Last minute advice on Dv100

[Federico Pedroza]

Hi

 

I`ve been studying the DV100 and Imight be just about to buy it, I like almost everything I`ve read about it. I also like the price, I`ve seen it selling new for around $2500 dollars. My intention is to shoot a couple of short films and perhaphs a longer project with it, and like many, I hope to produce material I can be proud of . So anyways I`ll be stuck with this camera for 2 or 3 years I guess maybe longer, all the while the new more sofisticated and inexpensive HD miniDvs will come rushing in the same day I start shooting obviously. Can anyone sugest a better buy or value for this price range. Any comment will be well taken, $ 2500 bucks will tighten my collar quite a bit with my current finances, but at the same time I can`t put this off any further.

 

Thanks,

 

Fred

[Mitch Gross]

Best deal around for the price.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

watch out for some of the mail order dealers who will send you the camera without accessories, or may sell gray goods (without official warranty)

[Vivian Zetetick]

I managed to get a hold of one of these a few days ago and was able to run some tests. If a scene is photographed properly in the right way (24p) and captured properly (removing 3:2 pull-down) and printed to DVD properly, the results are, in my opinion, very serviceable for low budget dramatic work aimed at television viewing. For one thing, many dispiriting video artifacts (like stair-stepping on diagonal lines and chunky pixels boiling in the shadows) can be brought to an absolute minimum on the DVX100.

 

As a matter of fact, I have professionally-made DVDs of films shot on 16mm which look worse, and exhibit more of these annoying digital artifacts, than my own DVD of DVX100 test footage -- mostly because these films seem to have been encoded to DVD very quickly & very poorly. As an example, Tom Noonan's film "The Wife" looks rather bad on DVD, even though it was beautifully photographed on super-16. A DVX100 film of the same type would, I think, hold its own against this DVD movie, for many viewers.

 

However, I must say I cannot seem to get rid of a very slight but palpable "stuttering" or "jittering" effect on my DVX100 footage. It is only noticeable when large objects move quickly within the frame or the camera pans quickly passed a well-defined object. I've tried a few methods of editing, printing DVDs, etc., and it is always there. It's not terribly annoying, but it certainly isn't as smooth the 16mm films I've transfered to DV for editing/finishing. To verify this we videotaped an actor sitting in a black room, lit by a few studio lights. If you pan the camera slowly left & right, the motion looks OK. But wave the camera quickly back and forth and the stuttering motion is immediately evident. If anyone has managed to get around this problem I'd love to hear about it.

 

So if your making the next "Speed 2" -- perhaps this isn't your camera. But if, like me, you daydream about another "Last Year at Marienbad"....

[Mitch Gross]

However, I must say I cannot seem to get rid of a very slight but palpable "stuttering" or "jittering" effect on my DVX100 footage. It is only noticeable when large objects move quickly within the frame or the camera pans quickly passed a well-defined object. I've tried a few methods of editing, printing DVDs, etc., and it is always there. It's not terribly annoying, but it certainly isn't as smooth the 16mm films I've transfered to DV for editing/finishing. To verify this we videotaped an actor sitting in a black room, lit by a few studio lights. If you pan the camera slowly left & right, the motion looks OK. But wave the camera quickly back and forth and the stuttering motion is immediately evident. If anyone has managed to get around this problem I'd love to hear about it.

Try adjusting the shutter speed to 1/24th instead of 1/48th. This can blur some motion. Some people hate this and I wouldn't reccomend it for film finish as you take a hit in resolution, but for video finish it may help with your problem.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Two things that irritate me:

 

1) People buying a camera that shoots 24p and then complaining about the "juddery" motion. Well, duh. The motion rendering of film is, despite its attractiveness, quantatively poorer than that of video, especially NTSC video.

 

2) People complaining that a PAL or NTSC picture monitor has "vertical vibration" or "instability" compared to a computer monitor. It's called interlace, guys, and it's normal - it's also the reason for HDTV.

 

Not saying that either of these things have happened here, it just sprang to mind.

 

Phil

[Federico Pedroza]

What accesories can I expect to be in the box of my DVX100 when I recieve it. Or better yet to check with the dealer if he`s sending the complete product before I spend the cash. The best price I`ve encountered yet is around $2,000.00, too good to be true? any comments?

 

Thanks

Fred

[Guest Ultra Definition]

check Panasonic web site for accessories and check with panasonic if you're dealing with an authorized dealer; also check ebay; there may be some people selling the 100 because new 100A just came out. If the used item has a warranty and the ebay seller has excellent feedback, it may be OK to buy there.

[Federico Pedroza]

I asked the following question before but still don`t understand the significance of the new improvements on the updated DVX100A version. Is it that the new one is worth the price difference of a t least 1,000 dolars? or are the major quality charactersitics that make this a great camera present in the original one.

 

Fred

[mine]

However, I must say I cannot seem to get rid of a very slight but palpable "stuttering" or "jittering" effect on my DVX100 footage.  It is only noticeable when large objects move quickly within the frame or the camera pans quickly passed a well-defined object.  I've tried a few methods of editing, printing DVDs, etc., and it is always there.  It's not terribly annoying, but it certainly isn't as smooth the 16mm films I've transfered to DV for editing/finishing.  To verify this we videotaped an actor sitting in a black room, lit by a few studio lights.  If you pan the camera slowly left & right, the motion looks OK.  But wave the camera quickly back and forth and the stuttering motion is immediately evident.  If anyone has managed to get around this problem I'd love to hear about it.

 

So if your making the next "Speed 2" -- perhaps this isn't your camera.  But if, like me, you daydream about another "Last Year at Marienbad"....

This seems to be the main problem for me as well. And an increasing problem for PAL users worldwide. There are even polls and petitions right now on DVXuser.com.

I would happily lay this PAL strobing phenomena "ad acta" if these reports would derive from 18 years old run and gun shooters , but there are reports from cameramen mainly in the PAL universe who shoot for years with 16 mm and 35 mm and HD and 24/25p and are not quite happy with this "phenomena".

After long tests with progressive displays and the DVX-100 I must confess I am simply at the beginning . To avoid strobing with the DVX-100 A PAL its best right now - to avoid pans completely - or with this method an experienced DVX DOP explained:

<<<<<<<<<

here's an easy solution to this:

 

First, put your camera on a tripod.  Put sandbags down on each of the legs so that no movement at all can possibly occur.  Better yet, cement it to the ground.  Next, buy a motorized pan device from B&H to eliminate any contact with the camera by an actual human being.  Light your shot with several HMI's, and be sure that your on-screen talent doesn't move too quickly.

 

Of course, there will still be SOME jitter, so just run your footage through 18 pulldowns in your NLE and add a 200 point gaussian blur.  You won't be able to make out any discernable features, but the jitter will be almost completely gone!

 

now isn't that easier and cheaper than shooting film?

 

>>>>>>

[Vivian Zetetick]

Very humorous! Well, it's certainly an issue, but fortunately the camera has many positive qualities also.

 

I think most people could do with not moving thier cameras so much. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise!

 

I've seen the jittery "problem" at work in HD 24p movies also, most notably "The Anniversary Party" and "Session 9". The stuttering movement of objects is faint but noticeable. Though I've heard many people claim this phenomena is native to 24p material, regardless its digital or film origins, I just don't see the problem at work in movies shot on film. Perhaps there is something physiologically wrong with me, but I don't see it. I feel like I can see it right away in 24p digital material. By "see it", I mean I stop and think: "that movement seemed a bit unnatural". It's more of a feeling kind of thing. The same feeling I had when I saw the gladiator fight sequences in the film "Gladiator" -- the movement seemed odd. I've read they shot those bits at less than 24fps to get this "effect".

 

All that having been said, I just watched "The Exorcist" on DVD again, and the Egypt sequence in the beginning of the film, particularly the shot of the young boy running through the trench, exhibited the same stuttering movement problem -- worse than any digital movie I've seen. Maybe they were shooting these scenes at less than 24fps also.

 

Regardless, if the problem is on "The Exorcist" DVD, perhaps people won't complain about it being on mine!

[Alvin Pingol]

The same feeling I had when I saw the gladiator fight sequences in the film "Gladiator" -- the movement seemed odd. I've read they shot those bits at less than 24fps to get this "effect".

The fight scenes were shot with a 45 degree shutter angle, cutting exposure time down to 1/192th of a second. This caused the strobe effect that you are speaking of. It is an artistic choice made by the DP and/or director, and is commonly used in high-action sequences.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

This is all purely an effect of 24fps material be it film or video. It is increased by faster (smaller angle) shutter speeds, rapid panning or movement across the screen.

 

It is common practice to work around it by not panning fast unless you pan WITH an object (or just do a swish pan) not have the subject move rapidly across the screen at obligue angles. Or use longer shutter speeds to smooth out the movement, something I generally don't do for fear of getting a too soft image.

 

You can shoot at a faster frame rate but IMO it starts looking too much like NTSC video. My advice is to follow the above rules and don't worry about it, I haven't even noticed this phenomenon in years until it was brought up here.

 

Try to stay away from medium speed movement. Go slow so you know it won't happen, go with the subject so it only happens in the BG or go FAST (swish) so it blends together.

 

Go SLOW-Go WITH-Go FAST

 

Personaly I think the movement of 24fps material is a most important part of the "film look." If cinemas started presenting 30p or -gasp- 60i material, THEN, I'll say you might as well stay home and watch a DVD.

 

BTW, I shot with the DVX-100 for the first time a few weeks ago and we did plenty of tilts and pans and had not one "judder" or "studder."

[Tenolian Bell]

As a matter of fact, I have professionally-made DVDs of films shot on 16mm which look worse, and exhibit more of these annoying digital artifacts, than my own DVD of DVX100 test footage -- mostly because these films seem to have been encoded to DVD very quickly & very poorly.

I?m confused by your comparison. It seems as if your point is DVX pictures look just as good on DVD as 16mm pictures. But then admit that the film shot on 16mm had a poor job of encoding to DVD which resulted in digital artifacts. Which would then conclude how good a DVD looks is not just in the camera format but in how well it is compressed and encoded to the DVD.

 

My reel is full of 16mm footage that has no digital artifacts and is utterly flawless. Actually many people are generally aghast when they watch my reel because the 16mm footage is so sharp and clean.

[Tenolian Bell]

1) People buying a camera that shoots 24p and then complaining about the "juddery" motion. Well, duh. The motion rendering of film is, despite its attractiveness, quantatively poorer than that of video, especially NTSC video.

I agree with Phil. People do act as though the juddery 24 fps motion started with the DVX, its been in film for the past 100 years.

 

A converstation can go "I do like that new Panasonic camera but the picture is jittery, I don't like that." My answer is generally "what did you think 24 frames per second looks like?" I get a blank stare of confusion and we have to go into the whole persistence of vision explanation.

 

I had someone come back with "well at the movies you don't see any jittering." Answer was "well at the movies you are not watching 24 frames per second, you are watching 48 frames per second." Blank stare of confusion.

 

But then people do act as though 24P is a whole new format on its own which requires an entirely new set of skills. I'll hear low budget producers all the time announce, "must be able to shoot 24P" (generally the DVX).

 

I told a producer "well I shoot film." Producer's answer "but can you shoot 24P?" My answer "film is the original 24P." Blank stare of confusion.

 

So much half truth, so many blank stares of confusion.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

There is something to be considered. Native 24 fps looks most film-like. But 24 fps transfered to 30p or 60i does not look as well as if you shoot in 30p. The reason is the pull down used when converting the rate/speed.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Actually, I think projected 35 certainly does look juddery. Maybe I have fast eyes, or something, but I can quite clearly see the double pulse of each frame and the 50%-cycle motion blur, if I'm looking for it in a fast-motion scene. Possibly I've trained my visual system to look for compression artfacts in temporal video codecs.

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Of course it looks juddery; that's why IMAX HD is 48 fps.

[Alvin Pingol]

Possibly I've trained my visual system to look for compression artfacts in temporal video codecs.

Along with that, I've trained my ears to listen for compression artifacts in audio codecs. ;)

 

When I tell them that the file they burned onto that CD was compressed using WMA compression, they just look at me funny. :(