Carefull

it shows that you can make a movie with just 200 lines of res.
Click to expand...
200 lines of resolution? They must have used frame mode or something.
While it looked incredible, realistically the DVD's were made from a film print--not data.
It has been heavily postulated that the amount of time/money to correct the DV footage
in post and conform to film was more expensive than originating on 35mm. The reason they
shot a lot of 28 days later on video was an experiment and also economy. Seriously, when you
shut down an entire bridge, or highways, or downtown intersections, you don't have time to
have only a single or even a couple of film cameras running. They had dozens of video cams
running because it was the only way to get the shots they needed in the short time they had.
Also, the "beauty shots" on 28 days later were 35mm.. ie.. the scenic flyovers at the end.

brian wells
 
Jubal28 said:
I'd say that pretty much depends on what you're doing with it.

You say yourself that the dictates of cinematic production determine when a film magazine is changed. So, too, it would be with a P2 card. If, for now, a P2 card holds the same number of minutes as a film magazine, how is the workflow affected detrimentally?
Click to expand...


It's the shot determines the load in a magazine, not the other way.

The load in a film magazine is determined by the footage to be shot, not limited by the size of a P2 card.
 
where do you get your info?

where do you get your info?

Mediacre said:
PAL. It's 576 lines. Only 20% less than 720 HD
Click to expand...

Mediacre, where do you get your information? Here's a not-exact-scale illustration:

NTSC 7 2 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

PAL 7 2 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

HD 1 2 8 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
Barry_Green said:
You're missing a zero there, David. To add a DVCPRO-HD tape mechanism would mean to add another $20,000 to the price, not $2,000.
Click to expand...

Exactly....

Here is Jan's EXACT Quote on the matter at the forums on ag-hvx200.com:

HVX GODESS - JAN CRITTENDEN said:
What is wrong with good old tape is that the tape drive is very expensive. The heads alone to record DVCPRO HD would cost$6400, then there is the chassis and the drives, That section of the Varicam alone is about $20,000. So by going to P2 we are able to bring an industry standard for High Definition to the under $10,000 market. Each frame stands on its own, with 4:2:2 color and a high data rate. Bullet-proof against dropouts. Additionally this camera is able to be the secondary camera on an SDX900 shoot. This is also very exciting. The Beauty is that you just off load the cards to your computer or to a hard drive in faster than real time and the files are now ready to edit. Just review your shots and edit. No digitizing.
Click to expand...

Wowzers...20k hmm....I'll take the P2....Thanx!!

ag-hvx200-jan.jpg


~reservoir~
 
pookie said:
It's the shot determines the load in a magazine, not the other way.

The load in a film magazine is determined by the footage to be shot, not limited by the size of a P2 card.
Click to expand...

That's a fair and important distinction.

However, it doesn't detract from my point.

An 8GB card will give you 8 minutes of 1080p24 and 16-20 minutes of 720p24. That's less limiting than a full magazine of film. You can do more work before you have to dump the card (if you're using only one), but the relatively short capture time still enforces a disciplined, crafted approach.

The best of both worlds, it would seem. I don't see that as ridiculous.
 
Mediacre said:
200 lines? Not PAL. It's 576 lines. Only 20% less than 720 HD :D
Click to expand...

Frame mode does NOT give you all 576 lines. The interpolation method used to create it can decrease resolution by almost half, depending on the movement in the shot. And who wants many shots without movement?
 
Barry_Green said:
You're missing a zero there, David. To add a DVCPRO-HD tape mechanism would mean to add another $20,000 to the price, not $2,000.
Click to expand...

Yes, my mistake. I started to delete digits to put in the $16K figure Jan mentioned at the P2 event, and thought better of it because that was only the transport. The 0 was lost to the ages . . . :shocked: :engel017:
 
pookie said:
But to have that "limit" in video is rediculous.
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to say that while you could have 100-megabit 4:2:2 with frame-discrete compression, we're going to limit you to 4:2:0 with longform MPEG-2, just so it can all fit on a (how did Grame Nattress put it?) a piece of cellophane dipped in rust.

For me it comes down to: if you're shooting high-def, it's 'cause you want the image to look good. If you have to compromise to HDV specs, just so it'll fit on a $4 tape, well, what's the point? That's the "limit" I'm not willing to accept.
 
I agree with the current / projected Q4 cost of P2 being restrictive for amateur and prosumers. I also know that those prices will be shattered quickly if this camera sells as we speculate that it will.

As others have pointed out, the pricepoint will fall once development and mfg. of P2 is licensed.
 
Mediacre said:
200 lines? Not PAL. It's 576 lines. Only 20% less than 720 HD :D
Click to expand...
First of all, PAL is interlaced, which lowers the discernable resolution to about 70% (kell factor), which means you get a usable 432 lines. But in the aggregate, PAL pushes about 7,776,000 discernable pixels per second through the television screen. 720/50p, on the other hand, pushes 46,080,000 pixels per second through the television.

That's six times as much information. Not 20%, as one may infer from your statement (even though that's not what you said, someone who doesn't know better might infer that).

Secondly 28 Days Later was shot in PAL on an interlaced XL1 (432 lines), which was put in frame mode (lopping off about 10%, so around 388 lines). It was then cropped down to 1.85:1 for transfer. The result, what made it onto the movie screen, was about 210 lines of resolution.

A native 16:9 720p image will look a whole incredibly lot better than just 20% more than a PAL transfer...
 
Depends on who you ask, and where you sat in the theater. I thought it looked awful, and so did the DP's I was there with, but we were in the sixth row. Lots of people thought it looked great and were very pleased with what they saw. I'm betting they were sitting further back.

It really does make a difference. When I viewed my DVX footage on film, from the sixth row, I thought that it was "eh". Not bad, but not "movie". Then, for grins, I went to the back of the room and watched it again, and it looked like a freakin' 35mm movie!

So, it really makes a difference where you sit in the theater. And from now on, if I know I'm watching a DV-to-film transfer, I'll consciously sit further back.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to say that while you could have 100-megabit 4:2:2 with frame-discrete compression, we're going to limit you to 4:2:0 with longform MPEG-2, just so it can all fit on a (how did Grame Nattress put it?) a piece of cellophane dipped in rust.

For me it comes down to: if you're shooting high-def, it's 'cause you want the image to look good. If you have to compromise to HDV specs, just so it'll fit on a $4 tape, well, what's the point? That's the "limit" I'm not willing to accept.
Click to expand...

So brilliantly put. We're still in the last days of SD for the sake of Peter, so HD might as well be right, or why not just shoot good SD?
 
Phooey,
Good SD means a big camera. So, now there's a small camera that does good SD. The reason to shoot P2HD is pretty simple for me, really... access to framerates. 422 color sampling. IT-based workflow. In that order.
 
Barry_Green said:
Depends on who you ask, and where you sat in the theater. I thought it looked awful, and so did the DP's I was there with, but we were in the sixth row. Lots of people thought it looked great and were very pleased with what they saw. I'm betting they were sitting further back.

So, it really makes a difference where you sit in the theater. And from now on, if I know I'm watching a DV-to-film transfer, I'll consciously sit further back.
Click to expand...


Yes, you should always sit further back and in the middle, when watching a movie, film or DV to film transfer. Unless you enjoy focusing your attention on all the grain from a 35mm frame blown up over a 100,000x times it original scale (wonder what the actual scale is) and a distorted image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top