wado1942 wrote:You've obviously never worked with the F900 because the images it produces are a night & day difference from the lower end cameras. Far wider lattitude, sharp and anything, GREAT LENSES, more bandwidth so color correction doesn't cause the image to fall apart.
well, have you worked with the "good hdv cameras, jvc-hd210 for instance" then? they have plenty of latitude, use fantastic lenses if you can afford them, and they are certainly sharp. same goes for the xdcam hd, and to some extent many of the high end prosumer ones.
Hey I don't doubt there's some good HDV cams out there, but the statement that they're AS good as the F900 is a bit much. I mean, it's mathematically impossible for an HDV to resolve the same as HD-Cam.
wado1942 wrote:it's mathematically impossible for an HDV to resolve the same as HD-Cam.
what do you mean by resolve? the resolution is the same = 1440x1080. hdv is of course 8 bits and 4:2:0, which can have a lot of impact when you grade it but there's no stopping the raw footage from looking just as good. i've yet to see any hd210 footage but the f-350 footage i've seen looks just as good as from the f-900.
I'm intrigued by the HDV format, but have yet to work with it. I am not convinced that shooting higher ratios will yield better films and I suspect that shooting HDV might save on production costs, yet increase post-production costs and also decrease the final production value. For this reason I'm still leaning heavily toward 16mm for my next projects.
I have seen a lot of talk about the problem of compression with HDV in internet forums and from what I have gathered, there is some validity to the argument. For anyone that has doubts about it - just try grading a highly compressed .jpg in photoshop. It gets nasty pretty quickly. It sounds like the art of shooting HDV is the art of shooting in perfect lighting conditions. If you like spending a lot of time and money on lighting, HDV might be a nice way to go. If you are into small crews and available light photography (like I am) then 16mm is clearly a better option because the format forgives exposure errors and you get so much latitude during grading.
The JVC 2xxHD camera systems are nice - especially with a 10K HD lens with lots of range at the wide end. I have handled one at the rental shop and like the ergonomics and bright finder.
steve hyde wrote:I have seen a lot of talk about the problem of compression with HDV in internet forums and from what I have gathered, there is some validity to the argument. For anyone that has doubts about it - just try grading a highly compressed .jpg in photoshop.
it's not that bad. it's more like grading a moderately compressed jpeg, like from a digital still camera at the "normal quality" setting. you can really only do things to the midtones, the highlights lack definition and the shadows filled with artifacts. the main problem is that most hdv cameras are low end and thus don't capture much to begin with. i doubt that for example a z1 would look much better recording to hdcam.
...that is good to know. As with any format I suppose it is just a matter of learning what it can and cannot do - strengths and weaknesses etc.
I was recently blown away by a feature documentary shot on DVX100 that was graded and dubbed up to HD for 35mm. While I have not seen the print, I have seen the final DVD and it feels like cinema.
steve hyde wrote:I'm intrigued by the HDV format, but have yet to work with it. I am not convinced that shooting higher ratios will yield better films and I suspect that shooting HDV might save on production costs, yet increase post-production costs and also decrease the final production value. For this reason I'm still leaning heavily toward 16mm for my next projects.
For the low budget feature filmmaker there is absolutely no doubt that shooting super-16 is much more expensive. I would have to set around half my budget aside for film if I went the 16mm route. That money would be better spent in front of the camera rather than on format.
I can't see how post-production costs would be any higher than shooting film unless you are talking about 35mm prints. Many fests project HD (and cinemas also now), and a distributor would pick up print costs in any case.
.... I agree that the format is less important than the content. So you spend a few months shooting a feature on HDV and a year editing it into a film. At the end of all that the only thing that matters is if your film feels the way you want it to feel. If you can achieve the feeling you want on HDV then it is a perfect format for the project. If after a year of editing and grading you find yourself wishing you had shot it on film, then I imagine the extra few thousand spent on film is a good use of resources.
The choice of formats is really dependent on the locations of the project. If they are well lit or can be easily lit without having to go to great expense and trouble, then the video formats might be a good fit. If you want deep blacks, smooth moving images, highlights that hold, vibrant colors and more flexibility for grading and effects in post then film will buy you those things.
In other words I have plenty of doubts about HDV. It looks good on paper or in a spreadsheet, but we all no the problems with that kind of quantitative logic. In the end a film is a qualitative experience.
Mattias, it was the 4:2:0 color space to which I referred as far as resolution goes, you lose a little in the compression process also.
As for 16mm stuff, what my company does a lot is transfer the footage at the lab (Alpha Cine) as a one light. The transfers at Alpha Cine are TERRIBLE but they're cheap and frame acurate. Do an offline edit on computer and export an EDL. Then have a negative cutter match it and print to 16mm with the sound track.
When I deal with super-8 though, I just have everything transferred to DV as a best light and do an online edit.
I suspect Matt wouldn't do an optical print to 16, he'd do a filmout from video, because that's the format he's editing in. But again, what would be the point of a 16mm copy?
...if you follow an HD post path, 16mm film outs to 35mm can look amazing and cost about 4k for a 10 minute film....not sure what the optical 16 print costs.. or what to do with one... film festival print obviously, but 16mm optical sound is pretty low-fi and easily damaged isn't it?
audadvnc wrote:I suspect Matt wouldn't do an optical print to 16, he'd do a filmout from video, because that's the format he's editing in.
if i decide to shoot 16mm, or 35mm for that matter,you bet i'm printing it. i would probably make a low con silent print for telecine, and save the negative for screening prints in 35mm later. this means i can do an ultra cheap one-light telecine for editing, and grade it on film which is dirt cheap and more powerful than you think, plus i save money when i need a blowup. an online session that gives me the same or better image quality as an optical print, they do exist which is why di's are so popular now, costs ten times as much.
but if you meant a 16mm composite print for screening, no i wouldn't do that, even if many festivals actually do screen them.
