[Al Bergstein]

The fx100 is a great bet if you are staying canon, but Panasonic have some nice cameras in the 3k to 5k range, plus some new ones coming out in the fall.

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

Tim, all the advice previous is good, and I understand your dilemma.I’ve used the edirol, and it’s great, but if you really need four inputs, you might start with the edirol & save for a Sd mixer down the road. My guess is you won’t end up using four mics much, as it’s hard to onitor w/o a sound man. However, do you need battery operation? You might be able to get by with pluggeable audio gear,for mixing, which could allow you to buy a two channel recorder. That’s what we do on occasion. Surprising how widespread electrical current is these days!

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

I use the mix pre with h4n, works great.when I need better preamps I borrow a friends edirol. Excellent device.I try to always work with a mixer.

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

I own and like the audio technica 897 but they have others.
https://www.audio-technica.com/cgi-bin/product_search/wired_mics/mics_by_type.pl?product_type=Microphones:+Shotgun

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

I highly recommend starting with the manual, which is not bad actually, and moving to Barry Green’s book next. Those two have got me through a lot with my 150. You can easily carry both of them with you when you shoot. You would be surprised at how often it helps to have them there. For example, you might forget how to throw the switches on the audio intakes to blend a single mic to a stereo input. Having that little manual is quick and easy.

There are a few good videos on the web, for a starter one I really like this one. A good quick overview of the features of the camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk0ezIcQwsE

Alf

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Al Bergstein]

From another forum:
Ingesting as a transcode to ProRes will yield no image quality benefits; it will just take up more storage space. Further, it is an unnecessary transcode step. It is a legacy feature from before FCP was able to handle a re-wrap (‘native’ ingest). The only real use for this would be if you needed to ingest XF footage to .mov for another app/workflow/system which cannot cope with MP2/longGop but can handle ProRes. Since all modern Mac workstations can easily handle MP2 editing overhead, there is no need to ingest to ProRes for an edit directly inside FCP, which will stay inside FCP.

However, for best quality, you should most certainly set your sequence render settings to ProRes or uncompressed. This is where you will see the benefit of ProRes over native MP2. All image manipulation you make should definitely NOT be rendered back to MP2 because then you are re-compressing the images back to a highly compressed acquistion codec. With a few layers/levels of manipulation you will be able to see the difference. We always render to uncompressed where drive space and system speed allows but ProRes on FCP or DNx on Avid are a good second choice.

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

How about this?
https://www.westsideavstore.com/index.php?p=catalog&parent=10&pg=1

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

This, once again, is the right move by Apple. The prices of the Mac Pros are prohibitive for anyone but companies doing significant work. The addition of TB is just what I wanted to make that move. The downsides are that I have always hated being tied to a machine with a built in monitor, and it’s wasteful environmentally. I already have two good monitors. The new processors are very fast, compared to the MPro I’m using. I personally don’t need more than 16GB RAM at this point.

So this is a good move from Apple. They continue to innovate in a very fast cycle on hardware. Now I wait to see what they’ve done to FCP. That’s the wild card. The new interface is too much like the changes which I really hated to iMovie (I used to use it for personal family work, no longer), and also to Apeture, which I promptly abandoned for Lightroom, and never looked back. They lost a loyal customer of a higher end product with that interface change.

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

I don’t know why that is, but I’ve often thought that FCP (since I don’t use Adobe yet), also looks slightly “cleaner”. Perhaps that’s because of being forced to transcode, perhaps it’s just some kind of better internal support of Quicktime rendering, perhaps it’s the more modern graphics included in the base package that make it look that way,I just don’t know. I do know that it’s not been enough of a difference to make me change, at least for my quick and dirty work, since I save so much time and earn more money doing it on Vegas. Eliminating transcoding is worth while, in many cases. I use it when necessary, even on Vegas, by going to Neoscene.

Alf

[Al Bergstein]

I’ve been really happy with Vegas 10.c on Windows 7 64 bit. Playback engine at this point doesn’t appear to be quite a smooth as the Mercury engine. That could be a factor for you. Trial it first.

I don’t see .flv output on Vegas, but it does have a large array, including XDCAM EX, MP2 and 4, .MOV, MXF, etc.

Alf