Still not happy with DV...

[TK-421]

I've tried shooting with my VX 2000 and I'm ready to relegate it to "weddings and picnics" status. I'm just not happy with the look of the output. I guess it's the age old, dead horse debate of DV vs. Film.

That said, I've only shot 16mm once or twice and wanted to ask some people here for some advice on the equipment costs, specifically camera purchase...how much and where to find.

[Ghostboy]

Unless you're planning to spend some serious cash, I wouldn't buy a 16mm camera...just rent one. If you DO buy one, you can find some older models on e-bay pretty frequently, anywhere from 100 bucks (for old wind up bolexes that only hold about three minute rolls) to tens of thouands (for full packages with lenses and everything). You could probably find something good, like a K3 or something, for about the same amount you spent on the VX2000. It probably won't be silent, though, which will be a problem if you want to shoot sound.

[Sal]

Look into the new Panasonic.  I can totally understand not wanting to shoot on DV, but with the 24frame ability, I've heard it resembles 16mm film on an eerie level.  I'm really intrigued with it.

[cowboykurtis]

Look into the new Panasonic.  I can totally understand not wanting to shoot on DV, but with the 24frame ability, I've heard it resembles 16mm film on an eerie level.  I'm really intrigued with it.

im the biggest film supportor -- have shot a lot of 16, a little 35 -- abosolutely hate the aesthetic quality of dv -- so heres a little story: my friend was going over some footage of a concert -- i go "where'd you get the money to shoot that on 16mm" he said " i didn't"... he pulls out the panasonic -- it fooled me at first glance -- i thought the footage was 16. its pretty nice -- if you have to shoot dv, shoot with the panasonic -- blows the pd-150 out of the water. it obviously doesnt have the contrast ratio or exposure latitude that 16 does -- also your stuck with the inherent problems of video -- however it's decent -- lets just say , its the first time ive seen a dv image that wasn't complete garbage.

[Pedro]

Look into the new Panasonic.  I can totally understand not wanting to shoot on DV, but with the 24frame ability, I've heard it resembles 16mm film on an eerie level.  I'm really intrigued with it.

im the biggest film supportor -- have shot a lot of 16, a little 35 -- abosolutely hate the aesthetic quality of dv -- so heres a little story: my friend was going over some footage of a concert -- i go "where'd you get the money to shoot that on 16mm" he said " i didn't"... he pulls out the panasonic -- it fooled me at first glance -- i thought the footage was 16. its pretty nice -- if you have to shoot dv, shoot with the panasonic -- blows the pd-150 out of the water. it obviously doesnt have the contrast ratio or exposure latitude that 16 does -- also your stuck with the inherent problems of video -- however it's decent -- lets just say , its the first time ive seen a dv image that wasn't complete garbage.

What is the beautiful model you speak of?

[xerxes]

anybody ever use the JVC DV-500U???

[Sal]

What is the beautiful model you speak of?

The panasonic ag dvx1000.

[cowboykurtis]

What is the beautiful model you speak of?

The panasonic ag dvx1000.

the one and only

[ReelHotGames]

The panasonic 24p is not the holy grail of DV cams I'm sorry to say. It looks like digital vidseo shot in 24 frames a second, not alot diofferent than a PAL camera which is not a lot different from a NTSC camera.

You already have the VX2000, here's the keys - adjust your settings, use the camera to the best of it's abilities. Use proper lighting.

If it's up your craw so much you can't stand it then get cinelook or magic bullet or the like and add that film look afterward.

Video is what it is, it's great because we have a format we can afford and shoot a fantastic product, no...... it's not film. You want film spend 40 grand and shoot on film, otherwise do the best with what you have.. Use the medium to your advantage do the things you can't do with film. I mean film cameras are so big, you can't do some of the incredible things you can do with the tiny dv cams.

[cowboykurtis]

The panasonic 24p is not the holy grail of DV cams I'm sorry to say. .

im sorry to say, but it is -- you say it looks like video shot in 24 frames -- of course it does -- does it look like film? NO... but it does look better than a Pal camera that is capturing 30 frame prgressive scan? YES -- it's not even debatable -- there is a different image quality between the two -- capturing 24 frames on video has nothing to do with exposure latitude when compared to film -- rather the emmulation of persistance of vision that film creates -- obviously trying to make it look like film is a waste of time -- however there is a lot to say about frame rate -- our eyes have been subconciously trained to process 24 frames a second -- whether you care to admit it or not: when we see video (ie: 30 frames) there is a sub-concious rejection to that image ... the panasonic  IS the best prosumer mini dv camera -- end of story.

[Sal]

Yes, this I very much agree with.  More importantly, the panasonic has more latitude than previous cameras, and when blown up to 35mm, compared with the hi def sony puts out for 150,000 dollars...well let's just say that sony's image isn't worth that much.  Panasonic's image isn't exactly the same as the hi def, but it's close.  Frighteningly close.  For over $3,000.

The panasonic 24p is not the holy grail of DV cams I'm sorry to say. .

im sorry to say, but it is -- you say it looks like video shot in 24 frames -- of course it does -- does it look like film? NO... but it does look better than a Pal camera that is capturing 30 frame prgressive scan? YES -- it's not even debatable -- there is a different image quality between the two -- capturing 24 frames on video has nothing to do with exposure latitude when compared to film -- rather the emmulation of persistance of vision that film creates -- obviously trying to make it look like film is a waste of time -- however there is a lot to say about frame rate -- our eyes have been subconciously trained to process 24 frames a second -- whether you care to admit it or not: when we see video (ie: 30 frames) there is a sub-concious rejection to that image ... the panasonic  IS the best prosumer mini dv camera -- end of story.

[Ghostboy]

Actually, PAL is 25 interlaced frames, NTSC is 30.

But I agree with Michael AND cowboy. Lighting and production values will go a really long way...but frame rate will as well. I haven't used this camera yet, but I have done tests with the 24p HD cameras. It still looks like video, but the frame rate does make it look different, and/or better, if you want that more cinematic feel.

I really want to see some Maxivision48 footage, which is shot at and played back at 48fps. Supposed to be rather amazing.

[cowboykurtis]

Actually, PAL is 25 interlaced frames, NTSC is 30.
.

my mistake -- there is still a huge difference between 25 interlaced and 24 progressive scan. it really is noticeable.

[cowboykurtis]

Yes, this I very much agree with.  More importantly, the panasonic has more latitude than previous cameras, and when blown up to 35mm, compared with the hi def sony puts out for 150,000 dollars...well let's just say that sony's image isn't worth that much.  Panasonic's image isn't exactly the same as the hi def, but it's close.  Frighteningly close.  For over $3,000.
]

i know, i couldnt believe how nice the image was. its the first time i saw a dv image and thought: this is worth shooting a project on.

[astralpictures]

I think that everyone gets so caught up in what camera to choose that they sometimes forget that a movie isn't good based just on its format. Yeah, the dvx100 does looks better than most dv, IF composed well. It won't matter how great it looks if the story is crappy and lacks effort. I'd much rather watch a well-made, well told, and well composed movie shot on an old vhs-c camcorder than an even average movie shot on the dvx100.