Video-Film Challenge

June 22, 2005

"The HD successor to the DVX100A has already been announced, it's the HVX200."

When and where did you hear that Pannasonic is phasing out the DVX100 in favor of the HVX200? You may be right but I've never read a press release anywhere saying that the DVX100 is now history. That would be a really dumb move. By the time you buy those memory cards for the HVX200 you're in the $10,000 range. That's not just a step up from the DVX100. That's a huge leap. Viewing the success of the Sony HDV models already, and the waiting list for the JVCHD100, Pannasonic would be really stupid not to get into the act.

"The problem is, I assume you mean the dimensions are twice as big, which yields an area which is 4 times as big."

Correct.

"This means that the area increases more than the data rate, meaning it is actually compressed more, which I believe is the case with HDV over DV."

But there are a lot of other things to take into consideration. Both the Sony models have 3-megapixels on the front end (three 1-megapixel CCD's) compared to the 1-megapixel that high-end miniDV cams have. That should give much greater clarity to the image to begin with. And while Mpeg2 compression may be lossy, its darn near lossless. As I stated earlier, when comparing my raw DV footage to an mpeg copy of it made with TMPGenc I can hardly see any difference at all even after blowing both up quite a bit (4x or even more). And that's with a 8000k data rate for the mpeg compression. If its almost lossless at 8000k, it ought to be darn near perfect at 16000 or higher. Besides, you can easily find footage and stills both all over the Internet from the Sony models. Have you seen any of it? I have and its marvelous. Really, you should check it out. The proofs in the pudding.

June 22, 2005

This is not true. 24P video has a "film-like" quality but it also looks like a digital image. I'm not saying that's bad, but it has a look just like any alternative format or process creates a look, and in this case, it's a "24P" look. This gets more visible the larger the image is seen, and you don't have to go as large as a theater screen to see this.

As better and better 24P cameras come out, it just becomes more and more clear how lacking the older 24P cameras were in matching film.

I love the way some 24P HD shows look like on TV, but they don't look exactly like a film show -- they have a "digital" look just like some digital still camera images do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure there are guys like you, who have a ton of experience viewing footage of every variety of film and video, who can see something different in each, especially on the big screen. I'm not doubting you. But I think 99% of the general public would never see any difference. That's especially true for DV that's shot largely indoors. Like this large outdoor shot I did at Forest Park last month. It doesn't look bad on a small monitor but this is exactly the kind of shot I would try to avoid as much as possible if I wanted to shoot for a theatrical release where the trees would look quite broken-up.

I don't know much about "November" but all the stills I've seen from it were indoor shots, so I'm going to assume it was mostly an indoors affair for it to win cinematography awards up against film. I'm axious to see it....

PS, if anyone views those stills I put up on anything smaller than a 1224 x 768 display, they're going to look quite bad.

June 22, 2005

"Jeremy,

If you happen to catch this, I was wondering if you're using the V-Amp rackmount unit? I'm not and wondered if it still has the same dropout in sound when you switch patches as the smaller unit does? Thanks.

"

I do have the rackmounts and I have to really go back and forth to set my volumes between pacthes...to get them all the same.Adding an effect can sometimes change the volume to an otherwise identical patch.

The models i like for high gain are the soldano,jcm 800 and the engl savage.I didnt really like the mesa models (whats up with the jose' marshall ,thats not even close!) I used the soldano for the recording,the marshall 800 for live.

Be aware the models sound different if you have the drive at 0 or 1.the post eq is a big variant too. Also...the input jack on the front sounds better than the one in the rear.I dont know why.

Through a big solid state amp and celestion vintage 30s or grenbacks.the v-amp sounds like a beefy rig.

Sorry, to post off-topic.

Nice recording by the way.

I still maintain 2 inch tape is the holy grail for music

and 35mm film for films.

Neither of course are cheap though.

Its good you reference your dv work with film though.

You should always reference your work against something exceptional to aim high.

We always reference mixes against big budget recordings because we figure if we can get anywhere remotely close were doing good.The same applies to shooting video I imagine.

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · June 23, 2005

Two things, you can't judge this from stills there has to be motion. Even 60i video can look really good if nothing moves in the frame. While most everyone has dumped analogue audio recording by now you see that there remains a huge and growing industry in items like tube amps, pre-amps, eq's, channel strips etc. both tube and solid state. All this is to keep some of that analogue sound. Because it's pleasing.

Overall your basic assumption is right, modern 24p video do look filmic. Some of it very good. That's great but we cinematographers are interested in making this technology be EVERY bit as good as film. Also every bit as good as it can be as it's own medium. You can't settle for good enough. Espescially if some manufacturer is ramming it down your throat.

As for my personal opinion having shot SD/HD24p and film. While I love shooting with digital cameras and have no problems doing it, film just kicks it's ass everytime. That's in many more ways than just resolution. Actually i wouldn't care if a digital camera had more resolution than film. It would still lack all the other artistic qualities.

BTW, I just got off Gaffing a feature shot on the Sony HDV camera and it does produce a very nice image. Most of the skintones looked a little shitty like DV though. I wasn't the DP so I don't know how much it could have been improved. I wouldn't guess by much because it was a top-flight DP.

Edited June 23, 2005 by J. Lamar King

Rik Andino · June 23, 2005

Besides, you can easily find stills both all over the Internet from the Sony models. Have you seen any of it? I have and its marvelous.
Really, you should check it out. The proofs in the pudding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again stills aren't the best when judging the quality of motion pictures.

You need to see the moving image to get a better idea...

And then you need to see it projected...perferablly 10x bigger than normal...

Then you can really notice whether or not it's decent quality.

HDV fails in comparison to regular HD and definitely to film...

When projected even on a big screen T.V.

However it does look pretty good compare to standard def. MiniDV

Or other older cheap video formats.

& there is also much to account for the skill of the cameraman or cinematographer

Which people always forget when arguing about the quality of a format.

Rik Andino · June 23, 2005

I don't know much about "November"
but all the stills I've seen from it were indoor shots,

So I'm going to assume it was mostly an indoors affair

For it to win cinematography awards up against film.

I'm axious to see it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I saw the trailer recently at screening (it was projected from 35mm)

It looks very good but it doesn't look like film...even though it's 24P

Even the indoor shots look like MiniDV

However I must attribute it looks like a very interesting film

And the style and look contribute to the story it is trying to say.

Again like I've stated what people forget when it comes to cinematography...

Is that it's not only the format or tools used...

It's most importantly the individual using those tools.

The award was probably given notwithstanding it shot on MiniDV

But because of the exceptional work the cinematographer did...

Both using the medium creatively and working with the story

To create visuals the collaborate with the direction and performances.