillmedia

August 31st, 2006, 04:32 PM	#4
Benjamin Hill Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Iowa City, Iowa Posts: 670	My bad, missed that detail... Image quality: competitive. I'm sure you can find compelling arguments for why either one is the better choice. But the most obvious difference, right off the bat, will be the Betacam's higher grade lens and bigger CCD's. Bigger camera, bigger picture. As far as color space, it would depend on how you digitize your Betacam footage, right? If you capture it a very high data rate you could have just as good or better color space than DVCPRO 50 on the HVX. But there are HVX users who might argue otherwise... For my 2c, the lens and those CCD's will be what differentiates the look from those two cameras the most. The format will be a close call, and DVCPRO 50 might be a more practical format to use. Good luck in your project. __________________ youtube.com/benhillmedia linkedin.com/in/benhillmedia

August 31st, 2006, 04:45 PM	#5
Scott Auerbach Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 291	I used to own a 637A with PVV3, and shot with it for probably 10 years before switching over to the HVX. The picture off the HVX chips is definitely noisier than the picture off even the 637A's head. However, the DVCPro50 files in Avid in native mxf look identical (or better) to the images I'd get off Beta SP at 1:1 uncompressed, when you included the tape noise. We tend to forget how noisy SP is... just go down a couple of generations if you need a reminder! I really think the image quality between the D35 and the HVX would be very comparable, if you ignore the potential differences in lens quality and depth of field. The HVX lens is good, but not superb. The biggest difference you'll probably notice is the near-infinite depth of field on the smaller cameras. It can be a real problem, creatively speaking. __________________ DP/Editor, Sputnik Pictures \| Atlanta HD video and RED digital cinema production

August 31st, 2006, 12:23 PM	#3
Alexandre Lucena Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 56	You are right Benjamin on DIGIBETA , my question though is whether an analog BETACAM SP precisely Sony´s D35 and a PVV3 recorder is comparable to HVX 200 in the DVC PRO 50 mode in terms of image quality and colour spacing?

August 31st, 2006, 11:39 PM	#6
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	I'd like to say the HVX but I think abigger camera does make quite a difference. How will you be delivering. If you are going down to DV or Beta rather than staying in DCVPro50 or going to DigiBeta than maybe the bigger camera has the advantage. Other issue are important - do you want interlace look or progressive. Do Not shoot the HVX in interlace SD it has serious artifacting issues. If you like Progressive- there's your answer. Do you need lowlight capability - D35, Use of wide-angle lens, - D35 tape instead of P2 - D35. Small compact low profile, cheaper, OK with P2 - HVX