Better be less than 10K

iamloser said:
not to play devils advocate, but just to state my point and opinion as it is
Click to expand...

And I feel compelled to do the same:

This is coming solely from a narrative filmmaking perspective (and someone that has only shot on minidv once and HD twice, the bulk of my work being on film), so I'm certainly not speaking in terms of ENG, doc, or event work. But as a narrative filmmaker, I know that I do my best shooting when I have a set of primes. When you have to make a decision about what lens to use for a given shot, you're immediately forced to think about what lens is going to communicate everything that the shot demands: you'll make better decisions all around. Call it snobbery, but it's absolutely true, and I don't care who you are, it's a process that a zoom cannot replicate.

Certainly you say that a zoom lens without the quality loss would be great - and it would - but discipline and shooting psychology aside, zooms will *always* involve optical sacrifices. It's simply the name of the game. Sharpness, speed, and breathing are always going to be concerns with zooms, and there's really no getting around that.

But what annoys me most about fixed lenses is the lack of an iris ring and mre importantly the lack of hard stops and marks on the focus ring. I'd kill just for marks and hard stops. It'd feel so much more real. These are actually the big things on *my* HDX wishlist... something practical and doable, but oh-so useful for serious cinematography.

All of that said, I completely understand every sacrifice I just criticized for the concerns of price point and protecting higher-end markets. But an iris ring and marks and hard stops sure would be nice.

Not that I'll be buying until I get out of grad school anyway....

Will
 
Message received, Thanks for the feedback. Send me an email with your address and I will send you a Christmas card!

PS Here is another reason why buying in Canada makes sense for Canadians.
She posted this this morning in another location on this forum.

"It is altogether possible that you will not qualify for the $300 rebate. We do not offer that on gray market cameras. Also you wont receive the Magic Bullet for Editosr or Barry Green's book not to mention no warranty here in the US.
Hope this helps,
Jan
__________________
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems
Product Manager, DVCPRO50/25,AG-DVX100A"

There is no warranty on gray market cameras here in Canada either.
 
..will, lense barrel markings and a lense barrel iris ring are things whichi would also really really like to see on the cam, and have requested since way back when the "wishlist" thread started, but as far as the zoom vs prime lense workflow.. sure, its different. but neither method is "better" . a cinematographer has to make choices regarding framing and composition and focal length whether its a zoom or set of primes at their disposition. the only differnce is with primes you need to decide which lense gives you the framing and focal length you want. ..and the end result could be entirely indistinguishable if they mad the same choices. thats the beauty of cinematography being an artform. anyway .. its not like either of our opinions is going to change whats on the HDX at this point, and in the end we would both prefer the same thing anyway. a nice high quality and versatile stock zoom lense with the option of removing it and replacing it with other standard lenses.
..it is only my belief that most people would not make use of the removeable feature, and it would only serve to raise the price..which is estimated at a point that the same people are already stretching their wallets to afford. i mean all in all. this is an entry level HD camera were talking about. we cant expect it to have everything that the varicam has for the price we want it at.

but if the lense IS removable.. ill be a happy guy.
 
This is from my memory which can be bad at times.

The only thing with the mini 35 you have to use more lighting because you lose stops which can be worked out and because your zoomed out all the way. Your at the lens weakest point.

Also I thought it adds grain shooting off the ground glass and makes it softer which is fine for a video release, but not so good for a film out.

Can anyone reconfirm this.

Thanks Gary
 
MikeFawcett said:
Message received, Thanks for the feedback. Send me an email with your address and I will send you a Christmas card!


There is no warranty on gray market cameras here in Canada either.
Click to expand...

Lol.... jeeze here we go again.

If your in Canada and Buy a Camera from a Authorized US Dealer, not only do you get a full US warranty, but you also get all the free goodies that Canada dealers don't get... and even end up saving money.

The only issue is if you have a problem, you need to send it to the US to get fixed. But don't worry.. that $50 Fedex Bill is a good tradeoff.
 
Gary_McClurg said:
This is from my memory which can be bad at times.

The only thing with the mini 35 you have to use more lighting because you lose stops which can be worked out and because your zoomed out all the way. Your at the lens weakest point.

Also I thought it adds grain shooting off the ground glass and makes it softer which is fine for a video release, but not so good for a film out.

Can anyone reconfirm this.

Thanks Gary
Click to expand...

yes Gary.. you are totally right.. The Mini35 is basically destroying your image by going through so many glass elements, and the ground glass, but, its one of those destructions that just looks incredible in the end... as long as you dont blow it up too big.
 
Thanks, Jarred.

Also maybe should post this on another link. But I never have much luck using search. I have to admit I haven't tried it on the new format here.

But what about your high speed camera. Have you worked out the color version. Shooting some ski and snow boarding footage in a week or so. Most likely using HD. Might even use three DVX's. But would like to get some in camera slow mo stuff.
 
.. i wonder how well an HDX hi def image would hold up on the big screen if using the mini 35? .. certainly better than te DVX does and it would probably be acceptable above even a standard DVX image to the big screen.. im sure well find out soon enough.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary_McClurg
Thanks, Jarred.
But what about your high speed camera. Have you worked out the color version. Shooting some ski and snow boarding footage in a week or so. Most likely using HD. Might even use three DVX's. But would like to get some in camera slow mo stuff.
Click to expand...



Yes we have the color version..1920x1080 HD, interchangable lenses that dumps onto a 16gb mem array. The color one we can only capture up to 2000fps.. but for snowboarding and almost anything else, it's good enough.
You can see the color clips on one of our other business's websites, www.purposelabs.com

Click on the thumb to watch the WMV HD video


Full-auto water - BB pellets into water, first color test, 500 fps (1632x800 square pixels)


Pool hall - Lots of colored balls and some interesting points of view, mixed frame rate (1632x800 square pixels)


Close-up - What a Handsome guy! heh heh...Real-time motion extraction test, 24 fps (1632x800 square pixels)



:)
 
One would think that any optics problems would be magnified with HD. When Canon brought out the EOS 1DSM2, with its increased resolution, "very good" lens weren't so good any more.
 
comet48 said:
Also true of Sony and JVC.
Click to expand...

It looks like the new JVC ProHD camcorder will have a removable lens. And 24p. And multiple formats. Just no 4:2:2 (only 4:2:0). Pricing rumors abound, generally $6,000 to $10,000.
 
yeah that JVC is gonna be interesting.. if they can figure out the whole 4:2:0 and 25mps limitations it might be worth looking at.
 
Jarred Land said:
yeah that JVC is gonna be interesting.. if they can figure out the whole 4:2:0 and 25mps limitations it might be worth looking at.
Click to expand...

Hi Jarred,

The 720P HDV drops to 19Mbs, but also has a shorter GOP. So unless this is somehow different than that which they have offered in the HDV in the past, I don't thinkit will be the ideal solution.

And then there is the glass. We had a 1/3" camera, and we were given two choices and only two choices. So hopefully the will be able to get a good HD lens on a 1/3". That will be the next interesting question.


They could up the data rate, but then are the edit systems that are working to support HDV now, going to deal with the higher data rate?

Lots of questions in my mind,

Jan
 
HD lens

HD lens

Jan_Crittenden said:
Hi Jarred,

The 720P HDV drops to 19Mbs, but also has a shorter GOP. So unless this is somehow different than that which they have offered in the HDV in the past, I don't thinkit will be the ideal solution.

And then there is the glass. We had a 1/3" camera, and we were given two choices and only two choices. So hopefully the will be able to get a good HD lens on a 1/3". That will be the next interesting question.


They could up the data rate, but then are the edit systems that are working to support HDV now, going to deal with the higher data rate?

Lots of questions in my mind,

Jan
Click to expand...
Hi Jan,
In the still world, both Canon and Nikon have SLR cameras that are less than full frame, but still use the standard 35mm lens, resulting in crop factors between 1.3 and 1.6. Have you ever considered using a 1/2" Bayonet mount with the 1/3" ccd. Again a crop, but that is not all bad as long as you can get a lens wide enough at the wide angle end. The optics work better, as only the center parts of the lens are used.
Is there a big differential in cost between the 1/3" ccd and the 1/2" ccd? I can't imagine it's that big - then why not a 1/2" product for $10K with a removable lens along with the 1/3" product at $5-6K on top of Sony. I understand that is going to put money in a competitors pocket (Canon), but I think it addresses a market that the DVX doesn't do all that well at, events and ENG, due to it's weak low ligkt performance (3 lux).
The DVX seems to be well supported by film makers due to it's 24p, but event and ENG users are not going to want to transfer their results to film They do care about low light, and will care about HD. I don't see a well priced Panasonic product to address these markets, which one would have to believe are a lot larger than the independant film producer.
My 2cents worth.
 
HI Comet
>Have you ever considered using a 1/2" Bayonet mount with the 1/3" ccd. Again a crop, but that is not all bad as long as you can get a lens wide enough at the wide angle end.

This is what we finally did in the end, we had Fujinon come up with a 1/2" with a 1/3" mount. But this lens cost about twice the cost of the 1/3" lenses. Perhaps things have changed. But the thing that has not changed is the cost of a real HD lens.

>Is there a big differential in cost between the 1/3" ccd and the 1/2" ccd?

Yes, especially if you do not have one and either have to make one or buy it from somebody else. Keep in mind that this has to be a progressive CCD.

>I understand that is going to put money in a competitors pocket (Canon), but I think it addresses a market that the DVX doesn't do all that well at, events and ENG, due to it's weak low ligkt performance (3 lux).

The more dense the pixel count the worse the low light sensitivity.


>The DVX seems to be well supported by film makers due to it's 24p, but event and ENG users are not going to want to transfer their results to film

I was at a show yesterday where more of the folks that I talked to that owned the DVX did events than there were filmmakers.

> They do care about low light, and will care about HD. I don't see a well priced Panasonic product to address these markets, which one would have to believe are a lot larger than the independant film producer.

I think this is where you and I might have to agree to disagree. I am not convinced that the Bride or corporate president would not be upset if the video froze along with audio for a 1/2 second during the vows or meaningful speech, or during the couple's toast or whereever. And with these HDV cameras I have not seen a single one that has better low light performance than the DVX.

Best,

Jan
 
Tzedekh said:
It looks like the new JVC ProHD camcorder will have a removable lens. And 24p. And multiple formats. Just no 4:2:2 (only 4:2:0). Pricing rumors abound, generally $6,000 to $10,000.
Click to expand...

At the same price and feature point (24p HDsomething),
If JVC has interchangable lens and 4:2:0 and
Pana has fixed lens and 4:2:2

JVC would be a much more attractive buy.... coz the image can be manipulated in 1000s of ways, but field-of-vison, DOF cannot be done in post.
 
Jarred Land said:
www.purposelabs.com

Click on the thumb to watch the WMV HD video


Full-auto water - BB pellets into water, first color test, 500 fps (1632x800 square pixels)
Click to expand...

OMG! that was wonderful... how was it done ?? at what cost ?
purposelabs website doesnt have any details....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top