I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to use an HPX900 Panasonic and intercut footage from a V1U. I had an inquiry from a major corporation about shooting some B-roll footage for them. Their in-house production group uses the Panasonic and their editor said that footage from the V1 would be un-usable. I was curious if anyone had an opinion.

Greg,
Have you offered to shoot a short test for them? It could be an inexpensive way to get in the door. Also are they shooting/editing at 720P? That would require scaling of the Sony 1080 footage to match in editing.

Thanks Lee. I would imagine that they were shooting in 720P at 24 frame rate. The event is already over. I did go out and shoot some of my own footage for file. But I don't think any footage I would submit would have a chance to get a fair evaluation. They already have their own "hired guns" crew in place and the hired guns would probably be doing the evaluation/test. My guess would be that their existing crew is not looking for any additional competition and has no interest in helping me get a foot in the door. I suspected that is why they told the corporate executive that footage from the V1 "just wouldn't be usable". I wanted to know for my own intelectual curiousity if V1 footage was up to the task of being intercut with Panasonic 900 footage and if anyone had already tried doing it.

Thanks Lee. I would imagine that they were shooting in 720P at 24 frame rate. The event is already over. I did go out and shoot some of my own footage for file. But I don't think any footage I would submit would have a chance to get a fair evaluation. They already have their own "hired guns" crew in place and the hired guns would probably be doing the evaluation/test. My guess would be that their existing crew is not looking for any additional competition and has no interest in helping me get a foot in the door. I suspected that is why they told the corporate executive that footage from the V1 "just wouldn't be usable". I wanted to know for my own intelectual curiousity if V1 footage was up to the task of being intercut with Panasonic 900 footage and if anyone had already tried doing it.

Greg, Honestly, most places that shoot with the Panasonic flavor of High definition video will not accept anything HDV, not even JVC's flavor. The HDX 900 is a 3 chip 2/3rd inch DVCProHD camcorder that shoots on DVCProHD tapes. This camera is a $26,000 unit, but that's not the reason why they will not accept your Sony footage. If you had a HVX 200, you would have had a better chance. Remember, Panasonic rejected HDV as an inefficient and subpar codec for quality high definition video, and its users are as biased as the company. I know that you and all us users that either own or have used a V1u can attest to the high quality images produced from this unit, but I haven't heard of any company that uses the 900 or any other high end DVCProHD cameras with footage from a V1u or other HDV cameras; I've heard of them using a HVX 200, shooting wide shots or other B shots along with those cameras. Maybe someone else might be able to shed more light on this, but I think now it's a moot point.

Greg, Honestly, most places that shoot with the Panasonic flavor of High definition video will not accept anything HDV, not even JVC's flavor. The HDX 900 is a 3 chip 2/3rd inch DVCProHD camcorder that shoots on DVCProHD tapes. This camera is a $26,000 unit, but that's not the reason why they will not accept your Sony footage. If you had a HVX 200, you would have had a better chance. Remember, Panasonic rejected HDV as an inefficient and subpar codec for quality high definition video, and its users are as biased as the company. I know that you and all us users that either own or have used a V1u can attest to the high quality images produced from this unit, but I haven't heard of any company that uses the 900 or any other high end DVCProHD cameras with footage from a V1u or other HDV cameras; I've heard of them using a HVX 200, shooting wide shots or other B shots along with those cameras. Maybe someone else might be able to shed more light on this, but I think now it's a moot point.

John, there is no doubt that the 900 Panasonic is great gear and I would love to have one. But I was still pretty disappointed with the off-hand dismissal. There was probably 2 factors at work in that situation. One was the Sony/Panasonic thing. The other was probably the $26,000/$5000 thing. I know how I felt when someone wanted to compare my high dollar BetaSP camera to their VX1000. Even though I would readily admit that the VX1000 was capable of producing a usable image.

John, there is no doubt that the 900 Panasonic is great gear and I would love to have one. But I was still pretty disappointed with the off-hand dismissal. There was probably 2 factors at work in that situation. One was the Sony/Panasonic thing. The other was probably the $26,000/$5000 thing. I know how I felt when someone wanted to compare my high dollar BetaSP camera to their VX1000. Even though I would readily admit that the VX1000 was capable of producing a usable image.

What I was trying to get across was not necessarily the $26k vs. $5k or the Panasonic vs. Sony. That has something to do with it, but what I think was mainly in play here is the HDV vs. DVCProHD. Users of Panasonic high definition cameras look at HDV as a consumer format and will not accept it no matter what. I've dealt with them, and they specifically demand what cameras are acceptable, and none, to this date, have listed any HDV camcorder as acceptable. That's the way it is with some companies.

The reality show "LA Ink" has been reported to use Panasonic gear (I believe it was HDX900) for much of the show, but that they use a Sony V1 for their interview/testimonial stuff. I guess there's no reasonable paranoia regarding HDV with low-motion material like interviews.

Tip

I know how I felt when someone wanted to compare my high dollar BetaSP camera to their VX1000. Even though I would readily admit that the VX1000 was capable of producing a usable image.

i had a 400sp rig, bought the vx1000 as a 'gimmick' and soon found that cutting between the two was almost imperceptible given good lighting and careful shot composition.

a couple of years on i sold the 400sp (while it still had some value), stuck a dv 1 on the back of a 637, and bought another vx1000 with the change.
now i simply shoot v1p. never been happier with the results.

anyone turning their nose up at 'good' footage from a $5k hdv camera is suffering from techno-snobbery.

leslie

I have an update by coincidence. I recently was on a shoot for Discovery Channel. The 2 primary cameras were the 900xd's. In addition, we used 3 V1U's and 1 Z1 as secondary cameras. I wound up using the Z1. Obviously, Discovery thinks they will work together just fine. BTW, the DP continued to refer to the V1's and Z1 as "toy" cameras.

I have an update by coincidence. I recently was on a shoot for Discovery Channel. The 2 primary cameras were the 900xd's. In addition, we used 3 V1U's and 1 Z1 as secondary cameras. I wound up using the Z1. Obviously, Discovery thinks they will work together just fine. BTW, the DP continued to refer to the V1's and Z1 as "toy" cameras.

Wow, I'm surprized Discovery thought the cameras would work together. They are pretty picky about accepting HDV stuff. Maybe the good images produced from these cameras are starting to sink in.

Wow, I'm surprized Discovery thought the cameras would work together. They are pretty picky about accepting HDV stuff. Maybe the good images produced from these cameras are starting to sink in.

Yeah, but don't they use the Z1 on some shows?

I read that the the reality series Ax Men is shot with Sony V1 and Z1 cameras. That's on History Channel and is broadcast (cable/sat/cast?) in HD.

Tip