Robert Sanders

Makes me wonder what specifically makes it "feel" like video? Because there's nothing there that tips it off to me. I often wonder if it simply isn't preconceived prejudices going into it before hand -- "I *know* this is video so I'm going to look real hard for the signs!"

Agreed. But HBO, SHOWTIME and the Networks still prefer to broadcast 4x3. Which is ironic considering that their original programming is now presented 16x9.

As much as I hate it, VHS is still a pretty big player. The format is definitely dying, but it still has legs. So anything produced anamorphically today still must grapple with 4x3 presentations on home video and broadcast.

Thank god, however, for DVD's and their predominence for 16x9 letterboxing.

F.U.D.

We can argue specs all day long. But my "eyes" tell me something different. And, in the end, that's all that's important. Because Johnny Netflix doesn't care and he certainly doesn't count scan lines.

Also, anamorphic is very video unfriendly. The 4x3 center-cut from anamorphic frames simply look terrible.

Additionally, I think a lot of directors like to readjust framing in post. Super35 gives them extra room to readjust the head room; which is great for fixing fast action shots where the operator over/under compensates.

But, I have to admit that I adore the "look" of anamorphic. I love how racks look, how lens flares behave, and the extreme curvatures on the edges of the frame. Plus the grain structure is so tight because so much of the negative is used.

But once you gotta telecine it...ugh.

Can you use the 16x manual zoom lens of the SD XL series or does the xl h1's increased resolution make this impractical? If so, is Canon going most likley going to release an HD 16x manual lens? If not would this make the HD 20x zoom that comes with the xl h1 the only lens with an xl mount that is sharp enough to use on this camera? Maybe some of you guys can help me out with this information. -Thank you

There have been several reports of people shooting tests with the 14x, 16x and 3x lenses on the XL-H1 and they've all said, with great surprise, that they perform wonderfully. Biggest concerns were chromatic aberrations. But the charts and test footage yield no problems. It was so surprising that many started questioning the claims made by Canon about the "redesigned" 20x HD lens and whether or not it was really just the stock 20x lens with a flourite layer.

Visit DVInfo.net for those results.

Yeah, I was watching Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS and I couldn't believe all those blownout highlights in the first half of the film.

I mean...oh, wait...it was shot on 35mm?

You mean the filmmakers actually wanted blownout highlights? You mean overexposure is an actual "look" some filmmakers might actually want to achieve? Huh. And because HD can overexpose the highlights if not handled properly that's a bad thing?

There was a shootout conducted at DVXUser.com and the Canon XL-H1 blew away the other cameras on the resolution charts. Also, the Canon's form factor benefits from multiple years of accessories and lenses that plug right onto the Canon (thanks to the XL1 and XL2). To me, that was what pushed me to decide on the Canon. I can use the manual 14x and/or 16x lens. Plus all the matte boxes, support, etc are already available and decently priced.

Higher resolution.

Multiple lens options.

Numerous accessories.

TRUE Uncompressed HD-SDI output (which bypasses the HDV encoder) for recording straight to disc (or HDCAM, D5, etc.).

The HVX200 and the JVC HD100 are also great cameras. To choose one over the other is ultimately splitting hairs.

You can also take the FCP exported frames into Photoshop and resize them to 1920x1080. That's what I do.

Never mind. Found the new name.

F900R

Is there a new model number? F910 or something?

Actually, judging from the trailers, it's the other way around. The night scenes are being shot on the Viper but there are a lot of day scenes shot on film, at least it looks that way. "Collateral" on the other hand, had a lot more night exterior work shot on HD.

 

I could be wrong, but if so, the day footage in "Miami Vice" is much higher in quality than the night scenes, more of a visible mismatch than was present in "Collateral" between the HD and 35mm footage.

Very interesting. I was curious if Mann would mix-n-match again. The IMDB technical specs list it as:

Camera:

Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

Film negative format (mm/video inches):

Digital

Printed film format:

35 mm

But, then again, IMDB has been known to be wrong in the past.

"Superman Returns" (Genesis) currently in post-production.

"Miami Vice" (Viper) currently in post-production.

I've heard that the current F900 has been discontinued by Sony. Has anyone heard of what it's replacement may be? It would seem to me that Sony would still need a 4:2:2 HDCAM camera with internal recording in its pro lineup.

Has anyone heard anything through the grapevine?

*hands up*

What did "I" do?? All I said was 24f was great. David began cyber-smacking me around and I defended myself and had to prove I ain't no dumb punk. He ended up apologizing after I threw that last right hook. *smile*

 

I feel like the kid who got blamed for shooting a spit wad at the teacher, because it 'looked' like it came from my direction.

 

- ShannonRawls.com

I'm on your side. I'm going to buy this camera soon. Perhaps we can exchange notes as I know you're a proud new papa and I will be soon.

Are you a Final Cut Pro user by chance? Just wondering if you've been able to digitize 24F footage into FCP?

I believe Michael Mann is shooting "Miami Vice" completely with Vipers unlike "Collateral" which was half and half.

Yes, these cameras are more expensive to rent. But don't forget that these cameras are also your labs (built in). Film cameras only pull film. HD cameras produce a (near) final image. I consider film to be a two stage process, whereas I consider HD to be a single stage process. Both require color correction in post.

Does it record 1080p @ 24p like the HVX200?

Thanks

The HVX200 uses massive verticle AND horizontal pixel-shifting to "emulate" 1080P. Because Panasonic REFUSES to publish the CCD's specifications, we can only speculate that it's a 960x720 chip.

The Canon uses a true 1440x1080 chip. Yes it's interlaced, but the DigicII processor, one of the best processors on the market in this category, interpolates the fields and creates some spectacular images. Canon has spent considerable effort and time in research and developing their own unique camera CPU technology, designed specifically for photography and as a result its? processing power is many times faster than the competition. This allows for most accurate color and detail processing, minimal shutter lag and enhanced photographic operations. In fact, the Digic DVII HD processor is fast enough to enable simultaneous recording of both HD video and megapixel still images at the same time. Now you can truly capture the moment. Designed by Canon engineers from the ground up for photography, this is the same CPU technology that empowers Canon's digital still cameras - now available in the XL H1.

I'm just a fan of Canon's. I hated the XL1. I love the XL2. I'm looking forward to owning the XL-H1.

Shannon,

I'm very seriously considering the purchase of Canon XL-H1. Based on the 24F footage I've seen, the camera creates a very pleasing picture that *appears* to very cleverly emulate 24P progressive scan images. I honestly could care less what's going inside the DigicII chip that produces the final "fake" progressive 24fps image. And because the final 24fps image is recorded to tape and can be easily resequenced in post, to me, it's what I need.

Also, there have been a lot of tests using Canon's SD lenses (the manual 14x, the manual 16x, and the 3x) which seem to be producing highly acceptable results. It's because I can easily reuse many of the XL2 accessories on this camera that has swayed me from purchasing the HVX to purchasing the XL-H1. Having the option to rent the Mini35 is also a great option for feature-film work. I just can't get beyond the HVX's fixed lens. I'm used to having numerous lens options. And I'm already very familiar with the XL form factor.

I know there's a lot of consternation about the HDV codec. Man, I don't know what everyone else is looking at because all the HDV footage I've seen looks great! I hear a lot of talk about motion artifacts, but I've never seen one. I've looked at HDV footage from FX1, the HD100 and XL-H1 and I'm amazed at how good it looks.

Also, because the XL-H1 has an HD-SDI output that bypasses the HDV encoder I will also have the option of shooting any/all bluescreen or greenscreen footage to a more robust format like HDCAM-SR or direct to disk.

I agree that the XL-H1 produces the best HD images under $10,000.

However, I would refrain from picking fights with David Mullen as he's one of the most respected cinematographers on these boards and his breadth of knowledge and expertise has been an invaluable resource for guys like us. One of the main reasons I successfully produced my first F900 HD production was because of the knowledgebase on this board, most of which was from his first-hand experiences.

I try to watch as many films that have been shot on HD as I can; some are visually better than others as is the case with film originated movies. Last night I watched the film "The Hollow" on DVD, it?s a lowish budget horror film that is mostly set at night. I looked up the technical specs on IMDB and found that it was shot on the Sony 900. A lot of the dark areas of the background appeared to be more of a milky gray than black, I haven?t noticed this as pronounced on other HD originated movies, what would cause this?

Sounds like bad color correction. Or the DVD was mastered incorrectly.

I recently shot a trailer for a horror film called SHADOW FALLS on the F900 and have had phenomenal results. What I like about the F900 is that it captured all the shadow detail which gave me options. In the end I crunched the blacks considerably.

Screenshots on my Website

Thank You David.

 

I apologize if I open this discussion one more time and I appreciate your help.

 

I need to ask you another question though if you don't mind.

 

Since I want to use the pro 35mm adaptor with cine lenses the best way to shoot 2.35:1 is : using spherical lenses frame it for 2.37:1 (after I go on the menu and I click vista 2) and crop it in post?

 

Thanks

 

V.

We just finished a relatively large shoot using the F900 (framed for 2.35) and we used a lot of ND filtration to keep our lens open as wide as possible so we could maintain as shallow a depth of field as possible and I am very happy with the results. I could see using the Pro35 for certain specialty shots where an ultra shallow DOF look would be required. But I don't think we'd ever use the Pro35 for the whole movie.

And BTW we're very very happy with the results we've gotten from the F900. It's the first time we've used this camera and coupled with the Canon cinestyle lenses, we think the images are excellent.

Hey Folks,

I'm getting into my first TV Pilot to be shot hopefully on the F900. They need a price from me. Anybody know some deals in Los Angeles? I could use some good lenses too! Thanks!

I also highly recommend HDCINEMA. Contact Jeff over there. They took good care of us and their equipment performed top notch. www.HDCINEMA.com

Rob

Also, sensors for most video cameras have to be designed with mass production in mind; if you're only going to build a hundred D20's or Genesis or Dalsa cameras at the most, you can use more expensive sensors. Plus as Phil says, video cameras are designed with video encoding, distribution and monitoring in mind, not for a transfer to film.

 

But I agree with Phil that video cameras these days should have an unprocessed output option.

 

But clearly we live in a gray area where video technology is being applied to traditional film work, just as film has been used for material to be shown on TV for decades, and we all better get used to these crossover issues -- and deal with them -- rather than constantly bemoan the incursion of video into the film world.

Thank god. A voice of reason.

Thanks Thomas,

 

You answered my question exactly. I just didn't want to lose any more resolution than I had to. Cropping 2.35 on a 4.3, there isn't anything left. At least with the native 16:9, you're only cutting off a little bit of the original picture.

 

All the best,

Rick

I recently finished an XL2 project and was very impressed with the camera. In some instances, it was too sharp. An unsqueezed 16x9 XL2 frame has an effective resolution of 853x480. Depth of field is still an issue on any 1/3" chip camera, so using longer focal lengths and multiple grades of ND to keep your iris open are important on the XL2.

You can check out the film here.

Good one, Robert! I downloaded the Extra Large. It's spectacular. A gravel pit and some color correction and, hey presto, the MidEast! I've spent time there myself and it really is much more orange than the light in the States. Questions:

 

- Did you hire a weapons guy, or was he a helpful friend?

- The muzzle flash was done in post according to "The Making Of", but what about the bullet hits in the sand? Squibs?

- How did you get the shot with all the army tents?

- Ditto the Apaches?

- What other settings?

Thanks for the kind words. The actor who plays the soldier, James, is an Iraq veteran and he brought home a lot of video and photographs of Iraq. So we used all that reference footage when doing the color correction. The oxydation of the sand is what makes the sand/earth look so much oranger than it does here.

The weapons handler is a Sheriff weapons specialist. He'd never done a movie before. So basically he was helping James out.

We used squibs, compressed air, paint balls and throwing dirt clods for the bullet hits. Nothing was too low tech for us.

The army tents was a matte painting composed from about three different photographs from James' photo journal. Some of the foreground elements were from photos we took of our shooting location.

Believe it or not the Apaches were all done 2D. Basically we grab as many reference photos of real Apache's off the Internet and constructed some multi-layered 2D Photoshop docs, animated them in After Effects and composited them against 2D still photos of our locations for the backgrounds. Lots of motion blur and camera shakes.

The camera was setup as follows:

Black stretch "on"

Knee "low"

manual mode with zebras

cine gamma

2:3:3:2 pulldown

Hello. I just completed a short film about a soldier fighting during Operation Iraqi Freedom called DAY:11. This is the first time I used the Canon XL2 camera. I was very impressed with the camera system and the picture quality.

The true progressive 16x9 aspect ratio and 24P frame rate really provided the kind of cinematic quality this project needed. While I would've preferred a little control over the depth of field, I think the overall image quality is quite exceptional.

Here is a link to a mini-site for the film project where you can watch the entire 14-minute film and a behind-the-scenes vignette in either Quicktime 6 (Sorensen 3) or Quicktime 7 (H.264 - preferred).

"DAY:11" Movie Downloads