|
|
Posted by ushere on 09/16/05 05:41
right, they're all sd. i'm working in pal, and as i wrote, the pics are as
good as, if not better than my old 400. as for lines of res. well that
threads been done to death here by many people with a great deal more
expertise than myself - i simply produce doco's ;-}
if you're after future proofing, then the way to go is with fx1, or similar.
i have a few assosicates working national broadcasting and they're using
them (the ones with xlr inputs - keeping the sound kits from the retired sp
rigs). on the other hand, s/h 150 would be a good entry level to test out
the whole schmozzle, along with ease of editing material. i use vegas 5, and
am very happy with it. others like premiere, and studios still put their
faith in avid and fcp - though why i can't understand anymore. for the cost
of software, if you have a good editor, what the hell does it matter what he
edits on - unless it's in house equipment - then you do deals with whoever!
good luck,
leslie
"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:ORdWe.4939$3b6.3210@trndny07...
> thanks Leslie for the input. the 150 and 170 are not HD capable right? i
> mean their designed around SD right? do you know how many lines of
> resolution they produce?
>
> doc
>
> "ushere" <kaywand@REMoVEaBUSebigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:ZIbWe.47983$FA3.10435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>i would say the stuff i'm shooting on my 170 (sd) is the equal of, or
>>better than the material i used to shoot on my 400sp. (allowence for lens,
>>etc., - though i'm shooting in controlled situations, so 'difficult'
>>lighting isn't a factor).
>>
>> i've no personal experience of hd, other than having a reasonably close
>> look at, and viewing material from, a fx1 (or the one with xlr's). i was
>> most impressed by the quality on tape (again, controlled shoot), and the
>> camera itself. however, i didn't see the edited version, nor do i know
>> what it was edited on - i was told it was likely to be vegas with the hd
>> plugin (?). since i'm not interested in hd till i can see a serious
>> market, or am called upon to shoot/edit it, i'll continue to investigate
>> and assess the options, which as we all know, are subject to market hype
>> and a fair degree of smoke and mirrors as to editing programs.
>>
>> but if you're happy with sd, any sd dv 3 chip is going to give you good
>> results (unless your doing 'reality' tv in low light etc.,). try a s/h
>> 150, hire a 170, or similar and give it a good test run, from shoot to
>> final edit.
>>
>> good luck,
>>
>> leslie
>>
>>
>> "doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
>> news:mu2We.5612$sa6.4626@trndny06...
>>> hi and thanks for the response. i know they'll air it because we pay
>>> them too but what i'm especially worrried about is whether the end
>>> result of converting from 12+ year old betamax to digital at SD with the
>>> Sony FX1 + liquid edition pro as the editor will lower our quality,
>>> equal our quality, or improve our quality.
>>>
>>> i ran a test on a little handycam from panasonic (entry level consumer
>>> product) and the result is much lower than our present taping
>>> arrangement but then our betacam's cost something like 20 g's each new
>>> THEN and although i don't know the exact spec's i think their something
>>> like 400 lines of res or thereabouts.
>>>
>>> so, afterthoughts?
>>>
>>> doc
>>>
>>> "ushere" <kaywand@REMoVEaBUSebigpond.com> wrote in message
>>> news:oe2We.47486$FA3.34536@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> anything is broadcast quality if a broadcaster wants to show it.
>>>>
>>>> leslie
>>>>
>>>> (produced broadcast doco's from vhs thru digibeta to dv. if they like
>>>> it, they'll pay and air).
>>>>
>>>> "doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:GJXVe.14836$FT6.12722@trndny02...
>>>>> Hi group. I've posted under some other headers looking for
>>>>> comparisons between the Sony FX1 nad Sony Z1U and found there to be
>>>>> little difference and thus wanted to know if anyone else has used the
>>>>> Sony FX1 for broadcast quality material? Or, if anyone out there
>>>>> knows what we're wanting to do witll work?
>>>>>
>>>>> We currently use 12 year old Sony cameras (expensive in their day) and
>>>>> Sony Betacam recorder and do a "live" production through Sony
>>>>> switching and mixing panel(s) and want to go to post production so
>>>>> that we don't have to start over every time when something goes wrong
>>>>> :o)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, we want to convert to the Sony FX1's recording to DV, then
>>>>> capture the footage into Liquid Edition or Canopus Edius Pro 3, then
>>>>> edit and dub out to DVD, Sony Betamax SP and Sony SVHS formats for
>>>>> delivery to our local, nationwide, and satellite networks and want to
>>>>> see if there are any who can confirm that the quality of the
>>>>> programming will not be sacrificed (and maybe even improved :o) from
>>>>> our present arrangement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please help and many thanks in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|