| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:19 am Post subject:
Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
Hi -
I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I want to
get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations for a
digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my
newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps,
family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I want to
produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie
film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a
short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of the
Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for Beginners...etc).
I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software) for
post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision. As
far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might
suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just
saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing to
do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera
exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't
need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects,
analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I don't
want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital
camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I just
want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer. So
I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting
situations, the ability to add external devices to better the filming,
image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add
lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better.
I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to be
the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type cameras
while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video use.
I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that
extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's
freaking expensive.
So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000
that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either prosumer or
consumer and nothing in between?
Other questions...
Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do?
Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the Panasonic
PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature?
So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice for my
interests... any truth to that?
In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be avoided
for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you
should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate for
camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and digital, in
digital camcorders an unnecessary feature?
Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of
having both a USB and Firewire?
Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller ones
harder to control?
Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
Doug
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Crunchy Doodle
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
I suggest the Panasonic PV-GS400. With carefull shopping, you'll meet
your budget. This big brother to the GS120 you mentioned is quite a bit
more capable for your indie production needs.
Consult http://www.pana3ccduser.com/ and http://www.camcorderinfo.com/
for more information on using this camcorder for the purpose you have
in mind.
Bye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nappy-iou
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
<drparker@phreshdesign.com> wrote in message
news:1103141979.653348.154250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I hate to suggest this because even I was too chicken to do it but others
around me have had success simply buying gray market stuff from online
suppliers. My son bought a AGDVX100a for $1829 and another friend who owns a
video company here bought and XL2 the same way. The cameras did arrive and
they do work. You sacrifice the warranty but when you buy used as I did, for
MORE, you do that anyway.
The XL2 is HUGE. I had XL1<s> and they were wonderful cameras athough focus
was always a problem. I like the AGDVX100 very much because it creates
awesome imagery and it is fast and light.
That said, there are a lot of XL1 packages for sale used now with filters,
bags, lenses etc as people move up. YOu would enjoy using the XL1 also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Van Dyk
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
Have you seen the movie "Primer"? It was shot for $7,000. I thought it
was interesting that the director chose to use film even though we are
starting to see films, like "Anniversary Party", shot on digital cameras.
A big question is, do you plan to shoot wide screen, 16:9? Aside from
the Canon XL2, and the new HD cameras, I believe most digital camcorders
"cheat" to achieve the 16:9.
drparker@phreshdesign.com wrote:
| Quote: | Hi -
I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I want to
get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations for a
digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my
newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps,
family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I want to
produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie
film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a
short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of the
Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for Beginners...etc).
I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software) for
post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision. As
far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might
suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just
saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing to
do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera
exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't
need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects,
analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I don't
want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital
camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I just
want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer. So
I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting
situations, the ability to add external devices to better the filming,
image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add
lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better.
I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to be
the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type cameras
while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video use.
I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that
extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's
freaking expensive.
So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000
that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either prosumer or
consumer and nothing in between?
Other questions...
Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do?
Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the Panasonic
PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature?
So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice for my
interests... any truth to that?
In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be avoided
for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you
should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate for
camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and digital, in
digital camcorders an unnecessary feature?
Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of
having both a USB and Firewire?
Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller ones
harder to control?
Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
Doug
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:32 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Mid-range" implies the middle of the cost range. The low end of mid-range
would be a $20,000 Ikegami with an entry level Fujinon lens.
Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything below
$5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range would be
salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will appear on a theater
screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD cam for about $80,000. Film is
cheaper. Chances are you can find a decent used Panavision camera for less
than that.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:53 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
| Quote: | Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything
below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range
would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will
appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD
cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a
decent used Panavision camera for less than that.
|
Oh come on. Tons of films are being shot with VX2000-level equipment
and shown in theaters. We're not talking about Hollywood
blockbusters, but rather the type of filmmaking that would have used
16mm in the old days, and that stuff was also shown in (small)
theaters all the time. Blair Witch Project was shot on hi-8 if I
remember right. For that matter, Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the top
10(?) grossing films this year and I believe it was also shot with
(fancier) mini-DV gear.
Sony now has a 1080i HDTV camera for under $4K, sort of an HD upgrade
for the VX2000:
http://tinyurl.com/57ex4
It sounds a lot nicer than that JVC single-chip camera that made a big
splash last year. I'm sure people are making movies with these things now.
But always remember that the most important ingredient of quality
filmmaking is imagination, not equipment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xekhp6eim.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything
below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range
would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will
appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD
cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a
decent used Panavision camera for less than that.
Oh come on. Tons of films are being shot with VX2000-level equipment
and shown in theaters. We're not talking about Hollywood
blockbusters, but rather the type of filmmaking that would have used
16mm in the old days, and that stuff was also shown in (small)
theaters all the time. Blair Witch Project was shot on hi-8 if I
remember right. For that matter, Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the top
10(?) grossing films this year and I believe it was also shot with
(fancier) mini-DV gear.
Sony now has a 1080i HDTV camera for under $4K, sort of an HD upgrade
for the VX2000:
http://tinyurl.com/57ex4
It sounds a lot nicer than that JVC single-chip camera that made a big
splash last year. I'm sure people are making movies with these things
now.
But always remember that the most important ingredient of quality
filmmaking is imagination, not equipment.
|
Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare
audience to sit through two hours of blurry images.
Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate images
that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace
makes a low-resolution image look even worse.
To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. I
don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is
cooking up this year or last. The difference becomes even greater when
shooting a scene that is lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution
of the consumer stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4
of 960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1.
Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite
detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of
beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film.
The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and get
away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD
quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't
getting anywhere in the US.
--
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
| Quote: | Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare
audience to sit through two hours of blurry images.
|
Or a very good film.
| Quote: | Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate images
that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace
makes a low-resolution image look even worse.
|
The only HD consumer cams I know of are the unimpressive JVC, and this
more impressive Sony.
| Quote: | To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. I
don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is
cooking up this year or last.
|
Do you mean 4 megapixels? Star Wars Episode 2 had only 2 megapixels.
Whether it looked good in theaters is a matter of opinion, but Lucasfilm
clearly thought it was good enough.
| Quote: | The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is
lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer
stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of
960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1.
|
Why 1/4? The HD-FX1 is a 3-ccd camera, won't it get the full resolution?
| Quote: | Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite
detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of
beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film.
|
Oh come on, this is the same nonsense that's been beaten to death in
the film-vs-digicam controversy in still photography. But still photoraphy
with film is now practically dead at almost every level.
| Quote: | The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and get
away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD
quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't
getting anywhere in the US.
|
Yeah, they said the same thing when CD's replaced LP's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dimitrios Tzortzakakis
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:46 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
There's a wide range to choose-DV, mini DV micro DV, digital 8, DVD RAM
etc.etc.all of them can be connected to a computer for editing and
processing.My ex-dentist got one that has a memory stick (a sony one) and
can act as a digital camera.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? <drparker@phreshdesign.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:1103141979.653348.154250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Hi -
I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I want to
get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations for a
digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my
newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps,
family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I want to
produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie
film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a
short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of the
Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for Beginners...etc).
I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software) for
post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision. As
far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might
suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just
saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing to
do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera
exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't
need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects,
analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I don't
want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital
camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I just
want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer. So
I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting
situations, the ability to add external devices to better the filming,
image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add
lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better.
I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to be
the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type cameras
while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video use.
I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that
extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's
freaking expensive.
So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000
that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either prosumer or
consumer and nothing in between?
Other questions...
Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do?
Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the Panasonic
PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature?
So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice for my
interests... any truth to that?
In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be avoided
for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you
should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate for
camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and digital, in
digital camcorders an unnecessary feature?
Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of
having both a USB and Firewire?
Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller ones
harder to control?
Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
Doug
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dimitrios Tzortzakakis
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
Actually, I shot 2 concerts with my 8 mm camcorder and tripod (bought in
sales for 12.5 euro) and results were excellent, even in the final VHS
copy.Only when you look at the picture from 1 foot (in a 29" CRT sony tv)
you can see some blurring.2 megapixels!!! you must be joking.It certain is 2
terapixel.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> ?????? ??? ??????
news:7xsm65z15r.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare
audience to sit through two hours of blurry images.
Or a very good film.
Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate
images
that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1
colorspace
makes a low-resolution image look even worse.
The only HD consumer cams I know of are the unimpressive JVC, and this
more impressive Sony.
To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame.
I
don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else
is
cooking up this year or last.
Do you mean 4 megapixels? Star Wars Episode 2 had only 2 megapixels.
Whether it looked good in theaters is a matter of opinion, but Lucasfilm
clearly thought it was good enough.
The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is
lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer
stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of
960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1.
Why 1/4? The HD-FX1 is a 3-ccd camera, won't it get the full resolution?
Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite
detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in
form of
beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film.
Oh come on, this is the same nonsense that's been beaten to death in
the film-vs-digicam controversy in still photography. But still
photoraphy
with film is now practically dead at almost every level.
The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and
get
away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD
quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV
isn't
getting anywhere in the US.
Yeah, they said the same thing when CD's replaced LP's. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
OK, thanks for everyone who has replied. Some of this technical
discussion is a little bit over my head, but I'm getting some ideas.
Just to clarify, By "mid-range," I was referring to consumer DV
cameras.
Thanks guys, I really appreciate it.
Dimitrios Tzortzakakis wrote:
| Quote: | There's a wide range to choose-DV, mini DV micro DV, digital 8, DVD
RAM
etc.etc.all of them can be connected to a computer for editing and
processing.My ex-dentist got one that has a memory stick (a sony one)
and
can act as a digital camera.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? <drparker@phreshdesign.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:1103141979.653348.154250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi -
I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I
want to
get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations
for a
digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my
newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps,
family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I
want to
produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie
film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a
short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of
the
Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for
Beginners...etc).
I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software)
for
post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision.
As
far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might
suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just
saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing
to
do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera
exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't
need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects,
analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I
don't
want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital
camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I
just
want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer.
So
I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting
situations, the ability to add external devices to better the
filming,
image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add
lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better.
I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to
be
the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type
cameras
while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video
use.
I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that
extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's
freaking expensive.
So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000
that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either
prosumer or
consumer and nothing in between?
Other questions...
Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do?
Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the
Panasonic
PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature?
So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice
for my
interests... any truth to that?
In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be
avoided
for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you
should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate
for
camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and
digital, in
digital camcorders an unnecessary feature?
Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of
having both a USB and Firewire?
Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller
ones
harder to control?
Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
Doug
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" wrote ...
| Quote: | "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" writes:
Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare
audience to sit through two hours of blurry images.
Or a very good film.
|
Or a brainwashed or apathetic audience (see the reference to
M.Moore and declining public standards).
| Quote: | Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate images
that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1
colorspace
makes a low-resolution image look even worse.
The only HD consumer cams I know of are the unimpressive JVC, and this
more impressive Sony.
To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame.
I
don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else
is
cooking up this year or last.
Do you mean 4 megapixels? Star Wars Episode 2 had only 2 megapixels.
Whether it looked good in theaters is a matter of opinion, but Lucasfilm
clearly thought it was good enough.
|
This sounds doubtful. Reference?
| Quote: |
The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is
lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer
stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of
960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1.
Why 1/4? The HD-FX1 is a 3-ccd camera, won't it get the full resolution?
|
Sure, at the output of the color chips (RGB). However, when you
encode it and compress it, you throw away a lot of that info. 4:1:1
means that the R-Y and B-Y signals are sampled at only 1/4 the
rate of the Y (luminance, black/white) channel.
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/411samp.htm
(4:2:0 sampling for PAL, which is the same amount of compromise,
but apportioned slightly differently).
| Quote: | Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite
detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form
of
beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film.
Oh come on, this is the same nonsense that's been beaten to death in
the film-vs-digicam controversy in still photography. But still
photoraphy
with film is now practically dead at almost every level.
|
If you can't see the difference, good for you (I guess?). But it is both
theoreticaly and practically demonstrable and drives many of us crazy
Note also that still photography (particularly pro-level) doesn't use
anyting remotely resembling the kind of spatial and temporal compression
that we take for granted in digital video.
| Quote: | The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality
productions and get away with it may be related to the mentality
that MP3 is considered "CD quality". The public's standards are
going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't getting anywhere in the US.
Yeah, they said the same thing when CD's replaced LP's.
|
And they are still saying that. In a recent (this week) topic on
rec.audio.pro. See for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Van Dyk
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:22 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
I agree.
Just saw the movie Primer, made for $7K. Maybe it's not quite as good
a Terminator or Matrix, but it's much, much better than
7000/150,000,000ths as good.
Besides, it is good to hear other voices, other than establishment white
middle-class Hollywood corporate voices.
Paul Rubin wrote:
| Quote: |
Sony now has a 1080i HDTV camera for under $4K, sort of an HD upgrade
for the VX2000:
http://tinyurl.com/57ex4
It sounds a lot nicer than that JVC single-chip camera that made a big
splash last year. I'm sure people are making movies with these things now.
But always remember that the most important ingredient of quality
filmmaking is imagination, not equipment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Van Dyk
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:39 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
As opposed to, say, the standards of the audience that viewed "Earnest
Saves Christmas" or "Return to Gilligan's Island"?
Who knows what they'll settle for next! "Clerks"? "Anniversary Party"?
"Celebration"? "Primer", "Blair Witch Project"?
The advantages of having the technology available to people who have
creative skills but not much money, and who don't have the connections
needed to get access to Hollywood money, far outweight the technical
disadvantages of the medium. If you have the money for a great camera,
fine. But if you've got ideas and something worthwhile to say, don't
let technology snobbery stop you.
And yes, there is clearly a significant audience out there-- not nearly
a majority, but a significant number-- who value content highly enough
to find technical deficiencies tolerable.
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:
| Quote: |
quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't
getting anywhere in the US.
--
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:52 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
I don't disagree that "DV" has opened a new range of opportunities for the
'average' audience to experience 'indy' filmmaking, but that wasn't what my
original reply was about. I replied for the purporse of setting straight the
definition of "consumer", "mid-range" and "professional" cameras.
--
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
| Quote: | As opposed to, say, the standards of the audience that viewed "Earnest
Saves Christmas" or "Return to Gilligan's Island"?
Who knows what they'll settle for next! "Clerks"? "Anniversary Party"?
"Celebration"? "Primer", "Blair Witch Project"?
The advantages of having the technology available to people who have
creative skills but not much money, and who don't have the connections
needed to get access to Hollywood money, far outweight the technical
disadvantages of the medium. If you have the money for a great camera,
fine. But if you've got ideas and something worthwhile to say, don't
let technology snobbery stop you.
And yes, there is clearly a significant audience out there-- not nearly
a majority, but a significant number-- who value content highly enough
to find technical deficiencies tolerable.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in