Posted by doc on 09/16/05 06:50

thanks for the input leslie. we currently do commercials but are upgrading
to a three camera arrangment as we just signed an 3 year contract with
optiions through year 5 for producing 52 weekly shows for a client and we're
planning to do it all digital outputing to DVD, SVHS, Betacam, and DVCPro,
for our clients TV networks and for us it will be our biggest deal ever.
the shows are 28 1/2 mins and we want to do a nice job and thus want to have
very very high SD 4:3 and options for HD at some point if the client wants
to move in that direction. we have to be ready to go guns in december and
i've been studying hard on Liquid Edition 6 Pro to do the multicam and get
up to speed. we're editing on a new pentium D dual core 32.0 ghz with 1mb
L2 cache each core and 2 gb 4200 ddr2 533hz ram

btw, do you know if the FX1 will record in SD 4:3 or is it 16:9 only all the
way since its' standard is HD?

would love to do doco's :o)

doc


"ushere" <kaywand@REMoVEaBUSebigpond.com> wrote in message
news:cWsWe.48676$FA3.28937@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]