What Camera ist this?

The band is everywhere in the media over here and it took months myself to realise it's not a girl, seriously.

I can imagine teens (well, screaming girls) find them very cool, but these kind of teen bands usually don't last very long.
 
Pascal_Parvex said:
Don't listen to Spartacus, Tokio Hotel are _the_ music group since the invention of sliced bread. After seven months, the have won all prices there are, and are now embarking on an international career, including the United States. Their second video "Schrei" (German for "scream") was shot on DVX's by the way.
Click to expand...

NEVER EVER LISTEN TO ME!!!
Hey, just realized your avatar is a pic of the singer! Que coincidencia!
And the beat goes on...
 
Strongbad_2Z said:
Aren't we discussing cameras and footage and such. Back to the matter at hand...well, all of the questions have been answered accurately so there is no more to add here.
Click to expand...

True, but it is still interesting to talk about it. Well, for now, they are way to successful not to last, the were not casted, and are already lasting for over 5 years. And as you think about it, there are a lot of "cheap" groups like Chipz or Banaroo, that still last, so...
 
The HVX reminds me of shooting with my old Bolex. Under crank, over crank, shutter angles. I only wish I had as much control over the image as I had in Tele-Cine. Some software comes close but not the same thing.
 
Originally Posted by Pascal_Parvex
And this is why the song went from 0 to 1 in both Germany and Austria?

Just having fun bro'....


Originally Posted by Strongbad_2Z
Aren't we discussing cameras and footage and such. Back to the matter at hand...well, all of the questions have been answered accurately so there is no more to add here.


Here, here!



HVXguy said:
The HVX reminds me of shooting with my old Bolex. Under crank, over crank, shutter angles. I only wish I had as much control over the image as I had in Tele-Cine. Some software comes close but not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Nice subject change...
 
On to their first video clip, "Durch den Monsun":

ddmxl21no.jpg


This is obviously a XL2. So, is it better than the DVX? Because it has three high resolution CCD's, right? Or does it resolve more, but also with more noise? And how does des Arriflex SR3 compare to the two DV-Cams?
 
This is obviously a XL2. So, is it better than the DVX? Because it has three high resolution CCD's, right? Or does it resolve more, but also with more noise? And how does des Arriflex SR3 compare to the two DV-Cams?
Click to expand...


Are you seriously asking if the Arri SR3 is better than two prosumer level DV cameras?

Much as i love the DVX (and last time i checked a DVX had 3 CCDs by the way and i would take a DVX over the XL2 also) i would take an experienced DP capable of shooting Super 16 over an experienced DP with a DVX or XL2.

With the two possible exceptions of:

A) money

B) for some reason my story would benefit from the look of DV (ala 28 Days Later)
 
most film cameras incorporate a video tap. It uses a seperate mirror or beam splitter (sometimes called a pellicle (spelling?) ) Which diverts the image to a through a small chip and then out from a BNC source.

These are used for on-boards monitors (for first ACs) and for Video village for Directors/Clients/Whomever.

Videotaps are by no means great quality, and you NEVER use them to judge the look of you exposure or image....have fun explaining that to clients...

And yes, that looks to be an SR3 since is has the more modern videotap, and the dumbside start/stop.

They use a 400' (good for about 10minutes at 24fps) coaxial magazine which also houses the pressure plate.

These are fantastic workhorse cameras. I love them. They are no 35mm...but when you need to shoot 16mm you can't beat them.
 
Pascal_Parvex said:
No. I'm just wondering how they compete. But the XL2 also has 3 CCD's, right?
Click to expand...

There is no competition...film > Video 7 days a week, unless you are going for a specific look, or conditions where video is more convienent.

Its film...there is no "resolution" per se.

I love the DVX, the HVX, the Varicam, the F900 et all...And I feel it is important at this day in age to be versed in SD/HD as well as film (now more then ever) but you just can't beat or replace film. Super16 with an HD transfer...:love4:
 
It would appear super16 is far from dead.

Arri will be having a release party for the succesor to their SRIII advanced camera....to be called the 416.

And even more shocking (to me anyway) is Aaton is not out of the game yet...they will be debuting the XTRprod2 at NAB this year.
 
xray said:
This is art, conceptual art, look at this.
xtr_profile.jpg
Click to expand...


Damn 800ft mags...hate those things.

Anyway, I saw pic today...looks like they added a second battery port for the video tap (stacked on top of the old one) and of course an upgraded digital display and some other stuff.

I've worked on Aatons as a tech....not the biggest fan. Hate their 35mm stuff, the 16 is ok if you get gear that was taken care of and works right.

My heart is usually with Arri...though the Aaton 16 mags are much faster and easier to deal with then the Arri SR mags.

Either way...I'm super excited to see the Arri 416, unless I get work, I am going to that premiere event.
 
Pascal_Parvex said:
Sure there is resolution, you cannot enlarge film forever, especially not 16mm, which has about 2K resolution.
Click to expand...

It has no resolution that can be effectively measured.

Which is why people say 35mm is "roughly" 4K...and 16mm is "roughly" 2k.

It is a transparent media with no lines, therefore everything is and has always been an aproximation when trying to give it a set resolution.
 
Typically with film what you're trying to figure out is what size you need to digitize it at to retain all the resolution the film frame contains, while not overdoing it.

For 35mm film Kodak themselves seems to have settled on 4k x 3k. They say that a frame of film contains 12 million pixels, which is the equiv. of 4000 x 3000 = 12 million.
 
Actually if you can get scanned resolution of 4k x 3k out of film, you can divide those numbers with Kell factor to get the resolution the film really has: 5.3k x 4k.

Furthermore still film scanners doesn't happen to have 5400dpi just by accident.
Taking from there 24mm is sampled 5.1k times and that gives with Kell factor almost 7k of horizontal resolution. Maybe you can even get there with new vision2 50D. I haven't seen any tests though, I'm over a year behind with my AC magazine pile...
 
toke lahti said:
Maybe you can even get there with new vision2 50D. I haven't seen any tests though, I'm over a year behind with my AC magazine pile...
Click to expand...

How are you doing Toke , working hard? :) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top