Panasonic HMC150 vs Sony Z5 Side By Side Comparison Clip

[Jeff Harper]

Actually Tim, I dread it in a way. Rendering in BluRay takes forever!

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Actually Tim, I dread it in a way. Rendering in BluRay takes forever!

Rendering a Bluray MPEG2 compliant file from Vegas HDV timeline for DVD Architect for me is faster than rendering an SD MPEG2 for DVD. IF you just want to put up to 2 hours and 30 mins on a BLuray stay with MPEG2 rather than AVC. Quality is just like my HDV original as the encode is really just changing CBR HDV to VBR MPEG2 and Vegas does this with Smart encode and reduces the file size a little. To squeeze the max time I have reduced average to 21mbps with max at 30 and min at 15mbps. 2 pass encode for SD DVD using TMPGenc Xpress usually takes about twice realtime whereas MPEG2 for Bluray is under realtime on my Q9450.
I edit with Edius but go to Vegas for final audio, set markers for chapters etc and encode for Bluray.
Ron Evans

[Jeff Harper]

Thanks for the Primer Ron, I'll come back to this when I'm ready to render BluRay!

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

Here in Oz its all 16:9 across the board. Never heard of "Please film for us in 4:3".

Don't be surprised. Up here in Thailand, it's all 4:3 SD. Some people have tried selling unprotected 16:9 videos to the local free and cable networks with some successes. The networks have then put those in a few of their off-prime-time programs with letterboxing. As far as I know, most of the audience who watched these few letterboxed program either were wondering why there had to be black bars that took up 1/3 of their screens or just didn't care.

All prime time news and other programs have so far been 4:3 and it looks likely to be remain so for years to come.

You can have all the killer equipment in the world but at the end of the day it's just PAL 4:3 SD on CRT screens. Some more sophisticated or well-off audience may watch broadcast programs on their fancy LCDs and plasmas. The sad truth is the broadcast programs look invariably worse on these flat panel screens than on their old CRTs due to the combination of the scaling of the low SD resolution and the conversion of the broadcast interlaced signal into progressive. One positive aspect is that the industry's infrastructure has made such good level playing field for the program suppliers who own anywhere from Sony DSR-450s down to the TRV-900, or Panasonic GS-400 class. On the progressive look front, you can have one of the new decent AVCHD or HDV cheap compact cams and compete reasonably well with far less investments against the folks who have the Sony HD XDCams or Panasonic HPXs or other DVCPro HD cams. It's all just the content. The broadcast signal is the Great Leveler!

Wacharapong

[Tom Hardwick]

Originally Posted by Wacharapong Chiowanich

most of the audience who watched these few letterboxed program either were wondering why there had to be black bars that took up 1/3 of their screens or just didn't care.

Most if not all 4:3 CRTs show 16:9 footage letterboxed, and theoretically they'd have exactly 25% of the screen blacked out (12.5% top and bottom) when showing 16:9.

But in reality a 4:3 CRT will only overscan the left and right sides, so that when 16:9 is shown they see the full height of the image - ie, it's overerscanned in the horizontal direction only. As such only about 15% of the screen is black bars which is much more acceptable.

Of course the image isn't 16:9 any more, it's now 16:9.5.

tom.

[Steve Renouf]

Originally Posted by Tim Akin

Hey Jeff, I bet it won't be long until we're being asked about blu!

Yeah - lots of enquiries for blu movies ;-)

[D.R. Gates]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Two days ago, a bride watched my demo DVDs, all shot with VX2100, but it wasn't until I showed her footage from the FX1000 that she went wow.

Let's hope she remains equally ecstatic when she sees the rolling shutter effects everytime the photographer's flash goes off next to you.

I really wanted this camera. But with weddings as my main job, it's just not practical.

So then I wanted the HMC150, but I'm hearing too many stories about screwed up audio to want to get it.

Looks like I'll just have to wait for something else, and in the meantime, keep shooting with my VX2100's.

[Tom Hardwick]

Originally Posted by D.R. Gates

Looks like I'll just have to wait for something else, and in the meantime, keep shooting with my VX2100's.

What - in 4:3? Even with the FX rolling shutter and the 150 audio quibbles (must say I haven't heard of this), both these cameras will handsomely outperform the wonderful VX in 16:9. And you can't tell me a bride wants to see herself stretched sideways to fill her new plasma screen. As she will be; most people have no idea how to alter their TV's aspect ratio via the remote.


tom.

[Martin Duffy]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

What - in 4:3? Even with the FX rolling shutter and the 150 audio quibbles (must say I haven't heard of this), both these cameras will handsomely outperform the wonderful VX in 16:9. And you can't tell me a bride wants to see herself stretched sideways to fill her new plasma screen. As she will be; most people have no idea how to alter their TV's aspect ratio via the remote.
tom.

You are on the money Tom. I am doing a wedding edit for a friend and the FX1000 rolling Shutter isn't bothering me. It pops up here and there but gee 16:9 is just so much better.

Throw in the more natural looking images than the VX's and well the FX/Z5 just wins.

TIP: Make sure you assign steady shot to one of the 6 buttons. I got caught just on Sunday doing a sports presentation all hand held and the front end heavy FX was not the best. Steady shot would have helped and I think I will look at getting some sort of support/shoulder brace and have it in my kit for when I need it.

An L Bracket would have been handy. Maybe that's all I need.

[D.R. Gates]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

What - in 4:3? Even with the FX rolling shutter and the 150 audio quibbles (must say I haven't heard of this), both these cameras will handsomely outperform the wonderful VX in 16:9.

Yeah, right.

"What's with all that funky white banding??? It's giving me a headache!", says the bride.

"It's just rolling shutter. It's nothing to worry about. Besides, your wedding is in WIDESCREEN, so you have nothing to complain about", replied the delusional videographer.

[Tom Hardwick]

I'm seeing more and more of this banding on TV these days DRG, as news reporters use CMOS camcorders. Of course little of this footage is slowed down for transmission, but it will become the norm I guess and clients will become aclimatised.

I often like to finish a firework display at the end of a wedding film by putting the last and biggest firework into my variable slo-mo program. The rocket tales off at mormal speed but slows gracefully to a still frame at its peak. You won't be doing that with a CMOS chip.

tom.

[D.R. Gates]

For the most part, you're right. Rolling shutter won't be a problem for some people.

The trouble is, wedding videographers are second only to red carpet movie premieres in the amount of flash they have to deal with. Not only from the pro photographer, but all the guests with their point and shoots.

If I didn't have to deal with flashes, I'd be more than happy getting an FX1000.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by D.R. Gates

Let's hope she remains equally ecstatic when she sees the rolling shutter effects everytime the photographer's flash goes off next to you.

Since I've yet to hear on any website, any bride or customer complain or even notice the rolling shutter effect, I'm sure she'll remain ecstatic. ;)

[Stelios Christofides]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Since I've yet to hear on any website, any bride or customer complain or even notice the rolling shutter effect, I'm sure she'll remain ecstatic. ;)

Same here Ken. I haven't heart of any bride to complain about "flashes, rolling shatter" name it what you want, but I bet you they will complain if they find out that they can not watch their wedding video properly on their new flat TV because it was shot in 4:3 mode.

Stelios

[Tim Akin]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

What - in 4:3? Even with the FX rolling shutter and the 150 audio quibbles (must say I haven't heard of this), both these cameras will handsomely outperform the wonderful VX in 16:9. And you can't tell me a bride wants to see herself stretched sideways to fill her new plasma screen. As she will be; most people have no idea how to alter their TV's aspect ratio via the remote.


tom.

Tom, I couldn't agree more. I have two daughters (24 and 21) and my wife, that have watched every video I have made since I've been using the FX1000's. They have never mentioned a word about the odd flashes, but can't believe how much better the quality of the images are compared to the VX2100 images on our 50" WS. I'm shooting in HD, editing in HD and final output is SD DVD.