Robert Sanders

While Panavision makes good glass. Both Canon and Fujinon also have comparable cinestyle lenses with resolving power as good as if not better than Panavision.

I recently went through the bidding process from several vendors in and around LA for an F900 cinestyle package. And Panavision was definitely on the high end. No doubt their service and meticulously maintained equipment is worth a premium, however their package price was almost 4x more expensive than some of the smaller houses.

I'd contact Jeff and HDCINEMA and get a quote from him. Great gear. Great team over there. And the Canon cinestyle zooms is fantastic glass.

The money saved is better spent on art department, talent, crew rates and, don't laugh, BETTER CATERING! The key to happy crew is through their stomach!

Interesting that Panasonic has not released to resolution of the CCDs. Sure they say it "records" 1080P. But is that an uprezzed 1080 from a 1280x720 chip? Or worse, a 960x720 chip? Nobody knows.

The Canon XL-H1 is at least a 1440x1080 chip. What we don't know is whether that camera's funky interlaced CCD and 24F mode ultimately produces an acceptable progressive image.

I believe that DVD's horizontal resolution is at or around 720, but the vertical is 480, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DVD resolution is 720x480 progressive. Which means it's 480P. Anamorphic DVD resolution "unsqueezed" has an effective resolution of 853x480.

720P has a resolution of 1280x720.

Actually, I shot the first 24P HD feature to be released theatrically in North America, "Jackpot", which opened in August 2001 two weeks before "Session 9".  A low-budget film called "Nicolas" was shot before us using the Panavised F900 (we used a regular F900 from Sim Video).  Also around this time in 2000 when the camera was released were the productions of "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones", "Vidoq" in Europe, and "Session 9".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David,

Did you shoot that film with the F900's internal recorded in 3:1:1? If so, were there any problems with the images recorded out to film?

I'm gearing up for a feature shoot with the F900 and the budget doesn't allow for a 4:2:2 deck. Obviously, we're concerned about the lower color space. But I've also seen stunning 3:1:1 images as well.

Thank you.

The anamorphic 35mm print I saw of "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" was gorgeous. I've heard other complain it looked soft. But the print I saw blew me away. And this was the first generation F900 with crappy lenses and recorded with the internal 3:1:1 deck.

"Collateral" had the benefit of the Vipers and 4:2:2 recording. But I still thought OUATIM still looked like a better transfer.

I didn't get to see either in DLP. I saw them in 35mm specifically because I wanted to see how well they filmed out.

The GY-HD100 uses JVC's ProHDV is 720P 24P.

True 24PA 2:3:3:2 720p record capability.

Film snobs will always push the "video" terminology. Digital snobs will always push the "digital" terminology.

Full disclosure: I'm a digital snob who still believes film is still superior (for color and resolution). But I find manipulation of digital imagery easier and more affordable, therefore it is my preference. However, if I had the budget necessary to shoot film as an acquisition medium only, scan it, and have a complete digital post pipeline, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

The laws of Quantum Mechanics for one.

The sensors haven't gotten that much better, it's more that the support electronics has gotten better at disguising their shortcomings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respect your demands for higher quality resolution in digital cinematography, but perhaps the British film community should focus on saving its own film industry with quality "content" first, rather than specifications...

PRODUCER SAYS UK FILM IN 'CRISIS'

As far as I know, the Sony devices do not. As far as HDlink goes, I have not used that card and do not know that much about it. I can't imagine it would be easy to put LUTs in a hardware device because they need to be flexible and customizable. It's much more of a software concern.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The HDLink box supports LUTs via a hardware/software combo.

http://www.blackmagic-design.net/products/hdlink/

Yes, the Viper can record to the SRW-1 or SRW-5000 in filmstream mode. It is still 10bit information so even though the signal undergoes a logarithmic conversion you're still dealing with the same bit depth.

S2 has a tape backup system called an A-Dock combined with a Scalar LTO2 (soon to be LTO3) data tape jukebox. The LT0 format is made by Fuji and is an approved deliverable format. It is widely used for data backup by banks and insurance companies and many other institutions dealing with data archiving. The good thing about data tape is that it is cheap and lightweight, like video tape, but is still uncompressed. Also, LTO readers are cheap. I think HP makes one for a couple grand.

 

When shooting in 2:37 mode, the Viper does not output a squeezed image on the viewing port, but it does squeeze the viewfinder image. The S-Two DFR has a built in squeeze to output a corrected image for viewing on all of its outputs. The only real problem is if the operator wants to use a monitor instead of the eyepiece. It would require a video feed back from the DFR. Realistically though, if this is the case, a second cable could be taped (or snaked) with the mulitcore cable from the camera since it has to be there anyway.

 

Hope this helped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does the SRW-1 or SRW-5000 have a squeeze feature? It would be nice if Blackmagic HDLink performed this function as well as the LUT correction.

The AK-HC931 is a 720P and 1080i camera. It does not do 1080P.

Panasonic Website

Can the Viper record to an HDCAM-SR deck in FilmStream mode? If not, how does one backup the S2 recorders to a tape based medium to satisfy the insurance companies?

Also, when shooting in 2.40 mode does the camera have a built in de-amorphoser (sp?) for proper aspect-ratio viewing on the monitor?

I find both cameras frustrating.

The XL2 is the dream DV camera I always wanted. True 16x9. True 24P (and 30P). But, it's come too late. I'm ready to dive into HD and anamorphic standard-def video just doesn't do it for me anymore.

The HVR-Z1U is nice starting point, but it's nowhere near ideal. There are moments when this camera's picture quality can be wonderful. And there are moments when it just completely falls apart. Also, check the camera specs. The imaging resolution is suspect. To me, however, it is the lack of a true 24P frame rate that kills this camera for me.

Neither camera represents an ideal low-budget solution. Both miss the mark.

However, if I absolutely had to put money down on a camera, the XL2's 24p wins my vote. If JVC is really going to introduce a 24p HDV camera, then that changes the equation a bit.

What are people's opinions on Panavision's Digital Primo Zooms? They are they only HD lenses that I have worked with and I am not too impressed by them. Already during prep we found out that 2 of the lenses (6-27mm and 25-112mm) were consistently softer on the right side than on the left side in the middle of the zoom range. The people at Panavision were surprised by this, but we tried several lenses, different cameras and monitors, still the problem persisted. So this must be a design fault. On top of that these lenses also have barrelling and pincushioning issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very interesting information. Surprising, considering that the only real benefits from renting Panavision's 900's are for the Digital Primos. How would you rate Panavision's customer service in resolving this matter? I've heard that's the second best benefit to renting from Panavision is their customer service (at least on the 35mm side of the aisle).

Robert Rodriguez owns all his own gear. While I knew he owns two F900's, I'm not sure if he's upgraded to the 950's or not.

Considering the number of projects he's shot using his 900's, I'm sure he's gotten his money's worth out of them. And considering that he's mentioned that they're eager to upgrade to 10-bit, I wouldn't be surprised if he's shooting Sin City in SR.

It's being shot using the Sony F950's using HDCAM-SR (4:4:4) with Fujinon lenses. Rented from Plus8Digital.

Also, don't forget there are other benefits than just 4:4:4 color space. The F950's in SR mode record a full 1920x1080 pixel frame rather than HDCAM's 1440x1080.

I've seen some 3rd party manufacturer's that make mounting kits for Apple Cinema Displays for mounting onto equipment racks for IT purposes.

Basically it removes the pedastle from the back of the display and attaches an actuated arm on the back. I'll bet those arms could be bolted to a metal plate that's welded to some tubular steel (or aluminum) which could be attached to a Magliner cart or something.

I've also seen some behind-the-stills of the DP on "Enterprise" using Cinema Displays as his reference monitors and the two displays were just sitting precariously unprotected on top of a magliner.

I absolutely adore widescreen animation. I believe "A Bug's Life" was 2.35 as well. Hopefully Pixar makes more widescreen animated films provided the story supports it.

Even though "Atlantis" wasn't Disney's best, I still loved the wide aspect ratio. Same with "Anastasia" and now "The Incredibles"!

Well to answer an earlier question:

 

I will be asking people if they want ketchup with their fries before I pick up an HD camera.

 

(underwater shooting would be the exception as that is a special case).

 

As to my GPS co-ordinates for dropping the HD cameras out of the helicopter, I don't know what they are.  But I'm glad you've agreed to at least toss them overboard, you've taken a big step forward, I'm proud of you.

 

Any whoo, I leave on Sunday for a one week shoot in Vegas and Arizona, all 35mm of course.  So you won't hear from me for a while, but I'll be Baaaaaaaaaack :-)

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're more than welcome to stay a couple extra weeks.

Yay! Another Lucas bashing thread.

Everyone mocks and ridicules and then privately mimics everything he does. :lol:

We've been over this before and the reality is that you can shoot either format as stripped down or as wired up as you like. HD cameras can be configured for wireless Steadicam use just the same as film cameras. No HD monitoring or hard-wired sound in this mode, but then you wouldn't have that with a film camera either. The image gets downconverted and plugged into the Steadicam monitor for viewing and/or transmitting, effectively the same as the tap image on a film camera.

 

And both systems can have cables all over the camera, if you consider all the cabling that stays attached to the camera itself, like power cables for accessories, extra BNC for the onboard LCD, and so on. One HD-SDI cable coming off the camera for viewing is no different than one BNC coming off a video tap. Engineering/paintbox cables are usually temporary, and don't have to be attached all the time. About the only real difference is that HD often has sound cables coming into the camera, whereas film cameras won't -- but again it doesn't have to. You can record double system sound like film, or use wireless receivers. And let's not forget that HD cameras can often have onboard batteries, so in that configuration that's one less cable than most 35mm film cameras.

 

So really, all this stuff about HD vs. film cabling is a non-issue. The methods for Steadicam, sound, and monitoring for both systems are established and proven. Some of the hardware may be different between the systems, but the methods are essentially the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the full-version of my original point. ;)

Obviously the steadicam operator has to be as untethered as possible. I, as a director, would never demand that the steadicam operator have the paint box or tap connected. Why would anybody want to hamper the potential performance of a steadicam operator?

That said, wrt to traditional setups, I still stick to my guns that the HD naysayers' knee jerk first response is "all the cables". Which is just plain silly. When you walk on a set you're usually walking over countless electrical cables, junction boxes, stingers, walking around c-stands, flags, apple boxes, avoiding the boom guy's cabling, etc. The notion that a small bundle of cables connected to a camera is unacceptable just seems silly to me. ;) Especially when you consider all the extra cabling that gets connected to any modern film camera rig.

I had a film snob recently quip that he could load a couple magazines, throw the camera on his shoulder, and shoot anywhere, the desert, the hemalayas, etc. Well, last time I checked the ENG guys were doing just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Discovery Channel guys were doing just fine shooting in the Antarctic, Australia, etc.

Streak filters can work "normally" with 2/3" video or 16mm systems also, you just have to pay closer attention that you're not giving the shot too much depth of field. And you can give 35mm too much depth of field for front-mounted nets or filters also, if for example you're shooting outdoors on a wide lens at t-11 or t-16!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would probably only be using a streak filter during night time exterior and interior scenes. So DOF shouldn't be too difficult to control.

I like the way car headlights and flashlights flare out anamorphic lenses. While there are some nifty software plugins that emulate this effect in post (Knoll Light Factory), they never appear completely authentic.

A streak filter is like a cross or star filter, but with lines going only in one direction. Highlights flare in a straight line or "streak" perpendicular to the cuts in the glass. Turn the filter so the lines go vertically, and bright specular highlights will create horizontal streaks similar to what you get with anamorphic lenses.

 

Like all cross filters or nets you have to control the depth of field to hide the filter pattern. Sometimes you can see the repeating vertical lines within the streaked highlight if you're not careful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. I can see how DOF could be an issue with ENG style HD camera systems. I'm assuming streak filters would work "normally" with the Panavision's Genesis or Kinetta (Super35 sized imagers).

I've never walked on a film-based set and not seen the camera covered with cables. The idea that HD is encumbered by cables is a fallacy.