Posted by Mike Kujbida on 09/20/05 21:59

Doc, I asked my post house buddy to summarize his feelings about his DVX100A
vs. his BetaCam and here's what he had to say:

The Readers Digest Version: The prime issue with the DVX-100A seems to be
that if you are
monitoring the output through the composite video jack then you could be
screwed. The basic composite
output seems to be a simple mock-up output - I don't really have confidence
in it. For some reason, and I
have not checked to see how they actually generate that composite output
signal, it appears to be prone
to fluxuations in contrast and hue. It looks like a low res. output. As
well, the camera's rear viewfinder and
flip-out LCD monitor do not provide a picture as sharp as the black and
white CRTs you find on
professional cameras. Not a big deal but you may miss some small elements in
the details. I should say
here that unfortunately I am comparing it to our Sony D50WSL camera with
2/3" chips and a lens that
alone cost almost double the price of the entire DVX-100A camera.

The 24P on the DVX-100A looks great but I have had trouble making
the objects I am shooting
match from scene to scene even with the exact same lighting. The camera
seems to have absorb subtle
differences in the hue of objects or walls, almost automatically. I know
that sounds stupid but that is the
best way I can explain the differences in the 'look' of a scene from one to
another. This is an issue that I
have never have had with any other camera in the last 20 years. Again, I am
comparing the 100A to
cameras that cost a lot more and have 2/3" chips. Besides, the reason we own
a 100A is because our
other cameras do not have 24P.

For the money, the 100A is amazing. If they made a model that had a
better viewfinder, standard
focus and iris adjustments - I would pay extra for it!

Mike


doc wrote:
> thanks for the input Mike. yes it is Sony BetacamSP. does that make
> a difference? from what we view weekly, it looks pretty grainy
> actually. you say others say the quality of it is better than that
> of the DVX100A?
>
> also, any ideas why the color balance would go off if it was in auto?
> i'm assuming that they were in auto right?
>
> doc
>
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:3p5rpuF8pkqeU1@individual.net...
>> doc wrote:
>>> snip <
>>>
>>> the two cam's we've been considering are the panasonic dvx100a and
>>> the panasonic dvc60 both of which say 410,000 pixels 4:3 and 500
>>> lines of resolution. thus, shouldn't the picture be better than
>>> the betacams? or am i missing something? like a major ingredant in
>>> the comparison?
>>
>>
>>
>> Doc, are you talking BetaCam or BetaCamSP? This might account of the
>> lower
>> lines of res that you're quoting.
>>
>> I have a friend at a local post house who shoots with both the
>> DVX100a and a
>> BetaCamSP rig. His opinion, along with everyone else at his shop
>> (as well
>> as a majority of their clients), is that BetaCamSP just looks better.
>> All footage is dumped into either their Avid or FCP suites in
>> component mode
>> so there is no quality loss in the editing process.
>> He's also told me that the BetaCamSP unit holds colour balance much
>> better than the DVX100a. He can do a white balance on both cameras
>> and, after panning the shot slightly, the backgrounds on the
>> Panasonic will shift enough to be noticeable.
>>
>> Also, the only complaints I've heard about the sound quality on the
>> Sony HDV
>> cameras are over on the pro audio groups. Then again, these guys
>> have mic kits that cost far more than a Sony HDV camcorder :-)
>>
>> As far as the quality of the downsampled image (1080i HDV to 480i
>> SD), I have yet to read any complaints on the various Sony Vegas
>> forums. To the contrary, everyone has commented about how good it
>> looks in comparison to a
>> standard miniDV camcorder.
>> http://www.vasst.com/?v=HDV/hdvportalnew.htm is a decent site for
>> more HDV info. You may need to register to get access to some of
>> the info but it's free.
>>
>> Finally, there's a great multicam tool for Vegas called Excalibur
>> ($100) from http://www.jetdv.com/excalibur/multicam.php
>> There's an excellent article on how it was used to offline a 10
>> camera shoot
>> at http://tinyurl.com/6a74a
>>
>>
>> Mike

[Back to original message]