|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 15th, 2008, 01:43 AM | #31 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Quote:
Even more bizarre -- do you really think Sony would have sent me a V1 for testing 6 months before they shipped because they thought I was biased against Sony? Would I have just finished working with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering about AVCHD if I had "very very obvious issues with Sony?" Would I be working right now with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering on Sony EXMOR chips if I was issues with Sony. And, as I said, would I be releasing a book on the new Sony's AVCHD camcorders later this week if I had "very very obvious issues" with the SR? True -- my book goes way beyond being a "puff piece" for the Sony camcorder based upon a few days of playing with it. The book provides tactics for overcoming the SR's weak areas -- and yes it has weak areas that are quite visible to both the eye and by measurement. Likewise, the tactics I provide to improve image quality can both be seen and measured. Really -- enough of this nonsense.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
July 15th, 2008, 02:12 AM | #32 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Quote:
So, there's really no conflict between data and preferences. For example, once you know you prefer "tight bass" you know an amp's damping factor and a speaker's Q are very important to you. Tubes are a wonderful topic! At first, folks believed the wonderful measurements of solid state amps. Yet, many found SS amps to create fatigue. That led to the discovery of cross-over distortion -- which could then be measured. Which led to designs that reduced this form of distortion. (Same issues with the first D/As used for making CDs.) Tube amps, as you say, show how we can prefer a particular "coloration." But, you would NOT find them used in a recording studio for mixing soundtracks. The "middle ground" is exactly where you get to when you both measure and audition. It's only when one starts to think they have Golden ears or eyes and demand that you must see what they see that balance gets lost.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
July 15th, 2008, 09:47 AM | #33 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
Additionally, it serves no purpose to make statements that cam A has 'significantly less resolution' than cam B when it's simply not true. Proving the theory that graphs and charts don't show you everything, are my eyes on A/B tests with both cams. Those tests showed not only no 'significant' difference in REAL resolution in actual real world conditions (not apparent sharpness which I WILL give to the Canon), but also a broader color palette in the Sony. So as far as I'm concerned you can throw out all those nice charts because they don't translate in to the real world and that's where I shoot, not in a lab. |
|
July 15th, 2008, 03:36 PM | #34 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
Interestingly, there is one type of coloration that *is* sought after in production - the "film look". Both tube coloration and the "film look" are characteristics of early recording technology that people want to preserve even though both motion and audio reproduction can now be made much more faithfully to real life on modern equipment. 99.9% of the population has finally accepted the more accurate audio reproduction of CD's and solid state amplifiers over vinyl and tubes. I wonder if that will ever happen with cinema, or if we'll still be watching washed-out 24-fps movies 50 years from now. |
|
July 15th, 2008, 07:53 PM | #35 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Coronado Island
Posts: 1,472
|
Interesting article by Adam Wilt regarding measurable parameters such as resolution, versus "the eye of the beholder": i.e. what makes a "good" image.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.p...is_resolution/
__________________
Bob |
July 15th, 2008, 07:58 PM | #36 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Quote:
Right now we are waiting for 1080o50 and 1080p60. That may be the turning point for some.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
July 15th, 2008, 08:56 PM | #37 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DC Suburbs
Posts: 86
|
Quote:
You have me me wondering if 25 years from now will we still use film as the benchmark to compare our work to. |
|
July 16th, 2008, 10:38 AM | #38 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
|
|
July 16th, 2008, 11:15 AM | #39 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,220
|
Interesting points. For me all my hobby projects are theatre based. So shadow detail and low noise are high on the list of needs( since most of the stage is nearly always black!!!). Next is very large depth of field so that the whole stage is in focus at least for the full stage fixed camera. Highlight detail would be next as there is always high contrast. Trying to accomplish this with mainly consumer cameras is the challenge of the hobby. Currently cams are FX1 with SR11 and SR7. The SR11 seems to have both lower noise and more dynamic range than the FX1 and more than the SR7. I would love to get a more manual version of the SR11 with bigger lens etc. The FX1 wins at the moment because I can control gain separately and thus manage depth of field better. SR11 has to be used for longer shots to ensure depth of field. Just hope Sony brings one to compete with the upcoming Panasonic in the fall.
Ron Evans |
July 16th, 2008, 01:22 PM | #40 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
For the original poster, consider getting a small camera like the HV30 to test for yourself and use as a companion to the XL2 on widsescreen SD shoots, then trade the XL2 for an XL-H1 when you're ready to go all HD. I'd recommend HDV cameras (rather than AVCHD) for backwards compatibility with DV and more functional HD editing options...AVCHD is "bleeding edge" technology which will take a while yet to become practical. |
|
July 16th, 2008, 04:54 PM | #41 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
|
|
July 16th, 2008, 05:02 PM | #42 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
My mistake, sorry. Too many things going on in this thread...
|
July 16th, 2008, 10:08 PM | #43 |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Adam's article was accurate, but projections of smaller screen size may be partially due to folks buying LCDs for their bedrooms. And, the fact that 60-72" HDTVs are still very expensive.
As the ability to make really large panels at the under $3,000 point I suspect that these screen sizes will be bought given the average seating distance is 8-9 feet. In fact, in Mac Mansions I suspect it is more like 12-15 feet. Once one gets to 72" resolution plays a far bigger role than it does at 40" -- which is really tiny. You need to meet the SMPTE or THX requirements for field-of-view. But, why pit resolution against anything. This is strawman argument. No reason not to go for the maximum resolution with the minimum aliasing PLUS everything else. PS: the softness of the Varicam footage in Planet Earth is painful to watch.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c Last edited by Steve Mullen; July 17th, 2008 at 12:09 AM. |
July 17th, 2008, 06:03 AM | #44 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
I do agree with you about Planet Earth. I'm always amazed at how many people hold this series up as the 'definitive' show-off material for a new HDTV. There are many many scenes that are just plain 'soft' as you put it. There are so many other nature specials that have had much more impressive footage. I actually think the issue of softness also applies to the "Sunrise Earth" series. There are some beautifully composed shots in this series, but so many are on the soft side. It also seems to me that they are using a number of editing tools to alter color which IMO should be left alone. But each to his own I guess. |
|
July 17th, 2008, 10:03 AM | #45 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
Getting back to the original question in this discussion, most HD cameras will produce a visibly clearer image than an XL2, but that doesn't mean a consumer model is an adequate replacement. As I said earlier, get the consumer model to mess around and then think about trading the XL2 for an XL-H1 (or Sony EX3, JVC HD250, etc). |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|