and should be extinct? Is it time for everyone to switch to HD yet? Personally I am having a hard time convincing myself that I am somehow cheating my customers out of quality shooting with my Sony VX's. Am I old fashioned, is it time to switch to HD???

Most customers do not have HD equipment. Especially HD playback equipment.

And Blu-Ray recordable disks are still very expensive.

I think your customers will be quite happy with SD video for some time.

When someone asks for HD, then you can decide if it is time for you to invest the $. Camera, editing suite and DVD burner all have to be upgraded at the same time.

My main issue with the VX-2000 is the lack of a better quality 16:9 mode. For 4:3 work, it still produces beautiful images. Mine has now found a new home as the stage-view camera which feeds the backstage and lobby video screens at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia. I hadn't used it for years myself.

If you and your customers are happy with your work, there's not much motivation to switch. But sooner or later you will want to; VX-2000 footage looks pretty soft on a big widescreen TV. See the following: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/122863-16-9-argument-my-new-shooter.html

Being a fan I've just bought Joni Mitchell's 'Painting with words and Music' DVD. This girl's a star and has been for many years, so the production values are high, with wire guided multiple tracking cameras and Dolby 5.1 audio.

But wait - the entire show is shot in 4:3 and it just looks disastrously out of date on a new TV. 4:3 can look rectangular on a 4:3 TV, but it looks perfectly square on a 16:9 TV. I feel somewhat cheated.

So yes Harry - I feel it should be extintified.

tom.

Harry

As long as your customers are happy with your work then don't be pushed into hd, some posters on her are always looking to buying the new kids on the block and diss such as the VX/PD cameras but let me tell you this,

I have a wedding comming up next wk and its a candle lit service went for a practice the other night and thank god (sorry for the pun) i had the 170 the xlh1 just couldn't see the picture was dark and horrible but the 170 was great and i showed it to the couple who much prefered the look on the 170, as for 16:9 or 4:3 they didn't give a jot

SD1 HDV0

My main issue with the VX-2000 is the lack of a better quality 16:9 mode. For 4:3 work, it still produces beautiful images. Mine has now found a new home as the stage-view camera which feeds the backstage and lobby video screens at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia. I hadn't used it for years myself.

If you and your customers are happy with your work, there's not much motivation to switch. But sooner or later you will want to; VX-2000 footage looks pretty soft on a big widescreen TV. See the following: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/122863-16-9-argument-my-new-shooter.html

I don't usually do three camera shoots, but Friday night I did one with three cameras at a local high school play. I shot SD with my FX1, HV20, and my VX2000. On the VX2000, I mounted a Century Optics wide adapter, I had bought of $99 on closeout (those were selling for $1 K in the old days). The footage turned out pretty well for my purposes, though as you might expect with the extra glass and distorting nature of the glass, that the image is a bit softer. All in all, pretty good for SD purposes.

Personally I am having a hard time convincing myself that I am somehow cheating my customers out of quality shooting with my Sony VX's. Am I old fashioned, is it time to switch to HD???
Depends who your customers are. Are they paying you to produce material primarily for "now", or for "the future"? And for the wedding video market, future viewing may be more significant than now - assuming the couples don't divorce in the meantime. :-)

In that case, when your customers get out their discs in 20 years time, 16:9 HD will have become the norm, if something better hasn't come along. So yes, if they find out they could have had an HD Blu-Ray disc, and all they got was an NTSC 4:3 DVD, I think they may have grounds for feeling a bit cheated.

Even if not HD, I'd certainly say true 16:9 should be the norm for something likely to be watched in the future, at the very least. Buy any Hollywood DVD now and it will be 16:9, shouldn't the same be true of weddings?

If we use your logic, David, then those who received their video on video tape must already feel cheated because DVD media is now available.

We and the customers make a choice and live with it. Just like buying anything, something better is aways coming along.

Deliver the work in the resolution they are willing to pay for and want and on the media they can use.

If they want it future-proofed, good luck. There is no way to really do that...all you have to do is wait long enough and the today's latest technology will be hopelessly out of date.

The best you can do is sit around with the video in your archives, at your expense and hope someday they will come to you and want it placed onto the latest media. (SD with a sufficiently good upscaling conversion, looks much like HD to most people.)

We know 4096 video will be coming down the road some day and will be available to consumers. That doesn't mean we have to shoot in double HD even though we can find cameras that do that.

If we use your logic, David, then those who received their video on video tape must already feel cheated because DVD media is now available.

We and the customers make a choice and live with it. Just like buying anything, something better is aways coming along.
Yes, and "future proofing" is inevitably never fully possible - as you say, something better is always coming along.

But there's normally an overlap as one (newer) technology takes over from the previous, and for something with future value then by and large the later technology is normally always a better bet than the older one.

I bought my first consumer camera at the time of the birth of my first child (20 years ago), and it coincided very well with the first S-VHS cameras. Do I wish his early years were recorded in 16:9 High Definition? Well, obviously yes. More practically, am I glad that I got an S-VHS camera then, rather than the VHS or Video 8 that were the alternative norm at the time? A resounding yes again.

Given the same choice today, be it a camera purchase or commissioning a wedding video, the outgoing technology is 4:3 SD, the incoming technology is 16:9 HD. Better than either may well be available in the future, but that's no reason to go with 4:3 SD now. In many ways getting 16:9 may well be more important than HD. It may look soft in the future, but at least it should be the right shape.

In many ways getting 16:9 may well be more important than HD. It may look soft in the future, but at least it should be the right shape.

Good words. As to the 'looking soft' I'm pretty impressed with what Toshiba are able to do on the upscaling front into a posh new HDMI TV. It's not HD of course, but it sure makes my SD stuff look very acceptable indeed.

What upscalers can't do is get around the resolution loss of fitting a 4:3 image into a 16:9 frame. It's soft or distorted, period.

tom.

Harry,
The replies listed above are all right on. Having been in a similair situation some nine or ten months ago, I really had to think long and hard about parting with my beloved VX-2000 video camera. ( which I got next to nothing for ) Well, finally made the decision to sell the ol' VX and purchase a new FX-1. What provided the final impetus for me was the 16:9 aspect ratio. I am more of a serious hobbyist type of videographer and as such low light capability is important but not always critical. If you shoot weddings, then you need good low light capability. It is my understanding that the new FX-1000 has really good low light capture, but the VX/PD series cameras still appear to reign supreme in this area. In several instances, I actually had people ask me if video I had shot with the VX-2000 was in fact high def. Obviously, this was not the case, but it does underscore what good lighting, composition and a little tweak in post can do for your video.( not to mention a consuming public that is still getting used to the idea of high def. ) Now that I have familiarized myself with the workings of the FX-1, I don't feel nearly as bad about selling the ol' VX as I once did. Having started out with super-8 home movie film through VHS, high-8, DV and now HD you'd think I would have learned when to quit. You do of course realize that it is only a matter of time before you'll have to make the switch. It's a trap I tell you. It would appear we're on a never ending treadmill of video need/affliction. Just my two cents worth.

I almost sold my VX2100, but it has found new life in corporate web site work. HD is overkill for stuff on a company web site, and the VX is perfect for the job. I don't see getting rid of mine anytime soon.

The Army still uses PD-170s... and XL-2's, and Beta SXs. For what it's worth. :)

Well time is ticking on 4:3 to be sure. I dumped my Sony's and picked up a JVC HD110 for 16:9 and 24p work which comes out VERY well on 16:9 DVD via HDMI cable on a HDTV. Most people can't tell it's not HD. (downconverted HDV 720p 24p to 24p DVD standard). This came out hands down better than my 4:3 SD ever came out. Since most TVs sold in the last few years more and more of your clients will be 16:9 HDTV's, it's getting nearer than you think.

That being said, I sorely missed my old Sony DVCAM last week covering some bands at a dark performance. The HD 1/3 chips simply can't compete against 1/3 SD chips for low light, and most SD chips are not really full SD anyway, but it does mean they were far more sensative in low light.

Does this mean you should run out and get a new $4,000 to $8,000 system? Not nessisarily. A good camera operator with skill is more valuable than the bad operator with the new gear. Many of my friends are working full time with Vx2100 and DVX100's. Others are shooting TV shows on a HVX200's. I switched and 95% of the time I'm happy with it. I see clients more often seeing lighting, audio and basic camera work as to being the most desirable. So no everyone doesn't need to upgrade for work, but I expect some day soon you will start loosing work to someone else just because of the gear.
<

A good camera operator with skill is more valuable than the bad operator with the new gear.
Quite true, but a good camera operator with skill *AND* new gear is more valuable still!

And a bad operator with old gear must surely be bottom of the pile? :-)

Well, here's my two pennies-worth. I "upgraded" from a Sony DXCD 30 with a PVV 3 back and a Canon J15 lens two years ago, partly because I was pretty confident my clients would start needing HDV soon. I bought a JVC HD111 - not least because it was switchable back to SD should I need that.

My clients are most of the major North European news broadcasters - BBC, YLE Finland, TV2 and DR in Denmark, ARD and ZDF in Germany, and the rest. I also work for NGO's and Aid agencies from time to time.

So here's the joke. Only ONE client - an American NGO - has wanted me to shoot on HDV in the past two years. Everyone else wants SD - mostly 16:9 SD, it has to be said, but SD.

Now, I know that the old Never The Same Colour standard Americans have had to put up with makes moving to HD West of the Atlantic a no-brainer. But in PAL land, SD is still the standard - and will probably be so, at least in current affairs television, for a good couple of years to come.

All the optimistic talk about 90% market penetration for HD TV's by 2010 must be looking a little unfounded, too; I guess a lot fewer people will be buying new HDTVs and Blue Ray disc players this Christmas than the manufacturers would have hoped for back in July.

I guess a lot fewer people will be buying new HDTVs and Blue Ray disc players this Christmas than the manufacturers would have hoped for back in July.

Well here in the US you could say the same thing about almost any product in the retail segment this year. But it is also leading to some deep discounts which may increase market penetration in the long run. Just looking at WalMart's website (a huge discount department store in the US), they have BluRay players for as cheap as $128 and 42" HDTV's for as little as $600.

If your current equipment meets your needs then there's no reason to change. But here in the US, it's clear that people are moving towards HD at a steady pace.

Absolutely agree with you Boyd. For sure, if it's time to upgrade, and you got the money, there's no point buying anything that doesn't have HD/HDV capacity, be it a consumer TV set or a broadcast camera kit.

But my point is that if you don't NEED to upgrade, but peer pressure (or marketing pressure) makes you feel you SHOULD upgrade, just take a moment to check out your primary market.

Back at the start of this thread, Harry asked if he was short-changing his customers by using SD not HD. I'd suggest that as long as his clients are coming back for more, there's probably no need to change just now.

Best wishes

R

I recently spent a few shekels on a used HVX, since some clients were starting to demand HD equipment (including one web end-product "how to" video client :? ). I have to admit I love the P2 workflow, but dislike the relative bulk and light-neediness if it compared to my PD150.

Go HD and try to upsell. Show them the difference. Maybe even point out the cheapest way they could enjoy full HD glory. Here's a thought, if they already have an HDTV, include the price of a PS3 or some other BR player. and include it.. :)

If they turn it down, down convert in software.

Many classic movies were shot in aspect ratios very like 4:3. Classic TV shows too, obviously. The ability to watch something in 4:3 is not going to go away any time soon. Tom was winking at you by portraying what might be a typical reaction to only part of the screen being in use, however. Most of what these same people are watching for tv programming isn't an hd signal anyway, yet everyone is aware of something called "HD" and, afterall, newer is better in the world of technology, regardless of whether they're actually able to make use of it, right? So, I suppose the final analysis regarding a business decision is going to be based on the popular expectations of your clients, realistic or otherwise, as well as the actual playback abilities of your clients.

And, yes, see also the proverbial "Content is King" sticky.

Im about to buy an almost new VX2100 from someone I know who has some different cams.Im getting a VERY good price as well as factory warr.(he hasnt even registered it yet).I have some friends who are HD all the way.I shoot surfing,skateboarding and some bands.Ive been very impressed by the durability and quality of my friends VX2100 also I dont really like to shoot with a smaller camera than that size.The 16:9 conversation came up while talking about buying the VX.I am not set up to edit HD and probably would have to upgrade my comp. just to capture clips? Things are moving forward right now for me in video(all surfing) but you never know.I used to shoot professionally using mostly Beta-cam,Ive toured w/Jimmy Buffet and some other one offs,worked with cancer patients for Long Beach mem. hosp.,martial arts training vids. etc.
I am now trying to just get a flow going again.Do I really need 16:9 right now in SD?I dont have alot of money to spend and just want to shoot some quality vids.(3 ccd) and get my name going around here in the surf industry.Its been along time since Ive purchased any camera over $1000.000 or so.Im not one to jump on bandwagons and usually like to watch the prices go down before I buy.My last big buy was a Canon L2...$3800.00!!!!!Now it might be worth $75.00....haha.If I get a good year or two with this new cam.I would be very happy.I figure if things go farther and I start making some real money from my work I would step up and go bigger.Any suggestion/opinions.I always like to hear from everyone on this site.
Thanks for your input.
Mike

Mike, the VX2k1 is a mighty fine camera and deserves its reputation for quality images in bright and poor light. The fact that the PD170 was the same camera in battledress proves its toughness and durability.

Ah, but it was designed in the days when 4:3 screens were the norm, and as such it fills them to perfection. You've been offered it at a good price simply because the seller's market all view on 16:9 screens, so you've got to ask yourself this - will my clients be watching my surfing films on wide-scren sets?

I'm betting the answer is yes. Standard def, but 16:9. So of course you can film in the 16:9 mode on the VX, but your images take quite a hit in lost vertical resolution. If you're PAL the results are just about ok, but I'd wobble over NTSC.

Better to head for a second-hand FX1 I'd say. Shoot in the 16:9 SD mode and future-proof yourself.

tom.

Tom-You are pretty much confirming what I should already know,like I said, my friend with the VX2100 was saying the same thing to me last night.I guess Im stuck on this Sony HC85 untill I save up.Looks like Ill have to go back and start checking other posts about the FX1000 and FX1.For me the FX7 is out and as far the price of a used FX1,from what Ive seen, it looks like I should save and go new eh?Used electronics can be a scary deal for me,Ive had some bad experiances.I dont think Ill be buying the 2100 tonight :(
Thanks for the input.
Mike

Er.....what happened to Harry?

Er.....what happened to Harry?


Still here! Reading, thinking and learning. Going from DV to HD is like learning about equipment all over again. Considering the FX-7 right now, but I still have a lot of research to do. Prices, quality, formats etc. . .

Up until a year ago, I would have subscribed to the general thought here, that one of the VX/PD models would continue to be just fine for me. But after I got my HD camcorder last March, my 2100 hasn't been out of its case a single time. I'm sorry that I can't find some use for it, but the emergence of HD video-hosting websites has given me an outlet for what I shoot with the new one. If it weren't for this, I would have much less purpose in using HD. By making my videos available on those websites for downloads with the full bit-rate I uploaded (generally 12 to 16 Mbps), anyone with broadband can see what is close to their best quality.

Of course, when I shoot videos for people or groups, I still deliver them letterboxed on SD DVDs, or occasionally even on VHS/S-VHS. Even on SD conversions, their image quality is better from the HD camera, than from the VX. This little HC9 does surprisingly well in lowlight, even though not in the class with the VX in this respect. What I will start doing in some cases, is supplementing the DVDs by putting highlights on a hosting site in HD and marking them for viewing only by those with permission (or open to anyone, if the subjects are agreeable). It looks like Web-delivery of videos is going to develop rapidly, so I may never have to invest in any Blu-Ray equipment and players for it may not become much more widespread among potential viewers.

Another big bonus is the still photos I can take with the HD model. If I shoot them carefully, they can be good enough to take the place of pictures from a dedicated digital camera. My highly-mobile approach to photography isn't compatible with managing two cameras and their gear. I've used my digital still cameras just twice in the last year, because of this. Otherwise, I probably would have bought a couple of new ones in that time, so the HD camcorder has saved me money.