| Author |
Message |
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:01 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Doug" <drparker@phreshdesign.com> wrote in message
news:1103294946.046708.231380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | 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.
|
Just by introducing the word "consumer DV", you've centered your search
results on 'low end' --there is no 'mid-range' coming from 'consumer DV' in
the grand landscape of cinematography.
Now if you had asked about shooting home movies, or pictures of your kids on
holidays, the category would be narrowed to 'consumer' formats and then we
could talk about 'mid range' cameras IN THAT CONTEXT.
Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per
frame, the resolution of which being defined over the whole range of color,
not just monochrome images. The top consumer HDV camera manages just about 1
megapixel and consumer DV cameras, about 1/6th of that!
--
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:11 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
| 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.
|
It would take very-well-done story content to get me to sit through two
hours of blurred video on a big screen (and the resulting headaches that it
would cause), and even then, I'd hesitate to do it.
| 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.
|
So far, but there will be more on the bandwagon soon.
| 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.
|
No. 4k x 4k, or 16.7 Mega pixels.
| 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, directly off the CCDs, but DV and MPEG are downsampled to 1/4
resolution to fit the signal on tape. Try reading a resolution chart in red
or blue light. What? Only 120lph? Pshaw!
| 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.
|
But I can spot a digital photo every time. And even my analog film
processing went digital and I complained to the film processor about the
jaggies in my film to prints. They finally admitted that it wasn't optical
enlargements they did anymore--all film was scanned digitally to print. I
wasn't even looking for it and my eye spotted the tell-tale signs of digital
on my 4x6 prints.
| 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.
|
Yup, because the quantizing is so coarse. Now with 24/96, it sounds a lot
better. CDs don't fool me for a live performance, even without the surface
noise, although I've done a few dbx type I recordings on open reel that,
after hearing the performer live in the studio, mimicked it so well that
none of us could tell with our eyes closed. I'm waiting to engage a local
symphony orchestra for a 24/96 recording session this year, where I'll be
able to tell of 24 bits is enough to convey the details and spacial timings
accurately enough for me to point out each instrument in the sound field on
playback. 16-bit CDs utterly destroy the subtle delays in time arrivals,
causing a flattening of the sound stage, something my analog LPs didn't
suffer from. And that was comparing the LP and CD versions of the same
analog mastered recording.
--
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:23 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
| Quote: | Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per
frame,
|
Absolute nonsense. See Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, for
example. Was it not shot for the big screen? How many megapixels did
it have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kay & wand
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:49 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
all very interesting.....
but at the end of the day, if your story is worth telling, and people are
interested, they'll even watch it on vhs....
leslie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xbrcpdg8v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images
per
frame,
Absolute nonsense. See Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, for
example. Was it not shot for the big screen? How many megapixels did
it have?
|
George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art
technology. The film looks okay to an average audience, especially the teen
couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But it didn't look as
good as film. And I didn't even mention EXPOSURE LATTITUDE. Film's 8+ stops
of lattitude, vs. digitals 4-5 stops of lattitude. Notice the blown
highlights on these DV films of late? Notice the muddy blacks with no real
detail? Notice the ringing caused by edge enhancement circuits?
To even approach good 35mm film, images are rendered in 4K resolution. Ever
see Toy Story, or Shrek, or Lord of the Rings? All the CG sequences are
rendered in 4K, ie., 16 megapixels/frame.
Someday there will be 4K digital cinema cameras, perhaps in 2-3 years' time.
There's a lot of room for improvement.
--
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:30 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
| Quote: | George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art
technology.
|
You really think he's going to do technology experiments with
high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? No, he did his
experiments before deciding that the results were good enough to go
forward with.
| Quote: | The film looks okay to an average audience, especially
the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But
it didn't look as good as film.
|
So? 35mm cine doesn't look as good as 70mm either, but only
big-budget studio movies use 70mm, and that's just because of large
screens. And the OP is trying to make low-budget indie films, which
in the old days would have been made on 16mm or even super-8. The
issue isn't making the movie look as good as it possibly can; it's
just a matter of making it look good enough to convey the story.
| Quote: | And I didn't even mention EXPOSURE LATTITUDE. Film's 8+ stops of
lattitude, vs. digitals 4-5 stops of lattitude. Notice the blown
highlights on these DV films of late?
|
Should I care? I'll take a good script and blown highlights over
technical excellence and a stupid story every time.
A friend of mine wanted to shoot a documentary about a semi-historical
building that was scheduled to be torn down. The idea was to show
some stuff inside the building and interview some of the people who
worked in it, while the building was still standing. He putzed around
for months trying to get hold of professional mini-DV equipment so the
interviews would look nice. Finally as the last minute was getting
near, he shot a few interviews using his cheap consumer hi-8 camera
since that was all he had. They were excellent interviews and some of
what he shot was shown on local cable TV. Yeah, the video didn't look
as good as it would have with better equipment, but nobody cared; what
was interesting was the subject matter. And while he got some nice
footage, he could have gotten a lot more if he'd simply stopped
obsessing about equipment and used the hi-8 camera from the beginning.
I'm thinking of shooting something along similar lines. If I get
really serious, I might plop a couple grand for a VX2000 or something
comparable, but at least at the beginning I'm certainly going to use
my hi-8 Sony TRV87 that was $300 on Ebay. Remember that some of the
most powerful parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 was off-the-air clips that
looked much worse than hi-8 camcorder output, and F911 became one of
the top 10 grossing films of the year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:25 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
Thanks Jim, I appreciate it. This is all I'm looking for, I didn't
mean to start Film War I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:36 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
Ok thanks, I get it. I think you know what I'm looking for at this
point. I obviously have neither the capital nor the desire to produce
these types of movies, I'm just looking for suggestions for a capable
camera to produce the type of film I mentioned in the first post.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nappy-iou
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:56 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x3by1fbpp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art
technology.
You really think he's going to do technology experiments with
high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? No, he did his
experiments before deciding that the results were good enough to go
forward with.
The film looks okay to an average audience, especially
the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But
it didn't look as good as film.
So? 35mm cine doesn't look as good as 70mm either, but only
big-budget studio movies use 70mm, and that's just because of large
screens.
|
I worked at a place that used a lot of 70mm in the 80s. I don't think anyone
is using it anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nappy-iou
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x3by1fbpp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art
technology.
You really think he's going to do technology experiments with
high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes?
|
He may as well for as lousy as they end up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:26 am Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"nappy-iou" <go_fuck@yourself.com> writes:
| Quote: | You really think he's going to do technology experiments with
high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes?
He may as well for as lousy as they end up.
|
The movies stunk because of the scripts. The technology was the part
that he did very well.
Compare "Dark Star" with far more imagination and crummy technology.
Much better movie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nappy-iou
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking... |
|
|
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7x1xdivqlu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
| Quote: | "nappy-iou" <go_fuck@yourself.com> writes:
You really think he's going to do technology experiments with
high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes?
He may as well for as lousy as they end up.
The movies stunk because of the scripts. The technology was the part
that he did very well
|
Actually I suspect HE did little. Sony and Panavision probably did the work.
He probably shot a little and ran frames through the drones at ILM. When I
saw the movie I was severely unimpressed at the imagery of most of it. But
you can not polish a terd so it was truly a waste with the worst acting and
directing I have seen in a decade.
Thankfully he will stop with the next one.
..
| Quote: |
Compare "Dark Star" with far more imagination and crummy technology.
Much better movie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in