DigiBeta or HD

[Steve Roberts]

I’d check the Cinematography COW forum first.

[Darren Edwards]

A digibeta workflow is cheaper and quicker than a HD one
and its 4.2.2. footage will up-res to HD to an agreeable
(for now, anyway) level if needed. But given the (budgetary?)
choice, what’s there to think about? Tech people who say
‘HD looks like a well-shot digibeta shoot’ are normally
comparing the digi to a probably badly-shot HD film.

I’d go with HD, unless the HD camera is actually a mid-range
HDV camera with limited options, i.e. the Z1/Z1e.

D.

x-gf.com

[Brendan Coots]

Assuming you would be using a GOOD camera for both options (as Steve said, NO HDV), then I would go HD. I say this primarily because the 16:9 aspect ratio will give the viewer a wider field of view. Assuming this is an indoor shoot, the limitations of 4:3 combined with lenses that can’t go very wide can often make it very tough to see what is going on without a lot of panning around, which doesn’t really give the viewer a sense of the space.

Another consideration is your workflow. If you use an IT-based HD camera (aka records directly to HDD or flash memory) like the Panasonic HVX200, you can easily and quickly transfer the footage into your editing app with no special tools, even doing so on set if desired. With DigiBeta, you will need access to a very expensive deck just to transfer the footage.

The HVX200 records in 4:2:2 as well, so the main advantage of the DigiBeta route would be larger chips and better lens. Not that these are trivial advantages at all, but how high end must the virtual tour be? Is it worth the added cost and hassle of DigiBeta? Using the HVX200 would probably give you a 4:1 cost advantage over using DigiBeta.