Ash Greyson

I am not sad at all. Most people who get ripped off are victims of their own greed. Take the analogy above a step further. What if you found someone who would trade you $100 bills for $20 bills? You would immediately KNOW something is wrong correct? If you went ahead and did it, it is your own greed taking over. I feel sorry for the people who get screwed over for legit looking deals but with the internet at your fingertips, that should be very rare. I mean, just type the store name into Google! Within the first couple links you will see that the store selling you the bogus HVX has a lifetime consumer rating of 0.26 OUT OF 10.00!! The thing that is mindblowing is that people still see this and "roll the dice" looking for a deal. A fool and his money are soon parted.

ash =o)

Hey, I feel like I am the guy that will turn you away from the brevice.

 

The only reason we are using one on my current production is to save weight for the steadycam.

 

The brevice that we got was a huge piece of garbage. Right now it's got a mixture of ace hardware screws and super glue holding it together. It's quite scary. We are getting good images out of it, but it's not worth the worry, and effort we have put into it.

 

The guy building the piece obviously doesn't know too much about the gear that attaches to lenses, or about lenses in general. A lot of lenses loose focus around the edge of the frame, and that's if they aren't vignetting!

 

Always remember to turn it on as well.

 

Also, using longer lenses, like a 50mm, or 85 (my favorite for closeups) looks great, but wider lenses like a 25mm or 18 still look good but the shallow depth of field isn't there as much, which throws you off.

 

Don't plan any big productions until you get very desireable results with the brevice and you truly trust it.

 

Also, never use gain with a 35mm adapter.

 

Jamie

A mountain of misinformation here. I have used a Brevis, after testing every sub $2000 adapter EXTENSIVELY, for about 6 months. The FD mount, currently being improved, works but is not real solid but other than that, it is built quite well. If you are losing focus on the edges it is either off center camera optics or user error. Both can be corrected.

I really wish people would stop blaming their gear for their lack of operational experience.

ash =o)

Ash, a fellow Tulsan, I've heard much about you from the Jobe's. A lot of good things. I like your look. The filtration/color correction is beautiful. Though I must admit I'm not crazy about the wobbly side-to-side steadicam moves. To me they don't come off as a "style".

Do you own the rig you used? Also, which lens did you use?

 

On a side note...where's the youngest one?

Thanks Paul... It was borrowed, I have a bad back and dont do Steadicam stuff anymore. I had one guy that was pretty skilled but I didnt like it looking so smooth (accentuated by shooting in 60P) so I had a guy strap it on that has never even used a Glidecam. The only stuff I wish was better was the full on running stuff but he was in a full sprint in the sand...so... sans a much more expensive rig, it wasnt going to get better. It didnt end up exactly as I wanted either but this was a thrown together last minute low budget thing so, while not perfect, it works.

The video was shot with a stock HVX at full wide (for all but one shot of the piano) and the color is a combo of in camera settings and some tweaking in FCP with the 3 way CC. The youngest one is actually the singer in this vid... man I am getting old!

ash =o)

I am not a fan of the RR HD achromat, replacing it solved the issues you are noting. It was replaced with a Cinevate achromat.

ash =o)

The Canon Manual 16X is F1.6 thru the entire zoom range. It may appear a little sharper as it tends to be a little more contrasty and poppy. On the long end, it can show lots of CA. I love the lens though.

ash =o)

I agree with most the sentiment here. Check the rentals on SDX900s, they have gotten pretty reasonable with the recent price drops. If it is a to the camera show, ditch the 24P. You can do 30P but be aware that it will limit you in PAL territories as 30P to PAL looks TERRIBLE. If you are stuck in DVX world, I have found the 100B to be better than the A in regards to noise and color rendition, try to snag a couple of those.

ash =o)

I love the extra rez but it is a PAIN to use, I personally wont ever use one again. Good call.

ash =o)

The problem with the DVX100a is that without a lot of light it gets noisy really fast, especially in squeeze mode which makes it worse. The 100b actually is a noticeable improvement. My solution is to give use more light and then crush it down by turning the master pedestal down some. I think the main issue in these grabs is that I am missing the edges of people, a little kicker light would make the soft fill more bearable.

ash =o)

Here is a video all shot with a Glidecam (with vest) and an HVX. I wanted it "floaty" not perfectly smooth for much of the video so dont be too harsh on the balancing...

http://mh.tilted.com/bio/go_final.mov

ash =o)

everyone is missing the point.. REDs goal is not to MAKE MONEY!.. Jims a billionaire.

He wants to make the big companies realize they can not dominate the film industry anymore. He wants film making to be available to the more talented yet dirt poor artists.

Who else is sick of seeing big budget big hype studio flops? I know Jim is!!

This is the kind of statement that is causing problems. Of course RED is a money making venture. If not, what would Jim have proved? That you can lose money and make great tech? Yah, that will really show SONY. As far as flops go? Again, another silly statement. Pick a flop, any flop... now, let's pretend it was shot on RED. Uhh... yeah...

I say again, technology has not been the limiting factor in Hollywood for a LONG time. There are greedy producers, politics, etc. that are the main obstacles. It is a gross misconception that some new technology will cause the gates of Hollywood to swing open. Producers, promotion, actors, marketing, etc. are each about 1,000,000 times as important as resolution or any tech...

ash =o)

Search my name in the XL2 forum over on dvinfo.net, I have a lot of tips and settings...

ash =o)

I dont care so much for Tony Scott stuff... style over substance in many cases. It often feels unmotivated. I guess the thing I really hate about it is that somehow, that "look" of his seems to DEFINE the film look with most of the indie people. For me, there is one film that visually stands out so far there is no close second. That would be Metropolis. Still mesmerizing to watch....

ash =o)

I think there are a handful of haters here and many skeptics. I think some skepticism is healthy but too many people are just plain rude about it. There is a difference between saying, "it is going to be tough, I wish you luck," and "you'll never do this" There are some people, like David Mullen, who actually seem to get it. An artist is not defined by his brush...

ash =o)

I dont get the amount of energy working professionals are putting into talking about this camera... on both sides. I am busy, shooting/editing/etc. every day. I pop on this forum and other forums as often as possible to check out the scene and moreso on other forums, help others with any questions they may have.

There will always be fanboys, the guys who think that somehow a camera can make the gates of Hollywood swing open and that somehow the only thing that has held them back, is their access to technology when in most cases, it is their lack of true talent. IMHO, these are the guys talking up RED that will never even touch the camera. It is just that their dream, is now at least on the radar at $17,500. There are also many professionals who just love bleeding edge tech, they are not fanboys but they are rooting for RED, many have reservations and will be on the front lines of showing the viability of the camera and workflow when released. Good for them I say.

I would expect most professionals to fall into the "wait and see" camp. This is where I am. I am rooting for RED and JJ. I hope they do what they say they plan to, at the price they plan to. It will greatly help my business as I spent more than the price of RED renting Vari/F900/SDX/etc last year. I read the updates, pat JJ and team on the back when appropriate, raise an eyebrow when appropriate, spank a fanboy when appropriate, etc.

What I absolutely do NOT get is the haters.... why even waste the energy? Why be negative? To me, it makes it look like you are insecure about your abilities/talents/etc. If you love film, great, just say that, you dont have to insult new technology or the fans/creators of it. You dont have to be rude, condescending, accusatory, etc. Maybe the haters are guys that need to work more, guys that need to be more relevant... I dont know... but I suggest that if you are reading this and feel like responding negatively that you are wasting your time even being in this forum. You are a Yankee fan, fair enough... quit hanging around the Red Sox dugout...

ash =o)

hi, im shooting a documentary with 2 dvx100a and 1 dvx100b, and ive gone through all the settings and each camera still looks different. My camera looks good, the colors are rich and saturated the colors look accurate to what they look like to the human eye , but the other 2 are flat and desaturated?

Ive white balenced under the same light, the settings are all the same, ive even lowered my settings like the chroma level to the negatives and brought up the chroma levels on the other 2 cameras,and still my camera is more colourfull?

Am I missing somthing hear??

any suggestions?

100B has a more natural gamma and color matrix resulting in much less chroma noise. You will need to push the 100B more toward red and even warm it up a little. You can match them, just keep this in mind.

ash =o)

The market for RED is not people shooting 35mm. Maybe they want it to be and maybe, eventually, it will be but I think the market is REALLY guys like me who shoot a lot of 1/3" and 2/3" CCD stuff. I spent more money renting SDX900s and Varicams last year than it would cost to own RED. For guys like that, of which there are MANY, it makes perfect sense.

It reminds me of when DV came out. I jumped on it the day it was released. Nobody and I mean NOBODY thought it was viable for pro use. I was often laughed at and made fun of. On my first big project, I had to dub everything to BetaSP, then into AVID, then into an online room. The cost was not any less than if I had shot it on Beta but I could not lug a BetaCam around the world in the situation I was in. Also, we pretty much had to lie to everyone about what it was shot on. Within a couple years, DV had really infiltrated the ENG and even down the dial (MTV, etc.) scene so much that it was a non-issue. By the way, that DV project went on to be the best selling longform music video of all time...

ash =o)

The issue of price is related to the number of units sold, units that pass the quality control, etc. That is why Jim is on such an aggressive pace. If you are paying a staff of experts to do R&D, much easier to pay them for 1 year than 5 years. There is also the cost of producing sensors which, I am told, have a very high failure rate. There is a lot of cutting edge tech on this camera and in order to get it below the $20k mark they are going to have to get very creative, which they appear to be doing. I find it so odd that with technology people whine and complain about how much the higher end stuff costs but you get what you pay for. I mean, on PAPER there is no reason a Porsche should cost 10X as much as a Ford Festiva but you are paying for engineering, style, performance, etc. not just metal, leather and rubber.

In this example, Jim has promised a Ferrari for the cost of a Honda. I personally hope he does it and so far, he seems well on his way.

ash =o)

The Canon GL1 is not good enough for home movies?

 

Geez some one should tell all the Fortune 500 companies that use the GL1 to make corporate videos that it isn't even good enough for home movies. We should also inform all of the reality cable TV shows that use the GL1 that they are using a camera not even good enough for home movies.

 

R,

You sound silly here... there are no shows that I know of on any network being shot on the 1/4" CCD 60i GL1. DVX, XL2, PD170... etc. but not GL1 which has been replaced by the GL2 and now 2 new HDV cameras.

ash =o)

I'd be more specific rather than painting everyone here with such a broad brushstroke.

 

The RED camera is completely possible technically, so there is no reason why it -- or something like it -- will come to the market. I've only questioned how a company can turn a profit selling it for $17,500, and the practicality of a 4K workflow for the average indie person (and I'm sure those issues are on the minds of the RED team)... but not the feasibility of the camera itself.

I have always been with David here. I am rooting for the camera but I personally dont know how he can do it at that price. I suspect what COULD happen is the price may go up after the pre-orders are filled. They also seem to be tackling the workflow issues as well. I do think that whatever happens, this will positively effect the industry. I have said it before but I hope Jim doesnt become the Preston Tucker of the video camera.

ash =o

)

You should not have to mess with the ped. That camera has incredible dynamic range if you set it up properly.

I've done many outdoor shoots in all kinds of weather and it is very forgiving. If you expose for an overcast sky, there should be plenty of subject detail to work with.

While I have found this true in general, I have also found times of the day and angles where the sky will blow out if you expose a subject properly. I assume the original poster is talking of one of these special circumstances. The pedestal trick is one I use when shoot 1/3" CCD stuff which blows out the sky very easy in most situations.

ash =o)

I'm three days into shooting a summer camp on an xl1 with a standard 16x 5.5-88 zoom. I've been noticing a decent amount of vignetting, which has baffled me for one reason - it happens on the telephoto end of the zoom, and when you move in from wide to long, you can watch the effect increase. I was always under the impression that vignetting occoured at the wide end of the lens. Also, it occurs in low-light when I'm around f/2 or so. (it's the first time I've worked wide-open on an xl1, so maybe that's why I haven't seen it before)

 

Is this issue standard with this lens? I kind of like the effect, but I might want to shoot something with an xl1 sometime where I don't want to see it. It's not my camera, so if it is a problem with this particular lens, it's not my problem to get fixed, but I would like to know if ALL of them are like that. oh and what causes it, if the explanatin isn't too involved?

 

Well, here's to another four-plus hours tonight of logging and capturing...

 

By the way, the camp is in New Mexico, and son of a gun, I want to shoot a western here. We passed through Arizona on the way, and those landscapes were incredible too.

What F stop are you at? Anything higher than F8 can resuly in funkiness...

ash =o)

I've run into situations where I need to shoot a face/body on a overcast day. I expose for the face and typically the sky is blown out so I lose detail (in the sky). These are on shoots where we are not using HMI's to increase level on the actor's. Is there a setting (knee?) that I should be adjusting for shots like this? I've used ND grads but in some shots they dont work as well because they cut off the subject. Any help is appreciated.

You can expose for the sky and turn up the pedestal until you can see the subject. It will get really milky but it can be easily fixed in post.

ash =o)

I went to USC film school and it is VERY elitist. Lots of good people for sure but also many left out with real talent while others were in based on connections. It is great for networking but not sure I would do it again....

ash =o)

Hello, I'm shooting a short film and the producer's have decided to use the varicam. I've never used it, but have shot with HVX-200. I have heard that it the two cameras are miles apart in regards to menu options. Does anyone have scene file settings that they can show me in regards to shooting during daytime? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Shoot me an email and I will send you some settings to load onto your SD card. Dont be too intimidated, tha hardest thing is navigating the menus, you can get pretty lost in the advanced ones. I recommend using the setup file converter to adjust settings rather than trying to do it in camera. You also may need it to adjust the settings for different models, you can get it here:

https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/sal.../aj-hdc27h.html

Lastly, if you can find it... get Goodman's Guide, it is INVALUABLE for even the most skilled Vari shooters.

ash =o) AshG@ashVID.com

Interesting that this process (cropping in post) always gets referred to as 'losing resolution'. I guess counting pixels really matters when you're shooting with something like the DVX.

 

I feel like you're 'gaining' the aspect ratio and its aesthetic benefits rather than 'losing' much.

You have 1/3 more resolution in 4:3 mode, that is VERY significant, especially for any broadcast delivery.

ash =o)