Hpx500 ???

arrestthisman said:
I've been thinking a lot that while imagers are like format, the codec imparts a "look" to the footage, so chosing an aquisition camera with a certian codec, is almost like chosing a stock of 35mm.

.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting way to look at it. After seeing the red footage, I have been really tempted to buy one when it's available. It gives a higher res than the HPX500, and I am guessing more latitude (although I don't know how many stops the HPX is estimated at), for a comparable price if you just buy the body. But man, there is something about the colors of Panny footage. I know the casual viewer can't tell, and like film stock, you can do some stuff in post. But I just like the look of Panasonic cameras.
 
Red is claiming about 11 stops of dynamic range (and it certainly looks like it delivers); the HPX500 clocks in at about 10. No doubt the Red is way higher resolution than the HPX500 (or anything else on the market at 10x the price).
 
And all things being equal, more res is great (especially since red code is supposed to compress at 12:1 and still looks amazing.) But is 4K really necessary, even for a theatrical release? It's a rhetorical question, and I've never been a filmmaker who focuses on the tools more than the project. But I'd like a weekend with both cameras to see which one I liked better.
 
Maybe 4K isn't "necessary" for theatrical release, but why not shoot for the stars with these things. I worked for a major post house about 8 years ago and had a conversation with an engineer who was "advising" a major theatre chain about resolution issues. He insisted that 1K was all we would ever need. He said that even though a 35 MM negative has a 4K capabilty, by the time you consider resolution loss due to print generation anfd projector jitter 1K is all you should expect on the screen. SO WHAT? If I could get the kind of resolution that a sheet of large format film stock could give me, reasonably,...LET ME HAVE IT !!

It's akin to the debate over sample rates and bit depth resolution in the audio world, or even Beta vs VHS. Give us progress, don't settle for less.

I still have "quad" reel to reel tapes from 1970 that I have re-digitized for playback on my 5.1 home theatre system. They sound great. (OK so I had to fake the center channel) More is more.
 
No doubt. ANd all other things being equal, I'd rather have more res. But let's just say that there was a film stock that had amazing colors, but it only came in super 16....
 
Jim Brennan said:
But is 4K really necessary, even for a theatrical release?
Click to expand...
Of course not. If Lonesome Jim, The Aristocrats, November, Murderball, Iraq In Fragments, Personal Velocity, 28 Days Later, Mad Hot Ballroom, SuperSize Me, Tadpole, Hoop Dreams, and Open Water can all get theatrical releases (and they did), and they were all shot on standard-def video at 0.3k resolution, I find it hard to understand why someone would think 4K is "really necessary". Better, certainly -- but necessary?

Then there's Star Wars Episode II and III, Grindhouse's Planet Terror and Death Proof, Collateral, Spy Kids I, II and III, Once Upon a Time In Mexico, and everything else that's been shot in 1080p. That's not 4K, it's not half of 4K.

And one of last year's bigger hits, "Borat" -- that was shot on 720p on a VariCam. Not even 1K resolution. And Al Gore's film -- a lot of that was shot 720p on an HD100.

Simple fact is: the tools are now good enough. Anyone blaming their camera for not getting the results they want or, worse, thinking that by buying something else bigger and better is the "key" to their success, simply has their priorities in the wrong place.

Better is better. Nobody's disputing that. We all want better, and that's why I got a DVX, why I've got an HVX now, and why I've got a Red reservation, and why I'll probably get an HPX500 as well. But people are getting Oscar nominations off of the standard-def, 4:3 DVX already.

The tools are good enough.

But I'd like a weekend with both cameras to see which one I liked better.
Click to expand...
Absolutely the right idea.
 
Barry_Green said:
And Al Gore's film -- a lot of that was shot 720p on an HD100.
Click to expand...

And it would have been a waste of pixels if shot on a cell phone! :beer:
Sorry, I had to hit that softball!

It's wasn't the paint brush that made Michael Angelo great ya know.

I gotta admit, until the last couple years I used to be a video snob. But with reality shows and video on the web being accepted so well, it's the perfect concept rather then picture quality that matters.
Kinda sad that both don't matter as much. But the recent technology in low priced camera imagery helped bridge the gap, at least for me.

Enough rambling. Back to work.
 
I like to think of the great American novel analogy. Anyone with access to pen and paper can write a book, but very few can write best selling novels.

Same with film and video. Although good tools can help, and the new low cost cameras make video available to a lot more people, you still need to bring some talent to the table.
 
Sumfun said:
I like to think of the great American novel analogy. Anyone with access to pen and paper can write a book, but very few can write best selling novels.

Same with film and video. Although good tools can help, and the new low cost cameras make video available to a lot more people, you still need to bring some talent to the table.
Click to expand...

Talent is only the beginning. :)
 
That little AGXXX10 thing is what I'd seen a couple months ago. I want one of those. P2 recorder across 2 cards from any 1394 input - that's cool. Wonder if you can hook up an external shuttle controller?

e
 
The 2/3" interchangable lens sets it apart from the HVX200. Nice glass in front of the camera as opposed to the dinky HVX200 lens will make all the dif in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top