Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Camera comparison? NLE software? Q's for pros (LONG)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:19:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

OK... I've been doing a LOT of reading online 'til 5am for the last week -
bookmarked probably two dozen "DV" sites including many mentioned here and
I'm still pouring over them. Starting to get the big picture...

I'm looking for subjective opinions from people here. A bit of background
about your experience and why you've come to your conclusions would also be
appreciated.
To date, I've done a number of promotional videos/DVD's for a line of light
aircraft as well as several aviation companies
_________

1st, assume one already has a reasonable kit for lighting and sound for
intended purposes,
how do the following used-market cameras stack up with each other:

Canon XL-1 (not the newer S model - comparison with the S would be
appreciated but it's likely out of my league)
Sony PD-150 & Sony VX-2000 (are they really THAT different?)
Sony TRV-900 / TRV-950
JVC JY-VS200
Any other sub $2000 used cams I should consider.

Bias: *ultimate image quality*, *ability* to GET that image quality
consistently.
EG: if essential controls are buried deep in menus, the camera is less
likely to be used correctly or even at all, especially for non-staged,
candid work.

I'm expecting most people with some professional experience with understand
what I'm getting at with this...
It's all about results. Period.

I also realize with this level of camera, it's a matter of trade-offs - you
only get so much and each one will have it's own "gotchas." What are they?

_________

Next...

Compare differences between Sony Vegas versus Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 and
After Effects 6.5.

Comments? I've NEVER used Vegas but regularly use Adobe products.
I was originally trained on Adobe Premiere 1.0, then 4.3, most recently
Premiere 7. (Pro)

Bottom line: is there anything I CAN'T do with the Adobe Production suite
that I *could* do with Vegas?

NOTE: I'm not getting involved in HD material yet. 16:9 Standard Definition
is as high tech as I'm going for now. If a client or project called for HD,
I could rent the necessary gear.

_________

There's a website mentioning someone who shoots with an XL-1 (or variant) in
some form of progressive mode. They talk about the XL-1 taking the Red/Blue
pixels of one field along with the Green pixels of the next and since the
greens are offset slightly, the net effect is a quasi-progressive sampling.

The punch line of the anecdote was Betacam guys commenting "there you go,
shooting film and making us look bad" - the result being a filmic look.

Comments on this type of trick? Do most/all cameras in this range offer this
kind of capture mode? It's obviously working for some people.
They also mentioned on the same page some Discovery Channel videographer
using that mode and getting consistently spectacular results on field
assignments.

_________

PAL versus NTSC cameras: some people have commented they prefer PAL 25 frame
per second capture for the look. (assuming this is progressive?)
I import ALL of my work into Premiere but output for the NTSC market (I live
in Canada, eh?) Can I use a PAL camera and convert on output to DVD or Tape?
Is this really something I should consider or more trouble than the benefit
it could bring?
_________

I'm encouraged by all that I've read so far and have to thank everyone who's
posted here to date.

Movies like "Open Water" and "Dust to Glory" - heck, "Super Size Me" - are
great motivation knowing what you can accomplish with gear that's readily
available to someone with a strict budget.

Rent or buy, it looks like there's exciting, very usable technology
available today.

Looking forward to your comments!

Chris
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:19:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:QYmdnYTZY5UdfLHfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> OK... I've been doing a LOT of reading online 'til 5am for the last week -
> bookmarked probably two dozen "DV" sites including many mentioned here and
> I'm still pouring over them. Starting to get the big picture...
>
> I'm looking for subjective opinions from people here. A bit of background
> about your experience and why you've come to your conclusions would also
be
> appreciated.
> To date, I've done a number of promotional videos/DVD's for a line of
light
> aircraft as well as several aviation companies
> _________
>
> 1st, assume one already has a reasonable kit for lighting and sound for
> intended purposes,
> how do the following used-market cameras stack up with each other:
>
> Canon XL-1 (not the newer S model - comparison with the S would be
> appreciated but it's likely out of my league)
> Sony PD-150 & Sony VX-2000 (are they really THAT different?)

My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:

1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000 has
a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
focusing.

2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.

3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000 adjusts
them together.


> Sony TRV-900 / TRV-950

The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as a
Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very poor
low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.

> JVC JY-VS200

I don't know it, sorry.

> Any other sub $2000 used cams I should consider.

Neither the VX2000 nor the PD150 are in production any longer. Their
replacements are the VX2100 and PD-170, both of which list for over $2000.

>
> Bias: *ultimate image quality*, *ability* to GET that image quality
> consistently.
> EG: if essential controls are buried deep in menus, the camera is less
> likely to be used correctly or even at all, especially for non-staged,
> candid work.
>
> I'm expecting most people with some professional experience with
understand
> what I'm getting at with this...
> It's all about results. Period.
>
> I also realize with this level of camera, it's a matter of trade-offs -
you
> only get so much and each one will have it's own "gotchas." What are they?
>
> _________
>
> Next...
>
> Compare differences between Sony Vegas versus Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 and
> After Effects 6.5.


I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.


>
> Comments? I've NEVER used Vegas but regularly use Adobe products.
> I was originally trained on Adobe Premiere 1.0, then 4.3, most recently
> Premiere 7. (Pro)
>
> Bottom line: is there anything I CAN'T do with the Adobe Production suite
> that I *could* do with Vegas?
>
> NOTE: I'm not getting involved in HD material yet. 16:9 Standard
Definition
> is as high tech as I'm going for now. If a client or project called for
HD,
> I could rent the necessary gear.
>
> _________
>
> There's a website mentioning someone who shoots with an XL-1 (or variant)
in
> some form of progressive mode. They talk about the XL-1 taking the
Red/Blue
> pixels of one field along with the Green pixels of the next and since the
> greens are offset slightly, the net effect is a quasi-progressive
sampling.
>
> The punch line of the anecdote was Betacam guys commenting "there you go,
> shooting film and making us look bad" - the result being a filmic look.
>
> Comments on this type of trick? Do most/all cameras in this range offer
this
> kind of capture mode? It's obviously working for some people.
> They also mentioned on the same page some Discovery Channel videographer
> using that mode and getting consistently spectacular results on field
> assignments.
>
> _________
>
> PAL versus NTSC cameras: some people have commented they prefer PAL 25
frame
> per second capture for the look. (assuming this is progressive?)
> I import ALL of my work into Premiere but output for the NTSC market (I
live
> in Canada, eh?) Can I use a PAL camera and convert on output to DVD or
Tape?
> Is this really something I should consider or more trouble than the
benefit
> it could bring?
> _________
>
> I'm encouraged by all that I've read so far and have to thank everyone
who's
> posted here to date.
>
> Movies like "Open Water" and "Dust to Glory" - heck, "Super Size Me" - are
> great motivation knowing what you can accomplish with gear that's readily
> available to someone with a strict budget.
>
> Rent or buy, it looks like there's exciting, very usable technology
> available today.
>
> Looking forward to your comments!
>
> Chris
>
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:01:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

That helps a lot, thanks!

I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year ago.
I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of the
time."

Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?

I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.

If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
Panasonic AG-EZ30.

There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200% more
performance, ya' know?

Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.

Chris





"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...

> My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
> primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>
> 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
> has
> a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
> focusing.
>
> 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
> microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.
>
> 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
> adjusts
> them together.


> The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
> TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
> resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as
> a
> Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
> poor
> low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.


> I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
> 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
> Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
> capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
March 7, 2005 11:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:

>That helps a lot, thanks!
>
>I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year ago.
>I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of the
>time."
>
>Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
>
>I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
>
>If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>
>There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200% more
>performance, ya' know?
>
>Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>
>> My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
>> primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>>
>> 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
>> has
>> a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
>> focusing.
>>
>> 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
>> microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.
>>
>> 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
>> adjusts
>> them together.
>
>
>> The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
>> TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
>> resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as
>> a
>> Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
>> poor
>> low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>
>
>> I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
>> 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
>> Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
>> capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:29:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Well well. I'd say that just eliminated the VX1000 from the list. ;) 


"JT" <NgPoster@missing.org> wrote in message
news:ssup215chgpesd9ujpnpj7d7u3sisc9ujj@4ax.com...
> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
> of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:29:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:vJGdnezluIl1YrHfRVn-rw@rogers.com...
> Well well. I'd say that just eliminated the VX1000 from the list. ;) 
>
>
> "JT" <NgPoster@missing.org> wrote in message
> news:ssup215chgpesd9ujpnpj7d7u3sisc9ujj@4ax.com...
>> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
>> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
>> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
>> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
>> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
>> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
>> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
>> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
>> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
>> of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
>> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.
>

One of my clients has an AG-EZ30. At his urging I did my first DV
production using that camera switching from BetaSP. The images looked nice.
However, it does not have the low-light performance of the Sony VX200/PD150
cameras. And, it does not have a VTR function; that is, you can't record to
DV from another video source. I'd eliminate it from your list.

Steve King
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 4:34:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:1s6dnehfKPfqZLHfRVn-gA@rogers.com...
> That helps a lot, thanks!
>
> I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year
ago.
> I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of
the
> time."
>
> Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
> Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
> these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?

I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by pros
making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras like the
DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open Water -
it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse than a
PD-150.

>
> I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
> Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.

There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed up their
first try.

>
> If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
> Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
> Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>
> There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
> that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200%
more
> performance, ya' know?
>
> Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.

3 things I wanted to comment on -

1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.

2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right answers to
your search.

3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.




>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>
> > My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
> > primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
> >
> > 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
> > has
> > a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
> > focusing.
> >
> > 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
> > microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR
jacks.
> >
> > 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
> > adjusts
> > them together.
>
>
> > The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
> > TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
> > resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such
as
> > a
> > Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
> > poor
> > low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>
>
> > I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to
version
> > 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
> > Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
> > capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 4:34:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Thanks Scott.

With this, as many things, the journey is as important as the destination
for me.

A lot of the information I'm soaking up is giving me a frame of reference so
I can speak intelligently with other professionals in this field as well as
be a more valuable resource to my clients when they ask for professional
advice. Delivering a better product becomes a side effect of the knowledge.

I'm more concerned about driving *other people* nuts while I'm sponging
information. ;) 

I will be critical of CCD size and it's nice to know I can get by with the
Adobe suite I've gotten to know.

Cheers!
Chris


"MediaBLITZ" <scott.bethel@sbcnospamglobal.net> wrote in message
news:D i7Xd.1925$WK2.1296@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by pros
> making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras like
> the
> DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open Water -
> it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse than
> a
> PD-150.
>
> There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed up
> their
> first try.
>
> 3 things I wanted to comment on -
>
> 1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.
>
> 2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right answers
> to
> your search.
>
> 3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:57:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm a lowly student filmmaker that might be able to provide some insight
into the Canon world. I own a GL-1 and am for the most part very
pleased with it. I have played with a GL-2, and I think if I were going
into the professional realm I would definitely stick it out to at least
get the GL-2 over the GL-1. The GL-1 is a fine camera, but it lacks a
lot of the features you really need to maintain a professional control
over your video. It doesn't have XLR inputs (neither does the GL-2, but
you can get a pretty nifty shoe adapter for it), it doesn't have
audio level control, it doesn't even show you the audio levels so you
never really know what they sound like till it's much too late, its
"progressive" mode seems to chop off some pixels on the left and right
(whereas I think the GL-2 can do "progressive" at full resolution), it's
remarkably heavy for its size, and it has fewer shutter speed options
than the GL-2. At a little over $2k, I would definitely get a brand new
GL-2 over a used, discontinued GL-1.

However, all that said, you might really want to consider the XL series.
With real XLR inputs and native 16:9 and amazing lens control, it fits
even better into the professional world.

I don't know how any of these cameras compare to Sony (or Panasonic or
JVC), but hopefully that will help you on the all-too-familiar google
search quest.

Good luck,
Ryan

JT wrote:
> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
> of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That helps a lot, thanks!
>>
>>I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year ago.
>>I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of the
>>time."
>>
>>Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>>Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>>these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
>>
>>I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>>Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
>>
>>If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>>Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>>Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>>
>>There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>>that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200% more
>>performance, ya' know?
>>
>>Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>>news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>>
>>
>>>My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
>>>primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>>>
>>>1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
>>>has
>>>a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
>>>focusing.
>>>
>>>2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
>>>microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.
>>>
>>>3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
>>>adjusts
>>>them together.
>>
>>
>>>The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
>>>TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
>>>resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as
>>>a
>>>Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
>>>poor
>>>low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>>
>>
>>>I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
>>>1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
>>>Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
>>>capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 5:21:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"JT" <NgPoster@missing.org> wrote in message
news:ssup215chgpesd9ujpnpj7d7u3sisc9ujj@4ax.com...
> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue.

It doesn't. I use my VX2000 exclusively for travel videography. It gets
knocked around alot, and used under pretty bad weather conditions. I've had
no problems with it whatsoever.


> But either Sony fans don't
> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
> of that part on-line.

About the VX2000? I've never seen anything about it like what you're
describing.

>Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:
>
>>That helps a lot, thanks!
>>
>>I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year
>>ago.
>>I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of
>>the
>>time."
>>
>>Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>>Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>>these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
>>
>>I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>>Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
>>
>>If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>>Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>>Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>>
>>There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>>that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200%
>>more
>>performance, ya' know?
>>
>>Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>>news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>>
>>> My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
>>> primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>>>
>>> 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
>>> has
>>> a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
>>> focusing.
>>>
>>> 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
>>> microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR
>>> jacks.
>>>
>>> 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
>>> adjusts
>>> them together.
>>
>>
>>> The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
>>> TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
>>> resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such
>>> as
>>> a
>>> Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
>>> poor
>>> low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>>
>>
>>> I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to
>>> version
>>> 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
>>> Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
>>> capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:45:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I want to echo several others I've seen here.

I do wedding videography so I MUST have a low-light solution. I looked as
hard as I could but not much held up to the Sonys (2000 and now 2100).

I know it's over $2k but not that much and it may just be worth it to you.

The only other camera I've heard of competing with these for low-light is
the Panasonic AG-DVX100A.

And I've used Adobe for everything. And I love After Effects, the titles
and lower thirds you can make in a couple seconds with that are amazing.

Tom P.


"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:3tGdnbc5zNL2krDfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
> Thanks Scott.
>
> With this, as many things, the journey is as important as the destination
> for me.
>
> A lot of the information I'm soaking up is giving me a frame of reference
so
> I can speak intelligently with other professionals in this field as well
as
> be a more valuable resource to my clients when they ask for professional
> advice. Delivering a better product becomes a side effect of the
knowledge.
>
> I'm more concerned about driving *other people* nuts while I'm sponging
> information. ;) 
>
> I will be critical of CCD size and it's nice to know I can get by with the
> Adobe suite I've gotten to know.
>
> Cheers!
> Chris
>
>
> "MediaBLITZ" <scott.bethel@sbcnospamglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:D i7Xd.1925$WK2.1296@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by
pros
> > making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras like
> > the
> > DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open Water -
> > it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse
than
> > a
> > PD-150.
> >
> > There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed up
> > their
> > first try.
> >
> > 3 things I wanted to comment on -
> >
> > 1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.
> >
> > 2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right
answers
> > to
> > your search.
> >
> > 3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:04:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Thanks for your input Tom. What do you do in After Effects that isn't easily
done in Premiere BTW? Most of my titles have been pretty basic fade in, fade
out stuff right in Premiere. Do you use AE for more dramatic titling?

Nobody seems to question the VX-2000 capabilities and I expect the PD150
would have similar performance.
Both of those are at the top of my list now.

FYI: I rented "Open Water" on widescreen DVD last night. I was especially
pleased with the "behind the scenes" and "making of" features on the disc.
They show the equipment list for the production and at the top are a VX-2000
and PD150.

C.



"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LfJXd.1982$ZB6.394@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>I want to echo several others I've seen here.
>
> I do wedding videography so I MUST have a low-light solution. I looked as
> hard as I could but not much held up to the Sonys (2000 and now 2100).
>
> I know it's over $2k but not that much and it may just be worth it to you.
>
> The only other camera I've heard of competing with these for low-light is
> the Panasonic AG-DVX100A.
>
> And I've used Adobe for everything. And I love After Effects, the titles
> and lower thirds you can make in a couple seconds with that are amazing.
>
> Tom P.
>
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:3tGdnbc5zNL2krDfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>> Thanks Scott.
>>
>> With this, as many things, the journey is as important as the destination
>> for me.
>>
>> A lot of the information I'm soaking up is giving me a frame of reference
> so
>> I can speak intelligently with other professionals in this field as well
> as
>> be a more valuable resource to my clients when they ask for professional
>> advice. Delivering a better product becomes a side effect of the
> knowledge.
>>
>> I'm more concerned about driving *other people* nuts while I'm sponging
>> information. ;) 
>>
>> I will be critical of CCD size and it's nice to know I can get by with
>> the
>> Adobe suite I've gotten to know.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> "MediaBLITZ" <scott.bethel@sbcnospamglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:D i7Xd.1925$WK2.1296@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by
> pros
>> > making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras like
>> > the
>> > DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open
>> > Water -
>> > it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse
> than
>> > a
>> > PD-150.
>> >
>> > There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed up
>> > their
>> > first try.
>> >
>> > 3 things I wanted to comment on -
>> >
>> > 1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.
>> >
>> > 2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right
> answers
>> > to
>> > your search.
>> >
>> > 3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:24:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:lO2dnbfOxu7eJLLfRVn-hw@rogers.com...
> Thanks for your input Tom. What do you do in After Effects that isn't
easily
> done in Premiere BTW? Most of my titles have been pretty basic fade in,
fade
> out stuff right in Premiere. Do you use AE for more dramatic titling?

I only use AE when I need very precise motion control for compositing.
Otherwise, Premiere Pro does what I need.


>
> Nobody seems to question the VX-2000 capabilities and I expect the PD150
> would have similar performance.
> Both of those are at the top of my list now.

The video quality of the two are identical. The only differences are XLR
versus not, mono mike vs. stereo, and b&w viewfinder vs. color. Oh, and the
VX2000 is silver and the PD150 grey.

>
> FYI: I rented "Open Water" on widescreen DVD last night. I was especially
> pleased with the "behind the scenes" and "making of" features on the disc.
> They show the equipment list for the production and at the top are a
VX-2000
> and PD150.

There are even a couple of shots in the making of showing them using a
VX2000. It is stock and unmodified.

>
> C.
>
>
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LfJXd.1982$ZB6.394@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >I want to echo several others I've seen here.
> >
> > I do wedding videography so I MUST have a low-light solution. I looked
as
> > hard as I could but not much held up to the Sonys (2000 and now 2100).
> >
> > I know it's over $2k but not that much and it may just be worth it to
you.
> >
> > The only other camera I've heard of competing with these for low-light
is
> > the Panasonic AG-DVX100A.
> >
> > And I've used Adobe for everything. And I love After Effects, the
titles
> > and lower thirds you can make in a couple seconds with that are amazing.
> >
> > Tom P.
> >
> >
> > "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:3tGdnbc5zNL2krDfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
> >> Thanks Scott.
> >>
> >> With this, as many things, the journey is as important as the
destination
> >> for me.
> >>
> >> A lot of the information I'm soaking up is giving me a frame of
reference
> > so
> >> I can speak intelligently with other professionals in this field as
well
> > as
> >> be a more valuable resource to my clients when they ask for
professional
> >> advice. Delivering a better product becomes a side effect of the
> > knowledge.
> >>
> >> I'm more concerned about driving *other people* nuts while I'm sponging
> >> information. ;) 
> >>
> >> I will be critical of CCD size and it's nice to know I can get by with
> >> the
> >> Adobe suite I've gotten to know.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> "MediaBLITZ" <scott.bethel@sbcnospamglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:D i7Xd.1925$WK2.1296@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >
> >> > I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by
> > pros
> >> > making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras
like
> >> > the
> >> > DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open
> >> > Water -
> >> > it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse
> > than
> >> > a
> >> > PD-150.
> >> >
> >> > There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed
up
> >> > their
> >> > first try.
> >> >
> >> > 3 things I wanted to comment on -
> >> >
> >> > 1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right
> > answers
> >> > to
> >> > your search.
> >> >
> >> > 3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:55:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I have had the luxury of being able to buy the Total Training videos and
they have SO much in them. One thing they showed me was some real dramatic
lower thirds - spinning text in and then making it "fall" into the screen...
Some real flashy stuff. Since I have a very specific target audience these
are perfect for me.

I've done titles that come on based on a particular color, but wavey. I do
montages that are very impressive looking a la CSI intro. current cell
playing in a small area in the main view but a faded version of the same
cell playing oversised in the background. Or slice up the video into thin
strips and have them spread out and then come back together revealing the
intact video. Cute tricks like that.

AND, since I don't have enough money to get a SteadyCam (yet), I use the
motion tracking and stabilisation is INVALUABLE to me. So long as I keep a
stable point in shot (two if I want to stabilize tilt or "twist") I can
stabilize most video. At least better than you might think. I've actually
made a piece so steady that it looked unnatural. It's great for replicating
crane and dolly shots in a handheld.

Not that you couldn't do most of that in Premiere (well, not the
stabilizing) but it would be ridiculously hard.

Tom P.

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:lO2dnbfOxu7eJLLfRVn-hw@rogers.com...
> Thanks for your input Tom. What do you do in After Effects that isn't
easily
> done in Premiere BTW? Most of my titles have been pretty basic fade in,
fade
> out stuff right in Premiere. Do you use AE for more dramatic titling?
>
> Nobody seems to question the VX-2000 capabilities and I expect the PD150
> would have similar performance.
> Both of those are at the top of my list now.
>
> FYI: I rented "Open Water" on widescreen DVD last night. I was especially
> pleased with the "behind the scenes" and "making of" features on the disc.
> They show the equipment list for the production and at the top are a
VX-2000
> and PD150.
>
> C.
>
>
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LfJXd.1982$ZB6.394@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >I want to echo several others I've seen here.
> >
> > I do wedding videography so I MUST have a low-light solution. I looked
as
> > hard as I could but not much held up to the Sonys (2000 and now 2100).
> >
> > I know it's over $2k but not that much and it may just be worth it to
you.
> >
> > The only other camera I've heard of competing with these for low-light
is
> > the Panasonic AG-DVX100A.
> >
> > And I've used Adobe for everything. And I love After Effects, the
titles
> > and lower thirds you can make in a couple seconds with that are amazing.
> >
> > Tom P.
> >
> >
> > "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:3tGdnbc5zNL2krDfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
> >> Thanks Scott.
> >>
> >> With this, as many things, the journey is as important as the
destination
> >> for me.
> >>
> >> A lot of the information I'm soaking up is giving me a frame of
reference
> > so
> >> I can speak intelligently with other professionals in this field as
well
> > as
> >> be a more valuable resource to my clients when they ask for
professional
> >> advice. Delivering a better product becomes a side effect of the
> > knowledge.
> >>
> >> I'm more concerned about driving *other people* nuts while I'm sponging
> >> information. ;) 
> >>
> >> I will be critical of CCD size and it's nice to know I can get by with
> >> the
> >> Adobe suite I've gotten to know.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> "MediaBLITZ" <scott.bethel@sbcnospamglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:D i7Xd.1925$WK2.1296@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >
> >> > I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by
> > pros
> >> > making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras
like
> >> > the
> >> > DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open
> >> > Water -
> >> > it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse
> > than
> >> > a
> >> > PD-150.
> >> >
> >> > There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed
up
> >> > their
> >> > first try.
> >> >
> >> > 3 things I wanted to comment on -
> >> >
> >> > 1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right
> > answers
> >> > to
> >> > your search.
> >> >
> >> > 3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:55:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Pretty cool Tom!

I know what you mean about the "unnatural" stable shots. I did one a while
back of a sport aircraft flying overhead, corrected in AE.
Clouds in the background, nice, neutral lighting, bright blue aircraft. It
kinda "jiggles" around the middle third of the frame - not at all bad to
look at, smooth motion but quite obvious.

I wanted to see what it would look like locked dead center. Whoa! The clouds
appeared to move but the plane was glued to a single spot dead center.
You'd think the camera was locked on with radar! VERY unnatural looking -
good demonstration of what "going to far" looks like!

I'm intrigued by the description of your title effects! I watch TV with an
eye toward the production elements and the different CSI series are ones
that I respect a lot. CSI:Miami has a great "metallic" text look going on,
not to mention the motion.

Got any samples online?

I'm going to start a new thread as this one is getting a bit off topic but
opens up some new questions.

Thanks!
Chris


"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YsXXd.18548$hU7.3765@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>I have had the luxury of being able to buy the Total Training videos and
> they have SO much in them. One thing they showed me was some real
> dramatic
> lower thirds - spinning text in and then making it "fall" into the
> screen...
> Some real flashy stuff. Since I have a very specific target audience
> these
> are perfect for me.
>
> I've done titles that come on based on a particular color, but wavey. I
> do
> montages that are very impressive looking a la CSI intro. current cell
> playing in a small area in the main view but a faded version of the same
> cell playing oversised in the background. Or slice up the video into thin
> strips and have them spread out and then come back together revealing the
> intact video. Cute tricks like that.
>
> AND, since I don't have enough money to get a SteadyCam (yet), I use the
> motion tracking and stabilisation is INVALUABLE to me. So long as I keep
> a
> stable point in shot (two if I want to stabilize tilt or "twist") I can
> stabilize most video. At least better than you might think. I've
> actually
> made a piece so steady that it looked unnatural. It's great for
> replicating
> crane and dolly shots in a handheld.
>
> Not that you couldn't do most of that in Premiere (well, not the
> stabilizing) but it would be ridiculously hard.
>
> Tom P.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:55:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YsXXd.18548$hU7.3765@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...


> AND, since I don't have enough money to get a SteadyCam (yet), I use the
> motion tracking and stabilisation is INVALUABLE to me. So long as I keep
a
> stable point in shot (two if I want to stabilize tilt or "twist") I can
> stabilize most video. At least better than you might think. I've
actually
> made a piece so steady that it looked unnatural. It's great for
replicating
> crane and dolly shots in a handheld.

Do you find the stabilization in AE better than the plug-in which comes with
Premiere Pro?

>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:33:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:39bl9oF5sfb60U1@individual.net...
>
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:YsXXd.18548$hU7.3765@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> > AND, since I don't have enough money to get a SteadyCam (yet), I use the
> > motion tracking and stabilisation is INVALUABLE to me. So long as I
keep
> a
> > stable point in shot (two if I want to stabilize tilt or "twist") I can
> > stabilize most video. At least better than you might think. I've
> actually
> > made a piece so steady that it looked unnatural. It's great for
> replicating
> > crane and dolly shots in a handheld.
>
> Do you find the stabilization in AE better than the plug-in which comes
with
> Premiere Pro?
>

I can look but I think the "stabalizer code-base" is the same for each.

Just that in AE you have much more control. You can keep tracking points
that have gone off the screen, track a given point, stop, and track a
different point, stabalize X-only or Y-only... all kinds of different
params.

Tom P.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:36:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:39bl6uF60n15nU1@individual.net...
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:lO2dnbfOxu7eJLLfRVn-hw@rogers.com...
> > Thanks for your input Tom. What do you do in After Effects that isn't
> easily
> > done in Premiere BTW? Most of my titles have been pretty basic fade in,
> fade
> > out stuff right in Premiere. Do you use AE for more dramatic titling?
>
> I only use AE when I need very precise motion control for compositing.
> Otherwise, Premiere Pro does what I need.
>

Yep. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I gotta do "impressive" stuff for the client so I do my DVD Intros and menu
transitions in AE mostly.
March 12, 2005 9:40:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

C.J.Patten wrote:
> That helps a lot, thanks!
>
> I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year ago.
> I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of the
> time."
If you have no problems with premiere and it can tackle what you need,
stick with it and dont worry about after effects. after effects is a
compositing(special effect) program while premiere is an editing program
which offers built in effects. I use after effect heavily because it is
a great tool for complex effects, keyframing, tracking,mattes, masking,
keying. Every paramater and effect can be tweaked to give the desired
look. a good analogy is that you use premiere for effects when a
certain effect dictates what you are want(ie you want a title to fade in
and out) while after effects is used more to put some effect that you
come up with in your head to life. i like it because i can usually come
up with an idea such as "I want skier who is skiing down this run to
breakup into pieces of sand and blow away while the background of the
ski run he is traveling down doesnot blow away" make sense, AE is for
complex stuff, it can do simple stuff but there is no point when you can
do them in premiere
>
> Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
> Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
> these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
dont know the xv1000 to vx2000 comparison but the vx to pd-150
comparison has some things you might want to know.
while dvcam format of the pd-150 and the miniDV format of the VX2000 are
pretty much the same and both cameras are noticeably similiar except
that one has XLR inputs but there is one difference that I would base my
decision on and that is locked/unlocked audio. miniDV uses what is
called unlocked audio while the pd-150's dvcam uses locked audio.
locked audio means that the audio is locked in sync with the video while
unlocked audio means it is not. while with unlocked audio, the audio
may be off by very little when you record in 2-3 min intervals but if
you record something nonstop for an hour, when you play back a tape of
unlocked audio, you will notice that after 40-50 minutes, the
audio/video sync will be off noticeably. the pd-150 solves this with
locked audio. i noticed a huge off sync difference after recording
hourlong shots with the XL-1


> I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
> Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
Id say sony over the XL1 because I owned the xl1 for awhile and did not
see any major benefits other than it looks cool. the sony ones offer
better picture quality and better low light like people have mentioned.
while canon has better optics, and arguably better stabilization, i
had no use for detachable lenses, one of its main selling points. while
i liked working with the cameras zoom and focus rings compared to
smaller cameras lik the vx, in the end i realized that the pd-150 would
have been a better choice. another note with the xl-1 is that for the
frame mode it uses to mimic film, it repeats the green layer like you
said to make it look like a complete frame BUT you sacrifice image
quality and resolution. since g field is doubled in frame mode, in the
final product you get half the vertical chroma resolution as you
normally would. the newer panasonics like the dvx100 and shoot actualy
full frame progressive video
>
> If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
> Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
> Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>
> There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
> that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200% more
> performance, ya' know?
>
> Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>
>


If I had my choice today I would buy the Panasonic DVX100A, hands down

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 3:27:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Hey Dan! Thanks for your detailed response.

XL1 is now off my list. I'd love an XL2 but can't justify it. XL2 versus GL2
thoughts? (way out of my league for a long time I think)

With PD150's seemingly available on the used market for the same price as
the VX2000, the PD150 is my goal, though I doubt I'll be able to invest in
one for a few months.

I understand where you're coming from about Premiere and AE - I'm an
old-school Adobe Illustrator guy and that's where I start my creative
projects for print and web before moving over to Photoshop.

You mentioned a pretty intricate scene with that skier - I don't suppose you
actually DID that? I'd love to see something of that caliber but more
importantly, I'd like to KNOW how you'd go about doing that in After
Effects! I had no idea you could DO that with AE!

If you have a chance, pick up the DVD for "The Manchurian Candidate." The
menus in that are the kind of thing I can do with AE - beyond that, I'd be
lost. Oh, and "Kill Bill" - I could do those transitions between menus.
Dissolving to sand - that's PFM! ;) 

RE: unlocked audio: I'd read somewhere the "unlocked" part only varied by
1/3 of a frame and wasn't cumulative. You've given me pause to do a bit more
research. I've done Firewire transfers of up to an hour from a miniDV (Sony
camera) and had no problems but I'll count myself lucky and do some more
reading.

These kind of things are exactly why I love this group - learn the gotchas
before they bite you on a time-sensitive project nevermind opening up
creative ideas.

Thanks again Dan - and everyone else to date. Beer's on me next time you're
in Canada's National Capital. (don't all show up at once though - you might
put me out of business ;) 

Chris




"dan" <highfly900@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4233a8dd$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> C.J.Patten wrote:
>> That helps a lot, thanks!
>>
>> I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year
>> ago.
>> I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of
>> the time."
> If you have no problems with premiere and it can tackle what you need,
> stick with it and dont worry about after effects. after effects is a
> compositing(special effect) program while premiere is an editing program
> which offers built in effects. I use after effect heavily because it is a
> great tool for complex effects, keyframing, tracking,mattes, masking,
> keying. Every paramater and effect can be tweaked to give the desired
> look. a good analogy is that you use premiere for effects when a certain
> effect dictates what you are want(ie you want a title to fade in and out)
> while after effects is used more to put some effect that you come up with
> in your head to life. i like it because i can usually come up with an
> idea such as "I want skier who is skiing down this run to breakup into
> pieces of sand and blow away while the background of the ski run he is
> traveling down doesnot blow away" make sense, AE is for complex stuff, it
> can do simple stuff but there is no point when you can do them in premiere
>>
>> Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>> Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>> these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
> dont know the xv1000 to vx2000 comparison but the vx to pd-150 comparison
> has some things you might want to know.
> while dvcam format of the pd-150 and the miniDV format of the VX2000 are
> pretty much the same and both cameras are noticeably similiar except that
> one has XLR inputs but there is one difference that I would base my
> decision on and that is locked/unlocked audio. miniDV uses what is called
> unlocked audio while the pd-150's dvcam uses locked audio. locked audio
> means that the audio is locked in sync with the video while unlocked audio
> means it is not. while with unlocked audio, the audio may be off by very
> little when you record in 2-3 min intervals but if you record something
> nonstop for an hour, when you play back a tape of unlocked audio, you will
> notice that after 40-50 minutes, the audio/video sync will be off
> noticeably. the pd-150 solves this with locked audio. i noticed a huge
> off sync difference after recording hourlong shots with the XL-1
>
>
>> I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>> Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
> Id say sony over the XL1 because I owned the xl1 for awhile and did not
> see any major benefits other than it looks cool. the sony ones offer
> better picture quality and better low light like people have mentioned.
> while canon has better optics, and arguably better stabilization, i had no
> use for detachable lenses, one of its main selling points. while i liked
> working with the cameras zoom and focus rings compared to smaller cameras
> lik the vx, in the end i realized that the pd-150 would have been a better
> choice. another note with the xl-1 is that for the frame mode it uses to
> mimic film, it repeats the green layer like you said to make it look like
> a complete frame BUT you sacrifice image quality and resolution. since g
> field is doubled in frame mode, in the final product you get half the
> vertical chroma resolution as you normally would. the newer panasonics
> like the dvx100 and shoot actualy full frame progressive video
>>
>> If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>> Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>> Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>>
>> There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>> that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200%
>> more performance, ya' know?
>>
>> Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>>
>>
>
>
> If I had my choice today I would buy the Panasonic DVX100A, hands down
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 8:35:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"dan" <highfly900@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4233a8dd$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> C.J.Patten wrote:
>> That helps a lot, thanks!
>>
>> I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year
>> ago.
>> I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of
>> the time."
> If you have no problems with premiere and it can tackle what you need,
> stick with it and dont worry about after effects. after effects is a
> compositing(special effect) program while premiere is an editing program
> which offers built in effects. I use after effect heavily because it is a
> great tool for complex effects, keyframing, tracking,mattes, masking,
> keying. Every paramater and effect can be tweaked to give the desired
> look. a good analogy is that you use premiere for effects when a certain
> effect dictates what you are want(ie you want a title to fade in and out)
> while after effects is used more to put some effect that you come up with
> in your head to life. i like it because i can usually come up with an
> idea such as "I want skier who is skiing down this run to breakup into
> pieces of sand and blow away while the background of the ski run he is
> traveling down doesnot blow away" make sense, AE is for complex stuff, it
> can do simple stuff but there is no point when you can do them in premiere
>>
>> Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>> Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>> these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
> dont know the xv1000 to vx2000 comparison but the vx to pd-150 comparison
> has some things you might want to know.
> while dvcam format of the pd-150 and the miniDV format of the VX2000 are
> pretty much the same and both cameras are noticeably similiar except that
> one has XLR inputs but there is one difference that I would base my
> decision on and that is locked/unlocked audio. miniDV uses what is called
> unlocked audio while the pd-150's dvcam uses locked audio. locked audio
> means that the audio is locked in sync with the video while unlocked audio
> means it is not. while with unlocked audio, the audio may be off by very
> little when you record in 2-3 min intervals but if you record something
> nonstop for an hour, when you play back a tape of unlocked audio, you will
> notice that after 40-50 minutes, the audio/video sync will be off
> noticeably.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. I've shot continuous events with
my VX2000 that lasted 40-50 minutes and audio didn't slip by as much as a
single frame. I really have no idea where you're getting this from, but
it's simply not true.


> the pd-150 solves this with locked audio. i noticed a huge off sync
> difference after recording hourlong shots with the XL-1
>
>
>> I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>> Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
> Id say sony over the XL1 because I owned the xl1 for awhile and did not
> see any major benefits other than it looks cool. the sony ones offer
> better picture quality and better low light like people have mentioned.
> while canon has better optics, and arguably better stabilization, i had no
> use for detachable lenses, one of its main selling points. while i liked
> working with the cameras zoom and focus rings compared to smaller cameras
> lik the vx, in the end i realized that the pd-150 would have been a better
> choice. another note with the xl-1 is that for the frame mode it uses to
> mimic film, it repeats the green layer like you said to make it look like
> a complete frame BUT you sacrifice image quality and resolution. since g
> field is doubled in frame mode, in the final product you get half the
> vertical chroma resolution as you normally would. the newer panasonics
> like the dvx100 and shoot actualy full frame progressive video
>>
>> If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>> Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>> Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>>
>> There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>> that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200%
>> more performance, ya' know?
>>
>> Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>>
>>
>
>
> If I had my choice today I would buy the Panasonic DVX100A, hands down
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 4:31:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"dan" <highfly900@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4233a8dd$1_2@127.0.0.1...
....
> that one has XLR inputs but there is one difference that I would base my
> decision on and that is locked/unlocked audio. miniDV uses what is
> called unlocked audio while the pd-150's dvcam uses locked audio.
> locked audio means that the audio is locked in sync with the video while
> unlocked audio means it is not. while with unlocked audio, the audio
> may be off by very little when you record in 2-3 min intervals but if
> you record something nonstop for an hour, when you play back a tape of
> unlocked audio, you will notice that after 40-50 minutes, the
> audio/video sync will be off noticeably. the pd-150 solves this with
> locked audio. i noticed a huge off sync difference after recording
> hourlong shots with the XL-1
>
....SNIP
>
> If I had my choice today I would buy the Panasonic DVX100A, hands down
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Do you know if the DVX100A runs locked audio or unlocked?

I was looking at getting two of these for the business but if it's going to
give me trouble then I'll wait.
I'm going to be recording 90min+ of wedding at a time. (although, I've not
noticed this drift in either the vx2000 or my PV-GS200.)

Tom Padilla
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:29:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Henry Padilla wrote:
> "dan" <highfly900@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4233a8dd$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> ...
>> that one has XLR inputs but there is one difference that I would
>> base my decision on and that is locked/unlocked audio. miniDV uses
>> what is called unlocked audio while the pd-150's dvcam uses locked
>> audio. locked audio means that the audio is locked in sync with the
>> video while unlocked audio means it is not. while with unlocked
>> audio, the audio may be off by very little when you record in 2-3
>> min intervals but if you record something nonstop for an hour, when
>> you play back a tape of unlocked audio, you will notice that after
>> 40-50 minutes, the audio/video sync will be off noticeably. the
>> pd-150 solves this with locked audio. i noticed a huge off sync
>> difference after recording hourlong shots with the XL-1
>>
> ...SNIP
>>
>> If I had my choice today I would buy the Panasonic DVX100A, hands
>> down
>>
>
> Do you know if the DVX100A runs locked audio or unlocked?
>
> I was looking at getting two of these for the business but if it's
> going to give me trouble then I'll wait.
> I'm going to be recording 90min+ of wedding at a time. (although,
> I've not noticed this drift in either the vx2000 or my PV-GS200.)
>
> Tom Padilla


Tom, go ahead and get the DVX100A and don't worry about the "locked/unlocked
audio" issue at all.

Dan, I suggest you read http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html#LockedAudio
to learn the differences. In it, he says: "when playing a DV tape, audio
never drifts, regardless of whether it's locked or unlocked". This is a guy
whose opinions are trusted implicity by everyone on this NG.

Mike
!