Which camera is most FCP-friendly: Sony PMWEX1R or HXRNX5U?

I am so confused - and would appreciate the knowledgeable suggestions of experienced FCP users on this site.
From what I?ve read, the Sony PMWEX1R and HXRNX5U use different compression methods and each has its own unique issue when ingesting video into FCP (especially video projects longer than 10 minutes).

My original plan was to buy the PMW320 but the budget doesn't allow it.
I did have a chance to try it out and it was very easy to jack the memory card into my Mac and start editing.
I assume the PMWEX1R would be a similar experience, but have not tried it.

The HXRNX5U looks appealing, especially the optional Flash Memory Unit (HXRFMU128) as I shoot a lot of conferences (hours on end!).
But I?ve read a lot of complaints about problems with AVCHD as well as the inability to ingest SD from this camera.

Thanks in advance.

The EX1 without a doubt. AVCHD is so processor intensive.



www.strypesinpost.com

But AVCHD is MPEG4 H.2.64. I've been transcoding scads of it to ProRes and enjoying it. So it may be a toss-up, except the NXCAM is newer and cheaper.

- Loren

Today's FCP keytip:
Set a motion effect keyframe instantly with Control-K!

Your Final Cut Studio KeyGuide? Power Pack.
Now available at KeyGuide Central.
www.neotrondesign.com

Thank you, strypes and Loren.

Yeah - on one hand, I lean towards the EX1 but I know the cost of memory sticks will eat my lunch, and short of buying the Aja Ki Pro mini, I don't know what else to do for my long video projects (I shoot 20+ hours on some projects).

Yet, on the other hand, I've heard it takes an eternity to ingest AVCHD into FCP.

And, on the other hand, I've looked at some JVC camera's which claim to be made solely for the FCP, but I don't know much about their product.

Oy - decisions!

> I've heard it takes an eternity to ingest AVCHD into FCP.

I don't think so. Not all AVCHD formats are the same, but with the Canon and Sony flavours I've worked with, it's about three to eight minutes to convert about 10 minutes of footage. Not even close to what you'd have to spend in the tape days. I think these days people are too spoiled by tapeless and demand unreasonable turnarounds.


www.derekmok.com

You might look at the Atomos Ninja with the NX I use the NX little brother the AX2000 but wish I had the extra $500 for the NX.

------------------------
Dean

"When I see you floating down the gutter I'll give you a bottle of wine."
Captain Beefheart, Trout Mask Replica.

Are there any cameras that can record in native proRes, or is this too technical to do,
or a copyright nightmare?


derekmok Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I've heard it takes an eternity to ingest AVCHD
> into FCP.
>
> I don't think so. Not all AVCHD formats are the
> same, but with the Canon and Sony flavours I've
> worked with, it's about three to eight minutes to
> convert about 10 minutes of footage. Not even
> close to what you'd have to spend in the tape
> days. I think these days people are too spoiled
> by tapeless and demand unreasonable turnarounds.

> Are there any cameras that can record in native proRes, or is this too technical to do, or a copyright nightmare?

The Arri Alexa does. There's also a gadget like this:

[atomos.com]

I haven't used it myself, but in theory it seems it can allow any camcorder to record directly to ProRes files.


www.derekmok.com

We use the Ninja from Atomos to tape lafcpug meets. Works great.

Michael Horton
-------------------

The AVCHD being processor-intensive argument is old. That wouldn't stop me from buying a camera. That said, I would capture to ProRes if I had the chance. The Ninja has gotten good reviews. Cannot capture DSLR footage to it though...stoopid overlays get burned in via HDMI

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

It depends on your turnaround time, the amount of footage, etc. If you had 30 hours of footage a day over 60 shoot days, or even a wedding highlights with one afternoon to cut and deliver by evening, you may want to avoid processor intensive formats.



www.strypesinpost.com

I own a Sony NX5U and a JVC GYHM100U. Both cameras are great, since I was able to buy two cameras for less than one EX. The JVC produces FCP-ready Quicktime files, or Avid ready files with no transcoding. The Sony is AVCHD, an industry standard. Remember, the EX needs transcoding as well. I've used a lot of EX footage, mixed with my cameras. The EX is, of course, a sharper picture...a $7k camera. I use the JVC for my Flo-pod and lock-off shots, since it's small and the controls are not as nice as the Sony. The Sony NX is a great operator's camera, for a low cost. It has a wide angle lens built in which is good for hand-held, and for run-and-gun, Sony's auto focus and iris are the best. They both use inexpensive cards for recording and the flash memory on the Sony is great as a backup. Both have full manual controls and dual XLR audio inputs. Both cameras can be dropped into a ProRes timeline with no rendering.

My opinion is that they are equally FCP friendly...camera purchases are more about your usage in the field. If you're a filmmaker, and have time to set shots and record separate audio, DSLR's are an inexpensive option. If you shoot action and need a camera that a television cameraman would use, the Sony line is a better choice. Most of my work is for broadcast television.

Also look at the NANOFLASH

NanoFlash Convergent Design

It is terrific - records to xdcam or DVCPRO flavor Quicktime wrapped files - no transcoding - pull out the compact flash drive - connect to your laptop - drag the files to your hard drive and you are editing -- rediculously convenient and fast. Not the least expensive option (about double the price of the ATOMOS model) but connects to anything with SDI out and does multiple resolutions up to (I think) nearly uncompressed. Stunning quality - far better than if you are recording native to the camera's built in codecs. Easily straps on to the back of a camera...and it's relatively small.

We shoot a PBS show on older Sony 900 HDCAM Tape camera -- The tape is our archive and we never touch it -- cut everything from Nanoflash.

The NanoFlash sounds wonderful, but doesn't it make the camera tape less than archive-worthy?

Dennis Couzin
Berlin, Germany

Tape is the emergency backup, for when the drive fails or media is lost. In our case, we normally have two digital copies as well as tape. Yes, the tape is lesser quality, but if you're resorting to tape, it means something went wrong, and you're just glad to have anything to be getting on with, especially if it was a live shoot.

It's just the nature of the beast that when tape or film failed -- in the old days before hard-disk tapeless shooting had become possible -- the failure was relatively easy to spot.

Theoretically speaking, if you were recording to hard-disk tapeless on a shoot, it should be possible to record two copies at once that are of equal quality. But I'm guessing that it's too hard to tell when the system is failing, and that's not good enoughas a last-resort option. So even lower-quality tape tends to be a better insurance policy, when the question is lower quality vs. nothing recorded at all.


www.derekmok.com