Jump to content

Jan Crittenden

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jan Crittenden

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  1. There is a tape drive, it records DV. The DVCPRO HD deck would be vastly too expensive to put into a camera of this price range, as David mentions. I guess I don't know what you mean. If you would care to elaborate, I will try to answer, but what do you mean by the "success of the 100? 100Mbs, DVX100? I don't know where you are going as both are very successful, so I don't understand your question. Best, Jan
  2. Hi Stephen, I understand that it may be interesting, frankly there are other things in my job description to which I must attend. When the first two posts were made I was on tour with Resfest (SF and LA)so nights and weekends were in a hotel room. I am now at home. My husband is undergoing chemotherapy, and while at home I find I need to be here now. I am sure you all can understand. Take on top of this the idea that posting on the internet is less than 5% of my job responsibilities. I respond to the internet during the day between things like marketing bulletins, answering email from vendors and dealing with maketing plans and at night when my dear one has retired. Responses to obdurate positions requires a point by point rebuttal which just consumes hours at a time because I feel as though I need to be both clear and sure of my responses. Right now I have a number of things that take priority, like the AG-DVX100B Launch and a major announcement on the AJ-SDC615. They deserve a pro-active marketing effort. So I appreciate your patience. Best, Jan
  3. Actually no, just trying to figure out how and where to host the video clip that we have showing that this is not the only way to do the exersize when working with Newscutter or any other NLE but since we were discussing Newscutter, that is what we used. Also trying to find the time to answer the point by point. I actually do have a pretty intense job that has other deadlines that are more pressing. I did ask Tim to keep the topic open for a reason. Soon, but not today, Jan
  4. Landon D. Parks: Another question also... What programs will be able to edit the DVCPRO HD footage in native 24p mode? Can Vegas 6 handle it? I'm use to using Vegas, but a move to Avid Express is an option, maybe a mac running final cut pro hd... Avid Xpress Pro HD, Canopus Edius HD, and FCP 5.0. Also coming on line will be the Matrox Axio. And yet another one: Does the HVX200 offer Uncompressed output? Or is the 100mbps DVCPRO HD the max? The uncompressed is component analog, and one of those nifty Ato D converters will get you a very clean HDSDI, if you have the Terabytes and Raid to record it. Best, Jan
  5. Hi, Sorry it has taken a little longer to write this and get back to you and the list. Long show hours with just enough traffic that the sentences I can write there are few.
  6. Phil Rhodes asked: No, I'm asking what the benefit is to all this stuff that I should suffer my choice of software being so severely curtailed. I mean, sure, support will come, but what's the point? Why not just use a standard format that everyone can already read? Here is a statement from Avid about the format that we use: While many rules apply to all Operational Patterns, the building blocks may be assembled somewhat differently. For example, OP-1A files may include multiple tracks of audio and video essence that are interleaved into a single file. This approach makes the files nicely self-contained and can work well in applications where each file represents a complete program or take. But OP-1A may be less applicable to content authoring steps such as nonlinear editing, where programs are created by surgically slicing and layering different sections of source material. Not surprisingly, Avid products will natively support OP-Atom (SMPTE 290M) the operational pattern that was designed to specifically address the needs of nonlinear video and audio editing. Benefits of OP-Atom include the separation of essence into multiple files while retaining common clip metadata across related files. This is from their white paper on MXF. It is fairly short and easy to read, you can find it here: http://www.avid.com/resources/whitepapers/...=885&marketID=1 >OK, now you're being asked by me to please not because I don't believe that the complexity overhead is worth it. As I say, I am willing to be persuaded. What DOES it gain me? P2 MXF support has been implemented by Avid (across NewsCutter, Media Composer, Unity with HD support coming in DS), Pinnacle (the Liquid Broadcast / Chrome family, done prior to the Avid acquisition), Quantel, Thomson/Grass Valley, as well as Canopus, EVS, Dayang. We expect Leitch Nexio NLE support (for O.P. Atom) in a month or so, and Velocity already does support P2. Microsoft recognized the pervasive position of DVCPRO and added IEEE 1394 support for 50 and 100 Mb/s for DVCPRO in Windows XP Service Pack 2, and they selected P2 for their Connected Services Framework for P2's IT-centric "instant access." TeleStream has P2 support in FlipFactory 4, and it can serve as an ingest for Avid servers. Dalet and Omneon are P2 cognizant, to the degree their customers have asked for support, as is SGI. Focus Enhancements well aware of MXF, and is working with us to have an FS-100 for the HVX200, and created P2 DV file conversion software for us (more below). The decision to use MXF (SMPTE 377) was largely driven by two things: our participation in SMPTE and MXF and AAF; and Avid and Quantel. Avid told us they were going to shift from OMF to MXF, and they asked that we follow O.P. Atom (SMPTE 390) so the content would not need to be parsed at ingest as it must be for O.P 1A (SMPTE 378). Even Grass Valley, who have their own "earlier" version of MXF (GXF, I believe - SMPTE 360) can mount and or ingest P2 MXF. The independent existence of all the audio and video essence allows the NLE application operate even without ingest, i.e. for many systems like Avid's or GVG's the device can simply mount, or content can be ingested, usually faster than real time, at the users option. >No, it doesn't. Most significantly, the SPX-800 doesn't save scene and take information, and doesn't offer any way to set or increment those fields even if it did. I said it was in the P2 viewer, the P2 viewer allows for clip infomation to be edited. The P2 viewer does indeed allow for this. The clip names on the file is a random number. If you are working in a very large station and you are ingesting clips from 10 camcorders into the servier, you cannot have Clip one, Clip two, Clip three because you would have 10 of each of these everyday. It has to be more random than that and thus the random number that you are complaining about. You can then rename the user clip name to what ever you want. The random number stays until you rename it say in the application or in Windows Explorer. But you can resort all of your clips by the user clip name. >And then it worked with every piece of software that wants to print. P2 works with those applications that Panasonic have chosen to favour. Bad idea. Here is where your slant on this is just simply incorrect. If you undstand the nature of the MXF, and the little booklet above may help, you would know that it is towards standards that all files can be interchanged. The further from the standard the more difficult. And BTW, we don't chose who we will work with, folks come to us to make sure that we work with them. >Enhance the metadata. Is it me, or is that right off the sales briefing for the thing? What d'you mean, enhance the metadata? Well you could add key words for searching in the archives later, you could put in more pertinent things like the correct spelling of the interviewee's name, or if nothing else you could put in the DP's name under the shooter. The clip owns the serial number of the P2 card that recorded it and there is a long list of data that can be assembled about any of the clips. This is all for the benefit of the archive. >No, that's exactly the problem, you can't just view the files. If it was raw DIF you could do that. Funny enough, I clicked on the MXF video file and it came up and said what do I read this with and I chose Windows Media Player. However it only played the video. Oviously, the more powerful application to work with the clips is the P2 Viewer. >If it was an AVI or a quicktime movie you could just do that. But it isn't. It's six files in a strange, largely unsupported format, even unsupported by software that claims to support it. OK, I could be wrong. Please, tell me what this gains anyone. Well, all I can say is that the broadcasters that have the Newscutter here seem to be working with it just fine and from what I have seen on the Newscutter demos, it seems to work just fine. Not sure why you were having a problem. >> I mean in order for me to view HDV files I have to download a very special piece of software that I don't >> use for anything else. >Yes! And this is... a bad thing! I think we're getting through here. See I don't see it as a bad thing, and perhaps this is just where we get to stay on the other side of the fence from each other. If a small piece of software allows me to work with a file format that up until I download it, and unlike the VLC stuff, actually allows me some real opportunity to working with the clip, I don't see the problem. I think this is cool and most of the customers I have demoed this too also feel that is it s cool. >No, obviously Marc let me take it out for review without doing that. Obviously. This is too bad, as it is not inherently obvious to step into a non-tape environment and know exactly what to do. I mean if you are into IT, it might be intuitive, but if you are coming from a tape-based background I don't think it is. >I understand what it is and how it is intended to work. I think it's a superb idea and very forward-looking; I think it's probably the best thing since sliced bread if you're Bloomberg or CNN. Actually it is smaller news organizations like New York 1, or local affiliates, as at a network level, it is harder to change that to an tapeless society when so much of the infrastructure is wrapped around tape or tape based archive. >I wouldn't be objecting this much if Panasonic were more willing to say "Sure, it's intended for big ENG organisations with huge offline storage who are willing to buy very specific software". It's no surprise that it's being supported (however badly) by news edit software first. Fine. Great. But you have to be willing to accept the limitations of the thing. It is not panacea, much as I appreciate that in the gumdrop-tree world of technology sales you have to believe it is. Well Phil, you will never hear this from my lips as I think just the opposite is true. The smaller, more controllable the environment for production, the easier it is to work with the P2. Frankly as it stands right now, I saw on the IBC floor three demonstrations, one at Avid in Xpress Pro HD, at Apple in FCP 5.0 and at Canopus in Edius HD, P2 footage, shot on the HVX200, imported into their systems and editing. So much for your point about lack of support. Frankly I believe whole heartedly that this is the coolest thing to happen to video since 24P. >I wouldn't be objecting this much if there was any good technical reason why it was a good idea to do it this way. Look, I'll forgive you any inconvenience so long as you can say why it's a good idea. So please. What exactly does this get me, or anyone, over a much more straightforward RIFF extension? >> Please take a look at the Standards for OP-Atom and that is exactly what we followed. >Yes, I know. So? That's not the problem. The problem is that there are so many subformats of MXF that you end up coding each implementation separately even if everyone does follow the rules. I understand the drive for convergence in file formats, but really MXF to me has always looked like nothing more than "call everything the same name so it looks pretty to the user, and sort it out behind the scenes." If I want to view a JPEG images, it's called JPG, and any JPEG reader can parse it. If I want to view an MXF, I first have to know if it's a Sony MXF, or a Panasonic MXF, or... When I first heard that P2 was going to record MXF, I must admit that my head hit the desk in a rather paradise-lost moment of techno-disappointment. The problems with MXF aren't Panasonic's fault, but the decision to use it is. Here I fail to understand what you mean. I see MXF standards and the one we implemented as appropriate and working. So are you saying the following a SMPTE standard is not a good practice? How can that be? Since we do work with a good number on the SD domain and a growing number on the HD domain, it seems perhaps that following a standard is a good idea. The OP Atom is operationally robust. >> These clips are not separate, >> It does not look that way to the NLE. >Hang on, I thought the whole point here was for the audio and video to be separate for the NLE? It is but it is primarily wrapped around the fact that many of the systems that work with the P2 can edit directly from the card. If I grab a clip and place it on the timeline, the NLe pulls its repective audio with it. They are not having to do two operations here, it is one. >> The MXF wrapper holds the clips together, they are not separated uless you separate them. >No, the MXF wrapper is designed to do that, it just doesn't in your implementation. For some reason. Again raising the question of why use it. Again, I cannot explain your experience, but it seems to work exactly so when I see the demo. > Phil, the system is quite competant and very powerful, >You're not even bothering to respond to my queries anymore, are you? The query you had that got this response had nothing to it, you said it was not a competant system, and I said it was. For the rest of your concerns I have tried to answer them, point by point. Come on. What does 0255F mean? Why is it important for it to be 0255F and not 01143503, which would be just as unique within a timecode range and human-readable to boot? As mentioned above, the random number generator idea is so that if you choose not to rename your clips, you don't have to and you can put all of the footgae in the server from any given day and it will accept them all. It may mean to the small producer that as you bring the clips in that you rename them, to me this makes sense as how would anything generated by a device have the ability to know what to really call my clip. This may be a fence issue and I will be on this side always and you on that side, but frankly I think as a person sitting down to edit footage is more likely to have viable names beyond clip 1, clip 2, and these would be vastly more useful. >Why, in God's good name, should I have to rename the clips myself because you chose to put gibberish there? Seriously, why? And don't blow me off with "I'm a salesperson not an engineer", get on the phone to Osaka and find out. First I am not a salesperson. I am a Product Manager. Didn't need to go to Osaka, we have some pretty strong engineering types right here and the random number generator part of the clip naming is in that same SMPTE standard noted above. > so far most of the folks we have working with it, look at the thumbnails and the Marker info. >That's because most of the folks you have working with it are CNN or Bloomberg-like organisations and are using it for ENG. You just released, in a very big noise, a camera clearly designed for filmmaking. Are you referring to those people? Actually I the folks that I have shown this camera to are the small filmmakers and this is the camera that I am the Product Manager for and yes, I do see that these folks will have a very easy time of working with this camera and its files be it on the Apple FCP platform, the Avid platorm or the Canopus. And probably by March for full implementation the Matrox Axio. >How're they lining up dual system sound? Well on the HVX200, it will jam time-code over 1394, so if the audio recorder outputs a TC on a 1394 link, the HVX can hear it and jam to it. If not I would suggest that a clapboard be used. Or they could both set to real time. >How're they ratifying it against timecode-logged production notes? By looking at time code sorts that can be done in the P2 viewer. or on the time line. >> If you keep the MXF wrapper intact, then you are managing one file and it has component parts within it. >No, it absolutely does not. Look, have you actually done this, or are you relying on Panasonic's internal briefing on the thing? Each MXF file has exactly one component in it. Audio, video, comments, metadata, proxies, etc. Actually we have been doing this, I was looking over an engineers shoulder last night as we played with both the Newscutter and the Canopus. Don't have the Apple with me as I am in Chicago at ResFest. It worked appropriately last night. >To view a virtual card in the P2 viewer on an Avid Newscutter, you have to have the files in one place. To actually import them onto the timeline they have to be in another. And thank God it only actually needs two, not all five. The only way to import P2 material into an Avid Newscutter - that I could find, please correct me - is to manually go into the data on the card and pull out individual files. No help from the magic "MXF wrapper". Let me come back to you on this as I will give you the set of commands, I forgot to write this down last night. I will write it down and post back tomorrow probably as this event goes until 10:00 tonight. >And of course, if you are using any of the myriad applications that doesn't support MXF, or rather Panasonic's very specific implementation of MXF, the import procedure is to unwrap from MXF, rewrap it to a more sensible format and mux in the audio. Which takes hours and no small amount of computer ability. Take a look at the list above, it is not a small list, it is a very large list and it is growing in support. Microsoft told us that the reason that they chose P2 over other non-tape based products was because P2 is IT from the moment that you press the record button. It is not a small select couple of systems that we chose to support, this is broad based support over many platforms. >Look, I like the system, I think it has great potential, I just think that the software side of it seems like it was implemented by the Ronald McDonald Department of Fashionability. Then the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers the Ronald McDonald Hall of Fame. ;-) My feeling is that somehow you ended up with a demo that didn't work and are struggling to figure out why. If all of the implementations that we have had worked as badly as you describe, I dare say that we would have over 3000 cameras deployed at this point in time. No the system works fine, your demo didn't work. I will get back to you on the import to the Newscutter keystrokes. Best regards, Jan
  7. Tim, not sure where you are getting your tapes, or perhaps you make the common mistake of thinkng the AJ-P60M or L is a one hour load for DVCPRO HD, it is not. Right now, the AJ-P126L which on a 1200 will give you 1 hour of HD recording you can expect to pay between $25.00 to $30.00 dollars. The $13.00 is a one hour of DVCPRO, or 1/2 hour of DVCPRO50 or a 1/2 hour in the extended record DVCPRO HD machines. If this project was mine to store I would consider an archival format that they use in the IT industry, like DLT, LTO, where the cost per gig to store is vastly less that DVCPRO tape or even hard drives. If we look at DVCPRO HD as about 1 GB a minute that DVCPRO HD tape is costing roughly $1 a gig. An DLT can store 200 minutes at $50, or .25 a gig. I'd take the .25. The deal is with recording to memory that you do have to come up with a strategy for archive that works, and you need to have a workflow thought out. Once you do that it is very straight-forward and you can have all of the advantages of working in the tape-free domain. Hope that helps, Jan
  8. Daniel J. Ashley-Smith: I've got to agree with Phil in that the organisation system of the camera is kinda useless. There's no logic to it. So when you are logging the scenes from your tape, does it have a file name for each clip? No it doesn't, it does have a unique time code and little else to differentiate it from anything else. When you work with the clips either in the P2 Viewer you can see all of the unique information available and you can add a boat load more. If you work with the clips in the NLE you can rename them there just as you do now when you digitize them from your tape, but you don't have to digitize you only need to import. >If I was too suggest anything to Panasonic right now, release a free downloadable program which can sort it all out. Shouldn't be too hard, if the file names have ANY logic whatsoever. Tim's answer on the file naming structure is very close to the truth of how the camera makes sure that each clip has a unique name as the camera does not have a keyboard for entry of names. And the P2 Viewer is downloadable for free and it comes with every camera and deck with all the necessary drivers. >I just find it silly putting 5 or so cards into a camera. It's like designing some form of cheap HD camera which has 5 VTR's and records onto 5 MiniDV tapes. It's just going over board. Actually it is much different than that and it starts with the fact that the camera has no moving parts, there is inherited flexibility in being able to access your footage and review it non-linearly and never having to digitize and deal with time code breaks etc. It is following in the very same footpath that has been taken by the still camera industry, followed by the professional audio industry for field recording, all of the interviews I did with magazines and such at NAB were on flash memory. It is out of the tape box thinking that is revolutionary and because of it we are able to offer a small DVCPRO HD camera that is under $10,000. So that camera costs less that the record heads, tape drive and die-cast for the VariCam. It also allows for the SPX800 to make pictures like the SDX900 for $6000 less. Yes you need to buy the cards, but that amortizes to a lower and lower cost with each use. We have lots of success stories with the P2, if you want to read them we have them posted on our website in the news area. Best, Jan
  9. PhilRhodes wrote in response to my point: >> No you don't have to use extremely expensive systems >Yes. Fine. But why? So you are saying that you want to use expensive systems? or not? First your complaint was that we could only use it with expensive systems and then I point out that that is not true, and now you want to know why? Why we work with inexpensive systems? Probably because they are the most popular ones out there. But we work with others that are more expensive and geared for news as well. >Why use this unnecessarily exotic flavour of an unnecessarily exotic format? Why not use something standard, so everything can read it without any drama whatsoever? Why make it complicated? We were asked by several of our partners to please use this format so that it would make the handling of the files efficient and robust. And fast. As far as making it easy to use, the P2 Viewer is very easy to use. As easy as anything else that I have had to download and use to view video clips. And the thumbnails come up almost like it does on the LCD screen but then all of the data is there as well. >No. That'd be like buying a printer and being told you couldn't print to it from Photoshop or any of your usual applications, you had to use the manufacturer's specialist application to talk to it, adding a time-consuming and fundamentally pointless step to the process. This example is taken from actual practice - it's very hard to get Epson printers to operate their CD printing functions outside Epson software, a flaw for which they have been quite rightly savaged. Well I bought an HP printer, I had to load the HP driver. It works with Photoshop. If you are working with the P2 files and from within the NLE application that is not a problem to see the file. If you choose to not work there, you can work on your PC and enhance the MetaData or just view the files. I don't understand the huge deal here. I mean in order for me to view HDV files I have to download a very special piece of software that I don't use for anything else. It is no different, except that this one allows me to get in and change the file name, add more meat to the metadata and do some note taking while in the field. >What, you mean exactly like you can every other video format on earth, right in your operating system's file manager? I don't get this "manage the clips" thing. What d'you mean, move them about, copy them? Like you can every sensible file format anyway? All this is forcing you to do is to reinvent the wheel - badly. All of this "management" functionality has existed for decades - you just built your camera system in such as way as to completely break twenty years of OS development. Well done. Now you've got people whining about the way it works, and you deserve it. Obviously you didn't get the orientation to the product. I don't understand your hostilty. Frankly I think that you are the one that may be a smidge ill-informed. Please take a look at the Standards for OP-Atom and that is exactly what we followed. Apple does not look at the MXF which is why they unwrap and the XML directs traffic from there. These clips are not spearte, they only look that way to Window Explorer or the OS, It does not look that way to the NLE. The MXF wrapper as employed is supported by the PC side of the NLEs Avid, Pinnacle, Matrox and and in some like the Canopus, the metadata actually tracks through the edit software as well. Actually we don't have people whining about the way it works, except for you. But we do have customers that have been working with it and so far everybody is pretty happy. And managing clips is about the long term for archive. The MXF wrapper holds the clips together, they are not separated uless you separate them. >If the system was competent you wouldn't need to rename the files anyway. I'd like to know the qualifications of the person in Osaka who decided that 0255E was a useful, informative filename. Which take is that, Jan? Which scene? Which card did it come off? What order was it shot in - before or after 0236F? Phil, the system is quite competant and very powerful, you just choose to look at on your terms and only your terms. Fortunately the major NLE players are not in concert with you. Actually if you had used the P2 viewer you would know exactly which card it came from as that is just one of the many pieces of data about the data. When you bring the clip into the NLE you can rename it to whichever take you want to, you can in the P2 viewer rename the User name, but the card/camera does give a unique number to the clip and so far most of the folks we have working with it, look at the thumbnails and the Marker info. And as far as the numbering that seems to be pretty immaterial when it comes to editing the stuff. >Well, I'll tell you what, I'll put up with whatever infinitesimal delay that process incurs in - oh, just every single NLE ever written - to avoid having to manually keep track of six files! And this is where you really do fail to understand the system. If you are managing the files as you would in a archive, it is no longer a tape on the shelf, it is an archive and yes you do need to organize and manage your files, much like I do on my laptop. If you keep the MXF wrapper intact, then you are managing one file and it has component parts within it. Best regards, Jan
  10. Hi, The reason I have not commented is because I haven't had the time to check in. I have been traveling with the working protoype of the HVX200 and I am only here because someone on the forum asked me to stop in and take a read through all of this. Frankly I am a little surprised at the unbelieveable amount of mis-information in this thread. First, there are a number of systems that support the P2 file structure, or unwrap the MXF and then use the files. No you don't have to use extremely expensive systems, you can use Final Cut Pro, Canopus Edius HD or Avid Express Pro HD and soon the Matrox Axio with Adobe Premier as the front end. In standard def the list is even longer. That special viewer driver is supplied with every camera or is downloadable from a website. This would be similar to buying a new Printer and installing the drivers for it onto your laptop. This will allow you to play back on your PC the Footage. If you are working on the Mac, you would have to import the footage into FCP to see it on the computer. If using the P2 Viewer software you can rename the clip and manage the clips that way or you can rename them in the NLE as they are imported. The MXF wrapper BTW is not of our invention or creation, we followed a standard that was recommended by the NLE folks. The reason that the individual pieces are separate is that it expedites the process of putting them on the timeline, it doesn't have to take the time separate the audio from the video before it goes onto the time line as the other MXF flavors do. Actually the Avid and the Canopus systems can edit directly from the card, the Apple cannot, the clips need to be imported first. The data can transfer off the card very quickly, the slowest transfer is on the P2 Store which is about 1Gig a minute, in a computer it can be expected to transfer at least twice that speed if not faster. The P2 card actually can transfer at 640 Mbs, but nothing else in the chain is that fast, yet. As far as the data rate on 24P for 720P it records on the card at 40Mbs because only the flagged frames are recorded. To compare this to DVCPRO50 and say that is is less than, is only in number but not in picture quality. DVCPRO HD is a High Def image and looks vastly different that DVCPRO50 which is standard def. The HVX200 will record either 720P or 1080i, and within the 1080i, it can do a 24P capture and with a pulldown similar to what we do in the DVCPRO50 camera, the SDX900, we can offer a 24P picture at 1080. This too will be supported by all of those systems above. I have to sign off now as I have ayet another plane to catch, headed twoards Resfest in Chicago. Lastly, one should never assume that my silence means anything other than the fact that I have not seen the thread. Best regards, Jan
  11. Because we produced it several months ago, it was done with the VariCam. Best, Jan
  12. Hi, We did a commercial to play in the various film festivals around the country for which we are a sponsor and thought that everyone would like to see it. The link is on the HVX200 page and just below it is the quicktime or window media choice for playback. Hope you like it, Jan
  13. Phil, Fortunately you are wrong about this, the lens is a cam-driven servo mechanism, unlike that which is in the Sony cameras. On this camera, just like on the DVX, when I want to do a manual zoom, it is engaged and it zooms. Best regards, Jan
  14. Hi, I am here but have been frightfully busy. As Chris said in 720P/24 you can get 20 minutes on an 8 GB card. As far as having to work strictly to P2 cards, I know that Focus Enhancements is working on a Firestore type of device that would allow recording of the HD signal on an external type of battery powered Hard Drive. There are solutions and frankly I was on a shoot a couple weeks back and we were shooting Varicam. We could have easily handled it on P2 and we would have so many absolutely wasted takes to wade through in the edit suite. There was one scene the guy just couldn't get his line straight and it took 27 takes. Because we were using tape, we got to save them all. Anyhow, I think this is going to be a hot little camera, it will debut at IBC in Amsterdam and then head for the US for a tour at Res Fest, NYC, San Fran, LA, and Chicago. Check out the ResFest site for more info as to where, the schedule for the seminar is still in the making, but worst case scenario will be footage to be shown. Best, Jan
  15. Jan Crittenden

    Film Examples

    Beyond November, and Incident at Lochness, there is Murderball, 9 Songs, Red Hot Ballroom, and Rock School. Hope that helps, Jan
×
×
  • Create New...