Frage von heinavesi:
Hello: I am wearing with the thought of my SonyDSR-500 against the HVR-S270E to swap. Since I do for my TV customers to 90% on the 16th and DVCAM) mode turn, here is a question:
Can someone tell me how (good or bad) quality of the DVCAM Camera is this?
Thank you!
Antwort von r.p.television:
Possession of even a DSR-500 (WSP) for your commercial. Do you want to really 2 / 3 "Power HAD CCDs against 1 / 3" CMOS (with all the disadvantages such as Rolling Shutter) swap? Look in the direction of better XD CAM - and while the PDW-700. The has 2 / 3 "CCDs with Full HD 1920x1080. I save it or even watch the market.
Taste rotating ready unfortunately a good rod Money, but the result is not comparable with the S270 even with Pixeshift must work in order to come to 1440x1080 - what one sees synonymous. Your picture is not even at the time of HDV levels.
Alternatively, the Panasonic HVX-500. Unfortunately the expensive P2 card access.
Antwort von heinavesi:
Thanks for the hints. As I said: So far yes, I play only synonymous with the idea. Wars of tomorrow, a HVR-S270E for testing. Mal sehn, what will come out ...
Antwort von heinavesi:
Hello:
Do me the "thing" time trial yesterday evening at the Fast and put under the microscope. At first glance, very nice, but not the second. Which is probably better for the ambitious semi-professional. HDV images come across quite well. DVCAM quality is only so lala. Is about "like a stone" on the shoulder. Even the handling of the "Zeiss" Optics is pretty shaky. But what I really miss: You can use the wireless receiver will not put more s.Kameraheck (such as DSR-500/570 etc).
Nothing against the machine - for, of what it needs. But I prefer to continue to slow my DSR-500 through the area.
HB
Antwort von r.p.television:
[quote = "heinavesi"] Hello:
.... HDV images come across quite well. .... HB [/ quote
But an XH A1 for the third of the price makes better pictures. As has Sonyecht gepennt again with their Pixel Shift. I find the pictures of Z7 and S270 little better than that of FX1 or Z1. And there are three years of development time in between.
Only the EX models have an excellent picture in its class.
Antwort von Jogi:
[quote = "rptelevision"] [quote = "heinavesi"] Hello:
.... HDV images come across quite well. .... HB [/ quote
xh s.für but a third of the price to make better pictures. since sony has really re gepennt with their pixel shift. I think the pictures of S270 and z7 little better than that of FX1 or z1. and there are three years of development time in between.
only the ex-models have an excellent image in this class. [/ quote]
The majority of CAM's with 1 / 3 inch chips to work with Pixel Shifting for Cipflächen because 1440x1080 is just too small (but synonymous at the pixel format and size of)
Anders looks really at EX1 / 3. If true FullHD 1920x1080 and true 16:9, anamorphic and not squashed. Vorallem But the true picture and that is the most important thing.
Antwort von WideScreen:
Anders looks really at EX1 / 3. If true FullHD 1920x1080 and true 16:9, anamorphic and not squashed. Hmmm 16zu9 real? So in the HDV standard there is no anamorphic 16:9 .... This is cheese. And in the DVCAM mode is no "real" but only 16:9 anamorphic (as PAL).
What is the nonsense?
Antwort von r.p.television:
So .... in HDV standard there is no anamorphic 16:9 .... The cheese is ......
What is the nonsense? Are you sure?
Then computational times what 1440x1080 calculated for an aspect ratio is and why it is for display in the width is drawn.
Antwort von Ernesto:
Possession of even a DSR-500 (WSP) for your commercial. Do you want to really 2 / 3 "Power HAD CCDs against 1 / 3" CMOS (with all the disadvantages such as Rolling Shutter) swap? Look in the direction of better XD CAM - and while the PDW-700. The has 2 / 3 "CCDs with Full HD 1920x1080. I save it or even watch the market.
Taste rotating ready unfortunately a good rod Money, but the result is not comparable with the S270 even with Pixeshift must work in order to come to 1440x1080 - what one sees synonymous. Your picture is not even at the time of HDV levels.
Alternatively, the Panasonic HVX-500. Unfortunately the expensive P2 card access. Unfortunately, only works the Pan HVX 500 synonymous with pixel shift.
otherwise, it would indeed be an alternative, only because of the price and the professional equipment.
viele grüße Ernesto
Antwort von tommyb:
Ever thought of the images seen? So incredibly bad pixel shift is again not synonymous and there are few cameras that do not use it.
Wenns because super duper must then HPX 3000th The HPX 500 is basically a large HVX 200, but with the potential significantly Picture in 1080p / i.
Antwort von Ernesto:
Ever thought of the images seen? So incredibly bad pixel shift is again not synonymous and there are few cameras that do not use it.
Wenns because super duper must then HPX 3000th The HPX 500 is basically a large HVX 200, but with the potential significantly Picture in 1080p / i. An HPX 3000 cost 5x as much good as a HPX 500th Yes would be the absolutely
the best, but unfortunately unaffordable. but honestly, pixel shift would be good, who would then still a Full 3000 buy?
Cocoa does not sell for no reason its HPX 500 and want something "sharper".
many greetings Ernesto
Antwort von WideScreen:
Only the HPX500 Taste the 3 times ... (with Optics )....
Hab so rotated, synonymous in Comparison. Yes it is better, but not in the ratio of factor 3rd
Antwort von PowerMac:
Anders looks really at EX1 / 3. If true FullHD 1920x1080 and true 16:9, anamorphic and not squashed.
Hmmm 16zu9 real? So in the HDV standard there is no anamorphic 16:9 .... This is cheese. And in the DVCAM mode is no "real" but only 16:9 anamorphic (as PAL).
What is the nonsense? There are very probably in anamorphic 16:9 HDV. 16:9 in 1080 when HDV is always bruised. Only the EX1 is true 16:9 in XDCAM EX.
Antwort von Ernesto:
Only the HPX500 Taste the 3 times ... (with Optics )....
Hab so rotated, synonymous in Comparison. Yes it is better, but not in the ratio of factor 3rd I do not know where you buy your cam, but I stand by faktor 5th
if you were in a 3000 optik the use of a 500? Definitely not.
So very good optics cost the equivalent of the cam and at the 3000
would be the Cam and Optics for around 100k. the 500 you get with CAC Optics
to 20k.
That the last few percent in the quality cost much, since the HI-FI boom 80'Jahre known.
A 500 is synonymous not the 3 times the price of an EX 1 worth, on the contrary.
many greetings Ernesto
Antwort von WideScreen:
So .... in HDV standard there is no anamorphic 16:9 .... The cheese is ......
What is the nonsense?
Are you sure?
Then computational times what 1440x1080 calculated for an aspect ratio is and why it is for display in the width is drawn. Give you fairly. I moved now to the anamorphic ratio as it was in PAL. The anamorphic picture so you get virtually never seen today, as opposed to time pal, where bands in amamorphotisch had always 16:9.
My mistake
Antwort von WideScreen:
Only the HPX500 Taste the 3 times ... (with Optics )....
Hab so rotated, synonymous in Comparison. Yes it is better, but not in the ratio of factor 3rd
I do not know where you buy your cam, but I stand by faktor 5th
if you were in a 3000 optik the use of a 500? Hi Ernesto. We are in his very different subject. Les, please look at the headline. S2270 and HPX500 vergeleichen us. Not the 3000.
Quiet .... did not really upset .... read!
And I hardly think you ne some HD Optics for under 10,000 euro gets ..... Naja.
