Mitch Ives
Forum Replies Created
-
[Barry Green] “It already is. B&H has the HVX at $5200, and the EX1 at $7500. That’s about a 45% cost premium.”
That’s the initial price, which B&H always has high when something first comes out.
But okay, so I guess I’m the only one that thinks it’s worth $2300 (less in time) to go from 1/3″ to 1/2″ chips… to go from 960×540 to true 1920×1080 (and P no less)… to get a real lens with focus stops, barrel markings for focus, zoom and iris, and a real iris ring on the lens barrel? I’m also guessing that since this is a real Fujinon lens, that it’ll have continuosly variable zooming without the steps that the HVX 200 zoom has? That isn’t worth a couple of grand? Okay, it’s just me I guess…
-
[Barry Green] “According to Sony’s press release, their 16GB card is 700 Euros. That translates to US $950 or so. How is that cheaper?
Granted, lots of people were *expecting* them to be cheaper, but that doesn’t appear to be what happened in reality.
But yeah, Red’s use of CF definitely points towards some interesting lower-cost options.”
I’ve discovered that you can’t do the math that way. The U.S. price for the HVX didn’t convert evenly to the European price either. The prices for things in dollars here rarely translate into currency converted Euros or British Pounds. As an example, you’ll see something at 1700 Pounds, which would be over $3,400… yet it’s U.S. selling price may only be $2,300. We’ll have to wait for the final U.S. pricing to see.
[Barry Green] “Yes, but it’s also 33% more expensive. I would hope that it would offer lots of improvements for that type of price increase.”
I don’t think it’ll be that much difference when we see it in the U.S., but you could be right.
[Barry Green] “Jan’s been asking for recommendations for an HVX200″A” over on DVXUser; be sure to add your requests to the list! No idea if we’ll actually get ’em, but it’s important for us to make known what we want. “
I’ll have to add that…
-
[Mike Johnson] “the 16 GB cards are just raided 4 x 4 GB secure digital cards.
The actual memory cost less $200 retail! “I think Panasonic is going to have to cave pretty fast. Between the Red camera using cheaper CF cards and the new Sony using cheaper Cardbus 34 cards, I personally think they’re going to have to cut that price in half to remain competitive.
Of course, they’re also going to have to develop an answer to the Sony EX1… it seems that Sony talked to a lot of HVX200 owners, because it has pretty much all the changes I wanted to see in the HVX200… (1/2″ chips, full res 1920x1080p, and a real lens with a foucus ring that stops, a zoom ring with markings, and an iris ring with markings… on the lens barrel).
-
I believe that is being reported as a problem with QT 7.2. I believe they have a beta and will be releasing a fix soon…
-
[Noah Kadner] “Yup- if I had a dime for every time someone misses that dialogue box….”
Or we could start counting how many times that question gets asked on this forum…
-
[mattjgerard] “If you have a properly calibrated screen, why should it matter if the screen is matte or glossy? And, if you want your screen to match the consumer gear out there, according to you it will be out of calibration anyway. What is your reference? The NTSC standards or what your audience actually sees? The manufacturers of consumer gear don’t seem to mind if their color and brightness levels are out of whack compared to the NTSC standards. “
Exactly, it’s calibrated to NTSC. I actually think you and I are making the same point, just from different angles…
[mattjgerard] ” I completely agree with you on the standards front. We need them. But my video looking good on a glossy screen and not good on a matte screen really doens’t have much to do with the NTSC standards. Both can be completely within the standard, but one looks better than the other. “
If you calibrate the one you’re using, it should look the same. Besides, how can you control what screen thay have on their laptop? It could be matte or glossy…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.comApple Certified Trainer: Final Cut Pro
-
[mattjgerard] “What we are losing sight of here is our target audience. 99% of the flatscreens out there are matte, so do you want to create graphics and color correct your video on a glossy screen that “provides sharper more intense colors” and then have your client look at it on their $99 Lenovo computer flatscreen that looks like crap? Personally I would rather know that they are seeign the best crap I can make without having a false sense of what they are seeing. (Does that make any sense????)”
Perhaps, but it misses the larger point. First, my screen is calibrated, but let’s pretend it isn’t. Second, historically ALL consumer gear has greater color saturation, automatic brightness, etc… so if you really want to maytch their screens, the argument could be made that you NEED a glossy screen.
[mattjgerard] “I’m not one to shoot for the lowest common denominator either. But I don’t want a false sense of security thinking that my graphics and video look extra good on my glossy screen, then send it to my client’s matte screen and have it not look as good. “
See above.
[mattjgerard] “Little side story- I was an intern in the post department on the Barney Show (yes the big purple dino). We had all the best equipment for audio remixing and recording. I would sit in the back of the mix suite and watch him work on the best audio monitors and mixing consoles. But, when he finally did the final mix master for distrobution, he turned off the nice big $8000 Genelec monitors, and did the final mix to a pair of 5” single coil $100 Auralex monitors. Confused, I asked him why, and he said “What kind of speakers are in your TV?” Clever man, and that year we won the daytime Emmy for Audio mixing and mastering live to tape. “
We used to do that too… but not anymore. The speakers in the large screens are much improved these days… and a great many people have external sound systems on their TV’s, since they start at $99 now.
[mattjgerard] “So, always remember your target audience, and what their experience will be. I only do industrial video training, nothing exciting. But thinking about this stuff makes us sucessful.”
You make good points, but it’s still our job to make broadcast correct video, regardless of where it goes. The reason: precisely because every single TV is different, so we have to have some kind of a standard we can all agree on.
Surveyors use a brass pin, and we use the NTSC standards…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.comApple Certified Trainer: Final Cut Pro
-
[Chris Poisson] “I’m in AZ too, I remember hearing you talk about the glossy screen last month at the AZFCPUG meeting, but I wasn’t paying attention I guess. So you’re saying it is noticeably sharper? I’ll have to check that again at the Apple store…
“Definitely… it’s an order of magnitude…
[Chris Poisson] “I thought the case is that a Matte screen is actually jsut a glossy screen, except that the matte screen has a layer of anti-glare plastic laid over it… so basically the matte screen is the same, but with more. That’s just what my research has told me.”
Let’s hope not, because if so, they screwed up. Kinda of like saying that your car and my car are the same, except mine is perfect and yours has dents all over it… not really the same in the end, is it?
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.comApple Certified Trainer: Final Cut Pro
-
As someone who actually has a 17″ glossy, I would go any other way. I live in AZ… if reflection isn’t a problem here, it isn’t a problem for anybody. Second, the mattes still reflect, and they are way soft. Compare them side by side and you will have a real problem with the matte screen…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.comApple Certified Trainer: Final Cut Pro
-
Still November…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.comApple Certified Trainer: Final Cut Pro