Leaning toward HVR-Z7U instead of EX1

Laurence wrote on 1/11/2008, 3:20 PM
I know, I know, the picture quality isn't as good on the HVR-Z7 ... but there are a bunch of practical issues that I just can't get past.

1/ Archiving footage: with the EX, I would have to copy the footage to hard drive, a Blu-ray disc, or stacks of regular DVD+-Rs. With the HVR-Z7 I can just put the tapes on a shelf and not worry about backups beyond that. I expect that the way I would work is to shoot to both Compact Flash and HDV tape simultaneously. I would transfer footage from the Flash and put the tapes away just in case of future problems. No copying media to redundant hard drives, no waiting for 40 minutes or so for a BD-R to burn, no capturing unless there were problems, etc.

2/ Price of Compact Flash media:

http://flashmemory-store.stores.yahoo.net/32gb-qmemory-compact-flash-cf-card.html
vs
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/528235-REG/Sony_SBP_8_SBP_8_8GB_SxS_PRO.html

3/ Interchangeable lenses: I use a wide angle most of the time and I'm tired of extra heavy glass hanging off the front of my camera.

4/ On multi-day travelling shoots I don't have to bring a laptop and an external hard drive. I just did a trip this past summer to the Amazon. I can't even imagine how something like that would be possible with an EX-1. Maybe in a year or so when the price of SxS cards comes down, but not any time this year.

5/ Standard batteries and chargers I already use.

6/ Lanc controller. I use this all the time.

7/ Audio limiter. I am a one man show. I really need this.

8/ PD-170 low light performance: From what I'm ready this is the same in both cameras and probably the main reason I'm even bothering to upgrade.

9/ More consistency between my A and B cameras. I end up using two cameras quite often, one on a tripod and one hand-held. I now that my current HVR-A1 will make a nice B camera to the HVR-Z7U.

On the flip side, I know the EX-1 image quality is better, but I have no complaints about the quality I'm getting with my HVR-A1 aside the grainy low light performance.

To me at least, it seems that the practical issues outweigh the difference in image quality, especially since I expect that the HVR-Z7U is going to have pretty amazing image quality as well, even if it isn't quite as good.

Comments

rmack350 wrote on 1/11/2008, 4:12 PM
My employers came to the same sort of conclusion about tape vs solid state when they went to the Galapagos to shoot for a month. Tape was a clear winner for them because there was just so much less that could go worng. But solid state has real advantages for certain situations, just not yours.

I still have a cute little Bell and Howell Filmo. It'd be great for you if you want to shoot 16mm or use it to block up a jeep on it's axle ;-)

Rob Mack
farss wrote on 1/11/2008, 4:25 PM
You could just hook the EX1 upto a HDCAM SR portapack :)

But seriously, it's horses for courses.
Personally I've never seen tape as archival medium. I've spent so much time and effort recovering audio and video from tape as to know you cannot trust tape. Then again I've made a lot of money doing that, so yes, please keep using tape. The analogue stuff is the best. It's got to go really bad before you can't get something off it. Digital, not much room for error. It's perfect until it's completely gone mostly. I've never seen error readouts apart from on DB decks that'll tell you have close to oblivion it is.

Bob.
rmack350 wrote on 1/11/2008, 4:54 PM
"You could just hook the EX1 upto a HDCAM SR portapack :)"

That's right! And SDI cables can be strung for fairly long runs so you can probably shoot within 100 yards of your boat or jeep or mule.

Definitely horses for courses. Tape isn't forever, but it's seemed to last us for long enough, and you can archive the captured media to BD later if you like. The advantage when you're away from infrastructure is you can put it in a bag and be done with it for a while.

On the other hand, you've got a lot of ingest time later on. Maybe XDCam is really the way to go...

Rob Mack
couryhouse wrote on 1/11/2008, 5:20 PM
you say "you cannot trust tape. "

well I can trust it beater than hard drive bearings that will not spin up after being on a shelf....

Also I have noticed I can drop tapes and they still work unlike some of the harddrives that hit the foor.....

I think I would trust tape over blu-ray also....

someday a good spinning medium shall come along....

Laurence wrote on 1/11/2008, 5:59 PM
Well I certainly do not trust DVD+-R. I read the ratings of 100 years plus and laugh. Discs I burned a few years ago rarely play. I expect BD-R (or HD DVD-R if it managed to stick around) would be the same,

I expect my most common mode of operation with the Z7 would be to shoot to both tape and compact flash, transfer the footage from the compact flash, and only use the tape in the event of a hard drive crash.

On trips to South America I would just use tape.

For fooling around I would just use compact flash.
farss wrote on 1/11/2008, 8:11 PM
"Discs I burned a few years ago rarely play"

What kind of discs?

You buy 20c media and oh yeah, it will not last, you can almost hear the bits falling off. Spend more like $3 on gold DVDs and you're in a different league. Spend $10 on medical records certified CDs and it will outlast us and our children. One of my mates got carried away with 'cheap' DVD-Rs about 6 years ago, they've all pretty much gone. I've stuck with the expensive TY and MAM and not lost anything.

Modern tape is very good, most of it. There's been some real horror problems in the past. 2" tape that has the oxide layer part company with the backing as it's played. Sticky shed syndrome (we bake tapes). Fungus, stretching and the problem of just nothing left that can play it.
Still the most reliable medium is film, triseparations will last at least 50 years if not 100. They just need a cool dry place for storage. Its impossible to imagine that in 100 years no one will be able to figure out how to get the image off them, you just have to look at it.

Bob.
Laurence wrote on 1/11/2008, 8:58 PM
Ricohs, Ty Yudens, Verbatim, brand names, el cheapos, none of them last more than a few years without errors in my admittedly limited experience. With tape there are errors to, but they manifest themselves as occasional drop-outs rather than computer freezing unreadable total failures.

I came to video from an audio background, and I know that tape isn't that permanent either. I've been involved in restoring some old reel to reel recordings from the sixties. I have also baked old tapes in the oven trying to get them to play back just once so that you could do a transfer to a fresh medium? Tape isn't permanent either. None the less, IMHO it lasts longer than the dye layers of a burned optical disc.
Laurence wrote on 1/11/2008, 9:10 PM
How the heck does a company release a product and give it a rating of 100 years plus anyways? Yeah I know they have simulations of the ravages of time, but I see little correlation of the results of these and reality. How can any product that has only been around for a couple of years have a rating that is more than ten times that amount? It doesn't make any sense.

This kind of thing makes me absolutely terrified of the long term future of nuclear waste, but that's another story...