A trend I've noticed in DV cameras.

[CirrusKitfox]

I'm sure someone else has noticed this.
But, I've been paying attention to the DV format and the camcorders over the past 6 or so years. And it seems, as the technology becomes more advanced, the resolution becomes higher and more bells and whistles are included, the lenses get smaller and cheaper. Am I wrong, is the lens NOT one of the most important aspects of any motion picture camera, video or otherwise? Both super 8 cameras I own cost me $25, but the optics are FAR superior to those I've seen on a lot of the consumer DV camcorders costing as high as $900.

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

I'm commenting not from personal experience with DV cameras, but repeating things I've heard and read here, as well as my observation & opinion.
First of all, Zeiss lenses are fantastic, they cost tens of thousands of dollars on professional motion picture cameras, and I've noticed Zeiss lenses on some Sony DV cams.
Now, there's no way these are the same quality on a $800 camera, as they're selling for tens of thousands, but how much worse?
Who konws.

What I have read a lot lately, though, and heard from others, is that the problem with DV isn't the format, it's that they have basically attached a digital recording medium to the same old, cheap VHS camcorder electronics & lenses.
So you're not getting even the quality that the format is capable of, unless you move up into the pro models, like 24p.

The industry knows that the fact they have sucessfully duped the general public into beleiving the word "digital" means the same as the word "perfect".
That's why we keep hearing people say "yeah, but it's digital!" to supposedly kill arguments about film vs. video.

So, you could put whatever you want, as a recording medium, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the electronics, etc. is meaningless.
So yeah, the glass means a hell of a lot.
The other thing that's bad is, it's much cheaper for them to put a tiny lens on there, then do their "digital zoom" feature in software.
Of course, this is going to be far inferior to an optical zoom, but how much money are they going to make upping the cost, by putting real nice lenses in these things?
So the film vs. digital argument effectively is a laughable joke, if you're talking about comsumer DV cameras.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[crimsonson]

Hi all!

I agree with Matt 90%. DV was created for three things:
1. help migrate to a digital format for NLE for ENG/EFP
2. Replace BetaSP for versatility and price/performance ratio
3. Create a new digital format for high end consumer (prosumer)

The lens does make the biggest difference- probably only behind the CCD and the accompanying electronics. But the price to put a nice lens will be too much since current lens technology has been pretty stable, meaning price is pretty stable. Yes you will get new little improvements but the basic technolgy and cost in manufacturing one is pretty much the same for the past 3-5 years. A good example of this is two of the most succesful Prosumer DV cameras- XLI by Canon and DV500 by JCV introduced several years ago. BOth have tremendous features that have been traditionaly found on Pro ENG cameras, however, notice each lens that comes with the package - pretty medoicre when compared to Pro lenses from Fuji and Canon and Angeneuix.
Also, sub $2000 DV cameras are for consumers thus most features (thus cost) added are not targeted for superior quality but superior accessibility for Mom and Dad. Example: The LCD screen- a pretty expensive feature.

Pro DV cams, like some 'Pro' S8 cams, have interchangeable lens. There you can easily spend several thousands for Canons and Fujis.

For an old C-mount 10x zoom lens you can easily spend $200-300. Imagine that with a low end 400 Digital 8 camera = $600-700 and thats not even including a large LCD screen (probably +$300) and other bells and whistles found on high end DV cams.

MAtt even if the cam is not DV the film v vide is laughable since only HDTV is compareable to film and most Pro DPs would estimate it at about a really good S16 (I agree with what footage I have seen).

BTW - 24p IS NOT DV its HDTV. The difference is huge like S8 and 35mm.

------------------

[tim.callaghan]

Sorry,

But jumping to the defense of DV a little here.

1. DV is one of the first readily available lossless formats (bar the 4:1:1 in camera), ie no generation loss - Bargain!

2. Rather than replace Beta SP, it has given another option to the producer for more bang for buck, but SP is still better quality than DV.

3. I agree with the fact that it has given the consumer a better high end product, but I don't think that it was developed with only this reason in mind. The manufacturers knew the potential broadcast quality they were getting into when they were developing the 3 chippers.

4. An over priced lens is just something that is not that justified on something that will give well under the lines of RES. The most expensive cmaera/lense combinations on the market are cameras with the ability of manual zoom and focus, ie pro cameras. I'd be more concerened about the lens quality on my Nizo than my DV camera. In other words (theoretically) put a 35mm top quality prime lens on a DV camera and compare it with the standard lens, there will be a little improvement with the better optics. Do it the otherway round though, and the 35mm with the DV lense will look like a bag of shite, but look fine with the 35mm lens. The lens will only improve the format slightly. Better quality CCD's however will play a major part.

5. Don't knock it! It's the best format to break yourself in with, so you can realise your potential, but strive for oh so much better with film. If I didn't have video, I would waste too much finance on S8, for theoritical stuff and new scenarios. Obviously the vid has a different behaviour, but it points me in the right direction when faced with a new challenge, without wasting my hard earned $$$ (???'s actually)

6. Look this whole film vs video laughable joke thing is just too old in the tooth. It's like trying to compare oil and canvas, and paper and water colour. Both have there certain aesthetics and can be used in a variety of situations. As an artist, I would practice my artistic skills on the cheaper format with the one day hoping that I could create a master piece on oil and canvas. But, as an artist, I have seen many a beautiful water colour strike me much more than a lifeless, dull oil painting. And in this respect, it makes me heed it's warning, that my oil on canvass is not the secret to my master piece, it is my blood, sweat, enthusiasm, life and passion that no matter what format I pour my soul into, it will be *my* master piece, and f*$% you if you don't like it And I'm not saying that my watercolour is DV and oil film, it could easily be 8mm and 35mm. It's what I can get my hands on, and then the medium better be prepared to what I'm going to do to it!!!

Tim

------------------

[avortex]

I'm agree with you, Tim

Every tool is good with its benefits and limitations. Super8 and DV are very great tools with its own aesthetics. Both are great!

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

I agree with a lot of what Tim & avortex
said, but you have to put in context, where I'm coming from on this.
I'm partially responding to the arguments I have every other day, where there is this false impression that these consumer DV cams, are the new saviors, all this crap about how it "levels the playing field, now the moguls are shaking in their boots, because any kid with a DV camera can make a better movie than Hollywood" blah blah blah.
When in fact, when you're shooting consumer DV, you're creating something that is just a little better than S-VHS or Hi-8!
Yeah, it's a great tool to learn on, and even usable for lots of previsualizing, etc., but these DV cams, are NOT creeating anything that is on par with professional films.
I realize I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, but I'm just getting tired of the same old arguments.
I have friends, who see themselves as potential Spielbergs, smirking at me, telling me that film is dead, and i'm just a purist, etc.
It's just so much crap.
If you forget the hype, and just look at what is actually shot on DV cams, it just looks like shit, that's all.
It looks like VHS with lots of sharpening and edge detection applied to it to me.
It's a good format to telecine to maybe, but there's so much more to it than that. It's the lens, and the electronics.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Scott Nocella]

Use any tool the right way, and a message can be created in any format(s). The key is a story that's based on truth told with beautiful sound and pictures(video and/or film). That's the essence of enjoyment when a truth is told, and it's been put together by people who care about their craft and message...that's a project to work on....something that affects future generations by passing forward basic truths.

Scott

------------------

[Nigel]

Zeiss will sell their shit glass to anyone that wants it and then Zeiss will make them put Zeiss on it knowing that it will sell for that fact alone. The glass that you get in a SuperSpeed Distagon is not the same stuff as an 800 dollar MiniDV camera.

The Lens is the most important part of a camera that is why I will justify in my head paying up to 25,000 dollars for a lens but not a body.

------------------

[mattias]

> The Lens is the most important part of a camera

i disagree. the "image sensor" is more important, which is why a cheap super 8 camera takes better pictures than a broadcast video camera imho.

/matt

[crimsonson]

Hi All!
First I would like to clarify my previous statement as not being critical of DV. I love the format.

Second
I would have to agree in the land of video-CCD is the most important part since stock is a non existant factor and the minor flaws in lenses can be corrected via DSPs. Rmember CCD and accompanying controls:
1. Light sensitivity
2. S/N ratio
3. Sampling
4. Percievable resolution - (NOT SAME as FORMAT RESOLUTION)
5. Color Balance
6. MOvement resolution (how much stairs do you see?)
7. and a bunch of other minor factors that collectively impacts a picture in a large way.

A good example of this is the Canon XL1 and XL1S
Replace the Canon XL1 with a Prime Lens using a Optex PL adaptor. Theoreticaly your sharpness and color. I have seen the difference, though visible, not worth spending the additional $3000. Now compare that to the Canon XL1S new feature such as Black controls (Setup), Sharpness, Gamma controls and other simillar fucntions - you can pretty much give yourself a new look. All of this is based on the CCD and accompanying electronics.

------------------