I purchased Vegas already, but not unlike you, I have been using Premiere and this old dog does not want to learn too many new tricks. Plus, I took the plunge last year for the Matrox RTX100 board. My premiere is pretty stable (still bombs once or more a day) with the Matrox and the Matrox makes for fast work of a lot of what I do.

I've got a music video shoot coming up that would be perfect for DVD 24p. I've got a lot of time available in post and I'm trying to decide if I should shoot this in 24Pa and even if I should get the anamorphic lens and shoot it that way too. If Premiere Pro were to be coming out say, in August, with full DVX100 support and Encore includes it, I'd shoot this project 24P for sure. But if not, I have to decide if its worth learning Vegas to do this project.

I saw a 15-minute demo of Adobe Encore and it looks GREAT, but this was only a 15-minute demo and the Adobe rep did not stick around to answer any of my probably 10+ questions that I had for him. The PS integration looks like a BIG winner with Encore. They say that they allow a mix of audio types for the same video program. But DVD 24p is not really part of the DVD spec and Adobe has said that Encore is "all about DVD spec". I believe that most films put to DVD are 24P and they work fine, so I'm not sure what is not "in spec" about DVD24p.

Mike:

I was an old RT2000 user, but sold it and left Premiere 6 behind. I did have the advantage of using used Sound Forge, Acid and Vegas Audio 2 for audio work, so I'm just learning the video/NLE side of Vegas plus the surround mixing.

I can understand if you have no experience with Sonic Foundry products. But they are easy to learn and quite stable, though I have not pushed Vegas 4 that hard yet.

Mike, if your doing a "music" video wouldn't it benefit you to use a program that litterally has the best audio mixing capabilities on any NLE in it's class?! Vegas is unrivaled in the realm of audio...afterall it DID start as "Vegas Audio", many moons ago.

Granted the Vegas interface is a bit daunting at first. I figured with a good working knowledge of Premiere I'd be able to pick it up, tinker with it, and be editing without a hitch. I was wrong, lol. The workflow is completly different. I'm having to re-learn my entire workflow. However the more I dive into Vegas the more similarities start to arise...just on the surface it looks like an entirely different creature. I'd suggest doing the music video with Vegas...and if you need more training try the DVDs "ClassOnDemand.com" offers for Vegas. They've been incredibly helpfull for me so far- though I haven't actually edited any footage with it yet, I just started disc 2 last night. (I'm trying to learn in between editing weddings with my Pinnacle DV500 on Premiere 6.02, ironicly enough).

Workflow is the key and what makes it so challenging to switch NLE's. I have been using ACID 4 for several months off an on to mix and encode to DD5.1, so I am somwhat familure with the SF UI.

I'll look into the Class on Demand discs, thanks.

Hey, I hear that there is no auto focus on in the 24p mode, is this correct? Do either one of the 24p modes have auto focus? That's a real downer if they don't. How in the world do you keep in focus if you are doing a moving scene? Please advise. Thanks,
Josh

It is true, no autofocus in 24p mode. When moving, have an assistant pull focus manually. The concept of the 24p mode is to emulate moviemaking. Certain other aspects of moviemaking including multiple camera crew members to assist with pulling focus on carefully blocked and rehearsed shots will become a neccessary part of this process. Hope this helps,

Plus the Panasonic is easy to manual focus via the LCD screen and focus scale.

Yeah, that doesn't appear to be such a downer to me, infact thats a plus, it forces you to use manual focus, and thats always a good thing. Shoot with a small aperature, and don't zoom, if your worried about focusing. :D

I just demoed a DVX100 and was impressed. One thing I could not figure out was turning it back on after it goes into its power saver/stand by mode.

Q: How do you bring it out of its standby mode w/o turning the switch off then on? Thank you.

I haven't had mine long enough to give you a definitive answer (it just arrived late Friday), but I have found that if there's no tape in it, it doesn't shut off while I mess around with settings/try to check everything out. Surely there must be a way to reconfig the standby setting (somebody?) with the tape still in, but I haven't stumbled across it yet.

Cool cam, isn't it?

MG

See page 46 and 61 in the manual. Set the TAPE PROTECT function found under the OTHER FUNCTIONS menu to STBY instead of the default POWEROFF. Make sure your camcorder is set to Camera and not VCR for this menu to show. Keep in mind that this will now keep your camcorder on all the time, something you may not want in some circumstances.

There's a lot to play with on this camcorder; I'm always finding something new in the manual and menu settings. Still not second nature for me, which is why I made a copy of the manual I can take with me (rather than taking the original). I find using the remote a lot easier to navigate the menus with instead of the joystick on the camera itself.

A friend of mine, Jeanne in NYC exchanged this correspondence with Swiss effect:

"I'm so surprised! I wrote swiss effect to ask them which cam would be better for film transfer and if I'd choose the DVX100 if it'd be better to use the PAl over the NTSC. HEre two answers from them. First one from the NYC office, second one from Swisszerland
Jeanne


FIRST EMAIL FROM SWISS EFFECT
We are testing the PAL version of the Panasonic camera.

It seems to be a better choice over the NTSC version.

I'm still suspicious of this camera and I haven't seen any real strong
reasons, as of yet, why it is better.

Write your questions directly to Thomas Krempke at info@swisseffects.ch
(as in chocolate.)

Thomas is doing the tests on this camera.

All the best,
Jerome Poynton


SECOND EMAIL FROM KREMPKE

Dear Jeanne
I cannot really recommend the Panasonic DVX Camera neither in Pal nor in Ntsc. The quality of the picture is just not good enough compared with other cameras. I know that this camera has a lot of success due to the 24/25p option but neverthless the picture is not goog. If you are anyhow thinking of buying a Pal camera rather buy a sony pd-150. If you still want to buy a panasonic, of course the pal camera transfers better than the ntsc.

thanks for your interest
thomas krempke

--
SWISS EFFECTS
Thurgauerstrasse 40
Airgate
CH - 8050 Zürich
Tel. +41-1-307 10 10
Fax. +41-1-307 10 19
e-mail: info@swisseffects.ch
http://www.swisseffects.ch

What's going on here?
Philippe

<<<-- Originally posted by Philippe Orlando :
What's going on here?
Philippe -->>>

Who cares. I own it, and for one, can vouch that it DOES have a goog picture. :)

Swiss Effects is very Sony and PAL centric. They were one of the first to do this and started with PAL VX2000 and pretty much stayed Sony since.

Each transfer house has it's own biases and systems optimized for PAL/NTSC. Swiss Effects never has much anything to my knowledge other than Sony PAL cams.

Seach this forum for the Duart blowup test, or better yet, if you are in New York/LA, go see it for yourself. The DVX100 objectively captures more detail with less artifacts than the PD150. There is really not too much to argue about.

The PAL DVX100 vs NTSC DV100 is a matter of PAL motion artifacts, audio issues vs. increased resolution.

Stephen is quite right; Swiss Effects tends to show a Sony bias. However they are not the only tape-to-film transfer house; there are many others available, using various processes. Shop around.

I would have to disagree with the suggestion of the Sony PD-150. I have used a PD-150 on several occasions and it is not superior to the DVX100. The DVX100 provides equal resolution and image quality (actually, I seem to be getting some clearer images out of the DVX100) with richer color and shadow definition. The PD-150 does handle low light a little better and in some situations can give more defined DOF. The DVX100's Cine-Gamma color system also helps give a more film-like appearance to the video if that's what you're after.

For film transfer or working with digital compositing work (especially if combining animation and effects), the progressive scan modes of the DVX100 provide superior results.

As far as PAL vs. NTSC, I don't know if there would be much benefit of the PAL over the NTSC model. Both cameras are the same, use the same optics, same CCDs, etc... The PAL model differs in that its interlaced mode is 50i rather than 60i for standard PAL support and instead of 30p it supports 25p. But PAL does make use of a slightly higher resolution - 576 lines instead of 480. However, I have heard that the PAL model still records progressive modes in 480p, but can't confirm as I have not used the PAL model myself.

If the 480p holds true for the PAL model, then there would really be no reason to purchase it unless you're in an area that uses the PAL standard instead of NTSC. And even if the resolution is higher on the PAL model for progressive modes, you would probably still want the NTSC model if you're in an NTSC area unless you intend to only use the camera for film output.

Compare the features you want with the features available on these cameras: DVX100, PD-150 and XL1s... Those are the best miniDV camcorders available right now for under (US)$7500. I own an XL1s and a DVX100 and have logged more than 100 hours on a PD-150 (about 10 hours of it under water). I'll get to take the DVX100 under water in a month or two so it will be interesting to see how the two compare in those lighting conditions.

I think that whether you choose the PD-150 or the DVX100 you will be happy either way. Both are excellent cameras and each have a few features that fit each user and project differently. But for these guys to say that the picture on the DVX100 is not good compared to a PD-150 is a little strange - they're either doing something wrong or they're heavily biased toward Sony (which a lot of people are). I recommend trying out both and see which one fits you better.

Personally, I would recommend the XL1s over the PD-150 as it is a superior camera with un-matched versatility (in this price range) and the only reason I bought the DVX100 was to compliment my already excellent XL1s with some true progressive scan shooting ability.

Yes, all you said makes sense. I didn't know the guys at Swiss Effects were biased toward Sony. I could feel something was wrong but I needed other inputs, and you did.
Thanks.
By the way, Jeff, you said that the PAL version of the DVX100 would be 480 when shooting in progressive, I understand you don't confirm that, but does PAL also sample and re-create the colors in a different way that's supposed to be better? Increased resolution is not just what's different for PAL, right? Tell me if I'm wrong but I've always heard that PAL has better color.

Phil

According to the PAL dvx100 panflet i have here, it is 576p.

Zac

I know that DuArt and The Digital Film Group prefer the DVX100 over the PD150. I'm HIGHLY skeptical that Swiss Effects can squash the interlace image of a PD150 together and make it look better then a 24p (or 25p) DVX100 transfer.

<<<-- Originally posted by Philippe Orlando : Yes, all you said makes sense. I didn't know the guys at Swiss Effects were biased toward Sony. I could feel something was wrong but I needed other inputs, and you did.
Thanks.
By the way, Jeff, you said that the PAL version of the DVX100 would be 480 when shooting in progressive, I understand you don't confirm that, but does PAL also sample and re-create the colors in a different way that's supposed to be better? Increased resolution is not just what's different for PAL, right? Tell me if I'm wrong but I've always heard that PAL has better color.

Phil -->>>

AFAIK, DV is DV and doesn't encode PAL differently from NTSC as it's all digital and only offers format flags in the DV stream header and different resolutions/frame rates to match up with the intended analog delivery format (PAL or NTSC). When the DV stream is converted to analog and output from the camera (or other playback device), then colors are presented differently. As an analog signal, PAL doesn't necessarily provide better color, just more consistant color.

Checking with Panasonic at:
http://www.panasonic.co.jp/bsd/sales_o/dvworld/html/ag-dvx100.html

The PAL DVX100 does have higher resolution CCDs - 470,000 pixels vs. the NTSC model's 410,000 pixels. And its recording modes are either [625]576i or 576p. The camera only does 25p progressive and DOES NOT do 24p or 30p! This is straight off Panasonic's spec pages and their product manual for the PAL version of their UK site confirms this. So, if you don't want to do drop frame conversion from 25p to 24p for film, you'll want the NTSC version. ...I wonder why Panasonic did this???

Is this a film shot on the DVX100?

I doubt PAL is worth the trouble and as mentioned Duart, which is a reputable house, I used them years ago to develop, process and transfer 16mm footage must know what they talk about when they say the DVX100 NTSC is great.
Thanks
Phil

I wonder why Panasonic did this???
Perhaps because 24p is a big deal for NTSC (frame rate difference = 6), whereas it's less of an issue for PAL (difference = 1)?

About a week ago I had my editor analyzing some tests I did with my DVX-100 in his Smoke suite.

Some of the things he concluded with was that the 25P mode was far superior to making shots Progressive in post, the DVX_100 makes excellent 25p pictures, and although he had been sceptical towards me using this mode (rather than have him doing it in post) he completely turned around on this after the tests.

As the sony PD-150 does not do the progressive thing, the choise in camera for a film transfer looks pretty obvious to me. The difference between a post generated progressive and the DVX-100 25p was very very obvious, and clear.

The only conclusion against the DVX-100 (in my tests) is that its completely unusable for quality bluescreen (keying) effects, this however goes for ALL cameras recording in the compressed DV format (sony pd-150 included), as the compression takes away the detail (or something of that matter) needed for successful keying.

<<<-- Originally posted by Eirik Tyrihjel : The only conclusion against the DVX-100 (in my tests) is that its completely unusable for quality bluescreen (keying) effects, this however goes for ALL cameras recording in the compressed DV format (sony pd-150 included), as the compression takes away the detail (or something of that matter) needed for successful keying. -->>>

MiniDV just doesn't work for blue/green screen work. Actually, it can work, but it's a little touch and go sometimes and can leave lots of ugly artifacting. But that doesn't stop people from using it in low budget TV commercials and other productions I've seen on TV occasionally.

It's a combination of the compression of the DV format as well as it's relatively low color depth - DV is 4:1:0. DVCPro50 can be used to greater effect due to the lower compression.

The progressive modes on the DVX100 can really help and color keying and matte work can be effective although it will take some extra hands-on detail work to get the desired results. Take a look at this link on Yan Wen's site...

http://www.ywenzstudios.com/DVX100/dvxcomments.htm

He posted it here a couple days ago. He's extracted a pretty good matte from that first image. A little tweaking and some filters could produce some very good results from that for keying effects. If you have the time to work with it. I doubt you'd get any kind of realtime keying out of this camera (let alone any other miniDV camera).

I haven't personally tried it, but I've had more than one person tell me that they can do better color keying with analog s-video source material. Even though it is technically inferior and can degrade with the capture and conversion process, it comes in with no compression artifacting and somewhat better color fidelity to aid in keying. Just something to think about...

If your desire is to prep your video for film try checking into these articles on the Watchdog site:

DV to 35mm Technology Guide, Part One (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article55.php)
DV to 35mm Technology Guide, Part Two (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article56.php)
DV to 35mm Technology Guide, Part Three (http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article57.php)

I notice that the specs for the DVX100 list a minimum lux of 3 at f1.6 with 18 dB gain. However, I also understand that you cannot use the higher gain unless you're in 60i mode. Does anyone know what the minimum lux would be if you're shooting in a 24p mode where gain boost is disabled? Thanks in advance.

Minimum LUX is a subjective call. If you disable the gain, I would guess you'll need at least 100 LUX for reasonable footage. If you don't have the gain enabled, the cam will probably have black footage (in really low light)---in other words, it won't capture. Perhaps experiment and let use know your findings.

I can't "experiment" because I don't have the camera yet, and this information will help me decide whether or not I should buy. From whay you're saying, if you shoot 24p, you need 100 lux to virtually anything? That seems very high, indeed.

That's way too high. Look at some very low light screen grabs done in 24p (I posted some here several days ago).

While you may not use the DVX100 as night-time infrared spy cam, it shoot beautiful images in low-light (i.e. completely dark room with single candle).

OK guys here is my dilemma,

I have been asked to shoot a made for video feature length horror flick.

The star of the show is an accomplished actor with stage and film experience. This will be his first movie that he is producing.

The budget is small, fifty thousand. I have decided to use the DVX100 to shoot this {soon to be on the back of the discount rack} classic.

My original thought was to shoot it in 60i because it is intended for the video store.

But I started thinking, what if this turns out to be something that could go to film?

Should I shoot it in 24p just in case?

Regardless of it's target why not shoot it in 24p. It'll at least alter the look of it so it's not the typical home-movie 60i look. Sure you wont have gain or manual focus but with a budget of 50k I'm sure you'll have the lighting to compensate.

Speaking of budget- wow...$50,000- that's not cheap! Granted it's a drop in the bucket compared to a Hollywood film but it's nothing to shake a stick at. Especially beings the only work I've done was on a $0 budget...or my own wallet- which, by the way, doesn't run that deep- not even close.

Good luck with it man- let us know when your done I'd love to see it when it's completed!

*btw, how'd you score a deal filming something of this magnitude?! And secondly, if you dont mind me asking...how much of that 50k is cut for your salary? :) *

Scoring the gig is a product of being in the right place at the right time and saying something like

“I could do that just as good if not better for less money.”

Can you say open mouth insert foot.

It got me the gig it also cut my pay oh well live and learn.

Ron,

This if you're using the DVX100, then by all means shoot in 24p! That's what the DVX100 is for. If for some reason you consider going to 60i, then you would probably be better served with a Canon XL1S with its much more versatile capabilities and available lenses.

I have both of these cams and I bought the DVX100 specifically for 24p. Good 24p can look very good if you take the time and do a proper transfer to DVD with 24p pulldown flags.

Other than that, your other choices would include trying to buy or rent some higher end DV cameras like the Ikegami models... I can't begin to estimate how your budget works out, but for a $50K feature that will see video release and possibly more, I would seriously try to rent an HDCAM and shoot in HD... Provided you can get access to the system and equipment to edit.

If you shoot 24p, which will clearly give you a look more suitable to narrative horror story (unless it's a Blair Witch must look like video live news thing), and will give you much higher quality at the DVD and compositing stages (24 frames vs 60 fields), make sure to do your homework well.

Check out the resources here in the many threads discussing how to best shoot, edit and output 24p. And if you are going to film (or probably), it's mandatory to talk to a film house or five that already has experience in taking 24p progessive video to film before you make a single production decision.

For any interested... I've put up a ZIP file with a couple of MPEG2 encoded clips inside. These clips are encoded from the same source footage using exactly the same perimeters with the exception of one being converted for 24p DVD authoring and the other for 30i DVD authoring.

They a just short clips produce by ICExpo showing a girl talking. They where shot using Panasonic's anamorphic adapter in 24pa. I converted the footage to 24p and for the 24p DVD clip, and used the unconverted file for the 30i encodes.

Click here (http://www.4site-communications.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=3) and then click on "24p .vs 30i DVD" on the website's page.

Note: This was posted in another forum where some discussion about 24p and the reality of 24p DVD authoring was being discussed. Since I've been doing 24p DVD's for many months now, I thought I'd post some simple footage converted from ICExpo's anamorphic talking clip he made awhile back for some to look at, and since it was done with the DVX100 and Panasonic's anamorphic adapter, I thought I'd post here for any interested as well.

-Rodger

Roger, would you post a link to the other forum discussion? I'd like to read it.

Someone posted the lux value for the DVX100 when in 24p mode over in the JVC HD list.

Can this be reposted here -- and your source.

I remember 24lux.

Thank you.

Joseph George posted 24 lux on june 23. Others posted 100 lux...
Like I remarked a couple of months ago, the camera sensitivity specs as mentioned in the spec sheet are, apart from the missing S/N figure, not consistent : F11/2000 lux doesn't corelate with f1.6/3 lux /+18db/ 50 IRE. If we considder p and i modes (both in full dutycycle) equivalent w.r.t. the sensitivity spec (which is pretty close) then we get 42.3 lux calculating from the F11 spec. Calculating from the F1.6/...spec, we get 120 lux for ful video (remember 50IRE is ~ 20 % light level!)

Whoops, too fast for me.

The F11/2000-lux is at 0dB gain?

So, simply opening the iris to f1.6 (4+ stops) drops the lux from 2000 to 125/100 -- which makes sense to me.

Where then does the DVX100's 24p, 24-lux value come from?

IF the F11/2000 were at 100IRE (which I think is true) then the lux would be 50 at 50IRE. (No gain in 24p mode.)

However, my understanding is that in the USA the lux standard WHEN ONE DOES NOT use a "F??/????-lux" PRO specification, is only 25IRE. If I'm corrrect, then the lux rating would drop to 25 at the CONSUMER 25IRE standard. (Again, no gain in 24p mode.)

Now if the DVX100 sensitivity is 25-lux (for 25IRE) with NO gain -- then with 18dB gain, could it be 3-lux?

I ask the questions because I always forget how to do the math with dB?


Since the JVC HD10 35lux is rated in Japan, where the Consumer standard is 50IRE, its USA consumer rating would be 18-lux. Of course, that's with +6DB gain. Which means it's actually slightly more sensitive than the DVX100 IF you enable AGC.

Without +6dB gain, it would be either 36-lux or 72-lux. Math with dBs???

Comments please!

- F11/2000 lux is indeed at ref gain (="no gain") for 100 IRE video from a 2000 lux illuminated white target having ~90% lambertian reflectivity. This spec goes normally together with a S/N ratio, otherwise it doesn't make too much sense... If S/N ratio is not an issue, every cam can be made (by internally adjusting the ref gain) to get this figure.
- Yes 2000 has to be divided by (11/1.6)^2= 47... equals 42,...lux as ilumination level on the white target for getting 100 IRE video (noise??)
- The 24 lux starts (wrongly) from the 3lux spec by simply setting the 18db gain (specified at 3lux) to zero. 18 db means 8 times so the (wrong) lux value is then 3*8=24lux.
- the 50 IRE level (which goes together with the low level spec)has not been taken into account in the 24 lux statement. Video signals are being gamma corrected (~2,..) and this makes that 50 IRE corresponds to 20% initial signal level or equivalent lux level. Lux and IRE are only related through a (non linear) gamma function. So Steve 100 IRE at f11/2000lux will not result in 50 IRE @1000 lux, but at ~400 lux.
- Taking all this into account and do a bottom-up calculation (=starting from 3lux/18db/50IRE) we end up in 120 lux for full video signal at "no gain". Both calculations should give exactly the same results which proves that one of the specs is wrong like I reported several months ago...

can someone post a time laps they have shot using the dvx100 in 24p. or just some outdoor footage.
Thank

Here's a thread of some time lapse stuff I did with the DVX100.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7810&highlight=time+lapse

Russell

Can you write downthe steps on how you put that into premier? THAT WOULD BE GREAT. Do you like you dvx100 a lot? is the camera hard to use at first. I'm use to sonys. but i want a dvx100 so bad.

Can anyone recommend a good DVD-R/RW that works good with Vegas Video and the DVX100?

Getting ready to buy one and don't want to make a mastake!

I've used it a couple of times for simple DVDs so far but my Sony 500ULX works fine (external firewire).

I also have good results with the external Sony 500ULX in combination with Vegas 4/DVD-Architect, although my footage isn't coming from the DVX100.
The dvd+r and dvd-r disks burned with it, can both be played on my old Sony set-top dvd-player (although I had to de-calibrate the set-top player to achieve this; current set-top player models handle dvd-recordable disks much better).

I just used Premiere's Stop Motion feature that allows you to capture in Time Lapse mode. Premiere's Time Lapse setting allows you to capture x amount of frames per minute, per hour or per day.

Then, I just played the video through firewire and started capturing based on whatever settings I wanted to use.

Russell

Does anyone know any info on a 24p camera coming out from sony?

Other than the new CineAlta 2, nope. You might have better luck in the Sony forums...