Camera decision

Ricardo Gonzalez · April 30, 2004

I have a total budget of more or less $6,000. to spend on camera, tripod, mics, batteries and lights. A friend is offering me a great tripod and JVC GY-DV500 with new drum for $2800. It is stock and I feel I need a LCD monitor as well as a wide angle adaptor to suit my needs. On the other hand, I like the smaller cams such as the AG-DVX100A, PD-170 or GL-2 because they come with monitors and have auto focus and in the case of the 100A, looks like film. I'm not experienced with manuel focus and I worry that I will not keep focus if my subject is moving away or towards me. From what I've read, the JVC has an excellent picture and that is why I would choose it. I want my doc to have the best look possible for the money I have. What is your opinion on my dilemma.

Thanks

Ricardo Gonzalez

Mitch Gross · April 30, 2004

I own a DV500 and it's an excellent camera, but from your comments it sounds like you'd be more comfortable and happy with a DVX100A. This too is an excellent camera, especially for the price.

Phil Rhodes · May 1, 2004

Hi,

People saying they're inexperienced with manual focus really scares me. I mean, you're much more likely to hold something in a decent degree of focus manually than on auto! It's also much more difficult to manually focus on the smaller cameras, which have annoying servoactuated lenses.

Depends what you want to do with it.

Phil

Max Jacoby · May 1, 2004

...and in the case of the 100A, looks like film.

Does it really? Who says?

The manufacturer?

Ricardo Gonzalez · May 1, 2004

I appreciate the opinions and I now feel I can handle the manuel focus requirements. I've narrowed down my decision between the JVC DV500 and the Panasonic AG-DVX100A. Give me your opinions on these 2 cameras.

Thanks

Ricardo Gonzalez

Michael Nash · May 3, 2004

The DVX-100 is a very "in demand" camera these days, so it will have a value and use beyond your documentary.

The DVX is a relatively small "handheld" camera, which means you can't really shoulder mount it. This is generally a plus since it's lightweight and easy to put just about anywhere to get the shot you need, but if you're following people around in a real-life documentary situation you're ALWAYS holding the camera up in front of you.

The DV-500 is an ENG-styled camera that's designed to sit on your shoulder, and it's light enough that you can walk around that way all day and not really feel it. It's also light enough that you can wave it around for different angles if you want.

keezie · May 4, 2004

SO DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE DVX EVEN WITH IT'S FILTERS AND IT'S ABILITY TO GET PRETTY CLOSE TO 24FPS STILL LOOKS THAT VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM FILM? I KNOW IT MIGHT BE A DUMB QUESTION, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE UP CLOSE. I'VE HEARD THEY ARE GREAT CAMERAS THOUGH...

Michael Nash · May 6, 2004

Not vastly different from film (standard 16 transferred to video), but not exactly like it either. And it's not just close to 24 fps, it IS 24 fps. And filters on that camera don't really have anything to do with making it look like film. Filters just let you control the image to make it look the way you want. It's kind of a unique look; closer to film than any consumer DV camera has come so far, but still a little electronic looking.

And please don't use all caps, it means you're shouting! ;-)

Tenolian Bell · May 6, 2004

I just had a conversation with someone who is a video technician and stickler describe the DVX-100 as not a pure 24P device. I asked why.

I already know Panasonic HD records 60 fames progressive and extracts 24 frames from that to make 24 frame HD.

He described while the DV25 codec is 60 frames interlaced. Panasonic scaled their HD technique down to DV25, so 24 frames is extracted from 60 the same way, exept they have to also pull a progressive frame from an interlaced format, which is accomplished through mathematical algorithms.

The two biggest places you will find differences between DVX-100 (which is still a DV25 codec), is dynamic range and color. And you will run into particular road blocks in post.

On one of my DVX projects some colors weren't recorded quite the way we thought they had been. In post to fix this the graphics designer had to build color patches in After Effects and lay that over the scene. We couldn't force the picture to produce the color we wanted because the information simply wasn't there.

Tenolian Bell · May 6, 2004

I also need to add we were trying to do something specific, that we should have been shooting film to accomplish. But in general the DVX-100 produces a great pricture.

My point was in comparson to film, DVX still carries the good things and bad things of the DV25 codec and has some limitations.

Mitch Gross · May 12, 2004

Your video engineer is only partially correct. There is no interpolating when using the 24pa mode, which lays down full frames across connected fields. The same is not true for standard 24p mode. That is the nature of 3:2 pulldown but Panasonic found a clever way around it so as not to incur further encoding that would degrade the signal.

In your engineer's terms, the Sony F900 doesn't record "true" progressive video because it lays them to tape as segmented frames. As long as the material can be extracted and reconstructed with zero loss then it doesn't matter. I would say that he is making a non-distinction distinction (government-speak).

Eric Steelberg ASC · May 13, 2004

I've used the DVX100 quite a few times and more recently the A model which has some improvements. A production actually had me used it to shoot a day of 2nd unit for a CBS pilot which had been shot on 35. They bumped it to 24 frame HD and were very impressed. I think the best standard def camera is the SDX-900, the second best being the DVX-100. Good camera. One of the nice features is that it provides a numerical readout on the screen for focus and zoom which has proved very helpful for me since there is no focus distance marked on the lens.