These are both common claims. Is there any way you can rent a camera or even go into a camera rental facility and shoot some tests? It's a fair chunk of change to put down on a camera sight unseen.

I used to work at a rental house and we were always open to letting people shoot tests as long as the equipment stayed on our property and as long as they scheduled their time in advance.

There are people here who seem to be shooting weddings with HDV cameras. I've not read any complaints.

Rob Mack

I've read that the camera that came out before the FX1 (from Panasonic?) was terrible in the light-sensitivity department. I have been seriously considering getting an FX1 here in the next month or so, and have been reading up on its specs. From what I can tell, it's down by about a stop or two when compared to my trusty VX2000. But then the VX2000 series is remarkably light-sensitive.

The only real issue for me at the moment is that there is no way to really "use" the HD format, in that there is no obvious delivery mechanism for HD yet.

I agree, thats why I might just hold off for awhile to see what is going to happen. I have not had a bride ask about it at all. And I don't know by adding HD if that would be a big selling feature.

Well there is always D-VHS tape which is spectacular in quality. There is also the MY-HD-130 HDTV card which will play m2t files after you change the file ending to tp and it also does a spectacular job. The JVC D-VHS vcr goes for about $275.00 which is a bit more affordable than the Pioneer $1800.00 BluRay and probably will be for the next 2 years until the prices come down on the BluRay stuff. So it can be done if you really want too.

JJK

It seems to me the larger question is how this camera will fit into your business plans. That is, do you see a way to make the investment pay for itself in the next two to three years?

I gather you are a wedding videographer: is there currently any demand for HD from your clients? Can you fingure out a way to market this addition to your equipment lineup, given that you can't deliver the finished product in HD?

I just returned from a conference at which one panalist said that he was going to deliver in SD on a DVD, but would promise his wedding clients that when HD-DVD became feasible -- that is, widely available at a reasonable price -- he would provide an HD-DVD for an additional $100. He indicated that he had already sold this proposition to several brides.

In a posting several weeks ago Johnny Roy argued very convincingly in favor of buying an HD camera rather than a PD-170 for those who were contemplating a new camera purchase. But that begs the question of whether HD makes sense in the wedding video business at this time.

Jack

Z-2 or Z-10, FX-2 or FX-10, HC-10.

Start looking when you see those designations.

" ... there is no way to really "use" the HD format..."

Yes, there is. It's a great tool for eventually dropping the prices of the vx2000 and other pricey excellent SD cameras .... GO HD! ... :-)

Well, I can't say that I agree with this line of thought. Here is MHO.

You are right that the light on a Z1 is about a stop or so more than a PD150 type, but again the PD150/170 were exceptional in low light for a 1/3 inch camcorder. Properly setup and with the excellent gain abilities of the Z1, it still works well in events. I like to add a 10-20W on camera light. The Bebob Lux with the Coco converter is great because I get an hour of light and two more hours of camera off of one camcorder battery.

Using a Z1 of any kind for events is not for the point and shoot artist. HD shows the focus more keenly. A bad white balence will show bigtime. The range of luma is different and can look flat if you do not rethink your exposure and composition. In other words, you have to be a photographer again and learn you tools.

The blur that you are talking about is the beauty of the HD and Z1. It has a very film like response to motion. For a wedding it is a sweet look. Of course, like film, you manage that by managing your shutter. That blur is not a given. The folks on the net that complain about it are point and shoot ops who keep saying they want the film look. Now that it stares them in the face, they can't see it or use it.

Shooting and editing HDV from the Z1 produces a better looking DVD in the end (IMHO). The color is rich and that film like feel does transmit to the SD DVD when rendered from the timeline.

You may now return to your reqularly scheduled discussion.

I've heard a lot of people rightly state that distribution of HD is a current problem. For several years now I've been making stupid little videos and rarely ever show them anywhere but on my computer or via links to my server. Granted an HD video will be huge for any lenghtly film, but what's wrong with that in today's broadband era? I also film my sons' track and cross country season and present a 20 minute show at the end of the season using a computer projector.

I will soon be the owner of a Sony HD HC1 and look forward to some much better quality footage for outdoor track. My thought is that I'd show the film using the same projector. the resolution of most of these is at least 1024x768... is this not suitable for displaying an HD film for Windows Media Player?

Let me ask this, If I use the new SONY HD and shoot in SD, is the same quality of color and light the same as it is on the VX2000? Or are there different chips involved that had changed the SD?

I found this review of the Sony HC1 very helpful in making my decision to go with the HD over a prosumer 3CCD. The author makes some comparisons to various HD and 3CCD cameras and the HD seems to win out over a slightly better color and low light performance of some other cameras.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-HCR-HC1-Review.htm

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if you gave an SD videographer a job shooting film. Would they condemn the medium because it showed all their focus errors? Too much resolution? None of the stories about HDV inadequacies compared to SD are true. You can still achieve fuzzy images if that's your style, but the medium will make you aware that you could do better. I make docos on yachting and I see no problems with fast motion (other than interlacing etc) and no problems for colour resolution (compared to SD). Compared to film, or even 10bit HD on 2/3 inch CCDs, HDV isn't as good. But it's a great deal better than SD.
HDV cameras are evolving. If you're buying a new camera then SD doesn't make much sense. If you aren't looking for an upgrade or you're not producing for broadcast and "product future proofing" is of little interest, then wait.
I've used the FX in 90 lux room light conditions and got fully exposed images using 18dB boost. Recent tests have put the FX/Z1 at the 200ASA speed range, so that implies lighting at 200 lux for f/1.6 at 0dB setting. About the same as for a Varicam and about 2/3 more than needed by a CineAlta. Use your exposure meter to check out what this means to you. Read the review at DV.com (4 afordable HD cameras) and bear in mind that those tests spent too much time on determining max resolution and much too little on important issues such as MTF.

RE. light and the FX1, I just took my FX1 through a cave last weekend (I know, flame away), and the shots look great. Commercialized cave with spot lights and a few flood lights in a few areas.

I'll see if I can get some shots or short clips up so everyone can take a look. It might be a while, though, other projects going on. No criticism on the cinematography, please. I just hand carried it with the convenient handle, and tried to steady by hand on some scenes.

I agree with the comments above about shot composition (lighting, focus, iris, and shutter speed) setup being much more impactful to an HD shot than SD. Just finished several days of trying out an HD cam (JVC) and have mixed success in getting good footage, more bad than good. Now, I have to qualify myself as an amateur cameraman with mostly PD-170, run and gun, shooting experience so consider the source. For the inside shots with steady (natural) room lighting in a bowling alley, the HD was easier to set up and the picture quality came out slightly better than the PD-170 to the naked untrained eye (shot with both camers from same spots). However, I'd bet that unless the lamen was looking for it, the difference wouldn't be that noticable (except for the obvious stretching when displayed on a widescreen HD capable TV) unless you had both running side-by-side and could compare. For outside shots where the lighting differs greatly, it was very difficult to find the right settings on the HD cam. The point I'm making is that I will have to become much better trained at using a camera and setting up shots with an HD camera than I am now using SD cameras with great auto setups. For me, run and gun will be much less doable with HD unless the camera has superb automatic capabilities. A tripod (or monopod) is almost a must to get good steady in focus shots that HD requires. So, for me, I'll stick to editing the HD from other's source footage that know what they are doing with a camera and can get those great shots. For my camera work, the PD-170 does a great job. Nothing against HD cameras as the picture quality is awesome when done right. I'll just need to get much more skillful as a cameraman before I invest in one for myself. Hope this helps a little.
Randy

I use the Z1 in full auto and could'nt be happier. It is extremely forgiving in outdoor and indoor lighting situations. I am only one man and one camera and have to do everything myself that's why full auto. Only complaint is sometimes the focus will jerk around but I just cut that out. Backlighting you just have to be carefull. The optical stabilization is just fine, the DOF is outstanding, the zoom control is extremely smooth and the color, saturation, and contrast are so good I don't mess with it like I had to do all the time with the Canon XL-1s. The only bad thing about the camera is the built in mic. When I view the projects on the HDTV or the LCD monitor the results are so close to broadcast HD (OTA) they are insignigicant. What people don't understand is they talk about 4.4.4., 4.2.2., and 4.2.0, and when the broadcasters get done with it you can't tell the difference on the television sets that are available today. So all of that painstaking work you do to get the 4.2.2. goes right down the drain. The viewer could care less. Remember that they will sit there and view a stretched SD picture for hours and think it is just fine.

JJK