they arent concerned with recording format they are concerned with the quality of the origionation, 1/3" chips. as far as discovery is concerned HVX footage is coal in a really pretty silk stocking.
720p or 1080i for Docu?
- Thread starter nick_m_777
- Start date
they arent concerned with recording format they are concerned with the quality of the origionation, 1/3" chips. as far as discovery is concerned HVX footage is coal in a really pretty silk stocking.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Yep, I think you are right. I was reading one of the magazines yesterday and it described the guys that shoot one of the fishing shows for ESPN 2. They had to go out and buy two HPX-500s, full packages, which by my calculations, would cost around $60,000.00 with everything you really need. If you sell a series and your production budget for a season is over a million dollars, yeah, what's the big deal about acquiring two 2/3" chip cameras?
There are very few "Cinderella Stories" of people getting a series on Discovery and shooting it on prosumer cameras anyway. Most of the prodcos that have shows on Discovery are "real" production companies with that type of gear anyway. Heck the pilots I am working on would be shot on the HVX, but if sold, I would buy an HPX in a heartbeat.
Best,
Dan
2/3" cameras have better dynamic range, signal clarity, lower noise, better color reproduction, they are better in EVERY way.
a SDX900 DVCpr050 4:2:2 camera takes a better picture than a HVX200 in 1080p. the HVX may have more resolution, but the SDX just takes a gorgeous picture.
kinda the difference between a DVX100 frame grab and a 1.2 megapixel Cell phone cmaera. the DVX100 just looks good. the Cellphone...... not so much event hough its 1280x1024.
a SDX900 DVCpr050 4:2:2 camera takes a better picture than a HVX200 in 1080p. the HVX may have more resolution, but the SDX just takes a gorgeous picture.
kinda the difference between a DVX100 frame grab and a 1.2 megapixel Cell phone cmaera. the DVX100 just looks good. the Cellphone...... not so much event hough its 1280x1024.
I think the network just doesn't want to admit that content can be shot with one 1/3 of a crew and 2/3 of a CCD. A friend of mine was producing a 4-camera sitcom for FOX television, this year, and one of their 4 rigs was a HVX shooting at 1080i to match work flow and quality of their 3 other monsters. Lucky enough to participate to a couple of sound mix sessions, i had the chance to see with my own eyes on a screen as big as you can find in smaller theaters, the actual difference between the 2 camcorders... Guess what? Unless you're an expert in HD, a still photographer, a D.P. or a cameraman, since the lighting is excelent, it's sincerely hard to make the difference. But maybe the difference would really jump out if the HVX was shooting the exact same set ups, not close ups, thus in 720P instead of 1080i... That's precisely what i (and apparently many of us) wish we could compare. This while i'm personally having hard time to decide what rez ratio to go with, as it is hard for me to give up the killer 60 fps slow-mo option that can't be achieved in 1080i mode.
PS: if anyone have experience around this particular topic, please help. My background is action/fashion photography, and while i'm going to be shooting an ultra-low-budge climbing film, i have no idea if Final Cut will be able to deliver a slow-mo sequence rendered from a 1080 shot as smooth as it would be if having been grabbed directly in 720/24P. Yes, if anyone knows - please tell !
PS: if anyone have experience around this particular topic, please help. My background is action/fashion photography, and while i'm going to be shooting an ultra-low-budge climbing film, i have no idea if Final Cut will be able to deliver a slow-mo sequence rendered from a 1080 shot as smooth as it would be if having been grabbed directly in 720/24P. Yes, if anyone knows - please tell !
Last edited:
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
If you deliver on a HDCam Tape they are happy with HVX Footage.
They send no detctives to find out what equipment you used as long as they like the outcome.
I remember the super picky ZDF (National Federal Broadcast) when DV format appeared.
They never would accept DV back then - We sold them 6 docus, shot on 3 Chip DV Consumer Cam but printed it to Digibeta tape.
The quality controll guy looked at it and said:
"Ahh, this is the quality we want, not crapy DV!"
I said "yeah, right" and left the building with a big grin ;-)
Frank
They send no detctives to find out what equipment you used as long as they like the outcome.
I remember the super picky ZDF (National Federal Broadcast) when DV format appeared.
They never would accept DV back then - We sold them 6 docus, shot on 3 Chip DV Consumer Cam but printed it to Digibeta tape.
The quality controll guy looked at it and said:
"Ahh, this is the quality we want, not crapy DV!"
I said "yeah, right" and left the building with a big grin ;-)
Frank
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Not even close. The HVX's VFR makes the video look very much like S16 shot with an SR2 High Speed, but in my mind, it's even cleaner and clearer. FCP/AE whether paired with Twixtor, or anything else, is not even going to come close in quality. Interpolated combined frames are just not going to match shooting real extra frames of information. Twixtor can look good but the HVX's native VFR looks much better.
Dan
Ah, Dan, totally makes sense. And that's all i needed to hear to decide what recording format to go with. I think you just saved me lots of test and headache over this wonder. Thanks !
Now here's another one for you, since you seem to really know your ship... I can't afford a full-blown HD field monitor but would not even consider shooting with such a camera without one, and i don't trust (what my eye can see on) smaller LCD monitors - even if Marshall - because footage always looks alright at that size.
And so while i'm still learning the camera from my bed (which i'm having to keep because of a minor rock climbing accident but who cares), i'm thinking my 26" Sony BRAVIA S-Series LCD HD could do it just fine... Whatchuthink? My only concern being that the picture on this smaller screen or on my other Philips HD 42" looks so amazing, that i might just be fooloing myself, especially with colors !
Should i shoot in CINELIKE-D instead of V and tweak the edited footage in post ? Please someone send me THE perfect file-scene settings for an action/fashion feature documentary : )
PS: Aside from my Nikon's i had only been working so far with an XL and FX1 so right now even injured i'm like a kid who discovered a candy store. Going to put a Letus Extreme on that to work with long focals at 2.8, whoo, woo. Will post some grabs as early as i figure the download thing... Thanks again for helping out !
http://www.kidsofclimbing.com
Now here's another one for you, since you seem to really know your ship... I can't afford a full-blown HD field monitor but would not even consider shooting with such a camera without one, and i don't trust (what my eye can see on) smaller LCD monitors - even if Marshall - because footage always looks alright at that size.
And so while i'm still learning the camera from my bed (which i'm having to keep because of a minor rock climbing accident but who cares), i'm thinking my 26" Sony BRAVIA S-Series LCD HD could do it just fine... Whatchuthink? My only concern being that the picture on this smaller screen or on my other Philips HD 42" looks so amazing, that i might just be fooloing myself, especially with colors !
Should i shoot in CINELIKE-D instead of V and tweak the edited footage in post ? Please someone send me THE perfect file-scene settings for an action/fashion feature documentary : )
PS: Aside from my Nikon's i had only been working so far with an XL and FX1 so right now even injured i'm like a kid who discovered a candy store. Going to put a Letus Extreme on that to work with long focals at 2.8, whoo, woo. Will post some grabs as early as i figure the download thing... Thanks again for helping out !
http://www.kidsofclimbing.com
Ah, ah, Frank, i know what you're saying ! Same here as a still photographer, when a couple years ago "you" had to work with a $5,000 camera to offer 12 mega-pixels stock or no one would take you serioulsy... when of course it is and will always be about lighting and the optics.
To make it short, i finally had to buy such a rig, because the editors would not let me shoot their cover, otherwise. And so i went and worked witout an assistant like a mad-man, screened everything before wrapping, was not totally buy OK, then all of a sudden something is happening right in the front of me, and the light is just amazing, and i'm like... damn, the only camera i can use in the instant with that perfect lighting of the momen, is my "old" and only 6 mega-pixel camera, so i grabbed it, yea, like a pistol out of its holster, fired, and knew it would be THE shot that would make zhe cover... I'm saying "zhe" because everybody's alway teasing me bc i'm french.
To conclude, using some tricks we all know, i stretched the image by about 30% to make it fit the 12 mega-pixel requirements and included it in my selects, to later hear that same editor saying: "told to get rid of that piece of crap... now you're having the cover." Ah, ah, yea, use lots of light and good lenses, guys, you'll fool everyone but yourself and your valet : )
http://kidsofclimbing.com/home
To make it short, i finally had to buy such a rig, because the editors would not let me shoot their cover, otherwise. And so i went and worked witout an assistant like a mad-man, screened everything before wrapping, was not totally buy OK, then all of a sudden something is happening right in the front of me, and the light is just amazing, and i'm like... damn, the only camera i can use in the instant with that perfect lighting of the momen, is my "old" and only 6 mega-pixel camera, so i grabbed it, yea, like a pistol out of its holster, fired, and knew it would be THE shot that would make zhe cover... I'm saying "zhe" because everybody's alway teasing me bc i'm french.
To conclude, using some tricks we all know, i stretched the image by about 30% to make it fit the 12 mega-pixel requirements and included it in my selects, to later hear that same editor saying: "told to get rid of that piece of crap... now you're having the cover." Ah, ah, yea, use lots of light and good lenses, guys, you'll fool everyone but yourself and your valet : )
http://kidsofclimbing.com/home
Last edited:
caseyhayward
Active member
My .02
My .02
Hey,
This is a good question thread. I think you were smart to post. I am finishing up a feature doc shot on the HVX at the moment. I shot 720 24pn for two reasons:
1) space, I only had 8 GB cards available
2) variable frame rates, I thought I wanted to do some slow mo.
In hindsight I did not need to pick my shooting format based on variable frame rates and I shot so little slow mo it really could have been faked with a good plugin in post. That handful of shots should not have guided my whole doc.
As for the storage concerns, the 720 24 footage has helped keep my RAID from filling up but with bigger P2 cards out now and a little bigger investment in HDDs I probably would choose to shoot in 1080 if I had it to do over again.
Hope this helps.
My .02
Hey,
This is a good question thread. I think you were smart to post. I am finishing up a feature doc shot on the HVX at the moment. I shot 720 24pn for two reasons:
1) space, I only had 8 GB cards available
2) variable frame rates, I thought I wanted to do some slow mo.
In hindsight I did not need to pick my shooting format based on variable frame rates and I shot so little slow mo it really could have been faked with a good plugin in post. That handful of shots should not have guided my whole doc.
As for the storage concerns, the 720 24 footage has helped keep my RAID from filling up but with bigger P2 cards out now and a little bigger investment in HDDs I probably would choose to shoot in 1080 if I had it to do over again.
Hope this helps.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Hi:
I use a 17" Sony consumer HD LCD that is no longer made as my field monitor. Honestly, the only thing a broadcast type of monitor buys you is color accuracy, I can totally judge focus and exposure on this monitor, I think it's resolution is 1024 x 768 if memory serves. Where it gets trickier is after the shoot, then, if you are doing the on-line edit, it does help to have a more color accurate monitor. When those cases come up, I usually rent a $20,000.00 broadcast monitor for a few days, output, then happily go back to my cheap Sony for off-line or for cutting lower end projects for the web and DVD delivery.
In my experience, the main thing when you shoot is focus and secondarily, is your exposure. The camera's zebras are always more accurate than a monitor in regards to exposure. Color can be handled in post and the color correction tools are getting so good (FCP's three way is good and Color is great) that even if you blow the colors while lighting or have an incorrect white balance setup, it can be brought back to where it should be in post these days pretty easily.
The thing too is that most consumers are now viewing on badly setup, inaccurate LCDs anyway so we have all somewhat thrown our hands up as far as worrying about how to make it look perfect for everyone, it never will. You need to be accurate but everytime I have a tv show air, when I see it over the air, they compress and mess around with the signal so much that it never looks right anyway. The gamma is always off and the noise added by Direct TV or cable is so bad that it almost doesn't matter anymore.
To me, I have heard nothing but bad things about the the Bravia sets, I would not have a 26" location monitor either, that is too large and it will be a drag to drag it around on shoots unless you always are going to have a full crew of PAs to lug it and set it up and break it down. The Panasonic BT-LH1700 is a great location monitor but it is pretty expensive too. Not sure what the perfect solution would be for you.
As far as which Cine gamma to use, I use B-Press and HD Norm more than the Cine like settings, they are a bit too noisy for my taste. I have tried them and I have obtained some cool looks but they are always too noisy.
Dan
I use a 17" Sony consumer HD LCD that is no longer made as my field monitor. Honestly, the only thing a broadcast type of monitor buys you is color accuracy, I can totally judge focus and exposure on this monitor, I think it's resolution is 1024 x 768 if memory serves. Where it gets trickier is after the shoot, then, if you are doing the on-line edit, it does help to have a more color accurate monitor. When those cases come up, I usually rent a $20,000.00 broadcast monitor for a few days, output, then happily go back to my cheap Sony for off-line or for cutting lower end projects for the web and DVD delivery.
In my experience, the main thing when you shoot is focus and secondarily, is your exposure. The camera's zebras are always more accurate than a monitor in regards to exposure. Color can be handled in post and the color correction tools are getting so good (FCP's three way is good and Color is great) that even if you blow the colors while lighting or have an incorrect white balance setup, it can be brought back to where it should be in post these days pretty easily.
The thing too is that most consumers are now viewing on badly setup, inaccurate LCDs anyway so we have all somewhat thrown our hands up as far as worrying about how to make it look perfect for everyone, it never will. You need to be accurate but everytime I have a tv show air, when I see it over the air, they compress and mess around with the signal so much that it never looks right anyway. The gamma is always off and the noise added by Direct TV or cable is so bad that it almost doesn't matter anymore.
To me, I have heard nothing but bad things about the the Bravia sets, I would not have a 26" location monitor either, that is too large and it will be a drag to drag it around on shoots unless you always are going to have a full crew of PAs to lug it and set it up and break it down. The Panasonic BT-LH1700 is a great location monitor but it is pretty expensive too. Not sure what the perfect solution would be for you.
As far as which Cine gamma to use, I use B-Press and HD Norm more than the Cine like settings, they are a bit too noisy for my taste. I have tried them and I have obtained some cool looks but they are always too noisy.
Dan
Last edited:
peterschramm
New member
I recently saw the doc film "War Dance".
http://www.wardancethemovie.com/
It was shot with in 24P with a Panasonic Varicam, not sure which one. Article in American Cinematographer ends just before cinematographer says which one. See:
http://fine-films.com/press/american-cinematographer/index.html
I saw it screened from DVD, I imagine it is on 35 mm in theatres. The film is up for an Oscar tonight for best feature documentary.
I loved the use of variable frame rates in the slow-motion! Wow! If anyone can tell me what camera was used, how much a comparable one costs now (film was shot in 2004 or 2005) and if the HVX-200 can create this type of look and slow-motion effect, that would be great!?
http://www.wardancethemovie.com/
It was shot with in 24P with a Panasonic Varicam, not sure which one. Article in American Cinematographer ends just before cinematographer says which one. See:
http://fine-films.com/press/american-cinematographer/index.html
I saw it screened from DVD, I imagine it is on 35 mm in theatres. The film is up for an Oscar tonight for best feature documentary.
I loved the use of variable frame rates in the slow-motion! Wow! If anyone can tell me what camera was used, how much a comparable one costs now (film was shot in 2004 or 2005) and if the HVX-200 can create this type of look and slow-motion effect, that would be great!?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Hi Peter:
I have not seen the film but I have shot with the Varicam quite a few times and I own an HVX-200. While the Varicam produces a much better picture than the HVX, the slow motion capablity on the HVX is every bit as good and as silky smooth as the Varicam. The HVX is actually much easier to produce slow motion with as you can shoot it and play it back instantly. With the Varicam, you have to load the footage into FCP, then run a frame removal utlity to actually see the slow motion, it is much more of a hassle.
The thing that the Varicam can do with VFR that the HVX cannot is ramping. The Varicam can actually ramp the speed of the shot up or down as the shot is being photographed. The HVX is not capable of this, although you could shoot everything at 60 fps and ramp it down and back up in post pretty easily.
Best,
Dan
Yo, Casey, your post does indeed help, tremendously, but it doesn't make it easier for me to decide, because i'm both running into, and the disk-space / valet-size problem, and the HD editing / final output concern. In some other words, i'm really but really tempted to trust your judgement and experience on that, but i also thanks to this forum learned that 720/24P was truly converting amazing to film, and that some great software out there could turn a 720 picture into a fantastic 1080.
This said, all the top-pros out there, including our mentor Barry Green, along with 80% of the network, will pick 1080P over anything because that's just where this camera performs at its best. Please someone correct me if i'm wrong.
And to me, a still photographer usually working in the worst conditions you can imagine, unless i'm shooting for a fashion or cosmetic magazine, i'm more and more getting the feeling that using 720 over 1080 would be like setting my digtal Nikon to medium rez when i can shoot in what it's been designed for in order to deliver the best possible shot.
So, am i making (and hopefully helping other people make) a decision, here ? Probably not, because i did especially bought this camera for the VFR and be able to pull slow-mo like a pro. And now i may have to do it all in post and it sucks. And since the option doesn't appear in the menu setting, i can't even figure how to set the HVX in 1080P mode ! Anyone ? Thanks !
This said, all the top-pros out there, including our mentor Barry Green, along with 80% of the network, will pick 1080P over anything because that's just where this camera performs at its best. Please someone correct me if i'm wrong.
And to me, a still photographer usually working in the worst conditions you can imagine, unless i'm shooting for a fashion or cosmetic magazine, i'm more and more getting the feeling that using 720 over 1080 would be like setting my digtal Nikon to medium rez when i can shoot in what it's been designed for in order to deliver the best possible shot.
So, am i making (and hopefully helping other people make) a decision, here ? Probably not, because i did especially bought this camera for the VFR and be able to pull slow-mo like a pro. And now i may have to do it all in post and it sucks. And since the option doesn't appear in the menu setting, i can't even figure how to set the HVX in 1080P mode ! Anyone ? Thanks !
Stingray,
This is from Creative Cow Magazine Dec 2006 / Feb 2007 issue. It is where I got my info regarding The Discovery Channel...
Quote
"Now, at the time I am writing this, both the History Channel and Discovery Channel - whom I also work with - do not accept HDV cameras as "B" cameras. The footage from the camera looks fine, and many people can make it look great. But it shoots MPEG-2 to tape and there are some production issues associated with that format. These networks set thier lower limit on the HVX-200 and its 100MB/s data rate.
Still, even with the HVX-200 as an acceptable B-camera, both Discovery Channel and The History channel put limits on the percentage of footage from it that can be used in the final project - no more than 25%. "
That was a year ago, some people are now saying they are limiting it to 10%...
Hope this helps some of you guys out there that are trying to put together some projects to pitch to them...
I'm shooting a tornado / storm chasing doc this spring on two hvx-200's and have obtained a RED One to use as my main camera after learning this and might also rent a varicam...
For what I'm doing the HVX's are perfect, I just wish thier standards would allow 100% hvx footage.
Last edited:
Thank you, Dan, for all these info. I was in fact very impressed by the B-Press over cine-like setting, in the first place, so going to give it another look... But i'm very sad to hear that my Sony Bravia Series field monitor alternative option won't work. Now, if those HDTV/monitors are that bad, would "any" smaller HDTV do the work, as long as i know what i'm getting and not getting ?
See, in still photography, i know that the LCD screen on the back of my Nikon's are not accurate, but it's precise enough to not totally mess up, then Photoshop is always there to fix things up... Would a smaller Spectre monitor be better than those Sony for what i'm trying to achieve ?
Sorry for still being stuck, here, and asking candid if not silly questions, while you guys are talking about Award filming films, but i sorta relaunched the dicussion with the 720 vs 1080 thread, and really need some help, urgh : )
peterschramm
New member
Thanks Dan,
The Oscars are on right now, so they may show a clip of the film? (You'd think they would for best documentary feature but when will it be???)
How much is a Varicam to buy or rent? Is there only one model of Varicam or several? (I just looked $45, 000 for an AJ-HDC27H. No wonder it looks so good!)
What I liked about the look of "War Dance" is how it had wonderful saturation, yet there was no "jerk" when the camera panned, it was smooth even when shot in 24P. (I have shot with DVX-100B in 24PA and sometimes it was jerky on the pans.)
In "War Dance", there are slow motions of the dancers yet the image is crystal clear something I have never seen when shot in video, normally film would be needed.
There is a longer clip of the film here, but of course it is compressed
http://www.shineglobal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=28
I am really liking this type of look and wondering if I can reproduce similar results on an HVX-200? I know you have partially answered that question, but I decided to go into some more detail.
Thanks, Peter
puredrifting
Major Contributor
For many of those shots, the HVX could definitely capture footage in the same league although yes, it's hard to tell with a compressed web clip. The slow motion on the HVX is amazingly clear and beautiful, just like this.
The Varicam? Yes, there is only one model but there have been two or three updates to it with just minor changes and mods but the basic camera is the same.
If you are shooting daylight exteriors like this, I think you would be quite happy with the result of the HVX-200, to me it's VFR is one of the best features about the camera. It's when you go into low light and with much wider shots with a lot more detail that the much larger chips and much higher quality picture of the Varicam would blow the HVX away. It's like everything else, good filmmakers work within the limitations of their gear to create beautiful, compelling images. I have shot some amazing stuff with my HVX with VFR, I love it.
If you can afford a Varicam, get it, it's a MUCH better camera and for eight to ten times the price, it had better be. If you are on the low budget side of things and don't want to deal with HDV, your only real choices are the HVX or the EX-1.
Dan
bikefilms
Well-known member
I have shot almost 100% 720p at 24fps over the past year for documentary productions. The 24PN feature makes it the best use of space on my memory cards.
Sure, if I could afford to be less mobile I'd certainly use a FireStore or like device for long record times using 1080 res.
Best,
Andrew
Sure, if I could afford to be less mobile I'd certainly use a FireStore or like device for long record times using 1080 res.
Best,
Andrew
