DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   Yikes! Bought PD170 - but the FX1? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/42066-yikes-bought-pd170-but-fx1.html)

Georg Herbet March 30th, 2005 09:02 AM

Yikes! Bought PD170 - but the FX1?
 
Guess I didn't read enough. Just bought the PD170, thinking it was a great tool for wedding use and other things. This is my first pro cam.

Then I see that the FX1 costs the same!

Did I goof up?

Who buys the PD170 now?

Glen Elliott March 30th, 2005 09:28 AM

No goof- you got the best wedding cam in it's price range, bar none.

Georg Herbet March 30th, 2005 03:52 PM

Somebody tell me something bad about the Z1, would you? Everything I'm reading says that it's a smarter buy than the PD170 at this point, regardless of what you're shooting (future proof to a much greater extent and gives you the same pic as the PD170 when downrezzed).

Makes me see why Sony offers the $300 rebate right now.

Christopher C. Murphy March 30th, 2005 04:28 PM

It's probably not to late to return the PD170.

Glen Elliott March 30th, 2005 05:43 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : Somebody tell me something bad about the Z1, would you? Everything I'm reading says that it's a smarter buy than the PD170 at this point, regardless of what you're shooting (future proof to a much greater extent and gives you the same pic as the PD170 when downrezzed).

Makes me see why Sony offers the $300 rebate right now. -->>>

I'm not sayijng the Z1 is a bad camera don't get me wrong. I don't think it's the best cam for wedding videography.


a) Until there 1) Is a viable medium by which to deliver HD content and 2) Clients actually produce a demand for it...HD is just a novelty to me.

b) Why would you want to go through the extra process of downconverting? And why deal with the hard-drive evaporating size of HD source clips? Plus you need a lot more juice on the hardware end to edit HD source clips.

c) The Sony HD cams are larger and heavier than the current VX and PD's. Plus the build on the VX and PD's is more robust...more metal less plastic. Every ounce counts when glidecamming.

d) Price...the 170 is considerably cheaper than the comparable Z1 and same with the VX compared to the comparable FX1.

e) Low light- one of the very important aspects to wedding videography production. The FX and Z1 are a step BACK in that catagory.

I do, indeed, HD is the future....but that's exactly it...the "future". By the time the majority of North American housholds have HD Televisions and BlueRay/HD-DVD players the FX2 and Z2 will be out...and hopefully with improvements on things like low-light performance.

I think you made a solid decision with the 170. In fact if my 170 or VX broke down I wouldn't hesitate for a second to pick up another one.

Maurice Ali March 30th, 2005 06:23 PM

Low Light is a very big deal.....

You stated that you wanted it for weddings, that was the only one area you specifically mentioned.....

The choice is obvious, plus there are some ergonomic aspects of the Sony HD camcorders that I don't like. In the end the choice is yours - did I mention that low light is a very big deal.....

Boyd Ostroff March 30th, 2005 07:05 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Glen Elliott : Why would you want to go through the extra process of downconverting? -->>>

Yor points about low light are well taken, but this one really isn't a factor. You can switch both the FX1 and Z1 into standard definition DV mode and shoot either 4:3 or 16:9 footage with no downconversion in post. The Z1 will also shoot in DVCAM mode, just like the PD-170. So you don't have to use them in high definition mode at all unless you want to, you can use the exact same software as you would with the PD-170, and the files won't take up any more room on your hard drive.

There is another advantage to this in that both the FX1 and Z1 can shoot native anamorphic 16:9 DV, whereas the PD-170 has a low resolution 16:9 mode which just crops and stretches a 720x360 portion of the image.

Glen Elliott March 30th, 2005 08:17 PM

The ONLY thing I like about these cams are the native anamorphic 16:9 chips. If I'm going to shoot in SD why spend 5k to do so when the PD-170 does a better job of it (ie Low light).

It's kind of like buying a DVX100 just to shoot 60i, over the DVC80.

I know a lot of people are amped about the new tehcnology and the impending onset of HD but I think the transition will take longer than people think. By the time it DOES I'll pick up a Z"2"

Boyd Ostroff March 30th, 2005 09:43 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Glen Elliott : If I'm going to shoot in SD why spend 5k to do so when the PD-170 does a better job of it (ie Low light)." -->>>

OK, I'll continue to play the role of devil's advocate :-)

the Z1 is now going for $4,400 from our sponsor Zotz Digital http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=41608, or as Georg points out, the FX-1 is the same price as the PD-170.

I think there are probably some other advantages to the FX1/Z1 design, like a calibrated focus ring which I really wish my VX-2000 and PDX-10 had. And these new cameras have more physical manual controls (like knobs and switches) instead of menu choices or buttons you need to push repeatedly to cycle through options. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to trade my VX-2000 for the FX-1 just for these features. I really dislike all those buttons and menus which make manual control difficult on the PD and VX series.

But if you need every last bit of low light performance then I certainly agree you can't beat the PD-170 and VX-2100. But all this really comes down to personal choice, and a careful analysis of what you need.

Glen Elliott March 30th, 2005 09:51 PM

You can't compare the FX1 to the PD-170. The FX-1 is what the VX is to the PD-170. (ie...no DVcam, XLR, etc).

The true comparision should be between the PD-170 and Z1. If your not shooting or delivering on HD the biggest benefits would be manual controls (good point- that IS nice) and native 16:9. But is it worth $2,000 for these options? In my opinion- heck no. It's money better spent on a wireless system, glidecam, tripod w/ fluid head, wide angle lense, frezzi minni dimmer w/ softbox, and STILL have money left over for an NLE.

Boyd Ostroff March 30th, 2005 10:09 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Glen Elliott : . But is it worth $2,000 for these options? -->>>

Your numbers a still a little off. B&H is listing the the PD-170 for $3,200 (after the rebate ends tomorrow). Zotz is selling the Z1 - including shipping - for $4,400, so the difference is $1,200 and not $2,000.

Oh, and there's one other difference which could really be significant... the Z1 also shoots PAL. I am considering it just for that capability (standard definition DVCAM mode) because I have an upcoming project in South America where they want PAL. There are also a couple other nice improvements on the Z1, like the ability to completely turn off all that crap that crowds the viewfinder while you record, and a choice of underscan display which shows the entire frame.

As to whether it's worth the $1,200, well each person will have to make that decision based on their needs. I don't shoot weddings or documentaries outside at night myself. I can live just fine with the low light response of my PDX-10, and by all reports the Z1 will be 1/2 to a full f-stop faster than that. I bought my VX-2000 in 2001 because it looked like the best thing I could get (I wanted a PD-150 but they were new and nowhere to be found back then). But if I had to make the choice again I wouldn't even give the VX-2100 or PD-170 a very close look.

But that's just me, and it reflects what my priorities are....

Glen Elliott March 30th, 2005 10:30 PM

Well I suppose my priorities are seated with wedding videography shooting. Environments which I don't have control over the lighting and are notoriously dark (reception halls).

I still believe as a wedding cam Georg made a VERY wise decision- and don't think others should taunt him making him feel like he didn't make a good investment (not you Boyd but Chris Murphy I was referring to).

I'll with right there with you Boyd, in regards to the HD thing...but in a few years when the Z1 replacement is out and boasts improvements that are condusive to my style of shooting. Really there should have been no reason for Sony to take a step backward in any aspect of the camera's performance. But hey...if they decide to release a PD-190 with native 16:9 SD chips, and .5lux I'd buy it tomorrow. But that is just where my priorities are...

Hey it's been nice chatting with you...I have to hit the hay. Gotta get an early start for tomorrow. I'm going up with the GPVA to NYC for the Weva Town Meeting. Any chance your going to make it Boyd? Speaking of which- we are in the same neck of the woods. I just interviewed at a photography studio and might get a job as a digital portrait retoucher for a high-end studio in Medford.

Georg Herbet March 31st, 2005 05:12 AM

>>b) Why would you want to go through the extra process of downconverting? And why deal with the hard-drive evaporating size of HD source clips? Plus you need a lot more juice on the hardware end to edit HD source clips.
<<

Because the end product is what matters, the reason why we go through the considerable trouble of filming in the first place? Because we would like what we film today to be watchable 10 or 15 years from now at the best quality we can produce today?

Georg Herbet March 31st, 2005 05:38 AM

>>b) Why would you want to go through the extra process of downconverting? And why deal with the hard-drive evaporating size of HD source clips? Plus you need a lot more juice on the hardware end to edit HD source clips.
<<

I've never downconverted, so excuse my ignorance. What's involved here? Is it a matter of simply choosing File, Save As in your editing program, or is there more involved?

Data storage: I'm already drowning in storage requirements. What kind of file sizes are we talking about with HD, anyway?

Thanks.

Georg Herbet March 31st, 2005 05:42 AM

>>If I'm going to shoot in SD why spend 5k to do so when the PD-170 does a better job of it (ie Low light).
<<

Glad you're giving me an opportunity to learn.

With the FX1/Z1, wouldn't you be able to keep your native HD files (sort of like RAW files in still) and then convert them to any resolution you need?

If I'm correct, this would, it seems, give you tremendous flexibility to spit the videos out to a higher def format later on when the format is more widespread.

Low light: from what I've been reading, the Fx1 and Z1 can shoot clean at a higher gain, giving them essentially the same low light abilities as the PD170. Not correct?

Georg Herbet March 31st, 2005 05:45 AM

>>Oh, and there's one other difference which could really be significant... the Z1 also shoots PAL.<<

To me, as a person who has lived in Europe and may go back, this seems huge. I was dismayed when I started researching these cams to find out that there was an NTSC/PAL divide in the recording devices.

Georg Herbet March 31st, 2005 05:49 AM

>>I still believe as a wedding cam Georg made a VERY wise decision- and don't think others should taunt him making him feel like he didn't make a good investment (not you Boyd but Chris Murphy I was referring to).
<<

That's okay. I don't mind this at all. I'm still within the return period for the PD170. It *is* a nice cam, I can testity to that. But I do sense that I've purchased at the end of a product cycle -- which is not always a bad thing (bugs having had a chance to get worked out) -- but it's not so good purchasing at the end of a *technology cycle,* when the succeeding technology is due to make the preceding one obsolete. That seems to be where we find ourselves now.

But I have always been disgusted at the low resolution of NTSC/SD. I got my first taste of just how bad it looks when I lived in Europe and saw the markedly better definition of their PAL screens.

George Creasman March 31st, 2005 08:12 PM

I recently bought the PD170 also, and asked myself the same questions (took a long hard look at the Z-1)....I decided to stay with the 170, in about 2-3 years, assuming HDV starts taking over as expected, I plan to update (new camera, new computer with new HW/SW to handle the HDV, and let's not forget a new HD monitor) ...but for now, for ME, it makes more sense to stay with DV....heck, maybe by then there will be a 3 chip 2/3" HDV (or maybe even true HD)cam with some decent glass on it for a reasonable price?!?...

Georg Herbet April 1st, 2005 05:07 AM

George, a bit unrelated, but how loud is your PD170's tape drive when recording? Is the mic picking up the hum?

Leslie Wand April 1st, 2005 06:11 AM

is anyone asking for hd? do people have 16:9 sets? what's it being edited on?

i'm a bit out of the loop nowadays, but from what i can gather, it seems the only interest really being generated is hype.

i've never gone with the first generation of anything (incl. digibeta when it first came out). let the others have the nightmares....

170 and still happy

leslie

Hugh DiMauro April 1st, 2005 11:06 AM

Don't Fret, Georg
 
It's easy to get excited about the new HD technology. I'm the biggest sucker for well-designed ad layouts. When I saw the color inserts listing the specs for the Z1U, I grabbed the nearest box of tissue. THAT was my next camera. Then, like the male prostitute I am, I saw the pictures of the new, under $10,000.00 JVC high def cam with interchangeable lenses, the Z1U instantly became the ex-girlfriend and I started courting fantasies about the JVC. I tore the heart out of myself fantasizing about being able to play with the big boys.

Guess what? I took a deep breath, gave myself a maturity pep talk and realized that I can make beautiful images with my PD 170 and XL1s. After all, isn't that what DV Info is all about?

Georg, I understand your frustration but believe me, you are sitting pretty with your new 170. Make beautiful pictures. Light well. Compose your shots well. Direct your actors well. Edit well.

Fare Thee Well.

Matt Stahley April 1st, 2005 02:41 PM

I still love my VX2000! : )

Craig Seeman April 1st, 2005 07:20 PM

Just went to WEVA town hall NYC the other day. Boy was Sony and WEVA pushing the Z1.

Most of the audience wasn't buying it from my conversations.
Why?

No delivery medium. BluRay and HDDVD will be out by end of year but with format war and a good YEAR OR MORE before market penetration, clients needing it are going to be few. By then NEXT generation HDV will be out.

Z1 is poor low light performance. Not good for dark receptions

They claimed that clients will come back LATER when they finaly do buy HDTVs to get HD copies. I'd say that's either not very likely nor not really going to bring any serious additional income.


Think of it this way. Figure around $9000 for Z1 and the HDV deck. Is it going to bring you $9000 MORE of business to cover that cost (plus interest if you're buying on credit). Will you find that in two years the Z2 (or competitor) will have better low light performance, TRUE 24p, etc. for 1/3 lower price?


Yes HDV is the wave of the FUTURE. Give it a year or maybe two.

Glen Elliott April 2nd, 2005 12:10 AM

Yeah they were sure stuffing it down our throats during the Town Meeting huh! Btw, I was with that Philly cheering section. lol

Georg Herbet April 2nd, 2005 06:18 AM

>>is anyone asking for hd? do people have 16:9 sets? what's it being edited on?

i'm a bit out of the loop nowadays, but from what i can gather, it seems the only interest really being generated is hype.
<<

Leslie,

go into any electronics store these days. All the rage is HD and 16:9 tvs. They're expensive, and not everyone has one, but almost everyone wants one.

So, given that we all but know the future, the question filmers have to ask themselves is this: do we want to be ready for that future, future-proof our investments and the films we currently make, or do we want to wait till everyone has HD equipment and play catch-up?

Georg Herbet April 2nd, 2005 06:21 AM

>>Georg, I understand your frustration but believe me, you are sitting pretty with your new 170. Make beautiful pictures. Light well. Compose your shots well. Direct your actors well. Edit well.
<<

Hugh, I'm well impressed with this 170. The quality of images I can take with it far surpasses what I had with the GL2. Frankly, I'll not know what I'm missing (yet) with the Z1 or FX1, since I doubt I'll get one. But those who have them are not exactly pining for the good old days. Know what I mean? So the question is for a new buyer (as I was), which is the wiser move? The 170 is great, but the wiser move may have been the FX1.

Maurice Ali April 2nd, 2005 08:51 AM

You are experiencing nothing more than "buyers remorse". I had the same thing but could not wait and I really do not regret going with a proven product with all the bugs worked out (including the hiss problem). The FX1 had a "recall" already due to an audio problem.....expect more. As another example I purchased a Nikon D70 when it first came out and now wait in terror for the ominous blinking green light.....which may or may not appear before the warranty wears out. It was the camera to get for a few months and now..... This will happen with the Sony HD cameras too..... The reality is that these are small purchases in video land not life and death decisions. I am waiting on a certification number (up here in Canada) on my first infomercial I shot and will have to convert DVCAM into Digital Betacam or Beta SP (with closed captioning at 175.00 per half hour no less). This is new stuff for me, but it puts things into reality.

Maybe the best thing to do is simply avoid - for the time being - those discussions where they just pattle about the latest gizmos as opposed to making video that has meaning.....no flame on anyone here. This discussion will have little relevance in a few years no matter what purchase you make - there is more to life and video producing than this issue.....trust me on this!

The only people who seem to come up to me on this issue in real life are the venders that sell the product.....

Georg Herbet April 2nd, 2005 10:07 AM

Maurice, don't worry. No tunnel vision here. No buyer's remorse, either. Forums such as this are, after all, about the topics we're discussing. Don't assume people don't have lives outside of what you read here.

Craig Seeman April 2nd, 2005 10:13 AM

People buying the FX1 and Z1 now will, IMHO, be the ones playing catch up. They will have spent between $3700-$5900 for a camera that will probably be like the VX1000 is compared to the VX2100 (or PD-170) a year or so from now. At the point HDTV and BluRay/HDDVD will have penetrated they will be shooting with older cameras while their competitors will be buying the newer FX2 /Z2 or whatever Panasonic and Canon have out at that point.

Unless you can make back the costs of the camera and then some in the next year . . . and the demand is NOT THERE NOW, you'll be "bleeding edge" rather than "ahead."


Unless you're shooting something that is going to have a LOOONG LIFESPAN (TV show for syndication for example) you won't gain anything.

If you're shooting a Movie or Doc that you HOPE will have future value maybe it's a worthwhile purchase. Heck for those, you probably would benefit NOW by shooting HDV. That's not the majority of us though.

Corporate videos, local cable spots, even weddings just don't have a long lifespan. I doubt that many clients will come back and spend more than a few bucks to reconvert weddings to HD. Even if you're doing $5000 weddings (and these are the folks who might have an HDTV on the horrizon) do you think they'll plunk down another grand 2 years from now for a new version? Maybe more like $100. Is that $100 really worth spending upwards of 9 Grand NOW for HDV camera and deck?

In this case, NEXT YEAR'S HDV camera will be better and more appropriate and profitable purchase when that time comes.

Boyd Ostroff April 2nd, 2005 10:21 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : Don't assume people don't have lives outside of what you read here. -->>>

Well said Georg!

Georg Herbet April 2nd, 2005 10:53 AM

>>I doubt that many clients will come back and spend more than a few bucks to reconvert weddings to HD. <<

Good post, Craig. I think you're right.

It's funny. I was musing this morning that, with the way things are, archiving a wedding in HD may not make a lot of sense, given that so many of the marriages will be over before before HD is fully entrenched!

Glen Elliott April 2nd, 2005 11:28 AM

<<<-- It's funny. I was musing this morning that, with the way things are, archiving a wedding in HD may not make a lot of sense, given that so many of the marriages will be over before before HD is fully entrenched! -->>>

Is that sarcasm? Sounds to me like you have your own mind made up. Honestly, the best advice is to go with the camera that will be the best balance of 1)Making you happy and...2) Making you profitable.

Leslie Wand April 3rd, 2005 01:18 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : >>is anyone asking for hd? do people have 16:9 sets? what's it being edited on?

i'm a bit out of the loop nowadays, but from what i can gather, it seems the only interest really being generated is hype.
<<

Leslie,

go into any electronics store these days. All the rage is HD and 16:9 tvs. They're expensive, and not everyone has one, but almost everyone wants one.

So, given that we all but know the future, the question filmers have to ask themselves is this: do we want to be ready for that future, future-proof our investments and the films we currently make, or do we want to wait till everyone has HD equipment and play catch-up? -->>>

ah, but i'm in outback australia where, on a good day, i can get the free to air channels!

after 30+ years in tv, i've learnt that it's easier to let others bleed, and then come to the party with the bandages. i have yet to meet any pro cameraman who bought 1st generation new technology and actually covered it's cost before the 2nd generation came out - along with the fixes for the bugs in the 1st.

that said, i've always maintained, and am still earning a living by the adage that; it really doesn't matter what it's shot on as long as the audience wants to see it. ie., content is king.

leslie

Bob Harotunian April 3rd, 2005 12:30 PM

What's on the cover of May's DV magazine and every other trade magazine or video show we see or attend these days is HD, HD and more HD. This barrage of media attention would make you think that if you didn't own an HD camera, you would be falling behind your competitors who were signing up brides left and right. That's called paranoia.

So, to control my paranoia, I try to keep a few fundamental considerations in mind. If you're in the wedding industry, it gets increasingly difficult to sign up customers after raising prices. To recover your HD investment, you'll have to raise your prices to stay profitable. In my opinion, there is no passionate demand from brides for HD technology now to justify an invetsment in HD gear. Maybe there will be in 2 or 3 years, but not now.

Some of you recommend buying Z1/FX1s today as a form of "future proofing" your investment. Shoot the wedding, deliver in SD and they'll come back later for the HD version? I just don't buy that thinking especially when you consider the unfortunate divorce rates and other challenges facing newlyweds. Are brides and their families really going to spend more money for the same movie of their wedding they've seen a dozen times just because it's HD? If you answer yes to that question, then order a Z1 today.

I recently bought 2 PD170s. The decision was easy when considering the camera's technical specs and Sony's rebate. One just has to look at the work being done by people on this forum with 170s and other cams and you should come to the conclusion that it is mostly skills that produce compelling video. And compelling video is what sells.

I figure I'll be in the market for a Z2 or 3 sometime in late 2007.
Bob

James Bremer April 3rd, 2005 09:37 PM

Plastic HD Z1
 
I was amazed at the PLASTIC Z1 HDV compared to the Robust PD 170.
If you are an outdoor shooter such as flyfishing/mountaineering etc., there is no way the Z1 will hold up very long (horsepacking into the back country).
The PD170 has been a heavy duty cam and will far out last any HDV at this point in time.
Stay with the 170 and wait a couple of years as suggested by others on this very interesting topic.
Stand by---the best is yet to come.
James

Georg Herbet April 4th, 2005 06:46 AM

I've enjoyed reading all of these responses. I'm definitely happy with the PD170 and will be giving HD some time to settle out. Indeed, that's what I've always done with pro still camera bodies.

Dennis Morgan April 24th, 2005 07:46 PM

Just Purchased the DSR-PD170 DVCAM
 
I too was struggling with which to buy FX-1 or PD-170 both were the same price, but the PD-170 will suit my needs more than the FX-1. Audio is very important too me, more than the HDV capability. I just got the PD-170 with a $300.00 rebate from Sony.

PD-170 vs. FX-1

PD-170 PRO's
1. Audio XLR 2 Channel.
2. Memory Stick still camera capability.
3. DVCAM format.
4. Included the Wide angle lens.
5. Rebate $$$
6. Design is stabilized and mature.
7. Better resolution than previous models.
8. Low light down to 1 Lux.

FX-1 CON's
1. FX-1 CCD Chip is newer True 16:9 aspect.
2. Styling a bit more modern.
3. Monitor is moved to a better place.
4. New HD format not that mainstream Still cutting edge.
5. Low light down to 3 Lux.



These were my reasons for choosing PD-170.

D

Lou Bruno April 25th, 2005 06:52 PM

I own both the FX-1 and the SONY VX2100......the best of both worlds!
Outdoors and under proper lighting the FX-1 appears better to me-more punch in the SD mode. But under low light....out comes the VX everytime.

Now HDV on a Plasma is a different story....no comparision.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice Ali
Low Light is a very big deal.....

You stated that you wanted it for weddings, that was the only one area you specifically mentioned.....

The choice is obvious, plus there are some ergonomic aspects of the Sony HD camcorders that I don't like. In the end the choice is yours - did I mention that low light is a very big deal.....


Kevin Walton April 25th, 2005 10:25 PM

Problems with the FX1?
 
Hi people.
I'm tossing up over whether I should buy the PD170 or the FX1 and I've read everything in this thread which has been helpful, but I've also read in reviews about certain problems with the FX1, mainly with audio.

Apparently, the specs on the FX1 say the audio output is 2.5V-3.0V but it's been tested and found that it's actually only 1.8V-2.0V, so the built in mic that is asking for 2.0V doesn't work properly and has clicks and distortions, etc, in the audio, especially when zooming, etc.
Also, the mic apparently picks up every little movement of the users hand on the outside casing of the camera, causing a lot of noise.

Is there anyone here who has bought the FX1 and is able to verify this information?

Can anyone also tell me how good the audio is with the mic that comes standard with the PD170?

I don't have a lot of money to spend on extra accessories such as Mic's, so I need the product that comes with the best accessories straight out of the box.

I was right on the verge of going with the FX1 until I read this stuff about the audio because I quite like the idea of being able to film in native widescreen HDV, even if the low-light performance isn't as good as the PD170, but I think good quality 4:3 video with good sound is probably preferable over excellent 16:9 video with crappy audio.

Boyd Ostroff April 25th, 2005 10:56 PM

I must have missed that review which called the FX-1's audio "crappy." But I did see Adam Wilt's review of the FX-1 in the March issue of DV. He said
Quote:

I'm no Jay Rose, but both voice and music recording sounded clean and artifact free. The built-in mike is par for the course, picking up handling and motor noises in quiet surroundings, but line-level inputs from a mixer were accurately recorded and reproduced.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network