A whack of questions about playing catch-up on a shoe-string budget

psibbald

Member
I know this is a lot of questions at once, but my sense from having explored this forum for a while is that it is a community full of wisdom, experience and generosity of spirit (even if also a few prickly personalities). So, I'd be grateful if people even answered only some of them. BTW, I started this thread on the HV200 board and am placing it also under this GH1 discussion list as with the exception of the AVCHD issue (see below), it seems a likely candidate for my needs as well as the HV200s.

1. Is there any sort of practical work around that will allow AVCHD to be edited on a PowerMac G5 (Dual Core 2 GHz w 8 GB Ram) or is one simply best either to avoid cameras using that codec (and hence many of the newer style SDHC solid state media capture devices) or bite the bullet and give in to a major computer upgrade?

2. Am I crazy to be thinking about trying to edit HD in any form on my trusty PowerMac G5, even if it comes in, for example, as native .mov encoding for FCP from the HM100U?

3. Am I correct in my understanding that if there’s a lot of rapid horizontal action in my subjects, it is best to aim for 1080p, not 1080i, shot preferably on CCDs not CMOS?

4. Am I correct in my understanding that rapid subject action and the need for rapid camera panning militate against the 5D MkII due to viewfinder and rolling shutter issues?

5. If one can get a used/refurb/demo HV200, is it significantly inferior to the HV200a version? What are the benefits of the later model?

6. Do P2 cards wear out?

7. Is there any way to avoid the painful cost of P2 other than not to indulge those cams in the first place?

8. I've read elsewhere about indie-docs that had successful releases in the theatrical/festival milieu but couldn't break through into broadcast due to some technological shortcoming perceived by some buzz-smitten network exec who demands nothing short of Red One to air on his network. I assume there’s nothing one can say (other than to lie ☺) to sway such folks. The HV200 series cams are "below" the Red, and frankly, budget is an issue such that even an HV200 (version “a” or not) with a bunch of P2 cards, although possibly optimal, is rather a stretch.

Assuming however one is faced with a more reasonable exec and assuming that AVCHD won’t work for my post-production set-up, is it a plausible to plan to augment a consumer HDV cam (eg. an HV40 with 24p setup) decked out with add-ons such as a 35mm adapter, good fast glass, and a Beachtek type XLR with inputs control adapter (although I realize there is still no way to override the auto-audio gain in the camera) or perhaps better, a separate audio capture on eg. an H4n combined —in both cases, with a good mic (eg. a 416)? Can one achieve a base-line technical standard that will pass muster in the broadcast world, at least the public broadcaster world?

BTW, given the inherent violence and risk to gear of one of my projects there perhaps is some intrinsic value of sacrificing some of the manual controls to have a unit (and for that small cost therefore, a back-up unit) that is physically more disposable ( a "disposa-cam")), not to mention the intrinsic benefit of smaller size and weight for greater agility to get out of the way of trouble in the first place.

9. Again with the caveat implied in point 8 above, with the technology marketer’s push of full 1080p, assuming one is working with a good sensor and not overly compressed codec, is 720p just fine now or in the foreseeable for broadcast? I ask this because it appears that there may still be good deals to be found for “last year’s” shoulder-mounted 720 units.

10. One-person ENG units are ever more common in foreign and remote coverage situations because of increased travel costs and diminishing media budgets, and the enablement of miniaturization and computerization of gear, but in the documentary milieu where money is also tight yet higher production values may be expected/needed to meet end user expectations, what are the upsides and downsides of going it alone?

11. Can one person even manage physically and mentally all that A/V gear (along pads of release forms etc. as well as, in my case, with stills camera gear ), let alone do so successfully or is that scenario as much of a holy grail as the fabled anti-gravity camera? Perhaps it is only the province of some sort of film-making super hero, who most undoubtedly, I am not.

12. Presuming a documentary subject is intrinsically scintillating enough to carry the day and that one’s skills are not totally awful, has anyone on this forum done one person documentary unit thing successfully and/or otherwise worked out some form of bare-bones grunge indie up-close-and-personal style/ solo documentary approach that could pass muster for broadcast presentation? If so could you share your key lessons learnt?

13. In that case, what are the up sides—but in particular down sides—to this approach that were surprises for you to learn and that presumably I may not yet have discovered/thought of?

14. Am I biting off more than I can chew given the evident steepness of my learning curve?


-Peter
 
1. You can edit pro-res on your G5 if you convert your AVCHD footage to it using an intel machine.

2. G5 can probably handle the video relatively well: I have an 800mhz iMac G4 that can edit HVX footage as long as the film doesn't get too long (over 5-10 min.) That said, I would recommend upgrading...try picking up the entry level 13" Macbook Pro if price is an issue. AVCHD-->ProRes-->Final Cut Pro-->ProRes should be fine on that laptop, plus you can keep your G5 around to supplement it.

3. Rapid horizontal action is a problem with AVCHD more so than with CMOS or 1080i. The HVX technically shoots 1080i/24p and has no problems with it because it is CCD and DVCPRO HD, and the CMOS EX-1 doesn't seem to have too many problems with it. Macroblocking in fast horizontal GH1 footage is a result of the low-bitrate codec and (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) the lack of B-frames. Anyway it's easily work aroundable using 720p, and is often aggravated by people not removing pulldown properly.

4. I have not used a 5D MKII or done much research but I've heard that this might be the case. But, and this applies to above as well: there are not that many whip pans and super fast horizontal motion in most films, excluding action. Are you really going to be shooting that way? The reason I prefer the GH1 over 5D MKII is price, the very nice included kit lens, excellent manual controls, and my general preference for panasonic's user experience over canons (I've often said I don't trust canon cameras, lenses and photocopiers I am fine with :))

5. The 200a has superior low-light performance and a few other features, this is easily findable on the web, but the main changes are low-light performance and less grain + more detail in blacks, etc.

6. Yes, like all flash memory devices they have a limited number of read/write cycles before they are no-good anymore. Will buying used ones mean they're closer to dying? Yes. Are they likely to die before you stop using the standard? Probably not. I hear Panasonic is going to sell cheaper ones that die faster, (5 years of moderate-heavy use instead of 10 or something like that) which probably isn't bad if P2 is being replaced within 5 years, which I'd imagine the case is.

7. Yeah, new P2 cameras come with 16gb cards, and usually when people sell their used cameras you can get cards: my friend got his HVX200 with extra batteries, a 16gb p2 card, and 2 4gb p2 cards, for like $3500 on ebay, he has shot a ton of stuff on them over the course of the year or so he's had it, including two 40 minute films I worked with him on, each of which squeezed at least 250gb of raw footage through the cards, and we've had no problems. However his price he managed to get is the best I have ever heard of for what he got. Also the HVX's tape drive was non-functional (we were told so by the seller) but we don't really care.

8. Some networks want stuff better looking than RED :). But in this day and age, with so many people used to watching films on the internet and the like, the television studios are getting much less picky about what they want: in the ENG world they'll air cellphone footage if it shows things the best, and sometimes prefer it because it seems more 'real.' Parts of cloverfield were shot on HVX-200, sure it was trying to mimic a consumer camera, but the stuff still held up printed out to film on the big screen. I think they're always going to care more about the quality of your work than the quality of the image (in terms of technical details, not in terms of beauty) and I think any execs that could potentially reject it probably aren't that aware of the technical details of film, and the people that work there that are probably care more about what you did artistically. They're for the most part an SD format, and even those with HDTV service are used to watching SD content mixed with HD so any HD stuff, well shot, should look good there. Crank 2 was shot on XH-A1 and Vixia HF10, both of which don't match the HVX/HPX in my mind, and it was a feature film! Why did they do it? Because it kept the energy up and helped them make a better film, or at least one closer to what they wanted to make. as for consumer with 35mm over prosumer without: for filmmaking I'd say it's a toss up, but for documentary I'd say prosumer without. the adapters and other accessories add complexity, you want a camera that can be used like a camera to put out a good image, thats what you want prosumer stuff for.

9. 720p seems fine, if I'm not mistaken there is no 1080p HDTV broadcast, only 720p and 1080i, with 1080p stuff being all on-demand. 720p is as good as or arguably better than 1080i, and which which network uses seems somewhat arbitrary. (paraphrasing from HVX book...maybe this has changed, maybe I got it wrong when I remembered what Barry wrote, I don't know.)

10. End-user is your audience. If your audience can't tell you shot it all by yourself than why care? If your movie is better because you saved money on a crew and the audience likes it more then do that! Do what Robert Rodriguez did and just make up a bunch of names and positions for your credits to hide the fact you did most of the work yourself.

11. Depends on how much gear, what you're doing, and how talented you are. I'd say you probably always want two people: one for video, one for sound, maybe another to handle other stuff like lights, etc. This is especially true for shooting out in the world, you want a guy filming and a guy on boom, which is to say you and another person. This is also true even for shooting interviews, etc, in a fixed place, so your subject doesn't have to wait around while you, one man, fumble with equipment and setup lights and stuff. Your other guy can do that while you do a bit and help prep the subject for the interview.

12. Never done 1-person documentary but I know many other students that have, and you've described their work perfectly...I don't know about broadcast quality, but if I was running a network I'd be fine with putting it on!

13. It's too early for me to think critically. I suppose don't be so obsessed with getting your stuff broadcast. I know it's a cliche but this is the online youtube (or vimeo!) age and it's pretty easy to get your stuff out there, and if it's good, and people like it, they will come. And apparently money will too maybe? I don't know...it is sort of one of those MAKE MOVIE!!!---->?----->PROFIT! situations.

14. Maybe, if you really want to make documentary's I'd say find a crew that is looking for help on the web and go tag along with them, paid or otherwise, and help out and get a feel for it and get experience. There is no substitute for on the job experience. Half my answers to your questions are things I learned myself in the last 2-6 months, but I've been doing filmmaking long enough that I think I'd have a pretty good feel for most of them just simply from on-set experience. Get out there, get filming, and if you aren't sure what or how you should be doing, then go tag along with a crew that's done it before and learn from them. I promise you you'll make great friends and great films!
 
Last edited:
3. Am I correct in my understanding that if there’s a lot of rapid horizontal action in my subjects, it is best to aim for 1080p, not 1080i, shot preferably on CCDs not CMOS?
Depends on the look you want. If you want the "live", "video" look, then 1080i does that a lot better than 1080/24p or 1080/30p will. If you're looking for a filmlike look, 1080i stinks for that.

CMOS and CCDs handle motion differently, and CCDs will give a more expected motion rendition; CMOS can introduce leaning and skewing in the images.

5. If one can get a used/refurb/demo HV200, is it significantly inferior to the HV200a version? What are the benefits of the later model?
The only difference is in the chipset. 200A is half a stop faster, much cleaner in noise, better color reproduction and more smear resistance. But it's not a massively huge difference. It is a significant difference and I would definitely prefer a 200A over a 200, but ... incredible work has been done with the 200. It's no slouch.

6. Do P2 cards wear out?
Like all flash memory, eventually they will wear out. "R" and "A" series cards should last for at least 100,000 rewrite cycles. "E" series cards will not last nearly as long, according to Panasonic's estimate you should be able to fill them up once a day every day for five years.

7. Is there any way to avoid the painful cost of P2 other than not to indulge those cams in the first place?
Depends on what you mean by "painful". If "painful" means buying an XDCAM MPEG422 disc for $50, and a deck for $26,199 -- versus buying a P2 card for $420 and an Addonics card reader for $52, then I don't understand your definition of "pain." :D

But yes you can avoid P2 entirely on the HVX, if you want to use a FireStore or direct-connect the camera to a laptop computer via firewire.

Can one achieve a base-line technical standard that will pass muster in the broadcast world, at least the public broadcaster world?
Short answer: no. Your proposed equipment wouldn't make the cut at any broadcaster who's published any technical specs. So if you want to comply with the specs, don't even think about that stuff.

Now, the longer answer is: if your content is so riveting, so compelling, so unbelievably irresistible to the viewer, then they won't care what you shot it on. Think of the Kennedy assassination, or the Rodney King beating; those got broadcast a million times over, and they were shot on Super8 film or a consumer camcorder. Wouldn't pass specifications at any broadcaster, but the content was compelling.

Making a business plan that your content will be that compelling, however, is probably not all that wise. So if you really plan on selling it to a broadcaster, find out what they want, and give that to them. Ignore their rules at your own peril.

Depending on the nature of the project, they may make exceptions. Discovery, for example, rates the HVX200 as "Bronze" meaning you can't use it for more than 15% of a project's total footage. However, for a documentary on the Iditarod they waived that rule and in fact allowed it for 100% of the content. If your situation warrants it, they can make exceptions. And if your content is irresistible, they'll make exceptions.

is 720p just fine now or in the foreseeable for broadcast? I ask this because it appears that there may still be good deals to be found for “last year’s” shoulder-mounted 720 units.
ABC and NBC and ESPN are all-720 networks. 720 can be easily converted to 1080. With that said, if I was shooting something that was expected to have a long shelf life, I'd aim for 1080 instead.


12. Presuming a documentary subject is intrinsically scintillating enough to carry the day and that one’s skills are not totally awful, has anyone on this forum done one person documentary unit thing successfully and/or otherwise worked out some form of bare-bones grunge indie up-close-and-personal style/ solo documentary approach that could pass muster for broadcast presentation? If so could you share your key lessons learnt?
He's taking a break from filmmaking, but Marc Singer (no, not The Beastmaster) is the guy you could ask those questions of. His doc "Dark Days" was all one-man-band, on film, and won at Sundance. He was doing a doc on the marines in Iraq.
 
Most find that 1080i network shows have more detail (they do) and look better as a result. Some argue that 1080i video doesn't handle motion as well as 720p and that's probably true. But keep in mind that approximately 95% of all broadcast material is static or nearly static in nature, so motion issue don't come in to play very often.

In my personal observations on both my old Fujitsu plasmas and my newer Pioneer Kuro plasma, 1080i broadcasts really surpass 720p in detail. I see the same thing with the GH1's 1080 output vs its 720, there is much more detail in the 1080. For me the issue is motion judder with subject movement. I much prefer the buttery motion handling of the 720p mode which I wish the 1080 24p had.
 
Sounds like you want a hmc150. Cheap recording media, Cheaper than alot of the other cameras, lots of recording options.

Also I would recommend a hackintosh for editing. You can make it faster than most mac pros for half the price.

Don't recommend shooting a doc by your self because when they look at the footage they won't say it is pretty good for shooting it by your self. They will say you should have got help if it sucks.
 
I wouldn't recommend hackintosh-limited driver support, difficult to setup, potential problems, could easily be broken by apple with any update.
 
Thank you all gentlemen for taking the time to answer my questions. This really is a most extraordinary forum. I've been stuck in JDS's GH1 action short field test thread for hours. So much generosity and wisdom shared, so much hard work in evidence.

Barry, is there a central place where one can find the technical standards you referred to? From what you say, sounds like there is no way I’m ever going to pass muster for broadcast standards in the long run. And of course no one can bank on content carrying the thing, and so I need to be realistic that it may never get further than the web, I suppose. The thing is there is little budget and I simply need to get on with the project—time is short. I have some stories to tell and I need to find the tools to get on with it.

One could get stuck here permanently and never actively film anything, I suppose, and so I'll have to make some decisions on gear soon and get out into the field and learn from the school of hard knocks. There's no substitute for personal experience.

Then again, as to the esoterica of codecs, frame-rates and pull downs, there are so many pitfalls to discover, and so much reading is still necessary. It’s still overwhelming and I’m more than a little nervous about making catastrophic mistakes.

as for consumer with 35mm over prosumer without: for filmmaking I'd say it's a toss up, but for documentary I'd say prosumer without. the adapters and other accessories add complexity, you want a camera that can be used like a camera to put out a good image, that’s what you want prosumer stuff for.

I hear you on this. KISS principal. The prosumers would be the straightest forward choice.

The cheapest solution would be the consumer HV40 with an H4n and I could get to work right away, but I can predict from other palm cams I've used, I'd probably be driven crazy by the lack of manual controls. Add a decent 35mm adapter like a Letus and it could become the most expensive option. With a Jag, the cheapest option by far.

Where I'm getting to right now is that it is probably approximately a wash in terms of cost, one way another whether I acquire a used HVX200 that I can use with the computers I already have, or jump into the latest high compression solid state gear like the GH1 plus H4n + a new MacPro to convert the AVCHD (with a stop gap loaning or renting a Windows machine to get the video transcoded).

I have little doubt that the HVX 200 could do what I need, though the more recent versions that function better in low light are definitely more useful. I think my greatest reservation of about that camera is its physical weight, and then the cost of P2.

I must say the JDS action film tests are very persuasive of the potential of the GH1. Though the activity of filming a dramatic program versus a documentary are so different. In one case one has to be in complete control and one has the support of a number of crew whereas the other, as is often a case—at least based on my photo-documentary experience—of being always camera at the ready and being able to respond to things one is not in control of. And the budget won't allow for much of a crew, if any. (BTW, this is not a case of undervaluing a sound person: I know well the value of good mic placement. Rather what I need to develop are clever ways to achieve this solo.) I'm still not quite sure what tool those differences points to. Ben, you feel I'm better to go with the tried and true HVX (if I had the money I'd go with the HVX200a or probably even more likely because of the size and weight and wide-angle, with the 170 given the explanation provided above about 720p). What do others of you think?

A key cost difference will be the P2 cards for the prosumers. On the other hand, one has to keep in mind obsolescence and potential resale of gear if things don't work out. In the second case if it all doesn't work out, and even if the GH2 comes along within a year, I'm still left with an up-to-date laptop and a great walking around camera that happens to shot awesome video, and super little audio recorder. But in a year's time, the HVX200 may be very hard to get rid of at a decent price. I have no crystal ball of course but it is clear this field and the technology are changing really, really fast, and I’ve already had the experience of watching my top-notch photo gear fall to no value when digital came along.

Due to the length of time it takes to make the sorts of docs I'm working on, I suppose it would be hard for anyone down the road to predict what this world will look like in a few years in terms of technical needs and expectations of the market place those finished projects will land in. On one hand technology keeps driving the capabilities of gear higher and with it the expectations of the networks, but the inferior end user experience of YouTube keeps dumbing down expectations in the broad marketplace. Certainly it has gotten easier for anyone to make good photographs (and a cinch to make serviceable ones) and at the same time this has conspired to create a situation where everyone thinks they are a photographer, that they shouldn’t have to pay for it, and in the end many people no longer know or care what a good photograph is.

If anyone else wishes to chime in about matching my minuscule budget and optimal tool selection to anticipated wild and woolly documentary circumstances in the field, please do.

Meanwhile I’ll try to learn something about Marc Singer.
 
Poster above mentioned HMC-150..same size and optics and sensor and everything as HPX-170. slightly worse image because of the codec, and you'll need to update your computer as it is AVCHD...but the cards are dirt cheap, it stores a ton on one, and it's only around $3500 brand spanking new (bout the price of a good-buy on a used HVX-200.) I've seen the footage and I have a hard time distinguishing it from HPX-170 footage unless you zoom in on the frame pretty closely.
 
I wouldn't recommend hackintosh-limited driver support, difficult to setup, potential problems, could easily be broken by apple with any update.

I've been editing my HVX200 on my quad-core hackintosh for about a year now...if you have a decent handle on how computers function, they aren't too difficult to set up or maintain. And 3rd party mac drivers will work, regardless of it's a hackintosh or a real mac.

Point being, if you're on a low budget, and you want a mac-experience, and you feel comfortable rolling your own computer and building/maintaining it, a hackintosh can be a very reliable alternative IF you're careful.

My two cents... :)
 
Yeah but I've been editing HVX-200 footage on my cheap white macbook (2007) for a year now, and I just found out today that I can edit HVX-200 footage, as long as I keep the total film under 5-10 minutes, on my 800mhz G4 iMac from 2002. My laptop and my 2006 intel iMac handle GH1 footage just fine....so I am unclear on why money really needs to be saved at the expense of some additional post/computer headaches when you don't even really need a top of the line machine to do some of this stuff.
 
1. You can edit pro-res on your G5 if you convert your AVCHD footage to it using an intel machine.

G5 can probably handle the video relatively well: I have an 800mhz iMac G4 that can edit HVX footage as long as the film doesn't get too long (over 5-10 min.) That said, I would recommend upgrading...try picking up the entry level 13" Macbook Pro if price is an issue. AVCHD-->ProRes-->Final Cut Pro-->ProRes should be fine on that laptop, plus you can keep your G5 around to supplement it.

Of my computers my laptop is even slightly older, PB 1.67GHz G4 15". Great little unit, last and arguably the best of the PBs, and perfect for my photography needs in the field, but perhaps it is the thing that needs the upgrade. I'm big on the "if it ain't broke..." thing when it comes to technology since virtually every digital camera or computer I've ever purchased was defective on the first or 2nd go. I'm loathe to get rid of my G4 PB because it is such a great machine (even has slot that could potentially read P2 cards!), and it is useful from an IT maintenance stand-point having a PB running on the same (OS 10.4.11) as my G5. But perhaps the PB needs the upgrade to MBPro. Then I could work with the AVCHD codec, even if only starting with the GH1 before moving up to a bigger commitment like the HMC150.

So, more questions:

1. to verify, could I transcode and capture on an MBPro in the field and bring it back to the studio and then keep working on my G5? Is this a time efficient workflow?

2. Just to get a frame of reference as I have no idea at all what sort of time one is talking about, on a base-model 15" 2.53 Hz w 4 GB Ram, typically how long would it take to transcode an hour of AVCHD captured on a GH1 or HMC150?

3. Once that is transcoded into Pro-Res it is just a plug and play situation to pick up the editing on the G5?

4. BTW, as a work-around for audio using the consumer-level devices, is it a reasonable notion to rig a H4n to the camera via the Zoom’s audio out port with a splitter sending part of the signal to the camera and the other to headphones? Currently with my old SD palmcorder, I hang a magic arm and counter-weight as a home-made steadicam. The GH1 or the like also have such little inertia that they could benefit likewise I imagine. It seems conceivable that with clever augmentation of that rigging, one could still make quite a consolidated and balanced package that now provides real-time graphic representation of input levels on the Zoom simultaneously trapping a high resolution signal backup if the camera auto levels vacillate. The issue would be removing the camera for worms-eye shots. More complex that a prosumer Panny though. And even the prosumers can benefit from counterweight. A few years ago I did a little handheld project with a PD150…. Found it needed a similar rig… got very heavy. Feedback?

5. Given Barry's acknowledgement that nothing I can do on my budget will intrinsically meet a network broadcast standard, I have little choice but either to press forward with what I can do or abandon the notion of video and stick to stills and audio. Maybe the content will make it network worthy, maybe not, but if not it probably wouldn’t have made it simply because it had more and better pixels. In that vein, it seems that either the GH1 or the HMC150 would get me end results that are satisfactory for my need of good visual story telling that is at least HD. Obviously they are very different cameras, which in capable hands—particularly in a controlled situation—can yield good results either way. In terms of post manipulation, I imagine that it would be minimal, though it is possible that it may be graded with a colour styling in one case and be converted to B&W in the other. I don’t know if that makes a difference except that it is my understanding that the more one is likely to stress an image in post, the more important it is to have lots of information to begin with. If I understand the initial AVCHD grab is relatively unforgiving. Given that my hands are not yet capable, and in particular that my story puts me in an extreme place where I’m constantly having to watch out for my safety (failure to do so is not a viable option)—which in my mind translates into keeping my kit compact, light-weight and simple—which is likely to make a better documentary tool on the ground? Or am I still better to be contemplating the original HVX 200?

Of course, in an ideal world I'd have an array of high-end tools (small and large) at my disposal not to mention latest and fastest machines and a stellar crew, but for now it's one guy, one camera, one mic, and oldish computers and a powerful drive to learn, improve and show stories.
 
Last edited:
1. Yes but it might just be faster to edit on the Macbook Pro than the G5 when dealing with those large Pro-Res files you're making.

2. Not sure but there is no reason to transcode in the field! Just copy your card data over and keep shooting, then let it log and transfer all your stuff. Not at all sure of the actual time but it's not unreasonable...it will probably be somewhere close to real time, plus or minus a bit...an hour for an hour. (just a guess!)

3. Yes. But again, editing on the Macbook Pro might just be plain faster.

4. The GH1 does not let you manually set the audio levels, it does it automatically, and uses gain, so I would advise you to just record everything on the H4n and sync later. HMC-150 just buy a cheap shotgun mic, you can use it for the HMC or attach it to your H4n (assuming it's better than the built in mics) if you need to record some sounds sans camera.

5. See what I said above about HMC-150. Cheap cards, long record times. You might also consider the Canon XH-A1 or something else that shoots HDV. It might be a much easier workflow for you, and it sounds like you don't really need tapeless (although you will probably also need to buy a second camera or a deck for capturing to not wear out the XH-A1.) Then again, having an HV20/30 and an XH-A1 would be a pretty good shooting combination.

In regards to not reaching broadcast quality should you not even bother? Don't even worry about it! There's lots of filmmaking to be done that may or may not ever be broadcast...if there wasn't then this forum wouldn't exist. You're talking about doing some awesome projects that will help you sell you in the future...you dont always sell the projects, you sell clients on you.
 
Thanks Ben,

About copying data off cards, I gather from my early experiments with getting test GH1 data off an SD card this can be a little tricky, not as simple as copying or ingesting raw photos. If I understand correctly, one has to be careful to get the complete folder hierarchy (possibly even some hidden files) and that perhaps the best thing rather than copying the data is to use disk utility to create a disk image of that SD card to ensure one has an accurate copy of all the bits and pieces that were captured.

Back and forth on the tape vs card thing. I think I have a good handle on what they each mean from a workflow standpoint. Certainly with digital photography I'm most comfortable with solid state media workflows. On the other hand, definitely HDV gets me into the game cheapest right away. The big sacrifice is manual control. You mention the HV20 & 30 which I know to have a solid rep but are hard to find even used. Any probs with the HV40? Shoots native 24p?

BTW, I realize it's a wild swing—absurd really— talking about consumer HVs in same sentence as Panny 150s/170/200s or the XH-A1(s). Such is my lack of clarity or need and appropriateness.

And I take your point about broadcast quality. The only thing that is clear in my mind at least is that I just need to get geared up with something passable for now and get cracking on my project. There is, in then end, no substitute for learning on the ground. And at the rate things are changing, in 6 month's time we'll all have better tools available to us for the same or even lower cost.
 
Thanks Ben,

About copying data off cards, I gather from my early experiments with getting test GH1 data off an SD card this can be a little tricky, not as simple as copying or ingesting raw photos. If I understand correctly, one has to be careful to get the complete folder hierarchy (possibly even some hidden files) and that perhaps the best thing rather than copying the data is to use disk utility to create a disk image of that SD card to ensure one has an accurate copy of all the bits and pieces that were captured.

Back and forth on the tape vs card thing. I think I have a good handle on what they each mean from a workflow standpoint. Certainly with digital photography I'm most comfortable with solid state media workflows. On the other hand, definitely HDV gets me into the game cheapest right away. The big sacrifice is manual control. You mention the HV20 & 30 which I know to have a solid rep but are hard to find even used. Any probs with the HV40? Shoots native 24p?

BTW, I realize it's a wild swing—absurd really— talking about consumer HVs in same sentence as Panny 150s/170/200s or the XH-A1(s). Such is my lack of clarity or need and appropriateness.

And I take your point about broadcast quality. The only thing that is clear in my mind at least is that I just need to get geared up with something passable for now and get cracking on my project. There is, in then end, no substitute for learning on the ground. And at the rate things are changing, in 6 month's time we'll all have better tools available to us for the same or even lower cost.
 
I have in the past had no problems doing a finder level copy of the complete structure off of p2 cards, and I think this is doable with the GH1 cards, as people (not enough though :() have put their raw data on the web. I think you need to be (just a bit) more careful with SxS though, but with p2 and SDHC I think it's pretty straight forward.
 
At least one more set of questions for now:
Apologies in advance for doubtless this is covered in the forums somewhere... but as I'm not sure of the terminology, it is difficult to search effectively:

At this point in my process it seems premature for me to be committing to a particular purchase and so in order for the project to proceed (for the events will unfold with or without me) I need to rent. But that leads to the likelihood that whatever device I start off with may well not be the device I end up owning and doing most of the project on, and I'd hate to find out later I've chosen the wrong thing and can't mix it with what I'm doing subsequently.

Are there issues about mixing footage from different cameras?

Assuming there are, are their strategies to increasing the probability that the bits and pieces will edit smoothly together later?

Am I safer for example establishing a resolution and frame-rate eg. 720/24p regardless of the camera and codec as a target common ground?

Am I better to try to use the "best" resolution/frame-rate combination of a given camera on the assumption that it is better to go down that up?

I'm guessing it is probably a safer strategy to rent the best gear I can again on the assumption that those captures can be brought down to meet whatever I may be able to afford to buy later. Is that correct?
 
Renting is actually really expensive in my opinion, take a look at prices before you consider it to fully, and compare them to the prices of buying the equipment used.

1080 footage can easily be converted to 720p, so if a camera does it well I'd recommend shooting 1080, in case you either A, never end up shooting 720, or B end up putting it all in a 720 timeline anyway, but now have the flexibility to do things like crop, stabilize, or otherwise tweak the 1080p footage (because it is being downscaled to 720 you can easily hide crops, or zooming in on the footage for stabilization, without losing quality...when shooting 720p projects on the HVX we use this trick of switching to 1080 all the time if we know we need to stabilize a shot (say a carmount or jib arm shot) in post. )

Framerate things get a bit more difficult. I'd say shoot all 24p or if you need to mix in some 60p do it, because that can be easily converted to 24p or even slow motion in post. This is what most people are doing with their GH1s. Avoid 30p...unless you want to shoot the whole project 30p and 60p. Then by all means do that! But if you want 24, shoot 24 and 60.

Mixing footage from different cameras will have a different look, usually noticeable, especially across brands or kinds of cameras. However much of this can be nullified in post production using color correction, etc, and it is not uncommon for documentaries to use different kinds of cameras, people are pretty use to it, especially if you're not changing cameras in a scene, which it sounds like you wouldn't be because you'd be renting for however long and eventually buying. My advice to you is: if you must use multiple cameras make sure you use them for different scenes, don't mix in the same scene. For example, in the academy award winning documentary "man on wire", they could have probably gotten away with using say, a different camera for the reenactments set in france, a different camera for the reenactments set in NY, and a different camera for the interviews (not saying they did this!) but they would not have been able to get away with (probably) say, two different kinds of cameras for the french scenes, three for new york, and 2 for the interviews....and definetly not if they had to cut between them...it would have looked weird. Generally the best advice is to do tests, and if the differences are pronounced or unfixable in post, never cut between two different kinds of cameras in the same scene.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top