Pro and Con

R Geoff Baker · February 17th, 2005, 10:33 AM

I thought the camera shell was magnesium, as it has been in the PD150 and before that the VX1000 lines?

Hans ter Lingen · February 17th, 2005, 05:40 PM

camera does have a magnesium frame inside.

Concerning motion artifacts : is it produces during fast panning of the cam or when you tray to catch fast movements on the set while not moving the cam ??????

Douglas Spotted Eagle · February 17th, 2005, 05:42 PM

You'll see artifacts when panning. The slower the cineframe, the worse it becomes. CF24 and CF25 have a great deal of artifacting, but it's not terribly unlike what film does.

Hans ter Lingen · February 17th, 2005, 05:50 PM

Doug : so you are saying it is better than ordinary film? If so why is everybody complaining about it?

February 17th, 2005, 05:42 PM	#18
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	You'll see artifacts when panning. The slower the cineframe, the worse it becomes. CF24 and CF25 have a great deal of artifacting, but it's not terribly unlike what film does. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

February 17th, 2005, 10:33 AM	#16
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	I thought the camera shell was magnesium, as it has been in the PD150 and before that the VX1000 lines?

February 17th, 2005, 05:40 PM	#17
Hans ter Lingen Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 55	camera does have a magnesium frame inside. Concerning motion artifacts : is it produces during fast panning of the cam or when you tray to catch fast movements on the set while not moving the cam ??????

February 17th, 2005, 05:50 PM	#19
Hans ter Lingen Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 55	Doug : so you are saying it is better than ordinary film? If so why is everybody complaining about it?