Shoot with HVX or 2/3" Sony?

[Neal Buconjic]

I'm doing an upcoming short film and have a choice to make in regard to which camera to use.

By default I was planning on using the HVX, but I have access to a 2/3" Sony D35WS (800 lines at 16x9).

Which would create a superior picture? Certainly the resolution of the HVX beats the Sony, but what about when you factor in 2/3" CCD?

 

[kyle.presley]

Are you delivering standard def or high def? Is the Sony 24p?

 

[Neal Buconjic]

Kyle,

For now I plan on delivering SD (but it would be nice to have an HD original). When HD burners are more economical and players more mainstream, I would re-release.

Unfortunately, the Sony doesn't do 24p.

A link to some info:
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/docs/brochures/v-11112.pdf

 

[srproductions]

If you can afford, use the Sony F900. It's what Attack Of The Clones was made with.

 

[Barry_Green]

Put 'em side by side and judge from the output, not from some theoretical discussion.

 

[ozduc]

The Sony is a BetaSP camera, so if you dont mind your short "film" looking more like a news reel than a film, then use the sony. For a dramatic piece, my choice would be the HVX

 

[Neal Buconjic]

The Sony is a BetaSP camera, so if you dont mind your short "film" looking more like a news reel than a film, then use the sony. For a dramatic piece, my choice would be the HVX

'nuff said.

 

[TimurCivan]

the sony does not deliver 24p. it will looks funny all "soap operaish". Processing 60i to 24p later, will ruin the advantages of the 2/3" ccd. Motion blur and resulotion loss due to field interpolation will kill the image.

Try renting the Newer Sony 1/2" and 2/3" 24p XDcam cameras. they are relativley inexpensive to rent and have a nice picture, plus they too are HD. using the Cineform Codec or any other frame discrete working copy will help you out. thoes machines havea nice sharp picutre. sadly the gamma isnt too amazing, but the images are clean.

OR use the HVx...