David Beier

Personally, I didn't like the look of Miami Vice. Collateral pushed the low shutter speed pretty far but it was a great movie and, despite the smeary motion, looked pretty nice. Miami Vice, aside from just being a bad movie, looks awful. TONS more noise than I saw in Collateral, even more smeary motion, and just ugly in general. I respect Mann for experimenting but I don't think it worked (still better to fail then play it safe). Personally, that the 270 shudder looks crappy in 24p. However, I kind of like the effect I get when I shoot at 12fps and then dubble each one to get back to 24. It stops the motion from looking too smooth which reminds me of 60i and makes the trails look more deliberate and surreal.

Well, the native chip size isn't as much as a limiting factor as one would think since the spatial offset of the CCDs theoreticall provides 1.5 times extra resolved detail for a 1440x810 image. Also, all processing is done at 1920x1080 before being downrezzed. In Barry Green's tests, he says he's seen about 25% more detail in 1080p. For me, it has varied. I've done some tests where I can't see much of anything and others where I see about 20-25% more detail. It really depends on what you're shooting and what the lense is at (each lense has a sweet spot). At best, I've seen 25% more detail. Now, NTSC only has a sampling size of 1280x1080 for 1080p vs the 1440x1080 of PAL so you may see almost 30% more detail there. Once again though, it depends a lot on what you are shooting. I've seen some tests where the 720p is indentical to the 1080p. I suggest that you go ahead, do some tests of the type of shots you are planning in both modes, and then go ahead and export some frames as uncompressed TIFFs and look at them very close. Try uprezzing both to 4k resolution to get an idea of what you might get on a big screen.

Pansonic has already released information. The HVX200 has 960 x 540 CCDs and then uses spatial offset to achieve a theoretical resoltion of 1920 x 1080. In practive howerver, it doesn't end up being quite this much. As far as comparison with other cameras goes, you really shouldn't even be comparing these with the Varicam and CineAlta since they cost over 10 times as much. The main competitors of the HVX200 are the XLH1 and the HD100. This is what I've gathered from people lots of research and people I know who use these cameras: Resoltion wise, the XLH1 is the clear winner. It's just sharper and quite impressive. The HVX200 and HD100 are actually about the same as far as detail level. The HD100 appears a bit sharper because the camera automatically applies MUCH more edge enhancment (fake resolution through upping contrast around edges). With edge enhancment removed, the cameras have the same level of sharpness so if you want the HVX200 to have the digitally sharp look of the HD100, just do it in post. The XLH1's higher resolution though is genuine. While the HVX200 doesn't wow in resoltion, it is superior in a number of other ways that I personally consider more important (though sadly the HD craze means that all anyone cares about is resolution). The HVX200 records in DVCPro HD instead of HDV like the others. The HVX200 has 4:2:2 color space compared to the others 4:2:0 which means the others compress the color twice as much. The HVX200 also uses pure frames which means far less motion artifacts. Finally, and I admit this is totally subjective, the HVX200 has a much more film-like gamma curve that I think looks far better.

A couple things: 1. You really are kidding yourself if you're hoping a $6,000 camera can compete with 35mm film. It's just not gonna happen. The fact that it can even be close is amazing. I havn't seen a filmout from the HVX200 but I know some who have and tell me that it looks about as good as Super 16mm. Keep in mind, Lucas has been raving about Cinealtas that run for $115,000, not $6,000. And yes, even in those cases they don't look quite as good as 35mm though I've heard Panavisions new Genisis is completely indistinguishible from 35mm. 2. I get tired of hearing people complain so much about DoF. I think young filmmakers simply use it as a crutch and student filmmakers tend to think it can somehow make their poorly shot, video-ish stuff suddenly look like film. It's not gonna happen. DoF can be used well if it's done right but I personally think deep focus offers possabilities for much more powerful visuals. Look at the work of Welles, Kurosawa, and Frakenhiemer. All deep focus and some of the most visually stunning stuff I've ever seen. The bottom line is the DoF should be an artistic choice, not a cheap attempt to cover up bad composition or pretend video is film. 3. I definatly wouldn't say the Canon XL H1 produces a better image than the HVX200. The Canon is sharper, that's to be sure. The lense is debatible as I've heard many argue that they prefer the HVX200 lense. The HVX200's real strength lies in a nicer gamma curve that looks much more like film to my eye as well as the DVCPro HD codec over HDV. This means that it has twice the color space, pure frames (which means less motion artifacts), and requires less processing power to edit. The HVX200 can also do true slow motion and fast motion. Ultimatly, I think these are more imporant and make for a better image. Resolution is important but I'd rather have better color, gamma, and motion any day. P.S. I'm aware the Canon XL H1 can do an uncompressed output with a deck and such but if I could afford the hardware neccesary for that kind of thing then I'd probably just rent a Varicam or Cinealta. It's a nice feature but out of my price range especially since the XL H1 is already 9k more.

Wow. Just wow. That looks far better than I would have expected. I thought the camera was just going to be a HD DVX100 but these seems to have a much more film-like gamma curve and wider lattitude. It easily tops anything I've seen from the CanonXL2.

I discovered something similar to this over the summer when shooting a film. It was a noir parody but, because of budget contraints, I had no lights (I was doing it or a summer program). For most of it, I ended up opeing windows and using sunlight (something I like to do with film or video since sunlight always looks better than artificial). Anyway, when I started playing around with it in Avid, I found that desaturating the color, crushing the blacks, and uping the contrast gave it a very interesting look. Honestly, I found that it looked better than some black and white footage I had shot on 16mm a long time ago. I think the reason that it looks so cool is this: As great as some 24p video cameras are, they still have a lower lattitude and capture color less effectivly than film. Takeing the color out helps things a lot so that one focuses only on the lighting. By uping the contrast a bat and crushing the blacks, one ends up with the a look very similar to early noirs that largely hides any video heritage. It's something that I'd like to experiment more with as soon as I get a new camea.

I had plans recently to purchase a DVX100a as I've worked with it many times before, shot some fairly pretty stuff, and feel I know the camera well. Now, it seems there is a new model coming out called the HVX200 which will still be in the $5000 range and I'm wondering if it's worth waiting. So, assuming that I'm a five-year-old who understands very little about cameras, what exactly are the key differences between the two cameras and what do they mean for someone one a limited budget? Also, how does the HVX200 compare to the Cannon XL2?

I had plans recently to purchase a DVX100a as I've worked with it many times before, shot some fairly pretty stuff, and feel I know the camera well. Now, it seems there is a new model coming out called the HVX200 which will still be in the $5000 range and I'm wondering if it's worth waiting. So, assuming that I'm a five-year-old who understands very little about cameras, what exactly are the key differences between the two cameras and what do they mean for someone one a limited budget? Also, how does the HVX200 compare to the Cannon XL2?

I've recently been thinking of getting a DVX100A. I've worked with it before and think it's the best for the type of films I want to make (i.e. those that look like film) for the my budget (i.e. under $5000). Before I plunk down the cash however, is there anything on the horizon that looks to top the DVX100 in terms of image quality, the "film look," but for still under $5000?

Thanks everyone.

Howdy, I'm currently in pre-production for a short film I'm shooting. It's being filmed in a controlled studio with the heavy studio lights on the actors and the iris closed down as much as possible (F16) in order to throw the backround into total darkness. However, I've run into the problem that one of my actors is black and one is white and thus, with the rather low lattitude of the camera, either the white actor blows out or the black actor is hard to see. It's rather important for the style of the film that they are in the same shot numerous times and as the lights are very high up in the studio, I can't really adjust them much to put more light on one actor or another. Are there any filters I may use which will help the African American actors show up better? Can anyone else think of a practical solution to my problem. I'm also curious about the master pedistal control. I've been messing around with it and have found it helps quite a bit in getting the image quality I want. However, I'm wondering if a low M Pedal setting (-10 or so) will have any unpredictable effects when I got to edit in Avid. Thanks for your help.

I asked the same question (with pretty much the exact same situation) and everyone here told me to get the DVX100A.

Thank you David as Red Beard (and Yojimbo) are the two Kurosawa's I was really thinking of where I found the effect the most striking. So, what you're saying (and I know I'm probably oversimplifying), is what I need to do to achieve a similar effect is to simply light the hell out of a scene and close down the Iris as much as possible? This will work just as well on video cameras (HD or DVX100A)?

I'd go with Coppola any day. Polanski's best is Chinatown and I don't think even that can manage to reach what Coppola accomplished with the two Godfather films, Apocalypse Now, and The Conversation. Coppola stands among Kurosawa, Welles, Hitchcock, and Lean as one of my favorite (if not the favorite) all time directors.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could one of you guys fill me in on deep focus and how it works. My understanding is incredibly limited: only that it essentially lets one keep both the forground and background in focus when using telaphoto lenses. I'm curious as to how this is actually accomplished using the lense. I'm also curious if deep focus is still used today by anyone (only examples I've really seen are Welles and Kurosawa), if deep focus lenses are still made, and if so how one would go about obtaining them. I've also hearded it said that high def offers a "deep focus" look to it but, just based on what I've seen, it doesn't quite seem to be the same visually as what you would see in something of Welles's. Thanks.

I'm really not much of a tech head but I may well invest in a high quality mini-DV camera and I'm debating between getting a DVX100 now or waiting for the cannon XL2. I know the latter isn't out yet but if anyone could tell any advantages or disadvantages it has in comparison to the DVX100, I'd appreciate it.

It sure looks like it from the trailer.

In general, one simply throws the backround out of focus to draw attention away from the background characters. For more interesting examples, look at works in deep focus by Welles or Kurosawa. Roger Ebert's commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD, in particular, discusses a number of ways that the viewer's eye is draw from one character to another without ever losing focus.

As many mentioned, "unusual" is rather hard to find as pretty much any director of worth should be able to compose shots in an interesting fashon. Personally, I found Bergman's Persona to be a really striking film in the composition of its closeups.

Thanks

I'm sure this type of thread has appeared on these boards alot, but here's one more. I'm a film student who may be running into a small sum of money and is debating what sort of camera to invest in (as I've probably gotten as much use out of my single chip JVC as I ever will). I'm planning on shooting a music video later in the year and, as I'm sure is the case with most, am always trying to go for that covetted "film look" without actually having to put up the bill to shoot on film. So...I'm trying to find a camera that suits my needs for under 5,000. Currently, the Panasonic AG-DVX100A seems like the clear choice as I've used it several times in my film program and it seems to be the "in" camera among low budget film makers. However, it recently caught my eye that JVC is marketing it's GR-HD1, a high-def camera, for around $3500. I don't know that much about digital technology, but it strikes me that there must be some sort of a catch for an HD Cam to be selling cheaper than a standard mini-DV cam. The fact that it's onle a single chip is also a bit discouraging. How exactly do these two cameras compare? Which looks closer to film on the small screen? On the big screen? Which is more flexable? Which has greater lattitude and color depth? Which is more user friendly?