Could the HVX200 be used to shoot an Indie feature?

Phil Rhodes · July 12, 2006

Hi,

Impossible question to answer absolutely.

I'd carefully side-by-side deinterlaced XLH1 and HD100 footage and decide based on vertical resolution. If it doesn't have some other horrible flaw of which I'm unaware (vertical smear, poor dynamic range, whatever), the XLH1 produces the absolute nicest pictures, if you can stand deinterlacing them.

The other thing about the XLH1 is that it has HD-SDI outputs, allowing you to inexpensively data-record it at very high quality. This is how I've seen the pictures, and they sparkle.

Having said all this, the best camera may well be one you rent. JVC had an HD100 upgrade at NAB which has HD-SDI outputs; others have spoken highly of the HD100's picture, although with the supplied lens it's quite horribly soft around the edges. Putting a better optical system - possibly with a groundglass adaptor - on an HD-SDI recordable version of that might be formidable.

You notice that I'm talking a lot about data recording. It's important to realise that HDV isn't the paragon of virtue that miniDV was. MiniDV came into a world where the immediately adjacent competitors were Hi8 and Betacam SP. MiniDV considerably outperformed Hi8 at a then barely higher price point and was about as good as betacam SP on a vastly smaller ticket. HDV doesn't work the same way; there is no consumer HD format to compare it with, and it hardly competes with HDCAM on a quality standpoint. I'm sure HDV will eventually look as backward as VHS did once S-VHS and Hi8 were available.

Therefore, I'm very interested in data-recording these cheaper cameras, and it's something about which I may be about to write a magazine article.

That said - if I had to shoot a feature tomorrow on one of these, it'd be a data-recorded XLH1 with a manual lens. But that's far from the cheapest way to do it. I think perhaps the best camera will always be one you rent - otherwise, you invest hugely, and there's always something more enticing on the horizon. By the time the HD-outputting HD100 update comes out, there'll be something else. It's neverending, and I've sworn off buying cameras.

Phil

Jason Eitelbach · July 13, 2006

Does anybody have a workflow for laying back/archiving in FCP your clips to DVCPRO HD tape.

I'm trying to figure out a way I can shoot tapeless and have an editor lay the days clips back to tape, but keep the same timecode. So I don't have to have two or three backups, just one.

When I shot a short with this camera we kept one copy of the Quicktimes on the editors computer. One quicktime backup and one MXF backup.

Any ideas?

je

Douglas Hunter · July 18, 2006

Jason,

are you asking only about the timecode issue, or do you want the entire workflow including equipment etc?

July 27, 2006

Our experience with the HVX200 and the workflow:

We had three cameras shooting (Wide cam, CU cam and Jib cam) all stock with no adapters, etc. Our shoot was for 5 x 10 hour days with little time in between shots.

Each camera had 2 x 4gb cards and what we did was shoot on one card until full and all cameras would then hand it off to our transfer guy (who also doubled as our scripty) who would transfer the files to our 1.2 TB of HDD storage. Each camera would then insert the second card and we'd begin shooting again. Meanwhile the transfer of the other cards was happening simultaneously so that when the other card was full there would be an empty card waiting for us.

Our format chosen was 720p 30pn as the final destination is DVD. As for backup/archive, we felt that the cost for 2 x 500 GB HDD (which is our estimate to hold all the raw footage) is about the same cost, if not more, as professional tape (MiniDV is not a professional format when compared to Betacam or DVCPro tape)

We only lost one shot which, since we were using three cameras and had at least two takes of every setup we are ultimately okay. The mxf files worked instantly in our Avid and we saved about 5 days in digitising time alone (and factor that in at $165-200/hour if you are outsourcing to an editor and suite - even at $50/hour the costs mount up). Had this been a Betacam or MiniDV shoot we would have had approx. 70-80 tapes! (Let's see, if shooting on BetaSP the cost of the tapes would have been around $1000 give or take - not too mention if we were shooting DigiBeta!)

So for us and our shoot (we liked the 720p 30pn image a lot - it looks great on DVD), there were timesavings in the transfer time vs digitise time, there were cost saving in that 1.2 TB of HDD costs us around 600 (the other nice thing is that if you archive to HDD and need to revisit the project we just mount the drive and, voilà, were ready to edit, complete with everything (since we archive the project and all graphic files, etc.)

Just my thoughts on the whole HVX200 camera/p2/workflow...

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls · July 28, 2006

Excusme me PT3,

But your scripty was over capturing footage on a computer while you were busy shooting? Wow, some scripty you had. What's his/her number, I'd like to hire that Super-Scripty! They must be a master at watching continuity and logging shots without being there.

Plus, doesn't 4 minutes of footage take at least 4 minutes to transfer to computer from P2? So theorhetically, your "scripty" spent just as much time transfering footage on set as you would have had to do in realtime with tape in post. Heck, you could have just had a deck on set and did the same thing. *smile* Not to mention the added attention to detail and resources used while shooting as fast as you claim you were....which brings me to my next question....

70-80 tapes worth?? in 5 days??? with only 3 cameras???? Gee wiz, are you guys robots? *smile* That caculates to 5-6 hours of footage per camera per day (@ only 10 hours days). Now I ain't saying you're lying or that's imposible, but I have never heard of that before...espeically with THREE cameras and one of them on a JIB! As a matter of fact....1.2 terrabytes of DVCPROHD would only take 30 tapes...and that's assuming you filled up the full 1.2 TB of hard drive space, which I doubt you did. And unless you had THREE separate computer workstations on set, each system decicated to one camera, then your "scripty" must NEVER have been on set because that means footage was constantly being transferred to computer....even holding up the shoot since it takes at least 12 minutes to capture 3 single 4gig P2 cards, but only 4 minutes to make them from 3 cameras. But since you already said you only had 1 computer system on set, then I cannot see....in this world or the next....how what you say is true.

Apparently you really like P2, and that's fine and all......but PT3.......let's keep it real. *smile* Especially with this being your first post here @ cinematography.com.

Edited July 28, 2006 by ShannonRawls

JRZ · August 2, 2006

Just wondering if this camera would have the ability, or if it's really only good enough for television/DVD.

The film November was shot on the DVX-100 so the HVX-200 should do just fine.

Isn't the SD mode somewhat close to digibeta also?

Thomas James · August 4, 2006

One nice thing about the HVX 200 is that you can shoot 720p at 48 frames per secound and playback at 24 frames per secound for some awesome slow motion footage. With 1080p you are limited to 24 or 30 frames per secound.

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls · August 4, 2006

Unless of course you shoot 1080i60, and separate the fields into frames which gives you 60p and playback @ 24p which is even smoother slow motion then 48p (depending on your % of slowdown. However, please note that the HVX does this quickly & instantly and allows you to skip 1 of the 2-step process to achieve this. Also please note that the resolution will be halved if you go the 1080i60 route, but will more then likely be equivalent or exceed both test chart and perceivable resolution of the hvx200 if you use a camera like the Sony F900 or Canon XL-H1 or Sony F330.

Thomas James · August 4, 2006

Yes and I can also shoot 720p at 60 frames per second and uprezz to 2k and it would give me the exact same results as if I shot in 1080i60 and deinterlaced to 1080p60. When we are talking about resolution there are 3 dimensions to the equation there is spatial resolution temporal resolution and color resolution and even a fourth called depth resolution . For example Canon could have sold you a 0 lux 4k ultra high definition black and white camera for $3999 and it would be a great camera for low light night shots and for shooting on the moon. But because it lacks color no one would consider it any more high definition than a lower resolution color camera.

And of course you have Einstein who said that temporal resolution is spatial resolution. However most people do not see it as such but that has more to do with the limits of human perception rather than the laws of physics.