Thankyou Billy. Good thinking. Thanks Tom, I don`t have that FMV issue but i`ve managed to get it emailed to me!
Were see what happens. If I can get the money sorted (You should all know me by now, pigs flying and hell freezing over come to mind!) and then the wife if I have to borrow.
So all should be ok then!
Be good.......
stingman
SH SONY FX1 - What`s it Worth?
With Tom's permission, I've just put his article on Buying Secondhand onto the website.
You can read it at
http://www.theiac.org.uk/technical/secondhand.html
Jan
(webmaster)
You can read it at
http://www.theiac.org.uk/technical/secondhand.html
Jan
(webmaster)
-
Michael Slowe
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm
Sorry about straying from the original topic but it was raised earlier in this thread and it concerns the playing of HD. I shoot in full HD (1920 X 1080 at 35 mbps) and edit in the same codec but now that these wonderful players 'upscale' so well have decided not to try and produce the finished article in HD. I have recently seen one of my films on a huge cinema screen played from an SD DVD through an expensive upscaler and it looked very good indeed, and I was hitherto very anti DVD with all the MPEG 2 artifacts.
I don't think that BIAFF needs to show HD or HDV (not the same thing by the way). If they play ordinary tapes and DVD's through upscaling kit the effect will be dramatic. If it looks good on a big cinema screen it will look very good on a BIAFF size one.
I don't think that BIAFF needs to show HD or HDV (not the same thing by the way). If they play ordinary tapes and DVD's through upscaling kit the effect will be dramatic. If it looks good on a big cinema screen it will look very good on a BIAFF size one.
-
Peter Rouillard
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:15 pm
- Location: Guernsey, Channel Islands
- Contact:
HDV in Competitions
Having seen Billy's query on another thread regarding HD at BIAFF, I would just like to point out that we will be accepting HD entries in the 2009 Guernsey Lily festival. The new entry forms will be included in the Jan/Feb issue of FVM ( courtesy of Garth Hope ) and the website's entry form will very shortly be updated. The website's entry rules have already been updated to this effect.
Hope to see entries from you guys - in whatever format !!
Peter Rouillard
Hope to see entries from you guys - in whatever format !!
Peter Rouillard
I think if you're originating in HD (Pref NOT HDV) you should keep it in HD all the way.
Remember, upscaling isn't adding real information, only guessing what might be there.
I can understand upscaling SD DVDs if that's all that's available, but surly if you have something better, use it. I've even recorded an edited DVCProHD sequence back onto P2 on my HVX, and played that out through the component O/P at 100 mbps. You could even connect your laptop to a projector and play out am MPEG2 stream, I found 35-40Mbps about the limit for my old Dell 9400.
Remember, upscaling isn't adding real information, only guessing what might be there.
I can understand upscaling SD DVDs if that's all that's available, but surly if you have something better, use it. I've even recorded an edited DVCProHD sequence back onto P2 on my HVX, and played that out through the component O/P at 100 mbps. You could even connect your laptop to a projector and play out am MPEG2 stream, I found 35-40Mbps about the limit for my old Dell 9400.
-
billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
Can you explain why you say "pref NOT HDV" please.daveswan wrote:I think if you're originating in HD (Pref NOT HDV) you should keep it in HD all the way.
If I get a Z5 with media recorder, and record in interlaced mode onto the card, then drop m2t files into Premiere, I would assume that I'll do the editing in native file format, then export a progressive HDV file out onto miniHDV.
That may give me the best of the HDV format - though for now I'm speaking in theoretical terms, and from an inexperienced non-techie view.
I've seen with my own pair of eyes a working tv professional demonstrate a Sony Z7 and S270 (using a workflow of final cut pro) with HDV to help me. And he uses purely HDV - which seems to be often looked at with distain by some proper HD users who feel that the bitrate is just not worth bothering with.
As far as I can see, compared to standard def DVCam, it really does look and sound excellent.
-
tom hardwick
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am
[quote="billyfromConsett"]As far as I can see, compared to standard def DVCam, it really does look and sound excellent.[/quote]
You're quite correct Billy in that HDV (1440 x 1080) looks excellent after watching DV (720 x 576) for years. What's not generally realised though is that DVCAM (or bog-standard DV) records uncompressed 'better than CD quality' audio, whereas HDV compresses the audio much as an MP3 player does.
Full HD is 1920 x 1080 and cameras such as the Sony EX1 allow you to choose which variety of HD you film in. I wouldn't view either format with disdain because I believe it's the front end (the excellent lens and big CMOS chips) that make that camera so good. The 1920 vs 1440 make a big difference in bit-rate, but little observable difference on screen.
tom.
You're quite correct Billy in that HDV (1440 x 1080) looks excellent after watching DV (720 x 576) for years. What's not generally realised though is that DVCAM (or bog-standard DV) records uncompressed 'better than CD quality' audio, whereas HDV compresses the audio much as an MP3 player does.
Full HD is 1920 x 1080 and cameras such as the Sony EX1 allow you to choose which variety of HD you film in. I wouldn't view either format with disdain because I believe it's the front end (the excellent lens and big CMOS chips) that make that camera so good. The 1920 vs 1440 make a big difference in bit-rate, but little observable difference on screen.
tom.
Well, the EX1's chips are still only 1/2". Bigger than my HVX's yes, but not enough to make me switch.
The other things to remember about DVCProHD are the 4:2:2 colour sampling and the compression of 6.7:1 compared with HDV's 25:1. Also of course, you've got 4 channels of 16/48 uncompressed audio to play with, and the intraframe compression is easier to work with.
I shan't be buying any new camcorder until I see what Scarlet 2/3" has to offer (The bigger sensors are out of my reach)
The other things to remember about DVCProHD are the 4:2:2 colour sampling and the compression of 6.7:1 compared with HDV's 25:1. Also of course, you've got 4 channels of 16/48 uncompressed audio to play with, and the intraframe compression is easier to work with.
I shan't be buying any new camcorder until I see what Scarlet 2/3" has to offer (The bigger sensors are out of my reach)
-
tom hardwick
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am
[quote="daveswan"]Well, the EX1's chips are still only 1/2". Bigger than my HVX's yes, but not enough to make me switch.
[/quote]
Half inch may not sound a lot bigger than third inch but mathematically it's a lot bigger. The half inch chip has a 30.72 mm2 surface area as against the thrird inch chip's 17.28 mm. so it's very nearly twice the size. Even with 1920 pixels across it still gathers in more light.
tom.
[/quote]
Half inch may not sound a lot bigger than third inch but mathematically it's a lot bigger. The half inch chip has a 30.72 mm2 surface area as against the thrird inch chip's 17.28 mm. so it's very nearly twice the size. Even with 1920 pixels across it still gathers in more light.
tom.
As it happens, if I didn't already have my HVX, I might well be tempted by the EX1. I wasn't disputing the bigger chips of the EX1, just saying that, for me, it wasn't enough of a jump for me to cough up £5k for a new cam and cards.
For a 2/3" Scarlet now, even with the dodgy exchange rate, that's another story
Dave
For a 2/3" Scarlet now, even with the dodgy exchange rate, that's another story
Dave
-
billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
It strikes me that at present, the distribution of full HD is even more limited than HDV. Is that so, or am I missing something? The Guernsey Lily festival will be accepting HD entries from next year - I think they may mean HDV. Is that the case? But Dave, if I wanted to, how can I see one of your full HD movies? Would I need a powerful laptop computer?
Tom - you've had the proven winner, a Z1 camcorder, for some time. From the reports buzzing in the adverts, are you optimistic about the Z5 or Z7 being worthy heirs to that successful formula (though they are cmos)? IMO The Z5 (with a cheaper-card media recorder) looks the biz for what would be a decent investment for a semi-pro film-maker.
Tom - you've had the proven winner, a Z1 camcorder, for some time. From the reports buzzing in the adverts, are you optimistic about the Z5 or Z7 being worthy heirs to that successful formula (though they are cmos)? IMO The Z5 (with a cheaper-card media recorder) looks the biz for what would be a decent investment for a semi-pro film-maker.
-
Dave Watterson
- Posts: 1876
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
- Location: Bath, England
- Contact:
Just a warning - about running video from a laptop ... many, if not most laptops are not really up to that even with SD video. The main problem is that their hard discs spin slower than desktop machines and so cannot transfer data quickly enough. You need to have a hard disc speed of 7,200 rpm or so and those eat up batteries.
It CAN be done but not from budget laptops.
I dread to think how most laptops would fare with the data rate needed for HD video.
Dave
It CAN be done but not from budget laptops.
I dread to think how most laptops would fare with the data rate needed for HD video.
Dave
-
tom hardwick
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am
Billy, my initial impression upon seeing the Z7 was, 'I want one'. But I should say that the Z1 has never let me down, never faltered and never failed to bring home the goods, whatever the lighting or weather conditions.
So I went to the Video Forum at Earls Court and tried my much-loved Bolex Aspheron on the front of the Z7's Zeiss lens. No go - it vignetted noticeably and although the Z7 is an interchangeable lens camcorder, where are the good powerful wide-angles then? They simply don't exist.
Then I compared the Z7's top screen with the Z1's and was simply gob-smacked to find it was nowhere near as good in direct sunlight. Ah said the salesman, but it's far higher resolution and that's why (with so many more pixels) it can't be made as bright. We do a nifty little Hoodman for it sir.
Not good enough. So I had a play with the Z5. Same (smaller than the Z1) top screen - multi-coated to be sure but maybe (I haven't tested it yet) not as good as the Z1's. I do a huge amount of my wedding filming in strong, direct, bright sunlight, and don't need fiddly hoodmen getting in my way.
The Aspheron works well on the Z5 - seeing fractionally wider than the Z1, so no complaints there. It's also a 20x zoom which I must admit to be drooling over, though Steadyshot will give up for all practical applications at about the 12x mark and even video heads such as my 503 Manfrotto are pushed to their limit.
But the big downer is the CMOS chips in the Z7 and Z5. The rolling shutter is just unacceptable in electronic flash situations, illuminating parts of the screen and looking dreadful. Take a look at this clip - from about half way through the half and 1/3rd illuminated frames look like some sort of silly joke, and the Z1's CCDs are very much better in situations such as this.
http://www.vimeo.com/2372751
Here's one of my own Z1 clips - this has 64 flashes in it and all of them look perfectly normal. CCDs win hands down in this paparazzi situation
http://tomhardwick.blip.tv/#1545066
So I rate the Z5 & 7 but not under electronic flash, police and ambulance roof lights, that sort of thing. Slowed down (as I tend to do in such 'montage' films', it looks unacceptabe. So for me in the sort of work I do they're not the answer, though for many of course they'll be just fine.
tom.
So I went to the Video Forum at Earls Court and tried my much-loved Bolex Aspheron on the front of the Z7's Zeiss lens. No go - it vignetted noticeably and although the Z7 is an interchangeable lens camcorder, where are the good powerful wide-angles then? They simply don't exist.
Then I compared the Z7's top screen with the Z1's and was simply gob-smacked to find it was nowhere near as good in direct sunlight. Ah said the salesman, but it's far higher resolution and that's why (with so many more pixels) it can't be made as bright. We do a nifty little Hoodman for it sir.
Not good enough. So I had a play with the Z5. Same (smaller than the Z1) top screen - multi-coated to be sure but maybe (I haven't tested it yet) not as good as the Z1's. I do a huge amount of my wedding filming in strong, direct, bright sunlight, and don't need fiddly hoodmen getting in my way.
The Aspheron works well on the Z5 - seeing fractionally wider than the Z1, so no complaints there. It's also a 20x zoom which I must admit to be drooling over, though Steadyshot will give up for all practical applications at about the 12x mark and even video heads such as my 503 Manfrotto are pushed to their limit.
But the big downer is the CMOS chips in the Z7 and Z5. The rolling shutter is just unacceptable in electronic flash situations, illuminating parts of the screen and looking dreadful. Take a look at this clip - from about half way through the half and 1/3rd illuminated frames look like some sort of silly joke, and the Z1's CCDs are very much better in situations such as this.
http://www.vimeo.com/2372751
Here's one of my own Z1 clips - this has 64 flashes in it and all of them look perfectly normal. CCDs win hands down in this paparazzi situation
http://tomhardwick.blip.tv/#1545066
So I rate the Z5 & 7 but not under electronic flash, police and ambulance roof lights, that sort of thing. Slowed down (as I tend to do in such 'montage' films', it looks unacceptabe. So for me in the sort of work I do they're not the answer, though for many of course they'll be just fine.
tom.
-
Mike Shaw
Tom - I've just spent a happy half hour or so watching the movies on that site ... all absolutely great, but 'Perfect Day' is fantastic - how on earth did you manage to persuade veryone - on a wedidng day????
One could/would learn a heck of a lot by just watching all those videos. I'll bet my bottom dollar every one of the couiples was absolutely over the mkoon with the results!
True lessons in shooting Wedding Videos: incredible angles, incredible shots, superb 'pacing'. I recommend anyone even thinking of shooting a wedding movie to watch all these first!!
(I can see one of the 'golden rules' you mentioned coming through loud and strong - about the cutting to the 'smiles'!). Love those 'short tracking shots' too
One could/would learn a heck of a lot by just watching all those videos. I'll bet my bottom dollar every one of the couiples was absolutely over the mkoon with the results!
True lessons in shooting Wedding Videos: incredible angles, incredible shots, superb 'pacing'. I recommend anyone even thinking of shooting a wedding movie to watch all these first!!
(I can see one of the 'golden rules' you mentioned coming through loud and strong - about the cutting to the 'smiles'!). Love those 'short tracking shots' too