Equipment advise

Ross Jones · November 2nd, 2006, 03:51 PM

Terence,
I don't have the gear out to check at the moment, but I believe that you can turn off the 6 secs pre-roll; so that should get around your second issue...

As to the first - no tape, again - without checking, I'm not sure (as I don't shoot like that..).. But if you don't need to record to tape, you can simply hit Record on the FS-4, rather than Record on the VX.. (needs verifying..).

As an aside, I bought the FS-4 as I had a bit of a problem last year shooting a friend's wedding, - just with tape... I thought I'd got some excellent shots, but upon playback, I saw/heard loads of drop-outs. These were eventually tracked-down to being due to a fault with the tape transport, which was then replaced under Warranty... Thereafter I decided that a DTE system was the way to go.. I also record to tape as backup, but now rarely ever upload from tape; it's virtually always from the FS-4... Much quicker workflow as well...

Regards, Ross.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Hanlon · November 3rd, 2006, 08:10 PM

I shoot HS football as well, with a PD-170 (connected to a Bogen zoom controller for the highlight reel) and a VX-2000 (wide for coach's game films and saving my booty when I miss the shot with the 170).

The main considerations that keep me away from going HDV are, like many others, is the lack of a practical HD delivery mechanism but also the compression artifacts present in the HDV format when shooting fast moving action. [A lesser consideration is low light performance but you should keep in mind that many high school fields are poorly lighted and the extra sensitivity helps with keeping a deep depth of field.]

Its this compression artifacts issue that is my biggest bug-a-boo, but I have to admit that this perception isn't backed up by any first hand experience on my part. Who out there is shooting these kinds of sports events in HDV? Am I way off on the artifact issue?

Mike.

Jerry Gordon · November 3rd, 2006, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Andy, if you get the FX1 you can shoot in the SD mode (4:3 or 16:9) and change over to HD when the time comes. I know it's dearer than the VX, but you can be sure it'll be a helluva lot easier to sell when the time comes.

In answer to your question, the FX1's SD footage won't be superior to the VX's footage except that:

1) it'll be in 16:9
2) the camera is far easier to work with (top screen, focal lengths).
3) the iris wheel is beautiful, the VX's is most certainly not (it puts visible exposure 'bumps' into your footage).

The VX is better in low light by a stop and a half though, and the zoom ring is operatonal all the time. The VX also has easier white balance settings, but in all other respects the FX1 is a whole leap forward.

tom.

Tom, how bad is a stop and a half, is it that noticeable? So from what you are saying if I already have the vx2100, and I do, and not really comfortable with HD yet, then the 2100 is the best bet for video quality over the FX1(I was also considering the Canon A1 also). so stay put for now till a couple more generations of HD camcorders flow thru and it matures?
jerry

Tom Hardwick · December 5th, 2006, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Gordon

Tom, how bad is a stop and a half, is it that noticeable? So from what you are saying if I already have the vx2100, and I do, and not really comfortable with HD yet, then the 2100 is the best bet for video quality over the FX1(I was also considering the Canon A1 also). so stay put for now till a couple more generations of HD camcorders flow thru and it matures?
jerry

A stop and a half is very noticeable indeed. If you can get correctly exposed footage in a room with the VX using one 100w bulb (say) then you'll need another 150w bulb turned on to film with the FX1. That being said, the FX1's gain-up mode is so very good (the low noise amps contribute to this) that you can dial in the +9dB of gain (the 1.5 stops lost) and find you're back where you started: ie the two cameras match in the gloom. So don't let this FX1 'failing' bother you too much.

tom.

Tom Hardwick · December 5th, 2006, 03:30 AM

Sorry Jerry - I didn't answer your other points. The good thing about the FX1 (or Z1) is that they're so backwards compatible. You keep the same batteries and tapes and operating menus and controls. You can shoot in HD and downconvert, or shoot in DV at various speeds (DVCAM, SP or LP depending on the model).

The best thing is it's 16:9 right out of the box, but then again it doesn't have to be - both cams will shoot 4:3 in the SD mode if you insist.

Nothing wrong with the Canon, to be sure. But my play with the FX7 last week means I'd be looking in that dfirection if you wanted a 20x zoom. As you say, HD matures by the day, but every day you wait means your VX is harder to sell.

tom.

November 2nd, 2006, 03:51 PM	#16
Ross Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Harvard, MA Posts: 155	FS-4 - record... Terence, I don't have the gear out to check at the moment, but I believe that you can turn off the 6 secs pre-roll; so that should get around your second issue... As to the first - no tape, again - without checking, I'm not sure (as I don't shoot like that..).. But if you don't need to record to tape, you can simply hit Record on the FS-4, rather than Record on the VX.. (needs verifying..). As an aside, I bought the FS-4 as I had a bit of a problem last year shooting a friend's wedding, - just with tape... I thought I'd got some excellent shots, but upon playback, I saw/heard loads of drop-outs. These were eventually tracked-down to being due to a fault with the tape transport, which was then replaced under Warranty... Thereafter I decided that a DTE system was the way to go.. I also record to tape as backup, but now rarely ever upload from tape; it's virtually always from the FS-4... Much quicker workflow as well... Regards, Ross. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

November 3rd, 2006, 08:10 PM	#17
Mike Hanlon Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 180	I shoot HS football as well, with a PD-170 (connected to a Bogen zoom controller for the highlight reel) and a VX-2000 (wide for coach's game films and saving my booty when I miss the shot with the 170). The main considerations that keep me away from going HDV are, like many others, is the lack of a practical HD delivery mechanism but also the compression artifacts present in the HDV format when shooting fast moving action. [A lesser consideration is low light performance but you should keep in mind that many high school fields are poorly lighted and the extra sensitivity helps with keeping a deep depth of field.] Its this compression artifacts issue that is my biggest bug-a-boo, but I have to admit that this perception isn't backed up by any first hand experience on my part. Who out there is shooting these kinds of sports events in HDV? Am I way off on the artifact issue? Mike. __________________ VM Productions

December 5th, 2006, 03:30 AM	#20
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Sorry Jerry - I didn't answer your other points. The good thing about the FX1 (or Z1) is that they're so backwards compatible. You keep the same batteries and tapes and operating menus and controls. You can shoot in HD and downconvert, or shoot in DV at various speeds (DVCAM, SP or LP depending on the model). The best thing is it's 16:9 right out of the box, but then again it doesn't have to be - both cams will shoot 4:3 in the SD mode if you insist. Nothing wrong with the Canon, to be sure. But my play with the FX7 last week means I'd be looking in that dfirection if you wanted a 20x zoom. As you say, HD matures by the day, but every day you wait means your VX is harder to sell. tom.