OT: Stupid Comparison

Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/31/2005, 2:46 PM
Okay, I've kept my mouth shut all along on the HD camera debates. Why? Because I don't own a HD camera and won't until the dust settles (besides, prosumer HD is a "not-ready-for-primetime" format, in my opinion) . Be that as it may, the "shootout" in the March issue of DV magazine between the FX1 and the XL2 is stupid. They are not comparing apples to apples or oranges to oranges. The FX1 is HD, the XL2 isn't. Duhhh...

Jay

Comments

farss wrote on 1/31/2005, 2:54 PM
There's huge sums of money and equally large egos involved, what do you expect. Is HDV ready for prime time, what ever any of us think the reality is it's being going to air in prime time for years now, even before the FX1/Z1 was thought of.
As far as I'm concerned it's all a done deal, sure there's still a few million words to be written and said about it. What I'm really interested in is what comes after it. Is 3D going to be the the thing after the next big thing?

Bob.
Grazie wrote on 1/31/2005, 3:00 PM
The next BIG thing for me is going to be my Miller DS-10 Solo Carbon legs .. Tomorrow! Hah! . . Firm and steady . .. firm and steady as she goes . .. !

G
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/31/2005, 3:10 PM
Bob, I don't (nor have I ever) deny that HD is the future of video. What I mean is that HD is not yet the current "standard." Some issues are yet to be resolved, from what I understand. When the majority of productions are being done in HD and the majority of clients/consumers are using and watching HD productions on HD televisions, then yes, I would think it would be "mainstream" and qualify as being the "standard." As it stands now, this isn't the case.

Jay
JJKizak wrote on 1/31/2005, 3:12 PM
No, first it will be HD-2K, then HD-4K, then HD-6K, then HD-8K, etc. Then it will be 3D-HDV-2K, 3D-HDV-4K, ETC. ON AND ON.

JJK

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/31/2005, 3:19 PM
Get used to it, Jay. I'm getting hate mail already because I'm an HDV proponent. No kidding, I really am.

"Your a dumbass for thinking that HDV is as good as my DVX 100. The DVX is the standard of the movie business because its real 24p not fake like the HDV camera. You can't make a real movie with fake 24p so quite telling people they can." I left this clown's name out, but suffice it to say this is coming from a WEDDING GUY talking about making movies. How many wedding vids are output to celluloid at 50k a pop? And if the guy's video skills are anything like his speelling sckills, he's a lousy photographer anyway.

My most critical comment about the HVR-Z1 is the CF24 mode. It's nice looking, but it's not 24p, it's a different look. Useful for some, not for others. To me, CF25 is the answer if you're going to film. We'll know the answer soon.

Either way, it's funny how many "experts" rec'd their Z1 over the weekend and are either in love with them or hating them. In one forum, one guy was asking why anyone would want an F900 with HDV since JAG used the HDV cam on a shoot. I think there are a LOT of misconceptions about HDV, and there will continue to be. It's the next DV. The irony is, the broadcast industry pissed on DV when it came out; now a huge percentage of what's on broadcast was shot with DV. So now, it's the DV'ers that are pissing on HDV, which is easily going to replace DV. Is that weird or what?
farss wrote on 1/31/2005, 3:22 PM
Only reason I ask is a very wise gent once explained that by the time everyone is excited about 'the next big thing' it's too late. Those who'll make a killing have already done so and left the building. It's what comes after 'the next big thing' that you need to lookout for.
Don't want to say more, busy working on my 3D 4K res orgasmatron with smellaround, thanks for the tip :)

Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/31/2005, 3:28 PM
Douglas, again, I'm not denying that HD is up and coming. All I'm saying is it hasn't arrived yet in all its glory and grandure. I don't hate it, and I certainly don't hate anyone who is a propenent of it.

Comparing a HD camera to a non-HD camera is, in my opinion, a stupid comparison and serves no valid purpose.

Jay
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/31/2005, 3:31 PM
Bob, when Canon comes out with their HD camera, I promise to buy one. Would that make you happy, will I be part of the "in crowd" then, or will it be too late then?

Jay
scdragracing wrote on 1/31/2005, 4:10 PM
jay, if you were never going to shoot dv with that sony hdv camera, then yeah, you might have a point.

but in the real world, many sony hdv camera owners will need to use it for both hdv and dv... so the article is applicable to them, at the minimum... and his opinions wrt the audio are relevant to everyone... i think that you need to cut back on the caffeine intake, bud :-)

spending 7k+ to buy this camera and accessories to shoot a 50k film doesn't seem like a smart investment to me... why not rent, and get far superior picture and audio?
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/31/2005, 4:25 PM
spending 7k+ to buy this camera and accessories to shoot a 50k film doesn't seem like a smart investment to me
Tell that to every other filmmaker at Sundance this past week. Dirty survey showed that roughly 40% of the films were made with DV cameras of some sort or another. The gear is just fine for shooting docs, cable shows, and low budget features. Wouldn't use it to shoot the next episode of Star Wars, but DV and HDV aren't in that market.
It is a foolish comparison, only because the two cams are so stinkin' far apart in every respect, DV or HDV. But they are in the same price category, so that part makes sense.
apit34356 wrote on 1/31/2005, 4:38 PM
Hey, Spot, you know insects are drawn to bright lights, don't you heard the bug zapper working.
Its amazing that people think 24p is the best fps because the industry uses it. 24p is all manner of econ.... , There must be a couple hundred books about filming and production issues that talk about 24p. The real advantage of 24p, which I know you already know, is that there a lot less frames to edit, add keyframe special effects..etc.. and that you can compress more timeline onto a DVD. Its getting the most bang for the $, without looking cheap.
boomhower wrote on 1/31/2005, 4:43 PM
Hate mail over cameras....wow. Some people should really get a hobby!

Only time will tell how all of this will fall out. Nobody knows (not even the really smart guy who dropped a hate bomb on Spot) exactly what the future holds. Remember when Bill Gates said "640K ought to be enough for anybody." ?

Personally, I'm thrilled with my pd170 because.....drum roll.....it does what I need it to do at this very moment.

Hey Bob, does that 3D orgasmatron have a quick release button and optional kickstand. My version does....just making sure you are not ripping off my idea :-)

K
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/31/2005, 4:50 PM
I still want to sue Bill Gates over his "SPOT" products. :-)
y'know, I probably could at least get him to give me money to just go away....
Bill Ravens wrote on 1/31/2005, 5:00 PM
Jay...

Wading into the fray, huh?
It's a rather frustrating subject. Kinda like religion, I'd say.
There appears to be a great deal of emotion involved and not much logic.
Toss the dice, take yer chances.
PhilinCT wrote on 1/31/2005, 5:11 PM
I agree, after reading the piece I was completed confused as to why they did it. Price point is the only things simliar between the 2 cameras.

As far as HDV: I think Sony did a wonderful job, their 2 HDV cams are priced just right. Anyone who shoots DV see an opportuity to shoot HDV, it puts everyone except Pana out of the game.

I only wish I had stock! Canon had better come up with an X-HDV quick or you are going to see the "X"s falling in price.

Phil
apit34356 wrote on 1/31/2005, 5:42 PM
Spot, just for fun, post some footage of a wedding shot with the Z1, edited in HD, post in wm9 and mov format. Then send the post with a review to one of many Wedding mazagines. They love hot new trends.....
winrockpost wrote on 1/31/2005, 5:51 PM
i agree there is some dust to settle,not to mention some color shifting and other issues I know nothing first hand about, hell I'm still tryin to decide on an HD TV,and I think the networks are still trying to figure out what to do with the format. But, no doubt it is the format to be learning about and if you can afford it to be experimenting and shooting with. But,, my 2 old fashioned xl1 cams,still look pretty decent to me, and my play money is going to the TV before the cam. Otherwise I dont what the hell it looks like anyway.
riredale wrote on 1/31/2005, 6:09 PM
I'm really looking forward to getting the Sony HDV camera, but the rational half of my brain is still trying to cook up a plausible reason to commit to a $4k purchase without any obvious current need.

The only flaw with the camera I can see at this point is that it is 2 stops less light-sensitive than my VX2000, and for the kind of shooting I currently do, that's a significant hit. But then I guess you compensate when needed. I've read that the early color cameras were so insensitive the studio needed incredible light levels and the resulting heat really got to the talent after a while.
Stonefield wrote on 1/31/2005, 7:27 PM
With this new trend of HDV on the horizon, I wonder if that means that guys like me will be able to get a deal on a second hand XL1s, Dx100, or a PD 150, etc.

Here's hoping.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/31/2005, 8:10 PM
Bill, you're absolutely right. Not one person--not one, single individual--responded to my initial post and it's message. They're not seeing the forest for the trees.

Jay
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/31/2005, 8:18 PM
SD, I don't drink caffine in any form. And for what it's worth, I do this for a living and have for years in a very large metropolitian area, and not one client has so far asked that their video be shot in HD (including those on the west coast and New York). I've even gone so far as to ask two or three of them if they would like it in HD and they said it wouldn't do any good since they don't have HD presentation systems.

So I do have a point and my world is just as real as yours or anyone elses.

Jay
TheHappyFriar wrote on 1/31/2005, 8:19 PM
I'm hoping. I'm still using a Hi8. :)

Know what's REALLY sad? This HDV vs DV & HDV camera vs HDV camera, etc. sounds just like a bunch of pimply faced pre-teens fighting on a forum about how uber-great game X is vs game Y (with no more then staments like "because game X sucks, that's why game Y is better!" and "because game X has DX9 support and that stupid game Y only does OpenGL!"). :) Congrats video people: we rank down there with pre-teen boys! :D
epirb wrote on 1/31/2005, 8:20 PM
Ok here it is, I bought an FX-1, yeah that’s right me, someone who is not professional videographer. In fact, this is my first 3 chipper too.
So, you guys can start the harassment now..........................
Here’s the deal, I don’t care about 24p, will never have a use for it in what I want to do with a Cam now. HD output to the masses right now, not possible right now, I know that, but it’s coming. Chances are faster than we all expect. Did I buy it to be part of the in crowd? No. Am I a gadget freak? Admittedly, yes.
I normaly don’t by the first edition of anything, but carefully researching this cam, I felt safe doing so.

Here’s why I did buy it;
16X9 chips, definitely the way of the future, plus virtually all of my potential clients for my product use 16X9 plasmas and lcd monitors. As a person still working on technique, I want to perfect my framing techniques to the new format. Some may say that framing shots is the same, 4X3 or 16X9 but I feel there’s a difference. The other choice of a native 16X9 chip the Xl2 is too large for my needs and I don’t need interchangeable lenses, and want to have an ext LCD screen.

I needed a cam with 3 chips, full manual controls and great picture quality. Could have gotten that with many cams VX2100/DVX 100A /XL2 etc.
But as Spot has said, and what I am planning on doing is shooting HDV now, I can still deliver in SD format and not have to go back later and re-shoot some stuff I plan on shooting for stock footage now.
Vegas does do a nice job of down converting, much better than the cam.

I don’t really need the additional features of the Z, like separate audio levels etc.( In cam sound for what I need can be done with a beachtech XLR adapt.) Moreover, the extra picture adjustments are probably out of my league for right now.

I have found its low light performance completely acceptable for my needs, its still a huge step up from any 1-chip cam I’ve ever used.

On top of that, I just feel it a good quality cam, with a lot of thought going into it. Sure some things could be better but nothing that makes me regret buying the cam.

Now after having the cam just for a few days, I am also learning how to improve my focusing skills, now I know that good focus is important, but you really can tell when playing back the HD stuff. Those little slightly out of focus shots would not be as noticeable with DV.

But let me tell you this, even the practice test shots, bracketing of shots, LOOK FREAKIN AMAZING!
Not my skill mind you just the cams resolution, color and sharpness.! Many of the shots I’ll be needing for my projects require a lot of minute detail, and the FX1 has the capability to show it.Right now it’s just the operator that needs to get better. Hell even the shots I think suck, my girlfriend say’s” WOW that looks amazing! “when playing back the tape on my 55inch HDTV.

When I was younger, I used to really enjoy still photography, especially capturing texture of things. I never really pursued it due to the developing costs. Just shooting random stuff with the FX1 makes me wanna go out and do the same with it.

BTW ,Jay, I say this stuff not to dispute your original post, I see/understand your point, just to add another aspect to the discussion.
I should be at the Miami Boat Show, with my FX1, maybe we can hook up and you can test drive it for the heck of it. (plus I’m hoping to maybe pick up a pointer or two from you?)
Grazie wrote on 1/31/2005, 9:21 PM
"They're not seeing the forest for the trees." . . .

Well I kinda did. My point is that I need to obtain a "body" of equipment that will assist me get as best an image as I can WITHIN the budget/experience and the time left to me to DO what I want to do. My overly simplistic "hurah" about obtaining the Miller was my way in saying this. It may not have been an answer that would take this particulat discussion down the path you intended - but none-the-less, what I described was how I am dealing with the enthusiasm for this camera. Hey, if they would cost me 1/2 the price I'd be part of the line-up going around the block! TRUE!

However, and on a slightly serious note, and IMHO . . this HD will demand a greater understanding of the impact of this sharper image; how one can exploit its "natural" qualities; managing customer and colleague expectations as to what can be achieved; assessing the "add-on" equip costs, insurances and further upgrade/s investment layoffs.

So, my quirky and oblique reference to my Miller legs was an attempt to add the dimension of the drive for "Product-over-Craft" . .. kinda failed . . eh? Hmm . . . ironic?

One things for sure - it certainly has brought again the discussion of reality/images capture well back onto the table and given what has been for the past 2 or 3 years a fairly stalemate position as to who has the better CCD and low light combo .. kinda refocussed our attention and brought our senses into .. er .. higher definiton?

Me? I'm still squeezing, pressing and extricating the last drop of value, quality and creative option from my XM2s. Did I go green at the sight of seeing that chap in the film Spot posted? You betcha! But that is because I love design. The Z1, featured in it, just looked so cool! With its matte box, rails, follow focus and that "brooding" eyebrow! . .Ho, did you also see what tripod it was sitting on? A MILLER! Hah! ... nearly there, eh? I also liked what the guy said about things being, "necessities and not accessories" - same way I feel about the Miller!

Regards,

Grazie