I know it's not perfect, but...

braw

braw

Well-known member
I wish people could just accept it for what it is. This new camera is incredible. Yes there are drawbacks...what the crap do you expect from a $6000 camera that's high def?

If the idea sucks for your needs, then get another HD cameras whose limitations fit you better. Seriously though, Varicam like performance (better and worse in certain aspects) for under $10,000 is crazy. For film makers, this is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I didn't like the GR-HD1 so I never considered it. I didn't like the FX1 or the Z1 so I discounted them as options. Why would you waste your time finding a board that is obviously a fan base of Panasonic cameras and bash it? Nothing better to do?

I wish I could find the quote or who said it but, if all that's left to gripe about are little things like a removable lens, the P2 cost, or that it isn't aggressive looking, Panasonic did something very right. I personally can't wait for this beast. It's a DVX on steroids...not using HDV...and has multiple recording options...exactly what I hoped for.
 
Of course it's great. It is the first usable handheld HD camera, ever.
They even beat Jeff Kreines in that category.

P2 cards have a downside for right now--shorter runs than DV25 tape and maybe price.
Even those limitations are short-term.

In a couple of years the capacity of media cards will exceed the runtimes of current MiniDV tapes
and the prices will pummel. This is a camera that will grow with users and eventually those little
cards will be cheap and last for several hours.

Maybe no-one else here remembers when the only MiniDV tapes you could get were $25 each
back in 1998. They've come down significantly in price, but capacity is the same for identical
micron-size tape. With media cards prices go down and capacity goes up. It's a win-win situation.

In a couple of years we're all going to laugh about the silliness of memory sizes and will be
buying Sony FX1's at flea markets as throwaways for special effects like the football P-O-V shot.

brian wells
 
thisiswells said:
P2 cards have a downside for right now--shorter runs than DV25 tape and maybe price.
Even those limitations are short-term.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with that. The cost vs. time is my only *real* concern right nwo. But as Barry and others have pointed out, from a filmmakers point of view, it's like having 100,000 mags of film with no processing or telecine costs. I would rather have shorter record times (that will become much bigger in time) vs massivle compressed video. HDV is not as good as DVCPRO HD, and MiniDV tapes are what they are, P2 will get longer. It's always hard to jump into new technology that may become outdated, but the DVX100 is still a kick ass camera. For this I trust the new camera.
 
Braw: AGREED!!

We are spoiled with our DV tapes and our 60minute recording times. But how do you think REAL filmmakers feel with their 4 minute magazines?

I know it's hard to do, but imagine yourself with a Panavision / ARRI film camera for 6k. Now imagine that Kodak / Fuji just gave you an *unlimited supply* of film magazines for $1500 dollars. Oh, and being that Kodak / Fuji like you so much....they are also going to throw in free telecine and processing. $ 0 dollars. So essentially, you have a setup that *could* rival studio's stuff for less than 1/10th of the cost. That's how I look at it.

I know it's a bit of a stretch comparing a Panavision to the HVX, but I am looking at it from a Workflow perspective. Just put yourself in *their* shoes and imagine all the extra hassles that go with Film.

So what you have 4-8 minutes of HD on a P2. You will learn to work with it. And if you don't want to learn to work with it, then you can always get a Hard Drive and record to that. A Panavision camera doesn't have that option.

So in a weird twisted way, us indie's are actually *better off* with P2 / HD storage solutions.

Please don't criticize my fantasy too hard.

~reservoir~
 
Well, I feel the comparison of film runtimes to the P2 runtimes isn't an even comparison.
It is for the time being a way to add perspective to the situation. However, you can get 33
minute magazines for certain 16mm cameras. They were used all the time for football games.

You can't really buy 1200' reels in 16mm without a special order so it's almost moot.
You can, however, easily purchase 800' reels from Kodak (22mins50secs) and you still need an 800' magazine.
I'm helping a friend of mine burn DVD's of a memorial service that was over an hour long.
It was shot Arri SR-3 with 800' mags.

Of course, the largest mag for a 35mm camera I'm aware of is 2000' and in 3-perf Super35mm
that's about 20 minutes--same as P2. So, yeah--you can do it, but it's furiously expensive.

brian wells
 
Well, I dont think all DVXUSER.com posters are here to be cheerleaders for the HVX. We simple want to know the in's and out's....To be objective about all the new cameras so everyone can make an educated, cost effective decision.

Obviously, there are some die-hard panasonic fans who are HVX are bust... I personally would like to stay with Panasonic in buying the HVX because I have the DVX and I'm familiar with all the settings, button placements, ergonomics, etc.

But, I'm not here to rah rah the HVX if something fits a certain videograher better. And if I have certain concerns, Im sure others do to. I dont think others are bashing the HVX, just pointing out certain shortcomings in regards to all the cameras.

In regards to the HVX and the expensive P2 tapes. One poster summed it up nicely..."You dont buy a Jet and wait for rocket fuel to come down in price.

To each his own...Panasonic has some wicked specs. Picture quality Im sure will be superb. But, the workflow of the JVC is tighter.

Robert Rodriquez said he could do 2 to 3 films on a digital camera in the time it takes him to do 1 actually shooting on film...So speed kills. Does film look better than digital, ofcourse, but it is the slower and less efficient of the two, absolutely. Whats the future trend?

Less quality, but more out-put. Better quality, but less-output. Whats important to you? I need to call my brother, the Industrial Engineer about this. lol

I guess it all boils down to the end-consumer...What do they want?
 
Eleven...

Eleven...

4-minute mag? Uhh... what?

Are you talking about Super8? You must be talking about Super8. Super8 is three and one-half minutes - but 400' mags of 16mm and 35mm run closer to eleven.

SpinalTap-thumb.jpg


Get it together.

e
 
reservoir said:
Please don't criticize my fantasy too hard.

~reservoir~
Click to expand...

I am right there with you. If anyones pissed it isn't as good as a Varicam, or a Cinealta, hen go out and buy one and shut the #$@ up. Even if you were handed a Cinealta, are you aware of the inferior record times for 4:4:4 on hard disk? Has anyone that's critical any idea the cost of that?

Forget film then if it's not the best comparison, look only at a Cinealta workflow. Uncompressed HD is insane in storage for an indie like myself.

To be able to have a day job, and afford a camera that's almost litterally a mini Varicam is an incredible thing.

Many said it would be suicide for Panasonic to make a sub $10,000 camera with this many features. I think it's brilliant and I hope the sell a million of them.
 
Editor321 said:
Does film look better than digital, ofcourse
Click to expand...

Um, exsqueeze me...uh....Baking Power!!

I hope you are referring to a DV movie like *28 days later* or something similar!!

Have you actually even seen a recent *digital picture* like Attack Of The Clones, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Spy Kids, or the trailer for the soon to be released Revenge of the Sith. You must have some DAMN good vision if you can tell a difference between Digital and Film at that level. Because to my knowledge, those bad boys were captured at 4:4:4 and look indistinguishable from Film / Celluloid. And if you are watching a DLP projection, you are actually seeing something that is considered to be....oh my....*gasp*....BETTER than FILM / Celluloid. Seriously!! But then again, *BETTER* is a relative term.

In all fairness though, would a HVX film look as good as a Lucas, Rodriguez special...probably not, but we haven't seen any footage yet.

~reservoir~
 
braw said:
I am right there with you. If anyones pissed it isn't as good as a Varicam, or a Cinealta, hen go out and buy one and shut the #$@ up. Even if you were handed a Cinealta, are you aware of the inferior record times for 4:4:4 on hard disk? Has anyone that's critical any idea the cost of that?

Forget film then if it's not the best comparison, look only at a Cinealta workflow. Uncompressed HD is insane in storage for an indie like myself.

To be able to have a day job, and afford a camera that's almost litterally a mini Varicam is an incredible thing.

Many said it would be suicide for Panasonic to make a sub $10,000 camera with this many features. I think it's brilliant and I hope the sell a million of them.
Click to expand...

YEP....if some of these clowns were handed a REAL Varicam or a REAL CineAlta....they's still ***** about something.

"Man, these lenses are too expensive"

"Man, this 4:4:4 output is killing me"

"Man, this thing is TOO BIG"

"Man...(insert random BS here)"

If you like the specs on the HVX. Wait and see the footage. If you don't like it, then get the *F* out of this forum and goto dvinfo.net or creativecow and mope around with the Sony Fanboys!! Jesus....it's that simple!!

~reservoir~
 
overlandfilms said:
4-minute mag? Uhh... what?

Are you talking about Super8? You must be talking about Super8. Super8 is three and one-half minutes - but 400' mags of 16mm and 35mm run closer to eleven.

Get it together.

e
Click to expand...


My mistake. Just trying to illustrate that P2 and film magazines are somewhat analogous of each other in terms of workflow.

But the P2 has a BIG plus. Hot swapping with only 2 cards.

Or is there a *precious* film camera that can do that too? :huh:

~reservoir~
 
I know a show shooting CineAlta for Sony Television right now, and they have lots of gripes about the format, but they revolve around latitude and depth of field primarily.

Anyone used to shooting 24-frame supported (video assist / logging) single-camera 35mm is in love with the new HD workflow. The established production community wants the tools to look, feel and function like an Arri, Panaflex or MovieCam hardware - plain and simple.

Functionality like this also keeps the camera dept. squarely at four instead of one or two (operator and utility). Hollywood does have some say in the way workflow develops after all.

e
 
I'm just busting your balls on the runtime.

Believe me! I have no reservations or aversion to P2 "mags". Producing documentary footage on the fly, I certainly prefer solid-state technology in the middle of the desert or jungles to a hyperfragile and sensitive capstan, pinch rollers... head drum et-cetera and so on and so forth.
Tape is / was nifty, but P2 cards (or equivalent technologies) are the holy chalice.

e
 
overlandfilms said:
I'm just busting your balls on the runtime.
Click to expand...

No harm, no foul. I do enough *ball-busting* of my own....so it is enevitable that "what comes around, goes around"........every now and then!! Cheers!! :beer:

Oh, and we are definitely in agreement on the P2 thing: It *IS* the Holy Grail. And it will only get bigger, faster, and cheaper. How can we NOT be happy?

~reservoir~
 
reservoir said:
Um, exsqueeze me...uh....Baking Power!!

I hope you are referring to a DV movie like *28 days later* or something similar!!

Have you actually even seen a recent *digital picture* like Attack Of The Clones, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Spy Kids, or the trailer for the soon to be released Revenge of the Sith. You must have some DAMN good vision if you can tell a difference between Digital and Film at that level. Because to my knowledge, those bad boys were captured at 4:4:4 and look indistinguishable from Film / Celluloid. And if you are watching a DLP projection, you are actually seeing something that is considered to be....oh my....*gasp*....BETTER than FILM / Celluloid. Seriously!! But then again, *BETTER* is a relative term.

In all fairness though, would a HVX film look as good as a Lucas, Rodriguez special...probably not, but we haven't seen any footage yet.

~reservoir~
Click to expand...


Actually the motion blurring for movement is completely different on a digital medium. That's actually why Target refuses to shoot their spots on anything but 35, even todays films shot in 4:4:4 color space still look like video to me, regardless of 24p.

I know some people will say,

"bUt m0nt3! j00 a|2e t3h silly! LOL! teh sitllz lok tah saem!111!"

Well, the screen grabs might look comparable, but when you actually see it on the screen it sticks out like a sore thumb. Even if you don't know what to look for, subconciously you know there's something different. Whether or not you like that difference is up to you.
 
So a movie shot *digitally* in 24p then transferred to a 35mm print and shown at 24p doesn't render motion like a *celluloid* film shot at 24p? O....K.....

I'll have to take the Pepsi challenge on the High-End Digital vs. Celluloid argument.

~reservoir~
 
16mm is 40 frames a foot/ 36 feet a min. 400ft = 11.1min recording time.
35mm is 16 frames a foot/ 90 feet a min. 1200ft magazine = 13.3min
HVX 8gb card at 1080p = 8min - not bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top