HDR-FX1 HDVis it good for at DVinfo.net

Dejah Fortue · June 21st, 2005, 03:15 PM

im shooting a indie low budget flick example(kids,bully,gummo) is the fx1 good for this or would the cannon gl2 be enough.

sorry if this is wrong forum, my first post

thanks

Chris Hurd · June 21st, 2005, 04:50 PM

Any camcorder is a good one, as long as it works!

Michael Pappas · June 22nd, 2005, 11:22 AM

Dejah Fortue,

I look at it like this. If your going to spend your hard creative time and skills on a project for the next year or two, you might as well capture every little bit of detail that you can. Why limit yourself to SD level. You can always go down with HD to SD DVD's but the reverse will not look good ever. Start out with the best master you can. Why spend all that money on sets, actors, lighting, peoples time and not retain as much of that hard work as you can. Shoot HD and don't ever look back.

Now that said, don't waist any more time on the cameras . Develop your story and how your going to tell it visually. This is the most important elements to upses over. Work on the story and all it elements in making it work.

I hope this helps........

Pappas

Michael Pappas · June 22nd, 2005, 02:50 PM

One other thing Dejah Fortue,

If your production doesn't start for few months, you should wait to see the HVX200.

The HVX200 is the camera stopping me from buying the Z1u/FX1 and HD100. The HVX200 so far looks like the best one if it lives up to the press on it.

Canon as well might offer something, but it will be HDV most likely. I don't mind HDV, but DVCpro HD is a standard in the industry.

So if you are not shooting for a while you should spend every waking moment making your story and characters solid before you film a single second. By that time you should have many choices on HD cams to pick from.

Pappas

Bill Pryor · June 22nd, 2005, 04:05 PM

I think Kids and Gummo were shot film. I don't know about Bully.

I'd go with the FX1 simply because it has 16:9 chips. The Sony demo DVD of the Z1 (pro version of the FX1) looked great. While the DVCPRO HD format may be a bit better, the new Panasonic camera is still going to be a 1/3" chip camera. Recording to a little bit better HD format is going to make some difference, but in the end probably not all that much--although I don't know for sure, since the new camera isn't out yet and the only DVCPRO HD is from 2/3" chip cameras, irrelevant in this case.

And, there's the price to consider. The Z1 is under $5K, and the FX1 is even cheaper. The Panasonic is going to be $10K with the 2 P2 cards, which allow you to shoot 16 minutes of video. Then you have to transfer the footage to hard drives, in real time (a 4 gig card takes 4 minutes), erase the cards and reuse them, trusting your footage to the hard drives. If you use firewire drives, I'd assume you'd have to have a computer along for the transfer too, but maybe not. Panasonic is going to sell a portable 60 gig drive, and I'm guessing you could transfer P2 directly to it. But it's only 60 gigs, which is just an hour of DVCPRO HD footage.

If you can work within this kind of workflow and cost, then the Panasonic probably is going to be better. Again, the question is how much better.

In my opinion the GL2 is a bit iffy because it is only a 1/4" chip camera. The FX1 has 1/3" chips, shoots HDV and its chips are 16:9. So it's way superior to the GL2, in my opinion. On the other hand, if you already own a GL2 and if money is tight, I'd say go with what you have. If you spend all your money on a camera, you won't have any to put into other things like good lighting and sound. And pizza and beer for the cast and crew, and coffee and donuts in the mornings. A cheap camera and a well-fed crew is better than a bitchy crew and a good camera.

Speaking of Harmony Korine (you mentioned Gummo), I think he's brilliant and it doesn't matter what he shoots with. Julien Donkey-Boy, for example was shot with a variety of cheap cameras. If you can come up with a good story and get the kind of performances out of actors he does, you can shoot with a Fisher-Price toy camera and people will watch your stuff. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration, but the camera is only the tip of the iceberg.

Alex Raskin · June 22nd, 2005, 04:44 PM

I respectfully disagree with the point that camera practically doesn't matter.

Recently I found myself unable to fully enjoy 28 days or even David Lynch's Lost Highway precisely because the image quality was subpar (on DVD. I dont know how it looked in the theaters, but I suspect it looked even worse.)

So while the story is king, the certain visual quality must also be there. Viewers should not be distracted by bad pictures from enjoying the story.

Boyd Ostroff · June 22nd, 2005, 05:37 PM

I thought 28 days later worked surprisingly well in the theatre. And in the case of that movie, it wasn't a budgetary decision. The director wanted it to have that look. Now it's fine that you didn't like it, but it really wasn't a "subpar image" issue, but one of intentional stylization.

Bill Pryor · June 22nd, 2005, 06:51 PM

Thomas Vinterberg shot "The Celebration" with Sony TRV7 cameras, single chip consumer ones. The film won awards all over the world and is excellent. There have been lots of movies shot with small cameras that looked perfectly good on a TV screen, and some even in the theaters. Agnes Varda shot quite a number of shots of "The Gleaners & I" with a TRV900, and nobody in the theater noticed it.

Granted, a better image is better. But if all the production values are in place, including lighting, composition, directing, editing, talent and story, then if it's shot with a 1/4" chip camera, it can still be good. Anyway, the chances of a very low budget movie getting to a big screen are very small. Getting to Sundance Channel, IFC, Showtime, etc., the chances are much better.

I personally feel that a 1/3" chip camera is as low as I want to go in visual quality, but you work with what you have to work with.

Carlos E. Martinez · June 23rd, 2005, 06:06 AM

Content is what really matters, even if image quality may be part of that content too.

In any case, if money is short and you have to pick a 1/4" camera, which are generally more affordable from the 3-CCDs group, get yourself a Sony PDX10 or a Panasonic GS400 and shoot native 16:9.

That video can probably interchange well with stuff later shot in 16:9 HDV.

Carlos

Tommy Haupfear · June 23rd, 2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

I personally feel that a 1/3" chip camera is as low as I want to go in visual quality, but you work with what you have to work with.

I definitely agree with that statement!

Bob Zimmerman · June 23rd, 2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

One other thing Dejah Fortue,

If your production doesn't start for few months, you should wait to see the HVX200.

The HVX200 is the camera stopping me from buying the Z1u/FX1 and HD100. The HVX200 so far looks like the best one if it lives up to the press on it.

Canon as well might offer something, but it will be HDV most likely. I don't mind HDV, but DVCpro HD is a standard in the industry.

So if you are not shooting for a while you should spend every waking moment making your story and characters solid before you film a single second. By that time you should have many choices on HD cams to pick from.

Pappas

Canon won't be HDV. Remember that e-mail I got from the Canon rep? No HDV, they are no longer in the HDV consortium. Look for them to make a real HD XL. Does anyone really think Canon will sit back and just let Panasonic and JVC steal the show?

Late in the year 2005 a XL3 HD with a built in hard drive.

Radek Svoboda · June 29th, 2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman

Canon won't be HDV. Remember that e-mail I got from the Canon rep? No HDV, they are no longer in the HDV consortium.

Is that true?

Radek

Michael Pappas · June 29th, 2005, 09:28 AM

That's very interesting info. If it happens that will be awesome!

When did Canon pull out of the HDV consortium?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman

Canon won't be HDV. Remember that e-mail I got from the Canon rep? No HDV, they are no longer in the HDV consortium. Look for them to make a real HD XL. Does anyone really think Canon will sit back and just let Panasonic and JVC steal the show?

Late in the year 2005 a XL3 HD with a built in hard drive.

Radek Svoboda · June 29th, 2005, 10:29 AM

Canon has not pulled out. Check following site:

http://www.hdv-info.org/

This is latest info from site:

HDV Format Co-Promoters Office is currently operated by Sony Corporation on behalf of Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC)

HDV and HDV logo are trademarks of Sony Corporation and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC).

The site is registered to Sony, phone numbers are to Sony. Seems like Sony is main company here, then JVC, then Canon and Sharp, then some 50 companies that licence HDV stuff, like Apple, Avid, Pioneer, CineForm.

Radek

Michael Pappas · June 29th, 2005, 10:58 AM

That's what I thought! If Canon had pulled out, it would have been in the trade papers..

Thanks Radek.........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda

Canon has not pulled out. Check following site:

http://www.hdv-info.org/

This is latest info from site:

HDV Format Co-Promoters Office is currently operated by Sony Corporation on behalf of Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC)

HDV and HDV logo are trademarks of Sony Corporation and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC).

The site is registered to Sony, phone numbers are to Sony. Seems like Sony is main company here, then JVC, then Canon and Sharp, then some 50 companies that licence HDV stuff, like Apple, Avid, Pioneer, CineForm.

Radek

June 21st, 2005, 03:15 PM	#1
Dejah Fortue Tourist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: bay area Posts: 2	HDR-FX1 HDVis it good for im shooting a indie low budget flick example(kids,bully,gummo) is the fx1 good for this or would the cannon gl2 be enough. sorry if this is wrong forum, my first post thanks

June 21st, 2005, 04:50 PM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Any camcorder is a good one, as long as it works! __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

June 22nd, 2005, 11:22 AM	#3
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	Dejah Fortue, I look at it like this. If your going to spend your hard creative time and skills on a project for the next year or two, you might as well capture every little bit of detail that you can. Why limit yourself to SD level. You can always go down with HD to SD DVD's but the reverse will not look good ever. Start out with the best master you can. Why spend all that money on sets, actors, lighting, peoples time and not retain as much of that hard work as you can. Shoot HD and don't ever look back. Now that said, don't waist any more time on the cameras . Develop your story and how your going to tell it visually. This is the most important elements to upses over. Work on the story and all it elements in making it work. I hope this helps........ Pappas

June 22nd, 2005, 02:50 PM	#4
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	One other thing Dejah Fortue, If your production doesn't start for few months, you should wait to see the HVX200. The HVX200 is the camera stopping me from buying the Z1u/FX1 and HD100. The HVX200 so far looks like the best one if it lives up to the press on it. Canon as well might offer something, but it will be HDV most likely. I don't mind HDV, but DVCpro HD is a standard in the industry. So if you are not shooting for a while you should spend every waking moment making your story and characters solid before you film a single second. By that time you should have many choices on HD cams to pick from. Pappas

June 22nd, 2005, 04:05 PM	#5
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I think Kids and Gummo were shot film. I don't know about Bully. I'd go with the FX1 simply because it has 16:9 chips. The Sony demo DVD of the Z1 (pro version of the FX1) looked great. While the DVCPRO HD format may be a bit better, the new Panasonic camera is still going to be a 1/3" chip camera. Recording to a little bit better HD format is going to make some difference, but in the end probably not all that much--although I don't know for sure, since the new camera isn't out yet and the only DVCPRO HD is from 2/3" chip cameras, irrelevant in this case. And, there's the price to consider. The Z1 is under $5K, and the FX1 is even cheaper. The Panasonic is going to be $10K with the 2 P2 cards, which allow you to shoot 16 minutes of video. Then you have to transfer the footage to hard drives, in real time (a 4 gig card takes 4 minutes), erase the cards and reuse them, trusting your footage to the hard drives. If you use firewire drives, I'd assume you'd have to have a computer along for the transfer too, but maybe not. Panasonic is going to sell a portable 60 gig drive, and I'm guessing you could transfer P2 directly to it. But it's only 60 gigs, which is just an hour of DVCPRO HD footage. If you can work within this kind of workflow and cost, then the Panasonic probably is going to be better. Again, the question is how much better. In my opinion the GL2 is a bit iffy because it is only a 1/4" chip camera. The FX1 has 1/3" chips, shoots HDV and its chips are 16:9. So it's way superior to the GL2, in my opinion. On the other hand, if you already own a GL2 and if money is tight, I'd say go with what you have. If you spend all your money on a camera, you won't have any to put into other things like good lighting and sound. And pizza and beer for the cast and crew, and coffee and donuts in the mornings. A cheap camera and a well-fed crew is better than a bitchy crew and a good camera. Speaking of Harmony Korine (you mentioned Gummo), I think he's brilliant and it doesn't matter what he shoots with. Julien Donkey-Boy, for example was shot with a variety of cheap cameras. If you can come up with a good story and get the kind of performances out of actors he does, you can shoot with a Fisher-Price toy camera and people will watch your stuff. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration, but the camera is only the tip of the iceberg.

June 22nd, 2005, 04:44 PM	#6
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	I respectfully disagree with the point that camera practically doesn't matter. Recently I found myself unable to fully enjoy 28 days or even David Lynch's Lost Highway precisely because the image quality was subpar (on DVD. I dont know how it looked in the theaters, but I suspect it looked even worse.) So while the story is king, the certain visual quality must also be there. Viewers should not be distracted by bad pictures from enjoying the story.

June 22nd, 2005, 05:37 PM	#7
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I thought 28 days later worked surprisingly well in the theatre. And in the case of that movie, it wasn't a budgetary decision. The director wanted it to have that look. Now it's fine that you didn't like it, but it really wasn't a "subpar image" issue, but one of intentional stylization.

June 22nd, 2005, 06:51 PM	#8
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Thomas Vinterberg shot "The Celebration" with Sony TRV7 cameras, single chip consumer ones. The film won awards all over the world and is excellent. There have been lots of movies shot with small cameras that looked perfectly good on a TV screen, and some even in the theaters. Agnes Varda shot quite a number of shots of "The Gleaners & I" with a TRV900, and nobody in the theater noticed it. Granted, a better image is better. But if all the production values are in place, including lighting, composition, directing, editing, talent and story, then if it's shot with a 1/4" chip camera, it can still be good. Anyway, the chances of a very low budget movie getting to a big screen are very small. Getting to Sundance Channel, IFC, Showtime, etc., the chances are much better. I personally feel that a 1/3" chip camera is as low as I want to go in visual quality, but you work with what you have to work with.

June 23rd, 2005, 06:06 AM	#9
Carlos E. Martinez Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Posts: 1,138	Content is what really matters, even if image quality may be part of that content too. In any case, if money is short and you have to pick a 1/4" camera, which are generally more affordable from the 3-CCDs group, get yourself a Sony PDX10 or a Panasonic GS400 and shoot native 16:9. That video can probably interchange well with stuff later shot in 16:9 HDV. Carlos

June 29th, 2005, 10:29 AM	#14
Radek Svoboda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 500	Canon has not pulled out. Check following site: http://www.hdv-info.org/ This is latest info from site: HDV Format Co-Promoters Office is currently operated by Sony Corporation on behalf of Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) HDV and HDV logo are trademarks of Sony Corporation and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC). The site is registered to Sony, phone numbers are to Sony. Seems like Sony is main company here, then JVC, then Canon and Sharp, then some 50 companies that licence HDV stuff, like Apple, Avid, Pioneer, CineForm. Radek