Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
- Thread starter ccroo
- Start date
Michael Summers
Well-known member
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
i wish i could shoot film
i wish i could shoot film
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Editing MPEG files really isn't a problem these days. Most people (I assume) would convert their MPEG files to some lossless format for editing and then re-export to MPEG.
Anyone with some experience in MPEG editing out there? I would love to hear from someone who has had some experience in the area.
Editing MPEG files really isn't a problem these days. Most people (I assume) would convert their MPEG files to some lossless format for editing and then re-export to MPEG.
Anyone with some experience in MPEG editing out there? I would love to hear from someone who has had some experience in the area.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
[quote author=michael_summers link=board=nws;num=1095377070;start=0#1 date=09/16/04 at 17:46:24]i wish i could shoot film[/quote]
You can. 16mm cameras are dirt cheap on ebay, you can get a Krasnogorsk K-3 for about $100.
New film stock costs about $10 per minute, and processing and transfer add another $10 per minute. So for around $200 you can shoot 10 minutes of 16mm film and get it transferred to DV.
35mm can be almost as cheap -- you can get a Konvas 35mm camera for around $800 or so, and then shoot short ends. 35mm short ends cost about $10 per minute, and processing & transfer costs about $15 per minute, so for $25 per minute you could be shooting real full-fledged honest-to-goodness 35mm film.
It's a little expensive, but it's not THAT expensive... and when you're done, you can always sell the camera on ebay for about what you paid for it!
[quote author=michael_summers link=board=nws;num=1095377070;start=0#1 date=09/16/04 at 17:46:24]i wish i could shoot film
[/quote]You can. 16mm cameras are dirt cheap on ebay, you can get a Krasnogorsk K-3 for about $100.
New film stock costs about $10 per minute, and processing and transfer add another $10 per minute. So for around $200 you can shoot 10 minutes of 16mm film and get it transferred to DV.
35mm can be almost as cheap -- you can get a Konvas 35mm camera for around $800 or so, and then shoot short ends. 35mm short ends cost about $10 per minute, and processing & transfer costs about $15 per minute, so for $25 per minute you could be shooting real full-fledged honest-to-goodness 35mm film.
It's a little expensive, but it's not THAT expensive... and when you're done, you can always sell the camera on ebay for about what you paid for it!
Gary_McClurg
Well-known member
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Let's see if you get short ends for .20 x 1,000 ft = $200.00. Lab & prep .14 x 1,000 ft = $140.00 Ok transfer to what format.
Digi-beat for a master? DV to do an offline? So a good transfer is 3.33 per minute. So that's $33.33 for the ten minute (1,000 ft) roll and of course you have to time it, etc if we're not going back out to film.
So we'll save money and sync it ourselves in post. So a good 4 to 1 transfer ratio is good. So now it's $133.32.
Gee I almost forgot the tape stock and dat. So add $25.00. So that comes to about $498.32 for ten minutes.
But then minus time to slate, roll outs, etc. So if we're lucky we get 8 minutes for $500.00 bucks. So that comes to $62.50 per minute just for film and lab.
And we're going to do a 90 minute feature. So that's 9 1,000 ft rolls. And what a 5 to 1 shooting ratio. So lets make that at least 6 to 1 to account for slating, etc. So, we'll round that off for easy math 60,000 feet and that's being nice. So in truth are 35mm feature just cost us $30,000 just for film and lab.
And we don't even want to get into post lab work and negative cutting, etc.
Let's see if you get short ends for .20 x 1,000 ft = $200.00. Lab & prep .14 x 1,000 ft = $140.00 Ok transfer to what format.
Digi-beat for a master? DV to do an offline? So a good transfer is 3.33 per minute. So that's $33.33 for the ten minute (1,000 ft) roll and of course you have to time it, etc if we're not going back out to film.
So we'll save money and sync it ourselves in post. So a good 4 to 1 transfer ratio is good. So now it's $133.32.
Gee I almost forgot the tape stock and dat. So add $25.00. So that comes to about $498.32 for ten minutes.
But then minus time to slate, roll outs, etc. So if we're lucky we get 8 minutes for $500.00 bucks. So that comes to $62.50 per minute just for film and lab.
And we're going to do a 90 minute feature. So that's 9 1,000 ft rolls. And what a 5 to 1 shooting ratio. So lets make that at least 6 to 1 to account for slating, etc. So, we'll round that off for easy math 60,000 feet and that's being nice. So in truth are 35mm feature just cost us $30,000 just for film and lab.
And we don't even want to get into post lab work and negative cutting, etc.
Gary_McClurg
Well-known member
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Okay go shoot a music video. It'll still cost you the price of the DVX. Something that you can use over and over. Something that you can pratice and really learn your craft on. Trust me I love film. But, again, I sure wish they had the DVX when I was younger. My first sync sound project in film school had to be 60 seconds. That project cost me close to a $1,000. You had to go through the whole process from shooting, to post and ending on film and we don't want to get into how long that was ago.
Okay go shoot a music video. It'll still cost you the price of the DVX. Something that you can use over and over. Something that you can pratice and really learn your craft on. Trust me I love film. But, again, I sure wish they had the DVX when I was younger. My first sync sound project in film school had to be 60 seconds. That project cost me close to a $1,000. You had to go through the whole process from shooting, to post and ending on film and we don't want to get into how long that was ago.
taubkin
Veteran
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
I know, I know, what I was trying to point out is that shooting a feature is harder than getting film. I like film too. I'm dying to start shooting film already, I want to experiment with it before it gets vanished from the world. Maybe I can spend those bucks someday...
I know, I know, what I was trying to point out is that shooting a feature is harder than getting film. I like film too. I'm dying to start shooting film already, I want to experiment with it before it gets vanished from the world. Maybe I can spend those bucks someday...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Gary, I think you went a little overboard trying to prove a point. Until I got my DVX last January, I used to shoot 16mm all the time, it cost me $235 for a 400' roll, processing, and transfer to DV. Finished, scene-to-scene color correction, on tape ready to edit. That $235 included fresh new stock (usually Fuji with a 20% discount for being a member of the Film Arts Foundation), tax, shipping, everything. Not finishing on film, not doing opticals or anything else like that, just shooting for commercials and then editing on DV. For a regular TV commercial I could time it out and budget to shoot maybe 200' total. Yes, I'd provide a commercial shot on film for a grand materials cost of about $150, which is LESS than the rental rate of a PD150 at the time!
Film is more expensive, yes. But it's not some big ogre lurking in a cave that we all have to be scared of. I honestly think that today's new shooters would much rather buy a $4,000 video camera to shoot on because they're afraid of the unknown -- they've never shot film, they don't understand film, they think it's harder.
My point was, Michael was wishing he could shoot on film. Shoot what? We don't know. But you could get 11 minutes of 16mm source footage, finished on tape including scene-to-scene color correction, for easily under $250. That ain't that much. And I could do the same on 35mm for about $350. Less if I bought ebay film!
Yes, if you want to shoot fresh new Kodak and have it processed at Deluxe and have it transferred on a Spirit and have it scanned to a Cineon file and then have the negative cut and then make a digital intermediate and then an answer print, yes it'll cost a whole lot more.
But if you're shooting footage, and you want to shoot film instead of video, and then edit on tape and finish on tape, it *really* doesn't cost THAT much.
Gary, I think you went a little overboard trying to prove a point. Until I got my DVX last January, I used to shoot 16mm all the time, it cost me $235 for a 400' roll, processing, and transfer to DV. Finished, scene-to-scene color correction, on tape ready to edit. That $235 included fresh new stock (usually Fuji with a 20% discount for being a member of the Film Arts Foundation), tax, shipping, everything. Not finishing on film, not doing opticals or anything else like that, just shooting for commercials and then editing on DV. For a regular TV commercial I could time it out and budget to shoot maybe 200' total. Yes, I'd provide a commercial shot on film for a grand materials cost of about $150, which is LESS than the rental rate of a PD150 at the time!
Film is more expensive, yes. But it's not some big ogre lurking in a cave that we all have to be scared of. I honestly think that today's new shooters would much rather buy a $4,000 video camera to shoot on because they're afraid of the unknown -- they've never shot film, they don't understand film, they think it's harder.
My point was, Michael was wishing he could shoot on film. Shoot what? We don't know. But you could get 11 minutes of 16mm source footage, finished on tape including scene-to-scene color correction, for easily under $250. That ain't that much. And I could do the same on 35mm for about $350. Less if I bought ebay film!
Yes, if you want to shoot fresh new Kodak and have it processed at Deluxe and have it transferred on a Spirit and have it scanned to a Cineon file and then have the negative cut and then make a digital intermediate and then an answer print, yes it'll cost a whole lot more.
But if you're shooting footage, and you want to shoot film instead of video, and then edit on tape and finish on tape, it *really* doesn't cost THAT much.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
[quote author=Gary_McClurg link=board=nws;num=1095377070;start=0#6 date=09/16/04 at 21:13:03]Something that you can pratice and really learn your craft on. Trust me I love film. But, again, I sure wish they had the DVX when I was younger. My first sync sound project in film school had to be 60 seconds. That project cost me close to a $1,000. You had to go through the whole process from shooting, to post and ending on film and we don't want to get into how long that was ago.
[/quote]
Okay, FYI I absolutely agree with everything you said above. The DVX is a phenomenal learning tool. You can obviously practice so much more with it than you could on any film format. It is invaluable for film schools, etc.
However, let me also say that the free-ness of DV/DVX can also be viewed as a serious detriment. When you're looking at making your short film on Super 8, and you know that you've only got two and a half minutes of film for the whole roll, and it's gonna cost you $15 for each roll, it teaches you DISCIPLINE. It teaches you to think before you shoot. It teaches you to start a scene as late as possible, and to finish as soon as possible. You make tighter films. It teaches you to cut the crapola out of your script rather than just shooting everything.
Take it a step forward: I've shot my share of commercials on an Eyemo, with 100' loads. An entire roll of film goes by in 60 seconds. Most cinematographers would throw away the last 100' as a short end, and that was the longest roll of film I could use! You don't do twenty takes on that, you don't shoot long boring movies with that, you plan, you storyboard, you THINK, then you get in and get out. And you eke every last frame out of the roll.
Those are things that the new video generation will likely never learn, because they don't have to.
For those reasons alone, I hope film lives forever, and every aspiring filmmaker should undertake to make a great Super8 short film someday, just to learn how to do it.
[quote author=Gary_McClurg link=board=nws;num=1095377070;start=0#6 date=09/16/04 at 21:13:03]Something that you can pratice and really learn your craft on. Trust me I love film. But, again, I sure wish they had the DVX when I was younger. My first sync sound project in film school had to be 60 seconds. That project cost me close to a $1,000. You had to go through the whole process from shooting, to post and ending on film and we don't want to get into how long that was ago.
[/quote]
Okay, FYI I absolutely agree with everything you said above. The DVX is a phenomenal learning tool. You can obviously practice so much more with it than you could on any film format. It is invaluable for film schools, etc.
However, let me also say that the free-ness of DV/DVX can also be viewed as a serious detriment. When you're looking at making your short film on Super 8, and you know that you've only got two and a half minutes of film for the whole roll, and it's gonna cost you $15 for each roll, it teaches you DISCIPLINE. It teaches you to think before you shoot. It teaches you to start a scene as late as possible, and to finish as soon as possible. You make tighter films. It teaches you to cut the crapola out of your script rather than just shooting everything.
Take it a step forward: I've shot my share of commercials on an Eyemo, with 100' loads. An entire roll of film goes by in 60 seconds. Most cinematographers would throw away the last 100' as a short end, and that was the longest roll of film I could use! You don't do twenty takes on that, you don't shoot long boring movies with that, you plan, you storyboard, you THINK, then you get in and get out. And you eke every last frame out of the roll.
Those are things that the new video generation will likely never learn, because they don't have to.
For those reasons alone, I hope film lives forever, and every aspiring filmmaker should undertake to make a great Super8 short film someday, just to learn how to do it.
Phil
Veteran
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
I've wanted to ask this question for a couple days now. Please give your opinion on it guys. Thanks.
Clerks and El Mariachi and Slacker and so on...were micro budget independant films...that made money...really more important CAREERS.
Do you think that if one of these films was shot on DV (like the DVX) would it have been as huge...or was it the fact that it was a micro budget...keyword...FILM?
Since there are TONS of DV films out there now...because of it's ability...Do you think judges and viewers could be a little biased towards DV? Because it's not film?
I've wanted to ask this question for a couple days now. Please give your opinion on it guys. Thanks.
Clerks and El Mariachi and Slacker and so on...were micro budget independant films...that made money...really more important CAREERS.
Do you think that if one of these films was shot on DV (like the DVX) would it have been as huge...or was it the fact that it was a micro budget...keyword...FILM?
Since there are TONS of DV films out there now...because of it's ability...Do you think judges and viewers could be a little biased towards DV? Because it's not film?
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
I just saw the Matrix projected from the worst 35mm print ever compared with it projected from a very nice 24p DVD through DLP.
It wasn't even close. The DVD image took up less than 1/3 the area of the 35mm print due to how things were projected, and the resolution was still clearly low looking. The motion even looked different, and the blacks looked totally washed out even compared with one of the worst reels of film I'd seen (it fell into pieces while being projected, for instance...) HDV would have slightly more resolution per screen size than did the small DVD image, but it still wouldn't compare.
Film is a "movie making" format, as is highly processed cinealta footage in rare cases. But, honestly, if you can afford those cameras, why not use them? HDV will be great for independant film makers, but it will never go beyond that. it will be better, but still not good enough for the big leagues.
I just saw the Matrix projected from the worst 35mm print ever compared with it projected from a very nice 24p DVD through DLP.
It wasn't even close. The DVD image took up less than 1/3 the area of the 35mm print due to how things were projected, and the resolution was still clearly low looking. The motion even looked different, and the blacks looked totally washed out even compared with one of the worst reels of film I'd seen (it fell into pieces while being projected, for instance...) HDV would have slightly more resolution per screen size than did the small DVD image, but it still wouldn't compare.
Film is a "movie making" format, as is highly processed cinealta footage in rare cases. But, honestly, if you can afford those cameras, why not use them? HDV will be great for independant film makers, but it will never go beyond that. it will be better, but still not good enough for the big leagues.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Clerks, El Mariachi, Brothers McMullen, etc... Those were all shot on film because that's what there was... you either shot film or you shot BetaSP, and BetaSP cameras weren't cheap.
Would they have been as big if they'd been shot on DV? Who knows... competition was very different back then. But you could always point to the modern-day no-name breakthrough, "The Blair Witch", which wasn't even shot on DV, it was shot on an RCA Hi-8 camera and some 16mm. It obviously went over much bigger than the others, although the filmmakers haven't had quite the enduring success of Rodriguez and Smith, etc.
Festival judges and viewers and distributors are *very* biased against DV films now, not necessarily because it's not film, but because there's such an overwhelming amount of unwatchable poopoo being made on DV that as soon as they find out you shot on DV, they groan. Nowadays if you shot on 35mm, people are more inclined to think "hey, this might be good" simply because you poured $50,000 to $250,000 into it, vs. when they hear "I shot on DV" and they guess "okay, total budget of $3,000; friends as actors, no experience, probably gonna stink." And why do they think this? Sheer numbers: probably 99% of what they see on DV stinks, vs. maybe only about 50% of what they see on film. It's not necessarily that the format's better, but something happened somewhere along the production chain to convince someone to pour a whole lot of money into the project in order to be able to shoot it on 35mm... and the fact that someone, somewhere, believed in it enough to put up a couple hundred thousand dollars is usually enough for a judge or festival screening committee to think "okay, let's see what they did with it."
Audiences don't really care, especially with the advent of 24P video. Ask any average viewer what they thought about the image quality of "Once Upon A Time In Mexico", and not one will be able to tell you it was shot on video instead of film. I don't know if we'll have a similar reaction with the DVX; as far as I know not one DVX movie has been released theatrically yet. From screening my own footage transferred to 35mm, I tend to think that for a good movie you'd be able to get away with it, no problem.
Audiences have been getting more used to seeing video on the big screen. There was lots of video in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and it grossed over $100 million. Lots of video in "Bowling For Columbine" and it grossed $25 million or so. Nothing but video in "Hoop Dreams" and I believe it did over $20 million. "Blair Witch", of course, and "28 Days Later" and "Open Water"... every year there's a few that see the inside of theaters. And I haven't heard of anyone walking out yet, or saying "oh, wait, I heard that was shot on video, let's not go see it". (actually, lots of people walked out of Fahrenheit 9/11, but not because of the video quality).
So if you can make a movie good enough that it gets to the theaters, the video origination is not necessarily a problem. But the problem is getting anyone to take you seriously when you spend no money, have no name actors, no famous director, and shot on video. The attitude is "if you put nothing into it, there's probably nothing in it." And as a simple numbers game, they're usually right. Not always (as Clerks and El Mariachi prove) but come on, those were 2 out of 1,000. Which means the screeners had to suffer through 998 bad films to get to those two. Which is why they groan!
There will always be exceptions.
Heck, 16mm used to be looked down upon with the same disdain that DV endures today, for the same reason: people who couldn't do it "right" would use the cheapest format they could, which was 16mm. Now 16mm's actually taken a step up in credibility because there's a new, even less expensive low-end format.
You can still break through, but you'll have to be really, really, really, really, really good. Or really, really, really, really, really lucky. If you're neither, then you can make direct-to-video movies and hope that someday you'll get paid a couple thousand dollars from your distributor... it's a tough game.
But I better shut up before I steal all J_Barnes' thunder! ;D
Clerks, El Mariachi, Brothers McMullen, etc... Those were all shot on film because that's what there was... you either shot film or you shot BetaSP, and BetaSP cameras weren't cheap.
Would they have been as big if they'd been shot on DV? Who knows... competition was very different back then. But you could always point to the modern-day no-name breakthrough, "The Blair Witch", which wasn't even shot on DV, it was shot on an RCA Hi-8 camera and some 16mm. It obviously went over much bigger than the others, although the filmmakers haven't had quite the enduring success of Rodriguez and Smith, etc.
Festival judges and viewers and distributors are *very* biased against DV films now, not necessarily because it's not film, but because there's such an overwhelming amount of unwatchable poopoo being made on DV that as soon as they find out you shot on DV, they groan. Nowadays if you shot on 35mm, people are more inclined to think "hey, this might be good" simply because you poured $50,000 to $250,000 into it, vs. when they hear "I shot on DV" and they guess "okay, total budget of $3,000; friends as actors, no experience, probably gonna stink." And why do they think this? Sheer numbers: probably 99% of what they see on DV stinks, vs. maybe only about 50% of what they see on film. It's not necessarily that the format's better, but something happened somewhere along the production chain to convince someone to pour a whole lot of money into the project in order to be able to shoot it on 35mm... and the fact that someone, somewhere, believed in it enough to put up a couple hundred thousand dollars is usually enough for a judge or festival screening committee to think "okay, let's see what they did with it."
Audiences don't really care, especially with the advent of 24P video. Ask any average viewer what they thought about the image quality of "Once Upon A Time In Mexico", and not one will be able to tell you it was shot on video instead of film. I don't know if we'll have a similar reaction with the DVX; as far as I know not one DVX movie has been released theatrically yet. From screening my own footage transferred to 35mm, I tend to think that for a good movie you'd be able to get away with it, no problem.
Audiences have been getting more used to seeing video on the big screen. There was lots of video in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and it grossed over $100 million. Lots of video in "Bowling For Columbine" and it grossed $25 million or so. Nothing but video in "Hoop Dreams" and I believe it did over $20 million. "Blair Witch", of course, and "28 Days Later" and "Open Water"... every year there's a few that see the inside of theaters. And I haven't heard of anyone walking out yet, or saying "oh, wait, I heard that was shot on video, let's not go see it". (actually, lots of people walked out of Fahrenheit 9/11, but not because of the video quality).
So if you can make a movie good enough that it gets to the theaters, the video origination is not necessarily a problem. But the problem is getting anyone to take you seriously when you spend no money, have no name actors, no famous director, and shot on video. The attitude is "if you put nothing into it, there's probably nothing in it." And as a simple numbers game, they're usually right. Not always (as Clerks and El Mariachi prove) but come on, those were 2 out of 1,000. Which means the screeners had to suffer through 998 bad films to get to those two. Which is why they groan!
There will always be exceptions.
Heck, 16mm used to be looked down upon with the same disdain that DV endures today, for the same reason: people who couldn't do it "right" would use the cheapest format they could, which was 16mm. Now 16mm's actually taken a step up in credibility because there's a new, even less expensive low-end format.
You can still break through, but you'll have to be really, really, really, really, really good. Or really, really, really, really, really lucky. If you're neither, then you can make direct-to-video movies and hope that someday you'll get paid a couple thousand dollars from your distributor... it's a tough game.
But I better shut up before I steal all J_Barnes' thunder! ;D
Gary_McClurg
Well-known member
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Yeah, I've shot music videos on a Canon Scopic so I know about the low end cost. But like your answer to Phil on the DV feature. Most of the DV stuff isn't the greatest. My favorite saying now. You can make a bad film from a great script. But you can't make a great film from a bad scirpt.
I've lost two line-producing for hire jobs this year because of bad scripts. I guess I should take the money and run. But I always go by the old saying your only as good as your last film. You tell the writer that his script needs work and the shape its in now won't make any money and they flip out.
So my answer to Phil is. Have a great story. Get great actors and if that moves the viewer or even the buyer. They won't care what its shot on. Really, all they care about is can they sell it. Get the DVX, XL2, or even the new Sony and go out and make something.
I think that all the films that you used as examples. All of the directors had the drive and vision to get their films made.
Yeah, I've shot music videos on a Canon Scopic so I know about the low end cost. But like your answer to Phil on the DV feature. Most of the DV stuff isn't the greatest. My favorite saying now. You can make a bad film from a great script. But you can't make a great film from a bad scirpt.
I've lost two line-producing for hire jobs this year because of bad scripts. I guess I should take the money and run. But I always go by the old saying your only as good as your last film. You tell the writer that his script needs work and the shape its in now won't make any money and they flip out.
So my answer to Phil is. Have a great story. Get great actors and if that moves the viewer or even the buyer. They won't care what its shot on. Really, all they care about is can they sell it. Get the DVX, XL2, or even the new Sony and go out and make something.
I think that all the films that you used as examples. All of the directors had the drive and vision to get their films made.
Gopher_Greene
Well-known member
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Heres a comparision of film and HD from A film recently shot "Cloud Nine". In pre-production the plan was to shoot with those high dollar panavision HD cameras. Cloud Nine is about beach volleyball, so many of the scenes were on the beach. When they tested the cameras they couldn't get the white sand without having to crush the blacks, and vice versa to get the blacks theyd lose all detail in the white sand. They could make it work if they used about three times the lighting then originally planned, but moving all that equipment in the sand would have been very costly. So they decided to spend an extra $100,000.00 to shoot it on 35mm.
So to answer the question is HDV a serious format, I haven't worked directly with HDV but I have pulled video off of a DVD and tried to edit it, that was terrible. Now the MPEG2 stream of HDV has much more data then the MPEG2 that I raked off a DVD, but still its a very compressed format. And if the pros we're having problems with an uncompressed HD format, then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't stand a chance with a $4000.00 HDV camera and a very low budget, however its really what you are shooting. IF its all indoors and you have total lighting and background control where theres no major contrast then you might get by with it. Frankly though I think you could rent film gear and get it done within a reasonable budget.
One last thought, some where I read that the new still cameras with 13 megapixels is a true 35mm format. IF thats the case then I'd think we'd need a video camera that is in the same ball park to be comparable to 35mm film. Which would mean the new 1 megapixle HDV cameras are way short of that resolution. Maybe Barry or the guys who are much more technically savvy then me can shed some light on that?
Heres a comparision of film and HD from A film recently shot "Cloud Nine". In pre-production the plan was to shoot with those high dollar panavision HD cameras. Cloud Nine is about beach volleyball, so many of the scenes were on the beach. When they tested the cameras they couldn't get the white sand without having to crush the blacks, and vice versa to get the blacks theyd lose all detail in the white sand. They could make it work if they used about three times the lighting then originally planned, but moving all that equipment in the sand would have been very costly. So they decided to spend an extra $100,000.00 to shoot it on 35mm.
So to answer the question is HDV a serious format, I haven't worked directly with HDV but I have pulled video off of a DVD and tried to edit it, that was terrible. Now the MPEG2 stream of HDV has much more data then the MPEG2 that I raked off a DVD, but still its a very compressed format. And if the pros we're having problems with an uncompressed HD format, then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't stand a chance with a $4000.00 HDV camera and a very low budget, however its really what you are shooting. IF its all indoors and you have total lighting and background control where theres no major contrast then you might get by with it. Frankly though I think you could rent film gear and get it done within a reasonable budget.
One last thought, some where I read that the new still cameras with 13 megapixels is a true 35mm format. IF thats the case then I'd think we'd need a video camera that is in the same ball park to be comparable to 35mm film. Which would mean the new 1 megapixle HDV cameras are way short of that resolution. Maybe Barry or the guys who are much more technically savvy then me can shed some light on that?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
HDV provides for two resolutions, 1280x720 and 1440x1080. 1280x720 = less than 1 million pixels per frame. 1440x1080 = about 1.5 million pixels per frame.
So yes, HDV will be well, well, well short of the 12 million pixels that is commonly quoted for film 35mm film (which, to be clear, film doesn't have *any* pixels, but to digitize a frame of film at high-enough resolution to preserve all the detail, you'd usually use a 4k scan, so 4000 x 3000, which = 12 million).
HDV provides for two resolutions, 1280x720 and 1440x1080. 1280x720 = less than 1 million pixels per frame. 1440x1080 = about 1.5 million pixels per frame.
So yes, HDV will be well, well, well short of the 12 million pixels that is commonly quoted for film 35mm film (which, to be clear, film doesn't have *any* pixels, but to digitize a frame of film at high-enough resolution to preserve all the detail, you'd usually use a 4k scan, so 4000 x 3000, which = 12 million).
Ranger
Well-known member
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Absolutely!
Of course, it depends on what filmmaking demographic we're talking about, but in my opinion HDV can be a serious medium in the right hands (just like the DVX is now). Will it compete against film and the high-end HD cameras? No. However, because of the potential for higher resolution that's available to the low-budget independent filmmaker, HDV is the next evolutionary step for video cameras to take as the current generation of SD cameras slowly succumbs to obsolescence.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It will still take several years of advancements in computer processing power, camera refinement/improvements, HD software development and better compression algorithms before HDV finally finds its groove with the prosumer.
In time, HDV too will eventually become obsolete (no surprise there) as cameras move from tape to reusable video capture technology and higher bit rates, blah, blah, blah.
It never ends does it?
Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Absolutely!
Of course, it depends on what filmmaking demographic we're talking about, but in my opinion HDV can be a serious medium in the right hands (just like the DVX is now). Will it compete against film and the high-end HD cameras? No. However, because of the potential for higher resolution that's available to the low-budget independent filmmaker, HDV is the next evolutionary step for video cameras to take as the current generation of SD cameras slowly succumbs to obsolescence.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It will still take several years of advancements in computer processing power, camera refinement/improvements, HD software development and better compression algorithms before HDV finally finds its groove with the prosumer.
In time, HDV too will eventually become obsolete (no surprise there) as cameras move from tape to reusable video capture technology and higher bit rates, blah, blah, blah.
It never ends does it?
Gary_McClurg
Well-known member
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
Its not quite as bad as buying a computer. But I used to joke. Gee just after the credit card has just been swiped or as I'm loading it in my truck there's a new updated model out.
So like Ranger I figure in a few years there will be a camera. Now I don't want to start a war here again. But I was hoping it was going to be Canon. They have no high end cameras. The xl cameras are it.
So they don't have to worry, gee, if the buyer can buy the same camera for $5,000 to $7,000 or even less why would they buy our $20,000, $25,000 or $65,000 cameras still out of my range. I guess I shouldn't have bought the new house. House... camera... house... camera... the house won out... or actually house... camera... house... camera... yeah the DVX is only $3,400. So that way I got both.
I really wish it would be Panasonic who will come out with the camera. They make a great line of cameras the DVX, the SDX900, and the varicam.
But Panny's new HD camera is in the $35,000 range.
Its not quite as bad as buying a computer. But I used to joke. Gee just after the credit card has just been swiped or as I'm loading it in my truck there's a new updated model out.
So like Ranger I figure in a few years there will be a camera. Now I don't want to start a war here again. But I was hoping it was going to be Canon. They have no high end cameras. The xl cameras are it.
So they don't have to worry, gee, if the buyer can buy the same camera for $5,000 to $7,000 or even less why would they buy our $20,000, $25,000 or $65,000 cameras still out of my range. I guess I shouldn't have bought the new house. House... camera... house... camera... the house won out... or actually house... camera... house... camera... yeah the DVX is only $3,400. So that way I got both.
I really wish it would be Panasonic who will come out with the camera. They make a great line of cameras the DVX, the SDX900, and the varicam.
But Panny's new HD camera is in the $35,000 range.
taubkin
Veteran
Re: Is HDV a serious medium for moviemaking?
HDV just seems to me as something hard to buy. It's probably better than DV, I really think so, but the HDV solution just seems like an improvisation. HD res in a DV tape. I really think my next camera won't be an SD model, but I have my doubts if HDV will really be the "format of choice". I really think that by the time I need an HD camera, tape won't be an issue, and if that's so, HDV will be an obsolete idea. Besides, even better video codecs are being annouced, as Apple's new mp4 variant, so I guess waiting for something better than HD and being second place in resolution for now seems like a nice shot. I could be wrong, but I'd rather wait and see. In 10 years, DVCProHD will be acessible to the prosumer market, anyways...
HDV just seems to me as something hard to buy. It's probably better than DV, I really think so, but the HDV solution just seems like an improvisation. HD res in a DV tape. I really think my next camera won't be an SD model, but I have my doubts if HDV will really be the "format of choice". I really think that by the time I need an HD camera, tape won't be an issue, and if that's so, HDV will be an obsolete idea. Besides, even better video codecs are being annouced, as Apple's new mp4 variant, so I guess waiting for something better than HD and being second place in resolution for now seems like a nice shot. I could be wrong, but I'd rather wait and see. In 10 years, DVCProHD will be acessible to the prosumer market, anyways...