This was kind of a good read,,,not long either.

http://www.joshoakhurst.com/?p=200

Good article, giving both sides of the picture.

Last week I took my FX1 and my VX2000 to a show someone wanted me to tape at the last moment. Very dark theatre, with poor stage lighing. In the end, I was only allowed one camera position, and so I had to make a choice between two cameras. In real time testing, the VX2000 won the day, especially since SD would be my outlet anyway....

Hi there

Having read the linked article, it may also be argued that the Panny is hardy Hi-end SD, certainly not higher than the SD from the Z1, especially if you consider the 16:9 aspect ratio. It would not compare any better to say a Digital Beta than the Z1.

So with the Z1 you can get a low end HD project and still put our 16:9 SD footage.

I don't think I'd ever shoot 4:3 again unless I was specifically asked for it... compositionwise I hate it... and if you are after a cinema look, it weighs higher on my list than the 24P of the 100B.

As I said on a previous post today, I personnaly can't see why one would purchase a 4:3 SD camera today....

The next generation of HDV cameras is there and the battle is in this field...
Panasonic, Canon, JVC and Sony are all in this mélé now... so what sense is there in getting a camera you'll be replacing far quicker than one of the HDV offerings, that offer depending on the model, better quality in the wide aspect ratio.

Just my two Euro's worth

G

you have to remember to that most broadcast TV here in the USA is 4:3.

I don't think I'd ever shoot 4:3 again unless I was specifically asked for it... compositionwise I hate it... and if you are after a cinema look, it weighs higher on my list than the 24P of the 100B.

As I said on a previous post today, I personnaly can't see why one would purchase a 4:3 SD camera today....

G

I have to agree. When I shot with the VX2000 last week, I did miss the FX1 16:9 capability, the VX2000 simulated 16:9 is not that good. I did end up letterboxing the output in post...

I also agree that the emphasis on 24p is overdone. Depth of field, lighting and aspect ratio are all key players in the film look.

Agreed but the article was about Indie film makers... how many films are shot in 4:3?

TV is a different issue, and it will go 16:9, just like here in Europe where I'm continually zapping my remote from 4:3 (mostly Super 4:3, which squeezes and crops to fill the screen) and 16:9. Just like changing channel...

regards
Gareth