OT: Practical use of Z1, great piece of kit.

farss wrote on 3/16/2005, 4:14 AM

First time I've had to use this camera in the line of fire, no not for HDV, just shooting in DVCAM. Due to time and constraints of what we were shooting almost gun and run style.
This camera has many adjustments that makes having to shoot in auto a more managable proposition. Being able to select Fast, Normal and Slow response times for AE and AutoFocus is very handy, Black Knee also saved the day shooting black on black, well some strategicially placed lighting also helped!
Not that any of this had anything to do with Vegas but there's so much hubris attached to this camera about HDV I don't think it gets a fair shake as a DV camcorder at which it does very nicely. I also tried shooting at 250th shutter, for what I was trying to get much better than 50th, good bye MB, will see how much better the footage fairs for slo mo of fast machinery.
How does it stack up against the footage we shot on a DigiBeta broadcast camera? Well you pretty quickly can see what paying 15 times the price buys you! I'd say at least 50% of the improvement comes from the optics, the extra latitude of the bigger CCDs and better color sampling does make for a big difference just in the look of the shot. Probably if I had the time to tweak everything in the Z1 and the lighting, I could have come close but nowhere near the sharpness of the lens. Problem is of course when you can't spend half a day lighting something made of glass and chrome, that's when the better camera really earns it's keep.
Only real room for improvement I can see on the Z1 would be an easier menu system, it can get a tad confusing with several menus that run off different buttons to remember where what is in the heat of the moment. Of course given the size of the camera having everything on dedicated buttons wouldn't be possible, that's one advantage of the larger cameras.
Bob.

Comments

DigVid wrote on 3/16/2005, 4:52 AM

One other thing nobody ever mentions is SN. What you get with the pricer "pro" cameras is much higher signal to noise ratio. This translates into a picture with snap. The one thing I've noticed with HDV, that few seem to reveal, is that it seems kinda dingy. Oh yes it does look nice, but to compare it with higher end stuff is IMO a little reaching. The optics, of course, can't compare with the "real thing" either. But, HDV was designed a consumer format anyway. So, as far as it goes "it's" not trying to fool anyone anyhow.

BTW, I assume you were shooting SD 16:9?

farss wrote on 3/16/2005, 5:21 AM

Yes,
shooting 16:9 SD PAL.
Of course the bigger lenses to suck in more light and the 2/3" CCDs do make a BIG difference in S/N!
Your comment about HiDef looking softer is interesting, with everything upscaled to 1080 and on a big screen SD looks pretty bad when you cut to HDV, HDCAM looks slightly softer than HDV and CineAlta looks softer again! It's the lack of 'edginess' due to lower compression / edge enhancement that makes for the difference. The improvement in color sampling in HDCAM is also quite noticable on a big screen.
On a small screen certainly DV looks sharper, even against full broadcast footage, I think we've become so accustomed to the artifacts in DV our brains assume artificial sharpness is better!
These things are difficult to judge unless you see them all intercut on the same projection system, so many factors at play. All I'll say is after working with just a little HDV at 50i I'm really over the 24fps of 35mm, all that blur and motion artifacts is starting to get in the way, just my opinion of course and I know I'll get howled down for saying that.
Bob.

DigVid wrote on 3/16/2005, 5:54 AM

No, it's just that there is soooo much hype about HDV (and many other things in life today), that it gives me pause. I would love to accept HDV (in the form of FX1 or Z1) as a viable HD format, but it seems all I hear about it is the positive and nothing about the realistic.

The hi-def image of HDV is at once striking (albeit a bit dingy). However, what does one do when they get overly confident with it and use it on an ambitious job and suddenly it starts to dropout at 1/2-second intervals on something they can't easily reshoot?

Also, can someone please tell me a computer system that will, at least, kinda edit HDV efficiently? I have a feeling these won't exist for at least a year; and at what cost? I would guess my computers wouldn't really cut it, and I just put two of these together 6-months ago.

Besides, intermediate processes must end. The staggering amount of disk space involved and CPU burden makes my system overheat just thinking about it.

I guess even HDV isn’t really a low-cost alternative, just a lower cost one. I do think those new Sony HDV cameras are cool. However, I ask myself whether I should opt for something more lofty than HDV or just stay put for awhile with my truly “cost efficient” VX2000.

JJKizak wrote on 3/16/2005, 6:10 AM

For all practical purposes to the HDV viewer drinking a beer in his living room there is no difference between HDV and HD. Whatever gains there are to this viewer are almost un-noticeable. I am speaking starting and ending with HDV, not starting with old film, zoomed film, zoomed 4 x 3, and ending with HDV. Actually, the Z1 is much sharper than a lot of the HDV broadcast programs such as sitcoms, 16 x 9 digital fake HDV cop programs and the like. The broadcast live programs are spectacular. Your arguments between HDV and HD are originating from a sinking boat. Start bailing water.

JJK

DigVid wrote on 3/16/2005, 6:30 AM

I agree completely, the future is HD.

However, my question is whether HDV is the answer to that future for many of us. This is no small investment to the "consumer" market it is realistically aimed at. I love the picture of HDV myself and I don't drink (at least not this early in the day).

However, nice HD picture at what cost? The 4:2:0 format is based on a fragile MPEG2 foundation. The MPG3 audio certainly doesn't inspire me to buy an expensive XLR mic for it. Then, when we edit we have to intermediate it to a 4x file which at this point seems to change its color aspects. Oh, and I guess I'll need to buy a JVC DVHS to get the file back into my camcorder. More money for this "low cost" HD alternative (btw, I don't even like JVC prosumer products).

Also, I can't imagine doing longform projects with this format (even if it's all straight cuts). My computer can't fathom it! Oh, I guess I'll have to spend $10K for the right one.

Yada, yada, yada - this really is not the HD alterenative for me - yet...

JJKizak wrote on 3/16/2005, 7:12 AM

DigVid: You have good points. I have the JVC D-VHS and it does work well except I paid $690.00 for it and now it's down to $490.00. I wish the HDV decks would get below 1K. HDV is on the leading edge of technology at this time so maybe in another 12 months the timelines will start jumping.

JJK

filmy wrote on 3/16/2005, 8:07 AM

>>> I have the JVC D-VHS and it does work well except I paid $690.00 for it and now it's down to $490.00<<<

$299.00 plus free ground shipping in the US at e-cost.

JJKizak wrote on 3/16/2005, 9:34 AM

Ouch!

JJK

Kula Gabe wrote on 3/16/2005, 12:45 PM

Farss, I am interested in your comments on the compasision between Z1 HDV and digi beta material. I had a quick question, do you think it would be possible to mix footage from the z1 and digi beta? If so, what settings would you shoot w/ the z1, HDV and downsample or DVCAM? I am asking because I am going to be directing a local car commercial and will probably hire a DP who shoots digi beta. But he is very expensive, and I am interested in doing some experimental shots on my own w/ my FX1, but am concerned as to whether they will cut together well.

Aloha,

Gabe

farss wrote on 3/16/2005, 1:57 PM

With the Z1 shooting HDV and downsampling in Vegas I think you could match DB. All that assumes you are shooting HDV under ideal conditions of course. The better optics come into play as you push the envelope but if your shots are well lit and you avoid fast pans I can see no reason why you cannot pull it off. Just have a look at the sample images over at the VASST HDV portal.
You've got pretty much the same amount of image tweaking on the Z1 as you get on any pro camera, of course the trick is knowing how to use them and seeing what you're doing, the little LCD monitor on the camera really isn't adequate, well NO on camera monitor is good enough actually! There's no one magic setting, you need to monitor carefully what each adjustment is doing. This is one advantage of a pro cameraman (which I'm not), they've done it all before, many times over and they know their camera like the back of their hand.
Bob.

Kula Gabe wrote on 3/16/2005, 2:33 PM

Farss, thanks for the quick reply. That is about what I was thinking. I plan on getting all the required shots on digi beta, and maybe doing some pickups, and experiments with HDV. Hopefully, when I am done I will be able to post the results somewhere so that I can share.

Gabe

GregFlowers wrote on 3/16/2005, 2:50 PM

DigVid,
Why would you need a DVHS to get the footage back into the camera? With Connect HD you can just print it back to tape. I edit just fine on my old overclocked AMD Athlon 2100! That's right, a 2100. You hardly need a $10,000 computer for this. Comparing the FX1 to the venerable VX2000, HDV vs DV, well there is no comparison. The FX1 wins hands down. If all of your final output is going to be SD, I would not upgrade from the VX2000. I have them both and have A/Bed them on an 8 foot wide screen. As much as I love my VX2000, the FX1 is miles ahead in this comparison. Now I'm sure when comparing the $3,200 FX1 to a $200,000 HDCAM camera, the FX1 is inferior. Common sense should tell us this. But who would have thought just a year or two ago that we would be able to shoot and edit native 1080i footage on a regular desktop computer. I sure didn't think so. I would have estimated that it would take at least five years. These are FIRST generation cameras. This are first generation capturing utilities and intermediaries. They are not perfect. But they are very, very good. I am consistently amazed at the quality an average enthusiast (non-Professional) like myself can now generate with HDV on their home computers. I am never going to use Digibeta or HDCAM. More power those that do. They are clearly out of my reach. If HDV hasn't leveled the playing field between prosumer and professional quality video, it certainly has taken us a giant step ahead of where we were with DV. And that was its intention.

Kula Gabe wrote on 3/16/2005, 3:50 PM

Greg, Nice post, I agree. I started playing with non-linear editing before DV, and it was a total pain. HDV is already ahead of were DV, compared to DV when it first came out. And, CF HDV runs better than DV did, on the first computer I used for DV. I also have not upgraded anything to be able to edit HDV, though I would love to get a HD monitor, so that I can better see what I am doing.

Aloha,

Gabe

DigVid wrote on 3/16/2005, 4:18 PM

Hey, I'd be the next onboard as far as HDV were concerned if I thought it was at least kinda bullit proof. But, my personal feeling is that it is just too soon to jump. From what I've read and seen I like what these new Sony camcorders offer. But, I want to see what Panasonic has up its sleeve and what may come out over the next year. I was an early adopter for DVD in 1997 and boy what you can buy for the money I spent back then would make heads spin. I won't wait forever, but my instinct says cool it right now, SD is still okay.

Also, you guys make it seem like your rendering on your systems is realtime or something. What is the true take on that. When I try to edit Cineform HDV AVIs on my 3gHz P4 it is slow going (check out my system specs). OTOH, DV just flies. So, what gives?

Kula Gabe wrote on 3/16/2005, 5:10 PM

SD is fine. Truthfully, I was tired of my xl-1 and wanted a new cam. I checked out the fx1, and thought that even just as a dv cam it was great. HDV was just a bonus. Yes, rendering HDV on my system is SLOOOW. But, so was DV back in the day. Lately I have been shooting in HDV, and then just capturing DV from the camera. This way I can work the way I like and recapture later as needed, if I decide. I know the camera doesn't do as good a job as vegas, but it takes no time. Also, this way, if in the future I need anything that I shoot now I will have it in HDV. I just leaves me options and I like that. I do agree though, that SD is still fine, at least until you are in the market for a new cam, then you need to look at all the options. If I had a vx2000 or pd 150/170 I probably wouldn't have bought the fx1 when I did.

Gabe

Spot|DSE wrote on 3/16/2005, 5:59 PM

Great post as always, Bob.
Curious, since you have a Z1, could you check something for me? Would you be willing to put the cam in 60i mode and turn on flicker reduction while shooting under tungsten? I'd like to know how well it works. I'll shoot 60i with it on if you want to see how it works over here. It's got to be sharper with better exposure than shooting at 1/100th of a sec.

farss wrote on 3/16/2005, 11:43 PM

Sure,
I'll try it tomorrow, hardest bit might be finding tungsten lights, we only use HF fluros but I think we've still got some redheads lying around. I'll also try some fluros with iron ballasts and see what happens.
One experiment I did try today was slomo of the footage I'd shot at 1/250th, looked much better than shooting at 1/50th, looked OK down to 1/4 speed, might try it at 1/10th speed.
Intersting thing, client is after a video camera to run at 500 fps, they've got one that'll run at 150fps in B&W but they need color and more speed, this should be an interesting challenge.
Bob.