..Said her middle name was "Sonic" last name DVX100. Said her friends called her 24p for short. Man, I checked her out and I thought about all the fun we'd have. Long walks on the beach, clubbing on the Division strip in Chi-Town, just all the things we'd do together. It was love at first sight.

I went to SMS today to check out the GL2 and low and behold, guess what I saw on a tripod staring at me. I couldn't check it out as long as I wanted because I didn't have an appointment (but he knew me from other purchases I made through him) but I did get to play with this cam for a while. Guys, I love it. Those who say it's just like Canon's Frame mode have to be looking at some other cam, 24p is totally sick. They had it plugged up to the monitor so I could see exactly what was up. I mean that cam made me want it. I did pans, tilts and zooms. The Manual focus does feel a bit loose but handles well and it isn't as strobey (is that a word) as framemode seems to be with camera moves. You can get very good movements with it. (I guess if you want to get that strobey look I'm sure you could). I did a few martial arts type moves in front of it and they looked totally nice. The wide angle lens tops it off. For my needs it's the perfect cam.

Now the big question, does it look like film? What most indy filmmakers consider "filmlook" this cam has it. You can throw away Cinelook and all that stuff (although I wouldn't throw away magic bullet, it just has too many cool features). Forget about long rendering times with filmlook software, this is the one. Think about it, you buy an XL1s plus Magic Bullet that's $4000 right there. Even a GL2 or VX2000 and MB is a little over $3000 why not add a couple more hundred bucks and get this cam from Zotz. I put that sucker in 24p (normal) and was already taking cinematic type images in the store (with camera store lighting mind you), I can only imagine what the cine gamma and all will do. Is it a some kind of breakthrough cam? It is for us microbudget filmmakers. All I need to do is get my money and be off. This is the one for me. And check this, you can see the black bars as you shoot in 16:9 on the monitor. I know some other cams do this but it's so cool to see. You get your framing down and you see exactly what you're shooting. Everyone interested in a getting cinematic images with video should check out this cam.

-Vinson

I met a gal named DVX100 too. But she was a mail order bride. I didn't even get to see her before we were hitched!

Tonight's my first night with the gal, and let me tell you... She everything I thought she was! In fact, it was love at first sight.

Well, I'm off now on my honeymoon. I'll tell you all how things turn out...

So far, I expect to be with her for the long hall. ;)

I'll be waiting. Give me all the details.
-Vinson

You guys need girlfriends.

LOL

How do you know that your DVX100 isn't the same for both of you? Sounds like someone is cheating around....

In any case, give us an indepth review - of the cameras, not any girlfriends unless what Frank said was right?? ;)

It is a great camera for DV filmmakers. If you don't presently have a camera and are in the market for one it should be at the top of your list. However, it does have a serious drawback. The DVX100 produces a color artifact in high contrast scenes. It is an offset color, produced where there are high transients (sharp edge between white and black) in a scene. It usually appears as purple, pink or green.

I have a client who owns one and has started doing serious testing with the camera. He's produced the color artifact and is going to call his lab to get a quote on fixing it before transfer to film. Magic bullet may be looking better. Hundreds of hours of rendering or thousands of dollars fixing an artifact.

Does this color artifact mean the DVX100 is no good? Hardly, again it is a great camera for DV filmmakers. But it does have it's set of problems. If your work doesn't go to film then the artifact may not be such a big deal. But be aware it will still be there in your VHS and DVD copies. If you already own a Sony PD150 or XL1S I would not trade on a DVX100 either. I would look at Magic Bullet as a more cost effective alternative to achieving the same (or better) ends. Unless you just need a new toy.

The Holy Grail for DV filmmakers? No way. Great camera for people just starting or purchasing first serious camera? You bet, should be at the top of your list. But there are several great alternatives. Choose wisely.

Jeff

Jeff,
Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be the alternatives to the Panny 24p?

Thanks, Nick

He's probably talking about the GL2, XL1s or VX2K cams. I can vouch for the GL2 although I didn't have as much fun with it nor did it get me as excited about it's image but the image over all is good.

-Vinson

I have done some unofficial testing with my DVX with a printed out resolution test chart. This was done in poor lighting, but I had to see how much better it was "resolution-wise" vs. a GL1 in the same light conditions.

I would post pics of the test, but they are pretty embarassing conditions that I shot in. ( I plan to test under studio lighting in the next few days. )

Anyway, from these tests, all I could say was HOLY @#@#! The DVX resolves way more resolution than a GL1, especially in THIN mode.

Everyone has different needs when it comes to choosing the tools for our trade. But all too often people become emotional about equipment (merely tools) and loose sight of the issues at hand. Respect the fact that not everyone wants or needs a film look. Many industrial and commercial productions want the look video has. Enough said.

The DVX100 is the hot indi filmmaker camera today. Tomorrow, who knows. I shoot for many different types of clients. Some are wanting a film look and are considering the DVX100. Why? The 24p with the cine gamma, 24 fps motion etc will give them an image closer to film then they can presently achieve with VX2000, PD150 or XL1S. I have other clients selling products, producing safety/training tapes and they are unimpressed with the look. They want a harder edge, higher contrast look. Their productions call for lens techniques and camera moves that don't lend well to 24p and a built in lens.

I own a XL1S with a manual lens. I just can't imagine pulling focus on the DVX100. Pans with it are also problematic because of the 24p. Some clients will be better served by use of the XL1S. Right tool for the job.

Are there other ways to achieve a film look? Yes, there are several plug ins and from my previous posts you can tell I'm a fan of Magic Bullet. The more I study and compare what MB has to offer, the more I'm convinced that it is an answer (right tool for the job) for many shooters and post houses. It enables me to have the best of both worlds and satisfy more clients.

I don't like surprise and my clients like them even less. There are still some bugs to be worked out of the DVX100. These bugs may be less critical to the filmmakers than the guy doing commercial, industrial, or corporate work. Color fringing is proving to be an issue that won't go away for some users. I have clients that would find the color artifact unacceptable, if a finished product were delivered containing it.

Noise from the AF motor is surfacing as an issue for some. Many users will use the mic off camera. However, for some (wedding and event videographers) this will require a solution. Hopefully Light Wave (or some other vendor) will come forward with a solution, like they did for the XL1.

I would look at the XL1S, Sony PD150 and VX2000 along with the DVX100 (sorry GL1 need not apply). Depending on my intended use and clients each has strong points and weaknesses. What would it take to make me give up the XL1S? I'd want 16:9 for sure and a 24p option would be nice. Interchangeable lenses would be nice, but full manual control and design are necessary.

Jeff

It doesn't just shoot 24p though. It shoots 30p and 60i also if that suits your fancy.

Plus, this camera has more control over the image than any of those other prosumer cams. Even in everyone's favorite 60i mode.

Personally, I don't shoot 60i. I hate interlaced video. Prior to the DVX, all of my productions were in 30p. (Not that Canon cameras "frame mode" really deserve that title.) Also, the DVX HAS manual controls. And pulling focus is possible, just a little different than normal manual lenses. You just have to use the camera based numbering system.

You know what, from just a few hours of testing, this camera completely blows away Canon cameras in terms of sharpness and image lattiude. (Note: I have not tested the GL2 yet) And all of the image controls are quite nice. I'm a tweaker. With the DVX, I'm in tweaker heaven.

As for Sony cameras. I like them. I like their build quailty and such, but the lack of a useable progressive mode is the reason I have never bought one of there prosumer cameras.

Regarding Magic Bullet. I actually plan to test the program soon. It looks great. I will probably buy it and use it with my DVX. I'm sure I will be able to tweak my footage even further...

Finally, color fringing and AF noise. I DON'T use AF, ever, so this is a non issue to me. (not even allowed to anymore in progressive)

I plan to look into the color fringing more. It seems that it happens more with Backlit, high-contrast objects than anything else. I'm hoping that an 85b filter will fix it, if not... I'm sure there will be someing to dampen it. Personally, I have not really seen it yet, so I will report back after more testing.


Actually, I'm hoping that more people will not use the progressive modes due to there lack of AUTO features. That way, some of my DVX footage will still look unique.

-Mark Nicholson
(Leader - Cult of the DVX100 ;) )

Am I too emotional about my cameras? Yes, I'll admit it is true. DO I hate other cameras like Canons? No! In fact I was about ready to purchase a PAL XL1s when the DVX was announced. Honestly, I am SO glad I waited.

Just to be a little different.

A place here in melbourne australia got a dvx NTSC in just for testing and to sell off a client who does work here and in the USA.

So we sat it down next to a PAL xl1s, and the PAL kinda blew it away for colour rendition and sharpness. Both in 25fps frame mode and 50i. These were of course compared to the modes applicable in the NTSC dvx.

I was feeling so down about buying the xl1s after this emerged, but i am happy with my choice now.

BTW these were side to side tests on professionally setup and sync'ed sony broadcast monitors, except one was setup for ntsc and the other for pal. Saw them set it up myself.

I dunno about Holy grail, but the dvx did blow away all the consumer stuff there, even considering it is ntsc.

kerm

Kermie,
When you ran your tests, what settings did you have the DVX on? I know that cine-gamma at first appearance seems to dull the colors, but it is really retaining information in the blacks and whites that would be blown out otherwise. Just shoot a Macbeth colorchart after you white balance and if you color correct in post (say for example Final Cut Pro), all you do is use the 3-way color corrector with the black and white from the color chart and voila, the colors pop out! There was a post over at 2pop regarding this as well:

http://www.24p.com/AGDVX100.htm

Oh, and Artstar, get this camera! I can tell from the amount of posts you write about this camera that if you get anything else, you will be thinking "what if I would have just saved up a little more money and got the DVX..." for the rest of your life (or at least the next couple years anyways)! If you have the money for Magic Bullet (which is hella slow rendering by the way), then you have money for this camera. Get on it!!!

pooprobot, we used a variety of modes... I didn't think the dvx was bad at all, infact it was one of the best NTSC cams i have ever seen, in that price range, but it couldn't touch the PAL stuff.

Nothing looked dull to me, it all looked nice. With the PAL running at almost the same frame rate i could not see a difference in the movement of people or pan/tilt, and the more uniform colour of the pal sorta evened out any gamma tweeks i could perform with the dvx. It is also easy to tweek gamma, and curves in the camera or in post, which kind of negates the need of the dvx, not ntsc land i think it would be great, but here it will be of very little difference, nearly all the cams here have the 'film-like' frame rate, whether on cam, or done in post and it comes down to a question of which brand you like then.

kermie

Kermie,
Whoops, I failed to notice earlier that you were comparing the DVX to a PAL
XL1S. As a broadcasting standard in general, PAL definitely looks better than NTSC, I agree

Actually, I'd like to see those stills from the PAL XL1s in FRAME mode. I would think that any sharpness benefits of PAL would be negated in FRAME mode due to the 25% decrease in Vertical resolution in the Canon faux progressive mode.

Here is John Beale's resolution test chart. Looks at the DVX in 24p THIN!! http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/cats/cats.html

Too sad the DVX is limited by the NTSC 4:1:1 for colors.

Jeff,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. And, thanks to everyone else for their comments. There certainly is enough information to ponder.

Thanks again, Nick

The problem I have is converting the signal back to NTSC in post for out put. I like the fact that with the DVX cam does it all and all I have to have is the talent and editing set up. Keep in mind if you're going straight to DVD a lot of DVDs read pal too but this will have to be converted when going to video.

-Vinson