HDV...should I?

So I'm getting ready to get another camera and have spent the past three days reading and reading and reading about the different formats and all I want my camera to be buddy buddy with FCP5.1....and you know, from everything that I've been reading....HDV really sucks? - doesn't it? this whole GOP thing is definetly not the way to go? or is it? In the past here are cameras thatt I've owned.

Canon GL1 (good for the price decent image)
Canon XL1s (awesome camera with the EFP lens)
Sony DSR 300 NICE!
Canon XL2 (worst piece of S*** ever made!!!)
Panasonic DVX100B (amazing camera!!!)
Sony Z1U (this is the only HDV I've used and I don't like the way it works in low light and how FCP feels a bit slugish when editing HDV- I am assuming it's because the GOP format is so intense to compute)

I won't mention BetaSp because that's too far back.

Should I just get another Panasonic DVX100B - I love the 24p, the color warmth and the ease of use with FCP....

From what I hear the Panasonic HVX 202 is pretty damn good.
I have not used it so I cant confirm - just heard a lot of good reviews.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Arri 35 BL 1 ? Same money, unlimited options :-)

i owned an XL2 for quite a while and have used several of them, never had a single issue ever. but once i got my hands on a pannasonic HVX i sold off my XL2 within 2 weeks and i LOVE the new camera. i do miss the more "photographic" feel of the XL lens though.

unless you have a need for it, i wouldnt suggest spending money on an SD camera, considering how everyone is or is soon to be going HD. and as you'll read in my many rantings on this forum, i find HDV totally useless for mutil-subject shooters - there is just too much the HDV format does not do well...

Quote

Arri 35 BL 1 ? Same money, unlimited options :-)

? ? ?

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

money=$12,000 includes 35mm camera, crystal synch motor, 25-250 Angenieux lens, 2x1000 ft and 2x400 ft mags, cases...

options=telecine to HD or 4K, etc. Release in film or digital.

Quote

money=$12,000 includes 35mm camera, crystal synch motor, 25-250 Angenieux lens, 2x1000 ft and 2x400 ft mags, cases...

options=telecine to HD or 4K, etc. Release in film or digital.

You are joking, right? Didn't you forget the $$$ for a Camera Operator / Assistant? The Film option isn't even in the same hemisphere (money-wise) as HDV.

Arod,

Why aren't you looking into the Panasonic P2 DVCProHD camera? Look at the price:

[www.expresscameras.com]

Awesome flexibility (24p & variable frame rate too!!)

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> You are joking, right? Didn't you forget the $$$ for a Camera Operator / Assistant?

And add on the inevitable developing and telecine costs for every single frame you shoot. Unless you're gonna edit on a Steenbeck. And what about sound?

I know you love film and Fellini and all that, Vic, but film is not an alternative to video. Cost-wise, time-wise, convenience-wise, maintenance-wise. The whole shooting and editing philosophy is different. It's the other way around -- video is an alternative to film.


www.derekmok.com

Quote

I know you love film and Fellini and all that, Vic, but film is not an alternative to video. Cost-wise, time-wise, convenience-wise, maintenance-wise. The whole shooting and editing philosophy is different. It's the other way around -- video is an alternative to film.

Amen...Absolutely right. Film is NOT an alternative to video. Film is dying off...holding on by it's broken fingernails (Ask George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez & Micheal Mann). NOBODY that is cost-conscious will use film...EVER.

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Add Francis Coppola to that list. He is shooting his latest on the F-950 and loves it so much he says 'I'll never go back to film"

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

...didn't know that, Mike - awesome. Film & all it's associated procedures are dinosaurs. Pretty soon...all files playing on digital projectors in digital theaters with no celluloid prints at all. Those that refuse to let go of film...will go the way of the dodo = bu-bye.

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Hi Alex.

Like so many of these kinds of questions, the answer is "It depends."

You need to consider:

(1) Your budget: If you can only afford five-grand, naturally, you shouldn't buy an 80-thousand-dollar camera. The term "afford" takes into consideration how big the budgets are for the projects you are expecting to shoot. your financial situation (Do you need to make your investment back immediately, or is risking and loosing $25,000 not a big deal for you), and whether you are primarily a director, producer, editor, or shooter.)

(2) Your typical material: Are you shooting Features? Docs? Commercials? Corporate work? - Different cameras lend have features that are more-or-less useful for different mediums. While some in this forum have pronounced Film as dead, a recent survey showed that 90-percent of network commercials are still shot on good-old-film. There are reasons for this.

(3) What is your typical shooting situation?: Do you work with a large crew on a set? Or are you shooting wildlife by yourself in areas only accessible by foot. (I love my Sony HC3 - I can take it a hike and forget it's there until I find something I'd like to shoot. Taking the FX1 on a hike is not quite as easy.)

(4) What's your playback situation?: Are you shooting projects that will be shown next week on a local TV station or small distribution DVD? Several HD outlets currently refuse to accept anything shot with HDV, others will actually accept program delivery on an HDV tape. I know of at least one person who was able to get material shot with a Z1 to be aired on one of the "No HDV" cable channels - he simply failed to mention that some of his footage was shot with the Z1.

What's the playback screen size likely to be? 17-inch monitor, or are you going to project in a theater?

(5) Amount of motion in your material. - I've observed that people shooting fast moving sports-type material just hate HDV - almost as much as they hate film. Those who are shooting documentaries or low-budget corporate work and low budget dramatic material tend to love HDV and wonder why anybody has a problem with it.

(6) Longevity of your material: If you're shooting something that will be shown next week and forgotten about, you probably don't need HD. If you're shooting projects that will be shown a couple of years from now, you probably need some sort of HD - There's still a big "if" there, in that HD has still not been proven. But it's looking more and more like HD will succeed. For that matter, do you expect to be using your camera a couple of years from now. Unfortunately, all cameras HD/HDV and SD will be obsolete in a couple of years from now.

(7) Do you like to experiment?: All HD is still in it's infancy - HDV is a system that brings high-quality moving pictures to those who otherwise could only afford SD. HDV is a compromise, but it works. However, it's only been around a couple of years it has not had enough time to mature. As as result, "standards" are changing everyday. Many new tools that have shown great promise have turned out to be duds, while others have turned out to be absolutely necessary. There's been very little "shake-out" time. Therefore you're going to spend a great deal of time figuring out what works when you're using HD/HDV. I've heard that FCP feels "sluggish" with all HD material, either HD or HDV.

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

Thank you, Travis.

If you read Travis' analysis you'll find out why film is still not dead.

But the clincher (for me) is at the end of 6:

"... all cameras HD/HDV and SD will be obsolete in a couple of years from now."

NB! You can still shoot a big time feature with 35mm cameras from the early 1900s.

just for the record. one of the biggest reasons i went with the hvx200 and the p2/dvcproHD workflow is that functionally it behaved EXACTLY like normal DV editing inside FCP. once you get over the SLOW process of imorting P2 media (which has as much do do with file size as it does the format), and longer effect render times - everything else is pretty much identical to a DV workflow.

and it integrates BEAUTIFULLY with aftereffects for graphic work

Travis, though knowledgable in his postings, is not the one & only last word on film's longevity. Believe what you like... Hollywood dictates the trends. The big guns are dumping film one by one.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

and NO CAMERA is ever going to suddenly be "obsolete" at least not until we evolve into some image playback paradigm that operates in more than 2 dimensions or something like that. people are still shooting on high8, bolex, super16, vhs, betaSP and fisher price for that matter... you can convert, dub, digitize and upres content some way or another from just about any camera format ever known to man.

even the RED camera, revolutionary though it may be, aint gonna render varicams, cinealtas or even a z1 or my hvx "obsolete" for quite, QUITE some time to come...

I don't think new technology renders old obsolete - just look at the vinyl spinners that are still made, and tube amps. However, the RED should render the Varicam / HDCAM pricing structure obsolete, not that XDCAM isn't trying to do that already. Although the idea with RED is that it's so overkill for today, your investment should be worth more, longer.

Graeme

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

Quote

I don't think new technology renders old obsolete - just look at the vinyl spinners that are still made, and tube amps.

...never said that. There will always be a small "niche market" for film...but it won't the mainstream medium for theaters in the no-too-distant future.

The RED is the future of cinema...not the Arri BL or PanaFlex.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Before you buy a camera from expresscameras.com, or any store, be sure to check out this site.
[www.resellerratings.com]
In fact before you buy any camera make sure you are buying from an authorized US dealer or you will not get any warranty, unless you want to ship your camera to Japan for service. Are the few dollars you may save on initial purchase really worth the possible headaches in the future?

wayne granzin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
once you get over
> the SLOW process of imorting P2 media (which has
> as much do do with file size as it does the
> format), and longer effect render times -
> everything else is pretty much identical to a DV
> workflow.

Wayne, I'm not sure what you are comparing your process to here. I can plug an 8gb card into my G4 powerbook and import 20 minutes worth of 720p material into FCP in less than 6 minutes and be ready to edit. I dont consider that SLOW compared to log & capture DV tapes. I am not aware of any faster workflow available, If you have one please tell us about it. As far as file size and format dictating import times, I think it depends more on the CPU speed, drive speed, single drive or raid array and connectivity, (i.e. sata, FW800, FW400, fibre etc) that dictates how fast your import will be.

...says right on the page link I posted "1 Year US Warranty" which is pretty much standard.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

wow frank, thats a crazy ass fast transfer rate. generally takes me about 11 min to transfer a full 8 gig card on my g4 powerbook (17" 1ghz).

you know, you make an EXCELLENT point. i didnt take into account the whole log and capture process - i guess becasue in L&C you are actually doing something. the process just feels longer transferring p2 media, because its just a wait process and not one where youre actually doing something.

as a side note, i spend a lot of time over at dvxuser.com in the hvx rooms. and there has been some trouble with supposedly reputable vendors (B&H specifically) selling gray market HVX cameras. be sure that if you buy an HVX mail order that it has a TC in the serial number. anything else is not a full US waranteed model.

i have a vendor here in houston that i got a full US model from for $5200. and ive spoken with the guys at full compass, they are a reputable dealer and will do that price or better.

Sorry Filmman, I should have said all video cameras....

I was reading an article a couple of years ago about how a documentary crew was using 50 year-old Bell and Howell "Filmo" (I own one) 16mm and "Eymo" 35mm cameras to shoot in Antarctica. -- It appears they are the only cameras - film or video, that can reliably shoot in sub-zero temperatures - due to the fact they have spring-driven motors.

Yes, film is slowly being replaced by video - in some cases not so slowly. However many who know a lot more than I do are saying that electronic media still has a long way to go before it matches film in terms of quality. Unfortunately, quality alone does not necessarily determine whether a format survives. - The CD replaced vinyl audio recordings years ago - most people didn't have any inkling that technical specs on CDs were far lower than good vinyl - and the average person CAN hear the difference - it's part of the reason why the subtleties of harmony, melody, and creativity has all but disappeared from popular music - you can't hear it, so it's not important.

There was an article in the Times a couple of years ago about Steven Speilberg - and how he still prefers to edit with film. He claims that film forces you to think about each of your cuts before you make them. I've noticed this. - with film, you plan each edit before you make the cut 'cause it's a hassle to undo a cut if it isn't right. Video on the other hand is edited by trial and error - you make a cut, look at it and if it isn't "good enough" you simply try something else until you're ready to move on. What is considered by many to be a disadvantage of film is considered a big plus by Speilberg.

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

<<<The big guns are dumping film one by one.>>>

Too true. However one of the guys here recently shot a promo for his movie--on film. When he got done with post, the video looked stunning in spite of the fact that we all know he shot most of it at night in our Loading Dock.

You use the tools that you think can do the best job.

Koz

> He claims that film forces you to think about each of your cuts before you make them. I've
> noticed this.

Oh, to have those days back.

I just did a commercial. Thirty-second spot. TWENTY-THREE cuts. So far.

Digital editing also means clients and producers can now dilly-dally all they want. They can suggest any bonehead idea and not have to pay a steep price for it. They can run their mouths off and the editor will have to try it, even if the filmmaking pros know the idea will probably not work.


www.derekmok.com

Yes, Travis, early in my career I lived and shot movies in Norway for 6 years, so I know all about using spring wound cameras in freezing weather. That's a point well taken. I know also there are many examples of when a film camera is better than a video camera. But what fascinates me is the amount of effort videographers make to impart the "film look" to their videos.

The best filmmakers will continue to shoot film, because film looks better -- never mind technological mumbo jumbo. After a feature film has been shot on film, the producers can then have the movie edited and released any way they like.

FCP is a great editing tool. This is a FCP forum, not a digital camera forum. I love editing on FCP5 and Soundtrack Pro. Right now I'm using Motion a little right out of FCP. Later I'll learn other programs that will make me a better NLE. I'm not in a hurry. But the subject of conversation in this thread is what's the best camera. The original post didn't say video camera, so I took the liberty of mentioning 35mm cameras.

I think shooting film is safer for the longevity of a movie production. Film can be preserved better than digital media. Movies that cost a fortune should be shot of film because the consequences of losing a video originated movie are devestating. Even if a movie is intended only for DVD release, it's a better idea to shoot in on film.

Plus, as I said, film looks better. Otherwise we'd be shooting 35mm film for the advantage of better preservation and adding the "video look" with plugins and filters. LOL

...from derekmok's thread:

Quote

...Oh, to have those days back.

?? You can have those days back...no thanks. I'll take the freedom to shape a piece to my heart's content anyday. I prefer to see a project unfold in the timeline. I start out following a shot sheet / script, but sometimes (lots of times) a "happy accident" happens just by dropping in some unexpected footage. You just don't / can't get that with film without "thinking about your cuts first".

Quote

Digital editing also means clients and producers can now dilly-dally all they want.

...hence the all-important HOURLY RATE. Who cares about procrastinating Producers & Frame F***ing Clients? That's the whole idea behind Digital Intermediates...cut your brains out on window dubs / settle on a firm cut / transer the film clips. Cutting on film...nah.

Quote

I just did a commercial. Thirty-second spot. TWENTY-THREE cuts. So far.

So? Does it convey your idea? I did a "30 second spot for the Florida Marlins in '03 (26 cuts). Everyone tells me it's my best piece to date (it won a gold TELLY & gold ADDY). Lots of cuts with a little compositing thrown in for flavor

...from filmman's thread:

Quote

The best filmmakers will continue to shoot film, because film looks better -- never mind technological mumbo jumbo.

I guess George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, Micheal Mann & Robert Rodriguez don't make your "best film maker's list" (LOL)

Quote

FCP is a great editing tool. This is a FCP forum, not a digital camera forum.

This is an "anything that relates to FCP forum". What it's NOT is a filmmaker's soapbox & training forum. You sound like a film evangelist constantly trying to "sell" film to those that don't want or need it. Can't you see we are all moving away from that???

Quote

I think shooting film is safer for the longevity of a movie production. Film can be preserved better than digital media.

What??? Marty Scorcese will have a difference of opinion...why else would he have to Co-Chair The National Center for Film and Video Preservation? To preserve rotting fading filmstock maybe??:

[www.film-foundation.org]

Quote

Movies that cost a fortune should be shot of film because the consequences of losing a video originated movie are devestating. Even if a movie is intended only for DVD release, it's a better idea to shoot in on film.

...why? Because it "looks better"? That's your personal opinion. Don't forget those second class filmakers Lucas, Coppola, Mann & Rodriguez that DO NOT AGREE with you.

Seriously, vic...are you paying attention at all to what's going on in this business?? Do you read the countless threads that the generous posters here have given you? You need to read the trades & attend some seminars. Your posts are getting funnier & funnier everyday

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Im on the verge of going HDV as well and ive been looking really hard at the JVC HD-100...Ive used both Sony's HDV cams and they suck, terrible low light and really only a interlace signal.

JVC has a real lens, no P2 issues, real 24p, and 720 looks a lot better to me. Plus if you want, you can get real 35mm lens on it. Its a real pro-sum cam and will integrate into a dv workflow a lot easier than an HVX. Im a longtime DVX user and love it to death but i'll rent an HVX when circumstances dictate it but for real-world shooting, I think im going with a JVC...

scott, i have to tell you - ive used the hd100 and if you shoot anything with even moderate motion in it, youre going to be VERY dissapointed. HDV format simply cant do it. ive never seen ANY HDV footage anyone has shot that didnt have the motion "judders"

wayne granzin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wow frank, thats a crazy ass fast transfer rate.
> generally takes me about 11 min to transfer a full
> 8 gig card on my g4 powerbook (17" 1ghz).


How are you transferring and to what?

For that kind of transfer speed I am putting the P2 card in the PCMCIA slot and hooking up a 320gb G-raid via the FW800 port on a 17", 1.5ghz PB. If I use the FW400 port and an ondago bus powered drive (5400rpm) it takes about 11-12 minutes.