1080i 24p or 1080 60i is cheaper in the final analysis?

Before taking the plunge into a costly feature film production, I need to ask to good people at LAFCPUG, which is cheaper -- not just better -- to shoot 24 p or 60 i with my Sony HVR Z1U? I want to end up being able to output to a digital master for direct projection and a 35mm print. Give me the nitty gritty of it. I need to know now before I get those funny expressions from post production people.

to my knowledge the z1 ONLY shoots in 60i in HDV mode? i dont think it has a 24p option.

That's my understanding as well. No true 24p out of this camera. You have to go to Panasonic for a 24P at a similar price point.

Mark

Or the JVC...but that is a HUGE can of worms and a place you don't want to go.

Shoot 60i.

For Z1, shoot 50i, deinterlace and slow from 25p to 24p. Other than that, go JVC or Panasonic. JVC has editibility issues in FCP, Panasonic is still hard to get hold of.

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

AJA has a workflow for JVC 24P that works. I'll be publishing it on lafcpug soon but for now its a white paper over on AJA's support page

Word on the street (at least, my streets) is, on the Z1, shoot either 60i or 50i. DO NOT USE CINEFRAME MODE! Each rate comes with a different set of issues you will need to contend with. If you intend to transfer to film, check with the transfer house which they prefer - Many have shot 60i and edited at 60i and then the transfer house did the final "conversion" to 24.

At least one individual reported that doing a final transfer to film, with a telecine back to video produced excellent "film-like" results (his own opinion that I have not had the opportunity to confirm).

All methods do introduce "artifacts" into the footage. Before beginning production, it would be wise to do some test shooting, editing, and exporting, using the various workflows with the type of action you will be shooting on your film. Whichever matches your creative "vision" would be the one to use.



Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

Yeah the Cineframe mode on the SONY HDV cameras is a faux progressive - achieved by literally dropping one whole video field of information...

So instead of 1440x1080 (stretched to the equivalent of 1920x1080 on screen) you get 1440x540 Half the vertical resolution!!!

If you want a good lowdown on SONY's HDV2 Cineframe vist Adam Wilts website here:

[www.adamwilt.com]


Before you shoot - have you considered the problems you'll have with fixed lens cameras and the limitations?

If you are doing a feature film do you want it looking like a cheap TV documentary?

Get yourself a range of lenses and filters but as the others said - shoot 60i and think about the 24fps on conversion to film print.

Some lenses you should look at - especilly increasing the length of the lens to get a shallower depth of field will give you a lovely 'film like' look to the focal length are:

[www.centuryoptics.com]

Also a Follow Focus adaptor:

[www.16x9inc.com]


Lumiere Media have made a feature on HDV but I don't think it looks that great - it still looks like a cheap documentary to me or home movie...

[www.lumieremedia.com]

But then I am a total snob



Ben





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Or you could shoot witha Canon XL2 at 24P with a 35 mini adapter and appropriate lens and output to film and bump up to HD. It'll look great (there have been a few features shot this way) and cost less.

Ben, Lumiere's movie does look very good when viewed not on the web.

Even, shooting SD for 35mm blowup is a sure-fire way to see really big pixels. I think, these days, where you have the choice, you really have to consider shooting HD of some kind.

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

Thank you all -- I'm constantly amazed at the generosity and goodwill of this forum -- oops! I meant phorum. LOL

Graeme - I will go see it if it comes out on cinema release in the UK but even from the 1080p Trailer you can see clearly the video like feel.

It has a large depth of field and a lot of the shots in the promo (especially the conversation scenes) just look too flat and the lighting in some of them is just awful.

A few of the shots do look fantastic; lit, shot and graded well - but this just serves to make the poor shots stand out even more - making it feel like a TV soap not a feature, maybe it's the acting as well - either way, it's not getting me excited.

Don't get me wrong - I am always interested to see how well people use Video to make features. It's just that "Tomorrow is Today" is not consistant in it's visual quality and that is it's biggest problem.

Some DV shot feature films I like are by Mike Figgis (Timecode, Hotel both shot on DV) or Danny Boyle (28 Days later - shot on DV).

It is only my opinion for however much it counts.

---------

Filmman - I guess the long-winded ramble of my posts are trying to say that if you use a cheaper, more flexible medium such as DV/HDV you have the opportunity for far more experimentation - use that time to set up a really well framed, focused and well acted shot - don't just point, shoot and hope... Video also has the advantage of rewind and review easily to check continuity and performance, something which a lot of people don't use enough.

Oh yeah - my suggestion (apart from the lenses) is beg, borrow or steal a HD capable monitor with which to set up and view the shots correctly - as the Z1 has a nice but totally inaccurate viewfinder for this purpose.

*off-switch click*

PUZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzt



Post Edited (01-22-06 03:36)



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Ben,

No offense but it's ok to be a snob when you can do better.

I watched the Tomorrow is Today trailer and was floored by the visual quality so I was suprised by your comments.

I then watched your showreel at:

[www.loudandfast.co.uk]

...and I have to tell you, it's very amateurish. The visual quality of most of the shots is poor and the editing, well... seems like you tried to emulate someone else's style. It's kind of boring. Not even in the same league as Tomorrow is Today. Again, I'm not trying to be offensive here but before being so critical of very nice work, take a close look at your own.

Henry

Folks

Unless directly asked for comments about someone's work, always best to say nothing. At least on this forum.

and in the case of these two particular examples, its like comparing apples to oranges.

im all for healthy critiques, but there is no point in just getting in a pissing contest.

Ouch - if I touched a nerve I am truly sorry and I apologise - I may have to keep my opinions to myself in future.

Thank you for your honest and brutal opinion Henry - it's good to see someone else says what they think without holding back - I personally think it's a good thing. Most people will be polite and skirt the issue or outright lie - something which is not good if you wish to get better.

I will certainly be looking at the content of my showreel as most of it will certainly be in need of updating. Many shots are from a variety of programmes over the years and as such some may well be emulations of popular styles you have seen and some may even pre-date the ones you are comparing it to. Without going back to each Director and asking "where did you get your inspiration from?" I wouldn't be able to answer that.

I might remind you though, that it has never been a prerequisite for someone to have done something equivalent, or better, or at done something at all - in order to have an opinion on the subject - especially in art & entertainment - indeed many critics and reviewers would be out of work if this were the case.

As such you are entitled to say you were "floored by the visual quality" but I disagree and was for the most part unimpressed and that is my prerogative.



Regards (and once again - apologies to whomever I upset)

Ben





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

no foul, everyone is entitled to their opinion - unless it just becomes spitefull for no other reason than to be so

Ben,

I must admit... you are a good sport. You are also correct that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that it isn't a prerequisite to have created comparable work to critique others.

Otherwise, I'd love to see Ebert's masterworks!

Cheers,

Henry

The look of film and the look of video are highly subjective. I was recently sent a DVD showing comparisons of the two looks. Well, I watched it on my standard TV and the two looked a little different. The film look was a bit warmer and sometimes a little brighter. Otherwise it looked like they were shot with the same video camera or it could've been a film camera; it made no difference, I saw them on my TV and they looked about the same. Usually I can tell when watching a movie whether it was shot on film or video. Even big films with a lot of special effects like Master and Commander and the Lord of the Rings projects have that mushy video look. The amount of compositing and overlayers finally produces a smooth low contrast look. That's what I think of the video look. The film look for me is when there is a wide latitude of light and sharp images in the foreground. Also I recently saw a demo at Kodak, showing the Digital Internegative process. It's become popular to shoot in Super 16 and make a DI then make the 35mm Internegative for printing. Well, it was obvious: the 35mm print projected at the Kodak screening room looked almost exactly like the movie was shot with a video camera and projected on a TV screen. Not only it was flat, but you could see the pixels. I guess what I'm trying to say is that HDV looks nice when projected on a Plasma screen, and 35mm film looks nice when projected in a cinema. Why do we have to simulate the film look anyway? And somebody's idea of simulating the film look on FCP is softening the image to look like it was shot at 1/24th of a second. But 35mm film projected on the screen doesn't look soft like that. And the video's 30 fps shown on a standard tv doesn't look like a movie just because it is processed to look like film. I've seen many simulations by Sony over the years. None of the video looks like film in every way. Some scenes can look like film, but this affect is very temporary. Anyways, the subject is vast, but it's very subjective. The two looks are like apples and oranges. And maybe we should just say viva la difference. sorry, I don't know how to spell it in french :-) Thanks again for all the comments and encouragement. I will shoot HDV because it's cheaper. LOL

Some good points and always down to individual taste as to what looks good.

"Beauty..." as they say "...is in the eye of the beholder"

Have a look at the MovieTube - 35mm lens adaptor for DV, HDV & HD cameras

[www.movietube.com]

Have a look at the Movie examples too.


Ben





For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]