|
|
Posted by doc on 09/18/05 01:39
we've given up on the Sony's altogether because we've learned that the sound
quality absolutely SUX and that it is somewhere between AM radio and low
end (early) FM and our show is going to have singing. moreover, we've also
learned that trying to capture the 16:9 ccd material (SD 16:9) from either
of the sony's (or any other 16:9 format) into SD 4:3 will result in terrible
color distortion and even worsen when exported/output to DVD, tape, etc.
thus, looks like we're moving in the direction of native 4:3 like in the
Panasonic DVX100A.
anyone have any additional thoughts or comments to this conclusion? would
be most pleased to hear some conjecture. please feel free to be bold. we
want to find as much a pristine result as is possible for the limited budget
constraint that we're forced to operate within :o(
doc
"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:7bYVe.12337$ck6.4701@trndny05...
> thanks for the input. regarding the HDcam/HDV/HD issue, assuming we make
> this move to go digital, we would have the following:
>
> 3 - Sony FX1 (or Z1U if we can find them reasonable enough)
> Edius Pro 3
> Liquid Edition 6 Pro
> Studio 9 (10 when it comes out)
> and maybe Avid Express HD
>
> we will also have 10 channel analog mixer with on board effects and 8
> channel analog/digital external audio interface with Cubase SL3 (offering
> unlimited channels and effects options - limited only by the power of the
> computer system)
>
> and initally a new Pentium D (3.0 Ghz 2 Mb L2 cache) & 2 Gb 4200 ddr2 533
> Hz memory & sata drives
> expanding to dual Pentium D's as above eventually in the next machine
>
> our project is to convert a 12 year old 3 Sony camera and Sony betamax pro
> recorder system to digital as defined above. we have a very limited
> conversion budget as our income is totally donated.
>
> your thoughts on the config and/or our possible short sightedness when it
> comes to comparing the FX1 and Z1U with regard to the software choices?
>
> as always, many thanks in advance.
>
> Doc
>
> "Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wCxnEAN3vBKDFwRL@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <0fJVe.12283$ck6.3519@trndny05>, doc <doc@drdimento.net>
>> writes
>>>i was really studying the specs and all i can see is that other than the
>>>xlr
>>>inputs really there's barely more res with the z1u but not enough to
>>>justify
>>>$1,000 in my book ??
>>>
>>>doc
>>
>> Thousands of broadcast and professional shooters would disagree with you,
>> including myself. Anthony Lacey's list herewith gives an indication, but
>> each of those '40 additional features' suggests at least one other
>> important aspect of overall production that's not obvious to the
>> uninitiated.
>>
>> Thing with this news group is although its a rec.group it's frequented by
>> quite a few actual vastly experienced and time served professionals, one
>> or two of whom are quite well known amongst their industry peers to boot.
>> The contributions to many of these strands often seem quite absurd as
>> rank amateurs assert all sorts of things in blissful ignorance of the
>> expertise and experience of those with whom they are in discussion. So
>> often a case of the blind leading the blind.
>>
>> For my 10 pence worth though and in consideration of all the discussion
>> on HDV so far, I'll suggest the following;
>>
>> Currently there's only two editing platforms worth a hoot that provide a
>> viable HDV solution. The best by a significant margin are the Canopus
>> Edius platforms; NX, cheap and limited, SP, good value for money does
>> almost everything and upgradable with HDV to HD SDi bridges and then
>> there's the HD, at over $30K might seem expensive to the low budget
>> operator but it does more than any other $500,000 box of tricks on the
>> market. If there's one single product that underlines how much of our
>> post production industry is about to loose it's shirt it's the Canopus
>> HD.
>>
>> Next most viable for HDV is Final Cut Pro 5. It's actually a pretty good
>> HDV editor but at least two sandwiches short of picnic compared with
>> Canopus. It's all about unique, brilliant and ingenious codecs, Canopus's
>> codecs. All the other two bit and half baked offerings being discussed
>> here are just that, I wouldn't have them even if they were giving them
>> away.
>>
>> --
>> John Lubran
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|