Fake 16:9?!

it stretches the pixels instead of shooting with a full 16x9 CCD Imager. There are pro's and cons to the DVX. I shoot em, I like em. Major draw back for what you're doing it doesn't have a strong zoom. It's more for a wide angle than it is a zoom (you can probably get by w/o buying a wide angle adapter. The DVX does alright in low light, but the the best is still the PD150/170. I'd say if you're going to wedding/event, get the Sony, I do a lot of interviews etc..., and that 24 P has a nice cadence that adds a little something extra to the footage, but it's not worth sacrificing that zoom and lowlight (things that are pretty useful to an event videographer). I've done event stuff with em, but I'll tell you right now, The 150/170 is better.

Dave

the DVX is 4:3 with shifted pixels. Until recently, pretty well all camcorders were achieving wide using vertical shift or double fields, or some variant.
the other option is to use an anamorphic lens adapter. $$$
If the cost is really cheap, the DVX is still a great value, but bear in mind it's not great wide, and it's not HD. Don't expect to realize any resale revenue from it, and don't expect the footage to have a shelf-life. But for weddings, family events, etc, it's a very good option if the price is right.

It has fake 16:9, basically worthless.
((Thats funny... its running the pretty much the same 16:9 algroythms as the PD units..far from worthless though as it uses pixlel shifting to interpolate the "loss" in resolution.. .. many have used it with progressive scan footage with beautiful results.. ))

If I were an event shooter, and was looking for a DV camera, I would definately look at the Sony PD-170. Its the king in low light, gives you nice quality images etc. Of course, its fake widescreen mode is useless.

((Low light is not teh be all and end all when it comes to events.. the PDs still cant manage the colour gradations that a DVX can.. The cinegamma configurations and the wider dynamic range and the cleaner lens make a huge difference to image quality...))

You hook a Century wideangle adapter on that baby and you can't do much better with a 1/3" CD. Both cameras have a standard shoe so don't worry about your Bescor. The 100B is a fine camera, if you need the 24fps stuff. Event videographers don't.

((Depends on the event i guess... its all a matter of conjecture i guess.. ))

What about the 10x zoom on the DVX100B? I am used to 20X with the GL-2. Is the upgrade to the 100B worth the loss in zoom?

yeah one of the buggers of teh DVX is its relatively short zoom.. i guess its teh way Leica made the glass.. on the wide end, the lens DOES distort.. quite badly in fact but this isnt too noticable unles your shooting geometrics.. BUT it is a friggin wide lens (for what it is) and its maco capabilites are pretty awesome.. put it this way, u can have the lens hood literally touching the subject and STILL get perfect focus... the problem though is that if u use a UV filter or anythign else which attaches to the lens, u need to make sure its pristine clean as these lens attachments are positions about 1.5cm's from the lens itself, so the dirt and crud on these units will be noticable.. believe me ... even a smear or glass artefact or dust or hair is visible..

as for the 10x it works ok.. it does suck if ur used to longer throw's...
IMO i'd save my cash and grab a canon A1.. at least this way u can futureproof your investment..

I would take DV over HDV any day because i do heavy color grading. DVX100 is a superb camera much better then lots of cameras out there on the market. Since you do weding and not narrative work then 24p doesn't do much for you still that feature alone puts DVX100 over any Sony's camera that doesn't have 24pA -- And i trylly mean 24pA and not standard that you can't remove pulldown. It's great argeonomics put this camera above Canon's XL2.

Here is me preference of sub $10,000 cameras:
JVC GY-HD100U/110/250 (removable lens, superb argeonimics)
Canon XL H1 (because removable lens and reald HD output)
DVX100
Canon XL2
All Sony's HDV cameras without 24pA
Sony PD150/170

No Sony camcorder has 24pA on it.
GOP structure doesn't benefit from it.
The "A" in the 24A mode, means that in this mode, every time you start the cam, it starts with a new cadence beginning. This is done so that your NLE can properly read the file start. Vegas (to my knowledge) is the only NLE that can read the file correctly regardless of the cadence at the head of the file. The pre-production cams did not have the A mode (misprinted in the owners manual as "SCNA" which should have been "SCAN") and it was quickly realized during beta that the camera would be slow to acceptance if no NLE but Vegas could properly read the files. Are you referring to CineFrame as being pA, perhaps?
Canon XLH1 is no more "real" HD than the Sony camcorders. It still is a 1440 x 1080 image with processing to be 1920 x 1080.
Glenn Elliot has won *many* wedding awards using 24p, and a lot of wedding videographers are starting to figure out the benefits 24p (I'm not a huge fan of 24p, but recognize it's values).
As far as the color sample, have you shot HDV and converted it immediately to a 4:2:2 HDI such as the CineForm or Sheer? I'd be curious about your opinion, if you've color corrected large frame HDI post HDV shooting. I saw a demo of Final Touch that originated in HDV that blew me (and most of the SMPTE crowed) away.

The beef i have with Sony's cameras is that they are OK in all departments but only OK -- they really don't stand out in any way. If i 'm shooting in relatively low light conditions and want to use 35mm lenses with an adapter i'll go with with JVC or even XL2. If i want to shoout robust rormat in HD i'll shoot with HVX200 (if i can afford the hassle of p2 cards). If i want to shoot format ready for all kinds of color pulling in the post without fancy lenses i'll use DVX100.

We were testing out some HDV footage color graded in Final Touch (at Digital Arts here in NYC) and although it holds up quite well with some minor adjustments when pulled to "extremes" the way any other format could be pushed it totaly falls apart. My beef is that i can't get the blacks back so sometimes underexposed footage (and you have to underexpose a bit to protect the highlight) might be lost if the underexposure is too severe (with any other format you would start seeing grain/noise but with HDV you end up with bocks of compression).

The answer to your 'black' problem really is in lighting, no matter what you shoot with. Even those shooting 35mm face this challenge and it seems to be one of the critical areas that's checked during testing by DOPs. Different stocks do different things, some seem to require different handling of black.

In the digital realm all A>D converters have a last bit error which of itself creates noise, add to that the dark current noise of the imagers and you're pusing it uphill trying to 'push' a digital image. Recording more bits in a RAW format helps of course but lighting is where it really needs to start from.

Bob.

Anytime you ask about cams you are going to have the sony guys the canon guys and the panny guys ,, and oh the jvc guy. Their cam is the best. Try to rent or borrow one and decide for yourself,, your opinion beats mine and everyone else.

We were testing out some HDV footage color graded in Final Touch (at Digital Arts here in NYC) and although it holds up quite well with some minor adjustments when pulled to "extremes" the way any other format could be pushed it totaly falls apart. My beef is that i can't get the blacks back so sometimes underexposed footage (and you have to underexpose a bit to protect the highlight) might be lost if the underexposure is too severe (with any other format you would start seeing grain/noise but with HDV you end up with bocks of compression).

I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't answer the question of whether you're working with an HDV stream or an intermediary stream (All of which are 4:2:2, and all beat heck out of DVCProHD). There is a huge difference in acquiring HDV and immediately converting, avoiding the RGB space entirely, and acquiring HDV and trying to push it hard in it's native format. You can't push DV very hard either, when it remains DV.

I'm very happy with my panny dvx 100a...the footage you get with that little camera is gorgeous. Go on over to the dvxuser.com where you can see grabs and footage that the users upload.

LOL, the PD 150 and 170 have fake 16:9----horrible like the DVX 100B---Again, simplify. If you want to give up a touch on the low light performance, and want 24fps--then go 100B---If you want a robust 4;3 camera that rocks in low light, go for one of the Sonys.

Spot would going the 4:2:2 route really make a difference? I usually do CC on footage given to me by the editor which means usually Uucompressed QT, SO it looks like whatever bad i'm seeing was there to begin with.... Unless i'm missing something here.

Yes.
Remember that the decode is just as important as the encode.

"You can't push DV very hard either, when it remains DV"

If I wanted to push DV very hard in Vegas, do I need to convert to a 4:2:2 intermediary first? Or how do I do that?

>>>The beef i have with Sony's cameras is that they are OK in all departments but only OK <<<<

I don't think so, PD 150/170 are more than OK, they are the best cameras in low light, and the other cameras in that price range are lucky to be OK in 1/2 of those departments, while usually sucking in the other 1/2.

And considering how and where these smaller cameras are used, that low light edge is more than enough to make you forget about every other camera.

But, a lot of other things are very subjective ( how does it feel in your hands, image quality, etc... ), so if possible try it against another cam or two, before buying.

its funny how fanboys come out and say this cam is better than that.. but i wonder ho wmany people have actually taken each camera out and weighed its pros and cons for what they need...

This little article from Adam Wilt is still pretty current. At these price points NO camera comes close to ideal, much less perfect.

Bob.