Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
PANASONIC AG-DVX:Panasonic AG-DVX ForumPanasonic HVX - HPXPanasonic Varicam

DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?

COW Forums : Panasonic AG-DVX100

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
iManDVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 5, 2004 at 4:06:52 pm

I use FCPHD and own a Sony DSR390P DVCAM camcorder. I have also got the Nattress film look plug-in filter set which converts my footage to 24P, the results are fantastic, well if you like that flickering look anyway.

My question is; if I like this look (which I sort of do) will buying a Panny DVX100 and shooting in 24P mode give me better results than I am getting?

I don't know a lot about this camera, but I suspect the 24P mode is simply an In-Camera effect (like solorize and fade-out etc). I know for a fact it is not doing anything mechanical (like a true 35mm film camera with revolving shutter blades and the like), is this true and if it is, why would anyone buy this camera and not just buy the cheaper (and just as good) plug in filters?

One more question (or rather statement), it seems to me that there is no substitute for the real thing (Panavision 35mm camera with it's true mechanical 24P), the equivalent electronic digital version (be it plug in filter or 24P Panny) just doesn't cut it really, the picture simply flickers around with a weird look, you don't get this when you go to the cinema.

Though I must admit, I shot a scene with 3 actors sitting around a campfire at night and the flames looked excellent compared to regular interlaced field mode, though panning shots simply look like there is a fault with the camera (kind of like that colour bleed drag, or light drag you used to get on older analogue equipment).

Your thoughts please...


Return to posts index

Noah KadnerRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 5, 2004 at 4:27:15 pm

The DVX is a lot more than some in-camera filter trick. It's actually 24 frame photography converted in camera to a 60i signal much the same way film is transferred to video in telecine. The Nattress filters do rock (Graeme is a great guy) but they do add a bunch of extra rendering time to the post process and all filters ultimately degrade original footage.

With the DVX your footage is ready to go right away with the cinema look baked in. It's up to you to decide whether you *need* to upgrade but rest assured the DVX is the most signifigant change to the video world since DV itself.

Noah



Return to posts index

iManRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 5, 2004 at 5:42:55 pm

Anyone else?

Also I felt the build quality of the Panny was a little on the plastic side, felt that some of the buttons and knobs could easily break off, compared to a Sony VX2000 for instance it seemed pretty poor?


Return to posts index


Daniel WeberRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 5, 2004 at 6:07:05 pm

You can't compare the image quality of the VX200 and the DVX100. The Panny blows it away.

I has someone ask me this same question, plug in vs. DVX100, just the other day. I told him that you should try to do as much in camera as possible to avoid having to do it in post. The less rendering the better. This approach will also make you a better DP.

I have shot with everything from a Sony 700A (HD), to a PD-150 and everything in between. Nothing can beat the DVX100 for the quality of its image vs. the cost of the camera. Nothing.

The only thing that I like better in SD is the SDX900, but you are talking 10x the price.

Try renting the camera for a few days and see if you like the camera.

Dan Weber


Return to posts index

iManRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 6, 2004 at 8:32:01 am

Thanks Dan, good comments. As I said my friend has one of these Panny's and I do like the image quality, how do you feel about the general build quality of this camera, I felt it was not as good as a VX2000?


Return to posts index

postal boyRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 6, 2004 at 10:01:07 pm

With regards to the image quality, usually the die-hard 24p people state that the DVX blows the sony away, but the sony people claim that they can match the DVX in picture quality. The argument usually goes:

Panny: You can tweak the image better in the DVX
Sony: You get a cleaner original image in the Sony for post-work
Panny: You get 24p with the DVX
Sony: With post filters I can produce an image that you can't tell wasn't 24p as well
Panny: why go through that process?
Sony: why not, if I can shoot a cleaner first image?
Panny: Mine shoots a clean image too and has better color control
Sony: not if the light drops down below nominal levels, and any GOOD filmmaker tweaks their color in post

and on and on and on.

Fact is, both shoot really good images. The difference between 24p and 60i converted to 24p is virtually un-noticable when run through a TV, and it is purely an aesthetic preference when you get right down to it. The Panny has more depth in the in-camera cine-gamma (for converting analog colors to the digital colors), but then similar adjustments can be made in post with little or no "quality" degradation.

If you convert to film, the Panny eliminates a few steps. But the technology is out there to do excellent 60i to film transfers that are just as good, when done properly.

If you already have good results with the camera you have, why change?


Return to posts index


Noah KadnerRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 6, 2004 at 10:24:01 pm

I respectfully disagree. If you have unlimited time and top-rate post skills- you can recreate the 24p look of the DVX in post- sure no problem.

However- if you are in the market for a brand new camera that does all of that automatically and saves you a lot of time to concentrate on other matters the DVX is a solid option.

Noah


Return to posts index

Daniel WeberRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:10:46 pm

iMan,

I don't have a problem with the build quality of the DVX100. I kind of though the same thing when I got mine, but I haven't had any problems with it yet, (over a year).

What I do like about the DVX100 is the way that it handles the audio inputs and levels. You can't beat a dial for setting the level. I can never figure out the menu on the Sony cameras for setting audio levels. Plus the small screen on the Sonys is almost useless. I love the large screen on the DVX100.

And don't think that I haven't shot enough with the Sonys either. I have logged hundreds of hours on them, in fact more than on my DVX100.

Here is my final point. Yes you can do a lot of things in post to achieve a "look", but I prefer to get as close as possible in camera. That requires more skill as a camera person and I am proud of the skill level that I have achieved in shooting.

Maybe you can look at it this way. Both cameras give you a good look. If you are more of a post person, choose the Sony. If you are more camera person, get the Panny. Either way you can't loose. It's a good problem to have.

Dan Weber


Return to posts index

iManRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:58:10 pm

Thanks all, very useful posts indeed. Dan your last paragraph about "good problem to have" summed it all up really, both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Postal boy, your augments between the two seem to hit the nail on the head also.

All is now very clear, thanks again.


Return to posts index


postal boyRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:12:59 pm

I wouldn't snub my nose at a DVX100a...would love to own and use one. Just not quite optimal for what I use the camera for. Now, in the future... :o


Return to posts index

stefanRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 10, 2004 at 7:41:08 am

I would like to add that while you can change 60i material to 24p in post, there is price to pay, more than just time. You are also losing resolution. I don't care what program you use to convert your footage, you are still blending fields and deinterlacing, both of which will lose you resolution. So even if the PD150/170 does give you a "cleaner" image from the get go, which I highly beg to differ, you would lose resolution in post. Both cameras do have their Abilities however, Low light and a slightly longer zoom are the sony's high points and 24p, true progressive scan CCD's and repeatable focus are just a few points of for the Panny that I appreciate over the PD150. If I were doing news interviews or similar situations i would most likely use the PD150. I mainly shoot short films and documentaries which is why i chose the Panny.

Stefan
http://www.stefweb.net


Return to posts index

postal boyRe: DVX100 or post-production 24p Nattress filter?
by on Sep 15, 2004 at 3:21:52 pm

Sorry, used the wrong word. Cleaner is not the term I should have used, as the DVX shoots a very nice image. More neutral is more like what I should have said - meaning, less color effects/processing in the camera and a bit more in post, but a little more leeway on what you can do in post because of the "neutrality". However, if you are going to tweak the camera for each shot to give you the colors you want, the Panny is better at that. This is not as good of an option for event work since you don't really have that much time to tweak the color settings in a run and gun environment, but it takes a good picture without customer tweaking as well.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]