Walter Graff on the H1

Landon D. Parks said:
I think thats one of the reasons a lot of films shot in video suck and films shot in film are pretty good... Because film allows you to connect with your actors and crew and to better understand the script... With video you are constantly shooting, because you can, therefore your "all shoot, and no direct".

Am I the only one who notices how, even Indie films shot on film tend to be better than those shot on videoTAPE? There are of course the exceptions, but then again those exceptions are probly use to working in film anyways, and will stop shooting long enough to direct reguardless of if the tape is out or not.

Again, I think film teaches you that you cant go on forever, and that there comes a point where you have to get it or leave it, At which you are gonna be much more likly to rehears more and connect with your actors more so that you dont have to leave it, therefore creating a better performance and a better picture in general.

Just my $0.02
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point, I'll give you that. However, I think that the quality of film vs video has more to do with $$$$. Since film is much more expensive, a production that uses it is more likely to be better financed which usually means that most positions, including cast, are filled with professional, experienced personel.

Just my $.02 also.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's specifically where Panasonic is ahead of the game. They lined up software support long before the camera was even announced. Avid, FCP and Canopus already have full integration. Heck, Avid doesn't even have HDV support on the market yet (do they?) but Express Pro HD works with the HVX files right now.
Click to expand...

Well, I will respectfully disagree with you here, Barry. I think they need to get on the ball, and before the HVX hits the market. DVCPro50 and HD have been out for years, but we still see no freely available codec for Windows Media-based editing systems. We have proprietary codecs from Avid and Canopus and apparently one Matrox system (I tried to install the Matrox codec pack you helpfully pointed out, but it complains that I haven't uninstalled DigiUtils... ???).

But this is a very limited field, limited a bit further by Avid's codec being QuickTime and a bit further still by the incompatibility between Avid's and Apple's DV50 and DV100 codecs. So that leaves Canopus, who says:

"At the heart of EDIUS HD is Canopus 's proprietary HD software codec... The Canopus HD software codec is native DVCPRO HD (SMPTE 370M) compliant"

So that's good news for Canopus users, but it's rather silly to have to wait for every NLE vendor to come up with their own version of the same codec. Just one codec from Panasonic would basically open up this footage to every Windows NLE, in one shot.

Yeah, I love harping on this. But after using DV50, I really like it! I'd like to see it on both platforms, because I use both. It's really a pro-Panasonic statement, although I'm disagreeing with their strategy so far.

A while back I asked Canopus why in the world they don't make a DV50 version of the ADVC-100 (their cool little analog-to-DV box). After all, they've been selling the same consumer-level DV25 stuff for years and years. Aren't we ever going to have anything better than DV? But no, they said they didn't see a market. Sad. You create a market by offering a better product and educating the consumer.
 
stokestack said:
I think they need to get on the ball, and before the HVX hits the market.
Click to expand...
JVC released the HD1, the first consumer high-def camera, in March of 2003. Here it is over two and a half years later, and Avid users can now finally edit its footage (thanks for the link, Steve -- I knew it was due out soon, didn't think it was out already).

Sony introduced the FX1 in October of 2004. It was six months before Apple showed support for the HDV format. And a year before Avid released its support.

And even then, Avid's support is only on the PC side; Mac Avid users still can't edit it.

Panasonic lined up Avid, FCP, and even Canopus, and all have their editing stations working before the camera's even been released. Users will be able to edit the footage on day one. Not having to wait two and a half years, like Avid/HD1 users have had to.

Sure it would be wonderful if they'd release the codec freely to anyone and everyone. Heaven knows I wish Vegas had native DVCPRO-HD support already. But they're not going to release the codec freely to everyone. They didn't do that with DV50, and they're not going to with DV100. They work with their licensees to release those products; they don't freely distribute it.

Now, Matrox did freely distribute their DV50 codec, and Avid is freely distributing their DV100 codec. Those are available today, for free download. (don't know what your DigiUtils issue was; unless you were a former/current DigiSuite user).

I still say they're ahead of the game. They may not be where we wish they were, but come on, at least they've lined up FCP and Avid, which has to account for a good 70% of the professional editor market...
 
I will add that you need MXF support in the NLE. With Canopus that means spending another $400 for the module that does this. For Final Cut Pro you need to purchase Flip4Mac, also costing around $400. Although the FCP Flip4Mac program doesn't place the MXF files right onto the timeline, but acts as a transcoder turning the files into something usable by the program. In this respect both P2 and XDCAM suffer from the same problem.

Vegas 6 now takes XDCAM MXF, but not P2, although behind the scenes they might be working on this, and indeed I hope that they are.

Avid does import MXF. Premiere doesn't at all AFAIK.

So it isn't just DVCproHD and 50 compatibility you need, it is MXF as well.

If the Vegas guys do manage to bring in P2 MXF files than I would imagine that it would be the best software. I recently did a round up of editors with MXF compatibility and many of them did require additional purchases on top of the normal software price.
 
Another tool to keep in mind is that Focus is already producing a file converter program that will convert an MXF file into .AVI or .MOV or whatever you want; so, if you want to continue working with a non-MXF-capable NLE, there is an option that may bridge the gap.
 
Yes. But the problem Barry is that having to perform a conversion of an MXF file into an AVI or MOV robs you of many of the workflow advantages of working with P2. If a program uses MXF files really well you can take advantage of the Metadata attributes fully to keep your footage organised, as well as being able to just import the footage straight off the P2 cards or hard drive right onto the timeline.

Now, I'm not sure if P2 MXF allows essence marks, but I would imagine that it does. Imagine you are viewing an event such as, I dunno, say a baseball match or a football game. You can insert essence marks when something interesting happens as the camera is recording. These end up in the Metadata of the MXF file so that when you import them into an NLE it recognises the essence marks. You can then very easily jump straight to the part of video that you want instead of searching through it manually.

Thats why Avid have it sorted and the other manufacturers are playing catch up. If the Vegas guys implement DVCproHD and 50 it will rightly be the editor of choice for the lower end of the market.
 
Oh, trust me, I'm well aware of that. I was just posting it so people whose editors don't support MXF would understand what needs to happen in order for them to work with their footage.

Having native MXF support would be vastly preferable to having to convert, no question about it.
 
Landon D. Parks said:
I'm the type who is young, and I want to train myself as much as possible to work in a "Film Type" enviroment... Thats one thing I never did like about video and the idea of working with it, that it was always "Point and shoot" till the sun goes down.... I think It will be nice to have to stop after 18 minutes and unload your P2 cards, not only will it give you time to think about your next scene, and allow you to talk to your actors (to get a better performance), etc.

I think thats one of the reasons a lot of films shot in video suck and films shot in film are pretty good... Because film allows you to connect with your actors and crew and to better understand the script... With video you are constantly shooting, because you can, therefore your "all shoot, and no direct".

Am I the only one who notices how, even Indie films shot on film tend to be better than those shot on videoTAPE? There are of course the exceptions, but then again those exceptions are probly use to working in film anyways, and will stop shooting long enough to direct reguardless of if the tape is out or not.

Again, I think film teaches you that you cant go on forever, and that there comes a point where you have to get it or leave it, At which you are gonna be much more likly to rehears more and connect with your actors more so that you dont have to leave it, therefore creating a better performance and a better picture in general.
Click to expand...


All members of DVX User are not indie producers. There are scores of members who work professionally in the "video" world of television, business video, events, etc. With the rapid media convergence of the past decade, everyone can now use the same or similar technology to produce a myriad of types of motion media projects. True, there are still some specialists, but economics of the marketplace dictate that for a boutique shop to survive, you need multiple skill sets, to be facile in several mediums (film, video, web disk), and to be able to achieve a "film look" and a "video look" in your projects as necessary. To effectively compete with your competitors you need to stay on top of technology daily by visiting sites like DVX User, and reading trade magazines.

Time is money in terms of crew pay, equipment rental fees, etc. When you have a crew on location, and you're interested in stay within the project budget, whether you're shooting film or video, you can't just "point and shoot until the sun goes down". The biased notion that because videotape is cheap, that all "video guys" are hacks that just roll and roll and roll is ludicrous. Video guys are on budgets too - and time is money. I've won multiple Emmy Awards as a television director. and my approach to directing is all about ongoing communication with my crew members and actors/talent. If a scene or take is not working, I know it quickly, shut down the cameras, and solve it. Once it's solved, we roll again. As a longtime editor, one of the things I hate the most (when I edit a production that someone else has directed) is if the director just rolled tons of useless footage. Whether you're an offline editor or an online editor, too much footage to review is a nightmare. When I direct, I tell each of my camera operators that my operative mantra "All usable - no filler". It saves a lot of time in post, and time is money. In short, I'm a "TV" director who approaches production like a "film" director. If we're doing ENG-style coverage of sports events or reality, there are times when we roll a lot more tape to capture the essence of the subject matter, but even in those circumstances I brief my camera operators that "If it isn't a great shot don't hit the record button". If they don't return tapes shot that way, with at least 90% usable footage, they don't work for me again.

I view production in terms of convergence. I don't believe in "film camps" and "video camps". We're all in the same motion media family now. The people with a film background have helped teach video background many useful techniques - DOF, use of prime lenses, artistic expression, etc. The people with a video background have taught film background people about "run 'n gun" techniques, affordable production issues, etc. Smart professionals from either persuasion will take the time to continually learn from others of different backgrounds. We need to be less judgmental and more adaptive.

I have the utmost respect for good film directors, editors, and cinematographers. I've learned a lot from them. And you know what - they've learned a lot about using video from me. With 24p readily available in most video formats, and great NLE software (Nattress, etc.) that can achieve a "filmic" look, "film guys" can now affordably produce "films" with video, and "video guys" can also produce "films" with video. Through they have come over to video technology for their "film" acquisition, "film guys" somehow have this elitist attitude toward "video guys". "Film guys" call digital video just "digital" (as if they can't stand to acknowledge its video technology they're using), and instead of being videographers they still call themselves cinematographers.


Good directing is good directing regardless of the medium used. Bad directing is bad directing - regardless of the medium used. With convergence we're all in the same production family now. Let's set aside our biases against people of different backgrounds and simply team up to produce awesome productions, whether they be films, television, or videos.


Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
The advantage of video over film is the fact that your actors are more free to improvise and allows for more takes and spontaneity, because you are not wasting precious film every second that you are rolling. I have shot on both 35mm and HD, and even though i prefer the image quality of film over video, i prefer the workflow and process of shooting on HD much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top