DVX100 footy vs. vx1000 day
 

Does anyone have an comparision shots of the dvx100 vs. the vx1000 in the day light. All of the people I shoot with seem to sweat the vx1000 in the day light, and not really the my dvx. why is this.

not quite sure I understand what you are asking.

opps, I just finished working a 13 hour day when I wrote that. sorry
Does anyone have any shots of the vx1000 vs. the DVX100 in the day. My friends seem to be stuck on the fact that the vx1000 looks better in the day. People give me crap for having a DVX. So if anyone has any comparision shots that would be GREAT!!

i wish people would gt over this..

Just looking at teh camera should give these numbnuts an idea as to what it can do...

dead set some people need to get a life.. (not you)

a camera is a camera.. FFS ive gotten my MX500 to look better than a VX2000, but i dont harp about it.. why, coz the camera works differently in different environments..

if u want COMPLETE control of your image you cant beat the dvx..

I'm just confused about someone being that hung up on a vx1000 -- isn't that camera a little outdated by now? Arguing for the VX2000 or 2100 might make a little more sense...

Also, aren't most cameras good in daylight? I mean, I've shot footage with my Panny DV53 on a bright, sunny day that looked great -- I'd say almost as good as my DVC80. When there's lots of light to soak up, don't even the worst cams look their best?

There's a site with some stills that compares the PD150/VX2000 to the DVX100 -- But this is the first I've heard of someone disparaging the DVX100 for a miniDV cam that's over 5 years old.

Actually the VX1000 has more pixels - 3x410K 1/3" chips - than any sony prosumer miniDV camcorder model since except for those flaring pdx10/TRV950 1/4.7" chips. Also the OIS rocked on the VX, no drift on pans, etc, just pure motion without shake. Of course the zoom is SOOOO slow on it, compared, to say, the DVC30, which BTW has the same amount of pixels, just on smaller 1/4"chips, which seem to be just as sensitive. The colors on the VX are really beautiful, as well as the contrast which really defined the look of DV. But yes, when it came out the VX was 5k.

Yeah, i know people who live by this camera just for the daylight colors. It's crazy.

I know A LOT of shooters from Digital Cinematographers to Industrial Videographers that ABSOLUTELY LOVE the VX1000. And yes the VX1000 does have a unique aesthetic that I agree is rather pleasing. BUT, the DVX has a superior level of image control that allows the user to manipulate the imagery to a wide variety of aesthetics, not to mention a cleaner and clearer picture.

Yes, most any Digital camera looks good with ample light. The issue that most have with Digital cameras in bright daylight is the difficulty in finding the right balance of expsoure with gamma and knee adjustment. Basicly, Gamma effects the senstivity to brightness, and Knee effects the level at which the color rolls off to white. I think the problem that many users have encountered when attempting to shoot bright daylight exteriors with the DVX is the use of the Cine-Gamma settings. While the DVX's Cine-Gamma settings allow the shooter the ability to capture a wider dynamic range, they also force the shooter to shoot at a lower expsosure level than many are use to. The Cine-Like gamma setting on the DVX100 and the DVX100A doesn't have ANY knee. The Cine-Like_D and Cine-Like_V settings on the DVX100A incorporate a light knee value to combat the hue errors experienced when the image is overexposed in the Cine-Like gamma mode.

Unfortunately with most DVX users, the lack of experience and knowledge of how gamma and knee functions effect the digital image, combined with a lack of a thorough understanding of how the Cine-Like gamma settings work have created an overwhelming number of DVX projects that have a unique and tell tale "DVX look" of orangey-pinkish glows around overexposed areas. This orangey-pinksih glow is distracting and unnatural in any image. But it's especially distracting when they are as large and overpowering as they are in bright daylight exteriors. When using any of the the DVX's Cine-Like gamma settings you must under expose by AT LEAST a 1/2 stop. Few know or take the time to do this. And this leads many to regard the DVX as being inferior to many other cameras in its class when it comes to capturing bright or challenging light levels.

Since the VX1000 offers no control over the gamma and uses an automatic knee, the VX1000 seems to handle daylight exteriors with ease in the hands of most users. If you haven't already, try setting your DVX100's gamma setting to NORMAL, or your DVX100A's gamma setting to NORMAL with the knee setting to AUTO. This should bring the brightness handling of the DVX to a level similiar to that of the VX1000. You can then further adjust the DVX's color, detail, phase, etc, to closer match the VX1000. I highly doubt that you won't be able to get any DVX to look almost identical to any VX1000 with a careful eye and a few minutes of menu adjustment.

The VX1000 does better than the DVX100 in situations with very low light. I found this out at a recent multi-camera shoot in which we used the VX1000, PD150, and DVX100 in a dark club. I have to say the VX1000 does 60i incredibly well, but of course it can't do 24P which is the look I like

I don't think the vx1000 will beat the vx2000,vx2100,gl2,pd100,pd150,pd170, or the dvx100 in any kind of low light test. The vx1 will be very dark. All I shoot is skateboarding, so skatebaording=100%outside and i shoot at night time with a generator and the guy that i shoot with that gets the 2nd angles has a vx1, and i have the dvx and my footy always is soo much more clearer. It's just an overall better picture in the night time shots with more detail.