Just not the same

[Jon Goulden]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Another question fromme too - how on earth do you compare a 4:3 camera with a 16:9 one? By letterboxing one or pillarboxing the other?

I use Final Cut for multicamera editing. Frame sizes have to match for mutlicamera editing. I shoot the Z7U in HDV mode and the VX2100/2000 in SD (4x3 or anamorphic) mode. My output is 4x3 SD DVD or 16x9 SD DVD. To do multicamera I either had to downres the HDV or uprez the SD. I tried both but settled on uprezzing the SD since I wanted to be able to zoom/pan within the HDV footage (possible since the output is SD).

I was comparing the picture quality since I was switching from one camera to the other in the sequence with this method. Yes the VX2100/2000 uprezzing followed by compression to DVD affects its quality. But even accounting for this, the new camera is better in the final output.

[Scott Brickert]

Jeff,
for more contrast, blacker blacks, and possibly more of that elusive 'pop' --check out the CinemaTone Gamma and CinemaTone Color settings.

I don't have the FX1000, but I use similar settings almost exclusively on my V1U and HV20's, for a beautiful image unsurpassed by the ol' PD170. (Still miss the low light capability though.)

[Jon Goulden]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Ken: My televisions are HD and I have viewed the images from the FX1000 on it. The 2 weddings I've shot I did use HD settings. However I rendered them out as NTSC widescreen, and so I have not seem them as blu-ray or HD.

Bill, your encouragement is appreciated.

Tom you are not the first to ask how one can compare an 4:3 image to a 16:9 image.

Looking at the situation from a purely technical point of view, you can't, of course.

But I can tell you this: I learned the 2100 well enough that when viewers watched my videos of hi-res professional wedding photos mixed with video from my 2100 they were pleased, and often stunned. They matched up surprisingly well. The SD video looked great on my screen. As long as I could get a prospect into my viewing room, they almost always bought my product. In the last year I've not booked two out of 40 or so customers. The rest booked strictly off of my website.

I made the move to the FX1000 not so much for HD but for 16:9. I am now glad I have joined the HD club though.

I look forward to the prospect of getting a blu-ray burner and trying it out, but since most of my customers are viewing with non-blu-ray players I'm not feeling pressed about it yet. With the price of blu-ray dropping now (saw one advertised for just under $200) that may change.

Anyway, the prospect of having a camera that shoots nicely in 16:9 is exciting, and I'm looking forward to ordering my second FX1000 this week (that is if my sale of my old PD150 and VX2100 goes through tomorrow).

FYI, you should check out the licensing fees before producing any Blu-Ray output. You are supposed to pay an initial $3000.00 fee, then $1300.00 for every project. This is why the computer manufacturers have given up trying put an integrated blu-ray burner in their PCs.

[Jon Goulden]

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

Jeff what audio XLR box do you think you will get.

This is must do for me as I got caught out on Saturday night.

I plugged an Australian made balun box in that I new was "sus" and yep it let me down.

I hear the Beachtec is really good.

Anything small and reliable that has line/XLR selector would be great.

On the FX1000 I do suggest running the LCD screen on high. I had it on the low setting and accidently overexpossed a lot of my shots.

This is a good camera but like all cameras in the range lacks here and there.

The zoom I find a bit disapointing. My Panasonic DVC30 is swear had 6-7 speeds and made it possible to do slow creeps and ultra fast zooms. The FX1000 has an "OK" zoom in this regard.

I tested it against my old trusted Sony TRV900 and its a tad faster in zoom speed so I am sure I will live with it.

On the LCD screen well it is nothing short of amazing. Well done to Sony here.

On Auto focus it really struggled when the lights went from a black out to fully on. Like it just wouldn't focus up for 4-5 seconds. Once in focus it was good.
Ok, OK just go manual but sometimes auto focus is handy on those nights when all is going wrong and auto focus is the go.

Overall I know I will be happy and I think we should all remember that we will never get a perfect cam for the bucks we are paying.

I've used Beachtek adaptors for years and they work well (DX-6 and DX-8). I've used them with a variety of microphones with good results. For definitively better sound, you need to get a higher end mixer (good preamps, >$700) and good condenser mics (>$300). Below this and you'll find that your miking set-up has a bigger impact on your sound. FYI, I prefer the DX-6 over the DX-8, since the DX-8 shuts down if the battery gets too low.

[Grant Gillum]

Quote: "FYI, you should check out the licensing fees before producing any Blu-Ray output. You are supposed to pay an initial $3000.00 fee, then $1300.00 for every project. This is why the computer manufacturers have given up trying put an integrated blu-ray burner in their PCs."

From what I understand this is only if you plan on doing mass duplication in having them pressed from a glass master. If you are just burning a few BD-R discs then you will be just fine. At least some of the PC manufacturers are putting in Blu-ray players in their laptops. Not a big demand for burners, but you can buy one for under $300 now. I remember paying more for a DVD burner. Please, let's not scare away people from burning blu-ray discs because of the licensing fees when they only plan on burning a few discs for each project.

[Jeff Harper]

With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues:

Why the quoting of an entire post? And why especially do we need to quote the comment immediately before us?

This clutters things up to no end and is unnecessary. We've had a discussion on-going about this in the announcements section and it's driving more than a few of us crazy.

Anyway, regarding the audio box, the box I would use is the highly regarded Juiced Link that I referred to in my previous comment. Nothing against Beachtek at all, but the juiced link is supposedly quiter. I've never owned either, so I don't know. But the Juiced Link owners seem awfully happy with their boxes, many of them former Beachtek owners.

[Jeff Harper]

Jon, thank you for the heads up on the Blu-Ray (see how I did not need to quote you?).

Regarding the fees you mention, let me ask you a question: Do those fees sound realistic?

Does anyone actually believe this stuff? This is a ridiculous rumour being spread about...

Go here and you will see the fee you mention have nothing to do with small-time operators: http://www.blu-raydisc.info/faq.php but are intended for authoring houses and even then under specific conditions or volume.

Where do these rumours begin?

[Greg Laves]

Good link Jeff. From what I read there, anyone can author bluray discs but if you want to use the logo, you have to pay them for the rights. I have a hard time reading legalize but that is what I get out of it. At least for us little people.

[Jon Goulden]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Jon, thank you for the heads up on the Blu-Ray (see how I did not need to quote you?).

Regarding the fees you mention, let me ask you a question: Do those fees sound realistic?

Does anyone actually believe this stuff? This is a ridiculous rumour being spread about...

Go here and you will see the fee you mention have nothing to do with small-time operators: Blu-ray Disc License Office -- FAQ but are intended for authoring houses and even then under specific conditions or volume.

Where do these rumours begin?

The purpose of quoting is so that the reader doesn't have to search through all the entries in order to find what the reply is referencing.

My info on the fees came from a pc company on the Blu-Ray board. The fees are ridiculous hence my caution. The entertainment industry has a history of ridiculous behavior. You'll note that there is still no way for a wedding video to use a public song other than a special waiver via a high level friend at the right label.

Here's a November 2008 article from the DVD Association on the topic.
http://www.discmakers.com/community/...vdvsbluray.asp

I'd appreciate a little more civility.

[Jon Goulden]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

Good link Jeff. From what I read there, anyone can author bluray discs but if you want to use the logo, you have to pay them for the rights. I have a hard time reading legalize but that is what I get out of it. At least for us little people.

The link says that 'a little guy' can't use the BD Logo. They can use the term "Blu-ray". That's it. It doesn't say anything else about what can be done by 'the little guy'.

[Greg Laves]

So I can put out a BluRay program and I don't have to pay any licensing fees. I just can't use the BluRay logo. Right? Sounds like a good deal to me. I can live without using the logo.

[Ken Ross]

It would be great if we could get back to a discussion of these cameras as opposed to Blu Ray licensing fees.

[Jeff Harper]

Scott, thanks for the recommendations on the Cinema tone settings. I played with them for a church event a couple of days ago. Overall the default settings for Cinema 1 and Cinema two were nice, but seemed to darken the images overall a bit, makiing shooting in a darker environment a bit challenging.

I think that those settings would be much more effective and useful in a well-lit environment. Again, it did provide a pleasing look, just a tad too dark for a poorly lit church.

I'm having trouble with the iris ring. I push iris button, and even in manual iris mode the iris will not stay open, it wants to maintain some degree of the auto function. Very strange.

Edit, Iris issue seems to occur when in 24p mode. When I returned to normal settings it was fine, though it seems to me it occured same way before.

[Tom Hardwick]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I'm having trouble with the iris ring. I push iris button, and even in manual iris mode the iris will not stay open, it wants to maintain some degree of the auto function. Very strange.

You sure you've locked down the shutter speed and the gain settings? On my Z1 locking the iris still lets the other two float to try and give you 'correct' exposure.

Or are you seeing lens ramping, where the max aperture varies as you zoom?

tom.

[Jeff Harper]

It seems to be it might be lens ramping, Tom. How can I know?