Is a FX or Z1 overkill for a wedding?

Peter Jefferson · May 8th, 2005, 03:00 AM

"What I think needs to be considered is the entry level high definition format which is 720p at 30 frames per secound"

Entry Level?? I have to disagree.. i would prefer 720p over 1080i ANY DAY...

"Generally HDV is considered broadcast quality high definition because broadcasters are limited to a 19.7 megabit per second bandwidth. "

I dont know where you got this info from, but from my experience in the field, DVCPRo50 and DigiBeta are the standards for broadcast. For HD, live MPG2 streams being compressed on teh fly varying from 15k to 25kbps are the norm, depending on the program are what is currently on offer for free to air.
As for that 19kmbps bitrate, thats a HDV 720p ratio, with 1080i running at 25mbps. So if thats the broadcast bandwidth limit, they would be able to deliver 1080i....

HDV as broadcast....? its a toughy.. Weve had afew debates on that here in the office..
i guess the thing that would bring the Z1 to that level is the the colour sampling ratio, but even though i havent personally seen artefats which ruin a shot using my Z1's artefacts ARE there and it can get quite ugly. Especially with slow movement or when slowing down HDV footage in Post

"However for Blu-Ray DVD distribution you can take advantage of the higher bit streaming rates of DVC Pro HD. Only when broadcasters switch to the more efficient MPEG4 compression will DVC Pro HD be any advantage."

I agree.. but this is where the industry has come to loggerheads.. whether to go with the Sony Blu-Ray at 50gb with the opportunity to expand, or stick with HD-DV, which is 30gb with no chance of ever evolving..

We know which format would benefit everyone in the short and longterm however i dont see the DVD Forum giving the keys to this Maserati over to Sony without strong debate...

Art Guglielmo · May 8th, 2005, 04:10 AM

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here bashing HDV ever actually worked with it? Teamed with the correct editing solution, the Sony cameras produce beautiful pictures, that, unless you were to take it to scopes, would be hard pressed to tell the difference from the HD you see on Broadcast TV every night.

The Mpeg-2 compression was a worry for me before I bought the FX-1, but it has not been the issue I had originally believed it would. The biggest downfall is really the editing solutions/workflows. Believe me, I spent alot of money, and have tried every single option, and the only viable ones are the Cineform/Premiere, or Canopus/Edius workflows. The Mac workflows with either Lumiere/FCP or FCE/iMovie are not good alternatives, and the downfalls are many. (This is not a Mac vs. PC thing, I use both. In fact, I do 90% of my editing on a MAC, but it just isnt right for HDV.) Now maybe FCP5 will change that, but my experiences with editing HDV natively on very fast PC's was not very good, so I hold some serious reservations about doing it on a MAC.

As far as whether its "broadcast Quality", well than I guess many people really havent tried it. My DVX-100a is DV, so technically not Broadcast Quality, yet you'll be hard pressed to find many people that dont stand behind the quality of that camera, so whats the issue here?

I also see some arguements about low light capability. Not for nothing, regardless of lux rating, I have never seen a DV camera that produces what I would consider an acceptable image with no lights in a dark area, such as a reception hall. Except for a few quick cut in shots, are people here actually shooting weddings without lights ? Both my DVX and FX produce images well enough in ceremony halls without any lights, but in that case, most decent 3 chip cameras do.

Peter Jefferson · May 8th, 2005, 11:43 AM

I dont see anyone bashing HDV... so i dont know where your coming from with that.
I use 2 Z1s for my corporate and broadcast work and use a Avid express Pro HD with a Mojo BoB for that, however i use 2 DVX100's for my Wedding work and i use vegas.

I sold off a DSR570 to get these 2 cameras and some new gear and i have to say that i now regret doing that.

I have my reasons whch i wont go into here, but as i said, more than anything its the colour sampling and 16:9 capabilites of the cameras format which brings it to broadcast quality. more than likely, the studios i know of are capturing to their decks via component out as DVCPro50 straight into their Digisuites.. Theyre not even bothering with HDV until they can establish a workable and cost effective delivery option across the board...

Moving back to the camera in question, the dynamic range is nowhere near as high as a DVX, PD or XL2... Moreso a DVX with the widest range ive seen accessable on a 1/3rd ccd cam... considering the samppling ratio, i really thought it would surpass these cams..

What is broacast quality can be many things, hell, ive seen TV shows shot purely with DVX100's and XL2's
I recently sold 2 Z's to a major company which produces one of the biggest TV shows in the world so theres nothing wrong with them..
Sony were smart to get in first.. JVC smarter... and Panas solution just blew everything away... whos to say what canon have in store..

May 8th, 2005, 03:00 AM	#16
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"What I think needs to be considered is the entry level high definition format which is 720p at 30 frames per secound" Entry Level?? I have to disagree.. i would prefer 720p over 1080i ANY DAY... "Generally HDV is considered broadcast quality high definition because broadcasters are limited to a 19.7 megabit per second bandwidth. " I dont know where you got this info from, but from my experience in the field, DVCPRo50 and DigiBeta are the standards for broadcast. For HD, live MPG2 streams being compressed on teh fly varying from 15k to 25kbps are the norm, depending on the program are what is currently on offer for free to air. As for that 19kmbps bitrate, thats a HDV 720p ratio, with 1080i running at 25mbps. So if thats the broadcast bandwidth limit, they would be able to deliver 1080i.... HDV as broadcast....? its a toughy.. Weve had afew debates on that here in the office.. i guess the thing that would bring the Z1 to that level is the the colour sampling ratio, but even though i havent personally seen artefats which ruin a shot using my Z1's artefacts ARE there and it can get quite ugly. Especially with slow movement or when slowing down HDV footage in Post "However for Blu-Ray DVD distribution you can take advantage of the higher bit streaming rates of DVC Pro HD. Only when broadcasters switch to the more efficient MPEG4 compression will DVC Pro HD be any advantage." I agree.. but this is where the industry has come to loggerheads.. whether to go with the Sony Blu-Ray at 50gb with the opportunity to expand, or stick with HD-DV, which is 30gb with no chance of ever evolving.. We know which format would benefit everyone in the short and longterm however i dont see the DVD Forum giving the keys to this Maserati over to Sony without strong debate... Last edited by Peter Jefferson; May 8th, 2005 at 11:46 AM.

May 8th, 2005, 04:10 AM	#17
Art Guglielmo Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35	Just out of curiosity, has anyone here bashing HDV ever actually worked with it? Teamed with the correct editing solution, the Sony cameras produce beautiful pictures, that, unless you were to take it to scopes, would be hard pressed to tell the difference from the HD you see on Broadcast TV every night. The Mpeg-2 compression was a worry for me before I bought the FX-1, but it has not been the issue I had originally believed it would. The biggest downfall is really the editing solutions/workflows. Believe me, I spent alot of money, and have tried every single option, and the only viable ones are the Cineform/Premiere, or Canopus/Edius workflows. The Mac workflows with either Lumiere/FCP or FCE/iMovie are not good alternatives, and the downfalls are many. (This is not a Mac vs. PC thing, I use both. In fact, I do 90% of my editing on a MAC, but it just isnt right for HDV.) Now maybe FCP5 will change that, but my experiences with editing HDV natively on very fast PC's was not very good, so I hold some serious reservations about doing it on a MAC. As far as whether its "broadcast Quality", well than I guess many people really havent tried it. My DVX-100a is DV, so technically not Broadcast Quality, yet you'll be hard pressed to find many people that dont stand behind the quality of that camera, so whats the issue here? I also see some arguements about low light capability. Not for nothing, regardless of lux rating, I have never seen a DV camera that produces what I would consider an acceptable image with no lights in a dark area, such as a reception hall. Except for a few quick cut in shots, are people here actually shooting weddings without lights ? Both my DVX and FX produce images well enough in ceremony halls without any lights, but in that case, most decent 3 chip cameras do.

May 8th, 2005, 11:43 AM	#18
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	I dont see anyone bashing HDV... so i dont know where your coming from with that. I use 2 Z1s for my corporate and broadcast work and use a Avid express Pro HD with a Mojo BoB for that, however i use 2 DVX100's for my Wedding work and i use vegas. I sold off a DSR570 to get these 2 cameras and some new gear and i have to say that i now regret doing that. I have my reasons whch i wont go into here, but as i said, more than anything its the colour sampling and 16:9 capabilites of the cameras format which brings it to broadcast quality. more than likely, the studios i know of are capturing to their decks via component out as DVCPro50 straight into their Digisuites.. Theyre not even bothering with HDV until they can establish a workable and cost effective delivery option across the board... Moving back to the camera in question, the dynamic range is nowhere near as high as a DVX, PD or XL2... Moreso a DVX with the widest range ive seen accessable on a 1/3rd ccd cam... considering the samppling ratio, i really thought it would surpass these cams.. What is broacast quality can be many things, hell, ive seen TV shows shot purely with DVX100's and XL2's I recently sold 2 Z's to a major company which produces one of the biggest TV shows in the world so theres nothing wrong with them.. Sony were smart to get in first.. JVC smarter... and Panas solution just blew everything away... whos to say what canon have in store..