Filip Kovcin

I posted here just three times in the few years period. but i have strong emotional need to post this message right now, after reading above (quoted) post from march this year: Jim, i cannot express my feelings when i saw your message about Jeff. I have absolutely the same thoughts about Jeff's pioneering ideas, but when it's said by someone like you it's just amazing. i applaud you for your honesty and courage! filip kovcin, warsaw poland

Stephen, of course, i just forgot to mention that i was thinking of 35mm DOF comparing to 2/3" DOF. note: jump over following part if ewerytnig is clear for you ==================== 2/3" DOF "look" is 2/3" look, not 35mm DOF look... i just wanted to say that 35mm camera will always have it's own (of course) film look DOF, but 2/3" cameras, even when progressive, even if HD will always have that 2/3" - "digital" DOF look. i mentioned that because sometimes is difficult to explain to i.e. client, that despite all quality HD brings it will see it's own world in it's own way - which is connected with 2/3" sensors. so if someone is expecting DOF of 35mm in all situations - when shooting with 2/3" cameras - he is of course rather wrong. you can mimic film DOF by choosing proper focal lenth etc, but as you all know this is not possible always, due to (still existing) laws of physics :) ===================== thank you, filip

hello there, mailing from poland. i am using both 750p and f900 cameras. in tv world i cannot say that there is visible difference between the two. if you are using both cameras with the same path from start to end. the think where you CAN see "BETA" look is ofcourse when shooting in interlace and then downconvert to standard definition. then, in my personal opinion, it really looks like beta. which is probably normal due to interlace origin. BUT, of course, as you all know here when shooting in progressive mode (either f900 or 750p) camera, there is no way to look like beta. the only difference i can see somehow exist - is when you look at 750p material on the big screen (after transfering to 35mm) and have really bright parts in your shot - window etc. together with normal exposure situation - in those situation (but, again this is maybe subjective opinion) i saw difference in treating bright parts. f900 had better response to those details in bright lights. but i did not tested them side by side. this is opinion i get when saw two different polish movies shot on our cameras but with somehow similar lighting conditions. (normally or dark lited interior with bright exterior in the same shot) but the problems starts when hd is DOWNCONWERTED to SD. it really depends how is downconveerted. there are many ways to do this and of course results are different. (f500, computer downconversion, jh3 player, etc.) and if you are asking me - wrong approach in this moment can result in bad impression. recently (3 days ago) i did that with f900 and downconwerted material looked in some way worse than PAL signal (imx). i believe that that is similar with 970 digibeta (thismodel 970 is NOT 790!!!!) which has progressive mode (imx too), of course. my "theory" is that if you are working for TV - it's better to work with 970, imx or other progressive cameras - if you cannot achieve PROPER downconverting path. working with HD material eiter f900 or 750p if downconverted badly will in my opinion deliver not so impressive picture. the answer is maybe simple (i am not engeneer or tv electronic guru, just user) if there is no downconversion - signal is untouched. if donconverted it MAY add artifacts... another aspect of "beta look" is ofcourse DOF issue, but this is another story. just my thoughts. thanks, filip

Elhanan, i'm looking for possibility to do the same as you described, but i want to compare it with decklink solution (decklink multibridge). did you tryed this also? thank you filip