Posted by Pat Horridge on 12/23/19 11:27

Compare them after squishing the pictures into MPEG2 for DVD?
I'd be happier to up convert to higher spec format and compare there if you
want to see the difference (if any)
But if you want to make them look very similar then go the DVD route.
(presumably SD DVD not HD DVD)


"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:o4pYe.12947$iv5.4009@trndny03...
> hey thanks for that input. the project was appoved this morning and was
> funded this afternoon, however, although we like the 100A and for the most
> part are ready to move foward with them, we're going to go look at the
> DVC60 which has the same specs but is about $600 cheaper and more
> professional looking but with some less features. those comments kinda go
> along with my test run but then i didn't trust my run cause i had
> absolutely no idea what all the bells and whistles did (???) and all the
> pro shop did was hand me the cam and said "here enjoy and play with it as
> long as you like, just don't leave the lot with it" they were out in the
> country and thus i took it outside did some pans with moving cars and all
> kinds of stuff. gonna put that stuff on a DVD along with the goodies i
> capture tomorrow on the DVC60 and compare 'em
>
> doc
>
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:3pbf2iF9alrvU1@individual.net...
>> 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]