PDA

View Full Version : JVC HD100 focus problems!!!



Icarus2005
09-06-2005, 01:33 PM
I Just came form Byrns & Sawyer, where I walked in ready to plop down 10,000 for the new toy with a hard drive and extras. But I left empty handed. Why?

It is a very nice camera with a lot of great features. BUT!

And this is a very big BUT:

1. The lens is front focus, which acts like a zoom when focusing, changes your frame making it wider or tighter if you want to rack focus. In other words, YOU CAN'T RACK FOCUS WITH THIS CAMERA!!! It'll look like CRAP!!

If you're doing docs, wedding, porn or anything that isn't filmic it'll likely not be an issue to you and it will make a great camera. But if you want to make films and rack focus it is an absolute unusable piece of crap. The lens that is. Not to mention it is narrow as hell and I'm told Century is have a very had time trying to make a wide adaptor due to the front focus lens.

Does have great zoom length though if you need to get in tight. And the auto zoom is wondeful and very slow for creep shots, which is quite nice. ANd also has macro adjustment for super tight shots, means no need for diopters or other expensive lenses. Hats off to them on that one.

2. I also didn't care for the image tone. There was an DVX100a setup beside it, and the DVX image was much more filmic or cine-like. I tried changing the white balance and mixing light to warm it up to the same tone to no avail. The JVC still looks more "video" than the panasonic, I can only assume it has to do with the codec, given that jim told he it was to the same gamma and cine setting as the panasonic. Granted, I'm told that can be done in post, but I like to get it as close to what I want on set whenever possible.

3. warning on the shutter speed dial: it's in a location (particularly for run & gun shooters and doc or reality shooters) where it can accidentally be changed during movement. On the other hand, if you wanted to change it quickly for some reason it is very easy to do. Easy solution if you don't want it changed during a shoot is to put a piece of gaff tape over it.

Bottom line, I'm waiting for the HVX200, even though it's killing me.

mmm
09-06-2005, 01:58 PM
Thanks for the info... that's exactly my plan at the moment... would like to hear from Canon too...


I can only assume it has to do with the codec, given that jim told he it was to the same gamma and cine setting as the panasonic. Granted, I'm told that can be done in post, but I like to get it as close to what I want on set whenever possible.


I don't agree on that however. The tone and look is far more likely to be a result of the chips and camera's processing. 35mm film transfer to DVD still looks like film, and ProHD is just the same MPEG2 encoder, but higher resolution and bitrate.

Can anyone else comment on the "tone" of the HD100's image. I have also noticed that skin tones look a bit...er... blotchy...redish... It is slightly unpleasant, a bit like footage I have seen from the XL2.

Barry_Green
09-06-2005, 02:03 PM
Yeah, I guess I forgot to mention that about the stock lens -- it breathes like a pervert making an obscene phone call. It's reminiscent of an old Angenieux 12-120 in that respect.

As far as the image tone, don't trust the out-of-the-box look. They have a "cinema mode" setting which results in very, very flat, pale, "blah" footage. Not at all a match for the DVX's CineMatrix and CineGamma. But there's a very wide variety of image settings you can paint with in the camera; in some ways there's more than there are in the DVX, and in some ways less (DVX has 7 gamma curves, HD100 has two, but the HD100 has full white paint for red & green, etc., the DVX doesn't). I wouldn't make any judgements based off of how the stock camera is set up, you can do much better with it with some adjusting (and I mean in-camera, not in post).

I think the stock lens is highly unsatisfactory, but frankly I'm looking forward to seeing how the camera performs with the 1/2" lens adapter. Early on when we were just talking theory, I was convinced that 1/2" lenses would be useless for shooting high-def with. But after seeing the Eidomedia conversion on the Z1, it's renewed my hope that maybe an SD lens can do okay. And, I'm still hoping that we can get good performance by using 16mm movie camera lenses with it...

nateweaver
09-06-2005, 02:37 PM
2. I also didn't care for the image tone. There was an DVX100a setup beside it, and the DVX image was much more filmic or cine-like. I tried changing the white balance and mixing light to warm it up to the same tone to no avail. The JVC still looks more "video" than the panasonic, I can only assume it has to do with the codec, given that jim told he it was to the same gamma and cine setting as the panasonic. Granted, I'm told that can be done in post, but I like to get it as close to what I want on set whenever possible..

You can dial in any look you like with the camera. You just have to know how to use it. The tools are there in the menus. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I'm not sure you have a foot to stand on with your comments.

You should investigate these things before you come on a forum and go on and on about it's crap, etc etc.

I will give you this: the lens does breath a ton. I'm not sure how you could say it's unusable for rack moves because of this though. At the very least, acknowledge that your opinions are your own and don't insinuate that it's fact.

brianluce
09-06-2005, 02:57 PM
it's unclear from these posts why you can't rack focus. you make it sound like focusing also changes the zoom setting? and barry says it makes a noise?

Mediacre
09-06-2005, 02:59 PM
DVX has 7 gamma curves, HD100 has two,


You are talking about gamma presets right?

Ralph Oshiro
09-06-2005, 03:07 PM
it's unclear from these posts why you can't rack focus. you make it sound like focusing also changes the zoom setting? and barry says it makes a noise?"Breathing" is a term which refers to when a lens' optics change the apparent focal length slightly when you're only attempting to shift the mechanical focus (the actual zoom ring does not move). More expensive lenses attempt to minimize this effect. This in no way prevents you from performing rack focus moves with this lens, it only makes its effect slightly less desirable.

I think we can only expect so much from a "give away" standard lens such as the one that ships with the HD100. I'm dying to see this camera for myself (I pass B&S on the way to and from work everyday!).

And to title this thread with, "JVC HD100 focus problems," is inaccurate and misleading. The cheap Fujinon lens that ships with the camera, I'm sure focuses fine, it just breathes a lot (which is bad), and this has NOTHING to do with the camera body itself.

Barry_Green
09-06-2005, 03:27 PM
it's unclear from these posts why you can't rack focus. you make it sound like focusing also changes the zoom setting? and barry says it makes a noise?
No noise. The lens exhibits "breathing", and I was just making a play of words off of the obscene phone call's typical "heavy breathing".

NBC explained it. When changing focus, it can look like you've zoomed in or out somewhat, even though you haven't changed the zoom setting at all.

As for image, you definitely have to play with the settings. There's an incredible amount of control in there.

And be sure to look at Nate's clips on DVInfo -- he's got me convinced that great work can be done even with the stock lens, provided you play to its strengths. The footage looks cleaner and better than anything comparable coming from the Sony implementation. Right now my only real concern is the dead pixels issue -- if I can get one with no dead pixels, I think I'd be quite happy with it. At least I'm optimistic enough to explore it thoroughly. I still have to think that if this camera had come out a year ago, they could have charged twice as much for it and we'd still all have felt very lucky! The HVX or a forthcoming Canon or whatever may shift that perception, but man... in the right hands, used the right way, I bet the JVC will produce some very nice footage!

Icarus2005
09-06-2005, 03:42 PM
Okay, for the sake of brevity I wrote " focus problems" rather than "focus PULLING problems".

Yes, some lenses 'breath'. But this is hands down the worst I've ever seen. I don't know if you folks trying to downplay this have tried to rack with it yet. But when you do you'll understand my comment.

By the way, if you read my post I clearly stated the lens was "crap", not the camera. In fact I said this would make a great camera for some people, just not me. ANd I praised other features as well.

In regards to the scene files and gamma curves for tonal quality, I stated that Jim (runs Byrnes & Sawyer) had already set the camera as close as he could to the DVX settings. I assumed he knew what he was doing and I didn't play with the menu. I was honestly too bumbed about the lens at that point that I already decided not to buy it, so why bother going into too much depth with it.

When they get a better low cost lens out there and I see raw footage shot that compares to the DVX cinelook I'll buy one! Otherwise I'll just wait for the HVX which will be out by the time these others lens issues are solved. Or so I hope :)

for the record guys, I'm not trying to argu with any of you, I'm just stating my opinion.

And please, if anyone in LA wants to show me how to use this camera and get the same 'look' as the DVX, by all means lets meet. I'd LOVE to see it. I'll even buy you lunch.

nateweaver
09-06-2005, 03:50 PM
Icarus, have had the camera since last Thursday and uploaded some footage to another popular message board and it's linked there. The clips I have there are nice and warm, and to me, are very comparable to something from a DVX.

The clips are full res, native streams from the cam. Go take a look.

Nobody's trying to be hardass here...I just honestly think if you made the decision to NOT buy the camera so quickly, you're missing out. I'm really sure the HVX is gonna be really nice too, but the HD100 is here now and has a whole set of it's own advantages.

Ralph Oshiro
09-06-2005, 04:02 PM
for the record guys, I'm not trying to argu with any of you, I'm just stating my opinion.Hey, it's cool . . . I just nearly shit a brick when I read your thread title, and immediately thought "XL1 focus problem" kinda problem (which actually doesn't make sense either, since the JVC has a real, manual lens). I'm sure the HD100 has its problems, but I'm also sure that the HD100 is a huge step up from my very first DV camera, the VX1000, which cost NEARLY as much!

Bill__Turner
09-06-2005, 04:06 PM
It would appear that "breathing" has been explained.

The following comments are based on my observations with one of the pre-introduction cameras that JVC was showing around, but I suspect that the lens is unchanged.

The focusing is acheived by changing the spacing between the first group of optics and the main body of the lens. In the lens I saw the group both rotates and moves fore and aft as you focus. It is in a fixed outer housing, so that it acts like an internal focus lens in appearance , but it is not.

Honestly, to me it appears to be derived from an older 14X standard definition lens that had a 65mm diameter front and focused in this manner.

As for difficulty with attachments, the primary issue is that for Fujinon to make a fixed housing that does not vignette as the optics move back and forth, it was necessary to make it larger -85mm OD. This, combined with the deeply recessed front element, means that the smaller, lighter, and sometimes less expensive attachments like those for the Panasonic DVX100 and Canon XL1/2 may not work. Larger, heavier and more expensive broadcast lens attachments may be required.

On other problem is the fact that the lens housing appears to be made of some non-metalic composite (plastic or some sort?) that is easily distorted when clamping 85mm clamp-on accessories onto the front of the lens. This causes the focus to bind and seize up. It is possible to find the compromise between too tight (binds) and too loose (falls off) but requires care. This issue is worsened by the use of larger heavier attachments.

I saw nothing in my tests that made me doubt that the optical quality of the lens was adequet for the application. In fact I marvel that Fuji and other manufacturers manage to make complex lenses so cheaply.

While criticism is good, and everyone should be aware of a products limitations, the quality video possible with these new $3000- $10,000 cameras is amazing, to me at least.

Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century Division

Icarus2005
09-06-2005, 04:12 PM
Nate, I tried to look at your footage and it took a good while to download and then my damn comuter wouldn't play it, some window said I was missing something. Damn microsoft!

I agree the HD100 has some great stuff, as I stated above. But the reality is that can't do what I need it to do for the shoots I have coming up. Even for the Emmys this weekend, it wouldn't be good because it's not wide enough on the widest setting, and even though they say there's a wide adaptor out there, no one has one.

My decision is based on the fact that getting what I need out of it would cost an additional 10grand or more, according to B&S. I can't spend that much. ANd I know the HVX will do what I need with just adding the wide angle for another grand.

There some things I love about the lens, which I wish the HXV would be able to do and doesn't. But I can't have both so I have to choose which elements are most important to me to achieve the films I intend to shoot, on the budget that I have.

As Einstein said "math doesn't lie" and the math says I need to go with the HVX. Believe me, I totaly wish I could be shooting projects this month with HD. It's just not a reality.

If you're not too far from Hollywood I'd love to drop by and compare the cinelooks of it and my DVX side by side.

Nate Weaver
09-06-2005, 04:16 PM
Download VLC to play the .m2t's

theHeadlessPuppy
09-06-2005, 04:54 PM
Okay, first you say the camera is okay for anything other than films, now you're stating it's unusable to shoot the Emmys as well?

Also, you stated you'd rather wait for the HVX but you need to shoot something this weekend?!... Wow, seems to me there's lots of confusion here.

I have to agree with Nate in that without playing with this camera it's impossible to understand what it's capable of doing. I also hated the first footage I saw (which was presented voluntarily in this board by a member that clearly stated he wasn't an expert videographer) but after the most recent stuff it's looking good, very good. And it will get better with more patience and technical ability.

Maybe the camera does breathe, it has it's defficiencies, but to say that it's unusable because of this or that it can not equal the look of the DVX without actually owning it and play around with it, damn, what's the credibility of that?

I bet the HVX is going to be a great camera... and I also bet it's not going to be the box of wonders everyone is making it out to be.

stephenlnoe
09-06-2005, 05:51 PM
Icarus2005, Are you sure you didn't get to B and H and get a case of buyers remorse? I'm sure the HVX200 will be dynamite but the HD100 is dynamite as well. They are not two peas from a pod, as you know. They are completely different cameras with different formats.

There has been a nice outlay of m2t files to test and see what the current owners are seeing. The math doesn't lie but neither do the images. Were you prepaired NLE wise to handle HDV? I mean, it's not just the camera. What about the rest of your studio? Really I'm stunned that anyone can criticize a $5500 camera that has displayed such a high quality level. Unlike the Z1 the HD100 has been artifact free (almost completely) and the motion estimation is impeccable. I have taken the clips and tried almost everything with them and they're broadcast worthy in every way. I've written it before and I'll write it again, JVC has done a terrific job with the HDV codec.

The stock lens has been questioned time and time again, but for $800 I can't see much room for criticism and I think others are realizing that as well. One of the beautiful parts of the HD100 is the lens interchangeability which virtually give you a new camera and new camera experience per lens. Since the camera is so new, who knows what an SD lens will do on the body? It's hard to say without testing it (which I'm sure B.Green will be doing).

I like the HVX and will get a look at it here in Chicago at Resfest (most likely). The form factor is terrible on that camera. It looks like a giant lunchbox and looks even harder to steady if you're handheld or even on a monopod. I was set on ordering some HVX's because my experience with the Z1/FX1 was not to good. I didn't have any faith JVC could pull off anything good. I was wrong. They've done a trememdous job with clean images and motion in a very small manageable file compaired to DIF or AVI. It's impressive...

Barry_Green
09-06-2005, 06:36 PM
ANd I know the HVX will do what I need with just adding the wide angle for another grand.
Keep in mind that the HVX's stock lens will be wider than the JVC's lens even when the JVC is using its wide-angle adapter. The JVC+wide-angle converter = about 5mm, the HVX is 4.5mm. So you may not need to spend that extra grand.


If you're not too far from Hollywood I'd love to drop by and compare the cinelooks of it and my DVX side by side.
Nate owns a DVX as well. He's quite familiar with the look the DVX gives. Some side-by-side would be appreciated though!

Icarus2005
09-06-2005, 08:14 PM
Puppy, I state I wouldn't want it at the emmys because it's not wide enough. In big events you need to have some wide shots to show how BIG the event is.

Again, people, I'm not saying the camera sux, just that it sux with THAT LENS. And at the moment there are no reasonable low cost alternatives. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Bear in mind that affordable is the operative word.

Let me put it this way as an analogy: it's like buying a ferrari for 150,000 and finding out the tires on it will only go up to 50 miles per hour, and if you want to go faster you need to buy the another set of tires that cost 200,000 extra. Sure, that doesn't change the fact that the ferrari is a beutiful great car that I'd love to have. But I don't think it's fair to have pay that much more to get it to do what I think should do out of the box.

again people, this is just my opinion. I wish the HVX had some of the features this JVC has come out with, because they have done some wonderful things.

Ralph Oshiro
09-06-2005, 08:23 PM
It would appear that "breathing" has been explained.

Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century DivisionWell, I would have much preferred YOUR explaination, Bill, since, as I can see from your signature, you DEFINITELY oughta know what you're talking about! Great post! Keep posting!

Barry_Green
09-07-2005, 12:12 AM
But I don't think it's fair to have pay that much more to get it to do what I think should do out of the box.
I think the term you're searching for is "fitness for purpose", implying that the item is fit for the purpose it's marketed for.

And there, I can agree with you completely, and also disagree completely, depending on what we define its "purpose" as. I think if someone's setting out to buy a high-def camera, then by gum what they get should be a high-def camera -- and all that that implies. Including a lens that can properly and adequately resolve the image etc. It should serve the purpose for which they're buying it. But that presupposes that they do their due diligence and buy a tool suitable for the job, as well...

Because then there's the other side of the equation, which is: HDV. HDV is not exactly a professional format. HDV is being used in the little HD1 and HC1 cameras, and by the end of next year I expect we'll see it being used in $399 Sharp Viewcams. So if you rephrase it that you're buying an HDV camera, then the HD100 and its lens are an absolutely fantastic package (even with the restrictions that the lens has, and I do agree that the stock lens is the weakest part of the package). And while I have my disagreements with HDV in general, I can freely admit that 720/24p HDV is definitely the best, most robust, least-compromised form of HDV.

There are people that are going to be blown away by the HD100. And there are people who are going to be totally underwhelmed and disappointed by it. It all depends on what your expectations are, going into it.

If you're expecting VariCam performance at 1/10 the price, I suspect you'll fall in the "underwhelmed" category -- it's not in the same league as the "real" high-def cameras (which is why it's 1/10 the price!) Just like a DVX is not a DSR450WSL.

But if instead you're going into it saying "well, I was considering an FX1... let's see what the JVC offers" then I think you'll be ecstatically thrilled with it. It's a great little camera, with a lot to offer.

I've been using this phrase a lot, I think it's time to use it again: "the camera is what it is, and it is not what it is not." Look at it for what it is, not for what you wish it was. And then decide, based on your own needs, whether "what it is" fits your purpose. The lens is a "freebie"/"giveaway" lens, with all that that implies. But for many buyers, it's the only lens you'll ever get or use, so you have to examine it in that light. Nate has shown us that some pretty sweet results are possible even with the stock lens, as long as you use it within its design parameters.

And I repeat, if this thing had come out last year it would have blown the FX1/Z1 away and been THE camera to have. Even with the issues that have been observed. I don't know that they could have done any better, given the HDV format and the price point.

mezelf27
09-07-2005, 03:49 AM
Well, Barry, a professional format has in the past been what the professionals and (more importantly) the broadcasters adopt. In the early days, no-one believed DV25 would be a professional format, but it turned out to be... JVC had then the ProfessionalDV-line (a small tweak of the standard DV, i.e. locked audio). JVC was quite succesful then, and I suppose they're taking the same gamble: make a small tweak of the HDV-format and build a pro-line around that. Ideally for newsgathering and stuff.

I think it's smart. With the DV they had the 'downward' compatibility with Standard DV, witch is very usefull, especially for news-purposes (amateur foortage, easy available media, ...). ProHD will have this downwards compatibility also with the standard HDV format. (only audio channels and TC are included)...

Problem with DVCPRO has always been that it isn't compatible (enough) with the other DV25 formats, until the firewire-link showed up. And even then. Now a connection won't be possible, because there's other compression involved. It is restricted to Panasonic only (perhaps Ikegami as wel...) - and that ALWAYS makes something less interesting.

Barry_Green
09-07-2005, 04:35 AM
DVCPRO hasn't had any problem getting adopted; something like 70% of the news market in the US is now controlled by DVCPRO. There's probably not a station in the US that doesn't have at least some DVCPRO gear.

May be different in the UK, where DVCPRO25 is not bitstream compatible with DV, but in the US it sure hasn't proven to be any sort of problem.

About the "professional format" thing: I don't think HDV is a professional format. That's not to say that it doesn't have its uses, but I don't think it meets the criteria to be called "professional". I do see that manufacturers are finding a lot of interest among professionals for professional HD cameras, and so they are stuffing HDV into pro camera bodies (most notably the HD100 and the Z1). But in my opinion that's not the best way to go. JVC introduced the consumer HD format with a terrible camera, the HD1, but they introduced it there because that's where they felt the format was most suitable. Sony's first camera is technically a consumer model, the FX1. Their HC1 is clearly a consumer model. And Canon and Sharp are HDV members, and all Sharp cameras are only consumer models, and all Canons but the XL2 are consumer models. HDV was designed, developed, and initially marketed towards CONSUMERS. It just so happened that there was a lot of interest in low-cost HD from professionals, but that doesn't mean the format was designed for, nor will it necessarily prove suitable for, professional applications.

The "pro" HD10 was a total afterthought -- at NAB JVC was swamped with interest from people who wanted a professional camera, so they said "heck, let's slap a cheeseball XLR adapter on top of the thing and call it the HD10!" Didn't work out too well, it was still a horrid camera. But JVC obviously got it right with the HD100, giving people exactly the kind of camera they wanted. And Sony came pretty close; the FX1 is such a superior camera to the HD1 that it's not even funny.

Yes there will be pros who will use HDV (I'm one of them). But that doesn't mean it's a professional format, and I'm already taking steps to minimize the risk associated with the format (by using HDV Rack and the DR-HD100 to eliminate tape dropout risk).

People seem to want to compare HDV's development (and adoption) by referencing what happened with DV25. But HDV is not DV. HDV has issues that DV never had. Think about DV as a format: it's every bit as good as BetaCam SP, the then-reigning, most-widely-used professional format. DV was revolutionary: a component recording system, plus digital recording (when DigiBeta was about the only digital recording system out!) DV delivers image quality that's just as good as BetaSP, no compromises demanded (other than the tiny metal-evaporated tape, a restriction that both Sony and Panasonic moved quickly to address by introducing alternate, "pro" variants on the format).

HDV isn't the same game at all: it's significantly lower quality than the reigning HD standards (HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD). It has issues. It is a lot lower color sampling. It's extremely compressed. It is susceptible to artifacting. In 1080i, dropouts can cause the image to seize for half a second, fer cryin' out loud! :shocked:

Let me try to say it this way: HDV is not to HDCAM nearly the same as DV was to BetaCam SP. HDV is more like SuperVHS was, compared to BetaSP. S-VHS was a big step up from VHS, but it wasn't in the same class as BetaSP. I believe HDV is a big step up from DV (in that it's HD) but it's not in the same class as HDCAM.

DV was as good as BetaSP. HDV is not nearly as good as HDCAM. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

When S-VHS was introduced, professionals could have rushed to adopt it, but they didn't. And S-VHS is not as good as what they were using (BetaSP), whereas DV was.

HDV is not as good as DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM. It's more like S-VHS was. Whether it will, in the end, be embraced by professionals and widely used is a very open-ended question; the final chapter hasn't been written on that yet (heck, I don't think the final chapter has even been started being typed!)

If XDCAM-HD, at 36 megabits, includes 4:2:2 color sampling and the disc provides resiliency from dropouts, I'd say that it would be a pretty good contender to become a lower-cost, professional HD format (although details remain to be released). Or JVC's forthcoming 1920x1080@4:2:2 MPEG-2 50-megabit format. Or, yes, Panasonic's full-fledged DVCPRO-HD system, on P2. Those are the contenders that I think are vying to become the lower-cost professional HD format.


ProHD will have this downwards compatibility also with the standard HDV format. (only audio channels and TC are included)...
ProHD isn't downward-compatible with HDV, it *is* HDV. No difference. "ProHD XE" is their proposed new format which would feature the additional audio tracks etc... that's the one that would retain downward compatibility. The ProHD as used on the JVC HD100 is not any different than regular 720p HDV.

mezelf27
09-07-2005, 04:47 AM
Well, I has no idea DVCPRO had such succes in the US, here in Europe, that's a different story. anyhow, we'll see how it goes. It is indeed obvious that HDV has its problems, but in the end, if the broadcasters would start to adopt it... then it's there. In the end, the contenence makes lots of things possible. BBC for instance is quite prone to quality - they used JVC's GY-DV700 as we all know -, dutch TV seems not to care anyhow (no 16/9 broadcast, and even programming recorded on single chip cams.

Anyhow, since we have PAL, the migration to HD hasn't even started here so everything remains to be seen.

ProHD *ISN'T* HDV, because it will have (in the future) extra audiochannels and some other sort of TC-recording (can't remember exactly). The compression and image *IS* HDV indeed, so it will be fully compatible, except for that PCM-audio and TC. (I know the difference is minimal, but that was what I was referring too.

mmm
09-07-2005, 05:01 AM
If XDCAM-HD, at 36 megabits, includes 4:2:2 color sampling and the disc provides resiliency from dropouts, I'd say that it would be a pretty good contender to become a lower-cost, professional HD format (although details remain to be released). Or JVC's forthcoming 1920x1080@4:2:2 MPEG-2 50-megabit format. Or, yes, Panasonic's full-fledged DVCPRO-HD system, on P2. Those are the contenders that I think are vying to become the lower-cost professional HD format.


Won't DVCPRO HD seem a little dated and bit hungry in that company? Obviously guessing, but MPEG2 used like that should be better is every way (apart from absolute extreme frame differences) and be only around half the bitrate. I guess the processing power needed would be greater though.

Any news as to Pany updating DVCPRO HD at all? I'm not expect anything for a few years, but just wondering.

stephenlnoe
09-07-2005, 10:44 AM
FWIW: There is no such thing as "professional format" or "consumer format" to the engineeers, they are just "formats". The ProHD 720/24P is under the HDV standard. m2t is the HDTV format as well so this whole notion about what's pro and what's not is B.S. People who use film, look down upon DV and then DV is subdivided by BetaSP (analog but I have to include it) and DigiBeta, and DVCPro (25/50/100) and miniDV, HDV and now ProHD and many more.

From what I've seen of the ProHD codec it is very professional and worthy of broadcast (and making $$$$), screencaps for print (and making $$$$), compositing and downsampling (more commercial $$$$). At it's price point I don't thing there is anything close to it. I think you could literally spend the very cheapest and get the stock camera and go into production.

I too am waiting to see the HVX200 and what it has to offer. I really think the HVX200 will steal the show format wise and frame rate wise which is superior. Real world, I think JVC steals the show with longer record times and an ENG style form. I mean, right out of the gate you've got to buy a bunch of stuff for an HVX200?! Plus, JVC has proven something (to me) with ProHD. I've been editing Z1/FX1 HDV for almost a year (since Liquid 6 came out in Oct '04) and the ProHD is better in every way.

That brings up another issue. Post production and supporting the camera after the images are shot. My systems (3 edit stations) are prepaired for P2, DVCPro50, HDV, XDcam, and MXF. We are not prepaired for DVCPro100 and don't know if Avid will extend the DVCPro100 codec to our timeline. See what I mean? YOu have to leverage what you've already got and In our case the HVX200 comes at a high price with P2 cards and a very limited camera run. Real world, the HVX200 doesn't make sense.

@B.Green-People will argue about the HVX's format as well. You probably already know that, but the DVCPro100 codec is 8 bit (256 gradations) so there is some limitation even with 422 compaired to 10 or 12 bit systems. It is definately a giant leap at the price point but the eventual cost does not include just the camera and P2 cards. That solution I could see would run around 15-25K and even higher very easily. I'll leave that to the rental house...

real world I think the HD-100 will mop up.

Jim Martin
09-07-2005, 10:58 AM
Hey! I'm just a small cog in the wheel here at BIRNS & SAWYER (sp), but thanks for making me feel like a big cheese. Thanks!

Jim Martin
09-07-2005, 11:13 AM
I also forgot to mention, both American Idol and Fox are using the HD 100 (they got a few on pre-release), upconverting on a DVCproHD deck and are loving the results. Needless to say but we like the camera.

Icarus2005
09-07-2005, 02:00 PM
Jim,

we all like the 'camera', too!

it's that damn LENS we can't stand. So find us a reasonable priced alternative that doesn't BREATH so damn much! PLEASE?

jdv
09-07-2005, 03:38 PM
Jim - nice points. My intention is to shoot 2 to 3 horror films on whatever new camera emerges as the best for what I do - and the JVC camera has, for many of the reasons you listed, garned much of my interest.
That said, I am greatly concerned about the JVC split-screen effect and dead pixels.
I know Barry Green and others have said that the split screen isn't a issue for them as they never use gain - but in my past experience (I've shot 3 full-length horror films with the XL1), I have often been forced to use gain in run-and-gun situations....
All that said, if JVC does not address these issues, all the other ones (HDV vs other formats, etc) will be moot in my mind.... Or should I re-think my position?
Thanks for any imput... John Vincent

PS - what a great web site and wonderful contributors - truly the best I have seen - keep it up!

Barry_Green
09-07-2005, 04:18 PM
I'm not convinced that the split-screen "isn't an issue", although I will say that the effect is influenced by gain -- it can be visible with no gain, but the more gain you apply the more visible it becomes.

JVC may be able to fix it with a firmware update, but as of yet I haven't heard any confirmation from JVC as to whether that would be a possibility or not.

I'm also wondering if the split-screen would become more visible when doing color correction; if so, that may make it more of an issue. As it is, it's not usually visible at all under 0db, so I don't know that it's much to worry about. But if you intend to be using gain, I would definitely not buy until they've adequately sorted out whatever the issue is.

mezelf27
09-07-2005, 04:24 PM
I'm sure the split-screen will be adjusted. (JVC GY-HD100A, perhaps? :-) )

Icarus: Welcome to the pro-world: Lenses, especially good ones are costly. And that isn't about to change. The lens is fine for the price. You can always get better (right now: the 13x or any 1/2 inch lens. But you will know also that it will just be a matter of time until there's an immense scala in lenses to choose from (cfr XL-series by canon: without counting the photolenses, there are about 10 - 15 possibilities, although not all as easy to find - but they're out there)...

Icarus2005
09-07-2005, 04:32 PM
mezelf,

thanks, nice to be here among some people that know their craft. I hope to learn a lot along the way.

I'm sure the lens thing will be resolved in the coming year or two as HD becomes the standards for all micro-budget films and newby filmmakers. At the moment, however, the solutions for this particular camera seem to be way too costly for me.

Given the numbers need to put a good lens on this camera it makes for sense to buy the HVX with the micro35 and some good more moderatly priced primes. this is my intent.

mezelf27
09-07-2005, 04:33 PM
I don't want to sound like a jackass, but I never get it why people INSIST on commenting on a lens that came with a body. Buy the body only and the 13x lens... or the 1/2 inch adapter and a better 1/2 inch lens (that'll cost the same as the 13x...)

If you really want you could go for the 1/2 inch adaper and a 2/3 inch adapter on top ... and get a 25k$ 2/3 inch HD lens (quite long focus, but whatever...)

Besides, you can always go for the Mini35 :-)

Anyhow: the stock lens breathes, and is too narrow. Get the 13x....

Too expensive? Name me any HD lens with similar wide angle for that price.... It is a normal price... If you insist on needing to have such a wide angle: it has always been in this price range AT LEAST. Sorry - I can't see your point. Besides: look at it like this: the camcorder costs $11.000 - $12.000 over here (In Belgium - Europe): That means you guys are getting a $6.000 discount. That pays a big part of the lens already... :-)

mezelf27
09-07-2005, 04:35 PM
Ah, Icarus: no pun intended... It's almost 2.00 AM here, and I'm a little cranky :-s

stephenlnoe
09-07-2005, 06:26 PM
I don't want to sound like a jackass, but I never get it why people INSIST on commenting on a lens that came with a body. Buy the body only and the 13x lens... or the 1/2 inch adapter and a better 1/2 inch lens (that'll cost the same as the 13x...)

If you really want you could go for the 1/2 inch adaper and a 2/3 inch adapter on top ... and get a 25k$ 2/3 inch HD lens (quite long focus, but whatever...)

Besides, you can always go for the Mini35 :-)

Anyhow: the stock lens breathes, and is too narrow. Get the 13x....

Too expensive? Name me any HD lens with similar wide angle for that price.... It is a normal price... If you insist on needing to have such a wide angle: it has always been in this price range AT LEAST. Sorry - I can't see your point. Besides: look at it like this: the camcorder costs $11.000 - $12.000 over here (In Belgium - Europe): That means you guys are getting a $6.000 discount. That pays a big part of the lens already... :-)

That's exactly what I was pointing out above. With the HVX you're still not getting away with just the price of the camera, you have to add a LOT of things unless you alread own them. The JVC is ready right out of the box and if you don't like the lens, ante up for the 13X. We all have to admit that the camera is so new that it's hard to properly access the lens options. The GREAT thing is that there are lens options....

Icarus2005
09-07-2005, 07:51 PM
Steph,

you contradict yourself, saying it's ready out of the box. Neither camera is ready out of the box.

My point was that the HVX will cost less to bring up to level I need than the JVC. At least until other lower cost lens options come around for the JVC.

Anyways, I think this thread has gone on long enough and we've all agreed that neither camera has the perfect lens and no matter what you buy you'll need to buy more toys to follow. ANd I think we all agree that both camera bodies and what they offer at their price points is wonderful.

at this point I think we are all just doing this I think Ford is better than Chevy or vice versa. theyre both very good products for what they cost and very similar. But when it comes down to it, ford people buy ford and chevy people buy chevy.

stephenlnoe
09-07-2005, 08:07 PM
Steph,

you contradict yourself, saying it's ready out of the box. Neither camera is ready out of the box.

My point was that the HVX will cost less to bring up to level I need than the JVC. At least until other lower cost lens options come around for the JVC.

Anyways, I think this thread has gone on long enough and we've all agreed that neither camera has the perfect lens and no matter what you buy you'll need to buy more toys to follow. ANd I think we all agree that both camera bodies and what they offer at their price points is wonderful.

at this point I think we are all just doing this I think Ford is better than Chevy or vice versa. theyre both very good products for what they cost and very similar. But when it comes down to it, ford people buy ford and chevy people buy chevy.

Quite true Ic, If everything else is in place then the HD-100 is ready out of the box. In my case, our group has been up and running with HDV for almost a year. The lens (to me) seems suitable. I know that's not true for everyone. Hey, maybe rent one for a project with the 13X lens and get some real 'hands on'.

Anyway, best of luck hombre... :thumbup:

jdv
09-08-2005, 01:37 PM
Barry - could you explain further (or point out which thread you've already done so!) the exact difference in the codecs between the JVC100 and HVX?

Until this thread, I was under the assumption that both cameras used HDV.... But, that is not true? I know that you've said in other threads that you have not been terribly impressed by HDV generally (with the JVC100 being the most robust version).

Which under-$10 K camera (if any) does, or is likely to, use a more 'professional' codec? Thanks for all the great knowlege... John Vincent

Barry_Green
09-08-2005, 02:48 PM
Well, there's been hundreds of pages written on this, so I don't even know where to start in pointing you towards a summary...

Basically, HDV is a recording format. HD is the standard, and HDV is a way to record that standard. There are many ways to record HD, just like there are many ways to record SD (for example, DV, VHS, DigiBeta, DVCPRO50, S-VHS, 8mm, Hi-8, DVD... those are all recording formats for Standard Definition television signals).

There are three levels of HD recording that are currently in common use.

HDV is the lowest quality way to record a high-def signal. It is extremely compressed, with low color sampling. I view it as roughly the HD equivalent to S-VHS or Hi8 in the SD world. HDV uses MPEG-2 compression, at 4:2:0 color sampling (meaning basically one color sample for every four pixels), at a low 19mbps or 25mbps data rate (depending on whether you're recording 720p or 1080i).

DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM are the most common professional HD recording systems. DVCPRO-HD is used in the $70,000 VariCam; HDCAM is used in the $100,000 F900 CineAlta and the HDW700 and other Sony cameras. DVCPRO-HD is 4:2:2 (one color sample for every two pixels) and 100 megabits per second. HDCAM is 3:1:1 (one color sample for every three pixels) and about 140 megabits per second. HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD are far and away the most common HD formats in use in professional production companies. The CineAlta/HDCAM solution is the most common one used as an alternative to film when making medium-to-big-budget movies on HD (primarily because HDCAM offers a 1080/24p mode; DVCPRO-HD hasn't offered a 1080/24p mode until now). DVCPRO-HD is to HD as DVCPRO50 is to SD; HDCAM is to HD as Digital Betacam is to SD. They're both excellent formats.

At the top level are formats like HD-D5 and HDCAM SR. HDCAM SR is 4:4:4 at 440 megabits per second. Don't recall the specs for D5 right offhand. Then you have systems like the Dalsa Origin and the Thompson Viper, etc.

HDV uses the MPEG-2 codec using a long-form Group of Pictures (GOP) structure. This means it doesn't encode each frame individually; rather it encodes primarily the changes from frame to frame. This can give it tremendous efficiency if very little changes, but it can also cause the codec to fall apart if a lot changes from frame to frame. The 1080i version of HDV uses a 15-frame GOP, the 720p version uses a 6-frame GOP. 1080i is trying to encode 46.7 million pixels per second in 25 megabits, so it needs the extra efficiency of the longer GOP. 720p tries to encode a maximum of 27.6 million pps in 19 megabits, so it has a lot more bits per pixel available -- that lets it get away with using a shorter GOP while still providing lower overall compression. Especially when using the 24p mode: then it's only trying to fit 22.1 million pps. That's less than half the pixels per second of 1080i, but using only 20% less space to do it; as a result 720/24p will be a lot less "bit-starved" than 1080i.

The downside to the long-GOP form happens when there's too much information to fit in the bitstream. The whole GOP will become overly compressed, noisy, blocky, and ugly, and depending on how long the GOP is, that'll last for up to half a second. It's possible to get an effect where the whole screen will be soft and sort of out-of-focus for up to half a second, and then suddenly "snap" into focus when the next GOP starts. It's an effect not too dissimilar from early web video, except that it's obviously to a much milder degree.

The GOP also presents problems for editing systems. In order to decode a particular frame, the MPEG-2 decoder will have to start at the first frame in the group and sequentially decode each and every frame until it gets to the one you want. In HDV that can mean having to decode 14 frames before getting to the 15th. Every frame must be decoded because each successive frame depends on the information in the previous frame. (that's an oversimplification, ignoring bidirectional and predicted frames, but it gets the basic point across).

In DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM, none of that happens. In those formats each frame is encoded individually and discretely. Every frame is instantly accessible, and what happens in a previous frame can never have any effect on a succeeding frame. So where with HDV you can have some ugly and unpredictable results if there's a strobelight or fire or smoke in your shot, DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM will always just "work", and will always produce repeatable, dependable, predictable results.

The GOP nature of HDV can cause problems when recording, playing back, and digitizing as well. If there's a dropout on digital tape, the digital data will be scrambled at that point. But because in a GOP codec frames are dependent on other frames, and the whole group is so interconnected, if there's a problem on the tape at any point that results in scrambled data, that dropout will be propagated throughout the entire group of pictures! On the Sony 1080i HDV implementation, that means that any little tiny dropout anywhere on the tape will result in an entire half-second of footage being dropped. The camera just punts the entire GOP, freezing on the last frame of the prior GOP and holding a freeze-frame for 15 full frames. It doesn't happen all that often, but it's absolutely horrible when it happens. Sony has released a public statement commenting on the problem here:
http://www.sonydigital-link.com/dime/hotnews/cam/cam_hdv_tape.asp?l=en

With the Sony implementation, that's what happens on every dropout. In the JVC implementation, full-frame GOP seize-ups are less common, but instead you can get large scrags that still last the entire duration of a GOP (which is about 1/4 or 1/5 second on the JVC system). You can download a clip with examples of what JVC dropouts look like here:
http://www.24puser.com/hd100/30p-ms-off-dropouts.m2t

With DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM, if there's a dropout on the tape, it'll affect only one frame (which means 1/60th of a second).

The other major thing about HDV vs. the other formats is the tape itself. You have to understand that HDV was designed around one central, controlling theme: whatever they came up with, it had to fit on an existing DV tape. The $4 tape was the overriding design decision. With DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM, that's not the case: those tape mechanisms employ over a dozen 8,000-RPM heads, and the tapes are around $50 to $90 each. The cheapest DVCPRO-HD tape deck is $21,000. The cheapest HDCAM deck is $39,000. But HDV was designed for consumer cameras, and that meant re-using the DV tape transport and the off-the-shelf $4 tapes. Obviously compromises needed to be made.

Which is really too bad, actually. The tape is what limits HDV most. Had they used a different recording mechanism with a higher bitrate, they could have made it much better. Sony is doing so with XDCAM-HD, where they're introducing a 36-megabit version. And JVC is producing a 1920x1080x4:2:2 50mbps high-def format which will record direct-to-hard disk... they couldn't record that signal to tape, so they chose hard disk. Sony couldn't record their 36mbps signal to tape, so they chose XDCAM blu-ray disks.

Which brings us to the HVX. The HVX uses full-fledged, 100% quality, 100-megabit DVCPRO-HD, the exact same recording format as used in the $70,000 VariCam. However, the HVX doesn't record to tape -- it uses the P2 cards. That lets them record the full 100-megabit signal (two to five times as much bandwidth as the other competitors' higher-end low-cost systems) while bringing the cost way down. A DVCPRO-HD tape deck alone may cost $21,000 but the HVX itself (without cards) costs under $6,000. The cards themselves are expensive, yes, but the overall package of camera+2 cards is still less than half the cost of a DVCPRO-HD tape deck alone.

(to be continued...)

Barry_Green
09-08-2005, 02:48 PM
Tape is the basis for HDV, under the premise that it's cheap. However, I think tape is what limits HDV the most. I cannot stand tape, and HDV to tape is just a bad idea, in my opinion. It involves too many compromises in the signal, and it leaves your footage at peril of dropouts. Recording HDV to hard disk or blu-ray disk would go a long way towards alleviating much of that concern; with my HD100 I intend to record always to either hard disk or to HDV Rack.



Much has been made of the cost of $4 tapes vs. $2,000 P2 cards, but I think it's almost entirely blown totally out of proportion. With HDV you have to record to hard disk, if you want to avoid dropouts. With the P2 camera, you record on the cards and then download the footage to hard disk. It nets out about the same, when all is said and done (although DVCPRO-HD does take up a lot more room on hard disk). Recording to tape-only on HDV, I think that's just risky (if not foolish, depending on what it is you're shooting!) So as long as you're going to end up on hard disk anyway, you have a choice: start with highly-compressed, variable-resolution, low-color-sampling HDV (in either 1080 or 720 but not both) or start with 100-megabit, frame-discrete, high-color-sampling, low-compression, 1080p or 1080i or 720p DVCPRO-HD footage. To me there's no contest -- assuming the cameras perform equally, the recording format of DVCPRO-HD will blow away HDV all day long.



Which is not to say HDV doesn't have its uses. We will never see consumer cameras recording DVCPRO-HD to P2, for example; by this time next year I expect that we'll see $399 handycams from Sony and Sharp and Canon down at Best Buy. Plus, if you want to record footage and hand over a tape at the end of the day, HDV has that tape and offers that capability; P2 does not. If you need interchangeable lenses, the HD100 offers that, and it's HDV-only. If you need the shoulder-mount form factor, the HVX doesn't have that, but the HD100 does. If you need to record an hour at a time, HDV 1080i allows that... it's tougher with HDV 720p because the HD100's battery doesn't even last an hour, but assuming you had an Anton Bauer battery system, yes you could record an hour of HDV on a tape in one continuous take. With P2/DVCPRO-HD that's not nearly so easy; yes you could record for far more than an hour by hot-swapping cards, and downloading them to a laptop or P2 Store in-between, but that would be significantly more labor-intensive than just letting the camera roll (such as would be possible with the tape system).



And, keep in mind, recording format is only one element of the imaging chain. It's not necessarily even the most important; the lens and the CCDs and the sampling system and the DSP all play a huge role in the quality of the final footage. Assuming equivalent-quality footage is fed to the recorder, there's no doubt DVCPRO-HD will blow away HDV... but there's also no indication yet that equivalent-quality footage will be generated by these cameras!




Which under-$10 K camera (if any) does, or is likely to, use a more 'professional' codec?

Asking the question specifically about the codec, the answer is easy: the HVX200.

jdv
09-08-2005, 03:48 PM
Barry - Your expertise and comments are, as always, invaluable. Thank you very much for your thorough explaination - it literally clears away (virtually) all my confusion about a complicated subject matter.

I do have one more question, specifically about film making and HDV. Assuming there are at least 10 takes of a scene, should the threat of drop-outs be as a big concern (as the editor could cut around them if necesary) to film makers as they would to live event information gatherers (ie- sports, weddings, etc)? I only plan on using the camera (whichever one it turns out to be) for film making, specifically horror films... Thanks once again Barry. John Vincent

Barry_Green
09-08-2005, 04:09 PM
In filmmaking, I'd say you should most definitely be shooting to HDV Rack, so dropouts would be a nonexistent threat! ;)

But, assuming you simply must shoot to tape and only to tape... again, it depends on what you're shooting. I'll say this: we finished a medim-budget picture here where if you split out the budget based on days in production, it was probably fifteen to twenty grand a day. In other words, we were spending a lot of money on basically everything. And when it all comes down to it, everything you're doing is going to end up on that tape. If all that money in front of the camera gets sacrificed because of errors a cheap tape... well, that's about the worst example of "false economy" I can think of. You have to be solid. You have to be sure.

Certainly you can cut around a lot of stuff in an indie film type of circumstance... you are correct there. In irreplaceable stuff like an interview for a documentary it'd be much more of a concern; in shooting a wedding, a 1/2-second dropout during the vows would be a pretty bad thing to have happen; but in scripted dramatic narrative you can probably cut around it. But what do you do when the dropout hits in the middle of the best take? Scream and curse, I'd wager. Which is why I say, use HDV Rack or the FireStore and it won't be an issue, you'll always have a second, dropout-proof version.

(BTW, 10 takes of each scene?! That's like extreme overkill to the max. If you're shooting on a low-enough budget that you're using HDV, then you should probably be aiming for a max of two or maybe three takes per scene.) Remember, tape is cheap, but time is not. Time and people and food and location fees and insurance costs and permits and equipment rentals and all that other stuff really adds up, and if you're not getting the picture done because you're doing take 7, take 8, take 9, take 10... that's a recipe for doom there. Do some rehearsals (when it's only you and your actors, not the full crew and all the equipment) and get it DOWN PAT so that when you get on set you can get it in the can in two or three takes and move on...

stephenlnoe
09-08-2005, 04:37 PM
At the end of the day, you can't really go wrong either way, but here's something for you to think about. HDV downsamples to DVCPro50 just fine. Yes, there is the possiblity of dropouts in the recording but how often has that happened when you don't mix tape brands? Not very often. Tape is a terrific way of archiving and still the standard for the computer industry (which is what were talking about really with digital video). I've had more solid state devices (thumb drives and SD cards) go bad than tapes any year so there is some opportunity for failure there.

Tape, whether you like it or not, is the most economical way to archive content (files). It is not economical when in context with DVCProHD because of the price of the deck and the tapes as well (as guru pointed out). I'd wager if the tapes and deck were economical for DVCProHD that people would be on it like flies on shi.... We'll you know what flies are attracted to. Tape makes sense when talking about archiving so I can't say I agree with B.Green. There are a lot of hidden cost with the HVX200.

Also at the end of the (same) day it comes down to the delivery format anyway so if your working HDV on a timeline or DVCProHD it get's sent to DVD or BetaSP or film and rarely goes back to the original format for delivery with a couple of exceptions, one of which is m2t which is HDTV's transport stream. Not very many broadcasters (television) can handle anything other than BetaSP or DVCPro50 on the digital side.

I don't like capturing from tape either but archived tape indexes allow offline storage of video unlike what you need for direct to disk. It's a whole new can of worms when you go direct with online or nearline content $$$$$$. Remember content will grow!!! You may have to start looking at a fiber linked DASD in order to keep content online. In the Pinnacle broadcast world there is such an animal called a Vortex server which allows P2 ingest and XDCam ingest and stores content to the Palladium store (big name for a big storage and database). I realize this is more than a single camera but the principle will be the same on a smaller scale. What to do with the DVCProHD content?

We've had these same conversations between Discreet Smoke users and ChromeHD users about the 10 bit content compaired to 8 bit content. True the 10 bit is way better but at a high price for storage which makes most work in 8 bit unless they have some big storeage resources and a powerful fiber network.

I think anyone thinking about P2 and keeping the content should be made aware of the storage requirement if you want to archive any content. These types of detail are always overlooked because of the focus on the camera's capabilities and the image quality (which is paramount) but you have to accomodate the camera and format from every angle which includes content storage and content manipulation.

Put some thought to it, what will you master your DVCProHD project to? Can't be DVD. Can't be tape unless you spring for a rental/purchase of the deck and the price of the tapes. Could be magnetic firewire drives or removable drives but do the math on a 60 minute slot and you'll see the storeage requirement is quite large. A 1 1/2 to 2 hour movie is large as well. I like P2 for sure but the workflow only favors the larger studios and not medium to small shops.

good luck on you decision...

mmm
09-09-2005, 03:37 AM
If all that money in front of the camera gets sacrificed because of errors a cheap tape... well, that's about the worst example of "false economy" I can think of. You have to be solid. You have to be sure.


But if you shoot away all day on P2 and dump to hard disk via laptop as I go, what happens if the Hard disk goes down!? Then you are really f*@cked!

I have had several hard disks go bad, loosing all the data. The last tape I had "break" was back in the days of VHS, and even then I was able to retrieve all the data using a screwdriver and sticky tape.

Talking about dropout, I have only even had one instance of it over a take I wanted to use. I simply painted it out in commotion - a pain yes, but not a problem. Since using DVCAM, I have never noticed a single dropout, and that is using $1.50 tapes. (I have seen some REALLY nasty dropout on material clients have given me, but that is their problem/fault... God knows how they manage it!)

P2 has risks too unless you lug around a RAID storage, but for most people, that is not an option. Once P2 prices drop and I can shoot all day before returning home and dumping to a secure redundant raid, then I will be happy and join you in you praise of P2. Until then, it is going to be a major pain in the arse.

mezelf27
09-09-2005, 04:01 AM
(BTW, 10 takes of each scene?! That's like extreme overkill to the max. If you're shooting on a low-enough budget that you're using HDV, then you should probably be aiming for a max of two or maybe three takes per scene.) Remember, tape is cheap, but time is not. Time and people and food and location fees and insurance costs and permits and equipment rentals and all that other stuff really adds up, and if you're not getting the picture done because you're doing take 7, take 8, take 9, take 10... that's a recipe for doom there. Do some rehearsals (when it's only you and your actors, not the full crew and all the equipment) and get it DOWN PAT so that when you get on set you can get it in the can in two or three takes and move on...

I always plan is 3 or 4 takes, but quite some scenes end up with 10-take (or more) footage... :embarasse

talent can't seem to hold laughter, enexpected noises, soundman sneezing, dog barking, planes passing buy, talent forgot lines (why do they call it 'talent, by the way :grin: ), prop malfunction, ....

mmm
09-09-2005, 04:12 AM
I always plan is 3 or 4 takes, but quite some scenes end up with 10-take (or more) footage... :embarasse

talent can't seem to hold laughter, enexpected noises, soundman sneezing, dog barking, planes passing buy, talent forgot lines (why do they call it 'talent, by the way :grin: ), prop malfunction, ....

I reckon I average between 3 and 4 takes per shot. However sometimes it is far, far more! Once we went to 63! I was cameraman and not directing though. take 63 at 4am is not fun, it was very, very funny though, everyone had the giggles - the director had to leave the room and watch the monitor in the hallway, and I had to stop shooting handheld, as I couldn't hold the camera steady!

I will keep shooting until I get what I need, it is very apparent if you don't - ie soap operas.

mezelf27
09-09-2005, 04:27 AM
second that