HVX200 is great, but I still need more sensitivity! [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 03:34 AM

Yup, here I go again . . . I'm like a broken record (you kids even know what "records" are?), er, "skipping" CD . . . I keep going back and forth on this issue. Like I told you all at RESfest . . . man, is that HVX200 a beautiful camera. I mean GORGEOUS! And SUPER CLEAN! I could barely see any noise at all! And all those cool features! And that recording bandwidth! I mean, WOW!

But guess what? I'm thinking of going back to the DSR450WSL again . . . Why? Because I saw how dark that night exterior was that Jan shot out of her hotel window in Amsterdam. I know, I should wait until the camera comes out and see how good/bad it looks with the gain up, but, I know that if it's bothering me now, it's REALLY going to bother me after I've bought it.

For anyone who's ever shot with a modern f/11 @ 2,000 lux camera (or greater), you know what I mean when you're shooting with one of those things. You hardly have to light anything at all! A little KinoFlo fill, and you're done! All the ambient whatever lighting seems to light up the whole scene for you already! And 90% of the dramatic piece I want to lens is all night exteriors on the dimly-lit streets of L.A. I totally can't afford the permits, location fees, crew, or the HMI lighting rental bill to light up entire city streets--I HAVE to shoot with available mercury-vapor street lighting. It's killing me deciding NOT to get the HVX200 . . . KILLING ME! But I know deep down in my pixels . . . I really need that f/11 camera.

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 03:39 AM

If you've got any hint to my visual preferences from seeing my short, "Infection," I really love that "Collateral" aesthetic. I just won't be able to get it without a faster camera. If I had any balls, I would hold my ass until that shoulder-mount camera comes out from Panasonic next year, but . . .

petelms

10-07-2005, 03:40 AM

List Price: $18,000.00 :cheesy: Get one for me also! :grin:

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 03:58 AM

Well, it's only $15K for the body, plus $3K for the Fuji 20:1, so . . . you're right! $18K!

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 05:10 AM

This is what's repeating over and over in my head . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . .

lacuna

10-07-2005, 05:28 AM

This is what's repeating over and over in my head . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . .

Hey it's nice to see these other points raised... HD is not everything....

Keep thinking aloud NBCshooter

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 05:40 AM

taubkin

10-07-2005, 06:19 AM

NBC, maybe the gain circuitry is cean enough, like the sony. So if you need 2 stops, you might be able to get away shooting 6dB. The sony can do 6dB without any problem.

It's a long wait, but there is no pint in deciding now. When the camera is here, you'll be able to see for yourself.

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 06:25 AM

You're right, taubkin. I CAN'T KEEP MY HEAD FROM EXPLODING!

petelms

10-07-2005, 06:32 AM

You're right, taubkin. I CAN'T KEEP MY HEAD FROM EXPLODING!

Seriously consider getting that DSR then in the next week! :cheesy:

This is what's repeating over and over in my head . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . . sensitivity . . . shallow depth-of-field . . .

I'm just curious about the 2/3-camera...like that Sony that you are talking about...what kind of depth-of-field it has? Is it like 35mini-adapter or better or...? :undecided You don't need any adapters for that kind of camera, no? Is it like having a shallow DOF in the same box? If so, then the prize is not so "high" for what you get...

lacuna

10-07-2005, 06:44 AM

Thanks, lacuna. I often feel pretty lonely here touting the benefits of the DSR450. I think I'm going to do it. The sensitivity issue is the clincher. I can barely expose a city street with my DVX100. I'll lose a stop or more with the HVX200. If I can have my VX2000's sensitivity, WITHOUT the snowstorm of noise (and 24PA to boot), I'll take it. Well-exposed SD has to beat "really dark" HD, at least for my projects! And hey, this is an 850-line (800-line in 16:9), zero-smear, progressive camera with a real, multi-bladed diaphragm (no six-point stars in my headlights)! I think I'm actually gonna do it.

If you've got the money, that sounds like the way to go. Joe audience has no idea whether you're shooting HD or not, and frankly pays little attention to resolution in narrative work - content is king. But if you're intent on shooting in limited available light - obviously because the nature of your work demands it - well heck, even an untrained audience will be bothered by dim, mushy, dirty video.

Most of friends have no idea (or interest) in the technical side of video/film production, but they go to a lot of films. And given that these people tend to be educated, cultured types, they tend to end up watching a range of low budget, independent films that had often originated on video.

So while I'm caught up in observing the technical aspects of a movie, they'll be absorbed (or put off) by the characterisations, the story, the drama. We come out of the theatre and while I'm complaining about blown highlights and that out of focus close up, their only interest is on how well the film connected with them emotionally.

The only exceptions to this I would say are if a) the camerawork is shaky, and b) the footage is dim. These nasties get to everyone, because they can severely inhibit the storytelling, just like a hiss in the audio.

But resolution... ya know I don't even think it counts remotely in narrative work.

I mean, I've taken friends to films like The Celebration, Tadpole, Show me Love, etc, and they just have no idea that video cameras were used, and when I tell them, it is as a meaningless aside.

The main reason I'm holding out for the HVX is not for what it will do for my film - I know that the quality of my work is be in large part down to the script, the acting, the directing - but simply because I have this nagging fear that if I create something I'm really happy with, I'd hate SD to be a factor that stands in the way of gaining distribution. In other words, I know the audience doesn't care whether I shoot on 35mm or HD or SD (well, at least not in the genre I'm interested in), but I fear potential distributors just might.

But I don't have the option of a DSR450 with a quality lens... that's way out of my range. I don't think you can go wrong with a kit like that.

lacuna

10-07-2005, 06:50 AM

Only problem is . . . if I do buy the DSR450, what forum will I be able to hang out in 24-hours a day?

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm seriously considering an XL2 because I don't think I need to go HD yet, and (in spite of what I said about the audience not caring), the noise in the DVX picture and lower quality 16:9 is starting to bug me.

But I have to weigh switching cams up against the fact that there is no XL2user, and this is the place to be with Barry and the guys...

Then again, maybe if I didn't spend so much time reading threads here I might actually get that script written

(I would put a smiley face in here but I've never worked out how to post them!)

petelms

10-07-2005, 06:54 AM

(I would put a smiley face in here but I've never worked out how to post them!)

Press that 'GO ADVANCED' and you will get a more advanced page for replying... :) I assume you are using only the Quick Reply...?

lacuna

10-07-2005, 07:04 AM

Nah, not doing quick replies. I post in the screen that contains the instruction:

"You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:"

Followed by a bunch of symbols. I've tried using them several times, but I can't get them onto the screen. Must be a southerhemisphere issue. Or something that comes from living in a place where people are outnumbered by sheep 20:1. I'll figure it out one day. Thanks :-)

scharky

10-07-2005, 08:40 AM

The only thing I would say is, if you know that all of your films will be shot in low light or no light scenes, buy the DSR. If you don't plan on doing that, then you can always rent whatever camera you need for that particular film, and then decide later if you want to go to hi-def with the HVX or some other camera. Renting is not a bad option at all, when you are on the fence like this.

khmuse

10-07-2005, 08:42 AM

NBC, maybe the gain circuitry is cean enough, like the sony. So if you need 2 stops, you might be able to get away shooting 6dB. The sony can do 6dB without any problem.

Hey taubkin,

Unfortunately, 2 stops is not 6db, its 12dB. The formula is Gain = 20 * (log X) where X is the decimal difference. A stop is a 2:1 difference, so 2 stops is a 4:1 difference.

For any 3 CCD camera the signal path is as follows:

Light -> Lens -> Prism/beam splitter -> CCDs -> analog amplification -> quantizer -> signal processing -> storage/output

With a condition like NBC is trying to work under (nighttime exteriors with available light) the beginning of the chain is a fixed starting point so the only thing you can do is look at how the rest of the signal path is effected by the components/choices that have been made.

With 2/3" CCDs versus 1/3" CCDs the signal that enters the analog amplification stage is larger (for a given pixel size). For a camera with an identical number of pixels, the increase in size from 1/3" to 2/3" is 4:1 or 2 stops. This is because the area is the product of XY (where X is one axis and Y is the other). If you are comparing a pair of sensors with an identical size, but one sensor has twice the number of pixels, then the output of the sensor would be decreased by the ratio of the number. In the end, if you compare a 1/3" sensor with twice the pixels to a 2/3", then the difference is 8:1 or 3 stops. This is an 18dB difference.

So is it possible that the HVX could still be an option in this type of situation, maybe. There are other places in the signal chain that Panasonic might have pulled off a bit of a miracle, so I'll just pass along the mathematical analysis (sorry if the geek in me is coming out, but being an engineer, I can't really help it as it is in my nature).

The self noise of the CCD is likely to be fairly constant as the fabrication process isn't likely to differ from one sensor to another, so at a similar temperature (yes temperature does directly effect noise) the noise coming out of any sensor is going to be fairly constant. The next stage in the signal chain is the analog amplification block, here is where technology could contribute to a better (lower noise) path. Is it possible that one design could be 18dB quieter than another (hence allowing the use of 18dB of gain to achieve the same noise levels) the answer is yes, but in my experience, not too likely. As engineers, we often struggle to achieve 3 dB lower noise designs, and this is considered an accomplishment. I haven't yet seen a design that is 18dB quieter than another (assuming both are competent), it could happen, but I would be surprised. The next stage is the quantizer or A/D converter. This stage has both analog and digital aspects so the analog stage could contribute to a noise improvement, but there is another aspect that will weigh in here, that is the pixel count. With a higher pixel count, the time available to quantize (convert from an analog level to a numeric value) is reduced. The increase in speed needed (since the total number of pixels must be read in the frame time allowed) tends to increase the noise level as well (the formula is a little too complex to present here, so I'll skip the boring math), but is basically proportionate to the speed.

There is yet another noise aspect to consider, the difference between interlaced and progressive modes of operation. In an interlaced system, there isn't a shutter so the light is always being acquired by the sensor. In a progressive system, this isn't typically the case. With a shutter speed of 1/60 of a second in a 24 frame per second sampling system, the hit is 6 dB (20 * log (Time A/Time B). An interlaced system acquires light for a period of time equal to the frame rate which is twice the field rate (for a 2 field interlaced system) or 1/30th of a second. A 24p system with a 1/60th of a second shutter acquires light only for 1/60th of a second. Half the time is half the light which means that you need twice as much light to have the same output from the sensor.

Now if you start adding all these factors up; the increased pixel count, the reduced sensor size, the higher shutter speeds; you can quickly see that in a low light situation, a small sensor camera is going to have a fairly large disadvantage over a lower resolution one with a larger sensor. I hate to say it, but for a situation like NBC is describing, the HVX might not be the best camera. I would recommend waiting, because we don't yet know what Panasonic has achieved, but it would be nearly a miracle if they could pull off the type of improvements necessary to achieve the type of performance that would be required to shoot available light night time exteriors.

One other thing that I didn't touch upon, one of the bigger advantages to the HVX is its variable frame rate capability. At 60 frames per second, even with the equivalent of a 180 degree shutter, the acquisition time is 1/120th of a second. This means that the sensor will have less light (due to the shorter period of time) and the quantizer will have even less time to due its job. For me, the ability to overcrank (slow motion) is a big factor in choosing the HVX.

If Panasonics forthcoming 2/3" camera has all the features of the HVX then it might be the perfect camera for this type of situation (low light), but I remember Jan saying that it would probably be in the $20k area (please jump in to correct me on this aspect if I am wrong) so its is a very different price point device than the HVX.

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 08:52 AM

If Panasonics forthcoming 2/3" camera has all the features of the HVX then it might be the perfect camera for this type of situation (low light), but I remember Jan saying that it would probably be in the $20k area (please jump in to correct me on this aspect if I am wrong) so its is a very different price point device than the HVX. [/color]Holy shit, khmuse! What the fuck did you just say? No, seriously, that was a GREAT technical treatise on noise and gain issues--I LOVED IT! Keep it comin'. Well, in addition to being a pretty creative and competent filmmaker, you're quite the informed techno-guru as well!

Anyway, I stupidly interupted Jan when she was about to hint at the price point, when I interjected, "So, that's going to be a $20K-plus camera, right?" She merely replied in the affirmative without giving ANY price, so, $20K is PURE guesswork on my part. I would actually imagine it may be in the JVC 7000 price range--$27K PLUS glass.

Thanks, kh, for that great post!

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 08:57 AM

I'm just curious about the 2/3-camera...like that Sony that you are talking about...what kind of depth-of-field it has? Is it like 35mini-adapter or better or...? You don't need any adapters for that kind of camera, no? Is it like having a shallow DOF in the same box?It's ALMOST like having a Mini35 adapter. The 2/3" image area isn't as large as the 35mm motion picture image area, but it's obviously much larger than a 1/3" camera. So, yes, you do get much shallower depth-of-field capability "built-in" without the need for such an adapter or special "cine" lenses.

khmuse

10-07-2005, 09:26 AM

Holy shit, khmuse! What the fuck did you just say? No, seriously, that was a GREAT technical treatise on noise and gain issues--I LOVED IT! Keep it comin'. Well, in addition to being a pretty creative and competent filmmaker, you're quite the informed techno-guru as well!

Anyway, I stupidly interupted Jan when she was about to hint at the price point, when I interjected, "So, that's going to be a $20K-plus camera, right?" She merely replied in the affirmative without giving ANY price, so, $20K is PURE guesswork on my part. I would actually imagine it may be in the JVC 7000 price range--$27K PLUS glass.

Thanks, kh, for that great post!

Thanks, NBC, happy to be able to give a bit of insight. In my real job, I am an EE, so this type of thing comes pretty natural to me. I only wish I had even a fraction of the artistic talent that you and others have demonstrated.

Anyway, the $20k number was what I got out of Jan's statement, but you are right, its was a pretty vague number. If you consider just the pure marketing issues, I don't think that Panasonic (or any company) would come out with something that would effectively displace a very high end product with one that might gain 1/3 of the selling price (considering the Varicam price points). I really doubt that they would sell enough to make up the difference. Didn't Jan say that the DVX sold something in the area of 10k units a year in North America? It seems to me that cameras, like just about all areas of life, will have a big jump in price between the tiers of performance (look at a Mustang -> Ford GT - Saleen S7).

The suggestion of renting is certainly a valid one, unless you will be shooting all the time (like might be suggested from a no permit, available light, night time exterior project like you have eluded to). Damn, nothing makes me sadder than having to consider a Sony product. It is not that I don't think Sony is technically competent (they are) but I really hate their ethics and approach to achieving market share.

I don't envy the burden you must be under weighing these factors to come to a purchase decision.

Good luck!

araujofh

10-07-2005, 09:49 AM

asparagui

10-07-2005, 10:29 AM

The current rumor is that Pana is prepping an update to the Varicam for NAB. It supposedly will record to a new format, with the D5 codec. Nifty new features will include 1080 (24p, other speeds unknown), and at least 10 and hopefully 12-bit color depth.

Exciting times.
-asparagui

Barry_Green

10-07-2005, 11:07 AM

... and it doesn't take too much of a leap in logic to tie those products together. i.e., the new VariCam II will be the same camera as the 2/3" P2 camera that's already been discussed... $28,000 for the new VariCam sounds like something worth waiting for, vs. spending $15,000 on an SD-only, 4:1:1-only DSR450, doesn't it? :evil:

You could get the HVX now, and use it to make some bucks so that by the time the VariCam II is out you can afford the update. Sell the HVX off, plus the money you made, it should easily cover the cost difference between the DSR450 and the VariCam II. And, isn't a 2/3" HVX really what you want anyway? :laugh:

asparagui

10-07-2005, 11:18 AM

Ja, forgot to mention probable P2. If it is, I have a feeling those guys are gonna be laughing at us and our debates over the price of 2GB vs. 4GB cards. :thumbsup:

CineCell

10-07-2005, 11:23 AM

I mean, I've taken friends to films like The Celebration, Tadpole, Show me Love, Leaving Las Vegas etc, and they just have no idea that video cameras were used, and when I tell them, it is as a meaningless aside.

Leaving Las Vegas was shot on Super 16. You'd never get those images with today's video.

khmuse

10-07-2005, 11:35 AM

... And, isn't a 2/3" HVX really what you want anyway? :laugh:

I would think that this would be the definitive video camera of the day and for all those potential HVX owner's that worry about P2 costs, it's introduction should go along way toward reducing the price of the lower capacity cards (based upon yields and a need for higher capacity cards). It's introduction would make the P2 family very very complete!

taubkin

10-07-2005, 12:21 PM

I don't envy the burden you must be under weighing these factors to come to a purchase decision.

Good luck!

You don't envy a guy with 18K to spend on a new camera!? This world is upside down man. This is exactly the kind of problem I'm working hard to have! :)

Seriously, though, thanks for the correction, Kh!

I didn't get a part of your noise description formula: you said gain=20*(log X) and X is the decimal difference. So, 4:1 would be what? 4 or 0.25? Thanks!

---

I'm with Barry, NBC already stated the obvious advantages he would have from using the format, tiny camcorder, low compression, better archive media. I'd go from there up, instead of worring of low light capabilities. As Barry said, just keep the HVX until you can afford the Varicam II. I cannot understand anything that would justify an 18K DV camcorder, for the same reasons NBC posted in the other topic: would you go through the trouble of getting a cityscape in perfect low light, 2/3" CCD, with a perfect DV lens, just to find out a pixelated red when that car driving by hit the brakes? I mean, I'm sure the sony is an excellent camera and I really can't complain, that DV is serving me very well so far, but I'd never pay 18K to shoot DV. That is my personal opinion.

contentlab

10-07-2005, 12:45 PM

Ralph Oshiro

10-07-2005, 01:28 PM

I see everyone's points but . . . I just CAN'T spend $28K on a camera PLUS glass! For $18K, I'm DONE with the DSR450! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! MY HEAD IS EXPLODING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drew599

10-07-2005, 01:30 PM

NBCshooter, if you look at "Collateral" you see that a lot of there street stuff looks like it was shot with 1/24 shutter speed because of the motion blur they have. I have the same problem you have with no budget and wanting to shoot at night, in LA. But think about this, if you do get that shoulder mount camera and are running around the streets of LA with it, that will draw attention. A HVX on the other hand might draw some attention but not nearly as much as a shoulder mount camera.

All I'm saying man is don't give up on the HVX yet. Wait until it comes out first. Unless the footage you saw really didn't look that good...in the dark.

mmm

10-07-2005, 01:42 PM

I'm just curious about the 2/3-camera...like that Sony that you are talking about...what kind of depth-of-field it has? Is it like 35mini-adapter or better or...? :undecided You don't need any adapters for that kind of camera, no? Is it like having a shallow DOF in the same box? If so, then the prize is not so "high" for what you get...

A 2/3" camera does not have DOF as shallow as 35mm, but it is far shallower that a 1/3". It is more comparible with 16mm film. I personally think it is a nice middle ground, because both shallow and deep focus can be achieved effectively.

khmuse

10-07-2005, 01:43 PM

I didn't get a part of your noise description formula: you said gain=20*(log X) and X is the decimal difference. So, 4:1 would be what? 4 or 0.25? Thanks!

You bring up an interesting aspect of the math. If you use 4 for X in the above equation you will end up with 12dB. If you use .25 for X, the it would be -12dB.

Works out either way (ya gotta love that about math, no arguing with it at all). So its really a matter of perspective one situation is either 12dB greater or the other is 12dB less.

khmuse

10-07-2005, 01:48 PM

You don't envy a guy with 18K to spend on a new camera!? This world is upside down man. This is exactly the kind of problem I'm working hard to have! :)

Seriously, though, thanks for the correction, Kh!

I am fairly certain that either $18k or $28k is a big deal to anyone. When you are talking about that kind of money, you really want to be pretty damn certain that you are making a good decision.

Myself, I would wait and rent both cameras and use them in the application that NBC is contemplating. Its just too much money not to be certain!

By the way, the world is upside down in this and many areas.:thumbsup:

taubkin

10-07-2005, 02:00 PM

Ahh, I understand you!

I was just messing with you... :thumbsup:

Thanks for clearing the noise stuff up!

khmuse

10-07-2005, 02:21 PM

this is a cool thread

khmuse do you have any books you'd recommend reading. i too am an EE with an interest in video. you could say i am an engineer who is trying to resurrect his artistic side. but still i love some good nerdy texts to cuddle up with.

Another EE on dvxuser? :undecided Wow! :happy:

Can't think of any titles off the top of my head, but I will give it a bit of thought and see if I can suggest a few for you. The entire industry is fascinating to me, I have really enjoyed nearly every aspect of film and video that I have been able to become involved in. I am just about ready to start shooting another project (8 days of principal photography starts Sunday, pre lighting starts this evening) and I can hardly keep my mind on the task that I need to finish for work.

Welcome to this forum. It is a great place to learn a lot and have a little bit of fun along the way.

D_and_G

10-07-2005, 02:58 PM

NBCshooter - You're a trip. You remind me of a kid I saw recently at Toys R' US, who wouldn't let go of two toys, one in each hand. He'd get close to giving one up then change his mind again, while his Mom tried to convince him to pleeeaase make a decision :)

I kid, because I am in a similar situation, except add in the variable of a possible Super16mm camera. Just one question, what is the new Panasonic shoulder mount camera you talked about, and what capabilities ?

KHmuse - What is an EE ? (effects Editor?, electronic explainer?, euphemism enforcer?)

Edit - I missed the other poster, you must be an Electronics Engineer - although correct me if I'm wrong.:)

Cheers.

Zig_Zigman

10-07-2005, 03:23 PM

NBC, is this cam just for narrative work? You're crazy to buy it, just rent a cam.

If you are providing footage for NBC or some affiliate, aren't they all going Sony xdcam?

28k 2/3" varicam 2? ...wowzers. Me effing want, no matter what advice I just gave.. :devil

Barry_Green

10-07-2005, 03:49 PM

okay, before this goes too far -- recognize that I have NO IDEA what the new Varicam price will be! That 28K was just a wild guess, figuring in the price of XDCAM-HD and JVC's GY-HD7000U. But it could just as easily be 48k. So, please, nobody should take the idea of $28K and run with it as if it was officially announced or anything!

(oh, and NBC -- nobody says you have to buy a high-def lens; I mean, if you were willing to be satisfied with 4:1:1 DVCAM with a $3K lens, wouldn't you be just as happy (or happier) with 4:2:2 DV50 with that same $3k lens? and you could always rent a high-def lens when you want to shoot 1080/24p!)

contentlab

10-07-2005, 05:28 PM

KHmuse - What is an EE ? (effects Editor?, electronic explainer?, euphemism enforcer?)

Edit - I missed the other poster, you must be an Electronics Engineer - although correct me if I'm wrong.:)

Cheers.

ha, yes, when i said EE i meant electrical engineer. but i think i shall take on the title of euphemism enforcer from now on. *scratches out title on diploma*

David G. Smith

10-07-2005, 05:41 PM

My wife's favourite film is the little known Miffune, also shot on DV. I don't think she'd enjoy it even a fraction more if it were shot on 70mm.
.

Love this thread, but hate to be nitpicky, Miffune was not shot on DV, it was shot on film. I do not know whether it was 16 or 35mm. I saw it on the big screen first run and It was gorgeous.

http://www.dogme95.dk/mifune/menu_side/menuset.htm

contentlab

10-07-2005, 05:48 PM

The entire industry is fascinating to me, I have really enjoyed nearly every aspect of film and video that I have been able to become involved in.

i agree wholeheartedly. i started out as a EE at U. of Illinois-Urbana in school wanting to do audio engineering designing speakers. i got a job out in the bay area doing Dolby, MPEG audio and karaoke feature programming for DVD players. which is how i got bit by the video bug being amazed at how MPEG2 could compress the hell out of video and still make it look good. i moved down south to try to make it in the film world but as NBC pointed out you need to be conifdent enough to survive and i just couldn't shed my shy introverted enginerd nature to convince people i had the skill they need.

now i'm back in the bay area doing video engineering work gathering knowledge and confindence so in a few years i can get back down to LA and try to be a well respected talented engigeek that is creative enough to understand the arty nontech types on set. i think being a DIT would rock. i miss my days on set as a PA or 2ndAC but the large steady paycheck and benefits i have now are nice.

sorry for veering off topic but if any of you are in the bay area and are looking for a weekend AC or nerdy tech hand let me know, i'm kind of bored up here. i meant to do a quick reply and say that i agree but this seems like a nice enough forum to share some video love.

khmuse

10-07-2005, 06:12 PM

Hey contenlab,

Small world. I am an engineer working in high end audio/video electronics. I have been a AES member for over 25 years now and have worked closely with a few of the standards committies in the area of high resolution audio. I too would love to make the jump into being a full time film & video guy, but haven't gotten to that point yet. I suspect that like a lot of things in life, this too may make a better hobby than career, but who knows. Send me a PM and I will share my email address with you and we can correspond off this thread.

Hope you are enjoying this user group. It is a great community with a lot of diverse talent.

lacuna

10-07-2005, 07:49 PM

David said "hate to be nitpicky, Miffune was not shot on DV, it was shot on film."

I beg your pardon, you're right! I assumed it was a DV pic simply because it was the third in the Dogme batch... but after a little search I found it was indeed 16mm.

Actually, unfortunately I only got to see it on VHS (three or four times) because it didn't make it to the big screen here and my local video store doesn't have it on DVD. But in any case it was shot handheld in available light, and it's a wonderful film! Love that Danish humour. Wish I had seen it on the big screen.

Thanks for the correction David, glad to know!

David G. Smith

10-07-2005, 08:04 PM

harlan

10-07-2005, 10:49 PM

Maybe the GVG Infinity camera will work out for ya (whenever it ships of course). It's sub $20K, 2/3" and gives you 'hd' capture. It's not yet 24p capable, but it will be (in addition to a variety of other formats) via an upgrade in 2006.

If you're in need of a camera, I'd be happy to make you a super deal on a VariCam rental if its available when you need it. Being an indie filmmaker myself, I'm always willing to make deals for fellow indies (I've been known to bring one out for shits and giggles occasionally).

Jan_Crittenden

10-08-2005, 06:44 AM

NBCshooter: I often feel pretty lonely here touting the benefits of the DSR450. I think I'm going to do it. The sensitivity issue is the clincher.

You know the 450 is not going to solve your problem. It will create others. The low light will be fine, but the uconvert to HD will not be as clean.

NBC: (and 24PA to boot), I'll take it. Well-exposed SD has to beat "really dark" HD, at least for my projects! And hey, this is an 850-line (800-line in 16:9), zero-smear, progressive camera with a real, multi-bladed diaphragm (no six-point stars in my headlights)! I think I'm actually gonna do it.

I think that you will have those 6-point stars because the lenses use 6 point shutters, unless you go to a lens that is not an ENG style lens, but all of the Canon and Fujinons that work with that camera all have 6 blade shutters. Sorry.

My suggestion is learn how to light, so that it doesn;t look like light.

Best,

Jan

Mathew

10-08-2005, 10:42 AM

I see everyone's points but . . . I just CAN'T spend $28K on a camera PLUS glass! For $18K, I'm DONE with the DSR450! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! MY HEAD IS EXPLODING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with the others. If you're just shooting a narrative then rent the camera.

Also why are you even debating this? The HVX is a $6,000 camera and the 450 is a $18,000. That's 3x the price. Of course you're going to get a better camera. If you think more rational about this then your head will decompress much easier.

Tzedekh

10-08-2005, 12:33 PM

Ja, forgot to mention probable P2. If it is, I have a feeling those guys are gonna be laughing at us and our debates over the price of 2GB vs. 4GB cards. :thumbsup:I seriously doubt that it could be anything other than P2 or hard drive. The specs you've cited appear to exceed those of the current DVCPro HD standard. I would hope that the horizontal resolution at 1080p were 1,920. At 10 bits, the data rate would probably exceed 200 Mbps (or be 200 Mbps exactly, since Panasonic seems to support a series of formats, each doubling the bandwidth of the one before it). I would think that tape heads for such a format would alone cost more than $20,000.

mmm

10-08-2005, 01:22 PM

I seriously doubt that it could be anything other than P2 or hard drive. The specs you've cited appear to exceed those of the current DVCPro HD standard. I would hope that the horizontal resolution at 1080p were 1,920. At 10 bits, the data rate would probably exceed 200 Mbps (or be 200 Mbps exactly, since Panasonic seems to support a series of formats, each doubling the bandwidth of the one before it). I would think that tape heads for such a format would alone cost more than $20,000.

Yeah, I would eat my hat if the new Varicam isn't P2. Thing is at 200Mbps or more, the current cards would full up VERY quickly. I guess it would take 4 or 6 cards at once.

(Disclaimer: this isn't legally binding)

David G. Smith

10-08-2005, 06:47 PM

I seriously doubt that it could be anything other than P2 or hard drive. The specs you've cited appear to exceed those of the current DVCPro HD standard. I would hope that the horizontal resolution at 1080p were 1,920. At 10 bits, the data rate would probably exceed 200 Mbps (or be 200 Mbps exactly, since Panasonic seems to support a series of formats, each doubling the bandwidth of the one before it). I would think that tape heads for such a format would alone cost more than $20,000.

Can't P2 handle up to something like 640Mbs? They would have plenty write speed left over. Let me check the P2 article.

D_and_G

10-08-2005, 07:58 PM

What is the new panansonic shoulder mount camera ? Was he talking about the new varicam?

Ralph Oshiro

10-08-2005, 09:45 PM

My suggestion is learn how to light, so that it doesn;t look like light.I've been lighting for 25 years. If I can light for an HL79, BVP3, or KY2000, I can light for anything.

Ralph Oshiro

10-08-2005, 09:52 PM

But I can't make two blocks of mercury-vapor lit city blocks look "lit" without either, A.) A fast camera, or B.) Big giant HMIs, permits, insurance, crew, etc.

Ralph Oshiro

10-08-2005, 09:58 PM

What is the new panansonic shoulder mount camera ? Was he talking about the new varicam?This new "shoulder-mount" camera is mentioned briefly in the "HVX200 Countdown" promotional DVD from Panasonic. While showing a still photo of a camera, which closely resembles the current, standard-definition Panasonic AJ-SPX800, the voiceover commentary on the DVD states, ". . . To further drive advances in high-definition imaging, Panasonic is developing a shoulder-mount HD camera for release in 2006." That's all it says. I would venture to conclude that what they meant was, Panasonic will introduce an SPX800-class, 2/3", P2-only based, DVCPRO50/DVCPRO-HD, 24P camcorder at NAB 2006. I am ASSUMING that this is not the "new" Varicam, but a new product with similar capabilities and a midline price point.

This is basically the camera which Jan described to me at RESfest Los Angeles. When asked about price point, Jan began to say that, "the camera would most directly compete with Sony's upcoming 1/2" XDCAM-HD disc camcorder [the Sony PDW-F330]." A post on another board put the Sony PDW-F330 at $25K MSRP, including lens. I only asked Jan if the camera would be $20K-plus, and she said, "yes."

Now, IF the cameras are to be comparably priced, the choice would definitely go to the Panasonic. It (presumably) has a 50/100 Mbit-datastream, while the Sony will only have 35 Mbit-maximum datastream. The Panasonic will employ 2/3" CCDs [direct quote from Jan], while the Sony will only use 1/2" chips. The Panasonic will employ the same, high quality, intraframe DCT-type compression, while the Sony will use interframe, long-GOP, MPEG-2 compression.

Now, this would all simply be too good to be true for, say, $25K includng a lens, so, unfortunately, I expect this to be more in the $30K-plus territory, once you add a lens. This is only a guess. I hope I'm wrong.

David G. Smith

10-08-2005, 10:00 PM

The low light sensitivity issue of the new higher resolution 1/3" chips is kind of discouraging. I bet we are going to see alot of footage gained up and noisey as hell.

Stevet

10-09-2005, 12:21 AM

The low light sensitivity issue of the new higher resolution 1/3" chips is kind of discouraging. I bet we are going to see alot of footage gained up and noisey as hell.

Somehow I have this feeling that the HVX200 is better with noise than we're expecting. Although I have not attended resfest myself, from what I've read the shadows do have detail and look clean. If that's true on a big screen, I can't wait to see what we can get out of this thing. I hear the worry about sensitivity. Let's hope the gain will be clean at 6db. I'm hoping at 12db, but that might be tough.

Let's hope the Panasonic is hearing our concern on noise levels. I'm sure they are, after all, look what they gave us! Man, they could of threw us an HDV, but
know it does not cut it!

Steve

Ralph Oshiro

10-09-2005, 05:02 AM

Somehow I have this feeling that the HVX200 is better with noise than we're expecting.IT IS! That camera is VERY clean in 60i!

Let's hope the gain will be clean at 6db. I'm hoping at 12db, but that might be tough.Let's hope! A lot of 2/3" cameras look pretty good at +6 or +9 dB. Hopefully, +12 dB won't be that bad.

Ralph Oshiro

10-09-2005, 05:59 AM

NBCshooter - You're a trip. You remind me of a kid I saw recently at Toys R' US, who wouldn't let go of two toys, one in each hand.Holy crap, D&G! You have no idea . . . you're absolutely right. I'm like this with everything and it makes ME crazy. I'm having the EXACT same problem with women right now!

Ralph Oshiro

10-09-2005, 06:01 AM

NBC, is this cam just for narrative work? You're crazy to buy it, just rent a cam.Yup, just for (mostly) narrative personal projects. And yes, I AM crazy.

khmuse

10-09-2005, 07:35 AM

Holy crap, D&G! You have no idea . . . you're absolutely right. I'm like this with everything and it makes ME crazy. I'm having the EXACT same problem with women right now!

Damn, I though picking a camera was a difficult problem, but women...

There is a dilemma for you if I ever heard of one :evil:

Ralph Oshiro

10-09-2005, 07:40 AM

kh:

You have no idea . . . do you always wake up this early on Sunday morning?

khmuse

10-09-2005, 07:47 AM

kh:

You have no idea . . . do you always wake up this early on Sunday morning?
Yeah, I get up early nearly every day. I have to leave for set in about 45 minutes (1st day of principal photography) crew call is 9AM and I want to give instructions to a number of my department heads.

By the way, I notice that you have a number of early AM posts as well (not to mention a good number of post midnight ones). I guess I am not the only one with this affliction!:laugh:

Ralph Oshiro

10-09-2005, 07:55 AM

No. I don't get up early. I go to sleep REAL late.

khmuse

10-09-2005, 07:58 AM

No. I don't get up early. I go to sleep REAL late.

You single HOLLYWOOD guys get to have all the fun!

Spartacus

10-09-2005, 09:54 AM

I want the Arri D-20 HD cam for the price of a HVX.
I want an Avid Symphony for the price of a G5.

Guys, don´t want to sound pathetic here, but in this world companies exist to make profit - not people happy.
The Dogma95 was all about content, mind over matter in some way, it was IMHO an approach to point out that cinema is art and kraft and that mainstream cinema tends to focus on the kraft, whereas the Dogma95 initiators wanted to focus entirely on the art side.
No taking sides here.

But NBC, if you planning this project, having mainly LA night exterior shots that are a MAJOR part of the films atmosphere, well maybe it just can`t be done with small chip cameras recording compressed footage.
I´m continuously rewriting scripts, because of things that just can't be done in budget.
And, hey, isn't that the fun of Indy filmmaking, thinking of how to make things look/sound/feel good without spending any or a lot money?
Maybe you have an other script waiting, that would only need a vx1000, you probably have a DVX, so wow, of you go!
And maybe this flic will lead to a budget for your LA Nights and you`ll just rent the camera you need...
But also having a television background, I probably know why you want to own instead of rent the cam.

Stevet

10-09-2005, 10:08 AM

Spartacus brings up a good point. There's a dividing line on what we get for what we pay. After all, it's all about money!

Technology is constantly improving. Competition and high sales drives this technology to a better price point to the end consumer.

Heck, four years ago, although shooting high definition was available, it was out of most of our reach. Now it can be done for < $8K.

There will always be a dividing line on what we get for the money. The good news is what we are being offered is getting better and better.

Steve

eLeventy

10-09-2005, 11:27 AM

This new "shoulder-mount" camera is mentioned briefly in the "HVX200 Countdown" promotional DVD from Panasonic. While showing a still photo of a camera, which closely resembles the current, standard-definition Panasonic AJ-SPX800, the voiceover commentary on the DVD states, ". . . To further drive advances in high-definition imaging, Panasonic is developing a shoulder-mount HD camera for release in 2006." That's all it says. I would venture to conclude that what they meant was, Panasonic will introduce an SPX800-class, 2/3", P2-only based, DVCPRO50/DVCPRO-HD, 24P camcorder at NAB 2006. I am ASSUMING that this is not the "new" Varicam, but a new product with similar capabilities and a midline price point.

At IBC there was a mock-up. It's ( or rather will be) indeed a HD version of the SPX800. I was told release should be 'mid-2006'. When asked if it would cost something like SPX800 + 20%, I got a 'Probably less'. That puts it around 25K,- without glass.

mmm

10-09-2005, 12:08 PM

...I want an Avid Symphony for the price of a G5.

I'd rather have the G5 and FCP... :laugh:

At IBC there was a mock-up. It's ( or rather will be) indeed a HD version of the SPX800. I was told release should be 'mid-2006'. When asked if it would cost something like SPX800 + 20%, I got a 'Probably less'. That puts it around 25K,- without glass.

It is going to be interesting what is released over the next year or two. I wonder when the last professsional HD camera will be released? I should think that the next generation of SD will be the last.

Ralph Oshiro

10-09-2005, 12:13 PM

That puts it around 25K,- without glass.Ouch! WITHOUT glass! That's what I was afraid of! If that's the case, then I'm still stuck between the two cameras--the HVX and the DSR450--I just can't go over $30K on a camera. I love the HVX's image, but need the speed of the DSR450, and it's here and now for well under $20K with glass. Now if the XDCAM-HD really is $25K MSRP WITH glass, that's something else.

Ralph Oshiro

10-09-2005, 12:27 PM

But NBC, if you planning this project, having mainly LA night exterior shots that are a MAJOR part of the films atmosphere, well maybe it just can't be done with small chip cameras recording compressed footage. But also having a television background, I probably know why you want to own instead of rent the cam.Yup, I just don't think it can. And it's killing me because the HVX is just so damn beautiful. And the way I'm shooting, it would be awfully expensive to rent.

Alex Leith

10-09-2005, 01:36 PM

What about the Thompson-GrassValley Infinity? It's 20k (plus lens).

The specs are pretty good: 3 x 2/3in CCD, recording 625i50/525i60 + 720p50/60 + 1080i50/60 onto (reasonably affordable) Iomega Rev Pro disks. It captures 4:2:2 and it records at 75mbit...

The down side? Well, it uses Jpeg2000 codec (which is a good for image quality but perhaps troublesome for workflow). There's no 24p/25p/30p (although you could shoot 50p and conform). And it certainly looks like a Phillips camcorder. :cheesy:

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 12:55 PM

HOLY CRAP! JUST when I get all settled on definitely buying the HVX200 w/two, 8GB card package . . . B+H LOWERS their price on a DSR450 bundle by ANOTHER $1,300. The kit comes with a $2,500 lens and $1,500 in accessories. You get the camera, a Fuji 20:1, two V-bricks, a two-position charger, and a Sony camera bag. All for what they were originally selling the body ALONE for! How much? $14,999.95.

Okay, look, the HVX200 with two 8GB cards is $10,000. The Cinemek adapter is $1,300. Add in some batteries . . . $400. Add some accessories . . . $1,000. I'm up to about $12,700 for a decent HVX200 package. That's just a hair over $2,000 . . . the difference between the HVX and a 2/3" SD camera that's so sensitive, it can shoot in the frickkin' dark!

HVX200 . . . . . . . . $12,700.00
DSR450 . . . . . . . . $14,999.95

Jan_Crittenden

12-04-2005, 01:02 PM

But you are shooting in 4:1:1 standard def. The problem you are having is that you are trying to compare to completely unrelated cameras. 1. Make a decision if you want to go High Def or not. If so, what is your budget for that? 2. If you think that a Standard Def camera is going to serve your purposes, then there you go. You have to make a standards decision first and then go from there.

Hope that helps,

Policar

12-04-2005, 01:09 PM

Sequences of Collateral were shot with +9 to +12db of gain, with the cinematographer freaking out over how bad everything looked. It was also shot overexposed then fixed in post so that grain was not an issue. It's not a look I like, but it was a cool movie I guess....

If you want to use a 35mm adapter and shoot at night, you're crazy, too. Not going to work so well.

Also, does the Sony lose sensetivity in progressive scan? I know the dvx loses a stop....and the dvx is allegedly a camera with f11@2000lux in interlace. If the hvx looks okay with +3db of gain, then that should be f11@2000lux, too, and look okay.

But to be honest, I think you've got a tough choice. I'd wait for the "Varicam II" if it's really only $23,000, but--who am I kidding--I don't have nearly that much money anyhow.

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 01:15 PM

Make a decision if you want to go High Def or not. If so, what is your budget for that?Yup, that's my problem, Jan. The deal is, that I have a certain amount of money to "blow" on my new "good" camera to shoot my independent featurettes on. If I KNEW that the upcoming Panasonic shoulder-mount 2/3" HVX-like camera would come out for a street price of about $20K, including glass and memory, then this decision would be over, and that's what I would buy. But I imagine that a camera of that class will price out at $30K or more, once you add glass and memory.

Originally, my "budget" for my new camera was a number that didn't sound like too much more than $20K. That's why the interest in the PDW-F330. But that's only a 1/2" camera, defeating a key reason why I'm going with a full-sized camera in the first place, the depth-of-field characteristics of a 2/3" imager. Again, the biggest reason for the DSR450 over the otherwise revolutionary HVX200 is sensitivity.

Elton

12-04-2005, 01:23 PM

And parts of Collateral had that tell-tale "slur" of motion that I often see with HDCAM 24p stuff. I'm pretty sure this look was due to a 1/24th shutter speed, probably for better sensitivity, but damn, it made it look very videoish didn't it? I've worked on a feature that was shot on 24p HDCAM and offlined in DVCPROHD 24p, and even though the codec held up reasonably well, you couldn't get around some of the stuff that had that "slur" to it. It's a bit of a mystery to me, maybe some if it is due to the PsF processing, but HDCAM can look really strange sometimes.

Slimothy

12-04-2005, 02:11 PM

NBC-You need a shrienk:)

jrv3034

12-04-2005, 02:27 PM

Okay, look, the HVX200 with two 8GB cards is $10,000. The Cinemek adapter is $1,300. Add in some batteries . . . $400. Add some accessories . . . $1,000. I'm up to about $12,700 for a decent HVX200 package. That's just a hair over $2,000 . . . the difference between the HVX and a 2/3" SD camera that's so sensitive, it can shoot in the frickkin' dark!

HVX200 . . . . . . . . $12,700.00
DSR450 . . . . . . . . $14,999.95
OK, you need to chill, man! :kiss:

Why do you need 2 8GB P2 cards? Get the $5500 HVX and one firestore for a total of $7500. Ad some batteries for $200, not $400. Maybe get the Cinemek G35 adapter for $1300, and rent some lenses. Shouldn't be more than $10K total. Spend the rest of the money on art direction, lights, and a good sound team. Those will make a heck of a lot more difference in the overall look of the movie than some grain or noise in dark areas. I really think that the increase in resolution will do wonders for indie features shown on the big screen. SD on the big screen has it's days numbered.

philnerd

12-04-2005, 02:56 PM

<snip>The deal is, that I have a certain amount of money to "blow" on my new "good" camera to shoot my independent featurettes on.<snip>

I assume you must have little control over lighting your featurettes or the low light sensitivity wouldn't be a major issue for you.

Why not wait a bit and rent an HVX200 for a weekend and put it through its paces? If it sucks in the type of lighting you shoot in, you're done. If it does alright, put your money in a 90 day CD (help recoup your rental cost) and it should mature right around the time the external drives become available. Most importantly you'll lose that "money burning a hole in your pocket" feeling while the funds are locked :)

Philip Williams

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 04:56 PM

I assume you must have little control over lighting your featurettes or the low light sensitivity wouldn't be a major issue for you.EXACTLY. All good suggestions. Mainly I need the sensitivity because most of my locations are night exteriors on mercury vapor-lit streets (street lights). No money for permits, insurance, cops, generators and HMIs to light entire frickkin' streets!

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 04:57 PM

NBC-You need a shrienk:)Tell me about it . . .

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 05:01 PM

Why do you need 2 8GB P2 cards? Get the $5500 HVX and one firestore for a total of $7500. Add some batteries for $200, not $400. Maybe get the Cinemek G35 adapter for $1300, and rent some lenses. Shouldn't be more than $10K total.Again, all good suggestions, which only seems to make the decision that much more difficult. I just know, once I get the HVX200, I won't be able to resist buying all kinds of expensive crap for it to "dress it up." For whatever reason, it's irresistable not to. Matte boxes, follow focus, etc. which I wouldn't necessarily need/want for the full-sized camera (plus, I already have a lot of broadcast-camera type accessories).

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 05:12 PM

Sequences of Collateral were shot with +9 to +12db of gain, with the cinematographer freaking out over how bad everything looked.I can imagine how he felt!

If you want to use a 35mm adapter and shoot at night, you're crazy, too.I know. That's the problem, I just know that's just totally not going to work.

Also, does the Sony lose sensetivity in progressive scan?Don't know. I assume it does. Not to argue with you, but to compare the DVX100's claimed f/11 sensitivity to a 2/3" broadcast camera's f/11 sensitivity spec just doesn't hold water. Broadcast f/11 cameras have almost ZERO noise at 0dB. My DVX100 is super noisy at 0dB. There's no comparison. The HVX200, on the other hand, was surprsingly QUIET! Very, very, very clean in 1080i at 0dB. It may well be quite usable at +9dB or maybe even +12dB. Gotta just wait and see, I guess.

RogerandOut

12-04-2005, 05:40 PM

All I'm saying man is don't give up on the HVX yet. Wait until it comes out first. Unless the footage you saw really didn't look that good...in the dark.[/QUOTE]

Why not shoot day for night set ups? Do you HAVE to shoot only at night?

LA has many large shadow areas created by the large buildings....also in the winter months when there are more clouds the afternoons can be fairly dark.

I'm not saying that you won't do well with the Sony...but there are ways to create
dark conditions without spending 18k on a camera.

If your exterior set ups are for brief shots like establishing shots, then could you shoot them on 16mm or s16 and then get them scanned?

Do your exterior shots have to include street lights that are lit?

The Sony cam is DV-CAM which is the same resolution as mini-DV, and 5:1:1
color?

Stevet

12-04-2005, 06:10 PM

Yes, even though it sounds like you're not expecting a lot for low light performance, please wait and see.

I realize it's only a 1/3 cam, but we've heard
from those who have seen it and said what they saw looked clean.

I realize the footage seen was probably not in low light conditions.

It won't be long now.

Steve

Steve

jeff jassky

12-04-2005, 07:06 PM

If you want to use a 35mm adapter and shoot at night, you're crazy, too.

I know. That's the problem, I just know that's just totally not going to work. guess.

As far as the Cinemek G35 losing light - I am told by jonathan that it will lose virtually no light. I KNOW it will be less than 1 stop, but he's told me that it will lose virtually no light.

In my very very unexperienced opinion - I think what jrv3034 said makes the most sense. Get the HVX with a firestore. The firestore compared to the P2 cards will hold much more data, it's much cheaper, and you can read off of it without having the camera on and with you. Plus it seems like an external hard drive SEEMS to me like it could be more sturdy, and potentially more reliable (it's not as new of a technology as P2, and it seems like it could have less potential bugs). I'd deffinetly suggest getting the Cinemek G35. It's an amazing product. Get a few nice battery backs, and you've got yourself a setup that most of us here would give up their first born child for.... well... maybe not to that extent. But you get the idea. It's HD, the light sensitivity isn't BAD at all, plus you've got quite a bit of extra cash in your pocket for lights, or anything else. I don't know........ Just another opinion... or.. an affirmation of jrv3034s opinion Good luck making your decision. I'm sure you'll be happy whatever you do. (you just might be happier with the HVX ) haha.. good luck

-Jeff Jassky

Emanuel

12-04-2005, 08:23 PM

SD on the big screen has it's days numbered.It's time enough to stop with unworking and unpleasant videoish - and UGLY (uff!) - proposals... Finally, there is someone that comes with "the" greatest conclusion... :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: With the "film look" is the aesthetics that is on the table and not the reverse!

<PS> Sorry guys my non-tech parenthesis but "the life is two days" in my native language...and sometimes there's no time to anything else than the movies... [...but thx anyway for the opportunity as your common reader.]

Policar

12-04-2005, 09:39 PM

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 09:53 PM

Then there's the achromat.FYI: Every front-mounted achromat I've ever used had a zero-stop loss. I don't know why, but front-mounted tele-adapters, wide-angle adapters, and achromatic diopters, for some reason don't steal any light! But the rest of your math sounds right . . . unfortunately.

But lemme get this straight . . . whatever the maximum aperture is on your 35mm still lens (e.g., f/1.4, f/2.0), you simply add that numeric "stop value" to your total "light loss" column in order to sum your aggregate light loss? So if I'm at a half-stop loss just from zooming the HVX' native lens in a bit, then I add another 2 stops if I slap an f/2.0 lens on top of that, right?

Nevertheless, the HVX200 is really just too good of a camera NOT to buy, for any reason. There's just so much potential for compositing, slow-motion photography, time-lapse photography, etc with the 4:2:2 100mbps signal. The camera really offers a lot of incredible capability for not an outrageous price. This really is a tough one.

jeff jassky

12-04-2005, 10:01 PM

Jonathan's already quoted figures which total up to about two stops (when everything is added up.) Unless you shoot with an f0.7 lens (and they do indeed exist!) it will lose light, and quite a bit.

First there's the fact that "wide open" is f2.0 instead of f1.6 (1.4-2.0 is a stop so this is about half a stop right here or more.)

Then there's the diffusion screen itself.

Then there's the achromat.

Then there's the lens (fastest you're going to realistically get is f1.4 which is more like t1.6.)

That's already more than two stops, easy.

Policar - Keep checking over the cinemek site (www.Cinemek.com) over the next week or two. There are some updates that will be made :) The production model will lose less than 1 stop of light according to Jons laatest updates. I'm not sure how much less, but it will be less than 1 stop. Check the latest topics on the Cinemek forum (www.Cinemek.com/forum).

-Jeff Jassky

Ralph Oshiro

12-04-2005, 10:05 PM

All I'm saying man is don't give up on the HVX yet. Wait until it comes out first.I'm not. I'll probably end up getting the HVX200 anyway.

Unless the footage you saw really didn't look that good...in the dark.Well, uhhh, it just looked real dark. Hopefully the camera will withstand some gain-up.

Why not shoot day for night set ups? Do you HAVE to shoot only at night?Waaaay, not the same aesthetic. I'm all about the lighting of the shot. And yes, I have to shoot only at night.

I'm not saying that you won't do well with the Sony...but there are ways to create dark conditions without spending 18k on a camera.They dropped the price by $2,300 in the last two months . . . it's now only $15K with glass, bricks, and a charger (and a free camera bag)!

If your exterior set ups are for brief shots like establishing shots, then could you shoot them on 16mm or s16 and then get them scanned?Thought about going all 16mm. Way too expensive. And mainly, I wouldn't be able to do as many takes for performance.

Do your exterior shots have to include street lights that are lit?The more light sources in the shot, the better. Spielberg loves to do that (watch E.T., Close Encounters, etc.).

The Sony cam is DV-CAM which is the same resolution as mini-DV, and 5:1:1
color?Yup, I know. By the way, it's spelled "DVCAM" and "miniDV" and it's 4:1:1 sampling and 5:1 compression. But DVCAM, with a really good camera head (and the DSR450 is a REALLY good camera head), looks pretty doggone good. It's better than BetacamSP, and that's what I shoot on everyday for NBC. Thanks for your thoughts!

tuface

12-05-2005, 01:09 AM

How about this NBC:

I'll buy the HVX. You be the cinematographer on my feature, which has several night scenes. By the end of the shoot, you'll know if you like it or not. You'll get experience with the camera you're unsure about, and I'll get your expertise, leaving me to direct and act (and write and produce and score and record the soundtrack.. oh god, I'm doomed)

Oh, that is if you can wait that long. I'm slated to shoot next fall. I forgot, you're kind of in a hurry, huh?

Jim Arthurs

12-05-2005, 06:02 AM

NBCshooter, you keep up the angst... it's strange, it's as if all my *potential* anxiety over the HVX has manifested itself in you and your indecision.

Maybe I'm at total peace over this as-yet-sight-unseen purchase *only* because you're not... and if your troubled soul was at ease, my mind wouldn't be...

:) :) :) Just jesting in good fun!

Still, I'm not trying to make a habit of shooting under street lights, and if I was, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be thinking HVX. I'd stay with rentals, and put my mind at ease with something with big old fat light absorbing chips...

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

JensDensen

12-05-2005, 08:25 AM

"in 2/3" CCDs versus 1/3" CCDs the signal that enters the analog amplification stage is larger (for a given pixel size). For a camera with an identical number of pixels, the increase in size from 1/3" to 2/3" is 4:1 or 2 stops. This is because the area is the product of XY (where X is one axis and Y is the other)."

Sure?, a 4 times larger area gives 12 db more signal, but the noise generated also increases by 6db. Though alot depends on which part generates most noise, the ccd or the amplifier.

regarding the pixel count, when each pixel is split in two, noise increases (obviously.. though again much depends again on the latter stages), but all the extra noise is in the extra detail, so, when you 'blend' them together again later you end-up with the same picture? So I guess my point is, nothing is lost when doubling the pixel count. The extra noise is in the extra detail. Filter-out the detail and you have the same sensor again. (though I might be wrong here, obviously :) )

vandeha

12-05-2005, 10:24 AM

Hi, NBCshooter.

I have just started out a small production. I am also debating of buying a DSR450WSL now and adding a HVX200 later. I heard some good things about the DSR450WSL, especially, its latitude. However, this camera has no true 24p shooting. In other word, it shoots 60i and converts footages to 24p later to tape. Is this true?

Anyway, I am still interested in this camera. Please can you tell me where I can get that deal $15k with len and case? Thanks.

Emanuel

12-05-2005, 10:33 AM

NBCshooter, you keep up the angst... it's strange, it's as if all my *potential* anxiety over the HVX has manifested itself in you and your indecision.:beer:

geo

12-05-2005, 10:56 AM

Yup, I know. By the way, it's spelled "DVCAM" and "miniDV" and it's 4:1:1 sampling and 5:1 compression. But DVCAM, with a really good camera head (and the DSR450 is a REALLY good camera head), looks pretty doggone good. It's better than BetacamSP, and that's what I shoot on everyday for NBC. Thanks for your thoughts!

Really? I shoot with DSR-570's and BetaSP 600's every day (different clients). The 600's look is absolutely stunning in their uncompressed, analog glory. The 570's are always harsh and garish in comparison. When I was shooting "Blind Date" a few years back, they went from Beta600s to 570s: I was quite upset. Even though my camera dropped 10lbs of weight, it wasn't worth it for the degradation of image and brutally blown highlights of 4:1:1 and 25mb/s. Color too: the run and gun of Dating shows means I was alway in mixed light: BetaSP handled it beautifully but the DVcam footage was always harsh in that regard too.

Ralph Oshiro

12-05-2005, 12:13 PM

Really? I shoot with DSR-570's and BetaSP 600's every day (different clients). The 600's look is absolutely stunning in their uncompressed, analog glory. The 570's are always harsh and garish in comparison. When I was shooting "Blind Date" a few years back, they went from Beta600s to 570s: I was quite upset. Even though my camera dropped 10lbs of weight, it wasn't worth it for the degradation of image and brutally blown highlights of 4:1:1 and 25mb/s. Color too: the run and gun of Dating shows means I was alway in mixed light: BetaSP handled it beautifully but the DVcam footage was always harsh in that regard too.You're comparing different camera heads. In a side-by-side test (a few years ago), with a dockable camera head, recordings were compared from a DVCAM back and a PVV-1 Betacam back. The DVCAM footage had better chroma specs. The only way you can compare the encoding formats is to compare the signals coming from identical camera heads. A 570 is NOT a 600.

Ralph Oshiro

12-05-2005, 12:23 PM

However, this camera has no true 24p shooting. In other word, it shoots 60i and converts footages to 24p later to tape. Is this true? Anyway, I am still interested in this camera. Please can you tell me where I can get that deal $15k with lens and case? Thanks.Try bhphoto.com and search for "DSR450." The listed price for the Sony V-mount kit is $16,200. Click on "e-mail me a better price" and, voila! It's $14,999.95. As far as I know, the 450 shoots true progressive in either standard or "PA-mode" (2-3-3-2) cadence, just like a DVX100. Like all 24P cameras (DVX100, SDX900), they shoot 24P and then convert it to 60i so it can record to a standard tape format. Sony calls it PsF (progressive segmented frame). It's the same term they use to describe the way the F900 acquires 24P and lays that to tape in 1080i.

vandeha

12-05-2005, 12:44 PM

Thankyou so much, NBCshooter.

dougspice

12-05-2005, 02:53 PM

Sounds to me like you're looking at the wrong half of the problem, or not telling the whole story. Your stated goal here is to shoot your feature, and nothing else. A $15,000 camera expense sounds pretty ridiculous for that purpose. So...

A: you're wasting a lot of money that COULD be spent permitting and lighting and getting things to actually look how they should, just so you can own a new toy at the end of the day.

B: this purchase is part of some comprehensive business plan that requires you to have a camera long after you're done shooting this movie.

If your feature is really your priority, and you have the finances to cover it, it seems like you need to reconsider your motives and make the movie look as good as it possibly can. Sounds like it's time to spend some time re-examining your script and working out a shooting schedule, rather than fretting about details of camera engineering.

Laco

12-05-2005, 04:16 PM

450 shoots true progressive in either standard or "PA-mode" (2-3-3-2) cadence, just like a DVX100. Like all 24P cameras (DVX100, SDX900), they shoot 24P and then convert it to 60i so it can record to a standard tape format.

Progressive scan mode (450) and progressive shooting with progressive CCD imager (DVX) is something different. Isnt it?

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 11:38 AM

Well I can't believe what I just did . . . my friend who owns the Teranex was going to buy me a DSR450 for doing some consulting for him. After attending DV Expo yesterday, I just called him up and told him not to buy it.

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 11:40 AM

Progressive scan mode (450) and progressive shooting with progressive CCD imager (DVX) is something different. Isnt it?I don't know. I wish I did. The PDW510/PDW530s (which have the same CCD block) sure look great--just like a true 24P camera.

khmuse

12-08-2005, 11:44 AM

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 11:48 AM

khmuse

12-08-2005, 11:56 AM

Well, its not like you didn't fully (and I mean FULLY) consider all the consequences before making a purchase decision.

Yeah, a F330 would be kinda cool!

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 11:56 AM

Sounds to me like you're looking at the wrong half of the problem, or not telling the whole story. Your stated goal here is to shoot your feature, and nothing else. A $15,000 camera expense sounds pretty ridiculous for that purpose.Not for the way I shoot. When you own your acquisition device, you can shoot every beauty shot you're ever going to need on countless weekends. This is a great way to continously increase your production value, incrementally. With a 10-day rental, you're only gonna get what you get in that ten days.

Sounds like it's time to spend some time re-examining your script and working out a shooting schedule, rather than fretting about details of camera engineering.Fretting the details about camera engineering is what determines my lighting package. If I have a camera than can expose a city street at night with only the streetlighting, I don't have to buy a permit, insurance or rent HMIs, and generators.

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 12:01 PM

A: you're wasting a lot of money that COULD be spent permitting and lighting and getting things to actually look how they should, just so you can own a new toy at the end of the day.You have something against owning cool toys?

B: this purchase is part of some comprehensive business plan that requires you to have a camera long after you're done shooting this movie.No. I just wanna be able to shoot whatever I want whenever I want all the time.

harlan

12-08-2005, 12:37 PM

Yup. It just didn't seem right. I just couldn't allow my friend to invest $15,000 in an SD camera, even as good as that one is. I told him to buy me an HVX200 instead, and then later, buy me a PDW-F330 when that comes out!

Wow!!! So exactly what kind of "consulting" is it you do with this friend to get him to buy you these goodies?? Hmmmmm ;)

.

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 01:00 PM

Yeah, he's a pretty nice friend. He pays the rent by selling used broadcast gear. As a result, he has the opportunity to buy a lot of things at amazing prices. He was about to buy the DSR450 for me, but he's also about to buy some PDW510s and PDW530s. I told him, forget the DSR450, get me an XDCAM if we can buy it at $15K.

Anyway, he's always trying to grow his business, so I kind of "error check" his business plans for him. I threw together a webpage for him for his new venture which you can see here:

http://rezfactor.com/

He bought an upconverter and has a bunch of expensive decks hooked up to it (Digital Betacam, HDV, Panasonic DVCPRO-HD, Sony HDCAM). I thought of the URL and threw the site together for him, then told him about all the toys I wanted for Xmas. I also have a marketing degree, so I also produce some of his marketing materials and do some minor graphics work for him.

dougspice

12-08-2005, 01:44 PM

You have something against owning cool toys?

Yeah, actually. Toys do not make a movie. For obvious reasons, there's a bias on these boards towards techlust and engineering talk and all sorts of things that are useful... but far from the first things a director should be considering. Example:

Not for the way I shoot. When you own your acquisition device, you can shoot every beauty shot you're ever going to need on countless weekends. This is a great way to continously increase your production value, incrementally. With a 10-day rental, you're only gonna get what you get in that ten days.

I don't know "the way you shoot" nor do I know your work ethic, so maybe that's fine. But I can tell you from other experience that what you've described is the formula for a lot of people who have big dreams but never actually accomplish them. Those are the people who need to learn to cut the umbilical. Being under the gun of a rental deadline will tend to do that.

No. I just wanna be able to shoot whatever I want whenever I want all the time.

Again, sounds silly to me, assuming your #1 goal is to get your movie done. Do you have a producer and an AD on board yet for your film? I think that's a pretty crucial question. Anyway, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I don't know your script. I'm just pointing out a general trend I see.

TimeKoder13

12-08-2005, 02:11 PM

I feel ya dougspice but I saw how owning home equipment helped a lot of broke musicians make great music in the 90s that would have never been recorded if we had to go to the $125/hr studios back then. Stuff sounds "great" when you're paying by the hour, like "crap" when you have time to make it better. I agree there are a lot of dreamers here; I'm one of them who also happens to get paid to dream. My partner and I fight all the time b/c he's always saying "if we just had more lights" and I'm like "I'll fix it in post, let's get what we can!" It takes all types to move the biz. I love NBCshooter's "inner turmoil", he cracks me up as well as teaches me stuff I'm ignorant about.

stabwound

12-08-2005, 02:25 PM

Dougspice:

When you own a tool you become familiar and proficient with it. You know it's strengths and limitations... and that determines the strategy on tackling a specific assignment. That's what Nbcshooter is saying.

Like a soldier sleeping with his rifle. In the heat of battle, he won't be figuring how the rifle works, he'll be shooting. When you're renting you won't have time to develop this familiarity.

The idea of a rental deadline in order to complete a project sounds is very artificial to me.... and the pressures involved aren't desirable or neccessary.

But that's me.

contentlab

12-08-2005, 03:00 PM

dougspice

why not own gear, especially at this price point. yes it might be silly for an individual who isn't a full time DP to own a varicam, cinealta or other $50k+++ camera but for a mere $10k NBC or anyone else can have a camera on hand all the time.

especially for what NBC seems to need, which is shooting with available street light. in my mind i would want to experiment with a camera in such situations for at least a week or two trying out various area of LA i was planning on shooting. why put that kind of money towards rental when it can go to a $10k camera that you will own.

and i'm assuming he or many other HVX owners have other full time gigs that pay the bills so having a relatively inexpesive cam like the HVX would be great for when you have an unexepcted day off of shooting for work and you can experiment with your new film tool to make you own project some time down the road, at you own pace. isn't that how some get their projects done using their DVXs or XL1,2s, etc?

i understand the point you make of people with technolust or those who want to drop lots of money on the latest and greastest gear but will rarely produce anything other than lots of experiments. Guitar Center seems to exist for just that purpose, to take the hard earned cash of rock star dreamers. but when we are talking about $10k for a camera that was designed to be a B-Camera to it's $66k older brother why not buy one and have it all the time.

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 03:07 PM

Anyway, I'm not trying to pick a fight.Well then don't be so condescending in what is clearly a technical thread in the first place. And you're right, you have no idea how I shoot.

dougspice

12-08-2005, 03:08 PM

I understand all of those points, and with the HVX it's much less of an issue. But here's my point in a nutshell: the man is saying "I'm gonna buy this $20,000 kit, because I don't have enough money for permits or lights!" Does that seem counter-productive to anyone else?

Now that he seems to have settled on the HVX, if he was going to spend that money anyway... well that seems like $10,000 now available to rentals and permits. Honestly, that sounds ideal.

It is great to own your tools, especially if you can make your money back off of them. Here at my company we breathe that philosophy. Great. If you're DON'T have a plan to make that money back, though, you're just wasting a lot of money that could have gone into your film. Filmmaking is all about compromise and prioritizing. The people who don't learn that skill are the ones who fail.

Again, a lot of this conversation is no longer specifically about you, NBCshooter, so don't take offense.

OliverM

12-08-2005, 03:24 PM

Well, spending 20K on gear and not earning some bucks with it afterwards sounds pretty decadent huh?
But with an HVX you own and fully learn to control, you should be able to make some money. Hell, if even I can pull that off with my DVX... :)

stabwound

12-08-2005, 03:38 PM

But here's my point in a nutshell: the man is saying "I'm gonna buy this $20,000 kit, because I don't have enough money for permits or lights!" Does that seem counter-productive to anyone else?

Sounds ok to me. If it works, solves his problems, it's a logical thing to do.

Now that he seems to have settled on the HVX, if he was going to spend that money anyway... well that seems like $10,000 now available to rentals and permits. Honestly, that sounds ideal.

It is great to own your tools, especially if you can make your money back off of them. Here at my company we breathe that philosophy. Great. If you're DON'T have a plan to make that money back, though, you're just wasting a lot of money that could have gone into your film. Filmmaking is all about compromise and prioritizing. The people who don't learn that skill are the ones who fail.

Here's where you confuse me a bit.

We ALL hoping to make our money back... maybe not immediately, but hopefully further down the road.

The 10K spent on the HVX is not "wasted", as you say. He still has the HVX, which he could either sell for a slight loss, or use to make his next movie.

Now RENTAL to me is a total loss. If your first film bombs out, you are now out of the game, until you scrape the money together for your next production.

dougspice

12-08-2005, 03:49 PM

OliverM

12-08-2005, 03:50 PM

True, if you can buy (even second hand gear) you get something at least.
We have a DOP here in belgium who -instead of renting a big 30 kilowatt HMI- made a big aluminum frame and put 40 par64's in it. He used that for his night scenes. Does the job, and for the rental price of the HMI, you own these...

stabwound

12-08-2005, 04:09 PM

If your choices lead to a subpar film, in exchange for "keeping you in the game" later, you have made the wrong decision. Most people don't just get to keep throwing away money making movies. You either make it and get noticed after the first time or two, or you're done.

Doug: I respect what you are saying... I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything. I did try to see it from your point of view... but it doesn't work for me, that's all.

You assertion that you must choose between a subpar film (and keep the HVX) or putting the money into rentals (and thereby make a superior movie) is illogical. The choices are NOT mutually exclusive.

A skilled filmmaker with his own HVX can make a great movie, even if it's a no budget production. We are talking about skills. Not about money.

Putting money into a film will not neccessarily make it a good one.

On the other hand, I really am the kind of person who excels under limits and deadlines. Maybe I'm projecting too much here. I just know that in NBCshooter's situation, I would never get the film done. And even if I did, I'd be unhappy with the quality in the end. I'd also NEVER take on being both the director and the DP at the same time; I think this leads to a similar problem - I call this the "Rodriguez Effect" - and it results in low-quality films. Anyway, I think I've adequately explained my perspective on this now. You don't have to agree with me, of course. Most people are different from other people. These are just my experiences dealing with a lot of young directors. Congratulations on your decision either way, I think you'll probably be happy with it in the end.

If deadlines promoted better work, I'd make them shorter and shorter.:happy:

I'm not denigrating deadlines (I've worked under them as a newsphotographer) but artificial ones serves no purpose.

As for Rodriquez... I like his work and he's been an inspiration to indie hopefuls like myself. His early films made him noticed... for his skills, not the money into them.

Isaac_Brody

12-08-2005, 05:05 PM

Just a thought, there was a time when renting was a must to get the quality capable of the HVX. With the cost of affordable HD people are just thinking twice and ponying up the extra cash to own. I don't think this changes all the factors that go into a good film.

If nothing else, there are fewer excuses for poor filmmaking. People can't blame standard def anymore for their poorly lit and unentertaining films. I think the HVX will weed out the pretenders, and the really talented people will obviously stick out.

dougspice

12-08-2005, 05:39 PM

stabwound, we started out here talking about one very specific issue which is really ENTIRELY about money: do you have enough money to get the sensitivity needed to shoot in this level of light, or do you have enough money to get the light needed to shoot at this sensitivity? There's not much talent involved in that debate. In a general sense, I absolutely agree with you. But often, you run into scenarios that are all about the money. So you either use your money correctly, or you figure out a way to shoot around it. THAT's the talent.

I like Rodriguez's work, but never have I liked one of his films without reservations. I'm glad that he's out there showing what can be done with the one-man-band, basement studio approach. But at this point he's already demonstrated that it's possible, and his films would be significantly better if he would just hand over some of the responsibility to someone else.

harlan

12-08-2005, 05:54 PM

With the cost of affordable HD people are just thinking twice and ponying up the extra cash to own.

True, but "owning" versus renting is not without its fair share of problems either.

Ner0

12-08-2005, 06:11 PM

Is HD really everything? I have a DVX100A, because I cannot afford the HVX200. I got the DVX for $2,600 and it's still a fantastic camera! I think when it comes down to it, it is about the ideas and skill of the filmmaker instead of the equipment. There are minimums, but getting into these gear head discussions distracts from what is actually being made: art.

It's kind of like how some people say that if you use a Windows machine, then you're not "true" graphic designer. That's BS. The art itself is far more important than the tools.

And besides, even a consumer SD DV camera rivals that of $100K broadcast cameras 15 years ago.

stabwound

12-08-2005, 06:24 PM

stabwound, we started out here talking about one very specific issue which is really ENTIRELY about money: do you have enough money to get the sensitivity needed to shoot in this level of light, or do you have enough money to get the light needed to shoot at this sensitivity? There's not much talent involved in that debate. In a general sense, I absolutely agree with you. But often, you run into scenarios that are all about the money. So you either use your money correctly, or you figure out a way to shoot around it. THAT's the talent.

I've reread the thread so I won't misunderstand what we're talking about. Specifically:

NBCshooter is worrying about the lowlight capabilities of the HVX... whether he could shoot under available low light conditions. If it does, then problem is solved. If it isn't, use 2/3 sensor camera... he likes HVX well enough to buy it regardless..

Your solution, with the same money: rent camera, rent lights, get permits... problem solved.

Two different approaches... but I just prefer NBCshooter's solution. I like to own hardware.

If you'd rather go the renting route then by all means.

But I agree with you about spending money wisely in general.

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 10:20 PM

If it makes anyone feel better about "wasting" my money buying gear, I made $8,500 renting my DVX100 to NBC since I bought it (they finally bought five DVX100s). I never EXPECTED to rent my DVX100--that wasn't my intention for buying the camera. I wanted to own the camera so I could grab beauty shots whenever they occurred. Due to the heavy rainstorms we had in L.A. earlier this year, I acquired some beautiful rain footage that I later used in my zombie short. It hardly EVER rains in Southern California.

I recently bought a Steadicam Flyer for $6,000. With my future HVX200 and my Steadicam Flyer, I'll probably be able to rent the rig for like $1,000 a day, PLUS my day rate. Again, I'm NOT buying gear to start a rental business. I'm buying gear because the economies of scale work out. Whenever I need a Steadicam shot for ANY future project . . . I've got it!

thisiswells

12-08-2005, 10:26 PM

With my future HVX200 and my Steadicam Flyer, I'll probably be able to rent the rig for like $1,000 a day
Good luck. Several places rent the Flyer for $175/Day. GEAR in Austin, TX rents the Steadicam SK2 for $300/Week. Yes, $300 for the entire week! Stuff is worth what the people pay for it, of course...

Ralph Oshiro

12-08-2005, 10:29 PM

Good luck. Several places rent the Flyer for $175/Day. GEAR in Austin, TX rents the Steadicam SK2 for $300/Week. Yes, $300 for the entire week! Stuff is worth what the people pay for it, of course...Shhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell NBC!

Haakon

12-09-2005, 12:36 AM

I recently bought a Steadicam Flyer for $6,000. With my future HVX200 and my Steadicam Flyer...
You're gonna need a weight plate if you're planning to use the HVX and the flyer in tandem. The lightest camera that really is functional on that thing is the XL2. I'm also getting an HVX extremely soon (I'm near the top of the EVS list - cross your fingers!) and I'm getting some custom metal work done to accomodate it (I've had the flyer for almost a year now and I'm very comfortable with it). If you're interested, I could probably get a duplicate made for you for a pretty good price.

Ralph Oshiro

12-09-2005, 12:47 AM

You're gonna need a weight plate if you're planning to use the HVX and the flyer in tandem. The lightest camera that really is functional on that thing is the XL2.Really? I didn't need a weight plate for my DVX100. I just mount an Anton Bauer ProPak14 on the sled (I have the Flyer configured for Gold Mount), and the sled balances out just fine with my DVX100! Increasing the camera weight would allow you to move the gimbal lower down on the post (or is it higher?) depending on which type of battery you choose to put on your sled. Which type of battery did you order your Flyer for?

Ralph Oshiro

12-09-2005, 02:14 AM

To summarize my post-DV Expo feelings regarding this thread's topic . . . the HVX actually surprised me with the sensitivity it did seem to have, as shown at DV Expo. All things considered, the HVX200 is simply too cool of a camera NOT to buy. I'm fairly sure that the shoulder-mount version due next year will be out of my price range. Although the DSR450 would probably be fine, it just doesn't seem prudent to invest that kind of money on an SD camera at this point.

evinsky

12-09-2005, 02:20 AM

Very prudent choice. When will you change your mind again?
:)

Ralph Oshiro

12-09-2005, 02:21 AM

You got a minute?

mmm

12-09-2005, 02:23 AM

Shhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell NBC!

LOL!

evinsky

12-09-2005, 02:26 AM

You got a minute?
For you NBC... I've got five.

Ralph Oshiro

12-10-2005, 06:47 AM

So . . . my low light acquisition solution with the HVX200 will be the following:

If I can't expose my night exteriors at f/1.6 at 0dB on the HVX200, I'll shoot at either 1/24th to gain one more stop, or even at 1/12th to gain an additional stop. After seeing the gain-up images at DV Expo, I will NEVER throw up +6dB or +12dB gain merely to attain my exposure. Hopefully, these characterisitics may improve by the time the final product ships, but I doubt it. This is mainly for wide establishing shots, so this strategy shouldn't be too impractical. The vehicle-mount night exterior stuff will just have to suffer with some additional motion blur as part of its "aesthetic." Like I said, this camera is too good NOT to buy.

It's been several hours since my last post in this thread and I'm STILL in the HVX200 camp!

mgalvan

12-10-2005, 07:47 AM

For you NBC... I've got five.

One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies :)

evinsky

12-10-2005, 02:23 PM

Glad to see someone got it.

Haakon

12-10-2005, 05:25 PM

Really? I didn't need a weight plate for my DVX100. I just mount an Anton Bauer ProPak14 on the sled (I have the Flyer configured for Gold Mount), and the sled balances out just fine with my DVX100! Increasing the camera weight would allow you to move the gimbal lower down on the post (or is it higher?) depending on which type of battery you choose to put on your sled. Which type of battery did you order your Flyer for?
Hm, interesting! I've had the Flyer for about a year now (I have the Anton mount as well) and had great success with it, but the DVX alone is too light for my tastes. I'm even more surprised that you're using it with a ProPac 14... those batteries are 5 lbs! With the Flyer, I prefer the gimbal to be as close to the top as possible (the lower the gimbal is, the easier it is for the battery section to crash against the arm, which is somewhat short). In order to avoid that, you need less weight on the bottom or more weight (ie, a heavier camera or a weight plate) up top. With a DVX or XL2, I use a Hytron 50 battery - they're only 2 lbs, and allow me to raise the gimbal somewhat and still get good results with the lighter cameras. I think the weight of a fully pimped out XL2 (mattebox, follow focus, etc.) is just about right (though I much prefer the output of the DVX). The numbers that Tiffen states for maximum weight on the Flyer seem to be a bit conservative (or perhaps they don't take battery/monitor weight into the equation.) I've flown a Varicam on it (powered from the Steadicam) with a Hytron 120 battery at the base and although it was topping out the maximum weight, even that worked fine. So, if anything, my experience has shown me that it works a lot better with those medium-size cameras or the lighter ENGs than with lightweight DV cameras like the DVX or the FX1. I will definitely be using it with the HVX (I'm already in preproduction on the first feature to be shot with the camera!), but I will absolutely be adding weight to the top. I'm sure, like anything else, your mileage will vary, but that's generally my findings in a nutshell.

Ralph Oshiro

12-10-2005, 06:22 PM

That's odd. Seemed to work great for me! I just looked at my post--the gimbal is slightly more than half-way above the center of the post (I have a few extra doo-dads on my DVX: a BEC wireless bracket, a Lectrosonics receiver, and a AT835b shotgum mic). The DVX with the ProPak14 felt "just right" to me! That's great to hear that the max load number is conservative. Did you have to pull the EVF and/or lens shade off of the Varicam? Wow, and Hytron 120s are HEAVY! I thought I would have to completely strip a 2/3" camera to mount it on the Flyer!

Haakon

12-10-2005, 08:34 PM

That's great to hear that the max load number is conservative. Did you have to pull the EVF and/or lens shade off of the Varicam? Wow, and Hytron 120s are HEAVY! I thought I would have to completely strip a 2/3" camera to mount it on the Flyer!
Well, the Hytron is mounted to the Steadicam, not the camera. The camera is powered through the 12V cable that comes with the flyer (the same battery that powers the Steadicam monitor powers the camera as well). It's possible that I even had two Hytron 120s down there to balance with the Varicam better, but I remember that being problematic because the little screw that holds the battery plate onto the base of the post unscrews in the direction of the weight (a design flaw) and two Hytron 120s down there are just too heavy for that screw to hold that baseplate up. I'm not sure if we had the EVF on the Varicam, but it was definitely "stripped." Just the body and the lens, and possibly the EVF. Of course this means that you have to be shooting wide and as stopped down as you can, because pulling focus on one of those shots is essentially impossible. The flyer wasn't made for the Varicam to begin with, but it was nice to know that the possibility was there, in limited uses. It was also just kinda fun to be flying a $100,000 setup. :-D

A DVX with add-ons would probably put the gimbal just above center on the post, so that sounds right. I like to have it about an inch from the top of the post, however, which is why adding weight to the top really helps. There's nothing "wrong" with flying it in either position (as long as it's balanced), but you'll notice that when tilting the post or doing low angle shots, it's much more likely to hit against the lower part of the arm. Obviously, the more range you have the better, which is why I prefer the gimbal to be higher. When we flew the Varicam, the gimbal had to be raised literally all the way to the top, the tension on the arm relieved completely, and tons of weight added to the battery section (by way of the Hytron 120s). Again, obviously this isn't what the flyer was aimed at, but it's cool that it's possible. :)