Has anyone seen a direct comparison between the picture/video from a DVX100 versus that of 16mm film?

Search Duart in this forum for the thread.

Search for the ACS review of the DVX100 on Google. They did direct comparison of the DVX100 to 16mm and 35mm. Unfortunately, it makes the DVX100 look very bad. But I guess that's expected.

I thought the ACS review was pretty fair. I thought it did not make the DVX100 look "bad".

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm

Here's a quote:

"We were all amazed by how good the DVX100 footage looked. The images were very sharp ? not quite as sharp as 16mm, but still very crisp. "

I'm not sure where you read "bad" in that statement...

a one third CCD camera image compared to 16mm or 35mm for that matter with any amount of interest? The fact that this cam has been taken seriously enough to do so is a sign that it is comparable.

Stephen, great article, exactly what I was looking for They treated it very fairly, and if anything, made the DVX100 look good, not bad.

Too bad they don't have any video of the clips they took.

Very interesting point they make, about it costing almost the same to deliver a film to a theatrical 35mm print, whether it was shot in 35mm, 16mm, or miniDV! The only benefit the DVX100 delivers in that case, is that you don't have to pay the $80,000 up front.

I think I may try and get my hands on one of these cameras in Vancouver and demo it.

It does look bad when compared to film. Trust me.

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

Those are pictures on a web-site. The pictures in the magazine look better, plus I trust the ASC reviewers who shot and reviewed the original footage.

Additionally, I have shot 16mm myself and own a DVX100. It's the closest thing to 16mm in mini-DV. It's not 16mm, but it's the closest thing.

Anything with a 4:1:1 color space has a tiny fraction of the color information of 16mm or 35mm film. Nevertheless some very good looking footage is being transfered from DV to film. Does it look as good as film? Maybe not. Does it look good? Yes.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : Those are pictures on a web-site. The pictures in the magazine look better, plus I trust the ASC reviewers who shot and reviewed the original footage.

Additionally, I have shot 16mm myself and own a DVX100. It's the closest thing to 16mm in mini-DV. It's not 16mm, but it's the closest thing. -->>>


What are you talking about!?!?! those are the pictures from the ASC review!! you think someone made up these fake ones!?! if anything, the website version of the pics you saw in the magazine would be more representative of what the original frames looked like. Who knows how many layers of processing they've done to those pics in the magazine before printing.

The photos on the web are jpg 500 X 338 at 96dpi, compressed to 51Kb.

The photo's the magazine are probably uncompressed TIFF's printed at 133 line screen, probably scanned at at least 300 dpi. They would be converted to CMYK, but that only affects color mix, not sharpeness, contrast etc.

We don't even know how they made the screen grabs - the better source is the eyes of the professionals doing the reviews. The DVX100 frames might be a quick print-screen out of software and the film frames scanned on a high-end scanner.

Did you even see the pictures in the magazine? Do you you own a DVX100? Have you shot 16mm?

Why do you think you value judgements of the pics carries more weight that ASC reviewers?

Look at the pics and make your own judgement. "These frames have not been corrected, they are the from the original transfer/capture. The footage was captured in an Avid Symphony at 24p 1:1 (uncompressed NTSC) and then exported as TIFF. The TIFF files were then saved out as JPEG for posting." The image produced by the DVX100 looks good, but when compared to the other formats, it's obvious it's still far from film quality. That's all I'm saying.

Why do you think the reviewers gave the DVX100 a balanced, fair and favorable review and your conclusion is the review makes it look bad. If your conclusion is based only the web jpg's, while you are entitled to your opinion, it's hardly one that will carry much weight with me.

I think that the only thing that makes the DVX100 look bad compared to the film grabs in the ASC case is that the film has a bunch more lattitude. Also it appears as though they had the pedistal on the DVX set at a higher setting, since the scene looks a little bit milked out. Frankly I find the comparison apples to oranges, since the film in order to be seen on a computer screen HAD to be color corrected through a telecine, especially to bring in all that dynamic range to something that you can view on the computer. So in that case, I think it would only be fair if the DVX100 also had a color correction pass on it in uncompressed space. I think when you take the DVX, and crush the blacks a little bit to give it a richer look, it starts to look very close to the other film stocks, minus the higher lattitude in the highlights that the film stocks have. JMHO.

Jason Rodriguez

The really interesting thing, once again, is the cost comparison. Getting the transfer BACK to film is going to wind up being close to starting with film.

That's a very important consideration for an indy film maker. Depending on the resouces available, it might be better in the long run to shoot film. I know the low cost cameras and cheap tape stock and desktop editing has put the technology in practically everyone's hands. ANd thats a GOOD thing.

But when you start to consider a feature length project, that will WIN competitions, get some legs, make some money... You have to start pouring in the same sort of resources, to get the same "looK'. (Crew, lighting, actors, locations, costumes... etc. It all adds up to production value.)

Tapestock/ filmstock, camera tental, film transfer, telecine... A lot of indy's simply assume that it will be cheaper to go digital all the way.

All I am saying, is that may not automatically be the case... and it's always worth working a serious budget around film (At least super 16) as well as DV. Once the numbers are in hand, then make the best decision.

Of course, this also assumes that the filmmaker is equally at home in film as video.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : Why do you think the reviewers gave the DVX100 a balanced, fair and favorable review and your conclusion is the review makes it look bad. If your conclusion is based only the web jpg's, while you are entitled to your opinion, it's hardly one that will carry much weight with me. -->>>

Read my post before you responde Stephen, I said it looks good by itself, but compared to film it doesn't measure up. How can you even expect this 4:1:1 miniDV cam to hold up to film!?!

"How can you even expect this 4:1:1 miniDV cam to hold up to film"

everybody compares these hand size DV pro consumer camera's to FILM ... IMO the most limiting factor for DV and ALL video is the NTSC /PAL format itself. 4:1:1 , 4:2:2 are both limited by NTSC/PAL.. you can't get any more then X lines of resolution ( limitation of NTSC/PAL ) ... so why do so many settle for this limitation ( 525 lines resolution ) when they plan to take it to the BIG screen ( where 2000 lines is what they really want) ?

from looking at the photo comparisions i do have to admit that the DVX 100 gives you the most bang for your $$ ...

also i just read in todays paper that the landmark thearter chain will be installing digital projectors into ALL their theaters ... landmark also has a distribution arm that picks up independent projects = no film print to play in their chain.

I've seen the DVX100 blown up to 35mm with my own eyes, and it does come close to 16mm.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7879&highlight=DVX100+Blowup+to+35mm

Now if they had posted the original TIFF images....

well both the DVX100 images and the Film caps were all encoded by JPEG so the same amount of degradation would be applied to both. I doubt the ASC ppl purposely degraded the DVX100 caps to make it look bad

That is not what I meant. I just would have liked to take a look
at the uncompressed TIFF's to better judge the difference. I'm
not saying that they did a different compression on one or the
other....

http://www.ywenzstudios.com/PanaEZ30cap.jpg

Here is an unmodifed snapshot of a video shot with the PanaEZ30 that I was talking about earlier. Just to show how far an image can go with some in-camera adjust ment. This setting would look much much nicer on the DVX100. The girl came out a little bit dark because she was sitting in the shadow.

If i can had my modest contribution, this is what can be done with the XM2 (Gl2):

http://marc5532b.free.fr/file/choupette2.jpg

This is the raw picture with no correction.
Taken with zoom in tape mode, interlaced (not a photo)

Nice ... cat.. Marc!

Wow, that's great cat!

i want to hear it meow, please post audio as well!

i want to hear it meow, please post audio as well!
I have 4 cats and this is the only one that don't miaow ! But it can do ron-ron:
http://marc5532b.free.fr/choupette.mp3

If you want to hear miaow, there's "Diablotin"
Look: http://marc5532b.free.fr/diablotin5.jpg
and hear: http://marc5532b.free.fr/diablotin.mp3

So, I guess know we are officially off-topic.

That is a good looking cat.

Another great cat!

Did you edit together all those miaows or were you squeezing the poor thing?

That purr sound is amazing. It sounds like an alien signal.

Now that you've brought it up, lets hear some alien signals!

This had me rolling on the floor... Very funny! But we are getting
a bit off-topic indeed..... Lets get back, shall we?