I've tried shooting with my VX 2000 and I'm ready to relegate it to "weddings and picnics" status. I'm just not happy with the look of the output. I guess it's the age old, dead horse debate of DV vs. Film. :(
That said, I've only shot 16mm once or twice and wanted to ask some people here for some advice on the equipment costs, specifically camera purchase...how much and where to find.
Unless you're planning to spend some serious cash, I wouldn't buy a 16mm camera...just rent one. If you DO buy one, you can find some older models on e-bay pretty frequently, anywhere from 100 bucks (for old wind up bolexes that only hold about three minute rolls) to tens of thouands (for full packages with lenses and everything). You could probably find something good, like a K3 or something, for about the same amount you spent on the VX2000. It probably won't be silent, though, which will be a problem if you want to shoot sound.
Look into the new Panasonic. I can totally understand not wanting to shoot on DV, but with the 24frame ability, I've heard it resembles 16mm film on an eerie level. I'm really intrigued with it.
Quote from: SalLook into the new Panasonic. I can totally understand not wanting to shoot on DV, but with the 24frame ability, I've heard it resembles 16mm film on an eerie level. I'm really intrigued with it.
im the biggest film supportor -- have shot a lot of 16, a little 35 -- abosolutely hate the aesthetic quality of dv -- so heres a little story: my friend was going over some footage of a concert -- i go "where'd you get the money to shoot that on 16mm" he said " i didn't"... he pulls out the panasonic -- it fooled me at first glance -- i thought the footage was 16. its pretty nice -- if you have to shoot dv, shoot with the panasonic -- blows the pd-150 out of the water. it obviously doesnt have the contrast ratio or exposure latitude that 16 does -- also your stuck with the inherent problems of video -- however it's decent -- lets just say , its the first time ive seen a dv image that wasn't complete garbage.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: SalLook into the new Panasonic. I can totally understand not wanting to shoot on DV, but with the 24frame ability, I've heard it resembles 16mm film on an eerie level. I'm really intrigued with it.
im the biggest film supportor -- have shot a lot of 16, a little 35 -- abosolutely hate the aesthetic quality of dv -- so heres a little story: my friend was going over some footage of a concert -- i go "where'd you get the money to shoot that on 16mm" he said " i didn't"... he pulls out the panasonic -- it fooled me at first glance -- i thought the footage was 16. its pretty nice -- if you have to shoot dv, shoot with the panasonic -- blows the pd-150 out of the water. it obviously doesnt have the contrast ratio or exposure latitude that 16 does -- also your stuck with the inherent problems of video -- however it's decent -- lets just say , its the first time ive seen a dv image that wasn't complete garbage.
What is the beautiful model you speak of?
anybody ever use the JVC DV-500U???
QuoteWhat is the beautiful model you speak of?
The panasonic ag dvx1000.
Quote from: SalQuoteWhat is the beautiful model you speak of?
The panasonic ag dvx1000.
the one and only
The panasonic 24p is not the holy grail of DV cams I'm sorry to say. It looks like digital vidseo shot in 24 frames a second, not alot diofferent than a PAL camera which is not a lot different from a NTSC camera.
You already have the VX2000, here's the keys - adjust your settings, use the camera to the best of it's abilities. Use proper lighting.
If it's up your craw so much you can't stand it then get cinelook or magic bullet or the like and add that film look afterward.
Video is what it is, it's great because we have a format we can afford and shoot a fantastic product, no...... it's not film. You want film spend 40 grand and shoot on film, otherwise do the best with what you have.. Use the medium to your advantage do the things you can't do with film. I mean film cameras are so big, you can't do some of the incredible things you can do with the tiny dv cams.
Quote from: michael alessandroThe panasonic 24p is not the holy grail of DV cams I'm sorry to say. .
im sorry to say, but it is -- you say it looks like video shot in 24 frames -- of course it does -- does it look like film? NO... but it does look better than a Pal camera that is capturing 30 frame prgressive scan? YES -- it's not even debatable -- there is a different image quality between the two -- capturing 24 frames on video has nothing to do with exposure latitude when compared to film -- rather the emmulation of persistance of vision that film creates -- obviously trying to make it look like film is a waste of time -- however there is a lot to say about frame rate -- our eyes have been subconciously trained to process 24 frames a second -- whether you care to admit it or not: when we see video (ie: 30 frames) there is a sub-concious rejection to that image ... the panasonic IS the best prosumer mini dv camera -- end of story.
Yes, this I very much agree with. More importantly, the panasonic has more latitude than previous cameras, and when blown up to 35mm, compared with the hi def sony puts out for 150,000 dollars...well let's just say that sony's image isn't worth that much. Panasonic's image isn't
exactly the same as the hi def, but it's close. Frighteningly close. For over $3,000.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: michael alessandroThe panasonic 24p is not the holy grail of DV cams I'm sorry to say. .
im sorry to say, but it is -- you say it looks like video shot in 24 frames -- of course it does -- does it look like film? NO... but it does look better than a Pal camera that is capturing 30 frame prgressive scan? YES -- it's not even debatable -- there is a different image quality between the two -- capturing 24 frames on video has nothing to do with exposure latitude when compared to film -- rather the emmulation of persistance of vision that film creates -- obviously trying to make it look like film is a waste of time -- however there is a lot to say about frame rate -- our eyes have been subconciously trained to process 24 frames a second -- whether you care to admit it or not: when we see video (ie: 30 frames) there is a sub-concious rejection to that image ... the panasonic IS the best prosumer mini dv camera -- end of story.
Actually, PAL is 25 interlaced frames, NTSC is 30.
But I agree with Michael AND cowboy. Lighting and production values will go a really long way...but frame rate will as well. I haven't used this camera yet, but I have done tests with the 24p HD cameras. It still looks like video, but the frame rate does make it look different, and/or better, if you want that more cinematic feel.
I really want to see some Maxivision48 footage, which is shot at and played back at 48fps. Supposed to be rather amazing.
Quote from: GhostboyActually, PAL is 25 interlaced frames, NTSC is 30.
.
my mistake -- there is still a huge difference between 25 interlaced and 24 progressive scan. it really is noticeable.
Quote from: SalYes, this I very much agree with. More importantly, the panasonic has more latitude than previous cameras, and when blown up to 35mm, compared with the hi def sony puts out for 150,000 dollars...well let's just say that sony's image isn't worth that much. Panasonic's image isn't exactly the same as the hi def, but it's close. Frighteningly close. For over $3,000.
]
i know, i couldnt believe how nice the image was. its the first time i saw a dv image and thought: this is worth shooting a project on.
I think that everyone gets so caught up in what camera to choose that they sometimes forget that a movie isn't good based just on its format. Yeah, the dvx100 does looks better than most dv, IF composed well. It won't matter how great it looks if the story is crappy and lacks effort. I'd much rather watch a well-made, well told, and well composed movie shot on an old vhs-c camcorder than an even average movie shot on the dvx100.
Quote from: astralpicturesI think that everyone gets so caught up in what camera to choose that they sometimes forget that a movie isn't good based just on its format. Yeah, the dvx100 does looks better than most dv, IF composed well. It won't matter how great it looks if the story is crappy and lacks effort. I'd much rather watch a well-made, well told, and well composed movie shot on an old vhs-c camcorder than an even average movie shot on the dvx100.
thats wonderful. thanks for the lesson -- this is a forum called "tech talk" hence the technical debate going on. we realize story is first and foremost -- but there is a reason people aren't shooting the matrix on a vx-1000. we're getting "caught up" in what camera to choose, becuase thats what the thread is about.
NO PROBLEM! I'm glad you liked my "lesson." I'm sorry that you don't see a well executed story and a well composed shot as technical. You definitely proved me wrong and in fact, you convinced me to not come to this site anymore. Have fun debating and hopefully soon sony will release a 24p pro-sumer camera to add fuel to the fire and you can keep going forever and ever...
And the last I knew The Matrix wasn't being shot on a dvx100 either.
everyone is so defensive
Quote from: xerxeseveryone is so defensive
I didn't do it...it was him ----> :evil:
24 FPS can be achieved in post... and it does make a difference. I think home-grown footage sometimes looks "too smooth" or too fluid, or over-fluid, if that makes any sense. It cheapens the entire production. Just like tape or mechanical noise can be picked up by the built-in mics on camcorders. It may ruin the experience for the audience.
These are factors the director must consider to achieve the look and feel that he/she desires, no matter how amazingly great the story may actually be.
If you want to ignore production values, maybe you should be writing books, not making movies. That's my opinion.
Quote from: markums2k
If you want to ignore production values, maybe you should be writing books, not making movies. That's my opinion.
AMEN BROTHER
Quote24 FPS can be achieved in post... and it does make a difference. I think home-grown footage sometimes looks "too smooth" or too fluid, or over-fluid, if that makes any sense. It cheapens the entire production. Just like tape or mechanical noise can be picked up by the built-in mics on camcorders. It may ruin the experience for the audience.
True this can be done, but one thing I think we are all focusing on is that 24fps is some kind of ark of the covenant or something. You're shooting on video - so instead of trying to hide it, embrace it and shoot well. The problem video has is lighting, so find someone who can light video and you will be amazed at what you can achieve in 30fps.
If you are so intent on the magic number then shoot on film and problems solved.... Oh wait, we can't afford to shoot on film, that's why we use video, right... Okay, so then don't turn 30fps to 24fps in post unless you have the real equipment to do it, and I'm not talking final cut pro or premiere, but then there's $$$$$ , okay you don't have the "pro" equipment for doing inverse telecine and for 24fps conversion and for... You get the point... So what then? LET IT GO! 24fps, big whoopy do! Make you video look the best it can look, make someone impressed with what you have done with no budget. Then, maybe someone will give you the money to go play with the big boys.
I shoot on a SOny VX2000, I also use a GL-1 and an XL-1 and did soem of the trials on the Panasonic24p and you know what, 24p is still video until you jump to the HighDef stuff. So use what you use, be happy with your choice and learn to LIGHT.
So endeth the rant, let the flaming begin :wink:
Quote from: michael alessandro
True this can be done, but one thing I think we are all focusing on is that 24fps is some kind of ark of the covenant or something. You're shooting on video - so instead of trying to hide it, embrace it and shoot well.
I respect your opinion, as I've read many of your posts and you sound like you know your stuff. I don't understand why your so dead set against converting 30 FPS to 24 FPS. I'll agree, it does seem rather frivolous when there's so many other things to consider when making a film. Good lighting will go further than reducing FPS... but I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone disregard lighting, or other practical methods of improving your shots, with the hope that reducing FPS will magically improve picture quality.
But myself, being obsessive and way too involved in trivial details-- when I finally get a project into post production, will probably convert the video to a lower FPS than 30. I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to get it to look EXACTLY the way I want it.
Well, okay. Maybe I'm hiding it from myself? To which I reply: why bother if you're not going to make every step of the process as complicated and drawn out as possible, right? The Posterize Frames filter in Premiere should only take, what? 47 hours to render? Bring it on! :-D
Quote from: michael alessandroI shoot on a SOny VX2000, I also use a GL-1 and an XL-1 and did soem of the trials on the Panasonic24p :wink:
Just curious...but out of these, what camera is your posion of choice? Or does it depend on what you are shooting?
QuoteI respect your opinion, as I've read many of your posts and you sound like you know your stuff. I don't understand why your so dead set against converting 30 FPS to 24 FPS. I'll agree, it does seem rather frivolous when there's so many other things to consider when making a film. Good lighting will go further than reducing FPS... but I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone disregard lighting, or other practical methods of improving your shots, with the hope that reducing FPS will magically improve picture quality.
I'm nopt DEAD SEt against it, but I have tried it, done test footage using Premiere, After Effects and FCP to do a conversion and the difference in look is minimal, nothing you can't do in camera by changing your frame rate or by using the iun camera movie mode, which isn't tremendous on most cams. Also here's this food for thought. How long is your movie? Let's say you clock in at exactly 60 minutesor 108000 frames at 30fps now convert that to 24fps and your 10800 frames becomes 75 minutes, so you've gained 15 minutes, everyone has slurred their words down a bit, and action becomes slightly slower. Unless of course your drop frames. Ew.
Use Magic Bullet or Cinelook and apply a 35MM filter, tweak it a bit and let that render for 47 hours, you'll be better off IMHO
QuoteJust curious...but out of these, what camera is your posion of choice? Or does it depend on what you are shooting?
My personal choice is the SOnyVX2000 and my reasons is it's incredible capabilities in low light and its ability to look like a video camera for guerilla shooting (like inside Casinos in Vegas - go see my website).
I really like the XL1 for its lenses and sound jacks, but I think if I were going to spend that kind of money I would jump to the Sony PD150, which is a suped up VX2000. Otherwiose the GL1 is not so great andf the new Panasonic 24p is fine, but the image quality is not as sharp and clean as the other 3, so shooting at 24p doesn't compensate for the loss in image.
Ciao
I'm in post on my first feature which was shot with a Canon XL-1 using the standard issue 16x lens and a 3x wide angle lens. I got incredible results. Seriously, most people who see the trailer or footage are incredibly impressed. Does it look like film? To a casual observer it could pass. To you and me, we know video from film. I honestly don't think any particular DV or HD Cam is the end all, be all best of digital photography. It all depends on what you do with the camera. Technically there are definite differences between the two but does it really matter? Camera's don't make good movies, good director's and d.p.'s make good movies.
Ghostboy and I have been putting together a budget to shoot a feature on HD and it's still pretty damn expensive. For low budget, DV is still the way to go and if you know what you're doing it will look great.
Please tell me how and what you light with.
I eat ass at trying to light for dv. I so wanna make natural light (or just practicals) work, but it never does.
Well, for my film we NEVER used practicals or nat lighting (except exterior day scenes of course.) We always lit the scenes. Mostly we would use a couple of 1200W HMI's for day light (or a 2K Mole/Richardson's with full CTB) , placed outside a window shining in. That way we always had complete control. For night scenes we did the same thing except we covered the lights with with a Straw/CTO mixture to get that Sodium Halogen orange glow of street lights coming in through the window. Of course it's always good to use lower watt lights for key lighting (usually by way of an ARRI kit containing a 300watt, 2- 650watts, and a 1k). I've always gotten the best result in interior lighting by bouncing it as opposed to shining straight at something. Of course you can buy work lights at home depot and get creative with your lighting but having done both, it's much more satisfactory to spend a couple of hundred dollars to rent professional lights.
Another important thing that we did was we never used the white balance. We only used the presets (daytime or tungsten) and adjusted the light as needed with gels. Also, when you cut from a wide to a close (or vice-versa) instead of adjusting the iris for lighting difference it's better to keep the same "aperature" by adjusting the lighting as needed.
So basically our lighting package was this:
two 1200watt HMI's
two Mickey moles (or Mighty Moles)
an Arri Kit
a couple of extra low watt Moles (200 and 300watts)
lots of gels (CTB, CTO, white diffusion, party gels)
black foil wrap
of course you'll need all the grip equipment like stands, cords, etc.
Anyway, I know it seems like a lot but it makes a big difference.
Hope that helps.
Yep.
But when you said you didn't white balance but used the gels instead, you're just talking about the daylight or tungsten conversion gels right? Not color gels...
Quote from: SoNowThenBut when you said you didn't white balance but used the gels instead, you're just talking about the daylight or tungsten conversion gels right? Not color gels...
For the most part yes. However, to get that street light look we did have to use some some non-CTO gels like Straw. And there were a few scenes where I wanted to play with some colors so that's why we needed the party gels. But generally all you'll need are CTO, CTB, and diffussion.
One director's take on the latest digital camera
Source: Los Angeles Times
Director Robert Rodriguez has always had one eye on the bottom line. His 1995 book, "Rebel Without a Crew," explained how he was able to shoot his debut feature, "El Mariachi," as quickly and cheaply ($7,000) as possible. That attitude followed him to Hollywood, where the scope of his projects has increased while he continues to keep his budgets and shooting schedules lean.
So it's no surprise that Rodriguez hasn't hesitated to embrace Sony's new HDWF900 digital motion picture camera. The camera, developed by Sony's Broadcast and Production Systems Division, resembles a VHS camera in its size and ability to record on videocassette but digitally records film-quality images with considerably less effort than film cameras.
Rodriguez's move to digital, which he used to shoot his recent features "Spy Kids 2" and "Spy Kids 3-D," along with his latest, "Once Upon a Time in Mexico," puts him in a select group of directors, including George Lucas and James Cameron, who have moved, ahead of the industry, to adopt the new technology.
Rodriguez recently met for the first time with the camera's inventors, Satoshi Yamaga, national product manager for digital cinematography, and Yasuhiko Mikami, national marketing manager for movie and TV applications, to discuss the camera, its long development and its practical applications.
Question: In a way, is this camera trying to combine both a TV camera and motion picture camera into one?
Mikami: Yes, it can be used as an ordinary news-style camera, shooting at 30 frames per second . You can also switch it to work at 24 frames per second, like film cameras. This is the very first time we've been able to create a camera that can be used in both worlds.
Q: Does this camera almost do the cinematography for you?
Rodriguez: No, you still have to light it. But you can light much more to your eye. To get the shot, you don't need to bring all this equipment over and use the light meter and think, "Well, if the soup is this temperature tomorrow " You don't have to do all that crazy stuff.
Q: Why did you decide to shoot digitally?
Rodriguez: After "Spy Kids," I was not doing certain movies simply because of the hassle of shooting on film. It's like painting with your eyes closed. The next day [after shooting] it gets developed and sent back to you and you get to see if you even got what you were trying to get. A lot of times you don't. It's why movies take a long time and cost a lot of money. What digital does is, it frees you up to be able to shoot much faster, to be able to see the image while you're shooting it. You don't have to say the traditional "That was great. Let's just do one more."
Mikami: I happen to be a film guy as a hobby. Shooting with film, especially black-and-white film, as a hobby is a great thing. It's so pleasing to your eye. But to people like Robert, who are in the film business, it's not a hobby. It's a business, and he wants to be productive; he has certain goals to meet.
Rodriguez: What do you think the difference is between the look of digital and the look of black-and-white film? Do you think you could get that look with digital?
Mikami: If you are looking at large negative [film], it might take some time for digital to beat that. If it's ordinary 35-millimeter [film], I think we're getting very, very close. Shooting in film is very much like improvisation, like jazz. Sometimes, if you're lucky, you get the results right. There aren't many people in this town who are very good at it. With digital, the average hit rate becomes higher.
Q: Is there still an advantage to shooting film?
Rodriguez: I did a whole comparison, side by side, pros and cons, before doing "Mexico," and the only reason I could see to shoot on film was nostalgia. If you were to compare the hard cost of shooting on film to shooting on tape, you'd save millions of dollars shooting on tape. I know I never could have shot [this film] with the schedule and budget [$29 million] we had.
Yamaga: From our point of view, if we add one more paintbrush to creative people, that would be wonderful.
Q: Why has it taken so long for picture to follow sound into the digital realm?
Mikami: In the early 1980s, when we had our first-generation, high-definition camera, you needed a truck to carry the recorder and the camera-processing circuits. We were dealing with five times more detail when you compare standard-resolution film to high-definition. It took us nearly 20 years to come over that. Once we did, we were able to pack all that computing power into a hand-held camera.
Q: What's the advantage of digital filmmaking for the average moviegoer?
Rodriguez: It just looks better. It looks a lot cleaner, and it gives you better colors. People get confused. They look at digital and say, "Yeah, but it doesn't look as grainy as film does." That's like saying, "CDs are great, but they don't have that snap, crackle and pop like my old vinyl records." That's the medium, that's not the music. You're so used to it, it doesn't mean it's wrong when it's gone. [Digital] is even better for movies without effects — run-and-gun or personal movies — because of how it treats the actor. You're moving at the speed of creative thought.
Mac, do you or anybody know about changing lenses on this kinda camera? Because that's my only complaint about the really great digital cameras -- we need more latitude with the kind of lenses we can use.
It's funny. For all intents and purposes, HD video is far better than film in terms of visual quality. Our hangups over the difference between film and video are actually drawbacks to film, which have over time become good things to our eyes.
If I was given a decent budget now, I'm not sure what format I'd choose to shoot on. After seeing 'Once Upon A Time In Mexico,' they seem so much closer. They both can get you what you want, for the most part. It's not necessarily about what's right for the story anymore.
OUATIM looks great but I wonder if some of the greatest examples of cinematography in the past couple of years could have been matched by up-to-date digital cams. Could Conrad Hall for example (regardless of his experience with digital), created that amazing shootout in the rain in Road to Perdition?
To me the look of the movie is very important...but it seems that most people ruin their films by having bad sound. Studies have shown that people will pay attention to programs with bad visuals (static etc) but won't stand for bad sound. It's just annoying.
Does anyone here have any opinions on these various dv's sound qualities?
QuoteQ: Why has it taken so long for picture to follow sound into the digital realm?
The sound is done as it would be on a movie shot with film cameras.
Quote from: SoNowThenMac, do you or anybody know about changing lenses on this kinda camera? Because that's my only complaint about the really great digital cameras -- we need more latitude with the kind of lenses we can use.
With the Sony F900 models, the full range of Panavision 35mm lenses can be used (if you rent the camera from Panavision). They were designed to be compatible.
In regards to whether Conrad Hall could have used it for Road To Perdition, no. It's still not quite there. But for many kinds of films, where that sort of texture and richness isn't the issue, it's just as viable an option as film.
Generally speaking, I still think film is better for capturing images. I've really liked the look of films that have then gone through a digital intermediary (O Brother, Panic Room, etc.), though I can't say that pictures shot digitally look so good when projected on celluloid. O Brother, for instance REALLY popped on the big screen. We're going through a transition right now. Once movies are projected digitally that line is going to blur until there's no real need for film anymore.
Quote from: mutinycountil there's no real need for film anymore.
never gonna happen. thats like saying that with the internet, one day there wont be any real need for books.
It's about economics. I'm not saying film won't exist, but within the next 10-15 years the great bulk of all motion pictures will be digital.
And also TV. I think that'll be a big area for HD to takeover. Is there really any need for Friends or somesuch to be shot on 35mm?
I think one of the big hold ups are the DPs. People get arrogant about shooting 35mm. It's an ego thing. They'll only shoot 35mm. Of course, I usually find these are the least talented shooters.
Quote from: mutinycoI think one of the big hold ups are the DPs. People get arrogant about shooting 35mm. It's an ego thing. They'll only shoot 35mm. Of course, I usually find these are the least talented shooters.
I think that's an unfair statement. I know it wasn't meant to be a blanket statement, though. However, if someone were to misinterpret your statement to say that "if you're really talented, you wouldn't be afraid of DV", they would be wrong altogether. That'd be like saying that Altman isn't talented because he refuses to cut on computers.
Can anyone recommend any good digital video lighting books?
Already checked this thread (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5418), just for your reference. That's mostly film stuff. And I already have Painting With Light by John Alton and Film Lighting by Kris Malkiewicz