Troy Warr

I would sooner recommend the Panasonic AG-DVX100B than the XL2 for your needs. Other than brand loyalty and the interchangeable lens (why do you need that, BTW?), the XL2 doesn't fit the bill as well, based on what you've mentioned.

60i means 60 fields per second, which can later be combined into 30p video. If you put that 30p video on a 24p timeline, you'll get a *slight* slow-motion effect, but it's likely to look more like odd video than the slow-motion effect that you're probably thinking about. Using a product like Twixtor, you can achieve reasonably good-quality slow-motion effects, but this will come at a price of artifacting and loss of resolution. 60i shoots alternating lines of video 60 times per second, so if you're attempting to use it as 60p (60 complete frames per second), you're missing half the image information so it's going to have to be interpolated or otherwise fudged.

Will do, Cesar. I still have a lot of research to do before buying all of the components that I'd need to make this happen. I'm eager to see footage from all of your HD cams (720p & 1080p) if you're planning to shoot the latter. By the way, have you played around with ROI on any of your cameras? I'm still trying to learn whether I can shoot "overcranked" footage for slow motion on any of these cameras - ideally 48fps or higher. It looks that that can be very expensive to achieve in 1080p, but if I can do it at 720p without breaking the bank, that would be a huge plus. Thanks, Cesar!

Not a problem, glad I could help. :) A few of the adapter manufacturers' sites also feature forums that provide a lot of information, footage samples, workflow issues, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market Dory, don't waste your time, if it sounds too good to be true, it is. If this place could really undercut a major retailer like B&H Photo by hundreds or thousands of dollars and still make a profit, then why is B&H the more successful company? You'll save maybe a hundred, two hundred dollars on your complete package by shopping around carefully and doing your research. The major retailers are successful mainly because they deal in volume, and can therefore offer slightly lower prices than their competitors. The harsh truth is that you're not going to get all of the features that you're asking for out of the budget that you have to spend. You're going to need to compromise by going with a good-quality NTSC/PAL camera (of which there are several in your price range), or an entry-level HDV camera. Let us know if that $3500 needs to include the price of a PC, and we can probably make some specific recommendations.

I was going to add my 2 cents, but Michael said it better than I could have. ;) Budget is just as big a factor as any of your other needs, so let us know what you have to spend.

For sure - and thank you, Brian. I do appreciate your input and feedback. Incidentally, if it does work out, I'd be sure to post some footage here to share the results.

Lowel makes some good lights, a nice compromise between quality/durability and affordability. Britek makes absolutely bare-bones equipment that's dirt-cheap and is good for learning, but don't expect it to last long. It might make sense to pick up some basics here and use them for practice until they fall apart. Make sure there's a warranty though, or I wouldn't bother. Better yet, after you read the "Cinematography" book and get a better grasp of lighting, you might even want to visit Home Depot and put some cheapo lights together yourself. There have been a few recent threads about cheap lighting options, and some people seem to have had good experiences with those 250-500W garage worklights. I've seen them at Home Depot and they're cheap - $50 or $60 maybe for a lot of light output. They also have aluminum scoops - just a bowl with a standard socket in it - that would take a 23W compact fluorescent bulb or maybe a 250W photoflood (check the photography store for the photoflood, but check the rated voltage of the scoop first to be sure that it can handle it). That would help you to get familiar with different kinds of lights and lighting techniques without breaking the bank, before putting down a lot of money for a nice kit. Even after that, you'd still have them to fall back on. The advantage of a kit from Lowel, for example, is that everything you need is in there - scrims, gels, flag, umbrella, adjustable stands, etc., even a carrying case or bag. The DV Creator 1 Kit looks like a fair deal.

Thanks for the input, Brian. I'm just not sure that I accept those conclusions without following through with my own research and interpretations. True, you can buy a 16mm camera of acceptable quality for well under $1000 these days. But the film stock and related costs aren't cheap, and aren't getting any cheaper. I tend to shoot a lot of footage, experimental shots, etc. Neither is particularly budget-friendly with film, and you don't get instant feedback that allows you to compensate and retry certain shots and effects, either. Though the initial investment in an industrial camera may be higher, the running costs are *substantially* lower, essentially free (hard drive space) once you've made the initial purchase. Personally, I think that Silicon Imaging has already illustrated the effectiveness of certain industrial cameras via their SI-2K footage. Their solution ultimately costs around $20,000, but to get that quality of results from 16mm, you'd need good film stock, processing, HD telecine, and other associated costs with film. That effectively limits your $20,000 budget to a camera and maybe 10-15 hours of quality footage. With my $5,000 budget, that's more like 3 hours total footage. I'm basically interested in learning whether the same approach taken by Silicon Imaging can be scaled down efficiently to a $5,000 solution. That may or may not be possible, but I don't think we've learned enough yet to make an accurate judgment to that effect. I'm totally fine with Formica. :D I've been shooting video for a while, too, and I recognize the point that you're making. I've also shot film with exactly the kind of 16mm cameras that you're talking about. Ultimately, though, it boils down to a few factors - budget, practicality, and what format is right for a particular project. My projects might ideally look better on film, but they won't suffer from being shot competently on video. For my purposes, video also has the advantage in the budget and practicality departments.

Gotcha. I figured it had to be something like that, since the profit margin on cameras is usually about 10% (or less) at a local retail store, and even less at a major online retailer like B&H. Usually every authorized dealer gets camera hardware at about the same cost, and some companies even prohibit advertising retail prices below a set amount. Kenan, be very wary of those low prices! I would use a major retailer like B&H Photo as a general guide to market pricing. You might find a *slightly* better deal by $20 or $30 at another reputable dealer, but definitely not $2300 better. ;)

I have to agree with Scott and David on this one. I think that we all know the temptation to stretch our budgets to get the best format that money can buy, but I don't think that you'll be disappointed with the AG-DVX100B. Your footage will be essentially free ($3/60-min. miniDV tapes), editing will be easy and fast, and you'll have instant feedback when you shoot your footage. Use the remainder of your budget to buy some quality accessories like a tripod, lights, etc. and when you're able to upgrade the camera in a few years, you won't have to get all new equipment. In the film world, 16mm or Super-16mm is just too expensive. By the time that you get a camera, shoot some footage, and transfer to video (probably to miniDV anyway, that's what is most common and affordable), you'll have eaten up your entire budget on about 10-20 minutes of usable footage, if you're lucky. Super-8 will get you further, but the image quality that you get won't exceed miniDV by all that much (if any - it's an often-debated point), and again, you're left either projecting and splicing the film by hand, or ultimately transferring to miniDV, which is expensive. It's a romantic idea to cut your teeth on film, but I think that's because video hasn't really been a viable option for amateurs until relatively recently. Granted, some time in your career you *will* want to get to know film, but I think it only makes sense to get your practice and make your mistakes with a cheap, easy, versatile format like miniDV, and save your 16mm shoots until you have some more experience under your belt. David also has a great point, in that learning to stretch miniDV to its fullest potential will directly translate to doing the same with other formats down the road. The HVX200 isn't a viable option, for all of the reasons that Scott outlined. Incidentally, where did you find one for $3000? I haven't seen it listed by any reputable dealers for less than about $5300. I haven't looked all that hard, but if you've found it from a decent place for $3000, please let me know!

Hi Phil, That just didn't seem to make sense to me based on the fact that these AVT cameras in question (all the way up to 1.2" CCD) ship with a standard C-mount. I would take that to mean that their sensors couldn't realistically be larger than Super-16mm. So, I just had to get to the bottom of this. ;) According to my research and calculations, a 16:9 CCD with an actual 1" diagonal would still be slightly smaller than a Super-35mm frame with the same aspect ratio. I made a little drawing based on what I was able to find regarding the dimensions of various common formats: 10 pixels = 1 mm It looks like the AVT 1" CCD frame is just barely larger than Super-16mm, so I'm guessing that format's lenses could *probably* be used with just a slight risk of vignetting or loss of corner sharpness. On the same sensor with a 720p ROI, you'd be looking at just a tad smaller than regular 16mm. I based these dimensions on what I found on Wikipedia in articles about Super 35mm (note they list 0.735" as the frame height, rather than the width) and Super 16mm. I was able to track down the actual physical dimensions of the AVT 1" sensor here, and it looks like the 1" is just a nominal term - the actual diagonal measurement is 16.39mm, or about 0.645 inches. Whether or not that renders the nominal 1" sensor an effective 2/3" inch sensor, or whether a standard 2/3" sensor would also suffer the same discrepancy, I haven't looked into yet. I arrived at the 16.39mm figure for the diagonal using the Pythagorean Theorem. Using that same equation, I deduced that the diagonal for a Super 35mm frame (16:9) is about 28.56mm, while a CCD of true 1" diagonal measurement (i.e. actual physical measurement, not just nominal) would be 25.40mm, slightly smaller. Let me know if I fudged anything, but assuming that the measurements that I found are accurate, I believe these other calculations should be accurate.

Hi Cesar, Nice beard you got there! :D Thanks for posting the link to the Marlin F-033c images. I'm seeing some unusual results, though; here's a crop: That grid of pixels appears on the raw image, as well as the raw-bayer converted to RGB. What might be causing that? Based on the measurements of the 1" sensor, it looks to be pretty comparable to a Super-16mm frame. There's more vertical resolution available on the sensor if you're shooting a more square format, but the widths in mm of the 1" sensor and Super-16mm frame seem to match relatively closely. It sounds like I may even be able to go with some C-mount cine lenses, and at least get depth of field comparable to Super-16mm. I'm thinking that should even allow for digital-only SLR lenses with an appropriate adapter, since they're designed to cover the much larger APS-C format.

Bonolabs does. They have a lot of information on their website, but you might want to contact them for details.

I'm not quite sure what you mean; what kind of television do you have? If it's a standard-definition TV, no conversion necessary. If you have an HDTV, you might want to consider the HDV format after all, since you'd be able to take advantage of the increased resolution. Pretty much. HD is still relatively new, and there's still a very active "format war" happening. On the viewing side you have 720p, 1080i and 1080p; on the shooting side, you have those same formats, but compounded with the different formats on the market - HDV (of which there are numerous "flavors" from different camera manufacturers) and AVCHD comprising the lower end of the market. The latter is very new, and as far as I know is still not editable with any major-brand software. HDV has been around for a few years, but still has a ways to go toward widespread adoption (if it ever does). The only major drawback with miniDV, in my opinion, is its limited resolution. It's perfectly adequate for DVD distribution, or watching on a standard-definition television, which is what the vast majority of people will have for at least a few more years. You sure can, but it takes some practice, as it does with film. Proper lighting can make miniDV look fantastic. David Lynch shot his most recent film, Inland Empire, on miniDV. While it's debatable if that is an "adequate" format for the big screen (again due to resolution), I'm confident that it will look great on a TV set. One thing to be careful with when using miniDV, or most any digital video format, is its harsh "clipping" of highlights and shadows. Film has a higher exposure latitude, which means that it's less inhibited by over- or underexposure. With digital video, if your highlights are too bright or your shadows too dark, you will lose visual detail permanently. Any changes in brightness or contrast made with your video editing software in post-production will then be more limited, and your image quality will suffer. Making the most of your miniDV camera's dynamic range will take practice, careful lighting, and proper exposure. Again, the Malkiewicz/Mullen book "Cinematography" will serve as a great primer in this regard. Not a problem, that's what this forum is for! Obviously you'll have to do a lot of your own research since you're most familiar with your needs and goals, but don't hesitate to ask questions here if you're stuck. Again, I'd definitely advise you to pick up some books mentioned in the Library and read those cover-to-cover. They're very cheap considering the amount of time and money that they'll save you in the long run.

I think the framing is good, you seem to have a solid grasp on the rule of thirds, adequate look room, etc. Lighting on the characters' faces (at least the girls') tends to be a little dark - they seem to be in the shadows, while their hair has sufficient light. If that's done for a specific effect it can be OK, but otherwise it may be distracting. As a general statement, the lighting also seems kind of flat and dim - if you're going for a low-key effect, you might want to try increasing the intensity of the key light to increase contrast and better separate the subject(s) from the background. It might be helpful to get some background information on the story, mood, characters, etc. to better critique the effectiveness of the shots.

Hi Dennis, > 1. Are all these 35mm/Cine lens adpters basically a ground glass which delivers the picture through the non-removable HD Camcorder lens like the Sony Z1U and HVX200 from Panasonic. All the websites from micro35 and M2 are not specific about how these boxes in front of the lens work... For the most part. There's a decent Wikipedia article about how these work - it also mentions most of the major manufacturers making these adapters right now. Some of the higher-end adapters like the Movietube are able to use a relay lens to bypass the camera's attached lens (on cameras like the Canon XL-H1 or JVC GY-HD110U) - I'm not sure of the specifics of how that works, but I think that the idea is to minimize the amount of glass that light has to pass through to get from the adapter to the CCDs. > 3. What are the benefits? The CCD/CMOS sensor sizes seem to match 16mm and built in lenses are fast enough to handle semi shallow DOF. The CCD/CMOS sensors on most pro-sumer cameras are far smaller than 16mm frames, even Super-8 frames. Achieving shallow DOF in most practical situations is very difficult - at least nothing that remotely resembles that of 35mm film's capabilities. Even shooting wide open (which is not good in terms of lens sharpness, not to mention can require a healthy stack of ND filters) at F/1.6-1.8, as most of these cameras are capable of, generally requires you to zoom in for a tight shot to maximize the out-of-focus background to aid the shallow DOF effect. If you take a look through some of the sample footage on the various manufacturers' sites, you'll see some comparisons with and without the adapters - in my opinion, these adapters are the single biggest thing that you can do with a pro-sumer camera to achieve a "cinematic" look. > 4. Will non-adaptor and adaptor footage intercut well (not in the same scene/sequence)? Or will it look so different from the ground glass adapter vs. just with the built-in lens that the audience would notice. Not just in the same scene, but different scenes/sequences. In film world that would equate either using different stock in different scenes, or a B-camera thats different from A-camera. It can be done, and I think that the different stock analogy holds well. At some point I stumbled upon a short film named "Katrina" through the SGPro website that does this on some night exterior shots (they removed the adapter due to lack of light), and it looked OK to me, though I'm definitely not an impartial judge since I was looking for the difference in effect. > 5. How many stops of light do these things loose? Even if using a T1.3 it would seem that the Adapter + Built in Lens would take out about 2-3 stops more making them hard to use in Low Light situations. It depends on the particular model (and for some, also on the diffuser that's used), but it generally ranges from 1-3 stops. The Cinevate Brevis35 totes the least light loss with their standard adapter (about 1 stop). > 6. If it is a ground glass, how often do you have to clean it so that you don't end up with dust in the frame? Not sure, but dust is definitely a concern. I've seen footage with obvious dust, and for professional shoots I think it necessitates a high-resolution, high-quality monitor to spot it before it ruins footage. I'm not sure that dust will cause a problem on all of the models out there, but it definitely will for ones with interchangeable diffusers like the Brevis35.

Hi Kenan, If you're interesting in making filmmaking a long-term goal, I'd definitely advise you to purchase a camera of your own. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, but a camera that has mostly manual controls is ideal. You may find yourself relying on automatic exposure at first, but if you hope to grow your skills, you'll need to be able to adjust as many settings manually as possible. Regarding the film vs. video debate, I think that you're likely safer with video than film, at this point. Film will almost invariably give you better potential image quality (with exceptions, of course, depending on format) than video (at least standard-definition video, i.e. not HDTV). But, film tends to be very expensive, so you're prohibited in the amount of mistakes that you can make if you want to make a certain film within a strict budget. With video, you can (and should) shoot as much footage as you want for practice. It sounds like you already have a pretty good idea of what you'll need to make a movie: - camera - camera support equipment (tripod, dolly, stabilizer) - audio recording equipment - lighting equipment - computer and editing software - props, meals, expendable supplies, etc. This doesn't include filters, lens extenders/adapters, hood(s) or matte box(es), etc. that aren't essential, but may be required to achieve certain effects. I wouldn't recommend two cameras, as you'll have your hands plenty full with just one. I would look into purchasing a good quality miniDV camera - the format is ubiquitous, well-supported and easy to edit without needing an overly expensive editing system or software. Something like the Canon GL2 would be great, and you can probably even find one on the used market with an array of accessories for well under $2000. Above that, there's the ever-popular Panasonic AG-DVX100B, which is a fantastic-quality camera, but at about $3000 will begin to compromise your budget for other gear. Be careful with eBay - some deals can be had, but there are scams and unscrupulous sellers galore, especially in this market. Resist the temptation to move to HDV - even though it shows promise, you're ultimately going to need to spend more on a camera, and may well need to upgrade your computer to edit the footage adequately. I would get a standard-definition camera for now, build your skills and move to HDV in a few years (or whatever is around then) when it's had more time to mature, and HDTV is more widely adopted. Editing software - consider the mainstream programs, Adobe Premiere Elements for the PC and Final Cut Express for Mac. There are other choices for competent editing programs out there (especially for the PC), but you can't go wrong with either of those. For the other factors, I'd strongly recommend some introductory books like "Cinematography", and other choices from this forum's Library page. "Cinematography" is mainly film-oriented, but the lighting and audio information is essentially universal, and the book overall will help you to gain a solid base in movie production, its terms and considerations. Best of luck to you!

Maybe there was a less suspicious reason for its absence? Double-booked, emergency maintenance or something? What was the reason that they gave Mr. Boyle?

Don't forget that with your Canon XL1-S, at least, you can set custom white balance. Using lights balanced to standard daylight or tungsten color temperatures is ideal, but in these circumstances, I'd say that maintaining consistency in color temperature between your lights will be more useful than balancing to any particular standard. You might try to find a particular light and/or bulb(s) that are economical and convenient for you (Home Depot is a good place to look), and try to stick with that in your different lights, using diffusion, scrims, careful placement, foam core or white walls for bounce, etc. to modify the qualities of different light sources. It seems that this issue comes up relatively frequently in this forum, so you might also spend some time searching and reviewing past threads for recommendations and others' solutions - personally, I've gleaned a lot of good information on this subject from some other postings.

Hi Jonathan, You might try contacting these guys to see if they have any recommendations based on their product line. Their stuff is relatively cheap and they claim that it can hold up to 75 lbs. - though I wouldn't necessarily trust that in a real-world scenario. With 2 or 3 of the 3-cup devices, some tubing and a very sturdy tripod head/mount, I would guess that you could make something relatively secure. Don't forget a safety cable! Best of luck to you.

Hi Nick, In this comparison, I think it's more important to consider which is the better camera for *you*. Depending on what type of work that you do, and what kind of results that you're after, one will likely be better suited for achieving that. Can you provide some details of what you're planning to use your new camera for? Incidentally, until March 31 at least, one distinct difference between the cameras is price. The DVX100B currently has a $500 rebate, making it significantly cheaper than the XL-2. It also comes with some useful software and extras.

Hi Cesar, I'm very curious to see footage from your AVT cameras as well, specifically some 720/24p and 1080/24p samples if you plan to shoot at those frame rates. I occasionally check up on this forum thread but was wondering if you had an idea of when you might post the footage. BTW, you haven't experimented with 35mm SLR lenses on your 3-D camera setups, have you? If I eventually pick up an industrial camera, I'm going to be very interested in using 35mm lenses, probably with a 35mm DOF adapter, for that shallow depth of field look. I checked with Dennis Wood of Cinevate, and he seemed to think that would be possible with some tinkering. I realize that footage shot with a 2/3" or 1" sensor will be capable of decently shallow depth of field without an adapter, but I'm not really sure to what degree. I assume that the Silicon Imaging SI-2K interfaces lenses directly to the sensor, and its depth of field control looks promising from the sample footage, but I'm hoping for the shallowest depth of field possible.

Ah, I *think* that I get it. So, the scan rate is affected by the frame rate, but not the shutter speed? In other words, provided that I'm always shooting at 24fps, using a 1/48 shutter speed would give me no different skew than a 1/400 shutter speed - is that correct? But, as I decrease the frames per second, therefore reducing the scan rate, the skew in turn becomes more pronounced? Provided that I would generally be shooting with a slower speed, probably in the 1/48-1/60 range, the skew might actually be less noticeable due to the increase in motion blur? That would be wonderful - I think that we'd all look forward to seeing that. If possible, it would be great to at least briefly see a few varieties of motion that you normally see in a motion picture - for example, a subject walking in a full-body or torso shot, a more rapid motion (e.g. waving a hand near the lens), and if possible, a relatively fast pan or camera movement, and maybe a slower one as a contrast. That would give us a better idea of the extremes of image skew, as that seems to be the major issue that we're concerned with. Beyond that, I think it's only fair that any of us that are interested in the camera further pick one up for evaluation and shoot further tests for our own purposes. Charlie, you've been very helpful thus far, and I, for one, appreciate it!

By "cine," he was just referring to a movie camera as opposed to a still frame camera like an SLR. Basically, all movie cameras, including your K3, use a mechanism designed to hold each frame still while an exposure is being made. The film spools will run continuously, but some slack is kept in the film around the gate so that exposures can be made frame-by-frame without ripping or jerking the continuously moving film spools. It essentially works the same way as a movie projector.