Comparison footage of four cams

It depends on your "speed variation tolerence"

There is a clear advantage to use a NTSC camcorder for film projection because the variation between 23.98/24fps is about 1/10 of 1%.

With the PAL camcorder, your footage will play 4% slower when projected at 24fps.

So the NTSC 23.98 fps is approximately 40 times more accurate than PAL (25 fps).

In other words, even if i am a musician ( i really am) who have perfect pitch, and who pay a lot of attention to beat variation and sychronization, i would not be able to tell the difference between 23,98 and 24 fps.

BUT,

I would be instantly distracted by the slower playing speed caused by the footage that had been recorded at 25 fps and now playing at 24 fps.
Honestly, it would be extremely obvious to me.

But for TV, go for PAL if you live in PAL world !
If not, your NTSC camcorder will be good only for Film out.
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
It depends on your "speed variation tolerence"

There is a clear advantage to use a NTSC camcorder for film projection because the variation between 23.98/24fps is about 1/10 of 1%.

With the PAL camcorder, your footage will play 4% slower when projected at 24fps.

So the NTSC 23.98 fps is approximately 40 times more accurate than PAL (25 fps).

In other words, even if i am a musician ( i really am) who have perfect pitch, and who pay a lot of attention to beat variation and sychronization, i would not be able to tell the difference between 23,98 and 24 fps.

BUT,

I would be instantly distracted by the slower playing speed caused by the footage that had been recorded at 25 fps and now playing at 24 fps.
Honestly, it would be extremely obvious to me.

But for TV, go for PAL if you live in PAL world !
If not, your NTSC camcorder will be good only for Film out.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but you did not get the point. To slow is easy but to speed is not. It is not compatible comparison with a sound or music. It is about what is the best way to ACHIVE FILM LIKE picture from this-these camcorders. Stuff with sound-music is different.

Excusez-moi.

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
SJUSER...

heh heh...please...
Click to expand...
Swiss Effects wrote about HDV to film transfer the following:
"Shoot in 50i HD or DV PAL for transfer to film. About FX1/Z1."

Find it in PDF

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/HDVto35mm_1-1.pdf

or direct to Swiss Effects link at

http://www.swisseffects.ch/english/e_swiss_effects/pages/e_swiss.htm

heheh heheh swiss cheese heh heh hehe beauty girls heh hehe not bad nice time there heh hehe

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
heh heh...

I think you're joking...but...just in case...

They say in their document that it is better tu use 50i because Sony's cineframe mode is not true progressive, so it hurts the image quality.

so...50 fields (half frames per sec) divided by 2 = 25 fps.

You dont have that problem with the HVX200 XLH1 and HD100 because they have true progressive recording capabilities.

and...again...shoot at 25 fps ( PAL ) and project at 24 fps and your program runs 4% slower than the original.
 
SJUSER said:
Hot spot GIRLS (http://www.HotSpotsOnline.com) are really HOT. Like them. Should move in Florida. Ahh... to many Hurricanes, sorry not now maybe later, Formentera and Ibiza are enough for me at the moment.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think they're hot, too. Hurricanes are a minor inconvenience that we have to put up with in Florida, but the great weather and scenery makes it all worthwhile. Besides, I can always head for Ibiza, too, when there's a hurricane coming my way. :thumbsup:
 
SJUSER said:
"Should I as PAL (EU_AUSTRALIA) independent shooter buy PAL or NTSC HVX200 model? I WANT TO HAVE A FILM TRANSFER(S)!!!
Click to expand...
If you're going to be making a film print, and you know for a fact that your destination is going to be a film print, then you should be shooting on film in the first place. Shooting on a video camera is false economy; you'll spend as much or more on the film transfer process as you would to have shot on film in the first place. And film origination is going to look better.

What should be the best to ACHIEVE a film like-style picture with that low cost camcorder? With PAL or NTSC model or 50 region or 60 region, what ever you want to call?
Click to expand...
Depends on where your footage will be exhibited. If you ever want to display it on any television, or for broadcast, or for DVD authoring, or anything like that, you should unquestionably get the 50hz version that's compatible with your territory. Plus it will retain a lot of resale value, which the US version would not carry in a European territory.

If your sole and only concern is transferring to film, then I'd say that I disagree with your business plan, but if pressed, would say that obviously the US version would be more appropriate for film transfer since it offers 23.976 progressive-scan.

But it would be very limiting to buy a camera such as this only for film transfer.

Furthermore, I'd strongly suggest that you contact a lab and have a test film transfer done from the 25p version. You may find it perfectly acceptable, which would solve all your concerns.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you're going to be making a film print, and you know for a fact that your destination is going to be a film print, then you should be shooting on film in the first place. Shooting on a video camera is false economy; you'll spend as much or more on the film transfer process as you would to have shot on film in the first place. And film origination is going to look better.


Depends on where your footage will be exhibited. If you ever want to display it on any television, or for broadcast, or for DVD authoring, or anything like that, you should unquestionably get the 50hz version that's compatible with your territory. Plus it will retain a lot of resale value, which the US version would not carry in a European territory.

If your sole and only concern is transferring to film, then I'd say that I disagree with your business plan, but if pressed, would say that obviously the US version would be more appropriate for film transfer since it offers 23.976 progressive-scan.

But it would be very limiting to buy a camera such as this only for film transfer.

Furthermore, I'd strongly suggest that you contact a lab and have a test film transfer done from the 25p version. You may find it perfectly acceptable, which would solve all your concerns.
Click to expand...
Barry thanks for this valuable answer.

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
SJUSER said:
People in Europe are hard. That is a reason that they build America. But today's Americans just forgott this big tradition. Not so easy to deal with us, Europeans, who else we are and coming from the different part of the continent.
SJUSER
Click to expand...

Yes we are the 'old world' we created the cinema art, and we have the best TV signal. We are, and feel so superior, we almost look like Americans... :grin:
 
en effet !

It is so beautifull.
I had the chance to see France, Belgique, Holland, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy !
Wow !
(i still have my Hi8 tapes...)
I have DV footage from Italy that looks stunning.
I really like the great diversity and beauty of architecture , the people.
I plan to go back as soon as i can.
...and bring back some footage in HD !
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
en effet !

It is so beautifull.
I had the chance to see France, Belgique, Holland, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy !
Wow !
(i still have my Hi8 tapes...)
I have DV footage from Italy that looks stunning.
I really like the great diversity and beauty of architecture , the people.
I plan to go back as soon as i can.
...and bring back some footage in HD !
Click to expand...
Yes,

I will put some more footage about Paris, Venice, Vienna, Berlin, Barcelona and Formentera on my page in a week.

Stay tuned.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you're going to be making a film print, and you know for a fact that your destination is going to be a film print, then you should be shooting on film in the first place. Shooting on a video camera is false economy; you'll spend as much or more on the film transfer process as you would to have shot on film in the first place. And film origination is going to look better
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with this statement - there's much more to this decision for many indie filmmakers as it does reflect the life stages of an indie film. Many successful films have shot anything but 35mm because they did not want to raise money for it and relying on finding funds later for 35mm blowup.

First, it assumes you have the budget to shoot film when you start. Many indie films rely on success on the film festival circuit to find a distributor to fund the film blow-up (as well as audio clean-up etc.). Just look at "Primer" - shot on 16mm with crap for audio for $7000, crap for lights and relied on distributor having funds for 35mm print and audio work post Sundance. I can think of dozens of other films with similar scenarios. Shoot now and get money for blow-up later.

Most indie producer would rather spend their meager dollars on the creative and logistic side. If shooting something other than 35mm (anything from miniDV to Super16) shaves money that can be used on a better cast, better locations, more time, more takes etc. it ends up making a much bigger difference than the better resolution 35mm offers.

With all the new HDV and HD cams under $10k, this trend will increase. I would argue that unless your story depends on crisp 35mm resolution, don't spend money on shooting 35mm at the expense of story, creativity or other critical production elements.

If you have the money to shoot 35mm and it suits your story, go for it. But I would say most indie films do not need to budget and shoot 35mm (if for the simple fact that many of them will never have a theatrical release).
 
I find this forum very interesting, even though I don't post.
The technical discussion has some merit and the artistic one too, but this thing of Europe vs. America is really molesting.
 
stephenvv said:
I would have to disagree with this statement - there's much more to this decision for many indie filmmakers as it does reflect the life stages of an indie film. Many successful films have shot anything but 35mm because they did not want to raise money for it and relying on finding funds later for 35mm blowup.

First, it assumes you have the budget to shoot film when you start. Many indie films rely on success on the film festival circuit to find a distributor to fund the film blow-up (as well as audio clean-up etc.). Just look at "Primer" - shot on 16mm with crap for audio for $7000, crap for lights and relied on distributor having funds for 35mm print and audio work post Sundance. I can think of dozens of other films with similar scenarios. Shoot now and get money for blow-up later.

Most indie producer would rather spend their meager dollars on the creative and logistic side. If shooting something other than 35mm (anything from miniDV to Super16) shaves money that can be used on a better cast, better locations, more time, more takes etc. it ends up making a much bigger difference than the better resolution 35mm offers.

With all the new HDV and HD cams under $10k, this trend will increase. I would argue that unless your story depends on crisp 35mm resolution, don't spend money on shooting 35mm at the expense of story, creativity or other critical production elements.

If you have the money to shoot 35mm and it suits your story, go for it. But I would say most indie films do not need to budget and shoot 35mm (if for the simple fact that many of them will never have a theatrical release).
Click to expand...
Also I agree with this statement. Like an indie filmmaker and producer I do not have a budget for 35mm. So I stay with HDV and HD cameras. In the case that your film has a theatre market value than you could easy find a co-producer to blow your film on 35mm. With a sound is easy. Today a lot you can do it by yourself with all available and affordable digital audio tools. HD-DVD and Blu-ray disk computer recording is coming next year. Use of digital theater projection is spreading over the world. The brand new movie making revolution just started. LET'S JOIN THE CROWD.
 
Looking forward to 10.000'th viewer of the comparison footage.!!!!!!!!

That is a REALLY NICE!!!!!!! Makes us all stronger!!!!!!!!!!!
 
SJUSER said:
Looking forward to 10.000'th viewer of the comparison footage.!!!!!!!!

That is a REALLY NICE!!!!!!! Makes us all stronger!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I want to have10.000 fashion viewer's clicks. I am still waiting for that. Also it means if you get a really good story you can make some money from the production. Continue it in that way. People are still crazy about the ordinary (Austrian) life stories.
 
Barry Green said:
If you're going to be making a film print, and you know for a fact that your destination is going to be a film print, then you should be shooting on film in the first place. Shooting on a video camera is false economy; you'll spend as much or more on the film transfer process as you would to have shot on film in the first place. And film origination is going to look better.
Click to expand...
There's more to it than economics, however. After shooting many short narratives on film, I still vastly prefer the workflow of shooting digitally. Just the fact that you can actually see WHAT you're shooting WHILE you're shooting is reason enough for me. (What a concept, eh?) :) Being able to bypass the entire developing/processing/telecine process and be able to review dailies at the end of the day is invaluable. And the path to editing is much more streamlined and efficient. Truly, I believe the only thing film has going for it anymore is resolution/image quality (latitude, DOF, etc.) - which is huge, film isn't "dead" by any means - but digital is getting there. At the end of the day, your film's true success relies completely on its story, not the format. If I'm more comfortable on set working digitally, and I can tell a better story as a result, then that's definitely what I'm going to do. One can always blow up to film later if the interest is there. Also, bear in mind that more and more people are staying at home to watch movies. The advent of Blu-Ray will further facilitate this. If the projected-film market continues to shrink and the primary medium for film output becomes an HDTV in a living room, then the advantages to originating your master on film will also continue to dwindle.

Don't get me wrong, I love the asthetic of film. But in many ways, it's a very antiquated process and shooting digitally has long since eclipsed it on several fronts. The lines will only continue to blur further from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top