Sony HDW700 vs. Panasonic DVX100

[redbaron]

Here's the question:

 

I'm an active DP that shoots primarily with the Panasonic DVX100 in 24p. In shooting an upcoming music video I have the opportunity to shoot with the Sony 700. Should I use the 700 over the 100?

 

As far as I'm concerned the only drawback to using the 700 is that it doesn't shoot 24p.

 

Second question wuold be: does anyone have any experience making footage shot on the 700 look more film like? If so, what was your process...plugins or something else?. (aside from shooting and lighting as you would with film)

 

I'm starting to think this is a no-brainer because the 700 will give me a longer lens, better depth of field, greater exposure latitude, greater sensitivity and a higher res image. We really want a "film" feel and the DVX is good at eaisly achieving that.

 

Any thoughts?

Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

If you want a "film feel" -- other than by shooting film of course -- don't use a 60i camera, even if HD. Use a progressive-scan camera. If not the F900, then the Panasonic Varicam, or in standard def, the SDX900. For a music video, the SDX900 will produce more of a film look than an HDW-700.

[redbaron]

I would love to go with either of those cameras. But as it stands now, my choices are between the Sony 700 and Pan 100...given that scenario what's the opinion?

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Me personally, I would go with the DVX if the film look is what you wanted and you are not required to deliver on HD. Unless, you could come up with a post scenario that made the 60i look closer to film that you liked the look of. Such as de-interlace and all that and I mean you should know exactly what you are going to do through testing. Mostly that stuff to me still looks heavily processed and like it has been 'Filmlooked' but that is better than straight up 60i IMO.

 

I can't remember if the F700 shoots in the 25 PAL format or not but that could be an option. Just make sure you have the right post production workflow in place.

Edited December 2, 2004 by J. Lamar King

[Landon D. Parks]

My opinion: As it stands, you have to choose between "High Resolution" and "Filmlook". With the DVX you will get a more film look, but @ low quality. With the 700, you get high resolution, but a lot less of a film look.

 

Unless your willing to go for the F900, F950 or Viper (Or other camera of that nature), then your going to have to deside which is more important? More resolution or a film look?

 

Of course, if you could afford around $500/day, I would suggest the SDX-900, as it offers both the Film look AND the advantages of DV with a higher resolution and picture quality than the DVX 100 in the DVC-Pro50 format (Pro 50 means it record 50Mbps instead of 25Mbps in regular DV).

 

NOTE: There is software to deinterlace 60i footage to 24p in post. Although it don't look as good as if it was captured 24p.

Edited December 2, 2004 by Landon D. Parks

[Jon Allen]

There is software to deinterlace 60i footage to 24p in post. Although it don't look as good as if it was captured 24p.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are we talking motion reproduction only? Would that software convert to 30p and then drop every 5th frame (or something similar)?

Let's say you have a client that requires a project to be on HDCAM at 24fps, but you have a 700 and no native 24fps. Surely you wouldn't sacrifice 60% of your resolution to shoot native 24 fps on the 100a... or would you? Comments? Sugguestions?

[David Mullen ASC]

But conversion of 60i/1080 to 24P also causes a loss of vertical resolution, so the resolution difference between that (film-looked 60i HD) and 24P/480 isn't as far off as you'd think, assuming both are pro cameras with 2/3" CCD's (for example, the HDW700 versus the SDX900, not the DVX100.) It also depends on if the final product will be seen on SD or HD.

 

However, I doubt if a client wants an HD project, they'd settle for upconverted DVX100 footage.

 

This all comes down to how important the film-look is. If you want 24P/1080, then shoot with a 24P/1080 camera -- anything else you do is a compromise (except maybe bumping up 24P/720 from the Varicam, which isn't so bad.)

 

Also, ask yourself if spending the money on film-looking at HD resolution footage from a 60i/1080 camera wouldn't pay for the difference in rental with an F900. Afterall, the HDW700 and the F900 are not THAT far apart in rental costs.

[Guest Kai.w]

But conversion of 60i/1080 to 24P also causes a loss of vertical resolution, so the resolution difference between that (film-looked 60i HD) and 24P/480 isn't as far off as you'd think, assuming both are pro cameras with 2/3" CCD's (for example, the HDW700 versus the SDX900, not the DVX100.)  It also depends on if the final product will be seen on SD or HD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the loss is not so big. Deinterlacing of course introduces some loss, but it's not so much. There are quite some clever tools for interpolating the pixels from F1 to F2.

I really think the result will be better than progressive SD. Even more if you wanna go for 16:9. But then, as David said, it depends on what the endformat is gonna be (SD/HD/Film), whether it's really worth it.

 

-k

[Jon Allen]

My firm been given the opportunity to bid on a job whose initial final output will be dvd. The specifications for filming/shooting are HDCAM at 24fps or 16mm film. However, the project is going to be mainly distributed through dvd/vhs to area locals- meaning that 640x480 out of a 100a should be sufficient. (But I think mostly, the client doesn't really know what they need for their final output... who can politely go and bid on a job and at the same time tell the client they're stupid?)

The project itself calls for a cameraman being available at the drop of a hat to go shoot stuff around our quadrant of the state over the course of about a month. This means no real time to go to the camera shop and rent out a camera whenever we need to- renting a Viper out of Chicago for a month at a stretch would probably exceed $50,000. So it'd be worth it to buy a camera- since the budget for the bid job probably wouldn't cover the expense of renting. There are a few places around I've found that are selling used 700a's for around and under 30grand.

The client probably doesn't realize that if they're not going to need high defninition resolution for their production, or they have plans to distribute the production by other means later on.

Granted, if we got this job, there would probably be more like it in the future- and our HD capacity would be greatly improved (and might start paying for itself oneday!). So a lot of this project will be startup costs. Plus, we'd be one of the very few companies in Iowa that have HD capabilities!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Several thoughts.

 

- The output of a DVX-100 will still look soft on DVD even though they're both SD formats. There's good SD and bad SD, and a DVX is on the soft end.

 

- Shooting an HD format will result in a very sharp-looking DVD. Definitely a visible improvement over shooting any SD format.

 

- If you're going to have to be available at short notice, that may make the decision for you. It often does for me.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

If this is for DVD's and you have $30,000 to spend, and you want a film-look, then it seems that an SDX900 is the best bet rather than a used HDW-700.

[Elhanan Matos]

You should check out the XDCAM, It's not HD, but it does have a 24p option board, and interchangeable lenses, and it's a much better camera than the DVX100, more expensive ofcourse, but also cheaper than the 700.

[Jon Allen]

The problem is there's a really good chance of this being blown up to 35mm and being displayed locally and around the area on a few screens.

So the requirement (and I'm sure it is a requirement) is for either 16mm or HDCAM- this is specified by the client and I'm not sure my boss is a good enough salesman to convince them that you don't need 1920x1080 @ 24 for a dvd.

I guess I can't believe that they'll spend 80% of their budget on 5% of their distribution requirements. But that's how it goes, public universities with money and not a lot of knowledge.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious. It probably isn't going to cost thirty grand to have the material you'll shoot telecine'd, and you need to have the camera lying around for use at a moment's notice; what you need here is some kind of technology which has a low cost of ownership at the expense of a higher cost of use; shoot the damn thing on 35!

 

Phil

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

If you're bidding on this job, you should figure out what it will cost you to shoot with, 16mm and HD with rented equipment for the month plus your overhead then give them the lower bid of the two. End of story.

Edited December 16, 2004 by J. Lamar King