ooook HDR-FX1 doesn?t have 24p... so film like look is not achivable?

ok i?m not sure now if it has 24p or not? some websites say no and then Sony's website says

"CineFrame? Recording
Provides the option of recording video at either 30 fps or with a feeling of ?film-like" 24 fps."

does it mean it has 24p ? or some type of effects that emulates 24p look ?

The FX1 has a fake 24p mode that looks pretty crappy. If 24p is what you really want, then the FX7 is a better bet.

FX7 has 24p?

I can't be 100% sure as I've never used one, but the messages I've read about it online say that it does.

Edit: actually, maybe it's only the V1... I did a quick Google search and didn't find anything definitive.

I've used the FX1 - there are two items I think are very important in a camera above the $3,000 mark, neither of which this camera has.
1. Interchangeable lens - only two manufactures offer this feature.
2. XLR mic input - unforgivable in a camera at this price level.
other than these downfalls, the FX1 is a nice camera. I'm looking forward to giving the HVR-V1 a test drive in November.

I own and use the JVC HD100U. If 24p is important to you (I don't use it) check out that camera. It has an interchangeable lens (something I think is more important than 24p) and XLR inputs.

Hey what about DVX100B? looks like a great camera! anybody has anything to say about it?

hey guys a question popped into my head, and i would like to know an answer.

I was thinking, why is it that in photography DIGITAL CAMERAS are producing the same image quality as film cameras. and if not you can do some editing in Adobe and you achieve the same quality and it is very very very hard for a normal person to see a difference between digital shot and film/slide film. Why is it that in Movie Cameras that level hasn?t been reached? why is it that you can still see the difference on a digital camera and 35mm film. Even after all those magic bullet fxs.? whats up with that?

A great question.

I know nothing about digital still photography so you can help me here. What is the standard resolution per frame in digital still photography? 2 megapixels? 5? 6? And how many MB is the final photo at that resolution?

Video cameras do that 24 or 30 times per second. Maybe it takes too much processing power to reach that level of resolution that fast on such a small camera and small tape.

Full HD is closer, I think. Like Panasonic's VariCam and Sony's F950.

You know what you might be right with that processing power. I use 5MP (2560x1920 pixels) and pictures do take a lot of space, a couple MB. I can imagine this type of quality picture take 24 times per second would def require some good memory. And my 5mb is nothing comparing to the newest 12 MB or higher PRO CAMERAS..

So do you think its a matter of few years that DIGITAL VIDEO CAMERAS will reach FILM (35mm)LIKE QUALITY? will those 35mm cameras become obsolete? I know in photography 2 years ago FILM was still being used because even the best DIGI CAMS couldn?t compare to 50/100 ISO slide film quality, now THOSE more expensive cams do. BUT there is still one problem with digi cams , low light conditions.. 🙂 FILM just handles it in a better way..

i use the panasonic dvx 100a. Ive used it on three shorts and they all came out great. If you light it right and play with teh setting on it you can get it to look very much like film. however that can be done with almost any camera. I've also heard good things about the camera that Instigator uses. Frankily i think you will be safe with any teh three you pick, i think that your gonna want the most affordable one so do some research abot where you can get teh right price for each camera. I got my dvx for $2,500.

having said all this there are many other aspects that go into making hte picture look good besides teh camera....like lighting and the framing.

I dont have any of my shorts online yet (im having somebody make me a website as we speak) but i know a talented young filmmaker that lives in my old hometown (is in his first year at emerson's film program) who uses a dvx and his music videos are extremly well lit and look very good (very "film" like). here is a link to his site

enjoy and good luck

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick

Hey thanks for the links to those Videos! They do look pretty pro, but they are very much MUSIC VIDEO colors, those VIVID type, but how do i achieve those FILM like colors like in those movies :

blow ( those soft colors , but at the same time they still have some contrast in them )
catch me if you can (same thing those soft film colors, is it achivable on digital camera? i know people use magic bullet to achive those "saving private ryan" colors, its basically increasing some contrast and few things, but to achive that sof film look without losing colors, is it posible? to me a lot of those digital cameras create TV SHOW like look, not that much of a movie look..

I was also looking at the PANASONIC HVX200 , i like that its 24p and at the same time 16x9 , which DVX100a/b is missing... what do you guys think? Is it possible that digital camera can create that REAL FILM like colors?

I have been observing this debate for a while now and feel I should probably pipe up with my very humble opinion...

There is only one way to achieve the mystical 'film look' that so many moving image practicioners in the age of democratic digital production are forever procrastinating about. That is to shoot on film!

Current post modern trends (brought on by a the never abating proliferation of the Hollywood product) are for looking back in misty eyed wonder at some unidentifiable 'golden age' - even Hollywood is doing it for goodness sake! Unfortunately few practicioners seem to be able to advance with any integrity, as all they seem to desire is inclusion in the capitalist machine.

So although new practicioners are identifying current flaws and directing their research in the right direction, in the communication/technological age they are failing to raise their game beyond "how do I make my film look like someone elses?"

My advice - forget making your film look like someone elses. Watching other peoples' movies for inspiration and understanding is the most important form of learning in this business but please strive to go beyond this!

When planning one's movie I would advise choice of camera and all associated gear to be based on 'the story' - your story. This is why the Dogma movement has never gained any real ground. It is equally locked down in it's rules of what production equipment must be used and so simply erects a new set of barriers.

So in conclusion my advice to the original poster is to look at your script. Decide what style is required to tell your story - forget so-called production values for now. Purchase/hire kit accordingly. Remember many directors are going the opposite way now - deliberately striving to achieve a non-filmic look. That debate, however, is for another day.

All the best for a successful movie! ?:D?
Ross

PS. I don't use the FX1, I have been using the Z1E for the past year and would be happy to post my opinions on that camera if you're interested..

"Photography does not so much confirm our experience of the world as it actively constructs it." AS-G