HD Camera WON'T DO ANY GOOD

[Voytek_Stitko]

When I read about new HD cam here I got excited for a second. Than, I realized that even if HD would cost same as DVX100A and have 16:9 and same great looking footage as DVX IT WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTING.

I am making features and I realized that even if you gave me the best camera available for free - it is not going to make my movie great. If I dont have a story and dont know how to tell this story - just having better equipment will not help.

So, now I cooled down and just like everybody here (I hope) listen to the news. If there is a new toy available I will look at it. And maybe get one if it is worth changing from DVX. But in the meantime I am going to keep working on my filmmaking craft. Without searching web for an hour a day looking for NEWS. I will use this time to actually making my movies.

Yeah.

So, what? Any news about this new HD panny? ;D

[Loki]

See I disagree..

its all about mindset... a great piece of equipment going unused is a shame...

a piece of shit equipment going un-used.. well... not too many people will get sad about that.

a good camera can definately help you... it can motivate.. of course if there is nothing that needs motivating then that camera ain't helping ;)

[johnnyspacecommand]

I just used a crusty ancient history standard definition TV camera for a production and it will be spectacular because the material, acting, and set were kick ass.

If you have a DVX100a, you can do very cool things with it.

If you have an XL2, you can do very cool things with it.

If you have a DVX200 or an XL3, you will be able to do very cool things with it. :)

[Rich Lee]

"HD Camera WON'T DO ANY GOOD"



It also WONT'T DO ANY BAD

[Isaac_Brody]

Just another tool. If it fits in your toolbox good. Think of it this way as well. There will be the early adopters, the people who just have to have the newest tool on the block. Some of those people will use it and others will let the camera sit in their closets for months. Sooner or later the closet buyers willl realize that it's too much camera for them or perhaps they were just pretending and they'll sell their camera for much less than 10,000.

It happened with the DVX, people who thought a great camera would fill the void of storytelling, and it will definitely happen with this camera as well. I'm excited about this camera, but it really comes down to need. Does this camera do more than what my DVX does? Are there features I absolutely need?

I'm pretty pumped that this camera is coming out. Now I'm just pissed because we won't hear anything tangible for weeks and we've all been whipped up into a frenzy like a pack of dogs.

[Shaw]

Hence the reason the DVX isn't going to be discontinued :)

HD will definitely do good. It's just not for everyone and that's fine.

[Glenn_Gipson]

To me, an HD camera will do a lot of good for my future productions. Why? Future proofing. One day, in the distant future, people will eventually have HD sets, and HD players, and that will mean a re-release of my movies in HD. Which means more royalties, which means….you get the point. And then there is always that remote possibility of a 35mm blow up....Finally, a DVCPRO HD 4:2:2 camera is going to have far better dynamic range then a DVX100, which allows for better lighting and compositional options.

[Jaime Valles]

....Finally, a DVCPRO HD 4:2:2 camera is going to have far better dynamic range then a DVX100, which allows for better lighting and compositional options.

I hadn't even thought of that. Just the increased latitude and native 16x9 make this a worthy follow-up!

I'm sure it would depend on the specifics of the CCDs and circuitry, so we won't know for sure until it's here... But how much of an increase in dynamic range do any of you guess something like this would have?

[icicle22]

Is it just a given that if it is a higher res format it will have better dynamic range? I thought that was based more on the CCD design. I use the Xl2 and think few would argue that it samples more pixels on the CCD to obtain a "perceived" increase in resolution but that comes at the cost of losing dynamic range. It us much less sensitive to light than the DVX and requires a few extra stops to obtain the same exposure.

If Panasonic has to stick with 1/3 inch chips to keep the price in the "prosumer" range I am not so sure that it is a given that the dynamic range will automatically be better. But it might be. Perhaps Barry could comment on this issue. Not directly on the new Pana as we don;t know the CCD specs but on the issue of latitude and dynamic range of 1/3 chips in general.....especially how they are implemented for 16x9 use and higher pixel density.

There is surely a benefit of sampling say x number of pixels from a 2/3 camera and then encoding to DVX-PRO HD over sampling x numbers of pixels off of a 1/3 inch CCD... X being the same number for both in this case.

[scharky]

I don't think glen was refering to higher resolution= more dynamic range. Higher res does not mean more latititude, in most cases it means less, look at the fx1 and z1 for example. however, with 4:2:2 compression, it is very likely that more of the originally sampled latitude will remain to work with.

[icicle22]

So the assumption of more latitude is based on lower compression rate and better color sampling? I guess that might be true. I hope so. The more information you can retain the better. I just never thought of that as a major factor in dynamic range or latitude. I would definitely expect better color rendition though that is for sure.

If your output source is currently DVD and you do not need a master for film blowup or for "longevity" then is there a huge benefit to DVCPRO-HD over say, the XL2? I am only asking as with the FX1 when downsampled to standard def, Barry saw no significant increase in picture quality. Would it be the same, at least similar, with DVCPRO-HD? I have absolutely no need for HD as of now but I do need high quality SD 16x9.

I invested in the XL2 based on the "maturity" of the DV format and its good 16x9 and all of the money I have invested in the software and decks. This new Pana camera sounds likes it is going to be the cats a** as far as resolution and color clarity in the electronics but if there is no need for HD "yet" I feel I will be better served holding out and waiting for the entire process to be perfected.

By the time I am ready to actually author HD projects I will probably be better off buying then as the prices will have fallen a lot. Or is there already proof that DVCPRO-HD downsampled to SD for DVD output is definitively better? Just asking...

(by the word "definitively" I mean overwelmingly better not a little better or a tad better. Because obviously film downsampled is phenomenal!)

[Sofa_King_Smart]

I LOVE THIS TALK OF A NEW PANNY!
Do you realize what this will do to the resale value of the dvx-100a? LIKE A BRICK...then I can pick one up on feeBay for less than two grand!

[J.R. Hudson]

I get the point being made; everyone seems to get caught up in the technology as in "I just NEED this camera..." when in reality the tools available today and at thier prospective price points are more than enough for the struggling indiependent filmmaker. It of course will go back to content being king but having the right tool for the job is inmportant. When I bought the DVX100, there were no other options; it was hands down the DVX (24p).

HD? Doesn't excite me; I can't afford an HD set, no one I know can, it's not future proof as there is always inevetibally a newer 'better' format so I'm not buying everyones hurry to get into HD at this particular time. If I dream up and start production on a project that requires the best bang I'll rent. IN the meantime, I'm shooting as much as I can with my DVX; which by the way won last years DP Award at Sundance (Yeah, I know you knew that).

[hvpz]

John,

I agree with you, but for me 4:2:2 is at least as important as HD and certainly a big improvement.
And if native 16/9 is included too, it's makes this camera very interesting.

edit : (Even certainly for downconverting to SD ?)

[Zig_Zigman]

New technology could definitely inspire you to try something you might not ordinarily try. And that's a good thing. ;D

[hvpz]

New technology could definitely inspire you to try something you might not ordinarily try. And that's a good thing. ;D

What the HDX100 will inspire you to try that a 'good old dvx' won't ?
I'm just curious ! ;)

[braw]

This thread is going the way of timeless tech talk. Of course the camera doesn't make a good film. All a camera can do is afford you the ability to achieve a look very similar in many aspects as big budget professional productions.

This is such a cyclical and pointless argument.

Will a camera make you a filmmaker...NO

Will a more expensive, High Def camera have a better image all things being shot equal....YES

If you suck ass at making films, no camera will help, but of those with talent (many on this board) have a tool that brings them even closer to an established look that CAN give them the potential of credibility, then why nay say. Some of us enjoy wild speculation...it's fun.

[Barry_Green]

As far as the dynamic range issue goes, I'd tend to agree with icicle22... if all other things are equal, denser pixels on the CCD are going to lead to lower light-level response and less latitude/dynamic range. *We've seen this with the XL2, and to a bigger degree (because of twice the pixel density) on the FX1/Z1. *I would expect that the new Panasonic would have to obey those laws of physics, unless there's some technological breakthrough being employed. Or, if it's using larger CCDs, then that could offset the density issue (larger CCD would mean larger pixels). I'm not expecting 1/2" CCDs in the new camera, but I'm just saying that's one way that they could get higher res and also deliver the same or better dynamic range and light sensitivity.

So, and this is only wildly unsubstantiated speculation, but I would expect the new camera to be maybe a stop less light-sensitive, with about a stop less latitude/dynamic range, than the DVX, IF ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL. *Maybe it'll have a better DSP that somehow extends the range, or some innovation in CCD design that overcomes/offsets the limitations that have been typically observed in denser pixel designs.

As for whether it'll make for better DVD manufacturing, as always, that remains to be seen. *I think you will be able to get higher resolution DVDs than the FX1, because you'll be dealing with progressive-scan footage that won't have to be converted down from interlaced footage... but it will be quite interesting to pit the DVX against the HDX (I wish we could confirm that name... but hey, that's what everyone's calling it, so I guess I will too...) *I tend to think that the HDX would be able to preserve some color resolution advantage as compared to a DVX or XL2, because you can shoot in DVCPRO50 with 4:2:2 color space, and 4:2:2 should convert to DVD's 4:2:0 better than XL2/DVX 4:1:1 does. *But that's speculation, the proof will be in the actual testing.

[mr._guiyotinne]

Ok, i´m sorry to make another guess, but here it goes anyway...

Probably Pana guys care about the light and latitude problem of getting more pixels in the CCDs and the way they want to make a better product in other step from the DVX to beat Sony out of the map, so (maybe is just a dream), talking about the 10,000 $ price range and P2 HD store. Is there any other camera with 1/2 CCds and fixed lens?

This will take everything to the right place? sure it´s just my opinion. And Pana can make it, sure they can. Don´t look at me like fever man. I´m just new in all of this and i don´t know if it´s possible in that price range... Please, correct me if im wrong. :-[

[mr._guiyotinne]

Anyway, this is the good point of being naive, goodwilling and unexperience. Dreams are bigger and not full of bad reality... ;D

[Flintstone]

Simply put! *Just use the right tool for the job. *In other words, if you need a screwdriver to screw in a screw, then don't use a hammer. *Sure, you'll probably be able to drive that screw in using brute force, but the result is dubious. *I think that on many levels, it's the same about HD vs SD. It all depends on what you need.

[mr._guiyotinne]

So, following with the hammer metaphor, if this new HDX camera brings one 2GB P2 card with it, and for the sake of space, people rather shoot at DVCPRO 25, that gives around 10 min. of old DV (ok, DVCPRO 25 (can you tell me is there any difference?)) or around 4 min. in DVCPRO50.

Unless CCDs are 1/2 or 1/3 with better desing to avoid the density issues, it looks the only possible ways are going to be: or you go 2,000$ for the 4GB P2 (very limited recording time anyway), or buy a DVX100A with a nice firestore 4.

I mean, you can buy an HDX with the P2 to record DVCPRO 25 but with less dynamic range like Barry Green suggested in case there are no improvement in the CCDs (is it wright?). But you will be paying more for something that wont make such a difference with DVX and firestore. Or resolution will be an advantage more than disadvantage? I´m i wrong Flinstone? Barry?

I´m trying to keep learning fast. ;)

[Michael_Bott]

A better camera does not make you better as a film maker - but it does make you better able. We all persue some kind of fidelity, whether that fidelity is to an artistic ideal or to representing what is in front of you. Any tool that pushes back the frontiers of what is possible opens the door to more freedom and ability to realise on screen what is in our heads. Bring it on ...

[Isaac_Brody]

amen. :D

[mr._guiyotinne]

I´m in the scripwriting world and not all bad. I rather have a good story than any other thing, so the best other "things", the better. And I´m the one who believes is not the tools but the people that use them. In fact, i didn´t knew anybody to move, so i learn a little how to be a indie producer. I had worked quite a lot with my XM1, so if i´m looking for a better tools, knowing good people like i know, it´s up to have some fun discusing these issues. And i tend to be the owner of the equipment i use.

Michael, i did knew your opinion. Its just that being attached to download my footage every shoot by taking the P2 away and getting inside this 60GB HD, is not my ideal of freedom...

But that´s the price to pay for HD 24p footage at that price range.

[Michael_Bott]

Yes, I get that. The problem is that many of us are 'one man bands'. We don't just write scripts - we also have to make sure the colour balance is correct! To get creative we also have to be technocrats. You're right, very often it feels that there is no freedom there.

On the other hand many a great director will have had to learn to strip an Arriflex at film scholl.

[dvpixl]

It's the thing to do these days. multi-task. just keep learning as you go, you'll be able to keep your job and keep the young ones barking at the doorsteps....like me.

[Gary_McClurg]

Gee, Micahel you must have went to a army film school. ;D All we did was learn how to load the mags, check the gate, so on and so on.

:-[

[Michael_Bott]

I didn't - but I spent much time hanging around and working with students at the London International FIlm School when I was a young actor - a looooooooong time ago! But yes, they did all know how to strip an Arri. Those were the days ... ::)

[SirAllen]

I'm more excited about the 4:2:2 than the HD. HD is nice, and will help future proof things and would definitely come in handy at times. I hate to admit it, but 4:2:2 looks (well, can look) so much better than 4:1:1. The few times I've gotten to work with it I was very surprised by the noticable improvement in quality.

[Flintstone]

I'm more excited about the 4:2:2 than the HD. HD is nice, and will help future proof things and would definitely come in handy at times. I hate to admit it, but 4:2:2 looks (well, can look) so much better than 4:1:1. The few times I've gotten to work with it I was very surprised by the noticable improvement in quality.
I'm in perfect agreement with you SirAllen.

[Barry_Green]

Like I said before, I'm kind of jazzed about the 4:2:2 DVCPRO50 option as well. I mean, I know we're all supposed to be most excited about HD, and yeah that's cool, but...

4:2:2 at 3.3:1 compression will almost certainly mean good improvements in the work you can do TODAY and deliver TODAY. So not only do you get a viable SD DV camera, but you also get one with even better quality (less compression and twice the color) which should definitely make for better-looking work on broadcast or DVD! And then, should you choose to, you've got high-def as well. This is so cool!

I just hope that the camera delivers on the promises the recording format is making! :)

[Flintstone]

Mmmmmh! *4:2:2..... *It kinda makes me wish to have a plain old SD DVX100A stlyle 16x9 DVCPRo50 only camcorder. *I have the same sentiments as you Barry, HD is fine, but 4:2:2 SD... I think I'd be perfectly content with that setup for the next few years. *Well, at least until HD-DVDs or Blue-Ray players start to become more widely available in consumer households.

[braw]

I have to jump behind you Barry and Flintstone, my interest peaked with the DVCPRO50 and 4:2:2 as well. I find that much more intriguing than HD for exactly the same reasons. From what's confirmed about the 3 recording modes, this sounds like it will be the ultimate "prosumer" camera to date. Now the end price and recording medium are the only things that are a little worrisome to me.

[mr._guiyotinne]

They will give 2GB P2 cards, if capacity for P2 cards is to be growing in a fast rate for the next years they must allocate the little ones to make big sales of them and if they are so reliable and customers get hot on them, they will ask for the big ones when they get better prices.

I´m gonna believe that Panny people ARE really intelligent! This aspect and giving what we ask for indie filmakers, and thinking on prosumers and customers in three years advance. Man, they are marketing geniuses! Sony will be out! Any other company is goin to be out! I bow to them.

[Zig_Zigman]

No one roots for Sony anyway. Sony still tries to set standards, not always to the advantage of the industry.

Panasonic takes polls, asks questions, makes their US Marketing Chiefs spend 4 hours a day online *L*, and then DELIVERS the goods. How can you not root for them?

This new cam sounds awesome......man it's going to be hard to get one of these babies. Every mini-director in LA will be ordering one.

PUT YOUR DEPOSITS DOWN NOW ;D

[Flintstone]

I haven't thought of that in that way... By releasing a rather "low-end" camera, so to speak, with P2 technology, Pany is creating an increase in demand not just on the broadcast side, but also on the prosumer side, therefore exponentially increasing the need for P2, and subsequently reducing the prices of those P2 cards and the availability of larger capacity ones. All this in a shorter period of time then anticipated had Pany stuck to P2 on the high-end cams. I believe the prosumer end will be the real driving force for those P2 cards, and we’ll all benefit from it.

[braw]

I believe the prosumer end will be the real driving force for those P2 cards, and we’ll all benefit from it.

Man I hope you're right! It would be hard to justify spending that same amount for storage as the camera itself. I know the whole "don't need to buy tapes" thing is great...but the cards that come out initially will be pretty limited, and we'll have to keep upgrading as the technology catches up. This will amount to a veritable buttload of cash.

[mr._guiyotinne]

Flinstone, you express yourself so well! ;D

One day i want to speak english like you!

[Flintstone]

LOL! ;D

I forgot to put some other corporate fashionable words in there such as: paradigm shift, and synergistic! ;)

[Flintstone]

This will amount to a veritable buttload of cash.
Of course, because of that, in the short term, DVCProHD hard disk recording might actually interfere with P2's proliferation.

[mr._guiyotinne]

Till the moment they set to an equal price. I think it will be when P2 go as 1 hour HD record (i think it will became a standard card). Then nobody will care about hard disks being able to record more time than P2, as long as they don´t get lot cheaper. But it will be good anyway because it will mean plurality in the recording system and more people will buy these cameras, with wider options; tape, p2, HDD, 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i, 60i... Whoa!!!! I can´t wait! i´m gonna have a heart attack waiting for more news... I look addict, do i? :o


It´s getting so much noise around HDX it´s impossible to create more! even people who don´t love panasonic is speaking about it and getting furious. More news please!!!

[Flintstone]

Whoa!!!! I can´t wait! i´m gonna have a heart attack waiting for more news... I look addict, do i? *It´s getting so much noise around HDX it´s impossible to create more! even people who don´t love panasonic is speaking about it and getting furious. More news please!!!
Yeah! *I know what you mean. *Jan, any chance of another more detailed "leak" somewhere? * ;D

[Tzedekh]

Man I hope you're right! It would be hard to justify spending that same amount for storage as the camera itself.

A lot of assumptions are being made about the cost and capacities of P2 cards. From what I've read, Panasonic wants to include P2 technology even in its high-end consumer/low-end prosumer lines (remember the "about $3,000" P2 HD cam shown in balsa mockup at NAB?). At $4,000, $2,000, or even $1,000, a storage medium with only 2 to 4 GB of capacity doesn't seem too viable except for pro cameras costing tens of thousands of dollars, and then probably only for SD cameras, where a lower data rate means longer recording times. I'm pretty sure Panasonic knows that.

Even assuming that it costs a lot of money to produce a 4-GB P2 card, nothing is stopping Panasonic from selling the cards at little or no profit -- or even a loss -- if it will help to promote the technology. As its costs drop it could recoup its losses, and by then the industry would be hooked. It's the reverse of "Give away the razor and make a fortune selling the blades." Gillette tried that when it released its first safety razor, and for awhile it worked. Then literally hundreds of blade manufacturers sprang up. Eventually, Gillette began a program of trying one new shaving "technology" after another to stay competitive and create a near monopoly on blades compatible with its razors. Panasonic can't afford to give away the "razor'" -- even if by Cinealta or Varicam standards "under $10,000" seems like a giveaway. But it can do everything possible to make P2 technology more affordable (and therefore more practical).

As to capacity, who knows what Panasonic has up its sleeve?

[Isaac_Brody]

As to capacity, who knows what Panasonic has up its sleeve?

Exactly. You can be sure that the capacity is there. I don't see a company gambling on a storage format that only has a storage capacity of 4gb. No way. I bet the technology is there and once they test the waters and see how people bite the bigger cards will hit the market.

[Barry_Green]

Well, here's another way to think of the capacity/P2 issue. *First, keep in mind that while some are saying "4 minutes is a 'joke'", those of us who shoot film are well, well, well entrenched in the 4-minute limit. *A 400' magazine of 35mm film only runs for four and a half minutes. *That's all you get, so you have to plan your shots, but it's a well-established workflow.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: when rolling tape, how much of what hits the tape is "junk"? *Stuff you just KNOW you're never going to use? *Stuff that gets interrupted by a plane flying over, or someone totally ruins their line, or a cell phone goes off or something... well, on tape you just live with it, and you end up shooting an hour's worth of tape to get 10-15 minutes of takes. *But on the P2 card, you can just DELETE any clips you know you're not going to use. *As soon as you finish shooting, if you know that the take is useless, just delete it. *Using that method, you could get much more efficient storage on the P2 card than you ever would have on tape... maybe at a ratio of 4:1 (discarding the junk, the pre-roll, etc.) *So your P2 card might only store 4 minutes, but you may get on there all the "good stuff" that you would have spent 15 minutes of tape on. *And, since the P2 card will likely store 2.5 times as much when shooting 24p mode, you're looking at 10 minutes of actual storage, to store what you may have wasted about 40 minutes of tape on. *

When shooting film, you're just incredibly more efficient, disciplined, etc. as compared to when someone's shooting tape. *With tape you roll the camera, then you get someone with the slate in there, then someone finds out that they need a makeup touch-up, and then a truck starts backing up and beeping so you wait for that, etc... all the time, the tape is rolling. *When shooting film, you don't fool around -- you make absolutely sure that everything is perfect and ready to go, the actors are rehearsed and know their lines, and they know they better get it right because that film is costing us $20 to $130 per minute... and then you pull the trigger and get the take, and you're done. And you don't shoot it again unless you need to.

So I think we'll see a DIFFERENT workflow with P2 cards. *But I think it will *be a completely practical workflow, emulating the workflow film shooters have been using for the past ten decades.

[Antoine_Fabi]

absolutely right.

but i seriously doubt we will be limited to 4 minutes...

[mr._guiyotinne]

Another idea. Maybe Panasonic is changing the market by making differences not in the codec and the recording method but in the CCDs size.

I mean HDX will record in three formats in 1/3 CCDs, but wont have 60p, then the next step camera will be 1/2 CCDs and maybe they are thinking on the next Varicam to put these Cmos 35mm size. So the price is choosen by the quality and characteristics you want to have in your image rather than the codecs you will use to record your Going-To-Oscar script...

Not a bad one...

[mr._guiyotinne]

And yes... More detailed leaks will be welcome! ;D

[Barry_Green]

I mean HDX will record in three formats in 1/3 CCDs, but wont have 60p
Says who? Certainly not Panasonic, they haven't released any details. It could be 1/2" at 60p, it could be 1/4.7" at 30p... it could be CMOS, or it could be conventional CCDs... no details are known. Don't rule anything out until the official announcement is made.

[mr._guiyotinne]

ok,ok. I´m sorry. I just read somewere in all these threads tha probably they would keep the 60 for the biggers. I shut up and wait. But it´s like a boy anoying parents about the xmas present. Never wanted to rule anything.

You know Brarry? i usually have this problem... The foot IN mouth desease :-[

i apologize. But they could stopped this leak before it reached the street. Better to be surprised than anxious. I feel like a cat playing cards with Curiosity and waiting for the hit...

-Mum what´s the present?
-You know, something you were waiting for a long time. But you will have to wait two month to open it.
-But i want it now!
-Yeah, And i want world peace. Go play till then...
- Oh, man!

[Barry_Green]

Sorry if it came off harsh -- I wasn't trying to be harsh, I was just pointing out that nobody's confirmed what you were saying. Again, no problem, no problem at all!

[SimonMW]

I would just like to add one thing, even though it's slightly off the topic. A lot of people are craving larger CCD's, and many indies want 35mm sized devices.

I just hope these people realise how difficult it is to keep focus with shallow depth of field. One reason why 35mm film productions use focus pullers. Take many of the dolly's that indie moviemakers use. Often the camera operator has to push it along. Yesterday I was expected to push along one of these dolly's, make the adjustments on the tripod and accurately adjust the focus for the approaching subject in fairly low light. It's very very difficult to do all of that smoothly and accurately.

Shallow depth of field brings it's own problems and you may well find yourselves cursing it on an actual production much like film guys used to do.