new camera

Jeff Chandler · November 22nd, 2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Boswell

I said a used FX1 or a new FX7. Both you can find in that range. :)

Granted, no XLRs though. But I use the RODE with mine and the sound quality is great.

Just curious, Daniel. Where can you get a new FX7 for that price? They are listed for around $3200 at the online vendors I checked out.

Daniel Boswell · November 22nd, 2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Chandler

Just curious, Daniel. Where can you get a new FX7 for that price? They are listed for around $3200 at the online vendors I checked out.

This is where I saw the FX7 new for that price (actually $2800)

http://dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-78974.html

Apparently it has gone up. Besides I think the FX1's are a better buy at $2500 for a good used one.

Another huge plus for shooting HD right now are samples..this is 20 mb file

http://homepage.mac.com/epiphany2002/hdgallery.html

You can't do something like that at that size with SD cams.

Patrick Moreau · November 22nd, 2006, 04:06 PM

I shoot with all PD an VX series cams. I purchased the FX1 several months back while considering switching everything over to HD. After a mnoth of tweaking the settings and getting used to the camera, I really wasn't happy and sold it in favor of sticking with the PD and VXs. In the end, I think it is more what you do with the cam as opposed to what resolution it is and, for now, I'll take the low light ability over the extra features on the FX1 and for what it worth, the couples I won't pay for HD but do appreciate that we can get by without lights most of the time. If I were buying another cam for weddings, and I will be soon, it would not be the FX1 or FX7.

Marco Dias · November 23rd, 2006, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Boswell

But I use the RODE with mine and the sound quality is great.

Sorry, I know this is off the topic, but could you show me a link to this RODE mic. I want to know what it looks like. From B&H Photo website is fine.

Regards....

Daniel Boswell · November 24th, 2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco Dias

Sorry, I know this is off the topic, but could you show me a link to this RODE mic. I want to know what it looks like. From B&H Photo website is fine.

Regards....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&sku=363083

Marco Dias · November 25th, 2006, 02:34 AM

Thank You.

It has a Stereo mini Jack (3.5mm) which feeds sound to the Left and Right channel. That's perfect.

Regards...

Eric Gan · November 25th, 2006, 03:15 PM

Even if this topic is a bit old and tired, it's still a good discussion for someone faced with that big first decision.

I chose the FX1 not because of HD, but because of native 16:9. The quality hit with letterboxing the PD/VX is immediately apparent to me. Since I think 4:3 is a dying format and I prefer to frame everything in 16:9, this was an easy choice.

Now, if they updated the VX/PD series with native 16:9 imagers and kept the same price and sensitivity, that would make the decision a little more interesting. I don't have any clients who have asked for HD delivery yet, and I don't expect a significant market penetration of Blu-ray and HD-DVD anytime soon.

Shot a reception last night in a VERY dimly lit room. I bounced a 500 watt light off the ceiling and got some pretty decent images. The trick is, we setup the light beforehand, and I don't think anybody even noticed it when they arrived - they just thought it was part of the decor. I guess it didn't affect the ambience too much since nobody ever mentioned it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Boswell

Even downrezzed HD material is significantly better than SD acquired material.

I can't say I'd agree with this statement. There may be a small difference, but I would not describe it as "significantly better". I would say 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference between downrezzed HD vs. native SD.

Daniel Boswell · November 25th, 2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

I can't say I'd agree with this statement. There may be a small difference, but I would not describe it as "significantly better". I would say 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference between downrezzed HD vs. native SD.

We are talking semantics here. What exactly is "significantly better?" if there is no way to quantify it?

I will ask you though; have you actually captured something in HD, edited in HD, and then downconverted before going to web or DVD?

The difference is very noticiable to even the untrained eye. I have had countless brides tell me that my demos "look different" or "look better" than others they've seen without having a clue that it was because I captured it in HD. (I do not even advertise it on my site.) They are not talking about the content because they use words like "more vivid, more colorful...clearer".

Did you see my demo I linked earlier? That is SD that was downconverted from HD. You cannot tell me for a second that you can put an SD sample at that size up against mine and have 9 out of 10 not be able to tell the difference.

Its the same logic behind the reason that VHS movies made from film look significantly better than DV--> VHS. They are both in the same format but the acquisition formats were much different and thus there is a major difference in quality.

Mark Goldberg · November 26th, 2006, 07:02 PM

I would insist on getting something that's HD. If you can double the amount, the Sony Z1 is a great choice. If not, consider the Sony V1, or even the FX7 or FX1. Although the FX1 design is about two years old, you can probably get one for what you have budgeted, and there many using them for weddings.

If you buy something that is not HD, you will eventually have to upgrade and learn the new technology. So I say go HD now and avoid the catch up later.

Eric Gan · November 27th, 2006, 02:45 AM

Hi Daniel,

When I first got my FX1, I did do some tests to compare downconverted HD versus native SD. For projects to be delivered in SD, I was trying to weigh the pros and cons of the two options. As we know, when shooting HDV, you have to deal with long GOP MPEG2 and its associated disadvantages. Although my tests weren't scientific or even that extensive, I can honestly say that I did not see a significant difference even when the final SD footage is projected onto a 100" screen.

I did watch your sample footage. It looks awesome. Great shots, nice editing. But how much of that is attributed to the source being HDV-originated? I can't tell because it's not fair to compare other people's work to yours!

Here's an easy test that anyone can do: setup your HDV cam on a tripod, shoot a scene in HDV. Switch to SD mode and shoot the same thing. Compare the two after the HDV is downrezzed. No fancy editing, no color correction. This is where I say 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference. I think it is very subtle.

One more thing of note - your sample's resolution seems to be about 996x560. That's higher resolution than normal SD (720pixel width). I'm not sure how you got to that final movie size, but nonetheless, it looks great and it's a very impressive sample.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing or trying to denounce HDV in any way (I shoot HDV probably 90% of the time). I think I'm more interested in whether my assumptions are completely off-based, or if others can chime in with their own findings.

Best Regards,

Eric

November 22nd, 2006, 04:06 PM	#33
Patrick Moreau Still Motion Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,186	I shoot with all PD an VX series cams. I purchased the FX1 several months back while considering switching everything over to HD. After a mnoth of tweaking the settings and getting used to the camera, I really wasn't happy and sold it in favor of sticking with the PD and VXs. In the end, I think it is more what you do with the cam as opposed to what resolution it is and, for now, I'll take the low light ability over the extra features on the FX1 and for what it worth, the couples I won't pay for HD but do appreciate that we can get by without lights most of the time. If I were buying another cam for weddings, and I will be soon, it would not be the FX1 or FX7.

November 25th, 2006, 02:34 AM	#36
Marco Dias Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: South Africa Posts: 62	Thank You. It has a Stereo mini Jack (3.5mm) which feeds sound to the Left and Right channel. That's perfect. Regards...

November 26th, 2006, 07:02 PM	#39
Mark Goldberg Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Annapolis, Maryland Posts: 101	I would insist on getting something that's HD. If you can double the amount, the Sony Z1 is a great choice. If not, consider the Sony V1, or even the FX7 or FX1. Although the FX1 design is about two years old, you can probably get one for what you have budgeted, and there many using them for weddings. If you buy something that is not HD, you will eventually have to upgrade and learn the new technology. So I say go HD now and avoid the catch up later.

November 27th, 2006, 02:45 AM	#40
Eric Gan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 187	Hi Daniel, When I first got my FX1, I did do some tests to compare downconverted HD versus native SD. For projects to be delivered in SD, I was trying to weigh the pros and cons of the two options. As we know, when shooting HDV, you have to deal with long GOP MPEG2 and its associated disadvantages. Although my tests weren't scientific or even that extensive, I can honestly say that I did not see a significant difference even when the final SD footage is projected onto a 100" screen. I did watch your sample footage. It looks awesome. Great shots, nice editing. But how much of that is attributed to the source being HDV-originated? I can't tell because it's not fair to compare other people's work to yours! Here's an easy test that anyone can do: setup your HDV cam on a tripod, shoot a scene in HDV. Switch to SD mode and shoot the same thing. Compare the two after the HDV is downrezzed. No fancy editing, no color correction. This is where I say 9 out of 10 people can't tell the difference. I think it is very subtle. One more thing of note - your sample's resolution seems to be about 996x560. That's higher resolution than normal SD (720pixel width). I'm not sure how you got to that final movie size, but nonetheless, it looks great and it's a very impressive sample. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing or trying to denounce HDV in any way (I shoot HDV probably 90% of the time). I think I'm more interested in whether my assumptions are completely off-based, or if others can chime in with their own findings. Best Regards, Eric