| Author |
Message |
doc
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
this is a good point for sure. hmmmmm. to be or not to be sony or
panasonic? i've tested the DVX100A and DVC60 and like the 100 better, now
gotta get my hands on a Z1U :o)
doc
"Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote in message
news:432dd816$0$1276$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
| Quote: |
mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127074408.693114.252790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Crowley wrote:
Thats nice, but not the primary concern.
Since the audio is recorded with compression,
the question is whether the de-compressed sound
track will withstand post-production processing.
I don't see why it wouldn't, given how good it sounds off the tape.
Certainly I've mixed HDV-recorded dialog with music, backround sound,
effects, etc and then AC3-compressed the soundtrack to DVD and it
sounds fine to me.
Obviously I'm not a sound expert, but I wouldn't be worried about the
quality if you're just recording dialog on the camera, unless you're
going to be watching the finished movie in a cinema.
Mark
The fact of the matter is Crowley likes to come to this group and casts
aspertions on the quality of the audio from the two Sony HDV cams without
having any experience with either.
He has been challenged to put hit bits where his mouth is and has not
delivered.
The audio I have heard coming off these cams is extremely noise free
particularly when compared to my Sony PD150 with its hissy PCM
uncompressed
audio. So, what's more important lossy compressed noise free audio or
uncompressed noisy audio?
The question should be whther the audio from these cams is below the level
Joe Public would accept after post-roduction. The simple answer is no.
Joe
Public does not generally have studio grade equipment in his front room.
Remember highly compressed audio has not stopped MP3 players being a
runaway
success.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Specs
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:eqLXe.4303$iu5.901@trndny04...
| Quote: | but from what i've been reading the Panasonic DVX100A has a better audio
by
far than either the Sony FX1/Z1U and Canon XL2. have you heard anything
thusly?
doc
Doc |
Stop reading and start listening.....
By using the DV/DVCAM mode, on the FX1/Z1 respectively, you can record in
4:3 (or 16:9) and with PCM audio using the super quiet audio section these
cameras have.
So think of it this way, you get an excellent DV/DVCAM camera with the bonus
of HDV thrown in too should you wish to use it in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Specs
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9NKdnfQEKP3_q7LeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:14:22 -0400, Specs wrote
(in article <432ef03e$0$97134$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>):
As for SUX, that's not what I'm saying either. Audibly compromised
after a
full run through post and output to DVD? Let me hear the exact same
audio
recorded at 48 kHz, 16-bit and maintained at that until the compression
to
MPEG for DVD. Who knows, maybe that final dump to DVD (with its mpeg
audio
will compromise the un-messed with audio enough so the two sound pretty
similar.
The vast majority of professionals that will use these cameras like the
PD
150 before it. That is for ad-hoc interviews, interviews in cars and
anywhere that's impractical to take a full size camera. The majority of
the
sound recorded is likely to be that of the human voice which is more
than
capably captured in MP2.
Maybe. If you were able to hear the two and compare, even you might be
able
to hear the difference.
There are two issues, firstly the ability to get HD video in those
difficult
situations out weights the compromise in audio quality. Secondly who
the
hell is going to do their whole programme's audio post-production in
MP2?
By the time an audio bed has been put under the MP2 derived audio it
unlikely you'll notice any recompression artefacts down-stream. Its
analogous to DV footage being placed into a Digibeta mastered programme.
Not it's not. That completely discounts the issue of audio data
compression.
As smart as you appear here, how you could possibly make that assertion is
magical, and not in a good way.
You say magic, I say pragmatic. Let's call the whole thing off...... |
| Quote: | Taking your point to the extreme and MP2 after post productions was
heard to
sound like a long distance call to timbuktu I would prefer, as a
producer,
to get the interview above all else and if that means using MP2 audio so
be
it. Personally I'd rather not have to tell the broadcaster that I
couldn't
get my varicam in the passenger seat of the car so there's no interviews
on
the move or that when I went into Toxteth (a beautiful area of
Liverpool) to
get some interviews with drug dealers that they nicked my expensive
camera
so haven't been able to produce the programme!!!!!
The DVX100a, PD170 or XL2 would prevent that likelihood.
|
Dear oh dear, why would I use DV material in a HD project? And you have a
go at me for daring to use compressed audio? Isn't that the Pot calling the
Kettle black?
Ty, I don't hink you are ever going to see the pragmatic point of view so
we'll stop here if that's alright with you. I wish you the best. I would
suggest you download some of the HDV stock footage that is available online
and have a listen and play with the audio. If you can shake off a bit of
dogma you might be surprised..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
I guess this is a group for all and not everyone has been here long
enough to have seen the same issues and thoroughly debated solutions
arising time after time again.
Budgets and value are usually an important consideration in business but
cheap solutions more often than not turn out to be expensive ones in the
long run.
Don't listen to those ludite nerds who swear blind that High Definition
is not an important consideration. All sorts of HD technologies are
advancing on an exponential time line. HD will not only dominate the
industry by next year it will shortly make all SD obsolete except for
home movies and cheap weddings. That's' why the Z1 is currently the
worlds fastest selling camera and is likely to continue to be so for a
while yet. JVC's 720p offerings will attract the specialists but as far
as HDV and television goes it's the 1080i format that will prove the
most useful and better able to post convert into any other format as
required. I suspect that Sony will shortly announce an HDV version of
the DSR570, hopefully with switchable interlaced and progressive modes,
in the $16,000 range, without lens, which would become the worlds most
useful, cost affective and therefore most successful camera of all time.
John
In article <DULXe.19795$265.3758@trndny07>, doc <doc@drdimento.net>
writes
| Quote: | thanks John and maybe your right. maybe i just read and read and read and
read and just can't seem to find the PERFECT solution which a perfectionist
like me always strives for. but when someone dumps a point of fear in my
plate i've always beat the thing to death trying to find out whether or not
that person is right or whether or not it's just an opinion. if it were my
money it would be a lot easier decision than it is when it's theirs. if we
buy this stuff and it's a bummer and not up to the quality it was, then
shame on me, but worse their show is in jeapordy. i wished it were only so
simple as get the gear, try it out, and if it's wrong just correct it.
however, the latter isn't an option. it has to be right the first and only
time. i can't afford to correct, after all when the plant i worked for
closed in 1999 i spent new years eve in a cheap motel when the bank evicted
me from my home, so a buck to me is a lot of money and as it is for my
client and thus that is why they are unable to continue the betacam
production and why i'm in the picture (pun huh?) at all. to this end, i
know this thread is long but IT IS surfacing some serious conversational
comparisons of video and audio quality which after all is what this group is
all about right?
doc
"Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TbC$yAD$sbLDFwdI@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
Doc, Who ever it is you keep getting 'information' from just talks
bollocks and lots of it. Who ever he/she is couldn't tell his /her
proverbial arse from his/her proverbial elbow and is certainly not
remotely professional or learned on the subject. You might as well go get
your direction from a hair dresser. This convoluting, circular and
increasingly pointless strand about HDV and Z1's has reached it's
ridiculous conclusion. If you think a Panasonic DV100 is a better camera,
in way at all than a Z1 after all the first hand advice that's been given
here then go for it mate. All that stuff about AM radio, (early FM ???)
and colour distortion is just plain silly, as is any decision to invest
good money in Standard definition only 4:3 formats. Even if you considered
the MPEG audio of the Z1 in HDV mode to be insufficient for music
recording the Z1 still provides both DV and DVCAM mode with 48K PCM and
quiet pre-amps that no other compact class, including the DV100 gets close
to, and you have true 16:9 options as well as HDV and a whole shed load of
superior features. You've been give excellent advice, its been thoroughly
explained to you, and yet you come back with this utter tosh.
I'll get me coat.
In article <lz3Xe.5860$iv5.5707@trndny03>, doc <doc@drdimento.net> writes
we've given up on the Sony's altogether because we've learned that the
sound
quality absolutely SUX and that it is somewhere between AM radio and low
end (early) FM and our show is going to have singing. moreover, we've
also
learned that trying to capture the 16:9 ccd material (SD 16:9) from either
of the sony's (or any other 16:9 format) into SD 4:3 will result in
terrible
color distortion and even worsen when exported/output to DVD, tape, etc.
thus, looks like we're moving in the direction of native 4:3 like in the
Panasonic DVX100A.
anyone have any additional thoughts or comments to this conclusion? would
be most pleased to hear some conjecture. please feel free to be bold. we
want to find as much a pristine result as is possible for the limited
budget
constraint that we're forced to operate within :o(
doc
--
John Lubran
|
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
Let's get this 'lines of resolution' thing clear
Betacam SP being analogue is not subject to the absolute mathematical
limits of Digital. Standard Definition Digital, whether its a PD170 or
Digi Beta 790 is limited to 540 lines of resolution (forget
manufacturers specifications about 800 or 900 lines at the camera head,
the limiting factor is the recording format). Digital High Definition is
currently limited to 1080 lines of resolution. Betacam SP though is as
much limited by the differing qualities of individual cameras and VCR's
as the format. The 330 lines you keep talking about are not typical of
Betacam SP, good grief even our old Pro Hi8 cameras could exceed 400
lines! Ironically Betacam SP is typically capable of over 600 lines of
resolution and during tests in 1992 with HTV, one of the UK's main TV
broadcasters, we set up a studio trial with the then new PVW 2800 VCR
and counted 720 lines, on the STANDARD TEST CARD, RECORDED TO TAPE under
the most optimum conditions, we also counted 640 lines on a PVV1
attached to a DXC 537, all relatively cheap Beta kit at the time. But
resolution isn't everything by a long way. Signal to noise ratios,
colour and contrast latitude, low light performance, image registration,
generation loss and lens quality make as much or even more difference.
Given a well set up camera such as BVW D600 or even a BVW 400 Beta SP
with broadcast lens and compare shot for shot with a DV100 the Betacam
would out perform the DV by a significant margin, including resolution.
Of the three SD cameras you propose here, none of them have a true 16:9
CCD The XL2 does provide a 500 line ersatz anamorphic mode from it's
4:3 mega pixel CCD's but it doesn't compare with true 1/3rd inch 16:9
Super HAD CCD's of the Z1. Even in SD mode the Z1 out performs all other
compacts providing video much closer to traditional 2/3rd inch chip
quality. Personally, having worked with the XL2 and the DV100 I can only
reassert that they are both obsolete, sure they still have some inertia
going for them but if you have any aspirations to have your camera
purchase provide any sort of ongoing viability buying any of these would
be like buying a 53 Chevy, nice in a curiosity sort of way, one could
appreciate the styling of the times, but would you buy a fleet of them
for your business?
John
In article <3tLXe.7303$i86.3492@trndny01>, doc <doc@drdimento.net>
writes
| Quote: | that was an interesting link. but then again, what i've found thus far in
this whole investigation of trying to find a camcorder that will give us
video better than sony betacamSP (330 lines of res) and audio that the best
we can get within the confines of the limited budget which is somewhere in
the Sony FX1 (which we've eliminted because of the 1/8" mini jack) thus Z1U,
Panasonic DVX100A or DVC60 and Canon XL2.
thoughts therein?
doc
"Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vbJwCeDQXrLDFw6e@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
The article at
http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/HDV_Audio_comparisons.htm may
answer some of your concerns.
Mike
Thanks Mike, that was an interesting link
--
John Lubran
|
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
In article <eqLXe.4303$iu5.901@trndny04>, doc <doc@drdimento.net> writes
| Quote: | but from what i've been reading the Panasonic DVX100A has a better audio by
far than either the Sony FX1/Z1U and Canon XL2. have you heard anything
thusly?
doc
mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127069705.387655.69310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
doc wrote:
on the audio we will hav about 1/10 of the show in music and thus we have
to
know that this is not a problem. do u know if the z1 is at least 16 bit
48
khz stero AND stays that way through the workflow?
It's 16-bit 48kHz, the only issue is that it uses MPEG layer 2
compression at 384kbps, which is somewhat lossy.
Mark
|
Oh dear. If you carefully re read the previous posts on this you'll
understand the answers given that reveal that the issues are about the
uncompressed PCM 48K audio of DV and DVCAM and the MPEG 1 layer 2
compressed audio of the Z1/FX1 WHEN IN HDV MODE. The Z1 has superior
preamps and cleaner recording power than any other compacts including
the DV100. The point I've already taken pains to make previously is that
the Z1 also provides DV and DVCAM modes with the 48K PCM audio that not
only provides superior audio than the DV100 when in DV or DVCAM mode but
also provides better video than the DV100 in DV mode whilst also
offering DVCAM and HDV in both 4:3 or 16:9 ratio as well as raft of
other features not available with the DV100. The fact that you keep
repeating the same questions over and over again when the given facts
are so clear and absolute does make one wonder if you really should be
undertaking this project at all.
One last time though; There is nothing that that the DV100 does better
than the Z1. The Z1 does everything that the DV100 does only better and
additionally does a whole load of things that the DV100 doesn't even
attempt to do. Comparing such cameras as you keep doing is like
comparing a donkey with a thoroughbred. Anyone with the slightest
inkling of knowledge about horses would not even begin to make such
comparisons as the self evident truth is so overwhelming. I still
suspect that the person from whom you've been getting opinions is not
really a TV/video professional but actually a hairdresser!
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
In article <TYOdnUNG848qqrLeRVn-uA@comcast.com>, Ty Ford
<tyreeford@comcast.net> writes
| Quote: | On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:26:21 -0400, Moving Vision wrote
(in article <lSuiwHKNLwLDFwKt@movingvision.demon.co.uk>):
As for the MPEG 2 audio the key is to digitise it into the system as 48K
PCM before doing anything with it. Once it's PCM you can muck about with
it 'till the cow come home and it won't be subject to further
compression issues.
Until you make a new DVD master and then you do what? .....Oh, right,
compress the audio you have already reduced by 75% again. So what's left is
25% of 25%.
The first generation MPEG 2 recorded to tape on such
as the Z1 is quite good enough for most purposes and actually better
then most other compact DV's because of the broadcast standard preamps.
Whose broadcast standard preamps? I'm feeding from a Sound Devices 442. You
use the preamps on the cameras????
Guess what. Go for it. However, I won't let you or anyone else go on about it
in ignorance.
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
|
If anyone really wants to get into the issues relating to compressed HDV
audio I'd suggest going to the site that Mike Kujbida posted earlier;
http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/HDV_Audio_comparisons.ht
It's a very thorough and scientific article, with various wave form
charts that pretty much covers the issues. As far as removing 75% of the
data and then removing it again is concerned, well it doesn't really
work quite as badly as that assertion might indicate. The 'missing' data
is not really equivalent to losing 75% of sound itself, it's a codec
that cleverly reduces the to the most essential bits of data. Once the
first generation of compressed sound is converted to uncompressed PCM it
is a complete sound recording, whether one feels its good enough or not
is subjective but look at all the other MPEG offerings such as MP3, DVD
and MD.
In your scenario you suggest that when the audio is recompressed back to
DVD it's the same as throwing away 75% of the bit data twice, well I
don't even think you believe that, you're just trying to be sensational
in order to support your now well know opinion on the subject.
But for those who can't be bothered to go to the web site linked above,
here's a few shamelessly copied paragraphs from the article written by
Douglas Spotted Eagle/VASST Instructor ;
HDV audio is based around a somewhat new audio compression spec known as
MPEG 1, Layer II. The bitrate is 384Kpbs. There are those that dislike
this compression format; others that have no issue with it. The crux of
the issue from the negative side, is that some audio professionals feel
that compressed audio is bad. On the other hand, many audio pro's would
suggest that compression isn't bad, it's just not as good as PCM/linear
audio. (uncompressed)
The differences that need to be examined are:
1. What can the ear hear different, if anything, in a compressed audio
format.
2. How well can the compressed format be processed in an NLE or DAW?
Another statement to consider is the sometimes-heard reseller hype that
HDV audio is CD quality.
It's not.
This doesn't mean HDV audio is bad, It just means that it's not optimal
when compared to PCM audio. PCM audio comes in various flavors of "good"
as well. Is it 12bit, 22KHz audio? Or on the other side of the question,
is it 24 bit, 192KHz? (no camera records this format)
This very brief examination was inspired by postings found on the web,
suggesting that HDV-based productions should "double-record" audio to an
MD player. If it's not an HDMD player, this suggestion is simply absurd,
as you can easily surmise from the images below. Recording to a device
like an Edirol R4, an HDMD player in PCM mode, a DAT machine, or other
linear audio device is obviously of a higher quality, but also of a
bigger production load and another button to push. (In the case of the
Edirol, the LANC controller on HDV cameras will start/stop the unit
along with the camera)
However, for general purpose/dialog audio, HDV audio has proven to be
perfectly acceptable for both big screen and broadcast use. Below are
images of a test performed using Mackie 626 speakers playing back a
popular and fairly common rock tune. (Dire Straights "I Want My MTV) The
audio is recorded from a mixer feeding an HDMD device recording in PCM,
and the same audio signal split to the HDV-Z1U HDV camera going into the
balanced inputs. The split was accomplished using a pair of Radial J3
splitters. (Jensen transformers inside, for optimal quality) The same
recording was done using the line in of an Aiwa MD player recording with
the ATRACS compression scheme, split off a bus on the mix desk. This was
done as many people have recommended using an MD player to record with
and I wanted to demonstrate the reason this is a very bad idea when
compared to HDV audio. Not only is the HDV audio superior, but also
doesn't require another device, and another button to push.
HDV audio is far from perfect. Frankly, so is linear, PCM based audio if
you're using a DV camcorder to capture the audio. However, for dialog
purposes, HDV audio is not only perfectly acceptable, it's preferable
when considering the need for carrying double audio recording gear. If
you were recording a John Prine concert, or a symphony, I'd definitely
carry a DAT machine or other high end recording equipment such as the
Edirol R4 device. And I'd suggest the same if you were recording these
sorts of events on a DV camcorder too. Double record if audio range is
critical. However, do not be concerned about the quality of HDV audio
based on anti-HDV commentary found on various websites. These charts,
and your own ears, bear out the quality of HDV audio and where it is
quite useful and amenable to audio production.
Ironically, while listener acumen isn't a test of "what's good enough,"
most people are very happy with their 128Kpbs MP3 files on their
personal music devices, and virtually no one ever negatively comments on
AC3 audio, which is generally somewhat poor. Granted, these are delivery
codecs, not acquisition codecs, but the quality of the HDV audio format
is substantially higher than either of these delivery formats.
Keep in mind that the analog to digital conversion process is
substantially more critical than the medium on which it is recorded. HDV
camcorders, particularly the Sony Z1 and A1 camcorders, have outstanding
converters. To get a better conversion, you'd need to step to an
external box such as an EchoFire box from Echo, an Apogee Rosetta (if
you've got serious cash) or one of the many M-Audio devices available.
Avoid recording to MD; you can clearly see that even the frequency range
of spoken word is dramatically impacted. Using an iRiver device is
another great option provided you're recording in PCM mode vs MP3
format.
Although converting the MPEG 1, Layer II stream into PCM audio at point
of capture doesn't reconstitute the frequencies that were compressed,
immediate conversion allows the file to maintain integrity throughout
the editing process. Reverbs, delays, etc will be smooth and clean, once
converted. Compressed audio formats shouldn't be filtered, as the
recompression for final output may have issues. Most NLE's will convert
the compressed audio to uncompressed when the audio is brought to the
timeline, or converted to PCM when an intermediary format is introduced
to the HDV video.
Record your HDV audio at appropriate levels; this will make the biggest
difference of all when shooting with HDV audio. Use good microphones,
just like you'd do with any other recording device, and get it close to
the source. Make sure all gain stages are proper, so that you're
recording clean, with robust levels, and you'll have no issues with
compressed audio at all. This holds true for any audio that is to be
compressed at any level, and for audio that isn't to be compressed. Good
audio techniques are important regardless of the recording format.
Test your HDV camcorder to know how it will handle audio in a variety of
shooting situations. You don't want to find yourself being quite
knowledgeable about the visual aspects of the camera and ignorant of the
audio aspects, do you? Sound is 70% of picture; it should encompass a
substantial bit of your camera knowledge as well. Good sound is the
absence of bad sound; great sound is pre-planned good sound.
Make your audio great.
Happy recording,
Douglas Spotted Eagle/VASST Instructor
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
In article <WDLXe.7307$i86.6440@trndny01>, doc <doc@drdimento.net>
writes
| Quote: | thanks Steve. it is a delima. we've pretty much zero'd in on the dvx100a
and ran a test today and very pleased with what we seen while using the
camera recording in all the camera control phases as well as both SD 4:3 and
SD 16:9 (letterbox) and will post the takes tomorrow and burn off a dvd and
tape and see how it looks. got our hope up cause we think we can get a
pretty good buy on 'em (b's)
however, someone mentioned above in another thread that the color balance
goes off during panning sequences and while we're not going to be doing a
lot of that i would be very concerned if we set this up for "live
production" and end up with white balance out :o(
doc
|
The DV100A (not the one without the A) provides a true anamorphic 16:9
aspect ratio just the same as the PD150/170 and others but since it has
a 4:3 chip set it does it by cutting off the top and bottom 12.5% of the
picture and stretching the remaining bit into the anamorphic 16:9 ratio.
This therefore reduces the resolution by 25%. You may not notice this at
first look but you'll notice it when you have wide scenes with small
detail. Also Letter Box and anamorphic are not the same thing. Letter
box is 'pretend' 16:9 as revealed when displayed on a true 16:9 monitor
when the toy town letter box mode is still showing black bars top and
bottom and the picture is distorted. You need true anamorphic 16:9 if
it's to be shown correctly on a 16:9 TV/Monitor.
Crikey! I must get some work done. This whole strand is so cringe worthy
I'm not sure I can stand to see what seems likely to be the appalling
outcome. It's a bit like watching a horrible movie where you just know
what the awful ending is going to be half way through the film.
Is Doc gonna pull through? Will the deception monsters lead him into the
abyss? Will Doc suddenly get it together and see the light? It doesn't
look good as he repeatedly reasserts his attachment to the deception
monsters. I'll switch off now as I don't want to see our hero meet his
sticky end........
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ty Ford
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:24:04 -0400, Moving Vision wrote
(in article <jNATXgD0U9LDFw6+@movingvision.demon.co.uk>):
| Quote: | That's' why the Z1 is currently the worlds fastest selling camera and is
likely to continue to be so for a while yet.
|
substantiation?
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
hmmmmm. this is some very interesting information. if i read you correctly
John, i believe your saying that the Z1U is markedly in a different class
that either the XL2 or the DVX100A; correct? moreover, great to hear this
clearification of "lines of resolution" and CCD sizing. one thing that
isn't clear from the manufacturer's websites is TOTAL specifications AND
when i call them on the phone the people that answer customer service
questions haven't a clue about their products. in fact, i went through 3
levels of support at Sony and into their pro group and they couldn't even
confirm whether or not the camera produced native 16:9 or converted, let
alone, they weren't sure if it could do 4:3. these are spec's that i want
to know before making a $10,000+ decision - - AND it's this kind of
information that will help me discern WHICH is the right one.
thanks for the input and if you don't mind digressing on some of your
comments for educational purposes here for other readers, i'd be most
pleased to read on and/or ask further questions while i try desperately to
make an educated decision whereas i began a babe in this subject :o)
thanks,
doc
"Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vcFADlFh59LDFwaV@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: |
Let's get this 'lines of resolution' thing clear
Betacam SP being analogue is not subject to the absolute mathematical
limits of Digital. Standard Definition Digital, whether its a PD170 or
Digi Beta 790 is limited to 540 lines of resolution (forget manufacturers
specifications about 800 or 900 lines at the camera head, the limiting
factor is the recording format). Digital High Definition is currently
limited to 1080 lines of resolution. Betacam SP though is as much limited
by the differing qualities of individual cameras and VCR's as the format.
The 330 lines you keep talking about are not typical of Betacam SP, good
grief even our old Pro Hi8 cameras could exceed 400 lines! Ironically
Betacam SP is typically capable of over 600 lines of resolution and during
tests in 1992 with HTV, one of the UK's main TV broadcasters, we set up a
studio trial with the then new PVW 2800 VCR and counted 720 lines, on the
STANDARD TEST CARD, RECORDED TO TAPE under the most optimum conditions, we
also counted 640 lines on a PVV1 attached to a DXC 537, all relatively
cheap Beta kit at the time. But resolution isn't everything by a long way.
Signal to noise ratios, colour and contrast latitude, low light
performance, image registration, generation loss and lens quality make as
much or even more difference.
Given a well set up camera such as BVW D600 or even a BVW 400 Beta SP with
broadcast lens and compare shot for shot with a DV100 the Betacam would
out perform the DV by a significant margin, including resolution.
Of the three SD cameras you propose here, none of them have a true 16:9
CCD The XL2 does provide a 500 line ersatz anamorphic mode from it's 4:3
mega pixel CCD's but it doesn't compare with true 1/3rd inch 16:9 Super
HAD CCD's of the Z1. Even in SD mode the Z1 out performs all other
compacts providing video much closer to traditional 2/3rd inch chip
quality. Personally, having worked with the XL2 and the DV100 I can only
reassert that they are both obsolete, sure they still have some inertia
going for them but if you have any aspirations to have your camera
purchase provide any sort of ongoing viability buying any of these would
be like buying a 53 Chevy, nice in a curiosity sort of way, one could
appreciate the styling of the times, but would you buy a fleet of them for
your business?
John
In article <3tLXe.7303$i86.3492@trndny01>, doc <doc@drdimento.net> writes
that was an interesting link. but then again, what i've found thus far in
this whole investigation of trying to find a camcorder that will give us
video better than sony betacamSP (330 lines of res) and audio that the
best
we can get within the confines of the limited budget which is somewhere in
the Sony FX1 (which we've eliminted because of the 1/8" mini jack) thus
Z1U,
Panasonic DVX100A or DVC60 and Canon XL2.
thoughts therein?
doc
"Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vbJwCeDQXrLDFw6e@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
The article at
http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/HDV_Audio_comparisons.htm may
answer some of your concerns.
Mike
Thanks Mike, that was an interesting link
--
John Lubran
--
John Lubran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
so the sony z1u WILL record in SD 4:3? and your saying that when this
changed format from the cameras origianal design (HD 16:9) captured into NLE
it won't degrade color and sound?
thanks in advance,
doc
"Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote in message
news:432fc91e$0$97110$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
| Quote: |
"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:eqLXe.4303$iu5.901@trndny04...
but from what i've been reading the Panasonic DVX100A has a better audio
by
far than either the Sony FX1/Z1U and Canon XL2. have you heard anything
thusly?
doc
Doc
Stop reading and start listening.....
By using the DV/DVCAM mode, on the FX1/Z1 respectively, you can record in
4:3 (or 16:9) and with PCM audio using the super quiet audio section these
cameras have.
So think of it this way, you get an excellent DV/DVCAM camera with the
bonus
of HDV thrown in too should you wish to use it in the future.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
hi John and thanks for the input. i am a little stupid at times (probably
the PhD - "P"sychological "H"andicapped "D"eficiency i originated this line
:o) i'm just so tied up between specs, the lack of experience, and now a
realization of a dark understanding of the difference between the different
formats (DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO & HD, HDV, HDCAM, etc.) the lack of
specifications from the manufacturer's on these products because of the lack
of their websites to provide the information and the nearly as ignorant
support group on the subject as i. i have searched hi and low, done
searches at google and talked to folks and quite frankly gotten bits and
pieces of garbled information but in here in a sort of chopped up fashion of
back and foth's that are much harder to assemble appears to be the "FACTS"
i'm looking for. and yes, i'm challenged at my age to discern all this and
i do appologize for that shortcoming of age but i'm trying and I AM
listening, just hard of hearing :o)
my appologies but do go on i'm reading and going to now go back and start
the thread over and re-read all the input from all you GREAT people!
respectfully,
doc
"Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rvHxvNGqH+LDFwpX@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: | In article <eqLXe.4303$iu5.901@trndny04>, doc <doc@drdimento.net> writes
but from what i've been reading the Panasonic DVX100A has a better audio
by
far than either the Sony FX1/Z1U and Canon XL2. have you heard anything
thusly?
doc
mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1127069705.387655.69310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
doc wrote:
on the audio we will hav about 1/10 of the show in music and thus we
have
to
know that this is not a problem. do u know if the z1 is at least 16
bit
48
khz stero AND stays that way through the workflow?
It's 16-bit 48kHz, the only issue is that it uses MPEG layer 2
compression at 384kbps, which is somewhat lossy.
Mark
Oh dear. If you carefully re read the previous posts on this you'll
understand the answers given that reveal that the issues are about the
uncompressed PCM 48K audio of DV and DVCAM and the MPEG 1 layer 2
compressed audio of the Z1/FX1 WHEN IN HDV MODE. The Z1 has superior
preamps and cleaner recording power than any other compacts including the
DV100. The point I've already taken pains to make previously is that the
Z1 also provides DV and DVCAM modes with the 48K PCM audio that not only
provides superior audio than the DV100 when in DV or DVCAM mode but also
provides better video than the DV100 in DV mode whilst also offering DVCAM
and HDV in both 4:3 or 16:9 ratio as well as raft of other features not
available with the DV100. The fact that you keep repeating the same
questions over and over again when the given facts are so clear and
absolute does make one wonder if you really should be undertaking this
project at all.
One last time though; There is nothing that that the DV100 does better
than the Z1. The Z1 does everything that the DV100 does only better and
additionally does a whole load of things that the DV100 doesn't even
attempt to do. Comparing such cameras as you keep doing is like comparing
a donkey with a thoroughbred. Anyone with the slightest inkling of
knowledge about horses would not even begin to make such comparisons as
the self evident truth is so overwhelming. I still suspect that the person
from whom you've been getting opinions is not really a TV/video
professional but actually a hairdresser!
--
John Lubran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Specs
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
If I'd known you were a right-wing fundamentalist crackheaded christian
redneck I wouldn't have given you the time of day.
I think you'd be better of with the Panasonic DV100a.
"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:pxVXe.19930$265.13050@trndny07...
| Quote: | so the sony z1u WILL record in SD 4:3? and your saying that when this
changed format from the cameras origianal design (HD 16:9) captured into
NLE
it won't degrade color and sound?
thanks in advance,
doc
"Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote in message
news:432fc91e$0$97110$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
"doc" <doc@drdimento.net> wrote in message
news:eqLXe.4303$iu5.901@trndny04...
but from what i've been reading the Panasonic DVX100A has a better
audio
by
far than either the Sony FX1/Z1U and Canon XL2. have you heard
anything
thusly?
doc
Doc
Stop reading and start listening.....
By using the DV/DVCAM mode, on the FX1/Z1 respectively, you can record
in
4:3 (or 16:9) and with PCM audio using the super quiet audio section
these
cameras have.
So think of it this way, you get an excellent DV/DVCAM camera with the
bonus
of HDV thrown in too should you wish to use it in the future.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
In article <4330259f$0$1275$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Specs
<No.Spam@Thanks.com> writes
| Quote: | If I'd known you were a right-wing fundamentalist crackheaded christian
redneck I wouldn't have given you the time of day.
I think you'd be better of with the Panasonic DV100a.
|
Eh?
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
In article <gKidnZSx2Kydha3eRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Ty Ford
<tyreeford@comcast.net> writes
| Quote: | On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:24:04 -0400, Moving Vision wrote
(in article <jNATXgD0U9LDFw6+@movingvision.demon.co.uk>):
That's' why the Z1 is currently the worlds fastest selling camera and is
likely to continue to be so for a while yet.
substantiation?
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
|
Good grief Ty!
Over 40,000 Z1's sold since April according to Sony themselves. Perhaps
they're just lying, not.
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in