|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 14th, 2005, 08:05 AM | #31 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 1,427
|
Wow, what a long discussion.
I think this camera is probably close to being on par with the 900 and 950 except for imaging size. You CAN pull 4:4:4 out of a 900 Check with SIM video in Toronto they did it, the sampling rate is all there. I question the ability of 950 to record 1080x1920 to tape, but I've questioned that for a long time and would LOVE to have that question answered. However this camera does not include a VTR hook this camera up to a deck and you've got the added expense equal to (or greater then) a 900 hook it up to a computer and you're still editing via an HDV codec. 1080 24p is an accepted broadcast standard, will someone remind me who broadcasts in it? I think DSE has said it best in his post. This turnign into such a long debate, and it seems like more of these are occuring, is there any chance of getting that "one low shoulder" forum for dicussion of say the 900 the 950 and the varicam? Chris? |
July 14th, 2005, 11:36 AM | #32 |
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 1,315
|
Nick "However this camera does not include a VTR hook this camera up to a deck and you've got the added expense equal to (or greater then) a 900 hook it up to a computer and you're still editing via an HDV codec. "
Not quite following you Nick. What are you saying?
__________________
Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech. |
July 14th, 2005, 03:26 PM | #33 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 1,427
|
The camera in the original post, the sony not the JVC
Hmm what I was trying to say is, one of the big differences between this camera and the f900 is that the f900 has a vtr built in. (note: there are a lot of differences other then this as well) I guess I don't really see the appeal of the sony camera, the others, JVC, Panasonic whatever I'll hold my opinion for when i actually get to see them, or when anyone gets to see them. |
July 23rd, 2005, 05:19 AM | #34 |
Join Date: May 2004
Location: denton, texas, usa
Posts: 416
|
This think looks more like a box camera than a production camera. More for surveillence.
|
July 23rd, 2005, 12:18 PM | #35 |
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 1,315
|
You can do production with a box camera. This cam has everything needed for a filmaker, including a range of built in ND filters, and 24p, as well as using standard 1/2" lens. Take any pro HD cam, remove the lens, mattebox, viewfinder, you are left with a box cam. Yes it isn't run and gun, but it is very suitable for production.
__________________
Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech. |
July 23rd, 2005, 01:44 PM | #36 |
Obstreperous Rex
|
Absolutely right. This thing could easily be adapted to production work.
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|