Landon D. Parks

correct. HD lenses where developed for a reason, and that reason was for an Hd camera. HD cameras dont "Require" HD lenses. You can put the worst 2/3" SD lense on an HD cameras. But what you'll get will be less than acceptable. Thats the best I can explain it...

Ok, I was watching Once Upon a time in mexico again, and at second look, some of the scenes looked like they had a VERY shallow depth of field. Now, I though HD could not get that shallow of a depth without a PRO35 Adapter? Or was that even depth of field i seen. Someone onnce said you could just "Pull the background out of focus" to get an effect like depth of field.. Im lost. need some help. :(

Yes, sorry. JVC Yes, well. Maybee I should have said that a Little differently. In my opinion, it can only be called true HD when it records to an HD format. Such a DVC-PRO HD, HDCAM, HD-CAM SR, or Full Bandwidth 4:4:4 Uncompressed Capture. Im sure the JVC has lovly resolution, but by the time it gets compressed by the DV format, what, DV is like 25mb/s? campared to 185mb/s on HDCAM. I would think the heavy compression would make the "HD" image have some terrible artifcats that just should not be there. And I have doubts that the JVC HD even records all the 720p. Is that possible to record 720p to MiniDV tape? if so, then I would think it would either have to speed up the tape drive, or compress the image more. Neither one is very healthy. I dont know. Maybee I dont know what im talking about. But thats what I always thought.

In my honnest opinion, if the camera says "HD" then its HD. If the camera says its "SD" "DV" "DVC-PRO" "DVCPRO - 50", then its SD. Now, DVC-PRO HD (Panasonic) and HDCAM (Sony) are HD formats. DV, DVC, DVCAM, DVC-PRO 50, SVHS, VHS, Hi8 are all SD. you will know when somthing is TRUE HD, only when it records to HDCAM, DVCPRO-HD or HD 4:4:4 Transparent. In my honest opinion, when cameras say they record HD to DV tape, they are not HD. (Panasonic 720p Consumer Camcorder). I know known of that probably makes sence, but thats my take on it.

Ok, Im weighing my options for an HD shoot, and I came across an interesting deal. I can pay $40/day for the 7" 16:9 Panasonic TC-7WMS1 or the $200/day 8.4" Panasonic HD 24p Monitor for the camera. Will the cheaper 7" monitor work if the camera is in 24p mode? IT says the monitor is capable of only NTSC and PAL, But I didnt think NTSC or PAL had anything to do with 24p or 24psf. And also it says it has a Composite input, but I cant find anywhere that the camera has a Composit output.... :unsure: :unsure: ;) Thanks guys

I do agree here. I dont think he should put down the way other people make film. if they want to shot on Film, then so be it. It should not be up to him to tell them there process is messed up. Even while he is doing this though, he has points on how there process is messed up. And how we do things because its the way they where always done. I do have one question though, what exactly does people talk about when they say "Video look" v. "Film look"? I just popped in Once Upon a time in mexico and watched it again, and payed close attention to the picture detail this time. and still yet, it looks just like it would have if shot on film to me. Now if I had a side by side comparison, that may make a difference. but 99.99% of the audience dont have that either, I guess thats why so few can tell the difference between the two, you just got to have a trained eye to catch the differences. Again, I fall back on what I said: "Its the story that counts". No matter how "Organic" film look, or how "Videoish" Video looks, its all comes down to the story and how big of a cast you are able to assimble. Without a name star and good story, Hd or Film wont get you fare. ;)

I dont agree. I think Rob makes some pretty good statements about film vs. digital. and you know, I have not seen his "Film is Dead" featurett in which I Plan to watch today. Its clear you dont like him.. Dont worry, film will still be around in 100 years, but film, in my opinionh will become the way of Indiefilms, and HD will become so expensive, it'll be the way of hollywood movies. He has always been what I have always wanted to be. A person who is not affraid to try new things, and see how they work. Unlike some, Who just think film is the ONLY way it should ever be and never willing to give video a chance. I know some people are like this. In my opinion, What will kill film will be the new generation of Cinematographers. As the older film lovers move out, and the newer HD Dp's move in, we will see a BIG increase in Hollywood Productions on HD. Even thogh Rob atakes film like its hitler or somthing, he still has a point. his "Ham Story was pretty good as well. Some like him, some love him, some hate. Just as some Love film, and others hate it to death (Rob and George). And yet it all falls back on one big issue, the story. You can have the most beutifule 35mm images in the world, but a crappy story, and see how well it does. Or a HD feature with a good story that make $100,000,000 + at the box office. (Spy kids 2, 3,) Bottom line is as I say in my Sig.... Who cares if it was shot on film or hd?... ITs the story that counts. And I think 97% of the world will agree with me... while the other 3% only go to the films to talk about how bad looking they are. In the end, no matter which medium you use, you as the filmmaker are required to tell a story, and if the story is not good, then it wont make a scent, reguardless of shot on Hd or Film. The exception is Once upon a time in mexico, which had a terrable story, terrable Cinematography (Due to Rob not hiring someone who knew how to operat the cameras, not the HD medium). But with Depp, story or not, you will make Millions. Just my Idea about it. So, I dont expect anyone to agree with me, and im not trying to brainwash anyone in to HD over Film, or that you should stop hating Rob. I'll leave that up to the other 3% who have nothing better to do...... Hope these are wise words, Im not trying to make anyone mad here. Just expressing my opinion on it. I was not expecting to see anything. I was commenting on the fact that HD has more innerds than film cameras. Take apart a Sony HDW-F900 and and Arricam, tell me which has more Circuits, Processors, Wires and the like. Film cameras may be made to a higher quality, but thats not what I was talking about in the first place. My origional post was that HD cameras have MORE STUFF in them , and Film Cameras LESS STUFF, and yet the seem to charge more for Film Cameras. Not that Film cameras where made to a higher quality and standard than Hd. I have no doubt Film Cameras are higher quality... they are 90% Mechanics, which require more precision and time than Electronics. Film may be of Physical form, but that does not make it Organic. ITs not made with tree leaves. its made with Chemicals. And really, Hd DOES have a physical form, the size of the CCD. It just looses that form when recorded. Wow, sounds pretty hard. But I imagin HD has some high standards for design and assembly too. if you get the CCD off alignment AT ALL, the camera is trash. At lease film has 10,000 atoms to work with. Come on... CCD's cost more than that. I bet a good HD 2/3" 3 CCD Block would run you $8,000.00 - $10,000.00 each. My look at it also is like this. What if Digital was what we had for the last 100 years? I bet the minute film was starting to be used, everyone would comment on how bad it looked. We are all just so use to the "FILM LOOK", that we can tell when its not film.But come on, Film is technology, and ALL technologies Die at some point. Do you still use a Phonograph? I doubt it. we have a new technology, called a CD. Even HD will die someday, to make way for a new format. Again, theses are just my opinion on it. and Im not a DP, So I dont know everything. this is just the way I see it through my eyes as the Director. :blink: P>S) Sorry for the bad typing, but I'v been up for 2 days straight now, and Im not paying to much attention to how im typing.

I could not really get the feel for it. needed to be longer or somthing. I mean, from what you have it looks good. But to really be able to tell, that would require a lot longer reel for me.

I dont think poping the camera in the fridge will revive pixels. Although, weird things happen.

Really? I'v never looked inside an 435, But it just seems to me more Electronics are in the Hd cameras. Now if you include the Video assist, which is a Digital camera itself, then I can see it. I once looked inside an Arricam, and what I seen did not impress me at all, But I'v never even seen a 435 in person. Try buying a single Zeiss Digiprime for $3,000.00! They'll kick you out of the store!!! I was using a "Box and a motot" as a point. I know there is a lot more in a camera now days.

P>S) I just go through listening to Robert on the SK3 dvd talk about how the film was made and stuff, and he has a point to make on Digital. I found it inspired me to shot digital HD when he explained how people considered film "Organic", and he replys with "It dont grow on tree's"... lol.... And 99% of his argument about digital HD is true. I really think Him and George will be the ones that take us into the digital age of Filmmaking. long live HD digital Robert and George...

The reason I think Sony charges so much is only because they dont sell enough of them to really make a large profit. I mean, You cant tell me they have more than $15,000 in one of those HDC-F950's... just cant see it. And yet they find it fitting to sell them for $110,000.00 list price for the HDC-F950 alone. But then again, even film cameras are just basic boxes with a motor and a few electronics and yet they still seem to find away to charge $150,000.00 for them. and they is no where near as much in a film camera as a Digital HD. Good thing about film cameras are that you can rent them for so cheap... So many more people use them than Hd that they can afford to charge less and stay in buisiness.... Just my take on it. :blink:

16mm film is fine... but for yout use, I would say Digital is better. If you can, make it over to www.saferseas.com . They have some pretty good complete packages for your needs. Personally, I suggest the DVX-100A. And if you can afford it, DVCPRO-50 SDX-900... Which is the closest to HD you will come @ around $25,000.00 w/o lense and accessories. :huh: What ever works for you. Try different cameras, take test's... see what works better. only you can judge whats right for you. Whats right for you, may be wronge for me.

NOTE: I am NOT a DP. So I dont know everything. This is just the way I view the costs... mybee Im viewing them wronge?!?!?!

Ok, you win... lets compare the Viper to HDC then. Viper: $1,200.00/day Disk Recorder: $1,000.00/day --------------------- $2,200.00/day @ Plus8Digital I guess I got my prices mixed up on the HDC. I just went an checked, its the HDC-950 for $850/day, not the HDC-F950. And also, 35mm lense are not $1,000.00/day... last time I checked anyway. Zeiss Ultra primes go for $150.00/each/day. and I figure on needed 2... 20 and 40mm. Brings my total too $300.00/day for the lenses... and if the PRO35 is more than $200.00/day, they can forget it. But thats HD... I was really comparing to film. If Hd really hits over the $4,000/day mark, why would someone want to shot it over 35? Unless for just ease of use, or they where doing green/bluescreen? I figure I can get 20 hours of film, Telecine, Lab and Equipment for $35,000.00/ TPT or less. Not including the fact you would have to hire an HD tech on HD, which would top the $50k + mark w/equipment. Not everyone will agree with me, But this is My opinion. not all HD is more than 35mm, but it appears the sony and panavision are.

I'v never shot HD, But I dont see the Digiprimes being a lot more expensive than any other lense. or the Pro35 really. :unsure: Pro35 is somthing ike $26,000.00 new to buy, so Im figuring maybee $200 a day in rental. Digiprimes are like $800/day for the FULL set. But thats not bad considering a good HD zoom lense will run $600-$700 a day anyway. :rolleyes:

My Biggest concern is the quality of the optics in the adapter, and the fact that 35mm lenses just dont hold up to HD lense quality. As I once read in an artical somewhere "We had to make new lenses for the HD cameras, and they need to be 2.5 times better than the Film Lenses. Due to the fact that Focal area is 2.5x smaller than 35mm film". But, im not smart on all of that. If the image qualtiy is still good, then it sounds like a good adapter. and If I can afford to use it, I most certainly will. :)

$40,000 for 5 weeks? I could shot 35mm film for that and shot plenty of it. And even more to the fact that the only added bonus to this camera right now that I know of is the fact it has 35mm depth of field... But it only record HD Quality i hear... 1080x1900 or somthing like that. Sony HDC-F950 w/ PRO35 and Recorder are cheaper than $4,000.00 day. Oh well, I guess that puts that camera out of the picture for a while.... <_<

Ok, I just found info on the PRO35 for HD cameras.... I have one problem... you mean I cant use the Zeiss Digiprimes?!?!?!?!?!! Film lenses on an HD camera? I dont think film lenses have the qualtiy needed for HD. thats my concern. However, with the lower depth of field, I think it pays off to use it on live action shots. Im still worried about the image qualtiy suffering.... not from the Film lenses, but from the way that adapter works.

Can someone alert me to the expected cost of the Genesis per day and per week? Seems pretty expensive..... but then again, if they charge to much, then it could not compete with film.... so?

Can you tell me, does this Mini35 Adapter work on Cameras like Viper, HDC-F950 and HDW-F900? If so, does it lower the resolution any? ;) There website said somthing about it wa made for use my the XL1.... bit said nothing if It would work on Hd cameras, and also if lenses like Zeiss Digiprimes could still be used. Thanks

Maybee I should Invent an HD tap? I sure would like to be able to shoot film, and still see it in full resolution on a 50" plasma.... although, I dont think I would make much in the video tap business.... $$$$$$ not a HUGE market.

Hello again guys! I just recieved a script 2 days ago from a good friend that is written to the shot in 3-D Red/Blue style. It sounds like a very nice script, But I have no idea how to film a 3-D movie. I ran out and rented Roberts SK3, watched the making of, and then his "10 minute film school". Really, that told me nothing of how it was shot. the 3-D was good though!!! I need help from the beggining though. Like How many cameras do you have to shot with, if 2 cameras, do you place the Red/Blue filters on the camera while filming, or is this added in post.... and most importantly, how are the images combined in post to make the 3-D happen? I always thought it required 2 cameras on set, but from the way rob talked, he made a 3-D peice for tests from spy kids 2... which to my knowlege, was whot with a single camera. <_<.... Im confused. If someone can point me to a book, or a website, or maybee just offer some advice, That would be great! Thanks in advance

I have no doubt that s16 is cheaper than HD. Really. I figured HD would be 2 times as expensive as s16 on the production. but money is not my main concern, its what I'll get for the money sprent. Not using the Viper Filmstream Camera :) . You have the same choices as in a Film Camera. Then in Post, you Color Correct. How right you are my friend..... :blink:

Thank you John