Posted by doc on 09/15/05 12:32

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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]