August 19, 2005 at 3:03 PM #42254contrainParticipant
I currently have a Sony PD-170 and want to get another camera for a home based video business I’m starting. I’ve heard a lot about the quality of HD and want the best, but if I shoot with one HD and one non-HD camera, will there be a big difference in the shots? And, is it better to sell the Sony and get two HD cameras?
I’m new to this forum and this is my first post, so thank you in advance in case I can’t find my way to thank you after your answers.
August 22, 2005 at 12:36 AM #177713TomScratchParticipant
It looks like you have some background in this area and yet you are unclear about how fast and how deep to plunge into HD. Same goes for a lot of people. Including me.
There should be a market for SD for some time yet. HD is a work in progress and it is quite early in the game. HD (under $50,000) does poorly in low light compared to SD. I attended a workshop on an early HD model just under two years ago, and in a face off with the XL-1 or 2, the low light performance of the HD cam was simply awful. In cooler terms, its performance was unacceptable for low light shooting, from a professional standpoint. O.K. it has improved but still is not as good as SD.
HD cams can also do SD, but reviews I have seen state definitively that HD cams shooting in SD produce SD images inferior (“softer”) to SD cams shooting SD. I would bet that every HD cam now on the market ($6,000 and under) will be superseded by a superior HD model within 18 to 24 months.
Of course images shot by your SD cam and a new HD cam will have different looks. Depending on what you are producing, the lighting, editing style, etc, that could be a minus or a plus.
You have an awesome tool with your 170. I met a producer at an anti-war protest the other night who shoots his personal stuff with a 170 and when he is on a job (for Discovery Channel) he shoots with a $50,000 HD cam. He says he is not giving up his 170.
I would suggest getting a second 170 or SD equivalent, getting an entry level HD cam (in case a client has to have it), and with any money left over, build up a powerful lighting kit, for the day when you will be doing a job with 2 or 3 HD cams and will be needing to light all those shadows.
In your note you say you’ve heard about the quality of HD. You should really go down to a big video store and play with an HD cam so that it is just you and your result up on the monitor, no hype in between. Would be cool if you could plug your 170 in as well, to compare the two. Make sure to look at what’s going on where the lights are not blasting.
REGARDS … TOM 8)
August 22, 2005 at 6:33 AM #177714heatohioParticipant
I’ve seen video shot with hd cameras like the FX1, and it was awsome. I would say that if you can get a good 3chip hd camcorder than go for it. Don’t think you are going to edit your hd footage with your sd footage though, it just would not match at all. If you must use two cameras than get either two sd cameras or two hd cameras.
October 7, 2005 at 5:38 PM #177715alohreyParticipant
I disagree that you can’t use both the SD and HD footage together. I currently have a Canon GL2 and a Sony FX1 and shoot 2 cam stuff. One thing to keep in mind though is that if you are doing that, there is no reason to shoot in HD. You can if you want to however because the camera can downconvert to SD. Let me know if you want more info on how this works. I love the FX1 by the way, you have to see the difference on an HDTV to understand.
October 7, 2005 at 5:46 PM #177716EndeavorParticipant
If the question is whether you can make enough additional money with HD to justify the cost of it, my opinion is no. There is still a pretty small (or in some areas nonexistent) market for HD. I would love to have it but I think if you wait another couple years, the equipment will be better, cheaper and by then the general public will be more used to it and (hopefully) all have a taste of blue laser DVDs. Until then, I would only upgrade if you can afford to play (which I can’t).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.