Posted by ushere on 09/16/05 10:03

good luck with the shows!!!

you have to bear in mind i'm now retired, or atleast, trying to be. still
have clients chasing me in my move to the outback (australia), so i do my
best to try and keep up with things. that said;

for 3 camera you should forget any of the prosumer stuff - no sync'd tc
between cameras, no guarantee of white balance, etc.,

if you're starting out with delivering the best quality sd you can, then i'd
opt for (and i'm not a salesman for sony, but...) sd 300 or 500 dvcam rigs
(s/h are ever more available as people get caught up in the hype of hd,
etc.,). i think the 500's were also available in 16:9 (switchable), which
will give you the right aspect ratio, and probably a better picture than
prosumer hd (though i can't say that from empirical observation, just seeing
results at various times of both...).

should the client want upgrade to hd down the track (though once he's seen
the pics from a 500 16:9, he should be happy enough), i'd ask him to lunch
and renegotiate the balance of the contract to reflect the cost of
upgrading, etc.,

i'd also dump liq.ed 6 if you're working sd. get vegas with excalibur or/and
ultimate s multicam plugins. you'll never beleive how easy it is to cut six
cameras, let alone three!!!

anyway, thats' my 2.5 cents worth. meanwhile, i wish you all the best with
the project, and if you want off record bullshit;
kay.wand(at)bigpond(dot)net.(dot)au

leslie

> 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?

am told it's both.....


"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:hXtWe.17430$FT6.4281@trndny02...
> thanks for the input leslie. we currently do commercials but are
> upgrading to a three camera arrangment as we just signed an 3 year
> contract with optiions through year 5 for producing 52 weekly shows for a
> client and we're planning to do it all digital outputing to DVD, SVHS,
> Betacam, and DVCPro, for our clients TV networks and for us it will be our
> biggest deal ever. the shows are 28 1/2 mins and we want to do a nice job
> and thus want to have very very high SD 4:3 and options for HD at some
> point if the client wants to move in that direction. we have to be ready
> to go guns in december and i've been studying hard on Liquid Edition 6 Pro
> to do the multicam and get up to speed. we're editing on a new pentium D
> dual core 32.0 ghz with 1mb L2 cache each core and 2 gb 4200 ddr2 533hz
> ram
>
> btw, do you know if the FX1 will record in SD 4:3 or is it 16:9 only all
> the way since its' standard is HD?
>
> would love to do doco's :o)
>
> doc
>
>
> "ushere" <kaywand@REMoVEaBUSebigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:cWsWe.48676$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]