Now that you have seen the footage PART II...

[Edwin Hernandez]

OK. The camera is real no replacement for high end SD cameras. I get it.
But now, down to the under the $10K price range...

Please compare - which one delivers an image closer to film:
A- Panasonic DVX100A
B- Canon XL-2
C- Sony FX-1 in any of its cineframe mode

Please compare - which one delivers better overall image quality:
A- Panasonic DVX100A
B- Canon XL-2
C- Sony FX-1
D- Sony PD-170 in DV cam mode
E- JVC 5000U
F- JVC 500
G- Any DVCAM in the 300 series

Please compare - which one offers a more useful or beautiful cinegamma look:
A- Panasonic DVX100A
B- Canon XL-2
C- Sony FX-1

Please compare - which one is the best buy for the money?
A- Panasonic DVX100A
B- Canon XL-2
C- Sony FX-1
D- Sony PD-170 in DV cam mode
E- JVC 5000U
F- JVC 500
G- Any DVCAM in the 300 series

[Rob Lohman]

I'm wondering what you are trying to accomplish Edwin. The
questions you ask are highly subjective. For example, I personally
think the XL1S in frame mode gives me a more pleasing image
than the DVX100A, but that is a personal opinion. Many people
will disagree with me on that for example.

Which has the best cinegamme look is one things that totally
depends on what kind of look you are after. Film does not have
"one" look, it can have very different kinds of looks due to film
stocks used, timing processes or post (color correction) work.
Some might like a cine mode to produce more muted colors while
others just want some knee algorithms to kick in.

Your last question is the most difficult to answer. That totally
depends on things like:

- your budget
- what else you need to buy
- what kind of things you shoot (weddings, ENG, fictional work, wildlife etc.)

It is usually not possible (or at least not a good thing to do) to
look at the camera's without taking anything else into consideration,
those decisions are not that simple (unless you have $5K to pour
down a hole or something).

What are you trying to accomplish with your "question list"?

[Edwin Hernandez]

Rob:
I know all you say is true about my questions... it all depends!

But to answer yours: what I want to accomplish is the best investment for my money.

I will stay in the under $5000 range at least in the short run, so I want to know what to buy in order to be competitive in my market - CONSIDER THAT I HAVE TO COMPETE IN QUALITY AGAINST HIGH END CAMERAS AND IN PRICE AGAINST 3 CCD DV CAMERAS.

Originally I asked the same questions about the Digital Betacam, Betacam SP, or DVCPro 50 in a previous post, because the people who invested in those big time cameras in my country had had a hard time because clients don't understand the different formats, for them there are two categories: film or video.

It happens very often that an ad agency quotes a tv spot shot in Digibeta, and then call another provider to shoot it in mini DV. I know that the camera itself doesn't make a good production, but it is true that there are better cameras than others for different matters.

I do corporate video, not movies. I also do wedding videography. And down here TV commercials shot in video with "film look" are very popular, something I do too.

For weddings I feel the FX-1 will do, because we want to deliver a content IN 16:9 and HD in order to make it future generations proof. But... what about low light performace? I just don't know, and this is very important.

For corporate and tv spots, I don't have a clue if the FX-1 is the right choice at this moment... Is the DV format in the FX1 good enough? Is it better to shoot in HDV and then downcovert it to have an advantage over other people offering DV? Will the cineframe 24 and cineframe 30, and the cinegamma be able to compete with the already known 24p?

For a magazine tv show (where the interlace video look is what I want)
will this camera be appropiate? Or should I stay with any 3CCD DV camera.

See, Rob, there are so many questions for me to answer before I spend a buck. I'm after this format, but I want to be objective and not buy just because I "felt" it would be appropiate.

By the way, I still using my old 1998 Canon XL-1 and still love it.

[Rob Lohman]

" because we want to deliver a content IN 16:9 and HD "

How are you going to deliver this HD footage to your clients?

So for this $5K do you *ONLY* need to buy the camera or also
batteries, tripod, onboard light and a wireless mic for example
(wedding work)?

I don't have first hand experience with the XL2 or the FX1 so
I cannot tell you how these camera's look for what you want
to do. In the end it *is* highly subjective (as I've said). But it
is good that you've told us what kind of work the camera will
see.

Good luck with your quest.

[Edwin Hernandez]

Rob:
What I intend to do in order to deliver HD weddings is the following...

Edit it in HD, and handle a downcoverted SD DVD, and a promise of dubbing it to an established consumer HD format in the future. But how will they trust us that we will deliver it in a near future? By branding - so they will trust a respectable company, and by handling them (today) an HDV dubb master, so they can take it somewhere else in case they move out of town, or if I die, or go into bankruptcy, or my studio burn down in flames, etc. But 5 years from now, they will be able to see the beauty of their wedding day in HD, and not an SD 16:9 upconverted to HD.

Right now, I'm only after camera. I have the other accesories. But, a second tripod wouldn't hurt, since I will still be shooting regular DV video and having an extra camera with tripod is always good for event videography.

-EDWIN