DV camera discussion

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

Post Reply
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Post by MovieStuff »

wado1942 wrote:he real trick with those cameras is loading them properly. If you're even 1-perf off the correct loop size, you'll get chattering.
I love the CP16R cameras (not the regular CP16s with the side finder. Yuck.) I have refurbished several for customers in years past. There are two things that I do. One is to remove all the sound head elements from the film chamber and put in dummy nylon rollers to simplify the film path. This makes loading a lot easier and reduces the likihood of chatter if you're off a bit on your loading. The second thing that I offer is a stainless steel insert for the front bulkhead that allows the use of M42 Takumar lenses as primes. My last customer was able to gather a full selection of primes using 8mm Peleng, 17mm Zenitar, plus 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 55mm, 70mm, 105mm, and 200mm Takumars, all for about $1000. They aren't particularly fast but you'd be hard pressed to find a cheaper selection of razor sharp prime lenses. Plus they're all going to be rectilinear since you are only using the inner portion of the COI. This is more flattering to actors if you are forced to work in close with a wide angle lens because the distortion isn't as severe as other wide angle lenses with a smaller COI.

One interesting thing about the CP16R: The built in prism splits off only infrared if you add the top mounted video tap, which means that you can only use a black and white camera. However, one advantage is that, for shooting dark scenes, you can flood the set with infrared light using IR LEDs and while the color neg will never see it, you can see perfectly off the video tap. I added a black and white tap for my last CP16 customer and he did a lot of night time, low key shooting for a low budget horror film. He said the IR video tap was a real life saver when they were running with the camera down dark hallways and other pitch black areas.

The CP16 also takes both the CP mags as well as the heavy duty Mitchell mags (classic mouse-ear look!). There is also a 1200 foot Mitchell mag that you can use for uninterrupted 30 minutes of shooting. Kind of heavy but saves a lot of time on the set and you get a higher yield because you have less camera run-out.

Roger
User avatar
npcoombs
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:03 am
Location: computer
Contact:

Post by npcoombs »

Steve -

Im leaning heavily towards the Canon Xl-h1 to shoot my feature, but will hang on until the shoot to see what looks best at the time in terms of new models, prices etc.

The major advantage of the Canon is not the Hd-SDI out (although its nice to dream about shooting uncompressed!) but the 6X wide angle HD lens which can be purchased for the camera. This give a maximum wide angle of 24mm (35mm equivalent) which combined with the standard 20X telephoto gives you a seriously versatile piece of kit!

And in my opinion stuff shot on decent quality HD or HDV looks better than 16mm colour neg. Although Id love to shoot something on double-x or plus-x neg rather than HD.
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

wado1942 wrote:OK, I've worked on dozens of sets and even working with total amateur actors, I've never seen more than a 6:1 shooting ratio be used even on DV tape.
ok, i've worked on maybe a hundred, and i've very rarely seen lower ratios than 5 or 6:1, although that seems to be a pretty common low budget ratio when shooting film. all the video or hd shoots i've been on used at least a 20:1 ratio, if not more. it's not about bad planning, but the opportunity to experiment while the camera is rolling, plus you can shoot coverage style, a style of shooting previously unavailable to the independent filmmaker but no doubt very powerful and digital gives you access to it.

if you play out a scene from five angles and do one or two takes of each, plus you start video cameras sooner and stop them later "because you can", you already have a 10:1 ratio, with perfect planning and no experimenting.

and don't forget that if you don't cut out at least a couple of scenes from the final product you've probably done some sloppy editing. there's no way everything that's in the script is necessary once it's on the screen. or vice versa if it is, you haven't explored the possibilities of your story in the writing. ;-)

how did this become a war on how one should shoot though? the results speak for themselves in my opinion, so who cares what the shooting ratio was if it's not out of budget necessity, like with primer or el mariachi?

/matt
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

MovieStuff wrote:A) Girls were never that good looking when I was in high school.
sweden's a wonderful place.
B) The premise (and the girl) reminds me of a series some years back called "My So Called Life".
busted. it's the favorite show of both the writer/director and me. i'm sure the producer goes to meetings pitching it as a swedish mscl even. :-)
C) Girls were never that good looking when I was in high school.
sweden's a wonderful place.
So if this gets picked up for a series, are they going to use the same actors as in your promo? If not, how do the actors in the promo feel about that? Just curious.
i'm "just" the dp but the producer does leak some info in my direction once in a while. i know things will change but all the principal cast members in the promo will be offered parts if it happens, but not necessarily the same characters. this has been cleared with the network that's considering it. seems like a fair way of recognizing their work while keeping doors open for stars and whatnot.
Anyway, looks just great. You should be very proud.
thanks a bunch.

/matt
User avatar
npcoombs
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:03 am
Location: computer
Contact:

Post by npcoombs »

mattias wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:A) Girls were never that good looking when I was in high school.
sweden's a wonderful place.
Hmm it may be a wonderful place, but Im not sure that would count as one of the reasons :wink:

only kidding, probably beats England hands down!
User avatar
flatwood
Senior member
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:55 am
Real name: Tabby Crabb
Location: Tylerville GA USA
Contact:

Post by flatwood »

npcoombs wrote:.... leaning heavily towards the Canon Xl-h1 to shoot my feature.....
I think you'll be making a big mistake if you do. If you cant go $20k then theres better choices around $5k imo.
http://MusicRiverofLife.com
http://TabbyCrabb.com
User avatar
npcoombs
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:03 am
Location: computer
Contact:

Post by npcoombs »

flatwood wrote:
npcoombs wrote:.... leaning heavily towards the Canon Xl-h1 to shoot my feature.....
I think you'll be making a big mistake if you do. If you cant go $20k then theres better choices around $5k imo.
Such as? The canon xl-h1 has interchangeable lenses (great stock lens too), uncompressed out and a wide angle zoom.
User avatar
steve hyde
Senior member
Posts: 2259
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 am
Real name: Steve Hyde
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by steve hyde »

....thanks for all the excellent contributions to this thread.

I'm very intrigued by the CP-16R. I have been advised to use a Zeiss 10 - 100 T2 on it for best all around results. I want to learn more about this camera system. I also need to learn about the new Canon. Next week I'm going to go have a closer look at both the JVC system and the CP-16R


Happy New Year,

Steve
User avatar
flatwood
Senior member
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:55 am
Real name: Tabby Crabb
Location: Tylerville GA USA
Contact:

Post by flatwood »

npcoombs wrote:....Such as? The canon xl-h1 has interchangeable lenses (great stock lens too), uncompressed out and a wide angle zoom.
Yes, I know its an attractive looking system especially with the interchangable lenses. I had two of the earlier SD versions and I didnt find them to be very robust. I think the heads were only rated for 500 hours. I dropped one and it quit on me and cost $700 for a replacement circuit board and it only dropped three feet to a carpeted floor.

The Panasonic I now have is rated for 2000 hours. Canon does make a nice lens though. I had a Canon lens on my Sony DXC 327 and it was absolutely fantastic.

To me it doesnt make any sense to spend more than $5k if you're not going to spend $25k. The Z1U is a great choice. You could get two of those for the price of one H1 and get to shoot with two cams if you wanted.

Im sure you'll do the best thing for your project. Just my 0.02.
http://MusicRiverofLife.com
http://TabbyCrabb.com
christoph
Senior member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: atm Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by christoph »

flatwood wrote:To me it doesnt make any sense to spend more than $5k if you're not going to spend $25k. The Z1U is a great choice.
personally i woulndt buy any of those cameras either unless i knew i have enough work to get my money back with it or i had a long term project that i couldnt put into a fixed scedule. the Z1U is great value, but even 5K hurts when you know there's going to be something better out in less than two years.
you can rent the Z1U very cheap, or if you go for external sound recording the FX1 is available for around 25EUR a day. so even if you shoot 2 months you can get away under 1000EUR (long term discounts) - thats about 15K less than the canon with extra lens i guess.
++ christoph ++
wado1942
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:46 am
Location: Idaho, U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by wado1942 »

The CP-16R is worth at least a test run. Actually, I suggest everybody try one before commiting to buying it because you might not like the workflow.
I had two of the earlier SD versions and I didnt find them to be very robust.
Funny, my GL1 took a dive out of the back of a moving van (doing a driving scene for a short) with the tripod attached to it. The matte box broke and so did the tripod mount but some epoxy fixed both of those with hardly any trouble at all. Aside from that, I've had no problems. I guess I've had good luck with Canon stuff. I've owned 5 canon cameras and the only one that's ever given me problems is a 35mm still cam made in 1965. I should add that it fell into a lake 15 years ago while my grandfather was fishing. It eats batteries like crazy and sometimes the advance jams so I retired it in favor of a Pentax. But both my Canon video cams and both my super-8 cams have lived through a lot of crap.

Never-the-less, if somebody put a gun to my head forcing me to buy a crappy "HD" cam, I'd probably start my looking with JVC.
User avatar
npcoombs
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:03 am
Location: computer
Contact:

Post by npcoombs »

christoph wrote:
flatwood wrote:To me it doesnt make any sense to spend more than $5k if you're not going to spend $25k. The Z1U is a great choice.
personally i woulndt buy any of those cameras either unless i knew i have enough work to get my money back with it or i had a long term project that i couldnt put into a fixed scedule. the Z1U is great value, but even 5K hurts when you know there's going to be something better out in less than two years.
you can rent the Z1U very cheap, or if you go for external sound recording the FX1 is available for around 25EUR a day. so even if you shoot 2 months you can get away under 1000EUR (long term discounts) - thats about 15K less than the canon with extra lens i guess.
++ christoph ++
No renting these cameras is very cheap, in London you can take the Canon Xl-h1 for something like £400/week. But I am planning (long term thinking here!) to shoot in Colombia where rental prices are very high and insurance crippling. Plus there is not much of a market for these semi-pro HD cams out there, so rental houses either seem to have shit SD cameras or F900s!

So my plan is to buy a camera here, shoot over there and then sell it. I guess since resale value is not great of matt-boxes and focus pull units and all the other niche add-ons that I will lose at lease £1300 pounds in the process. But presuming it works and doesnt get stolen or ruined thats pretty cheap.
christoph
Senior member
Posts: 2486
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:36 pm
Location: atm Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by christoph »

npcoombs wrote:No renting these cameras is very cheap, in London you can take the Canon Xl-h1 for something like £400/week.
sorry, i should have clarified "renting a Z1U is probably 15k cheaper than buying a canon". obviously renting a canon is a good option too, as is buying and reselling if you dont need the peace of mind (eventually something *will* break or get stolen.

++ christoph ++
User avatar
Nigel
Senior member
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:14 am
Real name: Adam
Location: Lost
Contact:

Post by Nigel »

Christoph--

Sorry for the dely in the your questions towards me.

Here is what I was thinking. Since, it is becoming more and more popular to see full blown workstaions on the set of both still and movie shoots then go right into a G5 or MacPro.

With the HVX you end up having to dump footage. I know it isn';t exactly the same but running the Canon straight to a computer seems do-able.

Good Luck
PS--Happy New Year I brought mine in with to much booze and pudding wrestling.
mattias
Posts: 8356
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by mattias »

are there and hdv cameras that don't have uncompressed outputs? sure, it's often component or hdmi, but at least hdmi can be captured just as easily as sdi with the proper card.

/matt
Post Reply