radar71 Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 with S16mm you've got the spirit/da vinci process which gives a "look" to the film without degrading the image too much. question for you all is; is the FX1 a viable alternative to shooting film at the moment? can you achieve comparable images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewbuchanan Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 I see this question a lot and I think the answer really depends on what you are shooting. Yeah the FX1 and Z1 are high resolution, but the color sampling and compression mean that they are not in the same ballpark with Super 16 that is scanned at a decent to high resolution. "Not even the same sport..." as they say. It is still a 25mbps camera (meaning it has a small pipe to squeeze all that info through). Super 16 can compare well to HD shot on the big (and very expensive low compression HD cameras like the Viper or Dalsa or Sony HDW (or whatever) series - that is, if it is on a decent camera with good lenses and a low speed stock and the exposure is right. That being said, I'm sure under the right circumstances the FX1 and Z1 could get a very respectable image. I would not hesitate to shot a documentary interview where I was in complete contol of all the light on the set with one. I imagine that some people will make some very cool music videos and short films with them too. Shhhhh... don't tell my film loyalist friends. However, if you are asking about shooting a fictional narrative where you want to make things beautiful and you want you viewer to get lost in the REALITY of the story... then I would say no. The little Sonys are another cool digital tool, but they have a very long way to go before they will be in league with 16mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radar71 Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 i think that's true. film is film and you can always scan it at a higher resolution. also the depth of field is way better and more beautiful. however i like the idea of getting a large frame and being able to squeeze it down to 720X486. because in reality, i'm getting the S16/35mm stuff on a digibeta which i then import uncompressed 8-10 bit @ 720X486 so that said, which of the 2 is going to be the higher resolution image? i expect that my work will be displayed mostly on a computer screen (lcd) or on someone's TV watching a DVD reel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny bartle Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 hi, i currently have the FX1e in my hands for the weekend for a trial, courtesy of the friendly people at my local Sony Pro store. whilst its a great camera, easy to use, great manual controls, handles well, great picture etc etc etc its still a prosumer video camera. dont get me wrong, i like the camera very much so, i'm probably going to buy one but i'm a surfing shooter & mostly do slow motion stuff. I usually shoot 64fps with my Bolex & have always had great results with it. the only down side to shooting with my Bolex in a water housing is the obvious film costs due to the high frame rates & the constant swimming back to shore to reload (which aint easy in sunny Australia on a sandy beach!) i'm going to send a test tape from the FX1 to the editor I use to see if he can extract good quality slow motion by downsizing HD to SD (by getting 50fps progressive at SD Pal resolution, i think thats the idea anyways) & i'll see how it turns out, i'll let you know. but i'm doubtful it'll be anywhere near as good as my old bolex. but to answer your question, yes its definetely a cheaper alternative to shooting 16mm. you can prob get a really good image with the right lighting, post work, etc but IMO its still a toy compared to 16mm.... also another thing to consider is renting one. unfortunately in my situation since i take my camera with me for sometimes week on trips away up the coast & because i cant rent a water housing around here for the FX1, i have to buy it. but if your shooting short films, weddings, doco's etc when you know the days when you'll need one it definetely makes sense to rent... where i am you can buy the Z1 for about AU$7500 (approx US$5000+tax) or you can rent for AU$170 per day (approx US$125) which includes 3 long life batts, Miller DS5 tripod & pelican case! smart people rent! (if its possible) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 I think it's really a kind of apples and oranges comparison. How does S16 compare to an F900 ? I can think of arguments for both, but if I prefer S16 in THAT comparison, how could I prefer FX-1/Z-1 ? For certain kinds of work, doc, CV, one might well chose a compact HD camera (the Sony maybe, maybe not - my one hands on was not enough to have any meaningful conclusions - but we'll see what happens in this area). It has to be related to purpose. As for 64 fps & film, I think if you are really going in that direction you're going to find 100' rolls pretty limiting ! -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 2, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 2, 2005 with S16mm you've got the spirit/da vinci process which gives a "look" to the film without degrading the image too much. question for you all is; is the FX1 a viable alternative to shooting film at the moment? can you achieve comparable images? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If quality is important NO. If you want to make a good home movie YES . Stephen Williams DoP www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 2, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 2, 2005 hi, but to answer your question, yes its definetely a cheaper alternative to shooting 16mm. you can prob get a really good image with the right lighting, post work, etc but IMO its still a toy compared to 16mm.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree totally, it's a toy compared to 16mm. Stephen Williams DoP www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psurfer Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 I had high hopes for using one of these -and soon. But a conversation w/an engineer at DuArt labs (in the digital dept) put an end to my interest. He told me they have as yet been unable to get a satisfactory blow-up from it, and that they've tried. Sony has wanted a good showing of this on a number of occasions, and so far it's just not happening. I would see no problem w/using it at all if the end product is video, but I'm avoiding it for any film transfer, until proven wrong. --Somebody will no doubt get Something distributed this year shot w/this camera; maybe it will look relatively o.k., but the progressive-chip cameras from JVC & Panasonic due to show at NAB next month will hopefully prove a lot closer to the film alternative-ideal. And I believe one or both of these unreleased models Will be pretty viable for certain kinds of films, even if still falling far short of S16 quality. The labs transfer tools should be getting better soon, too. And when the de-interlacers are up to speed w/the rest of what's in the labs' toybox, the FX1/Z1 could certainly be a usable tool for cinema. 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