Considering Swicth From SD to HD

[Dylan Pank]

At the moment the only camera that use the DVCproHD codec is the Panasonic Varicam, but with no lens it's still ten times the price the Z1, and only has a 960*720p resolution (albeit 60p with variable frame rates). However, reports are that its images look great. Rumours abound Panasonic are preparing a prosumer DVCproHD cam but it must be some time off before it's a reality (2006/7?)

[Rhett Allen]

I'd be willing to bet that FCP will be ready and able to edit HD"V" by the time Sony is selling the Z1. The reality is, there are only 2 cameras capable of shooting HDV right now and neither of them is classified as "PRO". Apple is working on it and will have it ready very soon. Until then, there are a few work arounds such as Lumiere. As far as FCP goes, as long as you have plenty of fast storage and the appropriate input card or codec, it will edit just about any format.

[Dylan Pank]

Well, if I were a gambling man, I'd take that bet. I remember how long it took FCP to run in OS X! My guess is they're working hard on a way to make HDV as seemless in FCP as DV and DVCproHD are now, and won't release FCP-HDV until it is. Third Quarter 2005 is my guess.

[Barry Green]

I don't know their timeline for having it integrated, but I believe that Sony announced that Apple has agreed to incorporate native HDV editing into FCP-HD as well.

[Mark Sasahara]

If you do buy now, get the DSR-500. Bigger chip, better resolution, DVCAM format. I love my XL2, but MiniDv is an inhernetly noisy format. If I had the bucks, I may have gotten a DSR-500.

The FX1 and Z1 are shite, if you're going to go HD, rent an HDWF900 when you need High Def. HD on a 1/3" inch chip seems silly to me, it defeats the whole purpose of HD. It's like shooting fine grain film on Super8 it still looks like crap, 'cuz it's super8.

Don't always jump so soon. Maybe even put off getting a new camera until after NAB? There's lots of new software and hardware happenings coming soon.

[Dylan Pank]

<<<-- The FX1 and Z1 are shite, if you're going to go HD, rent an HDWF900 when you need High Def. HD on a 1/3" inch chip seems silly to me, it defeats the whole purpose of HD. It's like shooting fine grain film on Super8 it still looks like crap, 'cuz it's super8. -->>>

Thing is Mark, no offence but we can carry on playing that game till we reach Imax. "The HDWF900 is a piece of crap: it's large, really noisy, and I've read reports that it's prone to overheating and shutting down. 1080*1440 rez is much lower than 35mm and the latitude sucks. Get an Arriflex and shoot film if you're serious etc etc." I'm joking, the 900 is great for some purposes, but it seems a bit daft to come into an HDV forum and start criticising the format in discussion.

The main problem for many in this forum with using a cam like the 900 (apart from the size, noise, the heat) is that once you move up to HDCAM, it's not just the cost of renting the cam, but also HDCAM capable decks, capture equipment, NLE, etc. Whereas HDV editing can be done on any faily decent newish computer with a firewire card and suitable software.

BTW, tape speed aside, DVCAM and miniDV use EXACTLY the same codec. Try shooting DV SP and DVCAM on a PD150 and you'll see NO difference (bar some extra drop outs in DV SPmode.) It's not MiniDV that's noisy, it's the slightly cheaper cameras.

[Mark Sasahara]

Oops, my bad, I thought this was HD, not HDV.

[Dylan Pank]

Fair enough mark, an honest mistake. In general the points still stand. Of course any HDV camera is inferior to something like the 900. I notice you sig line says you're a Director of Photography, in shich case you're probably doing big projects where HD is an alternative to 35mm or super16, or maybe Digibeta whereas most of the people in this forum will be looking at HDV as an alternative to or a step up from miniDV, DVCAM or maybe BetacamSP.

Even if your go to a non-HDV HD forum (though HDV is HD) the advantages HDV offers to certain video and film makers are still relevant.

[Heath McKnight]

Dylan,

I just spent the weekend working with the F900 in the Caribbean in 87 degree weather in a helicopter in the sun, and we had NONE of the problems you described. Either you had a bad unit or something else.

This board is for HDV, not really HD (like the Varicam, F900, Viper, etc.).

Also, this discussion was moved to our HDV Editing Solutions section because of the talk of editing. Let's try to get back to that. For HDV gear, check out this page here.

heath

[Dylan Pank]

Heath,

I've no personal experience with the 900. My comments were based on numerous reports of such problems I'd read, though re-reading my original post I can see that it might mislead some to think that these were personal experiences (also I might add my comments were not actually totally serious, they were a slightly ironic response to the previous poster)

Anyway, I edited my original post to hopefully clarify the irony and make it clear that these weren't first hand reports of such problems.

[Heath McKnight]

It's never a good thing to pass judgment on gear one has never used. I made that mistake a couple of years ago with the JVC 5000 line. WHOO! I was way off! <wink>

heath

[Dylan Pank]

Well, that was my point, I was attempting a slightly sarcastic comment on another post that passed judgement on a format.

As I said later in the post "the 900 is great for some purposes". In no way was my post an attempt to run down the 900.

[Mark Sasahara]

I have already apologized for my mistaken belief that this was an HD forum, so I'd appreciate being left out of any further discussion. If you want to slag me, write to me directly:
msasaharaphoto@mindspring.com.

[Heath McKnight]

Mark,

We aren't slagging you at all; I was pointing out that this started out as a mostly editing discussion. We actually do talk about major HD in the HDV acquisition forum.

heath