RX100 vs XZ-1 video

Started Aug 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 2,472
Re: RX100 vs XZ-1 video
In reply to Surya P, Aug 17, 2012

The TRV900 was an EXCELLENT palmcorder.

For stock footage, it's best to have it clean, sharp, and perhaps a "cinematic" quality. Making money off of stock footage is a bit saturated now, but not as bad as stock photos. Nearly impossible to make any real money off of that anymore thanks to microstock like istock... but it's still possible with istockvideo. It's a real pain trying to figure out what will sell and the hoops you have to jump through with releases are a hassle as well. But if the exposure change isn't smooth, or there's too much artifact... it'll get rejected for sure. The RX100 video footage of water, which is hard to compress without artifact, looks pretty clean... and the exposure change is smooth as well.

This is my best selling stock video clip and it was shot with an HDV Canon palmcorder HV10. The buyers don't care what it was shot with as long as they like the look and it has enough res. http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-video-3772238-hd-1080i-wild-horses.php?st=e1d210d

Surya P wrote:

Hi Skip,

I personally like the video of RX100. I too do not like the typical "video-ness" of test footage of the GW77. GW77 will surely have its places for use though and I am keen on TM900 also. I have not got a proper camcoder since Sony TRV900 days, the mini DV.

The only Oly I have is TG-1 iHS but am considering EM-5 for collection due to its lens being more choices than Sony original E mount. I got that tough baby Oly for wet vacation and my daughter love to use it in the pool or at sea. Video so so, photo so so, but again each product has its places.

Good to know you make a living using ur video gear. I would love to get paid for doing things I like, but I am never good at movie making anyway ha ha ha. My requirement is to make sure whatever I buy, there must be quality dive housing to go with it made from aluminium not polycarbonate, except that tough Oly of course.

What is your customer preference so far ?
Typical movie look or video look ?

I don't like video look because it is not like how our eyes sees the world, we see details very well but not so unreal super sharp like TM900 footage. I don't know the technical terms for it, its the super sharp edges I dont like.....me is a video dummy sorry.

I too do not like typical cinema quality when we sit very close to the screen in a real theater , too dull/soft too. I like something in between.


-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow