Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
niceguy15 said:
Depth Of Peeled? Kind of like Mit Out Sound (MOS)?
XH-A1 filmmaking
- Thread starter niceguy15
- Start date
Depth Of Peeled? Kind of like Mit Out Sound (MOS)?
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
But you could have a legendary story in annals of filmmaking abbreviations!!! Just say you're German or something, and it will spread like wildfire - and permanently change the abbreviation. Then, you can look at your grandkids someday and say, "you know I was the guy who changed DOF to DOP, and made up a story so good to go along with it, that it's STILL used on film sets everywhere, to this day - the suckers". At least think about it. Or not.
Last edited:
cheezweezl said:
not really. The codec on the xh-a1 is far superior than that on the Sonys which tainted the HDV name. I checked out some playback footage of HDV from the canon on a 50" plasma screen in birns and sawyer and there was very minimal artifacting.
Not to mention, when shooting in 720p mode on the HVX(which most people shoot in) the xh-a1 HDV stores more color information by comparison.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
JVC could easily prove this. I've seen the film out and you're out of gas on this one.-zach- said:
I'm going to say something I know will get my butt kicked but hell, it's only the internet. I think some of the HVX people see things in values (numbers/pixels) and the A1 people are looking at the image. Even I, who love Panasonic, can look at HDV footage and say it's generally very pleasing to the eye and comparable to the HVX stuff I've seen.
I will never forget seeing the JVC on the big screen at Columbia and they did compare it to the HVX. The JVC was HDV but held it's own against the HVX and a room full of film students really couldn't tell the difference. And one can perform all the test they want but the image is what pays the bills. Some Panasonic users needs to face the fact that the HDV can be as good as the HVX, if nothing else it's certainly as usable. And Zak did seem to say you can't do pro work on anything other than an HVX or above when everyone knows this kind of talk is generally considered the ramblings of a madman as professional work is currently being done on these cameras as we speak.
What I find odd is no one talks about the JVC anymore and I loved the image from that camera. With the right lens it looks just like film. I know Zak will disagree but you're average person simple wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
-Nate
Last edited:
Have anyone ever consider that all of this is much ado about nothing?
If we consider Zak's original statement, I believe all that he's saying is "If you have a mega-budget, you're not going to be using HDV."
If you hear that statement, what's the first thing you'll say? I'm pretty sure it'll be "Duh!!" If I have $10 million, I'm not gonna be shooting on an A1 or even an HVX. I get myself a few CineAlta, or Viper or even shoot on 35mm film. Why? Because those formats are better than HDV, no denying it. The meaning just got lost somewhere in translation.
If we consider Zak's original statement, I believe all that he's saying is "If you have a mega-budget, you're not going to be using HDV."
If you hear that statement, what's the first thing you'll say? I'm pretty sure it'll be "Duh!!" If I have $10 million, I'm not gonna be shooting on an A1 or even an HVX. I get myself a few CineAlta, or Viper or even shoot on 35mm film. Why? Because those formats are better than HDV, no denying it. The meaning just got lost somewhere in translation.
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei
Active member
It has a lot to do with his tone cause the way he put it, it does sound like he was saying that you can't do pro work with HDV though that might not be his intention in the first place.
Thing with text is there is no tone and it's easy to get the wrong impression.
That said, if all of us have the budget we want, we won't be using the HVX either. Cameras are just tools. There will be a right camera for the right situation.
Thing with text is there is no tone and it's easy to get the wrong impression.
That said, if all of us have the budget we want, we won't be using the HVX either. Cameras are just tools. There will be a right camera for the right situation.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
for those that missed it...
Last edited:
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Man some people here piss me off greatly. How about you guys get off your stool and stop throwing numbers and opinions at people. Not everyone is doing that but my god, give it a rest. Some HVX owners here are bratty little kids it seems who act like little snobs because they got the DVCPRoHD capable HVX. Kiss my ass all of you, get over your equipments "abilities" and go make something with it. If somebody put a film up on the big screen for you, and you just watched it and left, im sure you wouldn't even give a thought to what it was shot on. If there is an HDV movie up there and you dont know it ahead of time, odds are you wont even notice.
Honestly ive seen some amazing work from everyone here, DVX, HVX, XL2, DVC30, GS400, GL2, A1, etc. etc. etc. and it ends up coming down to the user everytime. Ive seen some shi**y work done with the HVX, sure it looks great but when an audience leaves the theater is that what they're gonna be talking about? NO, just how your film stunk up the place. I know a guy who owns a DVX and whenever I show him something of mine, the first thing out of his mouth EVERY TIME is:
"Looks good, but its not very film like."
Come on people, have we really sunk that low that we can't even look at the story or something but go straight for the image. I'm just plain sick of it.
Back kinda on topic: HDV has its issues yes but its better than what it once was. If I had more money ide go for a better camera, probably the HVX, but I see the Canon A1 in no way a hindered camera. Other than the medium which can perfectly suffice for me since my output is internet and DVD.
HVX even if I had the dough wouldn't have been my best choice because I dont own a laptop. In the field I was going to use Barry's method of using a firewire HD hooked to the camera until I found out from him that the copy time to dump an 8GB card was about the same time it would take to capture the footage if it was on tape. Couple other reasons but mostly price. DVCPRoHD looked great but it wasn't practical for me at the time b/c of price. Thats nothing against the codec because it is great, but people have gotten so choked up on its abilities that they have thrown HDV out completely and rendered it "completely unuseable." Its utter rubbish, you might as well say DV is unusable and go get rid of your DVX for you film look junkies out there. HDV has its differences from DV but the fact people bring up the most is the bandwith. I know HDV compresses HD footage to DV tape and not a smaller SD image like DV does but even so, I hear no complaints about DV at all.
I could ramble forever, point being, HDV isn't useless, it can look good on the big screen, its been used for some great stuff, and the HVX likewise but all cameras have their share of crappy users so ive seen bad footage from all of them alike. Its not the camera people, im telling you right now. Too all you misinformed DVX/HVX users out there who get on their footstools about who has the better equipment...go F yourself. Not to all of you of coarse but the ones who have nothing to say about anything except how great their camera is. Go make a film and shut up lol. The HVX is awesome, but the Canon A1 is completely capable....without a doubt in my mind.
- Kyle
Honestly ive seen some amazing work from everyone here, DVX, HVX, XL2, DVC30, GS400, GL2, A1, etc. etc. etc. and it ends up coming down to the user everytime. Ive seen some shi**y work done with the HVX, sure it looks great but when an audience leaves the theater is that what they're gonna be talking about? NO, just how your film stunk up the place. I know a guy who owns a DVX and whenever I show him something of mine, the first thing out of his mouth EVERY TIME is:
"Looks good, but its not very film like."
Come on people, have we really sunk that low that we can't even look at the story or something but go straight for the image. I'm just plain sick of it.
Back kinda on topic: HDV has its issues yes but its better than what it once was. If I had more money ide go for a better camera, probably the HVX, but I see the Canon A1 in no way a hindered camera. Other than the medium which can perfectly suffice for me since my output is internet and DVD.
HVX even if I had the dough wouldn't have been my best choice because I dont own a laptop. In the field I was going to use Barry's method of using a firewire HD hooked to the camera until I found out from him that the copy time to dump an 8GB card was about the same time it would take to capture the footage if it was on tape. Couple other reasons but mostly price. DVCPRoHD looked great but it wasn't practical for me at the time b/c of price. Thats nothing against the codec because it is great, but people have gotten so choked up on its abilities that they have thrown HDV out completely and rendered it "completely unuseable." Its utter rubbish, you might as well say DV is unusable and go get rid of your DVX for you film look junkies out there. HDV has its differences from DV but the fact people bring up the most is the bandwith. I know HDV compresses HD footage to DV tape and not a smaller SD image like DV does but even so, I hear no complaints about DV at all.
I could ramble forever, point being, HDV isn't useless, it can look good on the big screen, its been used for some great stuff, and the HVX likewise but all cameras have their share of crappy users so ive seen bad footage from all of them alike. Its not the camera people, im telling you right now. Too all you misinformed DVX/HVX users out there who get on their footstools about who has the better equipment...go F yourself. Not to all of you of coarse but the ones who have nothing to say about anything except how great their camera is. Go make a film and shut up lol. The HVX is awesome, but the Canon A1 is completely capable....without a doubt in my mind.
- Kyle
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei said:
This is the best way I've seen of putting it... except you missed brunettes... but its all a matter of choice...
In reading this long thread I missed what the man who fell trailer was shot on... but look at it... its the skills of the dp and gaffer and director and acting... that I was watching... I wasn't looking was it interlaced or progressive... hdv or dvcprohd...
I was looking at a trailer that said watch me... rent me... or buy me...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Standard-def DVX.
Dennis Wood
DVXuser Sponsor
Looking over this thread I can see one issue that would concern me in a subjective evaluation. The Canon footage was captured using a different codec, and then re-encoded a second time. It's a good test if you're locked into that workflow, but for the purposes of this discussion, (comparing the cams rather than the workflow) they would ideally have been compared in the least processed workflow possible.
In this http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?articleId=192501232 rather popular review, every one of the cams tested had their issues. The A1 shares the XLH1's imaging engine, so I'd expect similar results. Canon's HDV implentation was recommened there as the best of the 25Mbps codecs. As far as the original question...I think the camera choice for a film (in the sub $10K area) has more to do with your workflow than anything else. I filmed the Chicago-Mac race last year which runs 3 days, non-stop. As part of a 8 man crew (working solo on the filming side), on a 40 ft racing boat, tape was the only workflow that worked...and is the only one I would consider if doing it again.
If one could buy a camera with the HV20's chromatic cleanliness, HVX's variable frame rates/codec, VX2100 sensitivity, XH-A1 HD tape workflow and customizations ... that's the one I'd be looking at. Unforturnately you can't so you have to decide on the best compromise based on your own needs.
In this http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?articleId=192501232 rather popular review, every one of the cams tested had their issues. The A1 shares the XLH1's imaging engine, so I'd expect similar results. Canon's HDV implentation was recommened there as the best of the 25Mbps codecs. As far as the original question...I think the camera choice for a film (in the sub $10K area) has more to do with your workflow than anything else. I filmed the Chicago-Mac race last year which runs 3 days, non-stop. As part of a 8 man crew (working solo on the filming side), on a 40 ft racing boat, tape was the only workflow that worked...and is the only one I would consider if doing it again.
If one could buy a camera with the HV20's chromatic cleanliness, HVX's variable frame rates/codec, VX2100 sensitivity, XH-A1 HD tape workflow and customizations ... that's the one I'd be looking at. Unforturnately you can't so you have to decide on the best compromise based on your own needs.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
i see what you're saying. in this case, a straight forward camera shootout wasnt what my friend was looking for. his intent was to see how his finished film would look, not his dailies. that required an examination of the workflow's impact.Dennis Wood said:
acquisition > ingest > grading > render > output.
by the way, Avid's DNxHD 220 codec, to my eyes, is indistinguishable from uncompressed.
I may not be the best person to be responding to this thread as I'm a newbie to all of this (3 weeks) but you know what? I don't give a sh*t what camera was used to film what. I cannot tell you how many times I have walked out of a theatre saying "they spent millions of dollars to make THIS?" Keep in mind these are features shot on 35mm film. I would rather watch a good film made on a HDV pro-sumer camera than some garbage financed by a major studio and filmed with a 35mm Panavision camera. Crap is crap and I don't care what you film it with. A steaming pile of sh*t doesn't look any better filmed with 35mm film or a 1 chip camcorder. Even I know this. When I direct my first feature (even if I have to act in it myself, direct it, be the cinematagrapher, editor, and sound man) you can rest assured that the STORY and the CHARACTERS will be the ingredients I look for. If I can't write a good script (or find someone who can) I won't waste my time or the moviegoers time making it. As far as HDV not being good enough for theatrical distribution if I'm not mistaken "November" was filmed using a DVX SD. "28 Days Later" was filmed on a SD Canon. Wouldn't HDV be even better? (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I won't take offense) "Blair Witch Project" made millions. We should be so lucky. I wonder how many people in the movie theatre watching "28 Days Later" said " Honey we have to leave, this was filmed on a Canon, not an HVX or Panavision let's get out of here". Talent will win out every time. I hope I have enough of that....I could care less what camera gets me there. Arguments about what cameras are good enough for theatrical release are irrelevant. If you made the next "Jurassic Park" or "Exorcist" or "Silence of the Lambs" using the Canon XHA1 (which I'm buying), or any other camera, the distributors would find a way to release it in theaters.
Mark
Mark
Last edited:
Mark that was probably the most intelegent answer i have read in this thread so far. Most people (including myself) are so caught up in having the "coolest" camera that they forget the most important part of making a film....which is tell a story, a story that can move others to tears or make them laugh outloud. Its not about what camera we use, it's about what talent we have. (i know i sounded too much like those southpark characters but i really did learn something today:crybaby: )
sparkle_and_fade
Member
I just sold my DVX100a to get a Canon A1. I need to shoot really long takes for my dramedy and tape will only suffice.
If I was shooting a Robert Rodriguez type flick with a lot of cuts and needed the dynamics of variable framerates, I would go with the HVX200 easy.
But it all boils down to the same thing in the end:
the craft of the filmmaker and the crafting of his/her story
Ellen Kuras won the Sundance excellence in cinematography for Personal Velocity(DVX100)
If I was shooting a Robert Rodriguez type flick with a lot of cuts and needed the dynamics of variable framerates, I would go with the HVX200 easy.
But it all boils down to the same thing in the end:
the craft of the filmmaker and the crafting of his/her story
Ellen Kuras won the Sundance excellence in cinematography for Personal Velocity(DVX100)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Actually "Personal Velocity" wasn't even a DVX, that was a Sony PD150. DVX won for "November", but Personal Velocity did it first and it was a PD150.
Elton
Veteran
I just watched a bit of "Iraq in Fragments" at the local arthouse theatre today. Man, what a harrowing doc. Glad I couldn't stick around for the whole thing. Sheesh.
The DVX did its job quite well. The film print looked pretty decent, and in the future I can only imagine how much better these budget HD cameras will look on the big screen, whether for docs or drama.
The DVX did its job quite well. The film print looked pretty decent, and in the future I can only imagine how much better these budget HD cameras will look on the big screen, whether for docs or drama.