Soliciting your $.02 on the new Sony HVR-Z1

Ed Nyankori · January 26, 2005

My DVX100p is getting pretty beat up so Im looking into other options. Right now my main need for a camera is shooting narrative fiction film. Im building my skill, reel, etc. But Im willing to rent it out for other stuff...Thanks for any advice or opinions from people who have actually used it; Ive read $5000 worth of reviews and the like. Also Ive gotten a peak at the camera side by side with a Sony Beta SP, Sony F900, Dvx100a and HVR-Z1.

Ed Nyankori · January 31, 2005

I found this clip from another forum. It is said to be shot on the fx1 w/ ps technik and zeiss prime lenses (not sure which ones) in South Africa for a German Band. Enjoy

http://www.hmanvisions.com/videos/fettesbrot.mov

How lame is that? Im posting on my own empty thread. Loser

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · January 31, 2005

I got to check one out recently at a rental house and there is no doubt that for 60i video that camera is killer. However, I almost never need or want to shoot 60i and the CineFrame mode just didn't do it for me. They should've went with true 24p somehow. IMO that makes the camera useless. But other people have other ideas and needs.

Rich Steel · January 31, 2005

The only reason to upgrade to the HDV is if you want more resolution. The DVX100a still blows the HDV out the water when it comes to Gamma settings, Latitude and Visual Control of the image.

Sony's Pseudo 24p sucks and doesn't come close to the TRUE 24p you get with the DVX.

Stick with the DVX for the moment. You never know Panasonic may well hint at a newer model in a few weeks time at NAB, so it's not too long to wait before you blow your cash on the HDV.

Ed Nyankori · January 31, 2005

Thanks for the feedback its 60i is amazing but I have shot maybe 3hrs of 60i on my dvx; 24p gotta have it. Apart from that the HVR is amazing...

Elhanan Matos · February 1, 2005

Try setting the Z1 to 50i and then set it to cineframe 25, that seems to look alot better.

Malcolm J. Brenner · February 11, 2005

Why does everyone need to use 24p on the HVR-Z1? Isn't this frame rate used primarily for transfer to film? Is everyone getting these things for transfer to 35mm. for theatrical release? Also, don't you need special monitors to review video shot at 24p, or can the camera play it back as 60i through some kind of emulation?

I ask because I am planning to shoot a video documentary about dolphins and would like to do it in the HD format, if possible. I grew up shooting film, so video is still somewhat new to me. Any answers would be deeply appreciated. :blink:

BILLY PAUL · February 11, 2005

Why does everyone need to use 24p on the HVR-Z1? Isn't this frame rate used primarily for transfer to film? Is everyone getting these things for transfer to 35mm. for theatrical release? Also, don't you need special monitors to review video shot at 24p, or can the camera play it back as 60i through some kind of emulation?

I ask because I am planning to shoot a video documentary about dolphins and would like to do it in the HD format, if possible. I grew up shooting film, so video is still somewhat new to me. Any answers would be deeply appreciated. :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

\

I'm kind of a newbie to all this stuff, but this is my 2 cents. 24p is the frame rate of high-budget movies so the eye is predisposed to thinking something is beautiful, expensive, artful, if it is shot in 24. If you want clear, sharp, video, can't go wrong with these new, amazingly inexpensive HD video cameras from Sony. The video will look nothing like film, however.

drew_town · March 3, 2005

Well,

60i looks like television and 24p looks like a movie in terms of movement in the image. I shoot with an XL1s which has a 30p option. I think the footage looks more artisitic with the "progressive" setting. 24p is editable as NTSC (and probably PAL too but I don't know for sure) footage if a certain pulldown is used and it's available with most non-linear editors.

AT

Elhanan Matos · March 5, 2005

I think the footage looks more artisitic with the "progressive" setting.

More artistic? How? Maybe more familiar. Thats like saying, "I feel more artistic because I paint with oils instead of acrylics."

drew_town · March 7, 2005

In the first post he said he intended to use the camera for "narrative fiction" so in context 24p would look more artistic or more familiar or more whatever than 60i.

March 11, 2005

I've spoken to some people in the DI business, and from what they've seen this camera doesn't cut it, if you're looking to make a 35 mm print from the footage. Lack of a true 24p capture is the main problem. I know you can shoot 50i and mess around in post to get a "film look," but the results, transfered to 35 mm, still look half-baked, compared to HDW 900 footage shot at 24p.

Sony's not going to come out with a prosumer HD camera with true 24p until they've finished amortizing their HDW 900 series. Who knows when that'll be?

The holy grail of indie cinema is a camera with at least 1080 resolution and true 24p functionality, priced under $10,000. The FX1 ain't it.

March 11, 2005

See, the thing is, I like the video look, so for me the HDR-FX1 doesn't suffer from looking like a video camera. I know this is the cinematography forum, but among other things gate weave gives me a big problem with film. I shoot actuality rather than fiction, so my preferences work better for me. But to attack the HDR-FX1 because it looks like a video camera doesn't make much sense to me. (Probably my film experience works against me -- at one stage we were making current affairs programmes at LWT on 16mm reversal, and every time a splice went through it made me wince!)

Chacun à son gout, as they say.

Rod