sorry for the double post - it was not meant as a double meaning- problems with my wifi connection only - Kurth

I'm sure the Z1 is good for his workflow. But it wouldn't be my first choice for my work which is documentary, music video, commercials and the rare low-budget feature. His comments make him sound like some one who owns the Z1 but has only read the specs for other cameras.

I seem to remember reading the specs for the FX1 / Z1 . FX1 / Z1 uses 960x1080 chips. It uses pixel shift to achieve 1440x1080. So I don't like the fact that it's ccds are not native 1440x1080. Still, I've seen some good products created with the Z1, like a short narrative called "Windsor Knot" .

Compare the actual Z1 ccds at 960x1080 to the HD100 ccds at 1280x720. Hmmm, not that big a difference. Then the JVC also has the dedicated switches for all functions, true manual control for shutter speed / aperture, and the same shoulder mount I'm used to with pro cameras.

Now compare the Panasonic HDX with the P2 cards. Sure I'd love to have the variable frame rates and record in DVCPRO 50 - 720p30. More image data is better.

But I'm not gonna pay almost $1800 for a 8 Gigabyte P2 card to record only 16 mins of video. That's worse than the 20 minute field tapes I used to use with BetacamSP! So then I have to buy an expensive HD or laptop and take the time to dump the footage to disk. Sure maybe in two years when or if P2 cards drop below $ 100. The current P2 system seems impractical. I would be better off to use the Panny camera with a dedicated direct to Harddrive system.

Apparently WSB-TV 2 here in Atlanta has bought 2 of the HD100's. Court TV uses it for their "Hollywood Heat" show, and WireImage.com is doing celebrity videography with the HD100. You're aware of The Rage horror film shoot. National Geographic channel broadcast Madagascar wildlife segments shot by Andrew Young.

Until 1080 progressive monitors become wide spread, I am quite content with 720p and the JVC HD100 we bought this week. I expect it will work well for the next 2 years or so.

Ed

Ed, I believe that's the point . We're , most of us anyway , only using 1280x720 monitors or projectors . When 1920x1080s' become much more widespread , 720 p should be marginalized to some extent. He makes good points about p2's impracticality and about the h1s' high price. If I was buying a camera today , I still think the fx1s' the best deal for the money although , from all of the clips I've seen , the canons' got the best image but for 3x the price. And , I have to admit , the hvx 60p footage is absolutely gorgeous. Probably the canons' the most futureproof but you need to have a 42" 1920x1080 lcd to see any difference, and those are at least 5 years away from my budget. Kurth

In a purchase decision, due diligence is the best advice. In the case of these cams, there is ample opportunity to preview clips beforehand.

I think Josh's advice was pretty good. A few people got rankled because someone parsed a comment to validate a purchase decision, and a follow on to attack the credibility of the opiner.

When Josh says you should let your budget and workflow dictate the camera choice instead of the other way around, I don't see how anyone can argue.

He says some controversial things like people will use 24p because they are afraid their work will suck otherwise. But he is not alone if he thinks some of the cams are overpriced for the marginal difference.

Consider it
 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but he does require us to think about the issues of Z!, P2, 720 etc. Don't get lost on the profanity or the bombastics, the guy does have some experience, and that is what we all contribute to this forum. Might be offensive, but what he says is worth considering.

The profanity doesn't bother me, but he clearly doesn't have an awareness that progressive frames are much easier to deal with in post for a variety of manipulations.


Regarding 720p vs. 1080i: I'm not knowledgable about the details of shooting in 720p and then converting to 1080i but here's a point I gleaned from someone else on another forum..

"720p to 1080i is a down, not up, conversion. 1080i is actually 540 lines, not 1080. It's just that every other set of 540 lines is offset to land between the lines of the adjacent set. Theoretically, this gets you a little extra resolution at the expense of some flicker artifacts. So, 1080i is pretty much equivalent to about 700 progressive lines.

The conversion can look near perfect if it's done by the best broadcast quality equipment, or it can look a bit soft if it's just the cheap conversion built into a consumer CRT HD set."

If anyone can verify or contradict this I'd be interested to know the truth.

Also - almost ALL the consumer HD equipment out there is 720p native, that's going to take many years to see change. RED will arrive long before then.

In short, I think I'd rather have killer 720p than average 1080i despite being perceived as "retarded" by established pixel geniuses like this interviewee.

(sorry for dragging up an older thread - just noticed the date... oh well, still interesting)

Not by a long shot is this so. Upon what are you basing your statement?
Regarding cams, there are 2 that are 720p, and six that are 1080i. Displays? 20 million 1080p (native) displays sold in 05, 55 million expected sold between Jan 06 and Jan 07 (1080) according to CE Daily (March 06) and Peddie Research.

I think I phrased it wrong - there aren't many 1920x1080 native TV's out there. They are mostly 1280x720 or less.

HDTV's are all capable of displaying 1080i one way or another - I agree... but the point that was noted in the previous post was 1080i doesn't appear to contain more detail than 720p... and in fact, could contain less. That's my overall point... so just try to go down that road if you happen to be a pixelguru yourself and have information to the contrary.

Here's an interesting article that covers the formats:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6361600-1.html

I guess I'm not convinced everybody that's been aquiring 720p with a Varicam has been using a "retarded format".

Profanity in Catcher in the Rye was integral, at times, to the story.

You might want to let us know how his profanity is integral to his view on video cameras for an interview on the internet?

I think we're getting caught up here in something that's started to happen on the net ~Bloggers inflating their importance by interviewing each other.

HE has an opinion, that's for sure, and he's welcome to it, but it's not really backed up by much other than bluster and self regard.

Exactly - 'and pop will eat its self'.

If you can pardon the weird metaphor ("so weak it's almost a fortnight"), there appears to be too many spectacle wearers and not enough opticians. "My glasses are great" yell the wearers, yet others try them and shout back "these suck". Cut to the Opticians...

First of all, of course people who have been acquiring at 720p are not "retarded." That statement in itself speaks volumes about credibility.
Second, there is a significant difference in what 720p contains vs 1080i contains on either a 1080i or 1080p display.
Up until very recently, there haven't BEEN 1080 displays, so of course there haven't been visible differences.
You have two choices for rez. Spatial, and temporal. Everyone keeps being hung up on only spatial, probably because it's the easiest way to compare images with stills. But pictures aren't still.
Temporally, 1080 is significantly more information. Spatially, while there are indeed more definitive lines of horizontal resolution in the progressive originated, full raster image (which the HVX doesn't begin to approach) in a 720p image, the story doesn't stop there. You simply cannot take an approach of "720p contains more horizontal information and is therefore better." That's ridiculous. It's like taking 540 lines of resolution, shifting it, and calling that 4:2:2 HD. If I record VHS to an HDCAM deck, does that make it 4:2:2 or make it HD, or still yet, make it 1920 x 1080? I guess so, but then the question becomes whether it's usable or not. The first part of the question is somewhat cut and dried, but the second part is pretty subjective.
Back to point, both formats have merit. 1080i certainly is substantially different, and in some ways, superior. Displays shipping today, and for many, many years to come, will all be 1080.
Put 720p on a native 1080p display, and put a 1080i image on the same screen. If you don't see a difference, then anything we might be able to subjectively discuss is moot anyway.
Bloggers, evangelists, etc may all input their opinions, but as others have commented...they're just opinions. Most of them form their opinions by numbers, not experience or testing.
Bottom line, what does the eye see and perceive.

Right, exactly! There are a lot of pixelwars and format bashing going on - but you just have to look at the images and decide. That's kinda tough to do for a lot of us... but making decisions based on a spec sheet or marketing hype isn't going to work these days.

No, you can't make a decision based on marketing hype.
But at the same time, be SURE you're looking at all things equally.
For example...I was recently in a major retailer's store in NYC. One of the buyers there was dead set on convincing me why the 720p cam was better than the 1080 cam. He pulls me into a back room where they're feeding both cams into a BVM monitor via component. Ummmm, first of all, component out doesn't relate to what's going to tape. And that's the first thing that counts.
OK, so we then record to tape, and then send the recordings out. Indeed, the shots of rez charts showed the 720p a litte ahead of the 1080. Except the BVM monitor is only 960 lines. We took the same two cams/tapes out to the floor, and put the images on an SXRD monitor, which is a 1920 x 1080 monitor (native) and the poor guy was shocked. He'd been running around so excited at his discovery, only to have it dashed to the floor.
In other words, compare formats with the final display resolution, not a compromised resolution. This way, everything is as close to equal as possible.
The two things that matter most, IMO, is image sensor resolution, and DSP quality. From there, you get to start making some decisions.

Plus there's dynamic range, motion blur, noise, artifacting under different conditions etc. - resolution is just one thing.

Not sure what cameras you're talking about here - but the JVC and Canon stuff I've seen looks awfully good to me.