This content has been marked as final. Show 20 replies
>...4000 Euros worth of flash cards and mandatory transfers to a PC at the end of each day. Forget it. Tape based systems are still the most practical and usable.
Maybe for some ... but 10 hours shooting tape is at least 10 hours+ capture/digitise whereby solid state is maybe 20% of that in time.
Also for a project such as yours you could have hired some solid state cards.
Movement in all Digital Motion Cameras is "flawed" in my opinion and less satisfactory than a film camera produces.
And even film cameras blur the moving image to a degree. I see motion artifacts in film all the time, now that I'm looking for them. (Part of the dv2Film testing.)
>But overall I don't really see the difference between the Z7 and the Z1.
You obviously don't shoot indoors.
Huh... what happens indoors?
The camera 'transforms' into a 20 foot butt-kicking robot named Willy.
(The name sounds cute, but watch out. Willy's got a bad attitude.)
I think you should not have upgraded to CS4. It's playing tricks on you. Go back to 1.5 and move back in with your parents. It's rough out there.
Motion blur is a function of shutter speed. I've shot fast-moving subjects with an EX1 with a 22-1/2º shutter and every single frame is a sharp printable image.
Most LCD monitors blur images because of the slow 6ms response time of the pixels. The test is to pause the video. If any single frame is clear, but appears blurred in motion, then the monitor is the culprit.
There is no such thing as 'digital motion' being different than 'film motion'. Both methods capture a series of still frames. All things being equal (frame rate, shutter dwell angle, ISO), the results should be identical with respect to motion capture.
>There is no such thing as 'digital motion' being different than 'film motion'. Both methods capture a series of still frames. All things being equal (frame rate, shutter dwell angle, ISO), the results should be identical with respect to motion capture.
Debateable from my considerable experience of both. Film cameras capture one frame directly at light speed and digital is always two heavily processed frames with considerably less resolution than film.
I believe it is the processing stages (capture and "projection") that gives a different feel to motion in the digital realm.
Might the motion artifacts juju's talking about simply be the effects of temporal compression? Seems likely to me.
It's very possible.
>Huh... what happens indoors?
There ain't no sun. :)
The Z1 sucks in low light compared to the Z7. That's a big deal for event videographers.
>Might the motion artifacts juju's talking about simply be the effects of temporal compression? Seems likely to me.
I think he is seeing bad juju's
>End when following an oject with a pan the focus has a tendency to go soft.
>Might the motion artifacts juju's talking about simply be the effects of temporal compression?
I don't think so. Nowhere in the original post is there mention of motion artifacts, but rather a focal softness.
Jujufactory, are you using auto focus or manual?
I haven't seen the footage, but motion on MPEG-compressed material can seem "blurred". I've noticed that before.
However, King, I think you may be on the right track. It could very well be an (auto-)focus issue.
I think he's got Mobutu on the brain :-)
Latest update: The Raedon was unstable. I replaced it with a NVia GeForce. Works like a charm.
The auto focus on the Z7 is a mess. To get anything decent you need to go manual. Here again, anytime you move the camera, the image goes soft. It's subdle but real.
Final observation: Despite its shorcommings, the Z7 is a great camera just as the Z1 was a great camera. However the only reason one would go with the Z7 would be because it does progressive. Yet at half the price, the JVC 101 and the Z1 are still in the race.
I've used a Z1 and recently purchased a Z7.
For me the main points of difference in terms of day to day practicality were a more familiar placement of the iris control on the lens, much better image quality in low light conditions but the thing I love the most is the recording to compact flash.
We use 16GB Transcend cards (about £70 each) and have had great success. these cover 73 minutes a piece so would cost less than £500 for a day of filming - however we only have 2 x 16GB and 2 x 8GB (sony) card so take along a laptop and copy off of the cards to the laptop hardrive if we are looking pressed for storage.
We still record on tape so at the end of the day we actually have a backup of our footage.
As one of the replies said this dramatically reduces capture/footage grading time.
I just can't wait to get hold of the wide angle lens"
<<The auto focus on the Z7 is a mess. >>
if you turn off macro focusing in the menu then autofocus will be much improved. this is a first for sony -- a "real" lens with all manual controls including mechanical zoom but also with consumer auto functions. it's a darn good first try --- I love the camera. against the Z1 there's no contest in my opinion. it's very hand-holdable and the wide-angle lens makes a wide-angle attachment unnecessary.
If you use any sort of intermediate codec for effects rendering then you still have to go through acquisition or conversion time.
I have used the Cineform codec on a couple of occasions but the conversion time was still way less than capturing footage and of course it didn't require my attention.
But generally I have stuck to the m2t/HDV codec and have achieved a good level of green screen keying and also editing several tracks without worrying about immediate rendering.
I also do this on a laptop with CS3 no specific video editing hardware.