Posted by Steve King on 09/18/05 14:28

"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:lz3Xe.5860$iv5.5707@trndny03...
> 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
>
I'm wondering if your conclusion that the audio "SUX" was arrived at by
personal experience or from heresay? I know that many have been concerned
that the 384 kbs MPEG might not hold up through post. But, all such
opinions I've read came from people who were speculating rather than
speaking from hands-on experience. I've now heard audio from the FX1 on two
occasions. In both instances I was able to listen on good monitors to
original camera audio as well as the audio in the final edit, after various
steps of processing including level changes, compression, and EQ. I thought
it sounded great. But, I've had almost forty years of studio experience, so
my ears aren't what they used to be. The 'youngsters' in the audience
thought it sounded pretty good, too. How did you arrive at your opinion?

Steve King

[Back to original message]