Truly Virtuous?

Wow those spanish z1 commericals are nice!

Edit: As are the ones Angrius and Macgregor posted up, damn!
 
Last edited:
Cool. Thanks for the links. Though I still don't understand why I should get the PAL FX1? Can it do CF24 AND CF25? Is that the reason? So confused...
 
Ok, the reason is, you can achieve *smoother* motion at 24fps by shooting CF25 on FX1E and slowing down in post to 24p than shooting CF24 in FX1U.

Why? Because 24 frames/sec are distributed uneven on 60i signal from FX1U, (because 60 is not a multiple of 24) while 25 frames/sec are distributed evenly on 50i signal from the FX1E.

EDIT:
Note that this cannot be corrected in post, (even if you extract the 24p from the 60i signal) because the 24 frames have been captured in the same uneven time intervals from the ccd of FX1U !
 
Last edited:
A DP is only as good as his/her talent, not the camera. I use the Z1/FX1 as much as the DVX100a, and all three are great cameras. Going HD is future proofing things, but I like not having to go through workflows, rendering, etc., to get to 24p.

But film looks aren't just about 24p--there's latitude, contrasting light, shallow depth of field, etc.

heath
 
I agree.

The action of the talent can overcome the lack of real 24p but
it helps to show DOF to give it the film look.
 
Do you want a filmic look?
Then light your scenes as well as the *film pros* do and you will quickly forget about the video flaws. You will not be able to see them actually...
The so famous, wide spread swallow DOF capability is 100 times less important IMO than excellent lighting when you want to get closer to film quality. Film meaning not the medium but the creations we have been used to see. And all the famous films you like are *based* on excellent lighting. And excellent composition, framing and good acting. (But rarely on excellent scripts unfortunately...)
I think swallow DOF became so popular because it's ...so easy to accomplish!
You just need a capable camera or an adapter!
 
I use both the DVX and Z1 regularly. Yes, there are issues with going to 24p vs. the DVX, but the higher quality wins out for me. Plus, shooting in 60i and going to 24p depends on render time.

hwm
 
The question is deinterlaced fx1 footage really HD.

The fx1 in interlaced mode does not produce full 1080 lines so deinterlacing would not produce 1080P or even 720P

Is the DVX PAL or NTSC?
 
The FX1 once progresive should not offer more than 1000x540 pixels. However, the color resolution is much better than DV. So that is an advantage for me when going to DVD.
 
Macgregor,

Just saw your "VIDEOCLUB" clip - looked great. What did you use to de-interlace it? That wasn't Cineframe, was it?
 
Macgregor,

Thanks for the quick response. All I can say is...WOW! I've seen the tv shows "ICONOCLASTS" (shot with Z1 in Cineframe, I believe) and "LOVE SPRING INTERNATIONAL" (shot with XL H1 in 24f) and they looked badly de-interlaced, so soft looking, compared to your footage. I thought it was their pseudo-progressive modes, instead it was just bad camera operators. Maybe they followed the "common" wisdom of turning the sharpness all the way down.

If I lived in Spain, and could afford you, I'd hire you as my DP in a New York minute.

Did you ever think of shooting a horror movie like "28 DAYS LATER"? I bet it'd look great. I'd buy it. Anyway, thanks for the education. I appreciate it.
 
Most people forget that very "few" scenes from "28 days later" were actually shot on digital. Mostly those scenes where quick camera setups were required, such as the abandoned city and over-turned bus scene in the beginning. Even then, perhaps it was the DVD transfer, but I saw some horrible fringing on the hair wherever it would catch sunlight. Overall those scenes looked very video-ish too.

Totally off-topic, but I couldnt resist. Sorry...
 
FEW? I would say the whole movie was shot with canon xl1. It looks really bad to me. FOr the renting price of the XL1, better to rent a dvcpro or dvcam.
 
Well I dont think the whole movie sucked, but those specific digital shots definately did. I'm glad i'm not the only one who thinks so...
 
I use the DVX100 and the Z1/FX1 and, aside from it being a little time-consuming to go to 24p with the Sonys vs. the DVX, I enjoy using the cameras for dramatic work. I personally like the overall look, HD or DV, that the Sonys give, and I feel that the DVX gives a different look, too. Lastly, and I know I say this a lot, to make a film look, cadence (24p) is only one part of the equation. Depth of field, lighting, camera movements and more add to the film effect. I just wanted to be more specific to my earlier post.

heath
 
Last edited:
Fugitive said:
Most people forget that very "few" scenes from "28 days later" were actually shot on digital.
Click to expand...

According to the DVD commentary, everything except the last scene was shot on the XL1.
 
David Jimerson said:
According to the DVD commentary, everything except the last scene was shot on the XL1.
Click to expand...

It is only me or have the last footage a very close DVX look? (yea i know it was on film)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top