|
|
Posted by yarock on 01/07/07 13:52
azl3chn3rs@gmail.com wrote:
> I have decided to upgrade to a better video camera. I currently own
> two Sony's (a TRV-10 and a HC-46) which I've used for several years.
> Most of what I have filmed and probably will continue to film are
> outdoor panoramas, "nature kind of stuff", tourist-like travelogue
> footage, short documentaries and the requisite family gathering shots.
>
> After doing a bunch of research I'm confused and bewildered as what
> to get. My budget is probably no more than 3k US. I have somewhat
> narrowed my search to a Sony FX1, a Panasonic DVX100, and a Canon XL2.
> I know that the Sony is HD and the other two SD. Do you think that
> progressive scan would be superior to interlaced scan for my
> application? And then there's the old SD versus HD thing that has
> compounded my decision. A part of me says to stick with SD for ease of
> editing (I use PP1.5) and realistic distribution possibilities. The
> other part of me says that HD is the future and I should bite the
> bullet and go there. If I was to go HD would the interlaced with its
> more "vivid digital-look" be better for my application rather than
> the progressive more "film-like" look? I realize that these are
> loaded questions and there may not be any clear cut winners out there
> as all things are highly subjective but any advice would be
> appreciated.
>
> TIA
>
> Mike
If you want the option of SD or HDv, go with the FX1.If you want
progressiv or interlaced, Sd and native 16X9, go with a used XL2. I
shot with an XL2 for 2 years,and recently went up to a Canon XLH1. The
XL2 is great camera.I sold mine for $2400, which is fair market price.
I also have an FX1 and LOVE the image.Although it doesn't shppt
progressive, you can de interlace in post.
Bruce yarock
www.yarock.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|