ALL: films made with?
- Thread starter Zim
- Start date
Can you define "film"? Do you mean long-format dramatic production? I love my AC160, but it wouldn't be me first choice for a feature length production.
The small chips don't give you the shallow depth of field most people have come to expect in a feature length drama. I guess it's time we come up with another word for "film". Hardly anyone shoots on it anymore, and there's less and less distribution of film prints.
The small chips don't give you the shallow depth of field most people have come to expect in a feature length drama. I guess it's time we come up with another word for "film". Hardly anyone shoots on it anymore, and there's less and less distribution of film prints.
Zim
Veteran
Any kind of film/movie I guess, but for me it is more for documentary film. Yes if I could afford a RED or something I would but I'm looking under $5,000 and under $4,000 would be even better. My last film was shot on a DVX100b and the chips I think were probably not as good. It had several Oscar nominations too. I don't think the AC130 or 160 has went backwards from that has it?
I also thought about the GH3 but I really don't think I want to mess the audio and all of the other DSLR type issues right now.
Is there a better video camera for documentary work in this price range?
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Nowhere-Champaign-Music-Documentary/dp/B009416ACI/
I also thought about the GH3 but I really don't think I want to mess the audio and all of the other DSLR type issues right now.
Is there a better video camera for documentary work in this price range?
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Nowhere-Champaign-Music-Documentary/dp/B009416ACI/
Zim
Veteran
Yes times have changed. I remember when people talked about transferring footage to film. But film or movie I think it is about the same thing.
I know that in Canada, where I work, AVCHD isn't accepted as a primary shooting format by any of the broadcasters. So if you shoot a documentary for broadcast, distribution can be an issue. That said, I've been in the business for 35 years and I would say that AVCHD holds up as well as other codecs out there like XDcam 50 mbit, but the technical types who make the decisions don't allow it. The travel videos I shoot on my 160 aren't for broadcast, but I work with them like they are. Properly color corrected and laid back to HDcam tape, AVCHD looks gorgeous. I did tests with my 160 using a Black Magic HyperDeck Shuttle recording to ProRes. I had to look very hard to see any difference between the ProRes and the AVCHD.
I'm happy with both my 160 and my 150 for run and gun doc style shooting, both are very similar to the DVX100. I like the wide angle range of Panasonic cameras, Sonys are never quite as wide as I would like without an adapter. I also like the GH2 and GH3 for their versatility, I don't own one, but the footage cuts well with the 160.
I'm happy with both my 160 and my 150 for run and gun doc style shooting, both are very similar to the DVX100. I like the wide angle range of Panasonic cameras, Sonys are never quite as wide as I would like without an adapter. I also like the GH2 and GH3 for their versatility, I don't own one, but the footage cuts well with the 160.
Zim
Veteran
The minimum acceptable codec is XDcam 50 mbit or DVC Pro HD. Theoretically, AVCHD is supposed to be twice as good as MPEG2 which is what XDcam is based on. So I would argue that AVCHD at 22mbit should be equivalent to XDcam 50, but the engineers have drawn their line in the sand and the line says 50 mbit. All other formats are limited to less than 25% of the show content.
That's why you render your final out as XDCam 50Mbps 4:2:2.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I like this...lol. Makes sense to me!
I had a station air AVCHD footage from my C100. There are shows on Discovery channel shot with HDV cameras.
Gary
Canadian broadcasters work differently than US broadcasters. In Canada, the production company owns the show and sells the rights to the broadcaster. In the US, the production company develops the idea and sells the whole show to the broadcaster and the broadcaster chooses what specs to apply. Discovery has several tiers of programming in the US, each with it's own camera specs.
I'm certainly not dissing AVCHD, I love it and we've certainly used it in our productions, but I wouldn't go out and shoot a full length doc on it before checking with potential broadcasters and distributors to see if it's acceptable.
I'm wearing two hats here, my day job is VP of post production for Paperny Entertainment in Vancouver. We produce 30 to 40 hours of programming a year for primarily Canadian broadcasters. I have to be a stickler for quality, making sure that our programs look and sound as good as they can. My hobby is shooting travel videos on my AC160 and HMC150. I call it a hobby as there's no money in it but I'm out shooting them with my wife and getting to see the world. To me, AVCHD is broadcast quality, but alas, not everyone else see's it that way.
Canadian broadcasters work differently than US broadcasters. In Canada, the production company owns the show and sells the rights to the broadcaster. In the US, the production company develops the idea and sells the whole show to the broadcaster and the broadcaster chooses what specs to apply. Discovery has several tiers of programming in the US, each with it's own camera specs.
I'm certainly not dissing AVCHD, I love it and we've certainly used it in our productions, but I wouldn't go out and shoot a full length doc on it before checking with potential broadcasters and distributors to see if it's acceptable.
I'm wearing two hats here, my day job is VP of post production for Paperny Entertainment in Vancouver. We produce 30 to 40 hours of programming a year for primarily Canadian broadcasters. I have to be a stickler for quality, making sure that our programs look and sound as good as they can. My hobby is shooting travel videos on my AC160 and HMC150. I call it a hobby as there's no money in it but I'm out shooting them with my wife and getting to see the world. To me, AVCHD is broadcast quality, but alas, not everyone else see's it that way.
Hi Zim,
I think there are two points here: Does the broadcaster accept 4.2.0 avchd? If so then your abilities, skill and talent as a" filmmaker" will be the only criteria. The 130/160 are capable of stunningly good output, with as much manual control as you might wish for.
And remember the 160/a can output 4.2.2 direct to a samurai or similar so it so versatile. Over here in NZ Sky specify 4.2.2 but having spoken to them about this , they have said that they have seen remarkable quality on 4.2. 0 and will happily broadcast it if the professionaism and artistic quality is there.
This cheers me greatly as I am currntly tendering for some TV commercials!
Cheers!
Rod
I think there are two points here: Does the broadcaster accept 4.2.0 avchd? If so then your abilities, skill and talent as a" filmmaker" will be the only criteria. The 130/160 are capable of stunningly good output, with as much manual control as you might wish for.
And remember the 160/a can output 4.2.2 direct to a samurai or similar so it so versatile. Over here in NZ Sky specify 4.2.2 but having spoken to them about this , they have said that they have seen remarkable quality on 4.2. 0 and will happily broadcast it if the professionaism and artistic quality is there.
This cheers me greatly as I am currntly tendering for some TV commercials!
Cheers!
Rod
Zim
Veteran
Thanks Rod, I'm not so worried about doing much commercial work. Pretty much just plan on indie/ documentary film. Plus some live music. The local PBS station here might show my last film and it was done with my DVX100b. Can the 130a output 4.4.2 too?
Zim
Veteran
I don't want P2
Yes it can, but only through the HDMI connection, which according to Guru Barry's book, is really not a very rugged connection method. HDMI connections are quite fragile plug in connectors (I know , I easily ripped a socket off a HDMI lead by flexing it too far on a TV). Whereas the 160 has a HD-SDI locking bayonet type of connection which is far more robust. Also the HDMI does not output timecode but the HD-SDI does.
I believe the 160/a represents the best professional value for money out there and with every single aspect of adjustment available other than an interchangeable lens, is hard to beat. And bear in mind the massive zoom range of this lens- using this with radio mics for interviews very shallow DOFs can be achieved, (aalthough you need the space of course). It is a big camera though and substantial in weight for handholding too long. But it is amazing on tripod or steadicam. If funds allow, it is pretty unbeatable value for money.
Hope this helps
Cheers!
Rod
Well then, how about starting a movement to get the stuffy pen-pushing TV engineers to pull their narrow heads from under the sand and wake up to reality?
When I started in TV we used 16mm film and NO-ONE would go to the cameraman, director or producer and start quibbling over which camera or stock they used. Picture quality was judged with eyes because this is ultimately what us humans watch TV with. Of course you had to get your exposure and focus right, but it was never a case of 'oh if you use that camera you'll never go on air'. Rubbish.
It seems so obvious to me, both with my eyes and my math: AVCHD at 24Mb/s is just as good, if not better than, MPEG-2 at 50Mb/s. It isn't just a case of 'looks good enough to me', which alone should be sufficient, but AVCHD uses H.264 which is a next generation codec after MPEG-2, which incidentally was developed for standard definition in the early 90's. Mpeg-2 is the official codec for DVDs (SD), H.264 is the official codec for Blu-Ray (HD), so why the heck should AVCHD @24Mb not be as good as MPeg-2 @50Mb? Suddenly all Japanese Blu-ray manufacturers and Holliwood studios are amateurs not capable of choosing a decent codec for high-definition???
H.264 is roughly 2 to 2.5 times MATHEMATICALLY more efficient than MPEG-2. It's software for God's sake, it's a codec, a high-level mathematical expression, it's numbers that are selectively crunched in a more advanced way to produce the same quality at roughly half the bitrate. I remember when Jpeg came about in the 90s everyone was in awe that they could get beautiful pictures squeezed to a fraction of uncompressed TIFF. I wasn't surprised, it was software, it's just math, when things are digital they're just numbers, you can do things with them and the result won't change. Yes heavily compressed Jpeg can look terrible, I am talking about light compression, as in the case of AVCHD at 24Mb.
Why can't the bloody broadcasters and their stuffy engineers just accept AVCHD @ 24Mbs for transmission when it looks the same as MPEG-2 at 50 on screen and on the spec sheet??? I'll tell you why, because AVCHD has got 'consumer' written all over it and that disgusts them, they're snobs.
Well, in my view they're wrong, and many agree with me and it seems you do too. So why can't we break this stupid spell and do something to get the broadcasters face up to reality and start accepting AVCHD at 24Mb without all this despicable prejudice? Or better still, stop being so bloody fussy about sensors & codecs and just judge pictures based on how they look on a screen rather than which camera took them?
Sorry for the rant, but it's just incredible that we went from the promise of digital video, opening up the gates to television for independent film-makers without having to take out a mortgage for a film or Betacam camera, to then back-track all the way and have to fork out 10,000 dollars at least for a heavy and bulky camera just to satisfy some TV engineers! If you're on the market for a hand-held broadcast-acceptable camcorder, you'll be surprised to see there are actually only a very few models available, whereas the majority of professional camcorders are all AVCHD!!!!! But the broadcasters don't want them! AAARRGHH!
Zim
Veteran
Yes I'm still looking at the 160a and the 130a. The Sony FS100 is nice but no ND filters is a problem. I like the GH3 but audio is a problem. The 160a or 130a is probably closest to my DVX100b.