Sony HDR-FX1 no budget horror Feature

Shannon Rawls · January 26th, 2005, 08:52 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Dustin,

A bit of advice, don't capture in down-converted DV mode, use Frederic's solution of using iMovie HD and FCP HD, because there's no way of offlining in DV and onlining in HDV.

heath -->>>

For the FX1....but what about the Z1U???

Also, I am PC based, and my editors use Vegas. Hopefully all will be OK.

Heath McKnight · January 26th, 2005, 08:56 PM

Shannon,

AspectHD is nice.

heath

Dustin Cross · January 26th, 2005, 09:18 PM

Heath,

We are doing the online with analogue HD converted to HD-SDI.

Since there is NO timcecode in HDV we decided it would be a waste of time to ever use it. Frederic's stuff is good, but with no timecode it is not a viable solution to me.

Reading this new thing about iMovieHD it seems that also has no timecode.

I don't think HDV cameras send timecode out the firewire port. If they did it seems that LumiereHD or iMovieHD or something would take advantage of it. I don't think Cineform has timecode either.

The timecode on the downconverted DV footage seems to be frame accurate with the analogue HD footage converted to HD-SDI. This is the best solution for editing footage from the FX1 right now.

Heath McKnight · January 26th, 2005, 09:23 PM

Yeah, doing a timecode transfer + HD-SDI transfer is good.

heath

David Slingerland · January 28th, 2005, 05:08 AM

I can understand you would like a low f number for depth of field issues. But you must also take in consideration that this camera has an f-number where the lens will perform at its best. The picture quality will not be as good, most prosumer camera's and for that matter professional camera's have an f area where they perform best. In the case of prosumer camera it will most likely not be all the way down...
Also I dont understand why with a zoomlens in its widest setting you would want to stop down the iris with ND? I can understand you dont want to shoot with more then f8 but f5/6 would make a great shot..... Only filmlenses can give you at low f numbers such control over depth of field without degrading the picture....

Dustin Cross · January 28th, 2005, 02:04 PM

David,

You are correct that every lens has its sweet spot, but from my experience you can't see the difference without shooting resolution charts.

Plus by being wide open with a soft background the image encoded to the tape has less detail to deal with and should give you better quality on tape for the part of the image that is in focus. So that could outweight the quality loss of not using the sweet spot of the lens.

We are trying to do everything we can to make a 1/3" format look like a much larger format and shooting wide open is just one of the tools in that bag.

David Slingerland · January 30th, 2005, 09:52 AM

I can see you could be right with the shot on the long lens. But the wide shot is a different matter, there you would like to have more detail or not?
I mean they should be the same for matching purposes...but maybe f 4 on both...or a little less.
Then there is the camera issue, correct me if I am wrong but the camera itself will give a better shot if you open up the lens a bit more, on the other hand it probably depends also on your lighting of the shot..

January 26th, 2005, 08:56 PM	#32
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Shannon, AspectHD is nice. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 26th, 2005, 09:18 PM	#33
Dustin Cross Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 133	Heath, We are doing the online with analogue HD converted to HD-SDI. Since there is NO timcecode in HDV we decided it would be a waste of time to ever use it. Frederic's stuff is good, but with no timecode it is not a viable solution to me. Reading this new thing about iMovieHD it seems that also has no timecode. I don't think HDV cameras send timecode out the firewire port. If they did it seems that LumiereHD or iMovieHD or something would take advantage of it. I don't think Cineform has timecode either. The timecode on the downconverted DV footage seems to be frame accurate with the analogue HD footage converted to HD-SDI. This is the best solution for editing footage from the FX1 right now. __________________ Mahalo, Dusty

January 26th, 2005, 09:23 PM	#34
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Yeah, doing a timecode transfer + HD-SDI transfer is good. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 28th, 2005, 05:08 AM	#35
David Slingerland Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Soest ,Holland Posts: 307	I can understand you would like a low f number for depth of field issues. But you must also take in consideration that this camera has an f-number where the lens will perform at its best. The picture quality will not be as good, most prosumer camera's and for that matter professional camera's have an f area where they perform best. In the case of prosumer camera it will most likely not be all the way down... Also I dont understand why with a zoomlens in its widest setting you would want to stop down the iris with ND? I can understand you dont want to shoot with more then f8 but f5/6 would make a great shot..... Only filmlenses can give you at low f numbers such control over depth of field without degrading the picture.... __________________ D.Slingerland director/cameraman http://www.slingerlandproductions.nl

January 28th, 2005, 02:04 PM	#36
Dustin Cross Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 133	David, You are correct that every lens has its sweet spot, but from my experience you can't see the difference without shooting resolution charts. Plus by being wide open with a soft background the image encoded to the tape has less detail to deal with and should give you better quality on tape for the part of the image that is in focus. So that could outweight the quality loss of not using the sweet spot of the lens. We are trying to do everything we can to make a 1/3" format look like a much larger format and shooting wide open is just one of the tools in that bag. __________________ Mahalo, Dusty

January 26th, 2005, 08:52 PM	#31
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Dustin, A bit of advice, don't capture in down-converted DV mode, use Frederic's solution of using iMovie HD and FCP HD, because there's no way of offlining in DV and onlining in HDV. heath -->>> For the FX1....but what about the Z1U??? Also, I am PC based, and my editors use Vegas. Hopefully all will be OK.

January 30th, 2005, 09:52 AM	#37
David Slingerland Major Player Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Soest ,Holland Posts: 307	I can see you could be right with the shot on the long lens. But the wide shot is a different matter, there you would like to have more detail or not? I mean they should be the same for matching purposes...but maybe f 4 on both...or a little less. Then there is the camera issue, correct me if I am wrong but the camera itself will give a better shot if you open up the lens a bit more, on the other hand it probably depends also on your lighting of the shot.. __________________ D.Slingerland director/cameraman http://www.slingerlandproductions.nl