Is this the s35 sony that is rumored?

Barry_Green said:
Because how would it sound when you played it back? It wouldn't sync, so ... what do you do with it?
Click to expand...
Just because the signal is recorded in 60p doesn't mean it is just for slow motion. There is a ton of sport footage, where the playback is done with variable speed- just watch any decent mountain biking movie on youtube and see. So some parts are slow motion, some are fast motion and some are played with regular speed and 60p/50p gives this latitude.
just check these shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3nkzjACUG4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQLkwJTmXcs
You can't make shots and variable speed with 24 or 30p.
 
bgundu said:
I still only shoot primarily at 720p. My clients don't care. For them it ends up on a DVD, a powerpoint presentation, or the web. Saves me disk space when shooting and archiving. If it's good enough for AppleTV, it's usually good enough for my clients.
Click to expand...
I think we should move past old way of thinking "good enough". BTW it's pretty much the same space if you shoot 1080/30p or 720/60p on SxS card
 
robertrogoz said:
I think we should move past old way of thinking "good enough". BTW it's pretty much the same space if you shoot 1080/30p or 720/60p on SxS card
Click to expand...

Why move past "old way of thinking 720p is good enough" when there is a large group out there that continue to work in 720p not because it is "good enough", but because they prefer the results over 1080p. Period.
 
Steve Kahn said:
1. For a dream sequence where you may want the sound not to match up.
2. For cut aways into other footage.
3. Just to have the audio. In many cases when shooting narrative it is just plain good to have audio for example maybe there's a character not on the screen talking as well. It is just plain good to have another take of recorded sound.
4. For nature work, for sports, for action where the sound isn't coming from lips moving but is NEEDED!
5. To have the sound to work with in post even if it's just a word or a scream or whatever. At least you have it. For example I will be shooting a short where a big hulking bodybuilder does a heavy powersquat of 500lbs in overcrank. I WANT his grunt! I don't care the sounds before or after but I need to have that grunt and would like not to have to do ADR if at all possible.

I could go on. Point is, let me decide how I'm going to use it. I don't need to be babied. I understand there will be issues in post. I promise not to complain or sue Panasonic.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, and I have made that case to them. You asked what their reasoning was, and I answered you -- but I agree with you, those are all good examples, and for all those reasons I lobbied to get the sound recorded.
 
In all honesty, I just want a damn camera! :) I've been using my DSLR for a long time now and I am just tired of waiting for the next best thing. Everyone is talking about it, everyone is showing pictures, but at the end of the day, right now, neither Red, Panasonic nor Sony (or Canon for that matter) have released anything yet!!! :) I'm ready to use something better NOW and the closest thing available seems to be the AF100 (which is why I pre-ordered).

I think this Sony camera looks pretty awesome in possible features, but I don't see it as the same as the AF100. I bet it's going to be a lot more and all the modules you will probably need will put it price wise near the S35 from Scarlet. That said, I believe this camera will ship before the S35, so I plan on keeping my eyes on it. I'm glad they are going the modular route as this is something I like. Module goes bad? Just replace that.
 
JWVaricam said:
Why move past "old way of thinking 720p is good enough" when there is a large group out there that continue to work in 720p not because it is "good enough", but because they prefer the results over 1080p. Period.
Click to expand...
That's because a lot of cameras uprez the footage through pixel shift technology. I know for a fact HMC150 and JVC's HM series does it, don't know if HPX2700 does or not, but the truth is that if the camera shoots 1920x1080 native you can tell by looking at the detail level on a larger screen. And if native resolution of a camera of 1080 (we are talking same sensor size on both) will outmatch the quality of a camera using pixel shift every time, period.
 
It doesn't matter, all this is subjective anyways. This argument gets brought up in almost EVERY camera thread. The truth is, if the camera doesn't have the mode *YOU* want to use, then the camera is probably insufficient for you. Shooting 480, 720, 1080, 2k, 4k is up to what you want and or need. People try and justify that higher resolution is always better, but once again, it is absolutely subjective. How can you argue with someone who needs fast turn around for a 720p destination? Clearly, they want to shoot in 720p and use a codec that doesn't require an intermediate conversion. If someone is doing VFX work, they may want the absolute highest resolution and lose less codec they can get their hands on. Neither person is wrong for what they want.

I mean, I've had 60p available at 720 on my 7D and we ONLY use it for slow motion shots. Period. The fact I can over-crank 1080p on the AF100 fills our need exactly. ALL our productions end up in 24p. We love it. We love the 1/50 exposure we get with it as well because that gets more light to the camera and means we can shoot with at least 2x as much light compared to if we were shooting at 1/120. But, this doesn't make me right, and anyone else wrong, it's what we like. I personally DO NOT like the look of 60p for narrative work. AT ALL. But, that said, if you like it, by all means, I think you should have it.

Unless actual prices and required modules (and their prices) become available, trying to compare this camera to the AF100 really doesn't have a basis. If the camera ends up being $10k, like I said, that would be more than twice the cost of the AF100. Not saying that is the price, but we just don't know. I *want* it to be awesome, and a good price, but we'll just have to wait and see.
 
grimepoch said:
It doesn't matter, all this is subjective anyways. This argument gets brought up in almost EVERY camera thread. The truth is, if the camera doesn't have the mode *YOU* want to use, then the camera is probably insufficient for you. Shooting 480, 720, 1080, 2k, 4k is up to what you want and or need. People try and justify that higher resolution is always better, but once again, it is absolutely subjective. How can you argue with someone who needs fast turn around for a 720p destination? Clearly, they want to shoot in 720p and use a codec that doesn't require an intermediate conversion. If someone is doing VFX work, they may want the absolute highest resolution and lose less codec they can get their hands on. Neither person is wrong for what they want.

I mean, I've had 60p available at 720 on my 7D and we ONLY use it for slow motion shots. Period. The fact I can over-crank 1080p on the AF100 fills our need exactly. ALL our productions end up in 24p. We love it. We love the 1/50 exposure we get with it as well because that gets more light to the camera and means we can shoot with at least 2x as much light compared to if we were shooting at 1/120. But, this doesn't make me right, and anyone else wrong, it's what we like. I personally DO NOT like the look of 60p for narrative work. AT ALL. But, that said, if you like it, by all means, I think you should have it.

Unless actual prices and required modules (and their prices) become available, trying to compare this camera to the AF100 really doesn't have a basis. If the camera ends up being $10k, like I said, that would be more than twice the cost of the AF100. Not saying that is the price, but we just don't know. I *want* it to be awesome, and a good price, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top