I always thought the picture from my VX2100 was the best ever. Now my little HV20 beats that by a mile.
=================
Try them both in low light. I am finding that if the end product is SD, shoot in SD.

John

I find little difference in quality between my DVX100 and my EX1 in low light conditions. And I use them together on the same shoot sometimes. On something with smaller chips like an HV20... I'm not sure.

The VX2100 still wins in low light over the HV20. I'm not sure there are too many cameras that can beat the VX2100 with it's 3CCD's in low light.

i fail to see the purpose of shooting HD for SD delivery aside from a refined aliasing (is HDV source is not aliased like DV) and on teh flipside, its only noticable to those pixel pushers who want to compare.. which I am one of...

HD was our opportunity to not only iincrease quality but to also increase our income considering the extra work in post required to edit, maintain, store and render a HD product.
As it stands, HD is now available n the outset to anyone and everyone at the same price point as SD, and in the end, this exccessive work needs to be paid for some how.
But its not...
A precedent has been set, once again, by ignorant and dare i say stupid, producers who have ruined a perfect opportunity to make a medium shine...

Personally if the client WONT buy a HD delivery, i wont shoot it in HD. Its that simple.
You get what you pay for and sadly people are forgettin the fact that HD requires additional resources. those resources need to be paid for somehow and only a fool would not ad those inclusions into their costs.

as for the camera quality, im sorry, but HDV and HDV cameras on the outset, even MXF based camcorders shooting XD or AVC dont come near the image and COLOUR gradation of an SD camera like a VX or PD or DVX.
Maybe its the CCD vs CMOS in addition to the size variables, but to get SD performance in low light with a HD camera, is about 3 times the price (ie DVX cs EX1 $) , and persoanlly to me, thats a joke of an expectation to pay when it comes to cost, if the client isnt gonna buy HD... it defeats its own purpose...

DJ, you sound like Ebenezer Scrooge when it comes to HD.

I think it's telling that you conveniently leave out the part about the affordability of HD cameras and optical discs in relation to what their SD counterparts cost when they hit the market. That wipes out your cost argument.

I had 4 Sony VX series cameras, and yes, they were quite capable in low light. But light sensitivity is just one factor. And sorry, but my Panny HMC150 blows the image and color of those VX cameras out of the water.

SD's done. Get over it.

LOL

To each their own...
Ive got HD clients willing to pay for HD content, and i have SD clients willing to pay for SD content...

The "argument" in regard to cost is not in regard to "affordability" of HD cameras... thats NOT the point..the cameras themselves are not the issue which I raised...
If a client wants me to shoot in whatever format, i'll shoot it, however post production costs are reflected in the price.

Im not willing to spend over hours transcoding 5dMKII/7d footage simply because its barely editable straight out of the camera then to have excessive render times once my edit is done...
That time transcoding is a resource which someone has to pay for...

As for the HMC, as nice as it is and as capable as it is (yup i got one too) the requirements to store, edit, render,( maybe even transcode) the material, need to be justified and image quality alone isnt enough for me to sell a product at the SAME PRICE as SD when my workload and resource requirements are increased to accomodate the format.

If the client wants it, they pay. Much like a photographer who offers an upgraded wedding album with different paper stocks, they expect the client to pay.
This is no different.

Producers are only shooting themselves by retaning their prices while their workload and costs increase.
Its a simple equation.

As for SD, it might be "done" to some people, but try tell that to 40 out of my 60 wedding clients each year...
Id love to upsell them to HD, but the market here in australia is a joke and youd be stupid to offer HD and SD deliveries without adjusting your prices accordingly.
Again people that do this only set a precedent and do nothing for the industries growth in general...

Unless your computer is pedal-powered, you are not spending the extra time. Your computer is. And if it can't do two things at once, then you may need to upgrade it.

I think some folks just want to complain for the sake of complaining. The fact that the 5D records such beautiful footage is groundbreaking, yet you want to whine about the extra steps it takes to edit it. Be happy you even have the option.

As for my VX's, they served me well. But I surely don't miss videotape, nor having to send all my cameras in for hundreds of dollars in service because their tape mechanisms went kaput.

With HD, you're definitely a glass-half-empty kind of person.

Im not willing to spend over hours transcoding 5dMKII/7d footage simply because its barely editable straight out of the camera then to have excessive render times once my edit is done... That time transcoding is a resource which someone has to pay for...

i might have vaguely agreed with your original proposition, but after reading the above, i think it's no wonder you think you're underpaid. then again, for the vast majority of us shoot hd, we're doing it on professional video cameras whose results are readily editable.

if i ever thought of using a dslr to shoot professional / commercial video, i doubt anyone would pay what i thought it was worth. then again, would you charge more for 20mb dslr sensor wedding picture (jpg) than a 3mb?

i can well understand the picture appeal of a dslr, but until they package the equivalent sensor in a professional video camera it will remain a 'niche' marketing tool for producers, and an ill-designed tool for indies wanting a cinematographic look to their work.

however, for the vast majority of wedding clients (i guess), and for my clients (i know), a good hdv / avchd camera, coupled with good lighting, and a splash of mb look will satisfy them immensely.

as for sd vs hd in low light - yes, my 170 made the place look like daylight whereas my v1 made it dark and dingy. BUT where i was shooting was dark (and occasionally dingy) and the client knew it - and took the resultant 'noisy' picture at face value. i don't normally do weddings, but the odd one i have have always been shot with available light through-out, and if (as happened on a couple of occasions) there wasn't enough light (both times bridal waltz), i simply used an on camera led...

leslile

God, here we go...

I bet youre one of those kinda people who just HAS to be right... all the time... all the power to you mate...

in response to your assmptions...

"Unless your computer is pedal-powered, you are not spending the extra time. Your computer is. And if it can't do two things at once, then you may need to upgrade it."

As you mentioned, my computer is spending the extra time. In that time, I could be editing. I have 3 workstations. Not everyone has that. im lucky enough to jump from station to station as required. Again not everyone has that.
Those workstations require maintenance and electricy to power.
In addition yearly upgrades as required.
All that costs money.
These are called resources.
If you cannot fathom the fact that a workstation doing 2 transcode renders (one scaling down to sd) will take you offline for a considerable amount of time, then thats your issue.
I however expect my clients to pay for my time and my resources in creating their product for them.
Its called BUSINESS
As for doing more things on the system at once, how I manage my resources with multiple renders at a time, is my business. Persoanlly I believe 8gb ram and i7 turnkey systems to be as high as they could possibly go in regard to spec considering the application in question.


"I think some folks just want to complain for the sake of complaining. "

I dont hear anyone complaing.. Im simply stating those offering HD for free arent doing themselves or anyone else any favours.
Theres a difference.

"The fact that the 5D records such beautiful footage is groundbreaking, yet you want to whine about the extra steps it takes to edit it. Be happy you even have the option. "
And producers should be happy to pass the costs of that option across to the client. If they do not, theyre the fools, considering lenses, batteries, stabilisation requirements, transcode requirements for efficient edit, not to mention additional time to transcode to HD and SD depending on their options once the edit is complete.
Everything is realtive, dont get me wrong, the image quality is nice, im not disputing that, but everythign comes at a price.
As producers, we need ask WHO will pay that price... us or the client?
Im not arguing any point, lets not deviate from the facts here.
im clearly stating that as HD is a different format and medium to SD, it too, like reprints and enlargements and photoalbums etc, should be relative in price to associated professions based on the option provided.


"As for my VX's, they served me well. But I surely don't miss videotape, nor having to send all my cameras in for hundreds of dollars in service because their tape mechanisms went kaput. "

All the power to you mate but IM not disucssing cameras in general here. We all KNOW HD is a nicer looking option. Im not disputing that.
Ive had 3 DVX's, 3 A1's, 2 HMCs (which i'll be gettin rid of very soon) and Ive never had any issues with tape, or anything of the sort. I might be lucky, but if tape is an issue, im yet to face it. But thats just my own experiences despite the fact the topic i raised wasnt in reference to cameras in general.
This isnt a fanboy thread. My post was a realisitic issue we face as producers and that is COST. Not jstu for cameras, but for everything that surrounds our product, such as resource wear and tear, power (FYI my electricity bill hits $1500 per quarter JUST on PC's, servers, Drives, playback and display devices. My IT company which my bro in law operates and is unrelated to video, my electricity bill is $300 per quarter...
Like i said, everythign costs money... even time...

"With HD, you're definitely a glass-half-empty kind of person."
If you read my posts, you might understand my point, but I dont expect you to.
Please do not assume you know me or my character. Please refrain from commenting on what you believe my character to be.
Thats not what this forum or this thread is about.

"i might have vaguely agreed with your original proposition, but after reading the above, i think it's no wonder you think you're underpaid. then again, for the vast majority of us shoot hd, we're doing it on professional video cameras whose results are readily editable."

I never said i was underpaid.. on the contrary, my clients pay for the level of "quality" they choose in regard to delivery.

In a nutshell, they get what they pay for...

"As you mentioned, my computer is spending the extra time. In that time, I could be editing. I have 3 workstations. Not everyone has that. im lucky enough to jump from station to station as required. Again not everyone has that.

Yeah, because not everyone needs that. I do everything on one computer, and it's a entry-level quad core at that.. Please tell us what NLE you have, because it certainly can't be Vegas. I can be rendering a file in Vegas, and editing a separate project in another instance of Vegas.

I shoot mainly stage productions in low light. I have a VX2000 and an EX1. I sell anywhere from 40 to 80 DVDs per show. The demand is for SD DVDs. I get better results with the VX2000 than with down converted EX1 footage. If the end product is HD (rare for me) the EX1 blows the VX2000 out of the water. Since I shoot mostly stage productions I mostly shoot with the VX2000.

John