NO 24p in PAL HVX200

mikkowilson said:
Oh yeah, and regarding that "we want 60p for slow-motion in PAL": Does anyone care to explain to me how you plan to record 60 frames into a 50 frame data stream?
Click to expand...

You don't record any "data stream". You could record a clip in file format with 60pN flag. Same thing with all "pN" formats. You can't even stream them through firewire.
Same thing eg. with 720pN48 with hvx200pal. It cannot be streamed.

For the time being, I think the biggest problem is that FCP doesn't still support 720p50.
I'm holding my hvx200 purchase at least so long that I get the info when FCP will start to support it.

I find it a bit surprising how other companies co-operate with apple.
Eg. why adobe didn't make intel-mac version of CS2 or AE7?
They have known about this intel switch at least from last summer.

Dream of having "global standards" in tv/hd/movie/ip-video seems to be all the time further away. Instead we are getting all the time new variations.

Btw. that 720p48 idea for film out is very nice. With 48p and 360° shutter you get exactly the same than with film camera 24p and 180° shutter. Too bad you can't use 1440x1080 resolution with this.
 
AshG said:
There is no human that could discern 24P from 25P stop your whining and your protests.


ash =o)
Click to expand...

There's a process of conversion from 24p to 25p and vice-versa, and this takes time and money. Stop attacking people who want usefull options.
 
Some people will never be satisfied. We got variable framerates, and people ***** about there not being enough.

We got 720P and 1080P, and people complain without looking at the footage it's producing.

We got P2 so that the camera is in most people's pricerange, and we even got a minidv transport to insure that we can use the camera for great SD work, and people ***** that the tape transport shouldn't be there.

The camera is what it is, you know what the specs are, we've known for eleven months. If you're not happy with all the features, buy something else...

Enough already.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Some people will never be satisfied. We got variable framerates, and people ***** about there not being enough.

We got 720P and 1080P, and people complain without looking at the footage it's producing.

We got P2 so that the camera is in most people's pricerange, and we even got a minidv transport to insure that we can use the camera for great SD work, and people ***** that the tape transport shouldn't be there.

The camera is what it is, you know what the specs are, we've known for eleven months. If you're not happy with all the features, buy something else...

Enough already.
Click to expand...

Are you from a PAL country? No? What we are asking is for this camera, which is very good, to be on par to the competition concerning this feature. Every HDV camera is capable of Pal and NTSC recording (even the Canon, with a $500 dollar upgrade). If the camera had this option than it would be a no brainer. Don't come to me with the advantages the HVX offers above the others. Its been stated before that all the HD 1/3 ccds cameras perform very closely. We PREFER the HVX due to the excelent DVX that preceeded it (And Varicam and SDX900 users might say its because of these models). However, we have to justify to the rational part of us that lives side by side with the emotional part, and the fact is, the HVX producees the beautifull DVX image in HD, but lacks some features the competition has on offer, namelly ntsc and pal recording, Tape recording for HD (still the best affordable solution for longform), HD-sdi out (only on the Canon), interchangeable lenses (canon and JVC), Higher Resolution (Canon, JVC- the jvc is debatable).

Having ntsc and pal compatibility would be definetly a major plus for the undecided people.

I love the dvx image and AM getting an HVX. This doesn't mean that I can't think rationaly to what is presented to me and what is indeed a fault.
 
Last edited:
The camera is already made, and the features are already set in stone. Complaining about the lack of having both 24P and 25P is not going to change the camera. It would be great to have both, but we don't. And unless Panasonic decides to make an HVX200a that's NTSC and Pal compatible, you're just out of luck. We've already got the point.

Belaboring the point is kind of like screaming at a brick wall. The wall isn't gonna move, you need to walk around it, or find some other camera that offers what you want with the least amount of compromise.
 
There hasn't been a SINGLE pal camera report untill today. Panasonic Broadcast , to this day, still states the Pal camera's specs as "Preliminary".

But probably you are right. Then again, maybe we can guarantee a change in the hvx200a revision (which Jan didn't deny the possibility of).
 
Another thought, if you have the money to bump video to film, you should be shooting on film in the first place. It will cost you at least thirty thousand dollars to transfer a ninety minute film to 35mm. The chances of a film being picked up and having a wide release are well...let's just say that you have a better chance of a brick wall picking itself up and moving out of your way. :)
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Another thought, if you have the money to bump video to film, you should be shooting on film in the first place. It will cost you at least thirty thousand dollars to transfer a ninety minute film to 35mm. The chances of a film being picked up and having a wide release are well...let's just say that you have a better chance of a brick wall picking itself up and moving out of your way. :)
Click to expand...

Then why do you shoot in 24p and not in 30p then? Why does the majority of people go for 24p? Because we all want to do a film, but are realistic and know many aren't picked for film out. Shooting on film is very expensive, and doesn't give you the freedom of shoothing Digital.

If your film is good, you shouldn't have a problem finding sponsors to bump it to film, at least in Europe.

I didn't know you had so much lack of confidence in your work, Isaac. I certainly believe in mine and must do so in order to create my shorts/ features! Filmmaking is a dream. And one has to be confident enough in order to reach that dream. And the majority of the people here are or aim to be filmmakers. What's the problem of going for that?
 
Nothing wrong with going for that. But to make such a fuss over slowing 25P to 24P seems to be a little drastic. I think the quality of your work is more important than a feature on a camera allowing you to shoot 25 or 24 frames per second. Both framerates are adequate for film transfer. There's nothing wrong with shooting 25P. The focus should be on content. Your story isn't going to live or die because you shot it at 25P. You can't blame the camera for bad storytelling.

I think the discussion is morphing a little. Yes, people aim to be filmmakers. I just think that if you want the dream to come true, you'd better have a good grasp of the reality and challenges you're facing. It's best to know how much your film will cost, and how much money is needed to transfer it to film. You'd better have a rock solid script, and a great story that will transcend any other technical issues that come along the way.

Dreaming is fine, it's nurtuing for the soul, but it's much better to do it with your feet on the ground and to know exactly what you're getting into, what the odds are, and realize what you need to do to beat those odds. And even better, knowing your limitations will allow you to find people with the skills you lack.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Nothing wrong with going for that. But to make such a fuss over slowing 25P to 24P seems to be a little drastic. I think the quality of your work is more important than a feature on a camera allowing you to shoot 25 or 24 frames per second. Both framerates are adequate for film transfer. There's nothing wrong with shooting 25P. The focus should be on content. Your story isn't going to live or die because you shot it at 25P. You can't blame the camera for bad storytelling.

I think the discussion is morphing a little. Yes, people aim to be filmmakers. I just think that if you want the dream to come true, you'd better have a good grasp of the reality and challenges you're facing. It's best to know how much your film will cost, and how much money is needed to transfer it to film. You'd better have a rock solid script, and a great story that will transcend any other technical issues that come along the way.

Dreaming is fine, it's nurtuing for the soul, but it's much better to do it with your feet on the ground and to know exactly what you're getting into, what the odds are, and realize what you need to do to beat those odds. And even better, knowing your limitations will allow you to find people with the skills you lack.
Click to expand...

That's why we want 24p on a DIGITAL VIDEO camera. We can't afford film. We don't have much money. We don't want the hassle of conversion, pitch change, etc.. We believe on our work. We hope that, after we do our affordable 24p film, a producer or investor will help us get it to film. We only need the digital form of our film to enter certain festivals. If the video enters, we can find sponsor for the film transfer.
 
Then let the sponsor worry about converting 25p to 24p and that solves your problem. The fests will be able to screen your DVD.
 
"And even better, knowing your limitations will allow you to find people with the skills you lack."

Isn't filmmaking a TEAM effort? You can't direct, act, hold the camera, do the lighting, make-up, script, storyboard, location contact, decoupage, etc. All by yourself, can you?

What the digital era brought us is the possibility of letting new exciting visions to come up without the need of a spectacular budget.
It didn't took away the team element of it. In a film, it's not only the director's dream that is at stake. Is the DP's, the cameraman, the actors, the make-up artists, the editors, etc. Somethimes you can be a couple of these things in your production. However, it is still a team creation and a group effort.

The less you need to worry about in post- like 25p to 24p- the better. No audio pitch problems, no timecode sinc issues, no frame conversion at all. Is this minimal? Yes. But troublesome and time consuming- Yes indeed. Do you know how much a post house charges for this type of conversion? Its a couple of hundred bucks. This is money that could very well be spent elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Isaac_Brody said:
Some people will never be satisfied. We got variable framerates, and people ***** about there not being enough.
Click to expand...
This is not about "never". It's about getting the same than with ntsc model.
Remember that pal version is going to be more expensive than ntsc model.
And the fact that design is already done does not make it any more justified.

About 24p being useless in Europe, guess what framerate people here use with cinealta if they know there's going to be filmout. Tell them to use 25p instead...
 
Okay this discussion is getting really silly.

How are you distributing your production?

If you are producing for film-out then you need to get the NTSC model or put up with having to conform from 25 to 24fps (which is inconvenient but really not a major issue).

If you are producing for TV or DVD then you need to use the PAL model or put up with pull-down removal AND conforming from 24fps to 25pfs.

If you are producing for both DVD and for Film or both sides of the Atlantic then you are going to have to deal with conversion at some point. And that is true whether you shoot with a camera capable of both frame rates or not!

Be sensible about your workflow. Budget properly for the equipment you need. And stop dreaming about theatrical distribution on a shoe-string. If it's good enough to make money in a cinema, then hell-yeah your distributor is going to spring for the transfer fee. If it ain't really going to make any money in a cinema, then would you be better off straight to DVD... or just dumping it in the trash?

It's a shame that the HVX-200E isn't as world-centric as some of the other camera's available, but it really isn't an issue. Choose a workflow and stick with it.
 
SPZ said:
Every HDV camera is capable of Pal and NTSC recording
Click to expand...
This is not remotely close to being true.

There is only one HDV camera that can record PAL and NTSC; the Sony Z1.

The Sony FX1 cannot, the Sony HC1 cannot, the Sony A1 cannot, the JVC HD1 cannot, the HD10 cannot, the HD100 cannot. The HD100 can shoot 24p and 25p and 30p in high-def, but the US version cannot do PAL, and the European version cannot do NTSC.

The XLH1 could do both if you paid a $500 upgrade, but it's the only camera besides a Z1 that could.
 
SPZ said:
Then why do you shoot in 24p and not in 30p then? Why does the majority of people go for 24p?
Click to expand...
Because it looks like film. Not for transferring to film, but for viewing on television. 24P looks like film that's been transferred to video.

Just like 25p in Europe. European film gets transferred to 25p on television.
 
weird

weird

mikkowilson said:
Where Sony and Canon manage 6 and 10 modes, you want Panny to douple their whopping 23 to 42?
In a 5lb camera?
- Mikko
Click to expand...

OK, this kind of point is made in various forums whenever people complain about missing features, and it's just amazing that technically experienced people still think this way. It's as if people believe these devices have different sets of gears inside to support different speeds, and how could they fit a whole extra transmission or set of cams in there to make the works spin at two different speed multiples?

It's just programming, folks. It costs very little and takes up no space whatsoever (oscillator issue notwithstanding, but given that other cameras manage it, I doubt that's a big deal). This is not to attack Mikko or really take sides on this wider debate, but in modern cameras there's rarely a good excuse for missing operating modes like this one. The Canon 300D SLR was a great example; people complained about some fairly major missing modes, and others made all the same arguments: "Hey, it's way cheaper than the competition; they couldn't squeeze all those features in, whiners." Well, of course, it turns out that they sure did have those features in there, and people hacked it and have enabled a bunch of them.
 
Unfortunatly electronics stil follow the rules of physics.
I agree, you can work wonders with programing these days.

But why is a desktop faster than a laptop?

You refer to the oscilator, well that is one major issue.

The unfortunate thing is that cameras, and a LOT of modern equipment takes "short cuts" in the way they are made. "oh it's just software" is jsut as bad as "we'll fix it in post".
I'm sure if you look at the systems (hard and soft) of the HVX you will see a huge amount of unconventional stuff, all tweaked to manage the tasks it can do. I'm not saying sloppy, but unconvetional. Workgin around the restrictions hits shortcomings.

For example, if you make the camera PAL and NTSC agile, then what do you do abotu all the analog circuits? they are different in each case. They have difference specs that do require different physical parts. And how about the chips? they are optimixed for each format. even in HD, every single aspect of the formats is seperate.

If it was all software, then broadcast cameras wouldn't be as big as they are!
It still takes hardware to do somethign properly.

- Mikko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top