Panasonics new DVX100 replacement HMC150

[vidwerk]

I know, it's not about "film", but for all you DVX100 lovers.
This new cam to be was annouced a couple of weeks ago by Panasonic to be the HD replacement to the DVX100. To be unveiled at NAB 2008.

http://gizmodo.com/357336/panasonic-ag+ ... -onto-sdhc

Sounds awesome. AVCHD is suppose to be the replacement for the HDV format. This may very well be the next video camera I get. Gotta wait until the fall though.

vidwerk.

[Super8rules]

Looks nice but I am going to go back to shooting film.

I've shot two features on 24p (one on the DVX) and even though it was cheap during production, the post production cost are rising.

To get past the "film festival and "straight-to-DVD world, there has to be a 35mm print made and that's where we are running into problems, first being the cost to do it. When all is said and done, it would have been cheaper to shoot either Super16, or 35mm. Now, were trapped in the "independent film world" and there is no escape.

I've also realized that if you are not shooting with either the F900, Red, or the new Panavision 24HD cams, then you really don't mean squat in the world of movies. There still is the "snob" issue.

I am (as most of you are too), part of the first generation of 24p users. The initial excitement is gone for me now that I have had my experience with it. It's not film and never will be and we'll keep spending thousands of dollars on new cameras and gadgets to make it look like film when all we have to do is shoot film in the first place, which I am realizing is more cost effective in the long run.

[downix]

Just don't try editing with it. AVCHD looses data incredibly fast during the editing process, winding up looking even worse than HDV, in my experience.

[BK]

Now why didn't they make it HDV as well AVCHD in one camera so you can choose the format to record on. It seems quite big for a flash card type camcorder. Wonder if it's heavy to handhold?

They came out with a prototype which had a super 8 looking grip back in 2004 that records on P2 cards.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/pa ... _18_04.htm

I would imagine it would be a great and cheap tool for news gathering. You can edit straight away with the material after shooting from the memory card, no more waiting for ingesting into the NLE.

Bill

[yolia]

I'm not impressed. The camera is ugly to begin with and for $6000 I'd rather by the A-Cam Super16 film camera. Shooting a great story on film would multiply my chances at a distribution deal. Don't get me wrong. I like video; in fact, I have a Panasonic AG-DVX 100A that shoots beautiful images. But it's not the ideal camera for feature filmmaking–good for weddings, videos, documentaries, but not narrative film. At least, that's how I feel about it.

[sk360]

I'd rather by the A-Cam Super16 film camera. Shooting a great story on film would multiply my chances at a distribution dealI feel about it.

I've been seeing so many top notch 16mm cameras for unbelievable prices recently, that I would'nt even bother thinking about getting a new video camera. Just on Craigslsit alone, someone was selling a CP-16 package (upgraded to super 16 no less) for $2k. Another guy had a SR I with a couple of lens and some magazines for $4k.

[MovieStuff]

I'm not impressed. The camera is ugly to begin with and for $6000 I'd rather by the A-Cam Super16 film camera. Shooting a great story on film would multiply my chances at a distribution deal.....

I agree that shooting a great story is paramount but if you have no name stars then shooting on film means pretty much zip, in terms of increasing the likelihood of a distribution deal, especially if the cost of shooting on film cuts down on much needed production value in front of the camera.

If anything history has shown that, without name stars, then the story behind the making of a hot film is what the distributors count on for advertising value. The funkier the method, such as shooting on a home video camera, or selling your blood to finance your project, or employing local town people as actors, etc, then the easier it is for the distributor to give the press something to write about to make it interesting to read. Otherwise, shooting on film with no name actors makes your project quite ordinary, in terms of marketing potential.

I almost think that something shot on film would have to be extraordinary to stick out in a market crowded with people shooting fast and easy and creatively on video. So, while I share your preference for the look and beauty of film, I wouldn't underestimate the value of shooting on HD in today's competitive marketplace. There are a lot of people doing really nice looking projects on HD with a film-look finish that is good enough to satisfy much of today's audiences.

Roger

[downix]

I'm not impressed. The camera is ugly to begin with and for $6000 I'd rather by the A-Cam Super16 film camera. Shooting a great story on film would multiply my chances at a distribution deal.....

I agree that shooting a great story is paramount but if you have no name stars then shooting on film means pretty much zip, in terms of increasing the likelihood of a distribution deal, especially if the cost of shooting on film cuts down on much needed production value in front of the camera.

If anything history has shown that, without name stars, then the story behind the making of a hot film is what the distributors count on for advertising value. The funkier the method, such as shooting on a home video camera, or selling your blood to finance your project, or employing local town people as actors, etc, then the easier it is for the distributor to give the press something to write about to make it interesting to read. Otherwise, shooting on film with no name actors makes your project quite ordinary, in terms of marketing potential.

I almost think that something shot on film would have to be extraordinary to stick out in a market crowded with people shooting fast and easy and creatively on video. So, while I share your preference for the look and beauty of film, I wouldn't underestimate the value of shooting on HD in today's competitive marketplace. There are a lot of people doing really nice looking projects on HD with a film-look finish that is good enough to satisfy much of today's audiences.

Roger

But we're not talking HD here however. We're talking AVCHD, which is a modified H.264 compression with long-GOP, meaning that editing it (which I assume will be needed for final output) will give you lower quality. if someone were to use the full AVCHD spec, then it wouldn't be half bad, but they're not, they're using 1/2 of the potential, which means the quality degredation especially for editing is attrocious.

[sk360]

.
shooting on film with no name actors makes your project quite ordinary, in terms of marketing potential.
Roger

Having bankable tallent attached to your film definitely helps having it picked up by a distributor but its not necessary a dealbreaker. Horror films which do to the nature of the genre's storylines, have always been considerd and easier sale in the marketplace with or without named actors or crew (especially if you have vampires or serial killers invovled).

[mattias]

Now why didn't they make it HDV

because they are panasonic, a competing company to the hdv consortium. :-)

i think it looks great. it needs 23mbps avchd though, the consumer cams' compression is noticeably worse than hdv. oh, and please please please give us a decent viewfinder and screen this time, both the dvx and hvx have lcd's that are great jokes but not very useful.

as for editing you don't lose any more quality from using long gop codecs than others unless you plan on not doing a single effect and use the same codec for your master. as soon as you add an effect, like color correction, you've lost a generation either way, and people typically master to higher end formats like uncompressed or hdcam, or lower en like web video or dvd/bd. long gop means more computer power though, but who hasn't?

we're not talking HD here however. We're talking AVCHD

that's a complete non-statement. you can compare avchd to hdv, bd, hdcam, d5 and so on, but not to hd and sd. otherwise it's like saying that a car is better than a volvo or that you like juice better than oj.

/matt