What would you do?

Nick Outram · September 13th, 2006, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Owen Dawe

At the end of the day, What are your customers comments re technical quality of your video? What do your competitors offer? All the latest dinky toys may be great fun, but unless it puts a extra buck in your hip pocket it may not be worth it.

Research the market. Do your sums. Do a business plan. Then decide if a upgrade is warranted now or later.

I agree with Owen and to some extent TomH. Unless you find out what your customers require then you may be introducing something they are not prepared to pay the extra for. You may find that this is currently a niche offering that people will want to pay an extra -say- 25% for so that in the decades ahead their great day can be seen in all its glory. From Toms perspective, HDV cameras are now cheap enough for the prosumer -imagine the feedback if your well shot SD video is outshone by the cousins HD one in 5 years on their 1080p 50" Plasma. History programs in colour are more powerful than B&W as it has become the defacto standard.

The longer you hold off the more that Moores Law will eat into the expense. If a competitor launches this product and starts eating into your market you can then invest at that point with the latest cheaper technology and undercut them.

In the meantime, you could purchase the HC1-HDV cam as your 'family cam' as you say to get used to the 16:9 format and it's quibbles (although given your experiance I don't think you are likely to find much that is strange to you). An HD capable NLE like Vegas can be bought and run on your current machine -albeit with long render times

Nick [Product Manager amongst other things!]

Richard Wakefield · September 13th, 2006, 08:13 AM

hi Alastair

(how you doing? it's Rich, will send you an email soon...)

cheers loads for pointing out the forthcoming HDR-FX7...sounds great although...

does it actually shoot in 16:9 or not??...i'm reading mixed reviews on that using google searches!

it's worth noting that i haven't had a SINGLE client ask for 16:9 or HD yet...i think it's more about the fact they come home from the honeymoon with a DVD to watch.... until of course people get HighDef TVs/players then yeah, the requests will change!

Rich
(shooting in 16:9, but NOT HD with the FX1!)

Alastair Brown · September 13th, 2006, 12:13 PM

Shooting in 16:9 isn't a problem as I've been doing that for awhile, and yes, you are right in that it does take some getting used to.

I've been a Vegas user since Vegas 4 and wouldn't switch to anything else. I wasted a LOT of time and money on Pinnacle until I was guided to Vegas by a friendly Vegas user. It's ULTRA stable. Pinnacle should hang their heads in shame for some of the dross they have un-leashed over the years (man I'm still angry...thought I'd got over that!!!!!!)

As I said way back at the start, my XL1 still has some value. 6 months time........it will be a different story. I'd sooner jump now. LOTS of guys around my area are crowing about shooting in HDV (lot of baloney I know), However, this way, I get started shooting/getting used to HDV.

The one small advantage that others have mentioned is that you can crop/pan a HDV shot further than you can with SD and any grabbed stills will be of a higher quality.

Alastair Brown · September 13th, 2006, 03:08 PM

"While the chips have been upgraded in resolution, they are still 4:3 native aspect ratio chips. The lens on the HDR-FX7 is also smaller than the HDR-FX1 at 62mm thread size (versus the HDR-FX1's 72mm) . The smaller lens also impacts low light performance. Although the camcorder ultimately produces 16:9 aspect ratio video, it does this by slightly stretching each pixel horiztonally. The Canon XL H1 and XL A1 do not have to do this because they have native 16:9 chips"

Oooooooo, you mean this bit about the new HDR-FX7. The HDR-FX1 has native 16:9 chips. Well spotted! Not sure what this translates to in real life though?????

Full article here:-
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...CMOS-Chips.htm

Mike Cassidy · September 13th, 2006, 04:36 PM

Of course, when you use two cameras for Weddings, if you upgrade one camera, you have to upgrade the other one, don't you?
Since HDV, is not being asked for, and, might never catch on, what with Brides' not wanting too much facial, detail showing, I suspect anyway, and wanting more black and white scenes included, and T.V. Presenters aren't very keen on it, are they? And they have a team of makeup artists at hand! Why must we fall again for the sales hype, e.g. Widescreen, we use it now in the U.K. but everywhere else, seems to still be happy with 4:3. ( I do shoot wide)
Who is making enough money to keep on getting rid of perfectly good gear? Just to keep up to date? There's got to be a limit.
Plus, I'm sick of all these new instruction books. Togs can keep their cams for years, and charge twice the price that we can!

Tom Hardwick · September 14th, 2006, 12:32 AM

Alastair, this is a common misconception, and I quote:

''The lens on the HDR-FX7 is also smaller than the HDR-FX1 at 62mm thread size (versus the HDR-FX1's 72mm) . The smaller lens also impacts low light performance.''

Rubbish. The diameter of the filter thread has no bearing whatsoever on the speed of the lens. The VX2100 has a 58 mm filter thread but its lens is faster (i.e. it has a wider maximum aperture at telephoto) and the camera is far more light sensitive than the XL2, the DVX100B, the FX1 and many more cameras I could mention. These all have 72 mm filter threads BTW.

tom.

Don Bazley · September 14th, 2006, 03:58 PM

I'm finding this thread interesting. I am moving toward doing mostly weddings and I own an XL1. I've been stumped on what other cam to buy. I was thinking PD170 (i'd use the low-ligh capabilities of the PD for WS/MS and get CUs with the XL1) but now I'm leaning toard the FX1. I plan on continuing shooting SD for now so I'm hoping the FX1 and XL1 will match up OK. I've heard that even the SD from the FX1 is great and that if you crank the gain it gets almost no noise and is fine in low light. I'm thinking that if I get the FX and plan on investing in beefing up the computer and monitor etc ove the next year or so I'll be covered nnow and when people are ready for HDV I'll be ready.

Any opinions on my plan are appreciated.

-Don

Tom Hardwick · September 15th, 2006, 01:01 AM

The FX1 is indeed a fine camera, but it's shooting onto native 16:9 and if you switch it to 4:3 you're using a smaller portion of the 1"/3 chips.

Generally cutting between cameras from different manufacturers will land you with colour correction headaches, so I hope your NLE has a real-time white balance filter.

The PD170 is a lovely camera for weddings because of its audio varsatility, its good low light performance and its telephoto reach. If you're seriously considering the FX1 you should really bite the bullet and get a Z1 - you'll be so pleased you did.

tom.

Marco Wagner · September 19th, 2006, 03:09 PM

The longer you wait the cheaper it gets. I just don't see a point in buying a brand new HDV cam for the sole purpose of downcoverting to SD now. Stick with SD, that HDV camera you want now will be a fraction of the cost when you actually need it and can make money in the HD market.

Tom Hardwick · September 19th, 2006, 11:42 PM

Maybe where you are Marco, but here in Europe your theory doesn't hold up. Prices - in real terms - don't drop, and the VX2000, VX2100, FX1, FX7 etc have all remained at the same price point for years.

Even at the end of the production run prices remain high for the simple reason these (and other lines) are very good, reliable, competent cameras. There's been simply no need to drop the street price.

The point about moving to an HDV camera now is to take advantage of the second hand value of your current SD camcorder, to get you using 16:9 chips, and in the case of the FX1 vs the VX2100, say, to give you the far better ergonomics of a more modern camera and the option to shoot your master tapes in HiDef. And all for no more money. What's not to like?

tom.

Owen Dawe · September 20th, 2006, 12:09 AM

Don. You were hoping your xl1 and a new fx1 will match up. The answer is yes and no. We have shot field interviews for a tv show using the xl1s and the fx1 together. With proper three point lighting and matching through a field monitor you would be hard pressed to tell the two cams apart. You can cut from one to the other and I really doubt if anyone can spot the difference.

I'm a great xl fan but I must admit the fx1 beats the xl1s hands down in run and gun situations in poor lighting. In my experience the xl1s in low light gained up will look grainy compared to the fx1.

Don Bazley · September 20th, 2006, 01:14 AM

I appreciate everyone's input. Owen, thanks for sharing your exoperience of mixing cams. I don't even have the XL1s, but just the ol' XL1 (which I believe is even worse in low-light).

I guess I still wonder...

IF I went with the FX1 for my main cam I'd keep shooting SD and use my XL1 for mostly the second cam at ceremony. I am the main shooter on my gigs so the second cam isn't that important (I hate putting those words together:) since I would get most of the final product with the FX1. Maybe get the FX1 and keep having my partner shooting with the XL until I save a few $$$ and get a A1 (or some other 1 chip) to use as my back-up/second cam... moving toward eventually (hopefully this would happen just as HDV players are becoming more prevelant) 2 FX1s. (The again who know what will be out next year:)

Tom Hardwick · September 20th, 2006, 01:23 AM

I presume you plan to shoot with the FX1 in the 16:9 mode Don. What's the XL1 like in this mode? I have a friend who has a PD170 as his second cam to a Z1 (both shooting widescreen) and to anyone's eyes the PD simply can't match the FX1 though both are shooting SD of course.

tom.

Owen Dawe · September 20th, 2006, 02:32 AM

I've shot about thirty music items using xl1 and xl1s cams but never tried it in 16:9 Mainly because they don't have native 16:9 so I shoot in 4:3 and fake it in post. The xl1s makes it a bit easier as it has the 16:9 frame lines in the viewfinder. I'm in the same dilemma as hundreds of others. It's time to upgrade, but to what. Nobody in my neck of the woods has asked me for HD so untill thet do I'll stick with what I've got.

Alastair Brown · September 20th, 2006, 04:37 AM

Now just to give you all REALLY sore heads why not do the following:-

http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthd.html

It costs $99, the samples look pretty impressive. Now, doing this, I could up convert to HD which is going to look comparable if not better than a downconverted FZ1's footage. Yes/No?

OK, with me so far?

I then need to offer a way of delivering this HDV Footage to my clients.

Blu-Ray burner...yes...but who has a DVD Player that can play them....almost nobody.

Alternatively, I've seen a standalone hard-drive unit that you can hook up to your HD-Ready display that allows you to load your full resolution High Def footage on. I could offer this unit to clients at cost.

As you can see, for a total outlay of $99 I can potentially offer a HD service.

Discuss!

Then, after I've done all this, I then start wondering about ULTRA High Definition which I've just read about. MOMMA!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video

September 19th, 2006, 03:09 PM	#24
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	The longer you wait the cheaper it gets. I just don't see a point in buying a brand new HDV cam for the sole purpose of downcoverting to SD now. Stick with SD, that HDV camera you want now will be a fraction of the cost when you actually need it and can make money in the HD market. __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

September 20th, 2006, 12:09 AM	#26
Owen Dawe Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Lake Tarawera, Rotorua, New Zealand Posts: 244	Don. You were hoping your xl1 and a new fx1 will match up. The answer is yes and no. We have shot field interviews for a tv show using the xl1s and the fx1 together. With proper three point lighting and matching through a field monitor you would be hard pressed to tell the two cams apart. You can cut from one to the other and I really doubt if anyone can spot the difference. I'm a great xl fan but I must admit the fx1 beats the xl1s hands down in run and gun situations in poor lighting. In my experience the xl1s in low light gained up will look grainy compared to the fx1. __________________ Owen

September 20th, 2006, 02:32 AM	#29
Owen Dawe Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Lake Tarawera, Rotorua, New Zealand Posts: 244	I've shot about thirty music items using xl1 and xl1s cams but never tried it in 16:9 Mainly because they don't have native 16:9 so I shoot in 4:3 and fake it in post. The xl1s makes it a bit easier as it has the 16:9 frame lines in the viewfinder. I'm in the same dilemma as hundreds of others. It's time to upgrade, but to what. Nobody in my neck of the woods has asked me for HD so untill thet do I'll stick with what I've got. __________________ Owen

September 13th, 2006, 08:13 AM	#17
Richard Wakefield Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Surrey, UK Posts: 680	hi Alastair (how you doing? it's Rich, will send you an email soon...) cheers loads for pointing out the forthcoming HDR-FX7...sounds great although... does it actually shoot in 16:9 or not??...i'm reading mixed reviews on that using google searches! it's worth noting that i haven't had a SINGLE client ask for 16:9 or HD yet...i think it's more about the fact they come home from the honeymoon with a DVD to watch.... until of course people get HighDef TVs/players then yeah, the requests will change! Rich (shooting in 16:9, but NOT HD with the FX1!)

September 13th, 2006, 12:13 PM	#18
Alastair Brown Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Glasgow/Scotland Posts: 626	Shooting in 16:9 isn't a problem as I've been doing that for awhile, and yes, you are right in that it does take some getting used to. I've been a Vegas user since Vegas 4 and wouldn't switch to anything else. I wasted a LOT of time and money on Pinnacle until I was guided to Vegas by a friendly Vegas user. It's ULTRA stable. Pinnacle should hang their heads in shame for some of the dross they have un-leashed over the years (man I'm still angry...thought I'd got over that!!!!!!) As I said way back at the start, my XL1 still has some value. 6 months time........it will be a different story. I'd sooner jump now. LOTS of guys around my area are crowing about shooting in HDV (lot of baloney I know), However, this way, I get started shooting/getting used to HDV. The one small advantage that others have mentioned is that you can crop/pan a HDV shot further than you can with SD and any grabbed stills will be of a higher quality.

September 13th, 2006, 03:08 PM	#19
Alastair Brown Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Glasgow/Scotland Posts: 626	"While the chips have been upgraded in resolution, they are still 4:3 native aspect ratio chips. The lens on the HDR-FX7 is also smaller than the HDR-FX1 at 62mm thread size (versus the HDR-FX1's 72mm) . The smaller lens also impacts low light performance. Although the camcorder ultimately produces 16:9 aspect ratio video, it does this by slightly stretching each pixel horiztonally. The Canon XL H1 and XL A1 do not have to do this because they have native 16:9 chips" Oooooooo, you mean this bit about the new HDR-FX7. The HDR-FX1 has native 16:9 chips. Well spotted! Not sure what this translates to in real life though????? Full article here:- http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...CMOS-Chips.htm

September 13th, 2006, 04:36 PM	#20
Mike Cassidy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tyneside/ United Kingdom Posts: 47	Of course, when you use two cameras for Weddings, if you upgrade one camera, you have to upgrade the other one, don't you? Since HDV, is not being asked for, and, might never catch on, what with Brides' not wanting too much facial, detail showing, I suspect anyway, and wanting more black and white scenes included, and T.V. Presenters aren't very keen on it, are they? And they have a team of makeup artists at hand! Why must we fall again for the sales hype, e.g. Widescreen, we use it now in the U.K. but everywhere else, seems to still be happy with 4:3. ( I do shoot wide) Who is making enough money to keep on getting rid of perfectly good gear? Just to keep up to date? There's got to be a limit. Plus, I'm sick of all these new instruction books. Togs can keep their cams for years, and charge twice the price that we can!

September 14th, 2006, 12:32 AM	#21
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Alastair, this is a common misconception, and I quote: ''The lens on the HDR-FX7 is also smaller than the HDR-FX1 at 62mm thread size (versus the HDR-FX1's 72mm) . The smaller lens also impacts low light performance.'' Rubbish. The diameter of the filter thread has no bearing whatsoever on the speed of the lens. The VX2100 has a 58 mm filter thread but its lens is faster (i.e. it has a wider maximum aperture at telephoto) and the camera is far more light sensitive than the XL2, the DVX100B, the FX1 and many more cameras I could mention. These all have 72 mm filter threads BTW. tom.

September 14th, 2006, 03:58 PM	#22
Don Bazley Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ithaca, NY Posts: 149	I'm finding this thread interesting. I am moving toward doing mostly weddings and I own an XL1. I've been stumped on what other cam to buy. I was thinking PD170 (i'd use the low-ligh capabilities of the PD for WS/MS and get CUs with the XL1) but now I'm leaning toard the FX1. I plan on continuing shooting SD for now so I'm hoping the FX1 and XL1 will match up OK. I've heard that even the SD from the FX1 is great and that if you crank the gain it gets almost no noise and is fine in low light. I'm thinking that if I get the FX and plan on investing in beefing up the computer and monitor etc ove the next year or so I'll be covered nnow and when people are ready for HDV I'll be ready. Any opinions on my plan are appreciated. -Don

September 15th, 2006, 01:01 AM	#23
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The FX1 is indeed a fine camera, but it's shooting onto native 16:9 and if you switch it to 4:3 you're using a smaller portion of the 1"/3 chips. Generally cutting between cameras from different manufacturers will land you with colour correction headaches, so I hope your NLE has a real-time white balance filter. The PD170 is a lovely camera for weddings because of its audio varsatility, its good low light performance and its telephoto reach. If you're seriously considering the FX1 you should really bite the bullet and get a Z1 - you'll be so pleased you did. tom.

September 19th, 2006, 11:42 PM	#25
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Maybe where you are Marco, but here in Europe your theory doesn't hold up. Prices - in real terms - don't drop, and the VX2000, VX2100, FX1, FX7 etc have all remained at the same price point for years. Even at the end of the production run prices remain high for the simple reason these (and other lines) are very good, reliable, competent cameras. There's been simply no need to drop the street price. The point about moving to an HDV camera now is to take advantage of the second hand value of your current SD camcorder, to get you using 16:9 chips, and in the case of the FX1 vs the VX2100, say, to give you the far better ergonomics of a more modern camera and the option to shoot your master tapes in HiDef. And all for no more money. What's not to like? tom.

September 20th, 2006, 01:14 AM	#27
Don Bazley Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ithaca, NY Posts: 149	I appreciate everyone's input. Owen, thanks for sharing your exoperience of mixing cams. I don't even have the XL1s, but just the ol' XL1 (which I believe is even worse in low-light). I guess I still wonder... IF I went with the FX1 for my main cam I'd keep shooting SD and use my XL1 for mostly the second cam at ceremony. I am the main shooter on my gigs so the second cam isn't that important (I hate putting those words together:) since I would get most of the final product with the FX1. Maybe get the FX1 and keep having my partner shooting with the XL until I save a few $$$ and get a A1 (or some other 1 chip) to use as my back-up/second cam... moving toward eventually (hopefully this would happen just as HDV players are becoming more prevelant) 2 FX1s. (The again who know what will be out next year:)

September 20th, 2006, 01:23 AM	#28
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I presume you plan to shoot with the FX1 in the 16:9 mode Don. What's the XL1 like in this mode? I have a friend who has a PD170 as his second cam to a Z1 (both shooting widescreen) and to anyone's eyes the PD simply can't match the FX1 though both are shooting SD of course. tom.

September 20th, 2006, 04:37 AM	#30
Alastair Brown Major Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Glasgow/Scotland Posts: 626	Now just to give you all REALLY sore heads why not do the following:- http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/instanthd.html It costs $99, the samples look pretty impressive. Now, doing this, I could up convert to HD which is going to look comparable if not better than a downconverted FZ1's footage. Yes/No? OK, with me so far? I then need to offer a way of delivering this HDV Footage to my clients. Blu-Ray burner...yes...but who has a DVD Player that can play them....almost nobody. Alternatively, I've seen a standalone hard-drive unit that you can hook up to your HD-Ready display that allows you to load your full resolution High Def footage on. I could offer this unit to clients at cost. As you can see, for a total outlay of $99 I can potentially offer a HD service. Discuss! Then, after I've done all this, I then start wondering about ULTRA High Definition which I've just read about. MOMMA! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video