3ccd or HD

I'd wait a few years, let it progress a bit, and get cheaper.

yeha wait a while....and if you get ti you'll prob need a whole new editing system.

what camera do you have?

why
windows movie maker is where its at

I started shooting with the FX-1 this season and the quality is way better than I hoped for. In the tests I've seen, HDV looks better than 16mm, not to mention crappy ol' DV--which is compressed 5x over D1.

Even when converting HDV to DV or web video, it still looks better. Something about having many more pixels eliminates the video artifacts that makes DV look like DV. Colors, contrast, everything in my opinion looks better.

iMovie has native HDV support and costs less than $100. I don't know if there's an equally cheap windows based option.

the fx1 is probably the worst of all the sub $10000 hd cameras.

Depends on what type of editing rig you have...

HD requires an insane setup.

if you have a slower computer, or if you want it to run even faster you could always capture in offline RT make your edits and then reconnect the footage later.

me concur.

^
I'm curious to find out if your going to back that up and be helpful or if your just a hater.

^Im sure theres other reasongs, but this is my reasoning:

It only shoots HD at 60i, which is a personal thing for me, and how I can't stand how ugly it looks. Its not a ###### cam, but if you are going to spend money on a cam that expensive then why not get one that can shoot better frame rates for the same price?

I'm stickin with my VX until they become cheaper and I like the colors it produces. I thought about HD but I don't have a real need for it yet and the technology is not as progressed for that price as I would like.

I would agree with you, 60i can look ugly. If I were shooting a movie for theatrical release on film--I might prefer another camera.

I think there is a lot of confusion about what all this frame rate stuff means, what effect it has on the image and what ways there are to work around it.

For those who don't know, 60i means 60 frames per second (fps) interlaced. 24p or 30p means 24fps or 30fps progressive. Interlaced means that all the odd lines are scanned and then the even. The result is a double image and a very video look. In progressive scanning, all the lines are scanned in sequence--resulting in a more film-like look.

In the tests I've done, shutter speed(1/60s. v. 1/24s.) does not affect the image that much as far as a film look. (The minimum shutter speed of an Arri SR2 running at sync speed is 1/48s. A bolex's slowest speed is even faster.)

But I do think there is a problem with shooting 24p over 30p and 60i when outputting to a TV. In my experience, it looks very strobey--which has to do with the 3:2 pulldown needed to get 24p back to 30fps so you can watch it on TV. Since you don't need 3:2 pulldown when shooting 30p or 60i, it doesn't have that effect. Unless you are transfering to film, there is no need for 24p.

I do think 30p looks better than 60i. The FX-1 does have a 30p setting, burried deep, deep in the menus. I imagine its a de-interlaced 60i frame, but the result is a rendered 1080/30p frame that looks as good as a 720/30p frame and still has a higher resolution. For various reasons, tho, I prefer to shoot 60i and de-interlace to 30p in post--which is another option.

My issue with the HD100 is that it's not as practical for me as the FX-1. If I wanted to use a fisheye with the HD100, it requires buying a whole huge lens for almost the same price as the camera. I like having a cheap(er), smaller adapter. The HD100 weighs almost twice as much as the FX-1 (not including the additional heavy lenses) which means a lot when I'm climbing through waist-deep pow at 12,000ft or skiing tight trees.

As I understand the Panasonic AG-HVX200, it only records HD to a P2 card. A 4GB P2 card holds 4 minutes and costs $600. Panasonic needs to work out some kinks before I buy that one.

Bottom line--you probably don't need HD if you're just going to make web videos or not going to try to get a distribution deal with Ally. All the sub-$10,000 HD cams have certain advantages over the others. My opinion is that the FX-1 is the best suited for ski films and has the best quality to price ratio.

if we are talking in terms of image produced from the fx1, hd100 and the hvx200 the hd100 and hvx200 are almost identical, and both are better than the fx1. All of the cameras quirks aside the fx1 is the cheapest for a reason.