Michael Maier

The XL1s seems to work very well with SLR lenses.

The reason is that the DVX is 24p and 9 out of 10 filmmaker wannabes think 24p is all there is when shooting a film. If the DVC200 is not professional, I don't even know how I would qualify the DVX100a <_<

Not really Phil. The lens I considered for the 450 in my analogy cost only $3,000 from BH photo. I would like to make it clear, that I'm in no way putting the 450 down. There's no question the 450 is better. But that's not what I'm talking about ;)

Yeah, I have given up on the 16mm idea. I will rent a DV50 system. It will be easier. Thanks for all the opinions.

Well, for each his own in terms of color. I, particularly, never like the electronic Sony look. I have always preferred Panasonic or Canon colormetry over Sony (and JVC since JVC is so similar to Sony in colormetry). Noise, as I said our footage was taken in day light. A nice day at that. I'm sure in lower light the Sony will be less noise. Reason I said IMO ;) It looks less electronic than the Sony. That was always a big problem I had with Sony. I remember how I hated the PD150 because of the same reasons (along with the lens and sound) Well, actually, the electronic look I describe is not really only gamma, matrix etc. It's just something about the sony image which screams electronic. Even when it comes to the F900, I think the Varicam looks more film like on a video monitor. I can't really explain it. It might be matter of opinion, but I have meet many who share the same opinion, online and in person. As I mentioned, the XL2 did great and it was a very bright day. It held extremely well in the high lights. The XL2 offers a great deal of control too. But there's no question the 450 offers more. Hey, it costs over 4 times what the XL2 costs ;). The point is bang for your buck. Indiefilmmaking is made of compromises. You can use any lens with a XL2 too. Video or film. The array of mount converters available from Century and Optex are infinite. You can use PL and all B4 available to the 450 as well. But keep in mind, my price consideration for the 450 was including the cheapest 2/3 lens I could find. Anything better than that will only make it more expensive and the XL2 package I put together even a better deal. So would I. But unfortunately, specs are not all to consider when it comes to indiefilmmaking. If the XL2 and 450 cost the same, I'm mean, there's no question about it. But one needs to consider the features/price ratio. In that department the XL2 wins. Again, remember I mean it all from a independent filmmaking point of view. Broadcast , corporate and other fields would be a different consideration. It would not much reason for a TV station or production house to buy a XL2 over a 450, if they can afford the 450 and it will pay for itself. Unless they need the smaller size. But for this, there are even smaller cameras.

Peter, I do understand the differences between a 2/3 shoulder camera and a 1/3 handheld one. But with all you said, the HVX200 is still a 720p/1080p 4:2:2 vs a 480p/576p 4:1:1/4:2:0 which is what the DSR450 is. We talking DV50/DV100 vs DV25 here. We?re talking 1080 24p. The cheapest camera to do that is the F900, and it cost what, 100k? I think, the main advantage of the DSR450 is the chip size. I doubt the HVX200 lens will be worse than a regular vanilla SD lens, which is what most people buy for a DVCAM. By the way, which lens do you have with your 450? But that's all, as you said, yet to be seen. However, I went out yesterday to test a canon XL2 , since we are considering it now for our project. It turned out, they also had a DSR450 and a DVX100a in house. As I already knew the DVX100a, I didn't bother with it, but I asked to test the 450 along. So we took the XL2 and the 450 out for a hour in town for in 16:9 and 25p shot. Filming on going traffic, people, buildings, all in close up and wide shots etc. Some water fountains and some shots of a passing by train(fast motion, since we were very close to it). Then we took it back and I asked to play both footages in their 20" sony monitor and A/B switch them. The XL2 footage held every bit of data to the 450 footage. Apart from colormetry and the fact I preferred the canon's color, the footage were in the very same level, with the XL2 looking just a bit more film like IMO. It was all shot in day light and I'm sure the 450 will beat the XL2 in low light conditions, but in day light, I was able to get great shots and match the quality of the 450 and I was not even really trying to compete with the 450. because I honestly didn?t think the XL2 would be up to the task. Al I did was focus and make sure the high lights didn?t blow . I can see the superiority of the 450 in many cases, but for a camera which costs less than 1/3 of the 450 camera head only, the XL2 seems like a better bang for my buck. I think for filmmaking purposes, the XL2 is the best bang for the buck right now, unless you can go with a SDX900 or one of the Sony IMX, which shoots 25p, and off course Varicam or Cinealta. But in for DV25, I feel the XL2 is the best bang for the buck. With the cash one saves from buying a 450 + lens, + batteries, he can buy a hell of a package for the XL2 and still have spare cash for lights or for paying a DP or for whatever he wants. He can buy a XL2 with a B/W viewfinder, a P+S 35mm adapter (or even go with one of the lower priced ones, which go for $1,000 and produce the same basic results. Actually, looking at demo footage from the P+S and the $1,000 one, I can't say the P+S is superior at all. Specially when it cost 8 times more. But just for the sake of it, let's consider the P+S),. Then he can buy a short set of 3 PL mount primes (used) and enough battery power to shoot a whole day and still come in 4 to 5 thousand short of a 450+lens and battery/charger. Honestly, with all I have seen from the P+S, this set up would guarantee him much better results than a 450 and lens could ever do. At least, from a filmmaking point of view. I'm sure one can find many things the 450 would do better, it cost over 4 times the price of a XL2 when you add a lens. But when it comes to narrative filmmaking, the XL2 package mentioned above would have the edge and would still be way cheaper. The 450 is a great camera, but in the end, it's just 16:9 progressive DV25 video. If it was about 10k cheaper (for the cam+lens+battery), I would not be arguing here. I take a 2/3 camera over a 1/3 any day of the week. Specially given they have pretty much the same basic features(16:9 25p DV25, interchangeable lens) . I would even take a 1/2 in some cases (like in the case of the DVC200 vs a DVX100a, because they are not so far apart in price). But the 450 is just too expensive for a DV25 camera from a filmmaking point of view. Actually, I always thought sony gear was over priced. The Panna SDX900 is just a few thousand more than the 450 and is a DV50 camera. I can see the 450?s high value for broadcast, corporate and general video work. But for filmmaking, you have to look at the big picture. In indie filmmaking, you need to squeeze the best out of your budget. In filmmaking, specs alone won't hold it together. It's also about style, feel and production value. So, that was what I meant when I said the 450 is too expensive.

I don't know about the 970, but I'm sure one of the production houses in town has a sony IMX, and I'm almost sure those cameras do 25p. They most likely have a deck too, so maybe I can work something out with them for the capture.

Thanks guys. Oh yeah, the DVW970 is one of those sony IMX, isn't it. They do record 25p in PAL I think. I actually know a production house in town which has one. Mabye they would rent it out or something. I will call them up. But does Avid Xpress Pro HD or Vegas edit IMX?

I know 4.2.0 PAL is not the best for green screen work. We will be shooting a feature film in 25p DV soon and it calls for lots of green screen shots. 4:2:2 cameras are expensive to rent and you need to rent decks along with them to transfer your footage. Also, I have to drive 2 hours to the next rental house to rent a SDX900, which is the only 4:2:2 SD camera which shoots 25p. HD will be way too expensive for us. So I was given the idea of using 16mm film to shoot the green screen shot. You can buy a brand new K3 Russian 16mm pretty cheap. 16mm ends are not so expensive. I know this would not be good for the whole film as the K3 is not good to shoot with sound. I heard it's very loud. Also 16mm ends are no the best workflow. But for the green screen shots only, I feel it could work, if 16mm would be an advantage over the PAL 4:2:0 25p. I think in terms of quality, I was told 16mm surpass even 4:2:2 video. I'm just not sure it would be cheaper in the end, because I would have to transfer it to digital video for editing somehow. Probably would need to transfer it to DVCPRO50 or if possible, transfer it direct to a HDD (so I could bypass the cost of the tape transfer). Anybody has an idea if 16mm would be cheaper that way, using a K3 and 16mm ends? How much does a 16mm to HDD transfer costs? Also, I have never shot film, so I would have to research about getting good chromakey results with 16mm. Is it harder than with video? Thanks in advance for the advice.

Thanks for all the replies. It seems progressive scan has really won the crowd these days. I was surprised that many people recommended the DVX100a over a real professional camera, basically because of progressive scan. In the mean time we did a test. I was right about the very only advantage of the DVX100a being the progressive scan. That's all it has to offer over the DVC200E. The DVC200E is the better camera. No question about it. It was easier to work with, had a way more pleasing lens and it's images were sharper than the DVX100a in 25p. I guess the extra resolution of progressive doesn?t make that much difference out of the paper. Also, in low light conditions, there was no comparison. The images from the DVC200E were cleaner. Sometimes, the DVX100a looked very noise in low light. DOF was another advantage. It was way easier to get an out of focus background or foreground with the DVC200E. As accessories are not really a concern, since we have tripod, batteries, dolly and a crane available to us for the DVC200E, the small form factor of the DVX100a is not really an advantage. Maybe the image stabilization could be used as a sort of steadycam. We don't have a steadycam for the DVC200E. But that?s all. We will shot a small scene of the script for a better test. It's the darkest scene. It takes place in downtown. It's one of the scenes we will use the available city lights. We will shoot 50i with DVC200E (and deinterlace with fieldskit) and 25p with the DVX100. Then will color correct and finish it as we would the real film. Then project with a good projector and see which camera holds up through post production best and which looks best when projected.. Low light performance is very important for this project. So far, in my opinion, it seems progressive alone didn't take the place of a real professional camera yet. We'll see what the final tests say. Some comments: David, so you seem to recommend the PAL DVX100a over the NTSC, even though the PAL shoots no 24fps. Is that based on the higher resolution? TimJBD, I did a search on DVX100 threads, but failed to find all the 29 trillion you mentioned. Phil Rhodes, I share you dislikes for prosumer lenses. That's one thing which makes the decision lean towards the DVC200E, along with chip size. Peter DeCrescenzo, the DSR450WS is out of our budget and quite frankly, before dumping that kind of money on a 4:1:1 DV camera, I might buy a HVX200. Yes, the chips are smaller, but that's about it. It has better resolution, most likely at least equal lens (since it's HD, it has to be at least as good as the best SD lenses), shoot variable frame rates, is 4:2:2, it also does 16:9 and cost much less. I know it will be a prosumer form factor camera with fixed lens, but in this case the advantage is not only 24p. But thanks for the tip ;) zekthedeadcow, that's a good idea. Thanks everybody.

Wow. 42 views not one single reply? Is that stupid of a question?

Did you see it David? What's your opinion about the image quality and DVX100 performance?

Choices, are they ever easy? I have been asked to DP a feature film project and was given the choice of 2 camera set ups. A DVC200 PAL with a fuji S14x6.2BERM which cost 15k when new and a DVX100a PAL or NTSC. Now that's a hard call. The film will be shot all at night with many exteriors. The DVC200 will probably be better in low light. It also has a sharper image I would think. Specially with the better lens. Not to mention the bigger chips for a better dof control. The 50i would be deinterlaced to 25p with fieldskit or magic bullet. The only advantage of the DVX100 seems to be progressive scan. But, that's a big advantage when it comes to dramatic feature filmmaking. But if DVX100, which one, PAL 25p or NTSC 24p. I'm based in PAL territory as is the filmmaker. Though one. Any opinions?

I'm honestly not impressed. It doesn't look much better than well shot SD in 24p like with a SDX900. Besides the SDX900 will run laps around it in the color department, and also in the contrast department(based on the sky/house image you mentioned). The skin color in those clips look sepia like and very ugly actually. I still think 20k for a home made camera based on a small industrial camera head is way too much money. Maybe if the 12bit system you mentioned is really much better and comes in the same price, one could justify paying 20k. Also, look at the little lens hanging from the front of the Drake in that picture. Is it a survailance camera lens? It seems ridiculous for cinematography work. Anybody knows the bigger the glass the better. I mean, have you seen the glass used on the Viper for instance? I know Viper is way more expensive, but it would be nice to be able to use at least a normal broadcast lens or to rent a HD lens for it.

The camera head the drake is based on cost about 1,500. It's a IBIS sensor based industrial camera with a proprietary debayer. Machine to make a aluminium box costing 4,500? Where are you getting your prices?

All the drake is is an industrial camera head wich records to a HDD. You can surely buy all the components for about 5k, specially that it doesn't come with a lens. What you are paying for is their development and the software they wrote, which if you know what you are doing, it's free of charge :)

I know what you mean. But I'm able to get pretty accuarte focus when shooting with a DSR570/DVC200 only with the viewfinder. By the way, do you know the F900 viewfinder's resoltuion David?

I find it very weird that this information can't be found anywhere and nobody seems to know.

Yeah, I was talking about the stock viewfinder. I asked because somebody told me it was the very same resolution as any DVCAM, Digibeta and even the latest Betacam like the D600. 600 lines. I was really surprised, since the camera's resolution is almost the double of that. I couldn't confirm it, but many told me that for sure it's less than 1080 lines that the camera resolves. Reason it's impossible to shoot wihtout a monitor. Sony doesn't list it on the website, so it's hard to tell.

Nobody knows?

Thanks. How much a whole 16mm set up weights? The Majestic supports up to 35lbs. I know somebody that uses it with a full sized video camera by the way. There' also the Quickset Hercules which supports up to 150lbs. Just could find any pricing on it yet. Have anybody heard of it?

How many lines of resolution in the F900 viewfinder? What controls besides peaking, sharpness, contrast and zebras? Thanks.

Thanks for the info. I haven't decided yet between an Aaton LTR or an Arri SR I or II.Although I'm heavily inclined towards the Aaton. Is there a C to Arri/PL/Bayonet adapter? Would it be worth going for an Arri, if a C lens would be possible? Maybe I could get a better glass for the money on a C mount as they seem cheaper? I have also seem many Augineux(sp?) and Schneider zooms and primes for cheaper. Are they any good? What would be the disadvantages of getting a 16mm lens for a S16 camera?They are cheaper than S16 lenses. Thanks.

The Majestic seems pretty strong and they are not expensive. What are the other options? Thanks

Just because I'm thinking about getting into S16 and am looking at buying an Aaton. So I would like to get suggestions for nice lenses. I would like to know the very best zooms and primes and also the best bang for your buck options. I heard that C mounts are a cheaper option, with equally great glass, and it's really easy to mount them in an Aaton using an adapter. I shoot video at the moment, but have been thinking of shooting S16 for a long time. I think now is a good time to start. Thanks.