Search results

No idea, I'm afraid; I'm not sure how the V1 compares to the Z1 controls-wise... about all I'm aware of is that it's got progressive scan and isn't as good in low light (though, to be honest, the few pictures I've seen from it in good light often look better than the Z1).

Re: HDV...let me make sure i've got this right You did actually read the thread and the title, right? Sony 1080i HDV is the same bit-rate as DV. JVC 720p HDV is a lower bit-rate than DV. Wrong, period. JVC HDV is around 19MBps, as I said... though it's possible they still record 25Mbps to...

Re: HDV...let me make sure i've got this right Not true. The JVC cameras record 19Mbps, whereas DV is 25Mbps... native 720p HDV editing should use less disk space than DV (1080i uses 25Mbps). Not if your intention is to produce an SD video. But, yes, ideally you should master to an HD format...

I'm not sure, actually. I took a quick look on the Avid web store and didn't find any details there; you might need to call them or poke around on the web site. I'm assuming they're still offering that option.

Re: one last question.. Re: one last question.. Quite likely, but check with the company you're taking it to first.

Is the white object you're balancing on bright enough? My TRV900 was often unable to do a manual white balance in low light.

And beyond that, if you're a student you can buy the Academic version for a few hundred dollars. I don't think they offer trials of the full version. But if you do some editing with the free version you should work out pretty quickly whether or not you want to use the full version.

Certainly Avid only support XP Pro, but I suspect the more consumer-based editing programs are less picky.

I've just deleted about a dozen camera sales spams from james2100, someone who can block users should probably block them in case they do it again.

To be honest, you may find the best method is to get the negative cut from the SD edit and then telecine from the cut negative to HD. You'd be spending a lot of money to build a system that can edit uncompressed HD. In the meantime you could probably send out DVDs of the movie to festivals to...

I have a 1920x1080 LCD TV at work now, and SD doesn't look too bad when scaled up so long as you're at a reasonable viewing distance. It looks pretty horrible close up though, and still worse than it would on a CRT SDTV.

It's digital, so unless you're getting dropouts (e.g. due to dirty or worn heads) the picture quality will be identical.

Sure, I was assuming they'd shoot with a comparable DVCAM camera; I'm not sure which one was used for that shoot, but from the pictures I saw it wasn't much smaller than the Digibeta and appeared to have fully manual lenses.

Digibeta cameras are generally better than DV cameras, but a while ago I edited a movie which was shot on a mix of Digibeta downconverted to DV and high-end DVCAM, and there really wasn't any difference. The only real benefit of shooting Digibeta would be that you could potentially go back and...

I'm sure the latest version of Premiere Pro supports HDV, but I haven't tried it myself.

What's 'real HD'? The HVX200 records 1280x1080 from 960x540 CCDs, the XL H1 records 1440x1080 from 1440x1080 CCDs. Can you explain why one is 'real HD' and the other not?

Aha, maybe that's the effect Fusion was trying to copy :).

And if you read my post, you'll notice that I explicitly did not do that, and listed reasons why someone might pick one over the other; so I'm not sure why you're trying to imply that I did. BTW, I've met several people who bought HVX200s and then decided to replace them with an XLH1 instead...

The funny part is that for a while they didn't support new nvidia cards either :). But yes, avoid ATI if you plan to run Avid.

Every comparative resolution test between the two cameras? That's fine, but nothing will change the fact that the HVX200 has a lower resolution than the XLH1; which is not surprising given that its CCDs are only 960x540 pixels. It's worth noting, of course, that resolution is not the only...