The footage I saw comes from the FX1. I did not see any strangeness on
the depth of field blur... While there *is* compression, the big part
of it appears in motion, so it's not that much of a big deal. In static
picture, it did not seem worst than DV but with a much higher
resolution.
So of course it's not high-end, but it's so much cheaper than bigger HD
cameras... and it uses mini-dv tapes which you can buy almost
everywhere, and cheap. It's also lightweight, and the batteries last
for hours. For low-buget stuff or small team documentry stuff, this is
a serious competition to higher HD, and not just for the price. Cine30
and cine24 modes do show crappy deinterlacing tho...
I'm still waiting to see how it looks and how great the workflow is on
DS with the Miranda. Did anyone try the miranda so far? Does it work
"as advertised" with DS (I read that there was a recent fix for it) ?
Annaël
On 18-Oct-05, at 10:42 PM, Bob Maple wrote:
In general, it's decent for a camera costing less than $2000--
Certainly a great way for consumer-types to shoot their drooling
babies in HD. But acquiring footage for 'professional' use, which
unfortunately a lot of people seem to want to be doing with these
cameras, is a bit of a stretch.
---
Subscribe? E-mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: subscribe ds
Unsubscribe? E-Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body: unsubscribe ds
