Jay Wood Posted December 4, 2004 Share Posted December 4, 2004 I am about to begin a documentary project which I hope to release on film. Most of the original footage will be interviews. I have a choice between the Panasonic AJ-SDX900 or the Sony HDR-FX1. I plan to use a PC based NLE for editing then convert to film. From what I have read, the Panasonic seems to be a much better choice. But I received some advice recently suggesting the HD is so superior that I should choose the Sony. I know there is a BIG price difference. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted December 4, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2004 Hi, The FX1 will probably have more raw resolution in certain kinds of scene. The 900 will be superior in more or less every other way, particularly a PAL model. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Wood Posted December 4, 2004 Author Share Posted December 4, 2004 Hi, The FX1 will probably have more raw resolution in certain kinds of scene. The 900 will be superior in more or less every other way, particularly a PAL model. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Phil. Thanks for the reply. You mentioned the HD might be better in certain kinds of scenes, but do I lose any of the superior resolution through the compression 4:1:1 (I think) compared to the 900 which is 4:2:2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 4, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2004 With the SDX900, you have: (1) larger CCD's; (2) 24P or 25P progressive-scan option; (3) less compression, more data, in DV50 mode; (4) better color (4:2:2 instead of 4:1:1); (5) ability to use manual pro video lenses; (6) standardized work-flow; (7) a semi "film-look" from using 24P or 25P instead of 60i. With the FX1, you have: (1) more resolution; (2) lower price. 4:2:2 versus 4:1:1 does not refer to compression but color subsampling. 4:2:2 will mean that there is more information and resolution in the reds and blues compared to 4:1:1. And even though the FX1 is 1080/60i, anything moving when deinterlaced actually loses some vertical resolution, to more like an effective 540 lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Wood Posted December 4, 2004 Author Share Posted December 4, 2004 I guess I should reframe this question. Will I see a big difference in quality when the video is transferred to film? Is is worth spending the extra money for the 2/3' CCD, 24p Advanced, etc? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 4, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2004 You want a simple answer and there isn't one. The FX1 will have more resolution (better detail) but it will have the look of 60i video, not a semi-film look of 24P, it will have worse color, it will have much deeper focus, it will have more compression artifacts. So it really depends on how you define a "better picture". It will have more resolution. Doing a test and transferring it out to 35mm and projecting it is the only way to know for sure. I can only make guesses based on the specs and design of the cameras. The FX1 may produce a really nice transfer to 35mm and you may not need the 24P look for a documentary anyway and the price of the camera may make more logical sense for your production -- so the FX1 may be the right choice. Personally I'm more comfortable using a pro video camera design than a consumer camera design but that's an issue of what you're used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted December 4, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2004 Hi, Not to correct an ASC member but... > 4:2:2 will mean that there is more information and resolution in the reds and > blues compared to 4:1:1. This is kinda true. It's certainly true that the green channel comprises the largest proportion of the unsubsampled Y plane, but all three RGB channels will see an increase in resolution from a decrease in subsampling. It's not a simple relationship, being based on the relative proportions defined in ITU reccomendation 601. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Wood Posted December 4, 2004 Author Share Posted December 4, 2004 David, thanks for your help. You're right, I was looking for a simple answer, and I guess it's not there. Your comments were helpful, so again, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Tyler Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 But I received some advice recently suggesting the HD is so superior that I should choose the Sony. This advice didn't by any chance come from a forum user somewhere in Prague, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted December 5, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 5, 2004 If your planning on a film out then I would say SDX-900. If your planning on going out to DVD's and your on a tight budget get the FX-1 and put more money into the rest of your production. The SDX will give you much sharper and cleaner pictures. The FX-1 will give you a large image with a lot of detail, but it will have a lot of mpeg artifacts and noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Wood Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 This advice didn't by any chance come from a forum user somewhere in Prague, did it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Tim. No, just someone in California who produces videos but not films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Wood Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 If your planning on a film out then I would say SDX-900. If your planning on going out to DVD's and your on a tight budget get the FX-1 and put more money into the rest of your production. The SDX will give you much sharper and cleaner pictures. The FX-1 will give you a large image with a lot of detail, but it will have a lot of mpeg artifacts and noise. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Elhanan. I am just now getting a quote on the SDX-900. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now