HVX200 VS DSR 970

mosh mishali · September 10, 2007

hello

I'm about to shoot a short film (24 minutes) next month and now i have to decide which camera is better for this project.

we can't afford to shoot 16 or 35 mm or cinealta

we don't won't to shoot DV because the film is ment for big screen projection and we won't a higher resolution,

we will however use a pro 35/mini 35 adaptor and a highspeed set of lens...

we have narrowed the options to digibeta with DSR 970 or HD with the HVX200 but i'm having a hard time to decide.

i've worked with both cameras before but only for tv production.

can you please tell me what are the adventages and dissatvantages of each camera when shooting for big screen.

thanks a head

mosh

Oron Cohen · September 10, 2007

hello
I'm about to shoot a short film (24 minutes) next month and now i have to decide which camera is better for this project.

we can't afford to shoot 16 or 35 mm or cinealta

we don't won't to shoot DV because the film is ment for big screen projection and we won't a higher resolution,

we will however use a pro 35/mini 35 adaptor and a highspeed set of lens...

we have narrowed the options to digibeta with DSR 970 or HD with the HVX200 but i'm having a hard time to decide.

i've worked with both cameras before but only for tv production.

can you please tell me what are the adventages and dissatvantages of each camera when shooting for big screen.

thanks a head

mosh

Hey Moshe,

You need to give people more details on your film, because it depends what you want to shoot.

I will say that I personally don't think the pro35 is so good for blow-up to 35mm (if that what you meant by big screen projection) because it's softens the image especially when you don?t use a cinealta or something similar (750, varicam).

If it was me and it was just shooting basic set-up on a tripod or a dolly I would go for 970 because for me it will produce a cleaner image then all those small HD 1\3 inch CCD camera I worked with.

I would also drop the pro35 and go for a good SD zoom (Canon J17 maybe) or a set of HD primes (again the canon pop to mind), also if you drop the pro35 and lenses don't that give you the extra money to rent a Cinealta with a nice Zoom? this will give you the higher resolution that you are talking about?

Hope its helps,

Oron.

P.S- I really recommend you to do a search; I think you will find all the information you need.

adam berk · September 10, 2007

hello
I'm about to shoot a short film (24 minutes) next month and now i have to decide which camera is better for this project.

we can't afford to shoot 16 or 35 mm or cinealta

we don't won't to shoot DV because the film is ment for big screen projection and we won't a higher resolution,

we will however use a pro 35/mini 35 adaptor and a highspeed set of lens...

we have narrowed the options to digibeta with DSR 970 or HD with the HVX200 but i'm having a hard time to decide.

i've worked with both cameras before but only for tv production.

can you please tell me what are the adventages and dissatvantages of each camera when shooting for big screen.

thanks a head

mosh

I'd definitely have to agree with Oron on dropping the 35 adapter. Unless you're getting some insane deal on the adapter rental, I bet you would be able to afford a decent varicam or hdx900 package with a zoom instead. I wouldn't even have to think twice about going 2/3" HD with 2/3" zoom instead of an hvx200 with a 35mm lens adapter. I've done finishing (color grading, graphics) on five or six shows that were shot with the mini35 paired to the HVX200, Canon XL-H1, and JVC HDV, and I can definitely attest to the fact that it just really isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially when compared side by side with a decent 2/3" HD camera with a nice 2/3" zoom lens.

Also keep in mind that the HVX200 isn't exactly the fastest camera, in terms of theoretical ASA. Once you strap that adapter to the front of it, you just killed the light sensitivity even more, making it quite difficult to shoot anything in low light situations. It's also pretty noisy, so the inherent noise of the camera mixed with the horrible pseudo-grain from the adapter's ground glass can make for a pretty nasty image too. In addition to all of this, you limit yourself to low shutter speeds. As soon as you go anywhere past 1/100, you run the risk of being able to see the adapter's ground glass in the image, instead of it being just an added layer of noise. I personally like to shoot with higher shutter speeds when I'm shooting video because it really does lend itself well to a "film look". This just isn't even an option when using that adapter.

About the adapter's "grain"....it just doesn't fool anyone. Film grain is random. Each and every frame of film has a unique grain pattern. This is the nature of the beast. The adapter's "grain" is NOT random. It's the same piece of glass spinning at a constant speed. This creates a fixed pattern noise that can easily become distracting and annoying.

just my 2cents

mosh mishali · September 12, 2007

perhaps i should have mentioned it before but the reason we wanted to use a 35 mm lens adaptor is because 95% of the film is shoot inside a house, most of it is small rooms and its about a relationship between two guys (one of them is in house arrest and the other is a still photographer) so in order to not get a flat image we need as less depth of filed as possibole

Ram Shani · September 15, 2007

"perhaps i should have mentioned it before but the reason we wanted to use a 35 mm lens adaptor is because 95% of the film is shoot inside a house, most of it is small rooms and its about a relationship between two guys (one of them is in house arrest and the other is a still photographer) so in order to not get a flat image we need as less depth of filed as possibole"

3 -things

1- lighting

2- art direction

3- composition

if you work well with this 3 you will not have flat image

without the adaptor you will need less light power=less heat on set

Matthew Buick · September 15, 2007

I personally would go with the DigiBeta. Although HD, I don't think the HVX200 would come anywhere close. Mind you I wouldn't go off 100% by what I say. I have operated neither camera.

Walter Graff · October 19, 2007

The digibeta will give you a much beter and product than an HVX200 for filmout. As for the adapter, I agree, you don't really need it. Shoot with your lens slightly longer and wide open and you'll find as good a cinematic DoF as you would with one of those adapters.

Adrian Sierkowski · October 19, 2007

IM going with the trend, I hate those adapters and having used one on both the HVX and the DVX I can say they're really not worth it. The Hvx is, as mentioned, bad for low light situations as it does get incredibly noisy. Go for Digibeta, it may only be SD there is nothing wrong with that, and aside, if anything, the beta is a proven technology with people who know how to work it. The HVX is a new kid on the block, not everyone/thing can support it or support it well.

Walter Graff · October 20, 2007

Go for Digibeta, it may only be SD there is nothing wrong with that,

You will actually end up with an equal and sometimes better HD picture once you film out with Beta than an HVX. In fact in the beginning of HD and even still today many stock house take SD betacam footage and line double it to get as good and HD as any. Small form factor HD cameras like the HVX simply don't make very good HD like any small form factor compared to a larger camera that has more electronics behind it. I used to clearly demonstrate this in my seminars offering to use either a pro camera (larger camera) or the small form factors. I ask the audience to look at the same shot from both on a monitor and compare and tell me which one they wanted to use. Once they saw how lousy these small cameras pictures look compared to more expensive large format cameras with real lenses, no one ever wants to do demos with the small camera.