Paul Mogg

Just to continue from my last post. I'm not trying to say that resolution is the be all and end all of picture quality, it's not. The Ikegami obviously has far superior color rendition than the JVC HDV cam, and the XL2 probably will have also, and it will also have 24p motion, which is more cinematic than 60i. My point is that when it comes to projecting on a large screen, resolution and image detail is (to me) the number one factor in producing something that can be compared to what we are used to seeing in 35mm projected film. I'm just talking about getting somewhere in the ball park here, and to me SD resolution, when it is projected on a large screen doesn't even come close. It is so obviously inferior through it's lack of detail, that I wouldn't choose to use it for that purpose. You may choose to agree or disagree with that, but I know that it is very obvious to the average viewer when you show them both side by side, as I've done. All the best, Paul

Hi Pete, I do own the JVC HDV camera, I also an Ikegami HLDV7W, which is comparable or superior to a Sony DSR-570 WS, a professional level ENG camera, but it is an SD camera. The Ikegami's picture is superb on a small screen, but blow it up to anything larger than about 40" and the picture starts to fall apart, purely due to the lack of resolution that was recorded on tape. I've done a lot of side by side comparisons with the two cameras, and the difference is quite evident to anyone. I do not think the XL2's picture will be superior to a DSR-570 so I've no reason to think that the results would be any different with tha camera.

When I read about people reccomending using an SD camera of any type for indie film-making, or as "being the camera of choice" for that purpose. I wonder if they have ever seen SD footage blown up to a 40' (or even a 12') screen, and compared it with similar HD or 35mm footage. The difference is night and day, and very plain for anyone with reasonably good eyesight to see. 720*480 pixels is just not enough to provide anywhere close to the image detail that we are used to seeing on a large screen projected 35mm film. It may look great on a 20" television set, but blow it up and you see that faces lack detail (unless in close-up), edges are blurry, and pixelation is very evident, just to name a few of the vey obvious problems. If this is acceptable to you as a film-maker, then I just hope that your script is so rivetting, and the acting so compelling that your audience will be blind to the obvious lack of visual quality that you have chosen to offer them to save money. If you really believe in your film, or even care even a tad for the quality of what you will ask an audience to pay to see, you will do the comparisons and somehow find a way to come up with the money to rent an HD camera or (if you're really lucky) film on 35mm, it probably won't be the largest expense on the film. The XL2 is an SD camera, and probably quite a good one. SD can look very nice on small TV screens, but please don't try to pretend that SD can look like HD or 35mm when projected in a theater.

I'm glad to hear it Mitch, can I buy one please? LOL Paul

Hi folks, On reading these posts it struck me that if the "Mag drive" unit that is being created for the Kinetta camera were made available as a stand-alone unit, it might be even more commercially viable than the camera itself. It would instantly make all of those new, cheap, POV HD cameras like the $20,000 (or less) Sony HDC X300 into viable field cameras. They all have SDI out, and all that is lacking is a portable means of recording the HD data. I wonder if this has been considered by whoever is making them? All the best