You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

How many people here have a HI DEF camera

Posted: Mon, 2nd Jan 2006, 10:52pm

Post 1 of 26

b4uask30male

Force: 5619 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 3497

Windows User

Gold Member

I was watching the gadget show and they showed a hi def camera for just over £1000,00 has anyone here got a hi def camera yet, if so what is your honest view on it, is it really that much better than normal DV? does it work well with blue/greenscreen?
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jan 2006, 11:01pm

Post 2 of 26

nfsbuff

Force: 2060 | Joined: 27th Jan 2003 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Although I don't own one, I use one quite frequently at school. If you want quality, its worth it--its so worth it. The resolution is unbeatable, and is perfect for blue/greenscreen. Even if you scale down your final output to DV size, the difference is 100% noticable.

Their still too pricey for the general consumer, though. I'd wait a bit, as their coming down in price.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jan 2006, 11:09pm

Post 3 of 26

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

The resolution is unbeatable, and is perfect for blue/greenscreen.
If you're talking about consumer cameras then this is pretty wrong. HDV isn't at all prefect for keying, with its poor colour sampling and huge compression its generally as bad as DV and in some cases worse.

We've tested footage from all the current HDV cameras on the market. While the resolution does impress the interpolated frame rates, heavy compression and non-progressive CCDs don't make for outstanding footage.

FXhome should be getting the new 'prosumer' Panasonic HD camera some time this year, its real HD and therefore should be pretty good for keying and just about everything else.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jan 2006, 11:13pm

Post 4 of 26

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

My stepmom got a Sony HDR-HC1. She cannot turn it on. I feel like killing myself.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jan 2006, 11:20pm

Post 5 of 26

nfsbuff

Force: 2060 | Joined: 27th Jan 2003 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

If you're talking about consumer cameras then this is pretty wrong. HDV isn't at all prefect for keying, with its poor colour sampling and huge compression its generally as bad as DV and in some cases worse.
Sorry Schwar, I wasn't referring to consumer grade cameras. I should have made that more clear. And you right, the compression does somewhat hamper those cameras.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jan 2006, 11:45pm

Post 6 of 26

Alex Reeve

Force: 470 | Joined: 3rd Oct 2005 | Posts: 364

MacOS User

Member

schwar wrote:

FXhome should be getting the new 'prosumer' Panasonic HD camera some time this year, its real HD and therefore should be pretty good for keying and just about everything else.
Which storage solution are you going with? I'd order an HVX200 tomorrow, but the P2 cards are far too costly. The Firestore seems to be a much better option.

Before I bought my DVX, I had a fairly extensive demo of the Sony FX1 and wasn't particularly impressed, especially with fast motion footage. I'd imagine the compression artifacts would play havoc with greenscreen work.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 1:28am

Post 7 of 26

SlothPaladin

Force: 2900 | Joined: 30th Nov 2004 | Posts: 637

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm shooting in uncompressed high def on a $150 still cam, ah the joys of stop motion. However becouse of many design flaws the camera has no way I can capture directly to my computer and 2.66MB a frame goes rather slow on firewire.



Andd about the webcam, everyone asks about that, it's a preveiw framegraber so I can playback my frames in realtime but it looks bad and is not used in the final movie.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 2:36am

Post 8 of 26

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I worked with the first JVC version of HDV and it was worst than DV!

The Sony stuff is better although your shot better be still and its crap (VERY CRAP!) for greenscreen unless you have access to Ultimatte and even at that.

It is also a MAJOR pain to edit because the frames are not precise, since it is mpeg - your software has to compensate with a ton of passthroughs. Not very efficient. I personally hate the format.

I too am waiting for the Panasonic DVCPRO HD Camera. In fact, we will be shooting RECON 2 with it.

In my opinion, HDV is a transition format, will not have a long life and is absolutely useless for any serious filmmaker.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 2:49am

Post 9 of 26

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't own one yet, but I can borrow a Sony Z1U anytime I want, which is really nice. I love it.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 9:14am

Post 10 of 26

b4uask30male

Force: 5619 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 3497

Windows User

Gold Member

thanks guys,
so what your saying is go for a semi pro hd camera?

The reason I mention this is because on the gadget show they was testing a £4,000 jvc semi pro hd camera against the hc1 (i think it's called £1,100 and a normal 3ccd dv camera)

The winner was
hc1 £1,100
then the semi pro £4,000
then last was normal dv.

they said that the picture quality was way better on the cheaper HD camera and showed a freeze frame from each camera, i'd have to agree the hc1 did look better.

Your thoughts?
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 9:24am

Post 11 of 26

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

JVC doesn't make any semi-pro HD cameras, I assume you are talking about JVC's HDV cameras which are not that good and I wouldn't consider them semi-pro.

When talking about semi-pro I mean the Pansonic AG-HVX200 HD camera which is a totally different level to the cameras you're discussing.

Still, I expect the Sony HDR-HC1 does give a better picture but its still HDV so I personally wouldn't touch it. The Sony HDV cameras also have manky interpolated frame rates although I'm not sure the HC1 supports this.

I agree with JohnCarter that HDV is a transitional format and not really suitable for serious film making, but the HDR-HC1 looks pretty cheap so might be worth a go for home movies.

Last edited Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 5:08pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 2:50pm

Post 12 of 26

b4uask30male

Force: 5619 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 3497

Windows User

Gold Member

oh, right i'm with you now,
so the best way to go is pro and forget anything lower in spec.

Thanks for the info.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 4:23pm

Post 13 of 26

outsiderlookingin

Force: 60 | Joined: 10th Nov 2005 | Posts: 138

Member

Well, the fact of the matter is that the HVX200 is the ONLY semi pro HD camcorder on the market. Nothing that uses HDV can compare, especially with fx work.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 5:00pm

Post 14 of 26

TheRenegade

Force: 190 | Joined: 2nd Mar 2004 | Posts: 345

MacOS User

Member

schwar wrote:

JVC doesn't make any semi-pro HD cameras, I assume you are talking about JVC's HDV cameras which are not that good and I wouldn't consider them semi-pro.
Actually your right but JVC is coming out with a really nice HD camera soon the JVC-HD100 and it will have interchangable lenses.

schwar wrote:

When talking about semi-pro I mean the Pansonic AG-HVX200 HD camera which is a totally different level to the cameras you're discussing.
True and whats better is that the HVX200 has 4:2:2 color sampling instead of just 4:2:1 color sampling which will make a really big difference when blue and green screening.

schwar wrote:

Still, I exect the Sony HDR-HC1 does give a better picture but its still HDV so I personally wouldn't touch it. The Sony HDV cameras also have manky interpolated frame rates although I'm not sure the HC1 supports this.

Your right again but also remember that the HC-1 is only a one chip camera. So it still won't even look that good.

P.S. And remember Schwar Spellcheck is your friend.
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 5:10pm

Post 15 of 26

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Heh, I really should use a spell checker with my forum posts. biggrin

I always found it odd that JVC went with HDV and Panasonic went with HD. Panasonic is the major owner of JVC but according to the rep I spoke to from Panasonic they like to let JVC go their own way.

From what I've read the JVC GY-HD100 is still records in the HDV format on to tape but it also allows for uncompressed HD output for live work and output to hard disks.

I've not been able to find out if its able to use DVCPro25/50/100 like the Panasonic - anyone got any information on this?
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jan 2006, 10:07pm

Post 16 of 26

outsiderlookingin

Force: 60 | Joined: 10th Nov 2005 | Posts: 138

Member

I don't think the JVC will be able to record DVCPRO in any way.

The one thing about "interchangable" lenses is that they cost almost twice as much as the camera, and there are hardly any out there that work with HD properly. Reminds me of when I was going to buy an XL2, then I found out that the lens will cost be $10K for a good one and I said forget it.
Posted: Wed, 4th Jan 2006, 6:46am

Post 17 of 26

Alex Reeve

Force: 470 | Joined: 3rd Oct 2005 | Posts: 364

MacOS User

Member

outsiderlookingin wrote:

I don't think the JVC will be able to record DVCPRO in any way.
That's right, it uses ProHD, better than HDV, but no competition for DVCPRO.

It also has a widely reported problem with one side of the picture being brighter than the other, especially noticeable in dark footage.

On the plus side, it's almost ergonomically perfect. It's a lovely camera to hold and shoot with. (based purely on 10 minutes messing around with it in a suppliers)

Personally, I'm going to start saving for a RED camera...

www.red.com
Posted: Wed, 4th Jan 2006, 5:05pm

Post 18 of 26

outsiderlookingin

Force: 60 | Joined: 10th Nov 2005 | Posts: 138

Member

The RED is attractive, but it's a very ambitious project. There is a lot of talk about it in the DVXUser.com forum if you want more info.

My question about the RED is, what kind of computer is going to be needed to edit that kind of footage?
Posted: Wed, 4th Jan 2006, 5:33pm

Post 19 of 26

TheRenegade

Force: 190 | Joined: 2nd Mar 2004 | Posts: 345

MacOS User

Member

Also is there is it even going to be worth it at the price (50K or lower). Also will it have the ability to use all kinds of lenses or just cinema lenses and OCT 19 stuff. Interesting to say the least.
Posted: Wed, 4th Jan 2006, 9:14pm

Post 20 of 26

Alex Reeve

Force: 470 | Joined: 3rd Oct 2005 | Posts: 364

MacOS User

Member

outsiderlookingin wrote:

My question about the RED is, what kind of computer is going to be needed to edit that kind of footage?
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/finalcut6.html

That's some serious money they're talking there!
Posted: Thu, 12th Jan 2006, 9:01pm

Post 21 of 26

padawanNick

Force: 380 | Joined: 19th Aug 2003 | Posts: 224

Windows User MacOS User

Member

We recently got a CineAlta F950 at PixelCorps.
Now THAT is sweet for keying.
1920x1080, 24p, 4:4:4 capture. smile

In the prosumer area, people are starting to get their hands on the Canon HD camera. While it records HDV to tape, there is an SDI out that would (I think) allow you to capture uncompressed data to disk using something like a Kona or BlackMagic card, bypassing the HDV compression stage.

Keep in mind, these solutions require some heavy iron hardware for capture. We use a Kona2 connected to a G5 capturing to a multi-terra-byte RAID array to capture from the F950.

I think the prosumer cameras are pretty exciting for anyone that has the need to shoot HD all the time (weddings and such), but I'm not sold on the idea that I should buy one just because it's got more resolution than my GL2. I can experiment all I like for almost nothing using the paid-off GL2. If a time came where I had funding to make a film or a project that required HD, then renting something like a CineAlta F900 for several days would be less expensive than buying a "compromise" HDV camera and yield better results.
Posted: Thu, 12th Jan 2006, 9:27pm

Post 22 of 26

outsiderlookingin

Force: 60 | Joined: 10th Nov 2005 | Posts: 138

Member

padwanNick,

When using the SDI out on the Canon, would it have to be connected to the Kona card while recording/shooting, or could you record first then capture via SDI? My best guesses tell me you would have to capture during recording...I figure that once it's recorded to tape it's already compressed. Any insight on this one?

I recently thought about purchasing the HVX200, I was about to, then I decided against it considering the hardware upgrade I would have to make. I already own a dual G5, but I would need a SATA RAID set up to get some real time performance in FCP, as well as massive storage needs, HD monitors, P2 cards/Firestore, FCP 5 upgrade, and so on and so forth...

For a format that has no way of playback except for Quicktime 7 on a Mac, I'll wait till the Blu-Ray burners come out before I jump the gun on the investment.
Posted: Fri, 13th Jan 2006, 12:42am

Post 23 of 26

padawanNick

Force: 380 | Joined: 19th Aug 2003 | Posts: 224

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Correct.
Once you've recorded on a miniDV tape, the data has been compressed to HDV. You have to capture via SDI during shooting, pretty much the same way as shooting with the F950 (the F950 doesn't even have an on-board tape drive)

There are HD delivery solutions, (HD DVD recorders/players and JVC's DVHS) but the "standard" formats haven't really gotten kicked off yet. The folks that shoot HDV weddings typically charge enough that an HD DVD player for the bride & groom is included in their packages :p

I think that for them, and emerging film makers, HD makes all the sense in the world. It's a fantastic format for an indie film. Shot properly, the quality blows away what someone like Rodriguez was working with back when he was editing and showing El Mariachi on VHS.

It's just a big investment to BUY into at the moment. Renting makes more sence (to me) at the moment, since you could easily spend months or years editing the captured data. The great thing is that most common computers today can work with the data. You don't need a quad proc to handle HD. I do lots of work in HD using an old Dual G4 1.25Ghz PowerMac and a year-old Dell 3.4Ghz P4. (no realtime editing or effects of course, but it's workable .... with overnight rendering wink )

In the meantime, hopefully the price of 3chip DV cams will finally start to go down. The GL2 price has been steady for YEARS. I $2000 computer from the time when the GL2 was released wouldn't be even $500 today. Time for this stuff to get discounted so more folks can have access to nicer cameras. :p
Posted: Fri, 13th Jan 2006, 2:07pm

Post 24 of 26

outsiderlookingin

Force: 60 | Joined: 10th Nov 2005 | Posts: 138

Member

I agree with that on the price of cameras! I think I'm going to wait until the next revision of HVX before I jump into HD. Plus, not knowing who is going to win this format war is kind of a pain. In the meantime I figure if I just invest into a decent RAID setup and RAM I should be good when the time comes. The biggest boon for HD is the monitors...expensive!
Posted: Fri, 13th Jan 2006, 3:59pm

Post 25 of 26

padawanNick

Force: 380 | Joined: 19th Aug 2003 | Posts: 224

Windows User MacOS User

Member

You can always zoom (in and out) to view on a sub-HD monitor.
Folks working in film have been doing so for years. (One of the guys I work with was doing effects for TPM on beige PowerMacs back in 98 :p ) Computers we consider outdated today, (G4 or P4 3.0GHz), are WAY faster that what they were doing feature film shots with just five years ago. Flat panel cinema monitors didn't even exist.

Most of my monitors are 17" 4:3. It's takes getting used to, but hotkeys for zoom controls are your friend. You would need a beafy system and video board to work effectively at full-res anyway. :p

Editing is pretty easy working from low-res proxies, and the effects pipeline runs smoothest working with image sequences rather than large video files.

The big obsticle, really, is learning how to work efficiently with this large format.
People post all the time about having difficulty managing "huge" DV captures and SD renders from CGI apps or effects tools like the ones sold here. It's getting past this, learning how to work and render and work and render for files that are 6Meg per FRAME that is the biggest hurdle. The hardware can take it, but the wetware (people smile ) needs to be configured properly. biggrin

Once you become comfortable and efficient with how you manage your projects, assets and render cycles, the rest falls into place almost regardless of the hardware you have on hand.

Have fun.
Posted: Sun, 12th Mar 2006, 8:41am

Post 26 of 26

Arcwave

Force: 410 | Joined: 11th Jan 2004 | Posts: 40

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

I own a SONY HDR-FX1 [NTSC]