DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic DVX / DVC Assistant (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/)
-   -   And finally... the dvx100 arrives and... what the hell is this? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/8037-finally-dvx100-arrives-what-hell.html)

Miguel Lopez March 25th, 2003 05:56 PM

And finally... the dvx100 arrives and... what the hell is this?
 
I selled my Xl1.
I paid for a DVX100E (PAL version).
I waited 12 days.
And i recieve it this morning...

What is THIS? Is this for what i paid almost 4200€? Well, it certainly has to beat the competence i things like image quality, because in structure and design it is the worst thing i have seen in my life. It is ALL plastic. And not good plastic, but the cheapest in the wrold. It almost looks like a kids camera!!!!

Ok. I take a look on the camera and i play a little. I plug it into my computer and i say "wow!"! Image is superb. The quality is great.
That is in the computer.

But then i plug into the TV and "buarfff". Image is not as good as expected. There is a little noise (gain at 0 dB), the red color is not too good, the whites are dirty... It is not the image i was expecting after watching it in the computer.


So in this first message after having the camera i have to say that i feel a little dissapointed. 4200 € is a lot of money for a plastic camera. It doesnt look any hard to me. It looks very fragile.

I hope Canon will make a new version of the XM3 or XL2 with progressive CCDs and more resolution. The body shell of Canon is much better. The AE modes are incredibly fast to use (as a Reflex camera). When the time arrives i will sell the panasoni i think.


Well, not everythjing is bad. I liked the focus ring more than in XL1. the macro lenses is great also. THe focus ring again looks fragile (it moves!) argggg, still, i am remebering the xl1 lenses and ther were much better constructed!!!!!! Quality is an issue that panasonic has to improve. ANd you people could have mentioned it!

Frank Granovski March 25th, 2003 06:31 PM

I did mention this quite some time ago here:

http://www.dvfreak.com/links.htm

(in the news section)


But one thing I do like about the puffed-plastic TM, is that it is light and very well balanced, making it easy to hold with 1 hand---unlike the XL1(S).

Miguel Lopez March 25th, 2003 06:37 PM

Yep, you mention it, but i didn´t know your site.
Anyway, i need a 25p, otherwise i would not have selled the XL1.

But right now, i think there is nothing like the GL2 (XM2 is the name here, in Europe) in terms of quality, price, and image quality.

Frank Granovski March 25th, 2003 06:49 PM

The PAL DVX100 has a 25P mode. In terms of resolution/image quality, the DVX100 is better than the XM2 and XL1S.

Miguel Lopez March 25th, 2003 06:52 PM

Yes, my new dvx100 E is better in image quality, but if you are not using 25p, i think XM2 is the best choice. it costs the half price of XL1s, Sonys vx and panasonic dvx100, ans still has a really great quality.

That is what i think right now.

Frank Granovski March 25th, 2003 06:57 PM

Well, for price, the GL2/XM2, MX500 and TRV950/10 are great 3 chip hand-helds. But overall, the GL2/XM2 gives you the most, I think.

Miguel Lopez March 25th, 2003 07:01 PM

Tell 3 important things that you cannot do with XM2 and you can with XL1 or vx2000 (no exchangable lenses, so what, XM2 lense is much more wide than xl1).

The CCDs should be the same for XL and Xm, rigth?

Frank Granovski March 25th, 2003 08:02 PM

The XM2 has higher resolution than the XL1/s, but lux requirements are lower with the XL1/s and VX2000.

Where the PDX10 and MX500 shine is with their high resolution and "true" higher resolution 16:9.

All these cams mentioned are good, though the question is, in which way? One just has to pick the cam with the features he or she needs. For example, for lots of optical zoom, the XM2 would be the one. 16:9? PDX10 and MX500. For high resolution: DVX100, PDX10 and MX500.

Bjørn Sørensen March 26th, 2003 01:41 AM

Interesting! I am just in the middle of choosing XM2 or DVX100.

I have rent the XM2 a couple of times and like the picture quality but think it looks like an amateur cam - really plastic!.

I have not tried DVX100 but it looks more like a professional cam (and that means something if you shoot commercial videos on location ! ? )

Besides then its audio quality should be a lot (?) better and the wideangle lens more wide.. and then there is the higher resolution and the 25p mode.

So if you buy a Canon XM2 and a quality XLR audio adapter (Beachtek etc.), a WD-58 wide angle converter and eventually a matte box (to make it look just a little more professional), the difference in price up to DVX-100 is not much.

Maybe I should rent the DVX100 a few days before buying...!

Bjorn

Miguel Lopez March 26th, 2003 05:29 AM

MMM, it is true about the XLR inputs, but i can tell you that the XM2 looks the same than the DVX100 except when you touch it and feel the plastic in the dvx.

What is the equivalent to 35mm lenses in the XM2? I think it is pretty wide also.

And for the sound also, i don understand why it has to be set in manual mode always.

Definetely, the canon "way of shooting" is much more efficient.

Davi Dortas March 26th, 2003 09:41 AM

people develop tunnel vision whenever a new product rolls out as highly anticipated as the dvx100. I was put off by the plastic construction of this camera when you compare the quality construction of the pd150, there is no reason to have such a low quality build.

the dxv100 is highly revolutionary as a 24P mass market camera, however it also has some very big flaws, ie. plastiky construction, no gain, no AF, no audio monitoring levels, low-res lcd and awful viewfinder resolution, flakey audio level knobs, noisy image, poor low light gain in 60i, and for me, blocky artifacts that has made me wonder about the quality of Panasonic products.

When we take off our rose coloured glasses for a moment, we realize the dvx100 is not that great of a camera. I for one, no longer have a fascination with this camera. Granted it produces nice images,

Patrick Bower March 26th, 2003 12:48 PM

If you think the image is better on the computer than on the TV, maybe a limiting factor is the S-VGA analogue output on the camera. I would be very interested to know what the component output of the video looks like on a TV screen. I have a very good quality PAL TV. Playing the camera back through the TV, the picture looks soft. The same video, converted to MPEG and burnt to DVD, actually looks more detailed, and that's without any deliberate detail enhancement. While it's obviously not up to studio broadcast quality, it's actually better than quite a lot of broadcast footage, even from the BBC. Maybe what you lose on the MPEG conversion, you gain on using RGB output from the DVD player to the TV.
Patrick

Miguel Lopez March 26th, 2003 12:52 PM

Ummm, i don understand you.

The camera has this outputs:
- S-video (Y/C)
- RCA
- Firewire

A typical DVD player has:
- S-video (Y/C)
- RCA
- Scart/EuroAV

If your DVD player has component output that must be a proffesional thing. And i do not know any TV that supports component video input (perhaps one of those ultra plasma screens of 9.000 €).

Patrick Bower March 26th, 2003 01:18 PM

In the UK most new DVD players have RGB output, and TVs have RGB input. I have just tried watching the same DVD using the S-VGA connection instead, and the quality goes down a lot. As one would expect, the DVD copy then looks worse than the original DV tape played back through the TV.

Patrick

Miguel Lopez March 26th, 2003 01:24 PM

how is a RGB input? any pictures?

Patrick Bower March 26th, 2003 01:28 PM

There are some explanations here:

http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/VideoConnectors/VideoConnectors.asp

I am actually using SCART connectors, but both the DVD and the TV have menu options to set the ouput and input to RGB or S-VGA.

Patrick

Juan Trujillo March 26th, 2003 03:00 PM

...
 
Miguel, 'component' output is what we call Eurconector, but with RGB transmission. I've got a 20000 pesetas DVD player and a SABA 25" TV. The DVD outputs component image (far superior to S-VHS one) and the first 'euroconector' on the TV accepts this (but not the second). To see properly your filmings on tv you should need an expensive RGB out trough your computer.

Is it the image very good on your PC? Better than XM2?
Could you please post some screencaps?

Do you realise that your camera's software has to be 1.08 or higher? If not, you have to upgrade it, in order to capture image properly vía firewire (there's one field delay in 'old' PAL DVX-100E).

I'd love to see those caps (and clips, if possible).

Best regards from Salamanca.

Boyd Ostroff March 26th, 2003 03:17 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Miguel Lopez : If your DVD player has component output that must be a proffesional thing. And i do not know any TV that supports component video input

Here in the US most new DVD players have component output and new TV's have component inputs. This is even true for the lower priced models (DVD players in the $100 price range and TV's in the $200 range). Along these lines, I wonder when the "prosumer" camcorders will start offering this feature?

Miguel Lopez March 26th, 2003 04:29 PM

It is good to know new things. I did not know there were DVDs an TVs with component I/O.


And Juan, if you give your email i can write you in spanish for better explanations.

And yep, the software of my camera is 1.08. I just looked this afternoon.

The image in the PC is really incredible. As good as the better digital still cameras. I had a Canon XL1 until last week, and i must say that it is much better in quality issues.

I am going to upload some stills and videos in another post. ;-)

Greg Matty April 27th, 2003 10:02 PM

Ditto all the negative comments made about the DVX-100. I am not impressed. You sure don't get a whole lot for 400,000+ pixels per CCD. I read so many glowing reviews and I must have missed all the ones that pointed out the issues myself and Miguel have with this camera.

What really bites is that I am stuck with it for some time since I can't afford to lose money on it by selling it right now. I hope the audio is as good as everyone says it is, that will help some.

Greg Matty

Patrick Bower April 28th, 2003 05:33 PM

A shame you're disappointed with the video quality. Is that when viewing AVI files on computer screen, or using RGB or component video input on TV? If you are judging the S-VHS output from the camera, you are seeing a significantly degraded version of what the camera has recorded. Even in interlaced mode.
I think the audio excellent. I have used it to record an amateur symphony orchestra, with a Rode NT4 stereo microphone. Despite needing a huge dynamic range, there is no audible hiss on the recording. As I recall, the off camera sound quality is pretty close to the sound off the mixer feed.
I have also used it to record a birthday celebration in a restaurant, with no additonal lighting. I just needed 6dB of gain, and there is very little graininess in the video.
I bought the DVX100 because I wanted low light performance comparable to the VX2000, XLR inputs and good enought audio quality so I didn't have to make dual system recordings for music. The DVX100 is the cheapest camera do do all that. Maybe it's not as durable as the PD150. Time will tell.

Dylan Couper April 28th, 2003 05:59 PM

I think all cameras should be judged by the picture and sound they have produced when depleted down to lowly VHS level, since that's probably where 98% of everything shot on video cameras ends up.

Greg Matty April 29th, 2003 08:03 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Patrick Bower : A shame you're disappointed with the video quality. Is that when viewing AVI files on computer screen, or using RGB or component video input on TV? If you are judging the S-VHS output from the camera, you are seeing a significantly degraded version of what the camera has recorded. Even in interlaced mode.
I think the audio excellent. I have used it to record an amateur symphony orchestra, with a Rode NT4 stereo microphone. Despite needing a huge dynamic range, there is no audible hiss on the recording. As I recall, the off camera sound quality is pretty close to the sound off the mixer feed.
I have also used it to record a birthday celebration in a restaurant, with no additonal lighting. I just needed 6dB of gain, and there is very little graininess in the video.
I bought the DVX100 because I wanted low light performance comparable to the VX2000, XLR inputs and good enought audio quality so I didn't have to make dual system recordings for music. The DVX100 is the cheapest camera do do all that. Maybe it's not as durable as the PD150. Time will tell. -->>>

My first post was a little harsh. Maybe one reason I am disappointed is because what I see as a flaw is just the DV codec and not the camera? Areas of high contrast leave a lot to be desired and I know that is more DV than anything else. Maybe I did not notice this with my XL-1 since the image is softer?

All preview tests are being done via S-VHS viewed on a Sony NTSC monitor. I read the posts about how much better the video should look using component video. Are you guys sure that is the case? I will put money on the claim that going from S-VHS to component is no where near as big a jump as going from composite to S-VHS. Unfortunately, my DV deck does not have component out. Maybe it is time for a DSR-11?

I have been using FCP for three years and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, who uses FCP knows for certain that video on your CRT monitor or LCD is MUCH lower in quality than what you see on the NTSC monitor. In fact, when someone complains about how bad video looks, the first response is alway, "Are you viewing it on your computer screen or an NTSC monitor?" Then again, that is seen through firewire. On the third hand, doing an A-B comparison with XL-1 and DVX footage should still work if they are both going through S-VHS.

I've beaten that topic to death and will finally get a chance to do more testing this afternoon at a motorcycle shop. I have been riding dirt bikes since I was twelve and I know what the various components look like. That make it easy to judge picture quality.

As mentioned, I was a little too harsh in my first post and most of that comes from an unrealistic expectation of what any $3,500 3CCD camera can do. That is one thing I learned from dirt biking. If one manufacturers 250cc MX bike doesn't have enough power, none of the other 250cc bikes will either. Get an open classer.

Greg Matty

Boyd Ostroff April 29th, 2003 08:51 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Matty : have been using FCP for three years and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, who uses FCP knows for certain that video on your CRT monitor or LCD is MUCH lower in quality than what you see on the NTSC monitor. -->>>

Well that has more to do with the way that FCP generates its previews than it does with the quality of the computer monitor. If you have a second monitor hooked up to your mac, set it to 720x480 resolution. You can use the the "calibrate" option in the monitors control panel to set the gamma closer to the level of an NTSC monitor. You could even try to calibrate it with color bars (see http://www.videouniversity.com/tvbars2.htm). Now take the actual quicktime file that you captured in FCP and open it in Quicktime Pro. Under the movie properties, select the video track and enable high quality playback. Then play your file in full screen mode.You get a pretty clean looking image if you try all this, one that looks much better than the FCP previews.

Now I don't know anything about the DVX100 and don't have an opinion on this debate. I just wanted to point out that there is a way to view a quicktime clip on your computer screen in a high quality fashion which is 100% digital. Also, I saw a very clear demonstration of the shortcomings of S-video awhile ago. We were experimenting with a big 12,000 lumen DLP projector on a 40' wide screen. When we used the s-video output from my PowerBook to drive the projector it looked OK, but when we tried the same thing with the VGA output the difference was striking; the colors were much richer and the whole image was was sharper. FWIW, we were viewing QuickTime files using the technique described above.

David Slingerland May 7th, 2003 07:15 AM

can anybody tell me how the 25p technology works ? is it the same like its bigger brother the AJ-SDX 900? i know the bigger camera uses dvc-pro.

thanks,


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network