Frage von jamaries:
Hallo erst mal!
I want to (want to make films, I think almost everyone here). I just wanted questions whether the Camera "SonyFX1e" is good and whether it is a Harken somewhere ??????
Danke schon mal
Antwort von PowerMac:
In Hornbach or practitioners.
Antwort von Axel:
... whether the Camera "SonyFX1e is good ... She is good. Of course, it depends on how high your expectations. I do not own them, but I added it. My own desire camera is the Panasonic HVX 200, costing the bearing of course, on the thumb doubled. The striking proof of its quality is the film starts now, "Germany, a summer fairy tale". Judging by the trailer would have been muddy, you have a DV camera suspects, but the right film, because of the previews have already delivered, be open in terms of brilliance and gradation to be desired.
The non-gefazte, Direct Comparison of the two cams shows with the same sharpness impression more natural reproduction of the HVX.
The FX is very convincing as a
DV camera.
Edit: This is now truly the hammer! It was
not an HVX, but a
DVX 100th With all respect, what have rausgeholt that there can be proud of!
Antwort von PowerMac:
The DVX could have paved the way for a very successful German film ... today with the premiere, I guess, the film is what.
Antwort von snowy:
FX1E is a good camera. You'll learn the higher Resolutionund native 16:9 quickly come to appreciate, cinelook / progressive synonymous You get pretty good with out the Magic Bullet plug-ins and light sensitivity at +18 dB corresponds approximately to the DVX at 0 db. (where we in the DVX uses better not gain, or noise without end, the FX roars at +18 contrast, very little)
HDV artifacts: Yes they exist, but rarely occur in the moving image really disturbing to the fore. For more color corrections can then be problematic but schomal with the blocky formation, so try as HDV capture with film work and has to be final at Rotate look.
It will never look for "DVX", but you can with the FX-1 trivalent create a film look. Most of the film look, but generally takes an additional 35mm adapter, not only because of lower DOF but the softer noutput drawing / grain of the ground glass and the soft lights.
Cost-effective alternative would be an HC-3 with adapter, from her picture made little difference to the FX-1.
:: Www.deepcode1.com::
sounds, vision, interaction
Antwort von Taner59:
Hello,
I myself still use the good old VX2000.
What is your experience? Is it worth the update of VX2000 and FX1 on VX7.
I take up to 95% of weddings.
Antwort von Yasmin:
"I take up to 95% of weddings."
Then comes the fx7 out because their lowlightfähigkeit for
The indoor evening event without additional light
is too short.
whether the fx1 or S.da I do not know enough,
But if the ex xdcam what keeps its specification
promises it will shoot in lowlight erstmal the bird.
gruß cj
Antwort von Taner59:
And once again thanks s.Gast.
I will rather stay with my VX2000, because the synonymous makes in lowlight without zusatzt light really good pictures.
@ Guest: Can you tell me maybe recommend another camera that is better than VX2000 synonymous but not cost more like 3000 ¬?
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... then falls fx7 out because their lowlightfähigkeit for indoor evening event with no additional light is too short. So I would not categorically say: Where the VX2000 even get along with an open aperture needed FX7/V1 even though the gain. The, however, can safely use without damaging impression that the Picture. Not to mention that a head light dramatically improved the images of a VX synonymous, because it not only makes light, but especially for better color contrast makes performanceund.
No need to say (that: paying customers who absolutely want to have their weddings rotated in HDV), I would at this specific purpose, however, still does not switch to HDV.
Can you perhaps recommend a different camera, which is better as synonymous VX2000 but not cost more like 3000 ¬? SonyVX2100 ;-)
Gruß Bernd E.
Antwort von snowy:
Very good camera, the VX2100 recommend really!
Antwort von Taner59:
Yes, the VX2100 should be really good, but I really need VX2100 when I've VX2000?
As I have said to me is very important that I can absorb light without zusatzt my wedding, I am the VX2100 better from the lowlight?
Antwort von Bernd E.:
... I really need VX2100 when I've VX2000? Probably not, so synonymous my ";-)" The two differ only very slightly anyway.
... From the VX2100 better lowlight? Minimal on paper, in practice it is likely to be large notice.
Gruß Bernd E.
Antwort von Andreas_Kiel:
(...) If this Camera "SonyFX1e" good is (...) Yes. Yes, undoubtedly. This alone already jealous ... it pops onto screen, and full of the sun you can still see everything - that is synonymous different :-))))
The FX is very convincing as a DV camera. If you need time DV, HDV recording and just let the camera runterkonvertieren. Quite Picture class,
here
BG
Andreas
Antwort von Yasmin:
And once again thanks s.Gast.
I will rather stay with my VX2000, because the synonymous makes in lowlight without zusatzt light really good pictures.
@ Guest: Can you tell me maybe recommend another camera that is better than VX2000 synonymous but not cost more like 3000 ¬? FX-1! I have both. The do nothing bezgl LowLight. On the contrary, when VX is much ehr see at rush begins. I have one and the same recordings of the same event. And as I said, the FX-1 has true 16:9. Bezgl. Z7 Lowlight could be better. In addition, unfortunately, has gone a 1920x1080 chip costs a little more the 3,000 th
Moreover, it is a Hybrid Cam, that is, they simultaneously saves on tape and compact flash cards. If you offerest SDE saves you a lot of time.
