arrestthisman
Well-known member
Okay, guys, first let me preface this by saying I do not want this to come across as, "this cam is better than that cam," "Color space... blah blah blah"
I just have a few random thoughts that I think may be going through people's minds right now. And speculation in moderation isn't the worst thing in the world. Sometimes before a large project there is a lot of pent up anxiety about specifics, and I'm hoping with this post to tempter that with some Big Picture thoughts. If no one likes it, or the moderators have a problem, take it down! lol. I'm just thinking out loud, and on here in case someone else wants to talk about it.
I own an HVX200, which I'm going to flip for an HPX170 come September. I'm also very interested in scarlet. Because of the whole Bayer issue, I think that the HPX170 isn't going to be far off in terms of quality from the scarlet. (I could go into detail, but let's just say it's subjective... and the 78:50:50 color space, needing 2k to get close to 4:2:2 or better. So 1080p. HPX170 maybe 20-30% below that luma-wise? To me that's not a big difference, when considering everything else.) Plus it has the CCD look and idiosyncrasies that I know/love, and am used to.
Then I start thinking about RAW, and what that means. But I'm looking at the Red One workflow (and again this is not to disparage them, Red One is awesome, and some people do have stable setups, and we're talking about right now; I have no doubt down the line that they will get things pretty smooth) -- AND at this point it seems like the benefits of RAW are lost in most of the stable workflows.
Let's say it wasn't Red One, but any raw digi-cine cam: If I import my clip, but must do all of my "non-destructive" color correction up front before rendering out to clips readable by Shake and FCP, is that not only a minor bonus than simply achieving the look I want InCam then importing from my panny to FCP?
I would like someone to point out that I'm missing something. To me, the benefits of RAW are lost if it has to be abandoned during ingestion. To me, it only makes sense to do RAW if it is from cam to NLE, to SFX, to final out, to delivery. Isn't that the point? So all stages, from SFX to final color, all benefits from RAW?
I understand you can go flat from REDCINE, then have a lot of play room for FCP and Color, but isn't that similar in principal to Cinelike-D in the Panny cam?
Again this is not bashing. I think the RED is awesome. But previously the thought was, regardless of budget, the RED one was better "for anyone" as long as they had the money.
This is my situation:
1. I like f64 photography. I like a deep DOF, so even a 2/3 sensor is more of a liability for me. I am a serious minority here. lol
2. I have a very small crew, and I like to do as much by myself as possible. (I have trust issues.) The less cumbersome the camera/workflow/lighting/etc. the better.
3. I LOVE the panny look. (I am assuming the RED cams can be made to have a similar look, though?)
4. CMOS worries me. Although this is VERY MINOR concern with the refinements and tech coming next year.
5. I know the panny workflow, it's stable, easy, and very low demand on processing. my MBP handles HD footage great. And mobility is a necessity for me.
6. I think Scarlet is a big question mark. How long will they delay shipment, if at all? What workflow improvements will Red make? What will the DR and sensitivity come to on a one chip 2/3" cam? Will it have the look I fell in love with on the HVX? Can I make it look that way because of raw? If there is significant quality improvement, is it worth the extra workflow steps? WILL there be more steps than P2 by then? These are obviously rhetorical questions-- that said, I'm totally getting one if I can get my hands on one, because for the price, if it does half what they claim it would be an awesome camera. (But it is a new system to learn...Although since they are targeting a broad market, I think it will be far simpler than what is available by red right now.) Even if it doesn't work out, it's worth trying, because it is part of a revolutionary movement.
7. This is the tricky one: I love natural lighting, and shoot low light ALOT. I know what HPX170 is going to look like. I know that Scarlet will have a lot of freedom, but I don't have footage to look at.
There's more but to sum up, I think what I'm saying is this:
I am a gearhead, and I AM obsessed with this stuff, and I do want the best quality. But I kind of feel like I have a look that really moves me right now, is easy to edit... why rock the boat? Originally, I was going to stick it out, and flip my HVX200 only when scarlet came out, but now I'm thinking to go for the HPX. If scarlet is on time, and turns out great with no bugs, AWESOME! But still, I'll already have a cam that is tailored for me, that I know, and is a big improvement for the shots I like over the 200, and the 200 was already good enough.
My only worry is that I'll end up with two great cams circa June 2009, and not know which one to part with if I need to slim down to one cam/system/workflow.
So nothing enlightening here, just my own story. But like I said, I think I'm in a big boat. And I think this is the right decision for me. I've given this WAY more thought than I have time for, but it is important to me.
So many people beat the drum of the art, not the tool, but I feel that the right tool for the right art is compulsory, and in this day and age, the digital age, where many young filmmakers think all of these cams are pretty much the same, not enough attention is paid to the aesthetic of digital cinema. We don't criticize the film group for spending time deciding on the right stock for the right film, why should we feel guilty about an investment into a "look" we'll be stuck with for years on end?
This is more than two cents, but feel free to burn it anyway.
lol No flames please. Let's all be happy we live in the time that we do, with all of the freedom we have, courtesy of the tools beyond the imagination of a futurist ten years ago!
- Alex
I just have a few random thoughts that I think may be going through people's minds right now. And speculation in moderation isn't the worst thing in the world. Sometimes before a large project there is a lot of pent up anxiety about specifics, and I'm hoping with this post to tempter that with some Big Picture thoughts. If no one likes it, or the moderators have a problem, take it down! lol. I'm just thinking out loud, and on here in case someone else wants to talk about it.
I own an HVX200, which I'm going to flip for an HPX170 come September. I'm also very interested in scarlet. Because of the whole Bayer issue, I think that the HPX170 isn't going to be far off in terms of quality from the scarlet. (I could go into detail, but let's just say it's subjective... and the 78:50:50 color space, needing 2k to get close to 4:2:2 or better. So 1080p. HPX170 maybe 20-30% below that luma-wise? To me that's not a big difference, when considering everything else.) Plus it has the CCD look and idiosyncrasies that I know/love, and am used to.
Then I start thinking about RAW, and what that means. But I'm looking at the Red One workflow (and again this is not to disparage them, Red One is awesome, and some people do have stable setups, and we're talking about right now; I have no doubt down the line that they will get things pretty smooth) -- AND at this point it seems like the benefits of RAW are lost in most of the stable workflows.
Let's say it wasn't Red One, but any raw digi-cine cam: If I import my clip, but must do all of my "non-destructive" color correction up front before rendering out to clips readable by Shake and FCP, is that not only a minor bonus than simply achieving the look I want InCam then importing from my panny to FCP?
I would like someone to point out that I'm missing something. To me, the benefits of RAW are lost if it has to be abandoned during ingestion. To me, it only makes sense to do RAW if it is from cam to NLE, to SFX, to final out, to delivery. Isn't that the point? So all stages, from SFX to final color, all benefits from RAW?
I understand you can go flat from REDCINE, then have a lot of play room for FCP and Color, but isn't that similar in principal to Cinelike-D in the Panny cam?
Again this is not bashing. I think the RED is awesome. But previously the thought was, regardless of budget, the RED one was better "for anyone" as long as they had the money.
This is my situation:
1. I like f64 photography. I like a deep DOF, so even a 2/3 sensor is more of a liability for me. I am a serious minority here. lol
2. I have a very small crew, and I like to do as much by myself as possible. (I have trust issues.) The less cumbersome the camera/workflow/lighting/etc. the better.
3. I LOVE the panny look. (I am assuming the RED cams can be made to have a similar look, though?)
4. CMOS worries me. Although this is VERY MINOR concern with the refinements and tech coming next year.
5. I know the panny workflow, it's stable, easy, and very low demand on processing. my MBP handles HD footage great. And mobility is a necessity for me.
6. I think Scarlet is a big question mark. How long will they delay shipment, if at all? What workflow improvements will Red make? What will the DR and sensitivity come to on a one chip 2/3" cam? Will it have the look I fell in love with on the HVX? Can I make it look that way because of raw? If there is significant quality improvement, is it worth the extra workflow steps? WILL there be more steps than P2 by then? These are obviously rhetorical questions-- that said, I'm totally getting one if I can get my hands on one, because for the price, if it does half what they claim it would be an awesome camera. (But it is a new system to learn...Although since they are targeting a broad market, I think it will be far simpler than what is available by red right now.) Even if it doesn't work out, it's worth trying, because it is part of a revolutionary movement.
7. This is the tricky one: I love natural lighting, and shoot low light ALOT. I know what HPX170 is going to look like. I know that Scarlet will have a lot of freedom, but I don't have footage to look at.
There's more but to sum up, I think what I'm saying is this:
I am a gearhead, and I AM obsessed with this stuff, and I do want the best quality. But I kind of feel like I have a look that really moves me right now, is easy to edit... why rock the boat? Originally, I was going to stick it out, and flip my HVX200 only when scarlet came out, but now I'm thinking to go for the HPX. If scarlet is on time, and turns out great with no bugs, AWESOME! But still, I'll already have a cam that is tailored for me, that I know, and is a big improvement for the shots I like over the 200, and the 200 was already good enough.
My only worry is that I'll end up with two great cams circa June 2009, and not know which one to part with if I need to slim down to one cam/system/workflow.
So nothing enlightening here, just my own story. But like I said, I think I'm in a big boat. And I think this is the right decision for me. I've given this WAY more thought than I have time for, but it is important to me.
So many people beat the drum of the art, not the tool, but I feel that the right tool for the right art is compulsory, and in this day and age, the digital age, where many young filmmakers think all of these cams are pretty much the same, not enough attention is paid to the aesthetic of digital cinema. We don't criticize the film group for spending time deciding on the right stock for the right film, why should we feel guilty about an investment into a "look" we'll be stuck with for years on end?
This is more than two cents, but feel free to burn it anyway.
lol No flames please. Let's all be happy we live in the time that we do, with all of the freedom we have, courtesy of the tools beyond the imagination of a futurist ten years ago!
- Alex
