|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 16th, 2006, 04:39 AM
|
#1 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7
|
XD or H1
i'll cut the loooong story very short :
we are shooting a feature film (got funding!) on a digital format which will be printed on to 35mm, but we can not choose which one to shoot it with : XD H1 shallow depth is critical.. Can someone compare and contrast these two beatiful cameras ? thank you , aydin ozer |
|
|
|
March 16th, 2006, 07:44 AM
|
#2 |
|
Wrangler
|
I suggest going with the extra money for the Sony XDCAM HD 350. Unlike the 330, the 350 gives you variable frame rates for over/undercranking. The larger CCDS (1/2 vs. 1/3 of the H1) will assist with shallow DOF.
You should weigh that against the cost of buying an H1 and renting a mini-35 adapter with 35mm prime lenses that will definitely give you your shallow DOF. If you plan to go film out, find a way to capture via HD-SDI. Just my thoughts. -gb- |
|
|
|
|
March 16th, 2006, 08:45 AM
|
#3 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Zephyr Cove, NV & Anchorage, AK
Posts: 82
|
XD vs H1
We have not received our PDW-F350 yet (Sony says the end of this month) but we did test our Sony HDC-X300 (which has the same 1/2" CCD) versus our H1. The Sony had better lattitude (7 stops versus 9 stops), less vertical smear, and more control over depth of field. The Canon had the same or even slightly better resolution, but we need to test that again with the F350, since I think the limit was the lens we were using.
The biggest difference is the HDSDI output. The Canon is true 4:2:2. The Sony image processing only captures 4:2:0 (which is what is recorded on the disc) and then generates the HDSDI output from that. We had much better results with chroma keying and wire removal using the Canon. If you are doing lots of FX work I would test both carefully before deciding. This assumes you are capturing from the SDI output. If you are using the internal tape deck of the H1 versus the optical disc of the XDCAM then both are 4:2:0 and the XDCAM will be better because of the higher data rate (less compression). Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
March 16th, 2006, 09:02 AM
|
#4 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NE of London, England
Posts: 788
|
If DOF is very important then an H1 with 35mm adapter may be a good call. It will reduce resolution though.
|
|
|
|
|
March 16th, 2006, 10:23 PM
|
#5 | |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7
|
why?
Why H1 with 35mm adapter than XD ?
(especially with the resolution reduction) -crash Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 17th, 2006, 04:43 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NE of London, England
Posts: 788
|
Quote:
I am in a similar boat to you and I am thinking of renting a HDCAM and Pro35. I'll have to see what deals are possible though. If resolution is more important to you, then a DOF adapter probably isn't the best option as it will soften the image. Instead spend the money on a decent lens. |
|
|
|
|
|
March 17th, 2006, 11:53 AM
|
#7 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 344
|
Go with the 350. If you go with the H1, the DOF adapter plus smaller 1/2" CCDs will also make you have to increase lighting, which means more heat and sweaty talent. Sweaty talent means more makeup. More makeup shows up "better" on HD.
|
|
|
|
|
March 18th, 2006, 05:54 PM
|
#8 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7
|
if it is possible to equip prime lenses to 350 without the need of pro35 (p+s) i definetelly am planning on the sony.. in that case i cant see why would i go with h1.
is it possible to equip 350 with primes ? how ? how much ? i do appriciate the replies , you guys are the greatest , thank you crash |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
