Carefull

exactly. a RAID backup system when you think about it is MORE reliable then a tape. so the realistic nature of it is there.

not to mention, when p2 gets lower in price; solidstate SD memory is so much more reliable then a tape.
 
pookie said:
It's the video generation having no understanding of film, filming or film making.
Click to expand...

That's the most pompous statement I've ever heard on this board. A complete a total disregard of talent and storytelling ability based upon format limitations is pure ignorance.

Sure, there are plenty of aspiring filmmakers who have not mastered the craft, as there are plenty of film snobs who can talk the talk, yet cannot create anything original or entertaining and refuse to adapt changing times. Mainly why so many are out of work or just hanging by threads.

There are many changes going on in the entertainment industry and only those few who have an unprecedented amount of quality work under their belts, can afford to shoot on whatever they want, whenever they want.

The rest of us have to be realistic and bring our projects in on time and on budget. And guess what, budgets are getting smaller. The average music video budget has gone from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands in less than 5 years. The middle class of the studio film is busted. Virtually only high budgets on films that studios can bank on, and low enough budgets which won't hurt studios if they flop. That's a significant enough drop that makes the expense of film, on a smaller Indie level, completely unrealistic.

I know plenty of people who are working on 35mm shoots with 100-200k budgets, but they're the ones getting shafted with pay cuts. A friend of mine just worked on a short that had the top cinematography student out of USC that was only paid $100 a day. Personally, I would rather feed and pay my crew and talent, and raise the production value with money saved from eliminating film and videotape.

With that in mind, as a filmmaker who's "videos" have beaten many 35mm films in the same genres, I want the absolute best quality that I can get, at the most reasonable price. And that's what Panasonic has done, in my opinion. I've been ready for this for a long time. Panasonic's made the move, if you're on the fence then you're the one who "isn't ready."

It's expensive now, but if that's all that is keeping me from 720p slow motion or 1080 24p, I'll bust my ass to scrounge up a few more jobs to purchase the cards. As for flash memory, it's durable as hell. Need proof? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0502/gallery.tsunami.photos/content.1.1.html


-CJ Roy
www.arkhamfilms.com
 
Jubal28 said:
By that reasoning – it’s too expensive and too brief, therefore, it should not be done – very little technical progress would ever be made. Early adopters pay more and get less. That’s how it is with all technology.

Thankfully, those conclusions were not dispositive for those who shelled out the cash for early VCRs, for early DVD players (what?! You have to flip over the disc after an hour??), for early computers . . . because if technology has to wait for someone specific’s high-bar definition of “ready,” not much would ever develop.

(In the 1930s, airplanes were crude, slow, loud, dirty, only capable of short hops, non-pressurized, usually not heated -- by every modern sense, entirely unsuitable for passenger travel. Oddly enough, there were many passenger airlines.)
Click to expand...

Awesome Point!!

I got my first VCR in1985. I got it on base 1/2 price. It was a JVC and was $475.00
it was the best VCR to this day. A year later I bought a Sony CD player used for $1200. It was 6 mos. old and cost $1800 new. I feel like I helped get the price down for future generations.. Same with P2. Lets get the party started!!!
 
CJ, thank you for your post.

You said it much better than I could have.

Reminds me. Years ago I had a writing class. Larry Cohen (Phone Booth, Cellular) came into the room and told us all to go home. That they didn't need anymore people in Hollywood.

And this seminar was given by AFI. What a bunch of snobs. The first thing I did was push AFI to give me my money back. I didn't pay to get yelled out and my seminar ended up being free.

Oops, guess I'll have to burn my Cellular DVD.
 
A prosumer speaks

A prosumer speaks

I agree one hundred percent ! As one of the "prosumers" you are referring to,
this camera with it's support equipment is simply too expensive to consider. Although it has some impressive features , the benefits don't justify the cost. I also agree that the current market for HD is over rated, as is the market for widescreen. Now for those of you who are shooting shorts and features and have the budget, this might be a dream come true...but for those of us saving our lunch money to support our passion, the HVX is too much too soon.

That being said ....it IS a VERY nice camera....
 
yeah...snobs suck

yeah...snobs suck

I just got back from NAB. This camera looks pretty cool. I definitely don't see the P2 as the problem with it.

1. You can buy it without the P2 and still shoot DV.

2. You can still shoot DVCPRO HD on a 80 gig firestore or something. (I'm not into lugging around a laptop.) They said focus would have one soon. Back up on Blue laser disk (around the corner.) The camera's not even going to be out till October.


Really, The big issue for me was being locked into one lens, but then I walked over to the booth where they had the mini-35 stuff and I'm not really worried. With a mini 35 adapter, I could even use lenses from my still camera on this thing.

And for you film snobs...I came of age in the digital era. I know what looks good. (learned from Hitchcock, Copola, Lucas, Ruebens, Velasquez, Man Ray, Ansel Adams and Steigletz and O'keef) I know how to light a scene and I know how to shoot. The good movies out there look better than ever before and it's because of young digitaly savy artists with a hell of a lot more sophistication than you may realize. (stories are another thing, but there's been some great scripts out in the last 5 years too.) If it was up to people like the snob set, movies would still look like metropolis. It was ambitious and great at the time, but I like the inovation of talkies. Yeah we can make stuff that looks good. Yeah we can do it cheaper and yes we will probably put you out of bussiness. :cry:

Oh, yeah this is a great forum...LOVE DVXUSER.COM :thumbup:

hopalong
 
safarijoe said:
Now for those of you who are shooting shorts and features and have the budget, this might be a dream come true...but for those of us saving our lunch money to support our passion, the HVX is too much too soon.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. I am not supporting this camera or the format only because of narrative filmmaking. I do have day jobs that are completely uninvolved with filmmaking which I will utilize this camera for.

The difference is, is that because of this camera, I can SELL the quality to my clients. My clients, are in an SD world currently, but if they can get a better quality that will ready them for future formats, then they will go for it. They're not going to do this on their own. Because of my reputation with them, that I have never let them down and haved saved them quite a lot of money, they will trust my opinion. They are going to have to be sold, and that's part of my job as a business owner and filmmaker.

-CJ
www.arkhamfilms.com
 
If the projects I worked on were soley mine I would think about shooting HD. But for clients and the extras involved right now P2 card shooting is out of the question. Not being able to hand a client a tape, now they will have to provide a laptop or a hardrive for the footage dumps. Will the clients editor have the capabiltiy of editing HD footage? Will I get endless calls as to why they cant work with the HD footage? I hang out alot at Best Buys and Curcuit Citys and see uneducated sales persons and consumers talking about HD tv's and not knowing a thing about it.
There are HDTV, EDTV, SD tvs with component inputs ( 480 i or p only) and big screen tv.
3/4 of the people who think they are watching HDTV in the USA actually aren't. I for one hope that there is a tape drive so I can continue shooting SD , and if a client needs HD, the HVX can do it. With the bigger lens and more options I see this camera as a step up from the DVX for SDshooting and HD is just a big plus for the future. If you work for a network, and have the budgets and are already upgrading, P2 is good for them I guess. But for freelancers the price, the having to dump footage in the field, the limitations of p2 wont be a shooting option for awhile.
 
Film, video......who cares. It's about the script, casting, actors, performance, and the directors vision. The best "looking" film (cinematography) aint worth s#@t if doesnt have those elements. If you understand that, you're a filmmaker.

With this camera coming out, there is no excuse to not make your indie film.

Viva Cinema!
 
fiercecurry said:
Film, video......who cares. It's about the script, casting, actors, performance, and the directors vision. The best "looking" film (cinematography) aint worth s#@t if doesnt have those elements. If you understand that, you're a filmmaker.

With this camera coming out, there is no excuse to not make your indie film.

Viva Cinema!
Click to expand...


LOL........LOL........
 
bilgami said:
[font=&quot]BiLGaMi Video Productions[/font][font=&quot] :beer:[/font]

I dont see the point in making... any type of media that only records 2-10 min of video. whats the point to that.[font=&quot]
[/font]
Click to expand...
In that case, make sure you stay out of the film producing business; standard spools of film with those exact recording lengths are the commonplace industry medium.
 
Geno said:
What about the image quality of HD downrezzed to SD? Lately when watching shows like Survivor or American Idol it seems like the colors and detail just pop off my satandard def $300 6 year old 25" Sharp.
Click to expand...
The cameras have undoutedly gotten better, but not every show is shot in HD yet. Survivor is still one of CBS' hottest programs, yet not a single frame of the show has been shot in HD (they've cited production costs in moving all of the HD equipment to their exotic locations as their prime reasoning for this).
 
Haakon said:
In that case, make sure you stay out of the film producing business; standard spools of film with those exact recording lengths are the commonplace industry medium.
Click to expand...

That is true-ish in film, yes.

You also need to take into account "how" a film is shot as opposed to how a video is shot, changing magazines is done with respect to the scene being shot, not the length of film in the magazine.

But to have that "limit" in video is rediculous.
 
CineCell said:
This is why film still clearly rules.

This camera might be great and all but I'm surely not going to pay money to watch a movie made with one on a big screen. Save those projects for people who truly know what it is to make a movie in the first place.

It's still just video guys... just with more lines.
Click to expand...
The same could be said about digital still cameras, which have now far exceeded the resolution of traditional analog film. Go to any professional sports event in the country and you'll see that 95% of the guys on the sidelines are now shooting digitally. It's about efficiency, productivity, and cost just as much as quality.

Think about this for a moment: the music you listen to on compact discs is compressed digital approximations of true recorded sound, recorded at mediocre sampling rates and frequencies, and you probably don't mind one bit. Granted, since the birth of the CD Audio format, audiophiles have blasted it's unexceptional specs and demanded better technology. To address this situation, the major companies have released subsequent formats of higher bitrates (DVD-Audio) and less compression (SACD) to provide truer, more realistic sound. And guess what - the mainstream consumer couldn't care less. In fact, we've actually *de-volved* as a society as most people are content listening to mp3s of even worse bitrates. Portable mp3 player sales have gone through the roof, and you'd be hard pressed to find an in-dash CD player for your car these days that doesn't support the mp3 format - you couldn't compete in the market today without it. Apparently, quality isn't as much a concern to the majority of the music-listening public as availability, cost, and portability are. I can't say that I personally agree with it, but it doesn't matter what I think... the masses will determine the standards.

HiDef video looks fantastic - and considering the bandwidth it takes to store and distribute it, it's a tremendous format for the time we're currently living in. It took over 60 years to progress from SD images to high definition ones, and although I know something better will ultimately come along - someday - I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Being able to record a vastly superior image at variable framerates - and even more importantly, in my opinion, to random access, solid state memory... that's huge. This new camera will enable new filmmakers and video production companies in a way never even thought of before.

It's way more than just "a few more lines."
 
28 Days Later......

shot on miniDV in PAL on XL2.

Looked damn good to me on the cinema screen.
In fact you could argue that there is an immediacy to digital that film lacks. Again it all depends what you want to communicate, and how.
 
pookie said:
That is true-ish in film, yes.

You also need to take into account "how" a film is shot as opposed to how a video is shot, changing magazines is done with respect to the scene being shot, not the length of film in the magazine.

But to have that "limit" in video is rediculous.
Click to expand...

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? If the CRAFT of filmmaking is the holy grail, and this forces video users into a cinematic workflow, isn't that a good thing?

And doesn't creativity thrive on limitations?

You're the one who's always decrying that things just aren't done the way they used to be. Well, here you have a video camera which MUST be used with all the discipline and craft of a film camera . . . yet you find that to be a negative?
 
It was shoot on XL1s not XL2.

Otherwise it shows that you can make a movie with just 200 lines of res.

Resolution dont beat the story (OK one line of resolution will suck)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top