http://www.global-dvc.org/Sony%20HDV.htm

Personally, I might wait for the pro version of the Sony HDV. VERY nice...

A poster and good friend here, Jeremiah Hall, may buy the 24p 3-ccd JVC camera that's been mentioned for a while.

But hey, the Sony HDV is VERY nice, barring a review and a personal hands-on look.

hwm

Totally cool...XLR, Zebra..

It says, "MiniDV" on one of the photos if you look close. That tells me the "Pro" version still has the tape drive. (was thinking that it might have been 100% optical, but that probably isn't the case)

Any idea what the "hidden menu" has on it? I really want to know!

Murph

It says it has to have the tape drive or it can't be called HDV. Yes I'd like them to just have something I'm not a tech guru so I don't know how'd work but something that you can record to a hard drive and use the tape as back up.

The rampant speculation about Blu-Ray optical or solid-state flash media recording just doesn't match up with Sony's history or the evolution of this particular camera.

Sony's history has been pretty consistant with the consumer/pro versions of the cameras: The TRV-900/PD-100. The VX-2000/PD-150. The TRV-950/PDX-10. The VX-2100/PD-170. The pro version typically incorporates XLR inputs, manual audio options, color bars and DVCam recording.

This camera is interesting in that it appears to have been developed as a pro camera first, as seen by the prototype that Sony was showing at NAB. That mockup had the XLR's. I wonder what Sony's motivation was to introduce a consumer version first? Maybe it was just a matter of timing, but it seems that the pro version is ready to go, and will probably be in full swing, ready to ship by NAB 2005 (04/05) if not before.

I also wonder why Sony is releasing a consumer version at all. This camera is bigger in all dimensions than the PD-170, making it a real monster for most consumer-level customers. Sony has got to know that the main customer for this camera is prosumer/pro level, not the birthday party/vacation cam. Did you see the pic with the Japaneese model holding it? This thing is huge!

I expect the pro version will have very few differences other than XLR's, manual audio, maybe a few menu tweaks to make it more pro-friendly. I would love to see a 24p implementation along the lines of the Pana 100a, but I'm not holding my breath. This seems odd to me as when I spoke to the Sony rep at NAB, I asked him what the main feature request he had was, and he said it was overwhelmingly 24p. Maybe Sony was already set on 1080 60i long before NAB.

Even so, this is THE cam for 2005. Indie filmmakers corporate, wedding and industrial videographers are going to line up to buy this camera, and with good reason.

Poor Canon. The XL2 is dead in the water. They should have waited to release the XL-type HDV cam.

"Poor Canon. The XL2 is dead in the water. They should have waited to release the XL-type HDV cam."

A lot of people will want to stay with the DV format for a while. Established work flow, decks ect.. Also 16:9 in DV mode as well as the removable lens's. Plus you can't count out all those brand loyal XL1/s owners.

Ken,

This is why Sony's move to support DV with the 3CCD FX1 is brilliant.

It allows for a true phased migration to HDV.

Unless the image on the FX1 is severely dissapointing for some unknown reason, I can't think of a single reason to prefer the XL2. DV compatability? Check. True 16x9? Check. Shoulder mount? Check. Removable lenses? Who needs it? Other than a true 24p, all the XL2 did was improve the customer complaints/wish list that should have been incorporated into the XL1s. When Canon introduced the XL1, they were late to the party, but no one had an alternative. Now, Canon is *really* late to the party, and there are plenty of compelling alternatives. If I only wanted 24p DV, I'd still take a DVX-100a with an anamorphic adapter over an XL2. But to have the option to shoot HDV in the same general price range? Fuggetaboutit.

I told my friend Jon that I'm not even interested in the XL-2; my boss at the Film School wanted to buy one (we have two DVX100A's), but I told him to buy the Sony HDV, as a way to offer it to our students. 1080i HDV or 24p DV, both are tantalizing to students, I believe.

heath

Hi

I'm just a little bit confused as to why it's described as "NEW PROSUMER HDV / DVCAM". Does this mean it will be switchable between HDV and DVCAM do you think? Or is the HDV a form of DVCAM in it's implementation. I know it might be speculation, but I would be interested to see what those of you with more knowleage/experience than me make of it. I don't understand how it can be both. It does not say DVCAM on the 'consumer' model, at least nowhere I can see in the pics I've seen.

The consumer version records in both DV and HDV modes. The DV mode is supposed to support both 4:3 and 16:9 anamorphic and record at SP and LP speeds. No mention of DVCAM, but maybe they are adding that to the pro version and dropping DV LP? That would be consistent with their other pro/consumer camera pairs like PD-170/VX-2100 and PDX-10/TRV-950.

Hey, over at www.hdforindies.com someone posted that they've actually seen the "Pro" version.

I'm quoting, but go look for yourself obviously!

IBC reader report:

"the pro-version (which they had on display, looks & feels nice) is only different to the consumer-version insofar as it can record dvcam and got the xlr-input. no real progressive mode."

It also mentions that the "Pro" camera shoots DVCAM, so there is our 3 hour tape! Also, if it's not recording HDV on DVCAM - what format is it?!! Is it HDV with more megs per second?!

Murph

I was under the impression the FX1 shot only 4:3 in DV mode. Removable lens and 24p would be it's other strong points. I am not a fan of the XL2 but I am pointing out reasons why people will buy it. As well it is available now. I don't expect the Fx1 to be mainstream volume befor early next year. I know it has a mid Nov release date in NA but don't kid yourself.

"I was under the impression the FX1 shot only 4:3 in DV mode..."

Ken, no offense, really, but if I can save $100 to get a HDV-FX1 with the switch to SD mini-dv disabled, I'd gladly take it. I don't think I'd be using that cam much to shoot SD.

Okay, maybe just once in awhile to remind myself how much better my footage looks than the best resolution possible on an XL2...

This "pro" version camera gives me a <symbol of excitement>. I guess Sony's gonna be getting 6k from me (sigh)...unless Panny counters with something in the meantime...

LOL!

I don't think Panasonic is onboard, though Canon is part of Panasonic, so to speak, and vice versa.

Visit here for a list of supporters. (www.hdv-info.org)

hwm

From reading the IBC report at ci , it leaves the 24p question open for the pro version- sony , if it really wants a camkiller , would be wise to include it - for 6 grand the camera everyone in the world would want !

But it could compete against their CineAlta line, the next addition likely coming out before Star Wars 3 does.

heath

But, I was thinking of the "quantity" side of how many they could sell. If they only sell worldwide like 1000 CinaAlta's per month or somewhere in that ballpark...how about 5,000-10,000 HDV cameras per month?

I'm just thinking that the number crunchers have to be looking at the volume of mommy's and daddy's buying home video equipment. My brother had his first kid a year ago....they bought a Mini-DV camera. I bet worldwide 5,000-10,000 or heck WAY more were sold the same month my brother bought his Mini-DV. My calculations tell me that Sony and everyone else would make a HECK of a lot more money pumping out cameras to consumers than to a relatively small number of people worldwide that can buy a CinaAlta or any other "pro" $100,000 camera. I bet the profit margin isn't as high as the new generation of home video parents.

Just my 2 cents. If I were a video camera maker I'd be putting all my eggs in the basket of people with disposalble income......and HDTV buyers are just that group! We unfortunately fall in that catagory instead of the CinaAlta group. If Lucas and us are on the same page....I damn as well can't tell. I feel like we're almost shmucks buying these cameras expecting super support, no problems with manual controls etc etc. They have us by the (insert body part) and we get all excited when they give us a bread crumb in the form of an extra button or two. (namely the Iris & Shutter fiasco)

I'm JUST AS GUILTY as the next guy of playing into the whole thing. But, when it call comes down to it...I don't they think of us as the most important customer. They want the mommy/daddy crowd to buy most of the cameras. They don't don't bitch like us about low-light because they have no idea what that means! Those customers are totally satisfied if the images comes out...period. We buy cameras and accessories, but so do 90% of the disposable incomers nowadays!

Anyway, that turned into a long rant! Sorry..

Murph

All i know is only untill recently i had NO ideas about camcorders(i had an 8mm Sanyo, was happy with it.) untill i read in a newspaper article about "Full frontal" that was "shot on consumer digital camcorder" and it got me wondering..... and in this story it was said that camcorders have come a long way, bla bla bla, and that that the image was so sharp that "fake" grain was added to make it look like film; BANG my brain went into overdrive, i thought digital was superior to film (damn i was sooo naive!).
I went out immeadiatley and stated reading up on miniDV and boy was i in for a shock! when i found out that 35mm was so much superior then digital and digital was playing catch up, my world had by then been turned upside down.

But then things started to happen, first the DVX , then "Once upon time in Mexico" then, Dalsa , THEN HDV (OK not in the order,) so MUCH in so little time!

Hey i'm glad i'm witnessing such an explosive period of DV history , like they say "Histroy in the Making"

One things for sure aint no turning back now.

I really don't think the FX1 is going to be a big hit with consumers. If you look at it in person, it's obvious that it was designed first and foremost as a pro camera. The huge variety of manual controls, dials and switches on it practically screams "ENG camera". It's also freakin' huge. I really can't see a lot of soccer moms taking this behemoth out to the game. The controls and size are going to scare away all but the extreme hobbyists/prosumers who are the top end of the VX-2000's market now. I'd be willing to bet that most of the VX-2000 sales go to wedding videographers, corporate and industrial, extreme sports kiddies and the like. The soccer moms are buying the cute little palm-sized cams, and they always will. It's not about image quality - it's about what you can carry in your purse!

That said, this camera will never compete with a CineAlta either. Having a larger CCD is absolutely essential to shooting feature films, due to depth of field issues. In fact, I believe that the new Panavision/Sony combo has the best chance of becoming the defacto standard for feature production, for the simple reason of full 35mm sensors. That's not to say that indie films won't be shot on this camera - they will, and in droves. But those are the films that wouldn't shoot on a CineAlta anyway. This camera will be a DVX-100 / XL-2 killer, not competition for the high end.

I think that since the VX-1000, Sony has realized there is a huge swath of market between "consumer" and "pro". The first time I ever heard the term "prosumer" was in reference to the VX-1000. My only question is why put out this model first, and why take $500-$1000 worth of features OUT of a pro model cam? Would it really be a disaster to market the same camera under both banners?

While I understand the logic behind the argument that many have made in reference to Sony (or any other company) wanting to "handicap" a particular camera as a way of protecting thier higher end models, it has been my experience that Scott's point is the real truth of the matter. Most of the "indies" that will choose to shoot thier DIY masterpieces with a prosumer camcorder are the guys that never had the money or opportunity to even consider working with the higher end models likes the HDW-F900 in the first place. More importantly, the companies who can afford the best, are always going to use the best.

Few cinematographers who have the money to shoot any format they desire will choose HDCAM over 35mm. And few production companies who work with DigitalBetaCAM, DVCPRO50, or even 1080/60i HDCAM are going to stop using those formats and corresponding cameras in favor of a $4,000 prosumer camcorder.

Murph, I agree with your quantity logic. But remember that the HDW-F900 is THE BEST SELLING CAMERA IN SONY'S HISTORY. Period. At one point there was a 32 week waiting list to get one. That's how well these cameras sold. They have never had a warehouse full of $100,000 cameras waiting to be sold. These cameras moved and moved fast. I suspect that little will change upon the introduction of a F950 with a built in VTR back or similiar, regardless of whatever HDV camcorder du jour may be available.

I too anxiously await the opportunity to get my hands on a 3CCD, full manual control, VX-PD-DVX-styled HDV offering from Sony. But until such a camera proves its production viability to me in a real world working enviroment, I'll continue to look to the proven options in the DV, HD, and Film world for my imaging needs.

Good analogy, Jon and Scott. I once asked when I could buy a CineAlta, which, three years ago I wanted to (when it came out), and the wait was 25 weeks, and that was when it first came out!

heath

Be patient everyone, Sony WILL have more than XLRs and seperate manual audio on the pro version.
No one knows for sure, but from what I'm hearing different CCDs, different power and possibly Blue Laser. The Pro version at IBC is not the final version.
FWIW True Progressive (even at 720P) and an AntonBauer 12V Powertap is all I'm asking for! LOL
NDAs are implemented for a reason.
Patiently waiting,

Digitalcine

Where are you hearing different CCD's? I assume you mean progressive 720p and not different size.

I think Sony will keep the current CCD's on the pro model. Although it's very odd to charge 3k more for a high end model with just xlr audio attached, so we'll see.

i think this cam will have a big market without soccor moms

corporate in house departments
event grabbers
film and doc folks
news folks (most likely the pd150 users)
and finally
techno geeks

pretty much the same market all prosumer dv cams hit..

LOL, today I went to the IBC and I played around with this cam. But I didn´t know it was the pro version until I saw the pictures on this forum a few minutes ago.
As far as I could see there was no switch for 720p or 24p or something like that. It was all just 1080i. I didn´t have much time to try all the buttons, because there were some other people waiting to get their hands on it (btw. the menu button didn´t even exist. There was only a hole where it should be). But I did push the PICTURE PROFILE button. With this option you can recall some image-setting presets you can store. I tried some of these presets and there were some very cool gamma settings, wich looked very simular to film. Some had a very low detail setting, so the picture was very soft and it looked like it was a bit out of focus. But when you use it in combination with a small depth of field (back- and/or foreground out of focus) can can get beautiful images with this setting.
I´m sorry I don´t have much info for you. I would have looked better if I knew it was the pro-version.

Andreas

why do so many want 'progressive' mode, 24p capability? this might not be the best location to ask this, but what are the main reasons so many want 24p/progressive capability?
thanks. john

(or read/heard some first-hand accounts I may have missed)

1. How's the view magnification through the finder? I know it's letterboxed 16:9, and has a higher res 250k 4:3 vf, but does it seem to use the same .33" size vf from the vx2000/2100?

Hopefully they've upgraded size of the vf or at least its magn of the viewing optic, as the 16:9 will appear smaller in the 4:3 finder, and I thought the magn in the VX/PD vf was only Just adequate, at best.

2. Comments on the feel of the zoom ring? Have they managed to approximate a well-damped, nicely-dragging lens ring? Something tells me that the real answer to this question is the key to knowing how well Sony executed the whole camera.

3. How long does it take the camera to turn on and be shooting? And, how noisy is the transport on start-up and shut-down? (although doubtful anyone could hear anything in the din of the teeming masses...)

---------------------------------
Regardless of the above, I'm fairly sure I'll be getting one, the only game in town for probably another year. And I'm hoping that it IS possible to acquire before year's-end. Better get myself on some dealer's list... I'm of course also very curious as to what the Pro version will include -it has to be Something other than XLR's, settable TC, and nicer color for an extra $3000! (and HDV supposedly can't record to DVCAM, only SD; it looks like Sony's new HDV tapes are the DVCAM's replacement for the hi-def drop-out worried) Otherwise, 3 grand buys very nice mics, even a custom-built adptr/pre-amp.
But I'd bet it's well into Summer '05 before that pro version can be had in any case, so I may have to take the plunge on this FX1, ASAP.

One more Q/wish- that Sony reverted to putting good mics on the camera, as it did on the 4-capsule arrangement on theoriginal DV world-shaking cam, the VX1000 (which I bought when it 1st came out). The times when it can be advantageous Not to use an external mic (lower camera profile), or the possibility of mixing the blt-ins w/an external mic, made me recall how really decent-sounding and handy the VX1000's were.

John,

Progressive Scan delivers superior resolution due to the full frame image capture compared to the half frame fields of interlaced scan systems. When the Progressive Scan capture is run at a frame rate of 24fps, the images have the same motion signature of Film originated motion pictures. Many find the motion signature of Progressive Scan imaging to be more pleasing regardless of the frame rate. 60i interlaced imaging has such a strong visual association with home video and programming such as the evening news, that even a frame rate of 30P becomes more desirable for many digitally acquired projects. And sports programs benefit greatly from 60P frame rates not only in the higher resolution, but also the ability for clear and clean slow motion playback.

So "In a Nutshell", Progressive Scan is generally considered a superior, if not preferable method of shooting.

is it technically a 'higher resolution' - the 24p shot footage, as opposed to 30fps? or is it just more detailed and colorful, etc? thanks.

John

John,

It is legitimately higher resolution.

Remember that frame rates have nothing to do with resolution, color, etc. They are simply the number of times a particular camera acquires a new image. The higher the frame rate, the smoother and more fluid a moving image becomes. The slower the frame rate, the more strobed and stacato a moving image becomes. The higher frame rate, combined with the interlaced scanning of traditional video, give video a very fluid, unique, and recognizable motion signature. While the strobed motion of Film has become what the majority of the population perceives as the "look" of cinema.

Resolution is a seperate issue from frame rate and color. Furthermore, resolution is a seperate issue even from detail. For example, 35mm Film has the ability to capture more "resolution" than 1080/24P HD. However, while 35mm Film will show more subtle nuances in tone, color and an even fall off between highlight and shadow, 1080 HD will appear to have more detail, higher saturation of color and better contrast due to its electronically sharper picture, DSP enhanced color processing, and limited lattitude.

Just to add my 2 cents about 24-frame progressive scan. The most attention has been focused on wannabe indie filmmakers wanting to shoot in 24p "just in case" they get picked up at Sundance and need to secure a film release. Many folks say, rightly so, that the chances of that happening are slim, so who needs 24p? Either it's just marketing hype or feature bloat.

I would also make the case that 24p is the most flexible and future-proof frame rate you could shoot in today. If you want to distribute to NTSC's 60i, it's a simple and trivial pull-down at the end of production, plus you get the added benefit of having a more filmic look, which can add legitimacy even to productions intended only for video. If you want to take that same program and distribute to PAL's 50i, it's just a simple speed ramp up from 24p-25p-50i. Again, this is how all Hollywood features are sent to PAL territory. If your final destination is DVD, you can encode 24 frame progressive, using more encoding bandwidth for better quality, or fitting much more video onto a DVD as opposed to 60i. If you're going to web streaming or download, the same advantages apply to a progressive frame rate.

I would love to see interlace go away completely, as it really is a legacy of the limitations of analog broadcasting. A "cheat" if you will, of getting more percieved detail with less bandwidth. But I think that 24p is a marginal compromise at best. Unfortunately, as long as Hollywood holds on to 24fps film production, it's not going away any time soon. And Hollywood has no incentive whatsoever to move to a faster frame rate. 24p hides a lot of production flaws. If movies changed over to, say, 60 progressive frames, even at 720 or 1080 HD resolutions, the percieved sharpness and detail would rival an IMAX screen in every theater. Try pulling off a production design or hiring talent beautiful enough to pull that off!

Is there any technical reason why 1080 24p is harder to do than 1080 60i? Is it purely for marketing reasons that Sony reserves this for its most expensive camera? Or is 24p at that resolution truly cost prohibitive for prosumer camcorders? I know limited demand comes heavily into play but we all know that so aside from that what else is stopping Sony and JVC and all the others from giving us the whole hog?

Betsy,

Sony isn't doing 1080 60p with the HDV cameras, just 1080 60i.

Yes, it is more demanding to do 1080 24p than 1080 60i.

Sorry, I meant 1080i of course. How much more demanding? I we talking a quantum leap in technology or a slow evolution?

We are getting to an interesting point here, a question which has bothered me all along is: could not Sony just piggyback 1080/24p over 1080/60i much like the DVX100 and XL2 do 480/24p over 480/60i ?

One reason I always wondered was 24p is less information per second than 60i. HD tapes have longer recording times in 24p than 60i so I wondered if it was just more taxing on the chips themselves.

In this case, I would prefer for the camera to have real 24p imaging and store 24 discrete frames per second. Thus, the limited bandwidth of the DV tape could be used to get better quality frames. And then if some sorf of DVCAM-like tape speed were used and the data rate could be incremented... I guess THEN it might make sense for the pro version of the FX1 to cost twice as much. Otherwise, the XLR inputs and darker shell just don't add up. I am hoping that Sony just couldn't write the 24p "HDVPRO" firmware in time for IBC.

I agree with Scott that both 60i and 24p are really limitations of the past!! Both represent limitation of technology that have come to represent particular distribution means to the public. IF the aim is to reproduce the original image, just like a live performance, then 1080p at greater than 60 frames a second or above will be needed. 24p is not better than 60i just different masking of the facts. BOth leave out detail that would be seen in the live event. IT really comes down to personal preferences. I came to Canada in 1970 under the impresion that NTSC was terrible. When I went back to the UK for a holiday the flickering TV's drove me crazy until my brain ignored the flicker and I was impressed by the colour detail, I had never seen this flicker before I left!!!!!!!! Each system has a history that when viewed by todays technolgy and the original goal of reproducing the live event becomes seriously defective. In a live theatre the audience can only get so close so the lighting, set design etc can create an illusion for the audience, normally by creating shadow detailing too wide for a video camera to pickup but well within the range of the eye. Thats what live theatre is all about. Film and TV are different, who wants an incredibly detailed image of a spotty face?? The illusion has to be created some other way hence the nice soft images of 24p film. But please its not real , its an effect. Real for me is the creation of a wide screen image that reproduces the point of view of the live event in all its detail, as if I was sat in best seat in the audience. I think this is a little way off yet and of course with this approach there would be no multi camera shoots or editing!!!!!! Story telling is an illusion so its fair to use any available means to achieve the needed entertainment. Most of my interest is in recording events, as close as possible to real. For me 24p has no place I want the most detail at the highest frame rates with, if needed the fluid motion of reality.
I've ordered my HDR-FX1.

Ron Evans

I guess I'm one of those wannabe filmmakers. But I have line-produced or co-produced four 35mm features. I'm looking at doing a low budget film for my feature directing debate. That's why I'm looking at different ways of doing that. It could be because I'm older and did everything on film before. I guess I'm stuck in the 24p mode because I like that look. The motion etc.

But can you take the 1080i and do a film out and would it look just as good as a 24p film out.

I have seen clips of the films done with pd150, etc. But it seems like I still like the look of the 24p cameras better. So will the new pro model Sony camera give me a much better look than the DVX or XL2?

.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham : John,

electronically sharper picture, DSP enhanced color processing, and limited lattitude. -->>>

Jon if you read the BBC R&D White Paper WHP053
at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.html

He does mention that todays video cameras have about the same lattitude as film IF the cameras are setup correctly.

The owner and chief engineer of DV Film argues the same point. (www.dvfilm.com)

heath

Anhar,

I have read the BBC R&D White Paper WHP053. As a professional D.I.T. such papers are require reading.

Alan Roberts comments on capturing a wider lattitude range than traditional video does not in any way state that a camera's DSP can be modified to capture the same range of film in the same way as film.

Read the "Conclusions" section carefully and pay special attention to two key statements:

First, he specifically states that such modifications make it possible to "mimic" film performance. NOT "equal" film performance.

Second, carefully read the paragraph regarding the modifications:

"Contrast range: preset the gamma-corrector, black stretch and knee controls to capture 11 stops range... The resulting performance captures about the same range as does film, albiet without the straight line performance the film can deliver over its central exposure range."

Note that the specific comment is that the resulting performance captures ABOUT the same range as does film. Then, he continues "albiet without the straight line performance the film can deliver over its central exposure range."

That following statement is key to understanding the actual differences between the lattitude characteristics of current Digital cameras and modern Film emulsions.


Another point to consider is the comment that "setting these controls optimally is a laboratory operation and cannot be done reliably in the field." While I personally feel that is an overstatement, the bottom line is that such finely tuned DSP modifications do require the proper tools and careful attention to the smallest detail. And while it is not impossible to execute such manipulation in the field, it does require a more controlled enviroment. Controlling the enviroment on location is not always easy. I am often huddle in a tent of multiple 4x4 floppys trying to wrangle a huge bundle of cables, calibrate a monitor, waveform/vectorscope, and manipulate the DSP via a RMB-150 paintbox while the director grumbles about why we're shooting HD instead of film... Time is money. And production depends on getting things done as quickly as possible. So for every extra minute that a D.I.T. takes to further manipulate the cameras DSP while the DP is huddle over his shoulder requesting changes is another minute that the camera is not rolling and the production isn't moving forward.

Alan Roberts statements are much more appropriate to the types of productions he describes. Such as broadcast or studio situations.

Another issue to consider is what such modifications actually lok like. And how that look will translate to other recording and playback formats. Consider the gamma options of Panasonic's DVX100 and HDC27F Varicam. Both the DVX100's "Cine-Like" gamma setting and the HDC27F Varicam's "FILM-REC" setting provide a manner in which the camera can capture a much wider lattitude range than traditional gamma settings. However, those settings result in a picture that is "flatter" and lacks chroma saturation. Many who have used the DVX and even the Varicam often find the improved gamma settings to be lacking in what they perceive as good contrast and color.

These settings do have a purpose and can be used with excellent results to achieve a wider lattitude image capture. But capturing that wide lattitude isn't the end of the image chain. How that image will look when conformed to broadcast standards, mastered to DVD, or sent to a film out is a whole other issue that requires consideration before the image is captured.

Bottom line is, while current Digital cameras can be modified to mimic the lattitude of modern film emulsions, the actual performance of the camera once it is modified is not equal to the performance of said emulsions. And the resulting images are not beautifully contrasted pictures with pretty colors and perfect color tonal reproduction. But then again, niether is film...

Heath, I know we've wondered off topic here. And yes DVFilm's argument (as well as the information presented in WHP053) is not completely without merit or application.

As a professional Cinematographer, I constantly strive to balance the technical abilities of a given format with the real world working conditions of a given production. Then I choose the format, tools, and workflow that will compliment each other and that production in the most cost effective manner to the producers. Because in the end the only thing that matters is whether or not the format, tools and workflow get the job done on time and on budget.

I know we've wandered off topic, but it is a fascinating one. To get back on topic, what do people think of the way the camera is built? Too small, just right, etc.?

heath

Jon, whether on topic or off, Thank You for such quality insight! Great post. Very often there are posts on this board which are of great value to us newbies, like yours. Thanks again.

I think it's pretty good overall.

One of the downsides to a handheld camera is some clients have to wonder why they're paying you the big bucks for a camera that looks like the one they have at home.

The alternative is the XL-2. Looks cool, but handheld is akward as is shoulder mount without the Anton-Bauer package or a brick with electrical tape. Yet another option that along with additional glass and pro viewfinder brings the real price of the Canon to $10,000.

With the OIS, you can get good handheld in your hand, so I'm not worried about the shoulder. On the tripod, I can get over any client anxiety with a 4x4 matte box and rail system, something I would add to any DV/HDV set up.

I agree with Mike: Unfortunately, the bigger the camera, the more confidence your client/actor/investor has in your legitimacy.