First ever HVX 35mm Film-out Screening!

Thanks Illya for opening the doors to some of the members here.. I wish i could of made it. And thanks for your input here.. your knowledge is appreciated.

As for the pulldown removal.. its coming. Barry did a little 1080 24p magic with some test software on the PC, but it was no easy feat.
 
Illya Friedman said:
I'm curious about the 1080/24P/PA/60i mode of the HVX. However, I'm not aware of any current software that will recognize the HVX flags for 2:3 or advanced pulldown and remove them for filmout. Has anyone worked a true 1080/24p timeline with only native frames in either FCP or Xpress HD? 60i to 35mm looks really poor, so without some software help it will be a VERY tedious manual removal process.
Click to expand...

I have no actual HVX200 24p over 1080i footage of course, but this ability is hypothetically all built in to Cinema Tools and Final Cut Pro.

http://www.holyzoo.com/000/hvx200/RemovePulldown.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/000/hvx200/1080_24p_in_FCP.jpg

I would not be surprised to see this working easily, and if not now, with an update.
 
Illya Friedman said:
I'm curious about the 1080/24P/PA/60i mode of the HVX. However, I'm not aware of any current software that will recognize the HVX flags for 2:3 or advanced pulldown and remove them for filmout.
Click to expand...
FCP doesn't yet support it; I don't know about the other apps.

I was able to do it, by using DVFilm Maker prerelease version 2.21. That's a program from Marcus van Bavel of www.dvfilm.com. It will take a 1080/24pa .MXF file as input, and output a pure 24p quicktime file with no pulldown. It doesn't transcode, it copies the codec data over unmodified, but only 24 frames instead of 30. I then pieced the elements together in Sony Vegas and output from there, although it was somewhat painful to do so as Vegas only delivers about 3 to 4 frames per second when working with DV100.
 
Barry_Green said:
I'll put together a couple of minutes of our 1080p stuff and Marcus at DVFilm.com will transfer it.
Click to expand...

Barry I hope either you or Marcus will also put together some suggested settings for film transfer (as here) for the HVX. That was a big help for me in my DVX shooting.:)
 
Barry_Green said:
This footage will be submitted to DVFilm in the native codec with no post alteration and no recompression.
Click to expand...

That's what I am talking about. Now, was there any reason why the guys at Laser Pacific uprezzed the 720p footage? Does it have to do with the equipment they use to the the transfer?
 
araujofh said:
That's what I am talking about. Now, was there any reason why the guys at Laser Pacific uprezzed the 720p footage? Does it have to do with the equipment they use to the the transfer?
Click to expand...


Most images look better upresed to the size the image setter works at.
If you had an internet sized image at 96dpi and 4x6 inches and you wanted to make a printed 8x12, it would look better if you upresed it to the output size and then printed it instead of just printing it scaled up.

When you uprezz it interpolates the area between the pixels and creates more small pixels. Otherwise, you will just have the small pixels represented as a larger pixel, that is more noticable as being pixelated.
 
Barry_Green said:
I then pieced the elements together in Sony Vegas and output from there, although it was somewhat painful to do so as Vegas only delivers about 3 to 4 frames per second when working with DV100.
Click to expand...

For future work in Vegas, isn't it already possible use DV Filmmaker to output a Cineform AVI which would allow realtime playback?

I have no axe to grind in promoting Cineform, but if it works it works and deserves to be mentioned. I found some of their staff at NAB to be off-putting and rather arrogant. I also find the seemingly endless variants of their codec difficult to sort out and needlessly complex.

However, their codec is high quality, true 1920 by 1080 or 1280 by 720. In fact, a case could be made to pester Marcus to have a mode where you can downrez HVX 1080p to Cineform 720p and have 720p of higher luma rez than when working in native DVCPro 100 on the timeline.

I believe a $199.00 upgrade of Cineform is needed beyond what is available when you have Vegas 6 (in addition to DV Filmmaker), but this will at least allow full performance right now without any other effort from Sony. When DV Filmmaker can handle all the flavors of DVCPro 100 then this will be a very attractive method of working, IMO.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
 
Any screenings in NYC?

Any screenings in NYC?

Anyone know of any screenings in NYC? Maybe something at Abel Cine?
 
There are a few photos at the link below from the HVX200 to 35mm film out screening the other night at Laser Pacific. Just incase some of you were curious about that night. I did put a shot of the screen with HVX-200 material projected too! Link below

Enjoy!

http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms

Michael Pappas
 
holyzoo said:
I have no actual HVX200 24p over 1080i footage of course, but this ability is hypothetically all built in to Cinema Tools and Final Cut Pro.
I would not be surprised to see this working easily, and if not now, with an update.
Click to expand...

I was yipping about this very issue on the forum a month or so ago, in the context of "What editing software will work with HVX 1080 24p Advance right now?". Now, I'm pretty sure...

...it *will* take upgrades of everything on every platform before there is the ability to edit and remove that particular form of pull-down. FCP can't detect Advance in DVCPro 100 because, before the HVX, that flavor of DVCPro 100 just didn't exist, did it? Or if it did there was no reason to implement it because no camera used it. Avid, the others, all in the same boat, etc.

There are work-arounds, but some upgrade will be needed from every vendor to use this camera to the max...

Jim Arthurs
 
Jim Arthurs said:
For future work in Vegas, isn't it already possible use DV Filmmaker to output a Cineform AVI which would allow realtime playback?
Click to expand...
He's built in the ability to transcode to cineform, yes. I just don't like the idea of having to change away from the native codec. Nothing will be gained, but more compression artifacts will be introduced by recompressing it.

Now that I've seen how fast it's possible to work with the native codec, I would always prefer to stay in the native codec. Something like Cineform may make sense if you're constantly re-rendering and exporting your footage, but the way I work, and the way I'd expect many of us work, is that the footage never gets re-rendered until the very final output. In cases like that, Cineform just gets in the way. It may provide faster timeline editing on Vegas, I haven't tried that -- but you can't get much faster than 11 streams of DVCPRO-HD in realtime, and that's what a top-line Mac can do.


I believe a $199.00 upgrade of Cineform is needed beyond what is available when you have Vegas 6 (in addition to DV Filmmaker), but this will at least allow full performance right now without any other effort from Sony. When DV Filmmaker can handle all the flavors of DVCPro 100 then this will be a very attractive method of working, IMO.
Click to expand...
It may be the most attractive workaround, but it's still a workaround. It still involves conversion steps, and it still involves losing the metadata. Once you see a P2 card slid into a slot and Avid or Canopus opening the native files and editing in realtime straight from the card, you'll more clearly grasp how annoying the intermediary steps are. Even FCP has to go through an intermediary step ("Ingesting" and converting the .MXF to .MOV) and that's the main drawback to the FCP solution right now. Avid and Canopus can work with the native data natively, immediately, in real time. That workflow is attractive -- attractive enough that I'm actually looking at swapping to either a Mac/FCP, Avid, or Canopus editing platform.

If Vegas would announce full support (and no, not back-door "well, if someone else writes a codec, and if you use someone else's capture utility, and if someone else imports the files, and if someone else converts the files) but REAL native support, just like Canopus and Avid and FCP, then that would absolutely make my day (and the day of thousands of Vegas-using potential-HVX customers). I was all set to use the workaround so I didn't have to give up my beloved Vegas, but after seeing the workarounds in action, vs. seeing how "the other guys" did it, it's no contest.

If Vegas doesn't announce and develop native support, at least as good as the other guys, I'm ditching it.
 
I sure hope Vegas supports it! I don't want to give up the dolby digital surround capabilites in Vegas /DVD Architect
 
harlan said:
Kind of veering off topic a little, but when I first set out to purchase an HD camera package, I contacted Sony numerous times (and 4 or 5 years later have still never heard back from them). After becoming quite frustrated with Sony's treatment of a customer looking to spend between $100K & $200K for a camera package, I wandered into the Panasonic offices. That's when I first met Doug. I walked in a 20ish year old dressed like a total bum (t-shirt, wacky pants, and a baseball cap) so I can't imagine my first impression went over too well. None the less, Doug treated me with complete respect and he made me feel right at home with Panasonic.
Click to expand...

Sorry to take your veering off topic and run with it, but I just wanted to say I take the same approach. I'm casual, and I stay casual as a matter of principle in my business dealings. If I sense I get any disrespect for it, it is a very valuable early warning sign that I'm dealing with d*cks, and avoiding them will spare mem trouble down the line :)

:thumbsup:

M.
 
Illya Friedman said:
Hello everyone,

The 35mm transfer was done by Laser Pacific today.

Illya Friedman
Click to expand...

Were there any conversations during the process about what they like to see, in terms of video characteristics, when they get HD in for filmout? I'm sure there are a lot of very video-y things a lot of us do when we shoot that doesn't transfer to film very well.

Thanks for the update on your project! It's great to see real testing happen so soon after production of the camera began.

-Rob
 
Yuval Shrem said:
I might be wrong, but I tend to disagree.
So far digital projection didn't prove it self as effective as film projection when it comes to storytelling. I'm not talking here about the shooting format, but rather the projection itself. for some reason, even when projecting the same exact material (originated on film) at the same theatre is clearly more effective when projected from a film copy, rather than a 4k digital projection of the same material.
Somehow it is just more compelling to watch the film projection, and it makes the storytelling more effective.

I know it doesn't make sense, but I was actually in an elaborate test screening testing exactly that, and everyone felt the same way in about 80% of the time.
Click to expand...
:thumbup: :thumbup:
This answer based on real testing i find interesting .
Are there details to the elaborate test?
Throw distance? projector to screen distance ?
Screen size ?
And where and when the elaborate test was done .
I have friends running a projector refurbishing company .
They live on the cutting edge of this crisis .
The selling of an digital technology against a tried and true technology (film projection.
Check out Roberts film service in canada they blow digital projection out of the water with thier system .
Thanks for any reply with details on the theater dimensions .
Cheers
Bruce
 
I've seen side by sides with digital and film projection. the dp said the digital had less contrast and weaker blacks but it looked crisper. but i still preferred the film image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top