Troy Warr

Hi Tim, A serious processor will definitely serve you well. As far as the Intel/AMD debate goes, my impressions at least are that AMD won't be recovering from the blow rendered by Intel for quite a while yet. The last news that I've heard from Anandtech, for example, suggests that AMD's upcoming 65mm Brisbane lineup still won't be all that competitive with Intel's current Core 2 Duo models, and certainly Core 2 Quad processors. I recently built a low-to-mid-range PC for web design purposes, which requires a lot of multitasking, and decided to go with an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. I had planned to overclock it slightly (which all Core 2 Duo processors handle very well), but I found that it wasn't even necessary once I started to run it. I think that you'd do well with an E6600, or if you're looking for an extreme solution, maybe even a Core 2 Quad Q6600. Keep in mind that the latter solution wouldn't help much in day-to-day operations, but if your editing app(s) can take advantage, it will really scream. Regarding AMD (which I went with on my last PC a few years ago), they are supposed to be releasing a new architecture mid-year that may be a big leap ahead for them. I haven't heard any definitive information about what kind of processing power to expect, but if you're willing to wait another few months to see what happens, it may (or may not) be worth it. I tend to think that you'll have no regrets with a Core 2 Duo system. Just curious, are you planning to build this PC yourself, or are you shopping around for a pre-built workstation? Best of luck to you!

Hi Federico, With a $300 budget, I think that you're really limited to Super-8. Even if the $300 is only for the camera and you have other money for film stock and processing, it will be very difficult to find an adequate 16mm camera in that price range, but not hard at all to get a good, solid Super-8 camera. I used to own a Nizo 116, and while it was about as simple as Super-8 cameras get, it was great to learn on. It has a power zoom and a decent lens, 18 and 24 fps. You may be able to find one on eBay for $100 or less. The Nizo S80 was my second camera, and was even better - 54 fps option, intervalometer, 2-speed power zoom, and an even better lens. You might find one of these on eBay in the $125-200 range. Nizo (full name is Braun-Nizo, same company that now makes shaving products under the Braun name) was a very good manufacturer, and their cameras are some of the best, in my opinion. They're very well built and are German engineered for precision and robustness. Keep in mind that you'll also want at least a basic incident light meter, as the reflected meter in Super-8 cameras is often either broken, inaccurate, unreliable, or the battery compartment is corroded. If it still works accurately, you're probably going to have a difficult time finding batteries for the light meter, and even then they're likely to be mercury-free zinc-air batteries, which don't last long and can be relatively expensive. You're also going to get more accurate readings (and learn a lot more) with an incident meter. You might try to find a cheap used Sekonic L-398 or something comparable. You'll also need a projector or some sort of viewer, of course. Super-8 is certainly not the best quality out there, but since you're a student, your primary responsibility is to learn, and Super-8 will let you do that just as well as 16mm. Don't be too concerned with the quality of the format that you're shooting in, but rather the quality of the images that you're producing. You might want to start with a few rolls of black & white reversal stock, and when you're comfortable with that, some color reversal stock, then move on to negative stock like the offerings from Pro8mm.com - you're going to need to telecine tranfer to video to view the footage, but it will be worth the extra cost at that point since you'll be practiced and can make some nice images. Best of luck to you!

I'm in Austin - a great place to hold a seminar since you also have Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and San Antonio all within easy day-trip distance for attendees. ;) I won't be able to make it to NAB this year, but I hope to make it out to next year's show.

A couple more: 1. HD properly downsampled to SD looks better than SD shot natively. This is the argument that Michael and Phil warn against, but I think if you're savvy enough to avoid "it just looks better" and rather sell it as a "higher production value" argument that can somehow clearly lead to increased revenue, it might work. Keep in mind that although the project will originally be broadcast in SD, the HDTV markets, as well as high-def formats like HD-DVD and Blu-ray, are growing, and tomorrow the producer(s) may want to think about these other forms of distribution to increase their profit margin from the project. 2. HD footage cropped to SD in post allows options for reframing. If you get a great shot in SD, but it clips the actor's head or is otherwise framed awkwardly, you're out of luck. If you shoot HD and pad the edges of the frame well, that risk can be minimized. Obviously this stands opposed to #1, but one or the other might apply better to your particular project. Depending on what flavor of HD that you intend to shoot, cost may not even be a problem - since HDV, for example, isn't that much more expensive (if any) to work with than many SD formats. There may be other selling points depending on what kind of project that you're shooting.

Hi Dory, Keep in mind that the K-3 is going to cost more than $250 to get running properly, unless you've come across a fantastic deal for a used camera. Even brand new straight from Russia, it will most definitely scratch your film. You'll want to get it overhauled by an experienced professional before you start using it. Some US-based places sell them already worked on (even sometimes with a Super-16mm gate already installed) for about $700-900. Also remember that the thing is spring-wound, which is great for simplicity's sake, but it will only run about 25 seconds on a full wind at the standard 24fps (far shorter if you overcrank). I think that you can still get your hands on a motor, but that will probably run close to another $1000. The stock lens is decent, but a little cumbersome. The lever-based zoom is kind of cool, but it's a love-it-or-hate it kind of thing if you're used to a normal zoom ring. You might consider picking up a few Pentax SMC screw-mount lenses from KEH.com or eBay, or even an 8mm Peleng fisheye if you want extreme wide-angle and don't mind a little distortion (no vignetting, at least). I owned a K-3 years ago, and they are built like tanks, but they're a little rough around the edges. You may get *very* lucky and pick up a model straight from Russia with no flaws, but that's unlikely, and you'll definitely want to run some test film through it first before shooting anything for real. Best of luck to you!

Hi Daniel - you might try posting a batch on Flickr and linking to the photo set there.

Hahaha... or how about a Remains of the Day first-person shooter game? :P

I think the fascination lies in the fact that the pinnacle of DV imaging - currently only high-priced workhorses like Viper, CineAlta, Dalsa - that are way out of reach for most aspiring filmmakers, could potentially become much cheaper. Anyone who is serious about digital video knows these cameras and companies, and likely aspires to one day be able to climb the ladder far enough to be able to shoot with this kind of equipment. If Red lives up to the expectations, then the ladder immediately gets much shorter. But, I think that kind of excitement can lead people to forget (or at least not want to acknowledge) that there's still an entry price that's well above their means. I'm a car guy, and I got very excited when the Lancer Evolution came onto the American scene and could trounce some sports cars costing $100,000 or more. That still doesn't change the fact that I drive a Mazda pickup that cost me $10,000.

In my opinion, people don't always want to have interactive experiences when it comes to entertainment. Daily life is as interactive as it gets, and I think that part of the magic of movies is that you can withdraw from your own personal vantage point and experience that of another character. Even though you often "play" another character in video games, you're still the one in control, making the decisions behind the scenes. While that's certainly entertaining, I, for one, like to occasionally take a break from myself and watch a good movie. I can't get that same experience with video games.

This statement is all well and good when you're judging the Red One based on its improvements over the miniDV or Super-8 formats. Unfortunately, I don't think that the majority of the target users of the camera are upgrading from miniDV or Super-8. Karl, your Auricon may suit you just fine for the type of work that *you* do. I also have a lowest-budget-possible mentality, but the nature of the industry is that some folks need to use very expensive equipment to realize the production quality that is dictated by industry standards. $25,000 is a hell of a lot of money to me, too, and I don't think that even most "West Coast" folks would sneeze at that kind of cash. It's dismissive to assume that anyone looking at a Red One (granted, except for Jim Jannard himself) can or will plunk down that kind of money on a whim. The Red One's apparent promise is that such image quality can be had for a fraction of the price of traditional methods like 35mm film or very high-quality video like the Thomson Viper. Whether or not the camera delivers on this or any other promises remains to be seen, and it's useless to speculate, as the design of the camera is not even yet finalized.

Thanks, Jason - you guys aren't planning to come to Texas at any point, are you?

Wow. That just seems like a *whole* lot of compression to me - by my calculations, that's about 6x the raw number of pixels at about 80% of the data rate of miniDV. I realize that's a gross oversimplification of compression and image encoding, but I'm very surprised that the camera can output images of appreciable quality in so little bandwidth.

There are a few reasons that I'm not personally interested in these lenses. Cost is a major factor for me, so I'm always concerned with getting the best "bang for the buck" that's out there. While Phoenix offers affordable lenses, in my experience they're of relatively poor quality. Schneider, Zeiss, and Voigtlander typically make excellent quality lenses, but they're beyond the point of diminishing returns, so I would be paying as much as hundreds of dollars more for only slightly greater quality (and in some cases no greater quality) than new Nikon glass, for example. Also, with few exceptions, most of these options tend to be slower than what I'd need for my application, ranging from about f/2.5 to f/4.0 in maximum aperture. There is also a relatively limited array of lenses, many of them specialty-oriented (at least from what I've found in my research) offered in the M42 screw mount from the better quality manufacturers. Regarding the Tamron lenses, are you referring to the Adaptall mount? If so, those have the same limitations for my purposes, in that they're slower than I'd need (max f/2.5 - f/2.8), and are relatively limited - e.g. there are only 3 primes available, 24mm, 90mm, and 300mm. I'm ideally hoping to build a set of primes somewhere along the lines of 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, 135mm, 180mm, maybe 300mm. If I can find a good-quality zoom to replace some of that range, I'll go for it - but that seems unlikely as I'm hoping to stay at about f/2.0 or faster when possible. Granted, the extreme focal lengths, e.g. 20mm, 180mm, 300mm would likely be f/2.8. My awareness of what's available new in the M42 mount comes mainly from retail sites like B&H Photo, so please let me know if there are lenses that I may have overlooked! I certainly could be missing something, but my research has overwhelmingly pointed me toward building a Canon EF or Nikon F system, the former option being essentially eliminated due to the absence of an aperture ring. Nikon seems the best choice to be, as there is a continuous stream of new lenses being developed, and there are manual focus versions still available brand new by import, or at least through trusted used equipment outfits like KEH.com. I'm also wary of Russian lenses, as their resale value is questionable, and build quality can be erratic. I've owned a few examples, including the famous 8mm Peleng circular fisheye, and while such lenses are great for certain circumstances, I haven't been that impressed with their practicality as workhorse lenses.

Hi Peter - if you haven't seen Lost Highway yet, I'd bet that you'll like it. It was actually the first Lynch film that I saw, and I was fortunate to catch it in the theater while it was still out. It was quite a mesmerizing experience, even though I couldn't put my finger on why, at least at the time. It may be hard to track down a decent quality copy, as it hasn't seen a wide release on DVD even after 10 years, but a brand new copy of the VHS letterbox version might do it some justice. I've never been surprised that Lynch's films are so polarizing, as they are no doubt very different than most others out there. I think that people who are more plot/story-oriented will find them endlessly frustrating, but people that are interested in the more subconscious aspects like mood, pacing, and ambiance can find some truly unique experiences in his films. There's nothing objectively better or worse about either of these mindsets, just a difference in expectations that will ultimately sway a given viewer's like/dislike of a particular film.

Thanks very much, Mike & Nate! I guess it's time to look into other options. I figured that there was a reason that I wasn't seeing these adapters through any of my searches, while the Pentax M42 adapters and the Canon EF to Nikon F lens adapters kept popping up. I did find a chart that explained the clearance issues, and it seemed to suggest what you mentioned, Mike, but I wasn't sure. Thanks, Nate - though I'm a little iffy on M42 lenses. I've owned several, which I collected for a bit when I had an old Pentax ZX-M 35mm SLR. While there are some great ones, I'm hoping to go with newer lenses, both to take advantage of advances in lens design, but also to avoid the hassles of the used market. At an old job I used to inspect, grade and price used camera equipment for consignment and resale, and I became very conscious of the "time bombs" present in some lenses in the form of fungus, coating separation, etc. I also don't like the idea of being limited to a lens system that is no longer being developed.

Actually, just today I read an interesting article by Adam Wilt in which he seemed to notice that the flesh tones can be good depending on the gamma mode that you shoot in. The "Texas Shoot-Out" article from DV magazine seemed to find a yellow cast in skin tones, but he seemed to think that their chosed gamma preset was not ideal for that.

Hi Amarjeet, > which is the best adapter for hvx200 - brevis, m2, teknik, mini35, movietube and others? If money is not an object, probably the P+S Technik. I'm assuming money is an object, so probably the best bang for the buck can be had with the Brevis35. They also offer a very affordable rails system for support and accessories. There is a lot of information in the forums on the cinevate.com website. I haven't yet used one personally but I've done a lot of research, and the Brevis35 has very little light loss and good image quality. > and what do these adapter do to the image? Wikipedia has a good general explanation. Basically, you're using a 35mm SLR lens to create an image on a diffuser (usually ground glass), and then using a camcorder to record that image off of the ground glass. The major advantage is that you can use a wide variety of 35mm SLR lenses, you get easier to manage focusing, and your image has a more "cinematic" shallow depth of field. Keep in mind that these adapters will flip your image vertically, so you'll need to find a way to manage that - best solution is probably to run an external monitor and just mount that upside-down. > whats the size of footage shot at full res uncompressed on hvx? lets say 1min. footage? I don't think that you can record uncompressed on the HVX200. The best quality compressed format that it's capable of will, I believe, run about 10 minutes to 4 GB, so roughly 2.5 minutes/GB. Don't quote me on that, but I think that's a general ballpark figure, and the Panasonic website should have more detailed information about that. Actual uncompressed HD is *majorly* bandwidth-intensive, so for that you'd need to consider a RAID setup, etc. I don't think that you should consider uncompressed unless you have some serious VFX work in mind. Also, the HVX200 has major differences when shooting 1080/24p vs. 720p. The latter will give you variable frame rates and more footage per GB. > how does it record sound? is it recorded on the proprietory format? Not sure - but if you have software capable of editing video footage from the HVX200, it will also allow you to edit the sound from that footage. > whats a hvx2pc workflow? Not sure. It sounds like it has something to do with the way that you get your footage from the P2 media to your computer. What context did you hear this in? I read this blog occasionally and they discuss a lot of workflow issues with the HVX200/P2. Good luck!

Both true. Still, the HVX200 with a Brevis35 and rails would remain relatively light (the adapter itself is carbon fiber, and very compact, at least compared to the Redrock M2) and maneuverable. Cinevate also makes a very affordable rails and support system, not to mention film-pitch follow focus gears (and I think a follow-focus unit is on the way soon). If you look around the cinevate.com forum some, there are several people who have posted their setups, and some have created some interesting DIY configurations that allow for comfortable shoulder-mount work. You could also get away with a relatively lightweight tripod since it's not too huge or bulky. Using the adapter in harsh conditions is a valid concern, since you're going to be exposing the diffuser during lens changes, and any dust or dirt will show up on the footage. So long as you're careful, carry some compressed air, maybe change lenses in a film changing bag, and use a high-quality 720p monitor, you should at least be able to avoid any specks on your footage. Still, any digital camera with interchangeable lenses will have similar problems regarding dust or dirt on the CCD(s) or otherwise in the image pathway. Those are good points. The P2 workflow is quite a bit different than tape, and has its advantages and disadvantages. I was thinking mostly about the physical integrity of either format, in that P2 is solid-state and metal-encased. Tape isn't exactly flimsy, but I think it would be more affected by grit, grime and the elements. As long as you protect the contacts of the P2 cards I'd think they're pretty safe. Of course, Will is correct about less hassle with tape, and longer recording times (by far). If you need long takes, uninterrupted periods of shooting, a high shooting ratio, etc., tape or other long-form media might be the best way to go. You're also talking about a lot more necessary storage space with P2, so you may need to think about extra hard drives or other data storage methods, not to mention data backup.

I'm doing some research on 35mm SLR lens mounts and adapters so that my girlfriend and I can share a lens system. She's a still photographer and is dead set on a Pentax K10D, and while I think it's a great camera, I'm not that impressed with the Pentax lens system (at least the lenses with an aperture ring). I'm trying to put together an HD camera package that incorporates a 35mm adapter, preferably the Cinevate Brevis35. It's not available in a K mount flavor (just M42, which I'd rather stay away from), but will use Nikon lenses, which seem to be the best for my purposes. So, my question is - is there such a thing as a lens adapter that will allow me to put Nikon lenses on a Pentax SLR body? If so, I'm in business, and I can get a couple of Pentax AF lenses for her, and then a good range of Nikon lenses to share between us (she shoots manual focus/aperture most of the time, so lens/body interface shouldn't matter much). If not, back to the drawing board... I've searched for a while for such an adapter, but have come up empty, so the outlook is not good. It seems easy enough to use Nikon F lenses on Canon EF bodies, which may be my back-up plan. I'd just get a Nikon digital SLR and be done with it, but neither of us really like Nikon cameras much, just the lenses.

Hi Chiron, If you're going for a cinematic aesthetic, you might consider what's become a very potent and popular combination, a Panasonic AG-HVX200 camera and a 35mm lens adapter like the Cinevate Brevis35 or the Redrock M2. B&H Photo has a *ton* of accessories and kits to fit just about any production need. The HVX200 is very compact, and yet delivers a beautiful image and variable frame rates (at 720p). Both the Cinevate and RedRock websites have some impressive sample footage taken with this combo. In the rugged conditions that you mentioned, I would guess that the P2 card workflow would be more robust and dirt/dust/impact-resistant than tape, and an assistant could offload the P2 footage from one card while you're shooting with another. The 35mm adapter will give you the option for shallow depth of field, repeatable and more precise focusing, a wide choice of lenses (Nikon manual-focus glass seems to be very popular), and should work well at least in daylight shots (you'll lose 1-2 stops of light, the Brevis35 being the brighter of the choices). For low-light shots, you could either use extra light, fast glass, or just remove the adapter and shoot without it (albeit with footage that will look somewhat different). Depending on your choice of accessories, you'd be looking at about $10-20K to purchase such a setup, and you should be able to easily sell it after the production for 50-75% of the purchase price. That would leave you a large portion of your budget for other production costs. Best of luck to you!

People have been talking about this topic in a recent reduser.net thread. They mention one particular setup that uses Super 16mm, and I don't see why you couldn't build a similar device for 35mm. Still, I don't think that people who can afford to shoot and develop 35mm film would have use for a "cheap" scanner. Unless the results are comparable to a professional transfer (which I doubt they could be) to maximize image quality, why shoot 35mm in the first place? It does seem like an interesting option as an alternative to Super 16mm or Super-8 telecine, though, and after a handful of transfer sessions, it should pretty much pay for itself (assuming that you're able to perform the work of a colorist).

A Google search for "eye plane" seems to bring up either 3-D graphics terminology (which I can't make sense of - too technical) or golf theory. The latter usage, at least, seems consistent with what I would have guessed, in that it refers to an imaginary plane that expands the eye line into a lateral plane. Imagine Geordi La Forge's visor projecting a beam straight out like a flashlight, and that would be a cross section of the "eye plane" - basically parallel to the ground if a person is looking perfectly straight ahead, but wrapped around the head 360 degrees. That's the best I can come up with! I know that you're looking for an absolute definition; in what context did you find the term?

Thanks for the feedback, Brian. Were you able to compare the footage that you're getting with the footage that Mr. Dijak provided earlier in this thread? I'm curious to know if that's at all similar to your results. That footage looked somewhat promising to me, but as I mentioned to Mr. Dijak, it can be a bit difficult to judge without some more "cinematic" subjects. My technical knowledge of industrial camera technology is limited, but I would guess that even though both cameras feature the same sensor, there would have to be some design shortcuts taken with a camera system that's 1/10 the price that would ultimately be detrimental to image quality. The rolling shutter problem, though, might very well be the same, and I agree that that would certainly be a deal-breaker for cinematographic use. In any case, my personal fascination with industrial cameras is that they seem to have the potential to deliver great "bang for the buck" in terms of image quality, features, and versatility. Whether or not that's true in practice is really the main subject of this thread. Despite your experiences with a $250 camera, I think that it's dismissive to use that as a basis for criticizing the entire concept. Sure, there are HDV cameras that make great footage for a few thousand bucks, but you're fundamentally limited to interlaced 1080i video (or a fudged 24p equivalent), high compression, relatively poor low-light sensitivity due to small pixel size, aliasing (in some models), fixed frame rates or very few frame rate choices, as well as many other drawbacks that come with the pro-sumer grade of cameras. The industry seems on the verge of solving some of these problems, for example in the Panasonic AG-HVX200, but even it has its own problems (high cost) and limitations (most frame rate choices only available in 720p). Have you seen any footage from the Silicon Imaging SI-2K? Granted, that's more expensive than most, if not all HDV format cameras out there today. But, at about $12,500, it's not worlds above, and it's capabilities, in my opinion, rival those of many near-$100K cameras out there. I don't want to touch the $200 movie camera argument for fear of turning this into another film vs. video thread...

Ditto. I'm actually kind of interested in the "cool lighting" setups that they offer - but it would be great to hear how the stuff holds up, build quality, color temperature accuracy, experiences with the company, etc.

Who's calling Matthew immature? C'mon, guys, that's totally unNESSERCARY. :P