Tim Pipher

Personally as a filmmaker I would not use virtual sets, I just don't think they look real. But that's just me.

Thanks Richard. I was hoping you'd chime in on this, as I've followed your interesting endevours on this forum.

I won't try to win the whether it looks real argument. I'll have to show you when it's up and running. I will say, though, that there's national virtual studio programming running right now that looks fantastic and people don't know it's not real. Like "DVD on TV" on the FX network, and with up and running new installations on CHCH and Global in your neck of the woods. And another national cable network in the US is converting to it right now -- not allowed to tell you which one, but it's also available in Canada.

http://www2.pny.com/Pressroom/caseStudies/Stateof8.pdf

I'm hoping, though, that if people don't want to go virtual, they'll still find my set-up great for traditional greenscreen shoots, with excellent gear right on site.

By the way, I'd love bit of a pipeline of people and equipment between Florida and your neck of the woods -- I spend as much time as possible near Collingwood, Ontario, and my home town of Toronto.

I have a 3000 on loan for two more days, anyone have any ideas for loops to put it through?

 

1st generation picture quality is best I've seen in a EFP style camcorder.

But will wait to put the pictures through an edit to see how AVC I behaves.

 

After years of losing pixels and bit depth we are back on track. Next step less compression!

 

If the client likes P2 then you would be wise considering the highest quality HD camera you can afford, 3000 doesn't add that much to total kit package and you'll be taking the high ground with full res and 10bit recording.

If you need HDSDI out, time lapse 11x or +22x lenses, camera remotes in the near future then 2/3inch camera is the way to go now. In a years time depending on RED development the decison will be different as there is a 35mm size sensor camera on the way from Sony as well as more tricked out smaller cams.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Mike:

What's your over-all assessment of the 3000 now -- have you had a chance to put the footage through an edit yet?

On another forum, comments were made that the 3000 was noticeably sharper than the Sony F900r and Panasonic HPX2000, and "visually indistinguishable" from the Sony F23. Do you feel that's an accurate assessment?

Thanks,

Tim

Maybe you should talk to Mike Most, who is also in Florida.

Thanks David. Do you know what city he's in and/or the name of his company?

You might check out the competition. Tim Reid has been in the studio business up in VA for about ten years. If you talk to him, he may remember me from the series "Frank's Place".

 

http://www.nmstudios.com/

 

So far we haven't had a need to use his facilities, but we do remember that he's there.

 

For our purposes, we might consider using the Red, but probably not the XDCams.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Thanks John. Cameras won't be XDCams though -- probably Panasonic HPX3000's -- a very good camera from the reports I've seen.

I've started businesses before when people thought I was crazy. I've proved them wrong -- and proved them right.

When I started a little television station, the first on Hilton Head Island, SC, and moved my 7 1/2 month pregnant wife and four year old son across two states to do it, people said I was nuts. "If starting a TV station on that island was a good idea, someone else would've done it". Luckily, despite some rocky times initially, I caught lightning in a bottle, had a ton of fun, and made out really well financially when I sold the station.

While at the station, I had another idea. Why not build a TV studio to seat 200 people or so, hire a band, fly in celebrities in from NY and LA, and make a Tonight Show style syndicated talk show with soap opera stars as the celebrity guests? That's exactly what I did, renovating an old movie theatre, and starting "The Tim Pipher Show". http://video.google.com/videosearch?source...sa=N&tab=wv People said I was crazy, and they were right -- I lost money on that one -- but not my shirt. The bright side of that one was that it was tremendous fun, the facility made my TV station look good and helped me when it came time to sell it, and the contacts I made are useful to this day.

After I sold the TV station, I came across a product I loved -- electric scooters. So I started my own brand, produced and hosted an infomercial, and did a small test run. After the positive results of the infomercial test, (I suspect I was duped by my call center -- many of the initial orders turned out to be bogus), I launched into sizable national infomercial buys, imported 5,000 scooters from a factory in China, and had almost every conceivable problem you can think of. I hated every minute of it. I lost my shirt on that one.

I now come to my latest -- and probably last -- gamble. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to whether you could ever see yourself using any part of my facility or services. I'm trying to make it a business where professionals will be able to take advantage of it whether they want to use all of it, or just want to use a small part of it. I can assure you that it will be priced right -- I want and need it to be used steadily.

Southeastern Studios (www.southeasternstudios.com), will consist of a professionally lit three walled greenscreen cyclorama (40 ft. across the back wall, 20 ft. up the two side walls, and an additional 20 ft. back to the control rooms), three high-end cameras and zoom lenses in a studio configuration (originally RED but now likely to be Panasonic HPX 3000s -- also available for on-location shoots), run through an HD switcher, Ultimatte HD/SD chromakeyer, and Orad 3D Virtual Studio system, and recorded to a Wafian HR 2 and/or HDCAM deck. We'll also have lots of audio equipment, and the latest Final Cut system. We'll also offer camera tracking for live or post compositing through two encoded (and expensive) jibs, with the third camera being tracked with another system, good for hand held etc.

I need people to come from all over the place to use this facility, or allow us to transport it to their locations. I'm fully prepared to offer great pricing to make this happen.

If you're a believer in virtual studio technology, this is a one-of-a-kind set up that will offer live compositing of what appear to be massive million dollar sets, including gorgeous virtual windows with striking ocean views (made with gorgeous video plates), resulting in sets with views that would be difficult to attain in the real world. Whether you believe this virtual set technology works (I believe with the right virtual system, the right virtual set creator, lighting, and Ultimatte, the results are indistinguishable to viewers from the real thing), I can tell you that at least one major cable network is in the midst of precisely re-creating many of their real sets into virtual sets, and assuming that the viewers won't notice the difference.

If you're not a believer in the benefits of virtual sets, you may still want to use the rest of the greenscreen cyclorama, tracking and equipment for traditional greenscreen work. If you don't like our cameras and/or lenses, you could bring your own. If you don't need greenscreen work, maybe you'd have a need for our cameras and lenses on location. We could deliver them right to your set, maybe even in our two very luxurious motorhomes that your cast and crew will love. By the way, your producer, cast and crew will enjoy using the motorhomes at our site too.

This stuff will be priced to, hopefully, make you want to travel here to use it, from anywhere. If you're concerned about the cost of accommodation, don't be. Stay for free in our two luxurious and fully equiped homes by the beach, sleeping 12 cast and/or crew. If you have time, the beach is spectacular, the surfing the best on the east coast (the houses are five minutes from the Sebastian Inlet), and they're right beside a beautiful golf course and major league tennis. Here's a video of the homes: www.BuffHome.com/Rental.wmv

If you're worried about the cost of travel, don't be. Keep in mind our reasonable rates and it's more than worth it. Fly Spirit non-stop from LA to Ft. Lauderdale, even if booked only a few days before, for about $280 round trip. From NY it's less than that. Fly from London to Orlando round trip for $400 (or so), or from Toronto, use your strong Canadian dollar, drive to Buffalo, and fly non-stop into Orlando for $178 round trip on Southwest.

Remember, I'll price this to make it worth your while.

So there's my pitch. If the price is right, can you see wanting to use some or all of my services or facility?

One more question: What will be the best way for me to promote this?

Thanks!

David's right, with 2/3" chip cameras and good glass you can get very pleasant and cinematic images when shooting around f/2.0. Put some Zeiss Digiprimes or a good cinestyle HD zoom on your camera and you'll be very pleased with the quality.

Could the same images be produced using the equivalent broadcast HD lens instead of cinestyle? It's my understanding that the optics of both lenses are the same. Does the difference in image (if any) come from the more precise focus control of the cine lens, meaning with the proper skill you'd be more likely to get the perfect shot?

Wait a minute -- aren't you doing virtual sets on a greenscreen stage? Why would you need extra-shallow depth of field? I would think you would want your subjects in focus for a clean matte edge, and then you can blur your virtual backgrounds as much as you want...

Thanks Michael. Good points about the clean matte edge and virtual background blur for a 35 mm DOF effect. I do want to use these cameras on location, too, where I thought the 35 mm characteristics would be to my advantage.

I agree that a 35 adaptor would be hampering your setup more than it would be aiding it. The adaptor (the only current model is the P+S Technik Pro35) is also prohibitively expensive, significantly more than an entire RED camera!

 

The HPX3000 is a terrific camera, with a true 1080p 2.2 million pixel (photosite) imager. The rental rate will be significantly more than the RED One's rental rate for quite some time to come. You won't find thousands of HPX3000 cameras flooding the market in the next six months like you will the RED. We have the HPX3000 available for sale & rent.

Thanks Mitch. What's your guess of a ballpark HPX3000 vs. RED rental rate?

Also, what would you recommend as a jack of all trades zoom lens for the HPX3000, suitable for as wide a range of in-studio and on location shoots as possible. Also, for maximum utility, would you go with a cine or broadcast zoom lens?

Thanks!

I've been excited about the RED camera since I found out about them two years ago, and ordered three of them at this year's NAB, with delivery scheduled for late January. I thought the camera was fabulous -- and still do.

However, in now appears the the RED won't work for me. Because they dropped their 1080 recording, they're not able to offer HD-SDI outputs. HD-SDI outputs are crucial for my studio configurations. I've been now forced to choose new cameras. I think my choice is the HPX3000.

Like RED, the HPX3000 looks like one fantastic camera. But I'm worried about my switch to it for two reasons:

1. They're a lot more expensive

2. I was really excited about RED's 35 mm DOF.

Here are my questions:

1. Do you feel that there will be a higher rental demand for the 3000's (and/or higher rental rate) than

the REDs to help cover the additional cost?

2. Do you personally think that you'd usually prefer the 3000's 2/3 inch DOF with a good quality 2/3 inch lens, or would you prefer that the 3000 be rigged for 35 mm DOF for most applications, achieved using a B4 35 mm adapter and RED 18-50 zoom lens?

Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

The HPX500 is basically a glorified HVX200, the same basic camera re-packaged to fit on your shoulder and sport a B4-mount lens. It has 2/3" chips, but the native image resolution and image controls (540x960 chips, uprezzed to 1080 or 720). That's really a completely different strata than the HPX300 or 2000.

 

Since you're asking about a wide range of cameras and you also mention the "sizzle" factor in marketing the gear to clients, it sounds like you might benefit from finding out a little more about what your target client base wants and demands. If it's feature films then 1080 on up to 4K with cine-style functionality might be best; but if it's mostly broadcast then ENG-style and 720 HD might be the better investment. You want to provide what the market demands at a price they can afford, rather than provide them with gear that doesn't measure up to their expectations or is priced out of their range.

I know I'm all over the place on this. I was sold on RED and was just waiting for my January delivery, and now I'm scrambling to find the right cameras with HD-SDI outputs.

I still thought the HPX500 sounded pretty good, especially since they'd be mostly used in-studio, recording to a Wafian 2 deck (presumably creating better images than the camera's on-board recorder), and with my Orad 3D HD virtual studio system adding a 35 mm DOF to my backgrounds.

Add in David's idea of using my savings for the purchase of a RED for on-location shoots, and I thought my product might be pretty good with that combination.

A Panasonic salesman today, though, recommends the HPX2000 for me. The most compelling argument he made was that national cable networks like Discovery and National Geographic won't accept programs produced on the HPX500.

However, a person who I think is very much in the know from a message board says that that's nonsense due to the 500's 2/3 inch chips -- that only 15% of their programming can come from 1/3 inch chip cameras like the HVX200 -- but that the networks have no problem whatsoever with HPX500 produced content.

Who is right about the network requirements -- the salesman or the guy from the message board?

One final alternative I could undertake, proving even more that I'm all over the place:

Two of my three cameras will be tracked in my greenscreen virtual studio productions using encoded jibs, so my cameras can have lots of movement. Maybe I could go with two HPX3000's on jibs and skip a third studio camera, and give up the RED for location shoots too (using the HPX3000's in studio and on location). Any sense of how well I could cover studio shoots with two cameras on jibs and dropping the third?

Michael already gave a lot of great answers here, but if you're looking for any further info then we at Abel would be happy to help you find your way.

Thanks Mitch. I actually saw you at NAB and hung around for a few minutes to say hello and thank you for your valuable posts to this forum. You were mobbed, though, and when I noticed the crowd around you had finally dissipated, I was told you had just left for lunch!

I have a 3000 on loan for two more days, anyone have any ideas for loops to put it through?

 

1st generation picture quality is best I've seen in a EFP style camcorder.

But will wait to put the pictures through an edit to see how AVC I behaves.

 

After years of losing pixels and bit depth we are back on track. Next step less compression!

 

If the client likes P2 then you would be wise considering the highest quality HD camera you can afford, 3000 doesn't add that much to total kit package and you'll be taking the high ground with full res and 10bit recording.

If you need HDSDI out, time lapse 11x or +22x lenses, camera remotes in the near future then 2/3inch camera is the way to go now. In a years time depending on RED development the decison will be different as there is a 35mm size sensor camera on the way from Sony as well as more tricked out smaller cams.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Just a note to say thanks for your comments on Reduser.net concerning the RED/Output drop situation -- I suspect your assessment is bang on.

The HPX3000 records to onboard P2 cards, and the HDX900 records to DVCPRO-HD tape. For field work you'll need to consider what extra gear you'll need or want to make it work (a DVCPRO-HD deck back at your studio or P2 cards and a reader/recorder of some type for the field). If you really want to compare apples to apples, the HPX2000 is the P2-only version of the HDX900 camera (the HDX does have a firewire output that allows for recording the DVCPRO-HD stream to an external device).

 

The HPX3000 is Panasonic's latest and greatest, and offers several significant improvements over the HDX. The biggest being the fact that has full 1080x1920 chips and can shoot and record 1080/24p. That puts in direct competition with the Sony F900 in terms of image capture. Other Panasonic cameras like the HDX and Varicam use 720x1280 chips, the HDX offering the option to record that as 1080 interlaced. For feature film production the added resolution of 1080 chips is a real benefit, but for broadcast it doesn't make as much difference.

 

The HPX3000 also includes the new AVC-intra recording codec, which is supposed to be a significant improvement over DVCPRO-HD (the HPX2000 now includes AVC-intra as well). I haven't heard the latest but Apple has been promising to support AVC-intra within Final Cut Pro, and you can record in the DVCPRO-HD codec in the mean time. Both codecs are 4:2:2.

 

The HDX900/HPX2000 can record 720/60P, which is useful for slow motion. The HPX3000 does 24/25/30P and 50/60i, all at 1080.

Hello Michael. Thanks for your camera summaries. Sorry to muddy the waters further, but do you have any thoughts on the Panasonic AG-HPX500? It's certainly cheap and appears to have a lot going for it.

Best of luck in whatever you choose!!

Thanks Walter. Sorry -- those were questions, not comments. I've heard great things about those cameras. Would you use those Ikegami's for movies and narrative TV? And any guess as to their price (I just found a couple used for $55,000 each including 790A CCU) and their "sizzle" factor?

Thanks again,

Tim

I consult on a lot of such configurations for stuidos/networks/etc. My question is why waste the money on a Panasonic with deck/P2 when you are doing a studio configuration with external recording. You're paying for stuff yo don't need and you are wasting a lot of money. Why not an Ikegami HDK-79E which will blow both of these cameras away? Ike invented the look that Panasonic now uses. Your trying to count pixels and the like when there are far more important considerations than a few numbers. Why not contact me and I'll give you some free advice that will give you some better considerations and remedies?

Hello Walter. I looked quite closely at the HDK-79E when I started this process almost two years ago (I've had massive red tape to deal with from my local government concerning my building construction causing the delay), but I ruled them out because I'd like to do on-location shooting with my cameras in addition to the studio work, and I kept hearing F900, Viper, F950, Varicam etc.

However, David's suggestion to save a few bucks on the studio cameras and buy a RED for field production makes sense. Two years ago the Ikegami's were big money -- I assume they still are. Any ballpark guess of their price? Also, those cameras were introduced a number of years ago, so I assume I'd lose the "latest/greatest" factor -- do they still carry the "prestige"?

Finally, would a producer or cinematographer ever request the Ikegami's for shooting a movie or dramatic TV show?

Thanks for your comments/answers!

The question is whether you need 1080P or not, or whether 720P/1080i is fine with your clients. I think for broadcast work, the HDX900 will be fine.

 

As for the RED camera, I'm not sure why it isn't suitable for studio work -- you just need to convert the RAW files into HD on a computer.

 

Maybe you can afford to get the HVX900 and a RED for the cost of a HPX3000... ;) You never know whether future clients will be asking for a 1080P camera or the RED camera... the RED covers you both ways and the HVX900 covers you for now.

The RED won't be suitable for studio work because it has come to light that RED won't be offering outputs for line recording anytime soon, if ever. It turns out that the 1080 output won't work until 1080 recording is enabled on the camera, and 1080 seems to be out of fashion to RED's way of thinking, so it may never happen. On the other hand, I started a thread on Reduser.net about the output problem and possibilities for solutions, and I think RED is now understanding that a lot of us need an HD-SDI output -- maybe they'll make something happen.

However, you might have a great idea -- go with the HVX900's, and use the savings to get a tricked out RED with lens.

I'm deciding which cameras to purchase to put into a three camera studio configuration, with recording to an external deck. These will be usually used in-studio for greenscreen work.

I'd also like my cameras to be excellent on location for 24p TV and movie work. For on location shoots I'll be recording into the camera.

I was sold on Red and have three reserved, but now it turns out that the 1080 outputs won't be activated soon, if ever, making Reds not usable for my studio work.

The HDX900 will cost condsiderably less than the HPX3000. In your opinion, is the HPX3000 worth the extra money?

If nothing else, will the perception that the HPX3000 is more valuable or better (since it costs more) likely to carry more weight when convincing outside users to choose my facility for their productions or for networks to choose my programs since they were produced using higher end or more "prestigious" cameras? (I know -- the story, photography etc. of the shows are more important than the cameras used, but assume equal story, equal cinematography, equal crew, equal talent etc. with both cameras). In my experience, so much of any sales effort boils down to how much sizzle I can generate in my pitch -- can I generate more excitement in my pitches with the HPX3000 vs. the HDX900 to justify its added expense?

Thanks for any input or ideas.

Anybody know if the color out of the Red in studio shoots like this can be usable as recorded live, or will post color correction always/usually be necessary?

Hi,

 

As the Sigma does not have an F stop adjustment you could not use it at all right now. Birger engineering is proposing a mount with electronic controls, in the future it might be possible to use, how well it would work is at this time pure speculation!

 

Just to put lens modifications into perspective, Van Diemen make a beautiful re-house for a Cooke Series II / III prime lenses. The conversion costs £4500 /$9000 for the conversion of a single prime lens, the customer has to supply the original lens! Century Optics have also converted Nikon Zooms, the finished lens is about $18,500 more than 10 times the original lens.

 

For lenses to work well in a motion picture environment, mechanics are where a huge amount of money is spent.

 

Cooke make a small light weight zoom, price $45,000, expect very good performance & build quality, the Red Zooms seems a good value for money in comparison.

Stephen

Thanks Stephen. I figured I had to have this confused -- thanks for clearing this up!

Tim

Thanks Stephen. So you're saying the Sigma $670 lens couldn't be used as-is on the Red -- it would have to be modified, and that's where the expense comes in, correct?

I assume I'm missing something here, but does that mean that I could buy the $670 lens from Sigma instead of the $7,500 18-50 mm zoom from Red and get similar or the same performance?

I am curious as to what kind of projects you'll be shooting that would require two simultaneous tracking cameras on a green screen. :)

Hello Brian and thanks. Actually, all three cameras will be simultaneously tracking. We're installing an Orad HD 3D virtual studio system, running the cameras through a switcher, and compositing live.

I would think the cost of two motion control jibs would be cost prohibitive.

Actually, it's a cheaper solution than our other tracking options and probably more reliable. But cost and tracking aside, would two jibs on the same shoot offer any advantages or disadvantages?

I'm putting together a three camera set-up to be used on a greenscreen cyclorama sound stage. We're hoping to have a decent level of flexibility so our set-up will be useful for many types of productions, including dramatic television and features.

All three of the cameras need to be tracked. In evaluating different tracking options, one possible configuration that was proposed was for two cameras to be on motion control jibs, and one on a tripod (or dolly or handheld if desired).

My question is: Are there any glaring disadvantages to having two out of three cameras on jibs? Other than helping with tracking, are there other advantages to having two jibs?

Thanks for any input!

Sorry to keep pumping you for info, but is there a risk that the union would cause trouble for the DP if they found out the member was involved in a non-union project?

Also, would SAG actors be likely to get into trouble for non-union acting jobs?