Barry_Green
Moderator
Just trying to narrow down the variables. In the prior post you were comparing uncompressed HD100 to compressed HVX, and I was just spelling out that the HVX offers the same uncompressed capability as the HD100 does.
I am choosing the JVC over the Panasonic
- Thread starter sonisfear
- Start date
thisiswells
Retired
Mediacre said:
In the interests of being helpful I don't think it is as easy as you think. Uncompressed HD has a couple of requirements that basically exclude a laptop recorder:
1) Interface. What kind of cable goes out of the HD100 with uncompressed? Where do you hook that cable into your laptop?
2) Storage. Uncompressed HD is 1.5Gbps, 15 times the datarate of DVCPRO-HD and 60 times the datarate of MiniDV. To handle that kind of throughput, you need something many times quicker than even the fastest laptop drives or external FW800 solutions available. Also, consider the amount of space you'd need in terms of HDD storage to handle even five minutes of uncompressed HD. It is astounding.
I don't think uncompressed HD to a laptop is a possibility for right now. If it were, we'd all be doing it.. Seriously. Who doesn't want the increased quality of uncompressed? For right now, it's just a little bit out of reach for most everyone and certainly difficult, if not downright impossible with a laptop-only.
Hope this helps,
brian wells
I don't know if you noticed, but I wasn't talking about a laptop. I was talking about building a custom box whihc would run on batteries for capturing Uncompressed. It would be basically a compact PC.
About uncompressed HD capture, just check the Drake camera. It's uncompressed HD and it captures in camera. I'm mentioning Drake because it's basically a home made solution. But we also have Kinetta, Arri D20 and Dalsa. Although very expensive, it goes to show it's possible making a portable solution and that one doens't need to be hooked to PC.
About uncompressed HD capture, just check the Drake camera. It's uncompressed HD and it captures in camera. I'm mentioning Drake because it's basically a home made solution. But we also have Kinetta, Arri D20 and Dalsa. Although very expensive, it goes to show it's possible making a portable solution and that one doens't need to be hooked to PC.
Barry_Green said:
I know Barry. But the point for me is that the only advantage of the HVX200 over the HD-100 is compression. If the compression game can be evened out, then the HD-100 wins hands down in my book. Of course, that's based on specs only. We need to see for sure.
thisiswells
Retired
Kinetta nor Arri D20 are functional products yet. Kinetta is waiting on a sensor that hasn't been made yet by the manufacturer and Arri will only be a rental product; not for sale to the public.
I applaud innovation and if someone can build a better mouse trap, then I'll come to find it.
But, basically, when it comes down to it, I would have to be a bazillionairre to store. edit. archive.
uncompressed 444 1080i which consumes 60X the computing power and storage and storage
speed to accomplish it--and if I could do it, theoretically, no-holes-bared HD, I would not be using
a 5,000 camcorder to do it. But, that's just sensible me talking. Sounds cool, though.
I'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree here, I just don't think that is a reasonable option.
P2 cards will cost much less and will be fine for my needs; heck even MiniDV is fine for my needs.
brian wells
I applaud innovation and if someone can build a better mouse trap, then I'll come to find it.
But, basically, when it comes down to it, I would have to be a bazillionairre to store. edit. archive.
uncompressed 444 1080i which consumes 60X the computing power and storage and storage
speed to accomplish it--and if I could do it, theoretically, no-holes-bared HD, I would not be using
a 5,000 camcorder to do it. But, that's just sensible me talking. Sounds cool, though.
I'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree here, I just don't think that is a reasonable option.
P2 cards will cost much less and will be fine for my needs; heck even MiniDV is fine for my needs.
brian wells
thisiswells
Retired
Ultimately a camera has to have a convenience factor to it. For me, I enjoy taking pictures.
I prefer products that allow me the greatest flexibility in taking motion pictures to the extent
that whatever new widget it has that allows me to take better pictures still offers comfortable,
convenient, and hassle free operation. This is why I like MiniDV with DVX. This is why I lile film.
I like cameras that offer me choices for the look I am going after and without too much work
for simple things like pressing record, or having long battery life so I don't have to fiddle with
changing it out, good dynamic range, good color, variable framerates, variable shutter, easy to
edit workflow. These are things that matter to me and I am willing to pay a price to have them.
Certainly there are other options that would "push things over the top" per sey. But, for that
extra 10% in performance I would lose most of the 90% convenience I have come to enjoy.
Plus, that little extra 10% in performance limits me to being tethered to a computerthing that
I couldn't possible comprehend how to use. This conversation is pointless. The highest grade
distribution medium used in digital cinema right now is Panasonic D5-HD. No-one ever complains
about its' picture quality that I know of. Thing is the films being shot today 444RGBHD aren't
really representative of motion pictures in general. They are more commerce than art (thanks
Lance Acord for that quote) and I don't think super high end video is going to change anything
for me except more money and more work. HDV and HVX offer two alternatives to higher priced
production workflows and they are both a pretty good deal considering. I hope this makes sense.
I'm not attacking you, Mediacare, but you're very confusing sometimes. You posted here yesterday
talking about the high cost of HD and if you can't afford it, then well, you can't afford it.
I agree completely. For me, I don't like these really complicated harddrive things, honestly.
I really just want to take nice pictures in the simplest way possible and the most cost
effective way possible and it appears that the HVX200 offers the best of those worlds for me.
sorry for the rant... i just don't get it.
brian wells
I prefer products that allow me the greatest flexibility in taking motion pictures to the extent
that whatever new widget it has that allows me to take better pictures still offers comfortable,
convenient, and hassle free operation. This is why I like MiniDV with DVX. This is why I lile film.
I like cameras that offer me choices for the look I am going after and without too much work
for simple things like pressing record, or having long battery life so I don't have to fiddle with
changing it out, good dynamic range, good color, variable framerates, variable shutter, easy to
edit workflow. These are things that matter to me and I am willing to pay a price to have them.
Certainly there are other options that would "push things over the top" per sey. But, for that
extra 10% in performance I would lose most of the 90% convenience I have come to enjoy.
Plus, that little extra 10% in performance limits me to being tethered to a computerthing that
I couldn't possible comprehend how to use. This conversation is pointless. The highest grade
distribution medium used in digital cinema right now is Panasonic D5-HD. No-one ever complains
about its' picture quality that I know of. Thing is the films being shot today 444RGBHD aren't
really representative of motion pictures in general. They are more commerce than art (thanks
Lance Acord for that quote) and I don't think super high end video is going to change anything
for me except more money and more work. HDV and HVX offer two alternatives to higher priced
production workflows and they are both a pretty good deal considering. I hope this makes sense.
I'm not attacking you, Mediacare, but you're very confusing sometimes. You posted here yesterday
talking about the high cost of HD and if you can't afford it, then well, you can't afford it.
I agree completely. For me, I don't like these really complicated harddrive things, honestly.
I really just want to take nice pictures in the simplest way possible and the most cost
effective way possible and it appears that the HVX200 offers the best of those worlds for me.
sorry for the rant... i just don't get it.
brian wells
thisiswells
Retired
For what reason? Honestly. I am dead interested in understanding the economic advantage of
a dedicated computer hardware with raid storage and analog component input paired with an
HD100 as opposed to one of the existing HD camcorders on the marker. If you would like to
do a breakdown, I would really love to see how it would compare. The camera is limited to 422
internally so you'd save some disc space there, but how much would this custom-made computer
system cost and what advantage would it offer over a 1080i HDCAM (48K) or 1080i DVCPRO-HD
(43K) big broadcast camcorder? No compression artifacts? I don't see those to begin with... and
it can't be color as the camera does not output 444, it will output 422, same as a DVCPRO-HD cam.
Like I said, I just don't see the benefit, but I haven't looked into it that seriously, either. If you
would like to break down the components to do what you would like to do to hot-rod a camcorder,
please let us know how you intend to do it. Honestly. I am not trying to be antagonistic here,
and if this conversation progresses in that direction, I will cease posting. I am just looking for
cold hard facts that this could be an economically viable option. Some of use live off of facts
and understanding how things work and finding the best combination of products that will
meet our goals. You appear to be alot like me in that aspect. We differ on the economics of
the proposed system and that is all. I haven't thought seriously about the economics and
probably you have.. would you care to share? Thank you.
brian wells
a dedicated computer hardware with raid storage and analog component input paired with an
HD100 as opposed to one of the existing HD camcorders on the marker. If you would like to
do a breakdown, I would really love to see how it would compare. The camera is limited to 422
internally so you'd save some disc space there, but how much would this custom-made computer
system cost and what advantage would it offer over a 1080i HDCAM (48K) or 1080i DVCPRO-HD
(43K) big broadcast camcorder? No compression artifacts? I don't see those to begin with... and
it can't be color as the camera does not output 444, it will output 422, same as a DVCPRO-HD cam.
Like I said, I just don't see the benefit, but I haven't looked into it that seriously, either. If you
would like to break down the components to do what you would like to do to hot-rod a camcorder,
please let us know how you intend to do it. Honestly. I am not trying to be antagonistic here,
and if this conversation progresses in that direction, I will cease posting. I am just looking for
cold hard facts that this could be an economically viable option. Some of use live off of facts
and understanding how things work and finding the best combination of products that will
meet our goals. You appear to be alot like me in that aspect. We differ on the economics of
the proposed system and that is all. I haven't thought seriously about the economics and
probably you have.. would you care to share? Thank you.
brian wells
Gibby
Red Savant
Who can't see that tech companies will quickly produce affordable accessories to function as workarounds for utilizing the HD100's uncompressed analog component output? Where there is demand, someone will step up to fill the need.
The existing component to HD-SDI converters were designed for larger cameras, and they're very expensive. A stop by the Miranda booth at NAB illustrated that. What will be produced shortly by other companies that service the more affordable product market, are inexpensive component to HD-SDI converters that are small, thus very suited for use with the HD100. If the same converters also had a Firewire bus and the ability to compress the uncompressed component input to HDV 720p60 for output to an affordable clamshell HDV deck that could record in all the resolutions and frame rates of the HDV spec, including 720p60, the user of the converter would have two pathways for using 720p60 from the HD100:
1) Pass through 720p60 4:2:2 uncompressed to the small converter mounted on the camera, output the HD-SDI from the converter to a computer, with a raid array, and multiple TB storage. Computers are getting faster every month, raid arrays are getting more capable, and storage in TB is plummeting in cost. For certain projects and budgets this would be a viable work flow.
2) For mobile production of high-speed sports, reality, etc, the compressed HDV 720p60 4:2:2 (or 4:2:0) output of the converter via Firewire (mounted on the camera) would be recorded to tape on the clamshell deck worn on a beltpack. The footage would then be available for non-live posting, including enhanced ability to do slo-motion and compositing. The clamshell deck would obviously have many other production uses. One use would be exactly the work flow I've been using for network television POV shots: lipstick cameras wired to clamshell decks in protective backpacks. There will be affordable 720p/1080i lipstick and cigar cameras on the market shortly.
The same mobile, affrodable uncompressed to HD-SDI converter could be designed to be used on the HVX200, or perhaps a dedicated model. This week, after seeing ADS Technology release an affordable, small component to SDI converter, I e-mailed the tech staff at ADS with my suggestion for the mobile, affordable component to HD-SDI converter for use on the HD100. They thanked me profusely for the suggestion and indicated that they would be analyzing the possibilities on that real soon.
I was one of the early adaptors of 3-chip DV cameras to intercut with my Beta SP productions in the mid-90's. I've maximized and accessorized 3-chip DV cameras ever since. My approach to the Z1, HD100 and HVX200 is the same. I simply match the tool to the project. One day I'll use an F900, and the next day a VX200. I just match the paint brush to what I'm trying to paint!
I will be buying an HD100 and an HVX200 because they both are or will be excellent production tools that each have great application for different types of productions I do.
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
The existing component to HD-SDI converters were designed for larger cameras, and they're very expensive. A stop by the Miranda booth at NAB illustrated that. What will be produced shortly by other companies that service the more affordable product market, are inexpensive component to HD-SDI converters that are small, thus very suited for use with the HD100. If the same converters also had a Firewire bus and the ability to compress the uncompressed component input to HDV 720p60 for output to an affordable clamshell HDV deck that could record in all the resolutions and frame rates of the HDV spec, including 720p60, the user of the converter would have two pathways for using 720p60 from the HD100:
1) Pass through 720p60 4:2:2 uncompressed to the small converter mounted on the camera, output the HD-SDI from the converter to a computer, with a raid array, and multiple TB storage. Computers are getting faster every month, raid arrays are getting more capable, and storage in TB is plummeting in cost. For certain projects and budgets this would be a viable work flow.
2) For mobile production of high-speed sports, reality, etc, the compressed HDV 720p60 4:2:2 (or 4:2:0) output of the converter via Firewire (mounted on the camera) would be recorded to tape on the clamshell deck worn on a beltpack. The footage would then be available for non-live posting, including enhanced ability to do slo-motion and compositing. The clamshell deck would obviously have many other production uses. One use would be exactly the work flow I've been using for network television POV shots: lipstick cameras wired to clamshell decks in protective backpacks. There will be affordable 720p/1080i lipstick and cigar cameras on the market shortly.
The same mobile, affrodable uncompressed to HD-SDI converter could be designed to be used on the HVX200, or perhaps a dedicated model. This week, after seeing ADS Technology release an affordable, small component to SDI converter, I e-mailed the tech staff at ADS with my suggestion for the mobile, affordable component to HD-SDI converter for use on the HD100. They thanked me profusely for the suggestion and indicated that they would be analyzing the possibilities on that real soon.
I was one of the early adaptors of 3-chip DV cameras to intercut with my Beta SP productions in the mid-90's. I've maximized and accessorized 3-chip DV cameras ever since. My approach to the Z1, HD100 and HVX200 is the same. I simply match the tool to the project. One day I'll use an F900, and the next day a VX200. I just match the paint brush to what I'm trying to paint!
I will be buying an HD100 and an HVX200 because they both are or will be excellent production tools that each have great application for different types of productions I do.
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
..either choice would be a good one, they are both nice cameras.. as far as which one is better.. (lete me add here that this is only IMHO) the HVX200 wins by a landslide. as far as which one looks cooler.. well the JVC gets the nod there.. its sort of the XL1 of this generation. I think it will sell based on its looks , which is stupid in a professional sense from one angle, but it also makes alot of sense from a professional marketing angle. then again, i think the quality of the final footage will be more of a marketing tool as far as word of mouth than how cool the camera looked when you were shooting with it. nobody remebers what the camera looked like.. the only talk about the footage and the final product.. which should be good as well from the cam.. the whole interchangeable lense thing is sort of just jibber jabber to me because less than 10% of people actually buy or can even afford to buy another pro lense for their cameras ..and even if the lense bought was the new hot "way cool 2000" lense ..its still going to HDV.. which IMHO is sort of like building a mansion on the sand. anyway as barry pointed out youll probbaly miss a 60p/i option though for slkow mo, but at any rate it is a great cam. just choose what is right for you and make that baby sing. i think the jvc will be a great cam for alot of people.
Gibby
Red Savant
iamloser-
Why does there have to be a designation of one camera being "better"? They are like apples and oranges, both fruits, but different. They have different form factors, formats, frame rates - and thus different uses, with some overlap. The HD100 is has been demonstated to and handled by many people, including myself. The HVX200 is still tech specs on press releases and plastic mockups. How can upi make an objective judgement on which is the "better camera"? I don't see the need to divide into camps as professionals and debate which camera is better. I am brand agnostic. I use all brands and formats - each for being the best match for the particular project I'm matching it with. I regularly use the F900, Varicam, XL2, PD170, VX200, and DVX100a. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses.
Miss the 60p output for slo mos? In my last post I illustrated two ways the 60p output from the HD 100 will be a reality shortly. There is one other immediately available way in my work to use the uncompressed 720p60 output of the HD100. One of the main parts of my business is network sports television production. The HD100 will be immediately useful for hardlined television production. 720p60 is the output need for Fox and ABC hardlined production. Then they can do all the slo-mos and compositing they want with the robust 720p60 4:2:2 output from the camera. Many HD news also need hardlined 720p60. The HD100 is immediately useful for those applications.
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
Why does there have to be a designation of one camera being "better"? They are like apples and oranges, both fruits, but different. They have different form factors, formats, frame rates - and thus different uses, with some overlap. The HD100 is has been demonstated to and handled by many people, including myself. The HVX200 is still tech specs on press releases and plastic mockups. How can upi make an objective judgement on which is the "better camera"? I don't see the need to divide into camps as professionals and debate which camera is better. I am brand agnostic. I use all brands and formats - each for being the best match for the particular project I'm matching it with. I regularly use the F900, Varicam, XL2, PD170, VX200, and DVX100a. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses.
Miss the 60p output for slo mos? In my last post I illustrated two ways the 60p output from the HD 100 will be a reality shortly. There is one other immediately available way in my work to use the uncompressed 720p60 output of the HD100. One of the main parts of my business is network sports television production. The HD100 will be immediately useful for hardlined television production. 720p60 is the output need for Fox and ABC hardlined production. Then they can do all the slo-mos and compositing they want with the robust 720p60 4:2:2 output from the camera. Many HD news also need hardlined 720p60. The HD100 is immediately useful for those applications.
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
Those are all good points and I am not buying either camera so this is totally unbiased. But in the end....at this point in time the form factor of the cam may be a big issue to impress clients. I know and understand that the HVX200 is a superior cam but the client may not. And depending on the type of footage the final edit and delivered material may not be that much better....at this time. Probably the earliest forms of HD deliverable media (HD-DVD for example) will be bandwidth limited. The HVX200 footage will have to be recompressed to fit in this smaller spec...forcing it down to HD100 compression rates.....maybe. That footage might not necessarily show the huge benefits of HVX......unless you put them side by side and scrutionize them.
What I am trying to say is that until we shoot an identical sequence with both and edit and output we don't know that the HVX200 will look superior to a client. Of course all of this would be a moot point if Pana just gave us the HVX in a more slim-line pro looking camera with interchangeable lenses just in case we wanted them. As it stands the specs are the bomb but I must admit that I'd like it a little better if it were bigger and shoulder mounted so everyone.....even the silly people who think the look of the cam is all that matters.....would take it as serious as it should be taken.
What I am trying to say is that until we shoot an identical sequence with both and edit and output we don't know that the HVX200 will look superior to a client. Of course all of this would be a moot point if Pana just gave us the HVX in a more slim-line pro looking camera with interchangeable lenses just in case we wanted them. As it stands the specs are the bomb but I must admit that I'd like it a little better if it were bigger and shoulder mounted so everyone.....even the silly people who think the look of the cam is all that matters.....would take it as serious as it should be taken.
gibby, there dosent have to be a designation of a better cam.. thats just the way it is. the HVX is much more flexible and utilizes a better recording format and blah blah blah.. i do very much realize and appreciate that that doesnt mean that its "better " for everyone though. and understand that in alot of peoples minds or reality the JVC is the right cam for them. iwas only stating my opinion on some of the issues brought up in the thread.. its ok if you don not agree. 
were all lovers of what we do and in the same boat one way or another.
icicle.. your right , the HVX footage would have to go down to the same type of encoding for HD delivery as the JVc would .. but thats only for final delivery. mpg2 is an awsome format for final delivery .. i mean you can run a 6 pass scan on it and let it run forever to look visibly lossless if you want. but you cant do that at aquisition. and its in the post process that mpg 2 is undesireable. .. thats where it can fall apart when you start to ask to much of it. .. for final delivery all it has to do is play.. thats its. but when editing.. your messing with chroma and luma and blah blah and dealing with alot of frames that dont even really exist. not to mention the audio quality from the get go.. granted if your using a good intermediate codec it should hold up better. i dont have anything against HDV.. its great for what it is.. a great way to get HD cheap... but one thats full of comprimises. at any rate ive seen good stuf coming from HDV cams , and i expect even better from the JVC. again i think
it will be a great cam for those using it.
and as a couple people pointed out .. your right.. we do not know whath the imagery will be like.. but lets see here. pana has the varicam.. the SDX and SPX and the DVX.. JVC has uh .. ..... uh...... the guy100 or whatever that horrid excuse for an HD cam was that came out .. uh whenever.. seriously i dont remember.. do you? .. do you remember how bad it sucked. .. lol anyway as i stated earlier im sure the new JVC PRO HD cam imagery will be fine.. even great. but for some reason im leaning towards giving panasonic and the HVX the nod based on speculatory information at this time.. nobody knows for sure what the imagery wil be like and which will be "better" ..which is in the eye (or purpose, and intended usage) of the beholder anyway, so i cant say one is better as far as final imagery, and i didnt. i was giving the HVX the nod in the proccessing dept only based on specs and abilities of the camera. i didnt mean to eleude that its final imagery is factually "better"
were all lovers of what we do and in the same boat one way or another.icicle.. your right , the HVX footage would have to go down to the same type of encoding for HD delivery as the JVc would .. but thats only for final delivery. mpg2 is an awsome format for final delivery .. i mean you can run a 6 pass scan on it and let it run forever to look visibly lossless if you want. but you cant do that at aquisition. and its in the post process that mpg 2 is undesireable. .. thats where it can fall apart when you start to ask to much of it. .. for final delivery all it has to do is play.. thats its. but when editing.. your messing with chroma and luma and blah blah and dealing with alot of frames that dont even really exist. not to mention the audio quality from the get go.. granted if your using a good intermediate codec it should hold up better. i dont have anything against HDV.. its great for what it is.. a great way to get HD cheap... but one thats full of comprimises. at any rate ive seen good stuf coming from HDV cams , and i expect even better from the JVC. again i think
it will be a great cam for those using it.
and as a couple people pointed out .. your right.. we do not know whath the imagery will be like.. but lets see here. pana has the varicam.. the SDX and SPX and the DVX.. JVC has uh .. ..... uh...... the guy100 or whatever that horrid excuse for an HD cam was that came out .. uh whenever.. seriously i dont remember.. do you? .. do you remember how bad it sucked. .. lol anyway as i stated earlier im sure the new JVC PRO HD cam imagery will be fine.. even great. but for some reason im leaning towards giving panasonic and the HVX the nod based on speculatory information at this time.. nobody knows for sure what the imagery wil be like and which will be "better" ..which is in the eye (or purpose, and intended usage) of the beholder anyway, so i cant say one is better as far as final imagery, and i didnt. i was giving the HVX the nod in the proccessing dept only based on specs and abilities of the camera. i didnt mean to eleude that its final imagery is factually "better"
Gibby
Red Savant
iamloser-
There is no doubt that the Varicam, SDX, and DVX are excellent cameras. I've used each of them many times with excellent results. I own the DVX100a and I rent the Varicam and SDX when they are appropriate for my projects. I also own several high-end, mid-range, and prosumer Sony cameras, and a JVC GY-DV500U, equipped with a Fujinon S20x6.4 lens. The JVC DV500, 550, and 5100 are all excellent cameras. Why no mention of them when you couldn't think of any JVC cameras to list? My DV500 has given me faithful service for four years, even though the nature of production I do is inherently hard on cameras. The images from it are excellent, especially with the 20x lens. I've included footage from the DV500 in about 100 of the 700 network television projects I've produced or contributed production to. I have stock footage from the DV500 licensing regularly to discerning licensees.
Opinions are like noses - everybody has one...
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
There is no doubt that the Varicam, SDX, and DVX are excellent cameras. I've used each of them many times with excellent results. I own the DVX100a and I rent the Varicam and SDX when they are appropriate for my projects. I also own several high-end, mid-range, and prosumer Sony cameras, and a JVC GY-DV500U, equipped with a Fujinon S20x6.4 lens. The JVC DV500, 550, and 5100 are all excellent cameras. Why no mention of them when you couldn't think of any JVC cameras to list? My DV500 has given me faithful service for four years, even though the nature of production I do is inherently hard on cameras. The images from it are excellent, especially with the 20x lens. I've included footage from the DV500 in about 100 of the 700 network television projects I've produced or contributed production to. I have stock footage from the DV500 licensing regularly to discerning licensees.
Opinions are like noses - everybody has one...
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
heh, i guess im a cine type guy, and your a video type guy.. which would explain the not mentioning those cams. .. yes they are great for what they do. i guess my comparison is subhect to my tunnel vision which is limited to what cameras are specifically suited for dramatic motion picture production. in which case i dont know that JVC has much to put on the table.
..but I didnt mean to be limiting there. those cameras are certainly are worth their salt in their own domain. .. im just going towards filmic imagery and emulation. but again .. i know those are decent cams. im no stranger to cameras outside of the panasonic zone. lol
anyway .. i hope that clears up the point i was making there.
..but I didnt mean to be limiting there. those cameras are certainly are worth their salt in their own domain. .. im just going towards filmic imagery and emulation. but again .. i know those are decent cams. im no stranger to cameras outside of the panasonic zone. lol
anyway .. i hope that clears up the point i was making there.
Gibby
Red Savant
Actually I'm a "Both" type guy. 70% of what I do is network TV, and the remaining 30% is business media production. I also develop high-end web sites, and produce DVDs. I have regular need for "reality" look and "filmic" look. When I use a Varicam, HDX, or DVX it is specifically to achieve a filmic look for a production. With media convergence, and to maximize income potential, it's very important to have an open mind, and to learn all aspects of motion media production. To box ourselves into a "filmic" or "video" look box just doesn't make sense to me. To be able to produce award-winning projects in any "look" is what my business is built on.
I appreciate your opinions and wish you great success in your business ventures.
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
I appreciate your opinions and wish you great success in your business ventures.
Gibby
www.cut4.tv
Barry_Green
Moderator
For the record, I have to absolutely agree with Steve when he questions why one of these has to be "better" than the other. I also understand the compulsion we all have to rank things, but in this case -- the cameras are so utterly different, that it really doesn't matter. They're a different form factor, they appeal to different types of users. I believe both will achieve great success in the marketplace.
The thing I like about the differences is that it's very easy for people to make up their mind as to which one to get. For those who value the broadcast style lens, the shoulder-mount form factor, the appearance of the camera, or the HDV format, the choice is obvious. For those who prefer the DVCPRO-HD format, the P2 workflow, 1080p, variable frame rates, etc., the choice is obvious.
We don't have to specify whether one camera is "better" than another, but we can easily determine which camera is better for our particular needs (which, by the way, was the point of the first post in this thread, and this may be a first for DVXUser -- we're 40 posts into a thread and still on topic!)
The thing I like about the differences is that it's very easy for people to make up their mind as to which one to get. For those who value the broadcast style lens, the shoulder-mount form factor, the appearance of the camera, or the HDV format, the choice is obvious. For those who prefer the DVCPRO-HD format, the P2 workflow, 1080p, variable frame rates, etc., the choice is obvious.
We don't have to specify whether one camera is "better" than another, but we can easily determine which camera is better for our particular needs (which, by the way, was the point of the first post in this thread, and this may be a first for DVXUser -- we're 40 posts into a thread and still on topic!)