Jump to content


Photo

HDR-fx1 vs Digi beta 900w


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 20 March 2006 - 06:24 AM

Wich is best quality wise?
What camera/recorder, has less compression?
Thanks in advance,
Dimitrios Koukas
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12175 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 March 2006 - 09:50 AM

Hi,

The digibeta camera will record about four times more data, as well as having much better optics. That said, the FX1 has much smarter compression and a much higher resolution original image to apply it to; digibeta codecs have no choice but to apply the same bitrate to a clear sky as they do to a tartan jacket or some other highly detailed area of the picture.

Really it's a tradeoff of resolution against postproduction ability. You can grade digi a lot more than you can grade HDV before it falls apart. What's the production?

Phil
  • 0

#3 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 20 March 2006 - 10:37 AM

Hi,

The digibeta camera will record about four times more data, as well as having much better optics. That said, the FX1 has much smarter compression and a much higher resolution original image to apply it to; digibeta codecs have no choice but to apply the same bitrate to a clear sky as they do to a tartan jacket or some other highly detailed area of the picture.

Really it's a tradeoff of resolution against postproduction ability. You can grade digi a lot more than you can grade HDV before it falls apart. What's the production?

Phil


Thank you Phil,
Actually it's a documentary about a really old Greek singer (she is 100yrs old!).
I was asked by the director, and honestly I couldn't find any clear answers in me for this!
I am thinking of using Pro-mist's and diffusion, so detail level and contrast ratio is critical for me.
We have both cameras available, and he is thinking if we maybe do a film scan in the future.
Dimitrios Koukas
  • 0

#4 Sam Martin

Sam Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Director
  • London, UK

Posted 24 March 2006 - 07:49 AM

For a documentary I would go with a HDV camera hands down. The digi camera will be so intrusive....

I have done onlines from HDV on Avid with the DnxHD codec and the thing looks awesome. As long as the online system has the hardware to ingest HDV-HD-SDI you'll be safe. Grading wise, as long as the footage is well shot, I challange most people to tell me the camera it was shot on once the footage has been graded. Only an engineer with the right gear would say something. And if you shoot HDV your future proof your show. Digibeta is already a dying format and it will be a dead format in 3 years time once HD becomes the standard aquisition format for all channels.

You'll be able to sell your show if it was shot on a HD format, even if it is HDV. Nobody will want to pay money to see your SD show because it will look pants on a HDTV. You can always make an SD and HD version from your onlined HD footage...
  • 0


CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks