|
Actually, Dale (and Jason) I should back off from my "disagreement", that is too strong of a word. I posted my previous comment too quickly without reading everything carefully...and I was a bit rushed when I typed it out.
Firstly Dale is absolutely correct, the GL2 is certainly still viable. Good 4:3 cams like that one and the VX2100 are still being used in every market, and the majority of weddings are STILL being shot with them, not with HD cams. If I could've found good 16:9 non-hd chipped cameras that shot as well as the VX2100, I would've saved my money and skipped the HD for now, but the only reasonalbly priced alternative was the Canon XL2, and that is not a camera I wanted.
I feel, however, that trying to get 16:9 footage from the footage shot with the old cams in post is just not a good route, but that is just my opinion based on my experience. It's a Rube Goldberg approach that I tried and felt embarassed with when seeing the results. It has to do with knowing that people are seeing true 16:9 on a regular basis on TV now, and I feel the other options look too low-end to me.
I really couldn't afford my first FX1000 as it was my slow season at the time, and the second one was even harder to come by, as it was January when I bought it. However, having made the purchases I am very happy. I now advertise that I shoot in widescreen, and I push that I use HD cams, but that my prices are still competitive. I know that at least a couple of jobs I have booked recently were the direct result of this.
While people aren't often asking for HD or widescreen, they are seeing it everywhere, and I feel much more competitive with these newer tools than I did with the VX2100s I used previously.
|
April 29th, 2009, 11:57 AM
