What would it cost?

Hi Tim:

You make some very good points. I don't know how many weddings I've shot over the years, but I would suspect it's well over a 1000. I started shooting wedding with a Hitachi 5000 back in the 80's and have shot with pretty much every camera since then. I have no plans on getting rid of my HVX200's because it's a great video camera. The 7D isn't a video camera! Period! It's a Still camera that happens to shoot really good video. In our world it's apples and oranges. There are things that the 7D can do that video cameras just can't do, including snapping a RAW image of 18mb while recording, although it does iinterrupt the recording for a second.

I shot a wedding last week using my 2 HVX200's and while I was shooting the ceremony, I recorded some short cut a way shots using my 7D with a mono pod and my 17-55 2.8 lens. After doing my magic in compressor using DVCPRO HD 720P 24PN for the 7D footage, I dropped it on the timeline and visually, the 7D footage looked better to me. This is how I plan to use the 7D. Not to shoot weddings, or for that matter, any event. I'm going to use it as a supplement, especially those magic moments where DOF makes the image pop.

I remember paying over $8,000 for my X2B with the Anton Bauer batteries years ago. For me to be able to pick up an incredible still camera that shoots beautiful video for under $2000 including a lens just blows me away.

The biggest problem with many of these boards is that we have a propensity to get carried away with the technical BS and forget about the real purpose of using these magnificent tools, and that is to "tell a story".

my 2 cents
 
I would definitely agree with you Eric. The 7D makes a great 2nd/ beauty-shot cam, but can't replace the solidity of a proper video camera that has good sound and long recording times. The very reason why I'm still hanging on to the dvx.
 
Well said Eric. I have three video cams, an NO aspiration to become a photog. We'd like a quick-responding camera for home that would also do killer photo shoots, still lifes, etc.
 
DNathan said:
Well said Eric. I have three video cams, an NO aspiration to become a photog. We'd like a quick-responding camera for home that would also do killer photo shoots, still lifes, etc.
Click to expand...

This is really hard, man. Not what you're saying, but the choice is incredibly hard. What Barry says is quite true. The image, technically, is inferior to an actual, factual video camera. The HV20 resolves more than any DSLR out right now, and it costs less!

But, aesthetically, the same cannot be said. And, for the most part, it's because of what Tim mentioned AND the effects that glass choices bring to the table.

I haven't said this yet, but even though I know damned well that the 7D image will bite me in the ass with aliasing and a few other things, I think we're going to shoot this feature with the four I purchased and the RED ONE as... back up.

For VFX shots, namely. The rest, I'm quite positive we'll shoot with the DSLRs and get an insane amount of coverage between the cameras.

Producer me thinks "You're an idiot"

Audience/Creator me thinks "Hell yeah! Let's do this!"

in the end, I say rent or just BUY one anyway if you can afford it. You can sell it if it doesn't work out but you should grab one to ingest the experience.
 
Barry_Green said:
In Vegas I get about 2fps playback speed. Premiere CS4 can handle it in realtime (with its graphics card acceleration) for a few seconds, then it pukes too.

I think we're a generation away from having workable realtime; we need updates to the NLEs to support the graphics cards properly.
Click to expand...

You might want to try FCP. I've seen it running in realtime and all the guys I know with 5Ds are using FCP and are getting realtime playback... though it may be because they're using Pro-Res codec...
 
ericcosh said:
Barry, at 71, my eyes must be totally failing me. When I place footage shot with my 7D next to footage shot with my HVX200, the 7D image looks to have better image quality.

On another thread you stated that any HD video camera can resolve 500 lines better than the 7D if that's the way I understand you statement. Are you saying that the 7D isn't as clear as SD which is 500 lines? Please explain.

Thanks,

eric
Click to expand...

The HVX has a 960x540 sensor... Not a 1920x1080 like most modern handycams.
 
I'd still try FCP. Apple developed h264, before giving it away without license. FCP tends to do quite well with h264... I play native 1080p on my laptop embedded in Keynote. I've never gotten that to work on a PC.

I'll get my hands on a recent clip and try it myself.
 
PerroneFord said:
The HVX has a 960x540 sensor... Not a 1920x1080 like most modern handycams.
Click to expand...

Here we go again. Jeez, I get tired of this. And what size does it actually record?

Sensor size isn't everything. An EX-1 that use a 25 year old compression scheme (MPEG-2) and CMOS image with horrible rolling shutter is superior simply because it's got a higher pixel count? Okay, from that we can determine that a giant bottle of bad wine is preferable to a smaller bottle of really good wine?

I don't find that to be the case at all...
 
Mitch_Ives said:
Here we go again. Jeez, I get tired of this. And what size does it actually record?

Sensor size isn't everything. An EX-1 that use a 25 year old compression scheme (MPEG-2) and CMOS image with horrible rolling shutter is superior simply because it's got a higher pixel count? Okay, from that we can determine that a giant bottle of bad wine is preferable to a smaller bottle of really good wine?

I don't find that to be the case at all...
Click to expand...

Agree, sensor size is not everything. But when trying to ascertain why a 7D might look "sharper" than an HVX, it certainly is playing a role. As is the fact the codec is limited in horizontal bandwidth.

And who said anything about the EX1? Comparison's I've seen here recently for the 7D have been to the HV20, the HMC40, etc. All seem to resolve more than the 7D. Clearly none produce anything near as cinematic though.

It's the same old issue. Buy the videocamera and get the resolving power, or buy the 7D and get the look. If you want both, buy a RED, a Viper, and SI2k or whatever. There just are no free lunches.
 
PerroneFord said:
Agree, sensor size is not everything. But when trying to ascertain why a 7D might look "sharper" than an HVX, it certainly is playing a role. As is the fact the codec is limited in horizontal bandwidth.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree, but to be honest, I haven't tried comparing a 7D to an HVX

PerroneFord said:
And who said anything about the EX1? Comparison's I've seen here recently for the 7D have been to the HV20, the HMC40, etc. All seem to resolve more than the 7D. Clearly none produce anything near as cinematic though.
Click to expand...

The reference to modern video cams being 1920x1080 suggested the EX-1, since a 7D isn't generally referred to as a video cam. What were you referring to then?

PerroneFord said:
It's the same old issue. Buy the videocamera and get the resolving power, or buy the 7D and get the look. If you want both, buy a RED, a Viper, and SI2k or whatever. There just are no free lunches.
Click to expand...

True, there never has been a free lunch. As far as the Red, I've never really been a fan. I'm not dissing it, just never was as impressed as I thought I should be... a bit soft for me, and we seem to have to do a lot of color work on the footage. As for the other high end choices, a bit out of my league. I am intrigued by the people who seem to think the 5D looks better than the Red. I'll have to look into that so I can develop an opinion....
 
Mitch_Ives said:
Here we go again. Jeez, I get tired of this. And what size does it actually record?
Click to expand...
Adam Wilt found the actual resolution of the HVX200 to be 540x540.
http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html

Sensor size isn't everything.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about sensor size. We're talking about resolving power, which is highly influenced by the number of pixels on the chip. On traditional camcorders, that's the deciding factor.

An EX-1 that use a 25 year old compression scheme (MPEG-2)
Click to expand...
MPEG-2 is not a "25-year-old compression scheme."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2#ISO.2FIEC_13818

and CMOS image with horrible rolling shutter is superior simply because it's got a higher pixel count?
Click to expand...
When we're talking about resolution, then yes, the EX1 is superior. It has been shown to resolve close to 1000 lines. I don't see how CMOS and rolling shutter have anything to do with that.

Okay, from that we can determine that a giant bottle of bad wine is preferable to a smaller bottle of really good wine?
Click to expand...
I don't understand how this would be a valid analogy.

Nobody here suggested that resolution was the most important factor in image quality. It is an important factor, but not the most important. But what people are saying is that everyone has to realize that certain claims about DSLRs just aren't true. They really aren't as "high definition" as traditional HD camcorders, including cheap consumer models such as the HV20. The same goes for the HVX200, which (on the basis of resolution) isn't truly "high definition." People should have no illusions about the equipment that they use.
 
DNathan said:
The main use would be an establishing shot of the crowd and the alter, so I don't even know if it requires a telephoto, though it would be nice on occasion. I'm assuming a telephoto would be more expensive.
Click to expand...
Why do think that you would need a telephoto lens for an establishing shot? That's what I don't understand here. What is your definition of "establishing shot"? In other words, exactly what are you trying to accomplish?

Normally, an "establishing shot" is a wide-angle shot. That's how you "establish" a location or an event. It's "overview" shot. Tighter/closer shots are used to get a good look at the fine details. Telephoto lenses are best for this. Telephoto lenses are generally not any more expensive than wide-angle lenses.

If you're trying to get wide-angle establishing shots, then you have no use for a DSLR. The shallow DOF is entirely wasted on shots like those.

I wouldn't be able to change a battery during a mass. Do they have batteries that last that long?
Click to expand...
There is only one battery that works with the 7D: Canon LP-E6. There are third-party, off-brand alternatives, but they are designed to have very similar specifications to the LP-E6. The battery life will be determined by how long you have the camera's live view (i.e. LCD view) or recording activated. You'll get about an hour and a half total on a full charge.

How much video footage would a CF card hold?
Click to expand...
I think that you should seriously consider the GH1 instead of the 7D.
1) The GH1 includes a great zoom lens in its $1500 price tag.
2) The GH1 uses SDHC cards (class 4 will work), so you won't have to buy new cards.
3) The GH1 uses a 17 Mbps AVCHD codec that will record two hours on a 16 GB card. So you only need 8 GB for an hour.
4) The GH1 has better battery life.
5) The GH1 does autofocus while recording with the kit lens, while the 7D does not autofocus while recording with any lens.
6) The GH1 does not limit you to 12-minute clips.
 
William_Robinette said:
The HVX has a 1080p sensor BLOCK, which is what your image is derived from.
Click to expand...
The HVX200 does not have 1080p chips. There is NOTHING 1080p about the electronics on the camera.

My understanding of the term "sensor block" is that it refers to the imaging unit consisting of the three chips plus the prism that splits the light into the three primary colors. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, there's nothing 1080p in that block.
 
You might want to do some more research, as yes they did. The original MPEG 4 filing for what became labelled as h264 by the committee was done by Apple.
 
ydgmdlu said:
Adam Wilt found the actual resolution of the HVX200 to be 540x540.
http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html



We're not talking about sensor size. We're talking about resolving power, which is highly influenced by the number of pixels on the chip. On traditional camcorders, that's the deciding factor.


MPEG-2 is not a "25-year-old compression scheme."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2#ISO.2FIEC_13818


When we're talking about resolution, then yes, the EX1 is superior. It has been shown to resolve close to 1000 lines. I don't see how CMOS and rolling shutter have anything to do with that.


I don't understand how this would be a valid analogy.

Nobody here suggested that resolution was the most important factor in image quality. It is an important factor, but not the most important. But what people are saying is that everyone has to realize that certain claims about DSLRs just aren't true. They really aren't as "high definition" as traditional HD camcorders, including cheap consumer models such as the HV20. The same goes for the HVX200, which (on the basis of resolution) isn't truly "high definition." People should have no illusions about the equipment that they use.
Click to expand...

I've known Adam Wilt for many years, and even he isn't always right. He'd be the first to admit that.

Resolving power is a factor, but the amount of compression and the type is also a factor. Often, it's degradation is worse than lower pixel count, which was my point.

Quoting Wikpedia isn't the last word. They make mistakes too. As they reported, it's public release was 1996, it was developed long before that. I'm guessing you're younger and perhaps weren't around in those days?

I'm sure that you don't see that rolling shutter and CMOS affect final quality, though everyone else seems to. You strike me as someone who seizes on one part of the total equation and then builds a world around it. Video quality is like a race car... it isn't the most powerful engine that wins... it isn't the best driver... it isn't the best handling chassis... it's the car the delivers the best total combination that wins. You're stuck on the engine... you need to expand your horizons.
 
ydgmdlu, It would primarily be used for the establishing shot at the base of the isle, but I like to go back and zoom tight for the ring, kiss, etc. I should've clarified.

>If you're trying to get wide-angle establishing shots, then you have no use for a DSLR. The shallow DOF is entirely wasted on shots like those.

You know that's very true. It comes down to better photo shoots and prep shots...just not enough to justify a new toy. :o(

>The GH1 does not limit you to 12-minute clips.
I thought they were 30 minute clips. Man would I have been ticked!

Another thing about that cam that's a fit is that it's a Panasonic, and would better match the footage of my HMC150s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top