You may ask yourself, "what does that have to do with the JVC HD?"
Well everything.
the undeniable fact as to why thoses movies are still around today? Skill and Resolution!
Yes not to the resolution level that film later develped but good enough to still be watched and admired today some 80 years later.
Did it take the film-maker skill to get the most out of those cameras? You bet your ass it did. You want to talk about a tendancy to over expose, and a myriad of other technical deficiencies including having to be hand cranked. Yet those cameras made features because it gave people the resolution to make moving pictures believable.
The nay-sayers of the JVC HD camera either do not have the technicall skill or energy to get the most from this camera, or have vested interest in the expensive equipment they own. I know a lot of XL1 owners who are oblivious to any other cameras as their XL1 can do no wrong. The DCX-100 owners have recently jumped into that catagory.
Yes the camera has its deficiencies but they are laughable considering its price and the resolution it affords.
I believe in 20 years we will look back on an abundance of HD cam idie films, with their distinct look, with great fondness. I believe this camera will change the face of filmaking.

"Art-- authentic art-- is simple. But simplicity demands the maximum of artistry. The camera is the director's pencil. It should have the greatest possible mobility in order to record the most fleeting harmony of atmosphere. It is important that the mechanical factor should not stand between the spectator and the film."
F.W. Murnau, Director Nasferatu

I believe you are right. The footage this camera takes will still hold up and be watchable 20 years from now. And that, succinctly is what makes it such a breakthrough product.

No DV cam can make that claim. Low budget film makers now, finally for the first time, have an affordable tool that will enable them to capture, edit, and distribute on a consumer budget, and compete with the big budget players. This is a major breakthrough! Watch the revolution begin now.

Has anyone thought about the possibility of MicroSoft WM9 set top DVD players coming out in the next few months? Think about it - you will have an entire aquisition process to cheaply create store and widely distribute true HD material.

Did you know right now there is the reality of at least 5 set top Divx Mpeg4 capable players enjoying sales under the radar of the mass consumer? All it will take is a little push, and the right licsensing from MicroSoft, and we'll be there.

Ken, that movie can be viewed today only because it has been digitally fixed. Film was the only motion type media available in those days. If that type of movie was shot today, they would most likely still use film, for its higher resolution, or at the least, the high-end HD stuff from Sony or Pana, or from that high-end Viper, I would think.

What do you mean "digitally fixed"?

Those 2 movies have been watched in one form or another for over 80 years.

Correct. But the film was cut and cut until little was left, and the film stock was in pretty bad shape. I suggest using the search function, and read through that massive thread about the German sci-fi masterpiece, "Metropolis."

I don't get your point?
Nosferatu has been available on 8mm, super 8, 16mm, I'm sure 35mm, vhs, and now DVD. But that isn't the point of the post.
It wasn't a digital vs. analog rant. It was simply a comparison of what makes those films stand-up. Was it their colour? Dolby 5.1 surround?
No. It was the skill of an artist and tool with resolution high enough to make the moving pictures breath life. Like the end quote says,
"The camera is the director's pencil" and this is the first affordable pencil ever that does not draw like a broken crayon.

Ken, are you talking about the German sci-fi masterpiece called "Metropolis?"

Uh, yes.

Okay, we're both talking apples. There have been a number of "fixes" or versions of this movie. The latest one came out about a year or so.

Yes I am talking about those two 1920'ish features. They are a fantastic example of motion picture art. The cameras used to film them had sever defincencies in many areas especially colour and sound ;>)
Those movies are some of the first examples of visual texture high enough to captivate an audience. And now finally we have a tool that delivers artistic resolution. Coupled with the level PC's and NLE's and such filmaking tools are at these days, it is a revolution!

By the way I like your link. Check out http://www.universal-tao.com/master_chia.html he has some very cool books on internal energy. they have them local @ Banyan Books.

Yes, Banyan is a great place for books in Vancouver. They also carry my baguazhang book. I just live at 3rd and Yew, so Banyan is nearby. I'll pop over sometime and check out that author.

"The cameras used to film them had sevr defencies in many areas especially colour and sound ;>)"

Uhh, yes, just like the hd10. Or any dv cam for that matter. And great films have been shot on dv cams (The Cruise, Julien Donkey Boy, Waking Life). At least two of the aforementioned films were shot on vx1000s. "Artistic resolution"? Psychobabble. Give me a break. Resolution has nothing to do with art. True artists use anything and everything in the world around them, reflecting it, seeing it for us for the first time, etc., getting acclaim and internationally released, or not. Make your movie, using the most appropriate tools available to you. Or don't. But don't think that more or less resolution is going to make or break your revolution. The world is a far more interesting place than that.

Great art can be done with any camera. I never said otherwise.
My point is, with this camera for the first time ever an affordable cam has the resolution to NOT stand in the way of an artist.
No matter how great ones artistic vision, if its shot on DV, its gonna look like DV, crappy.

Also the quote you clipped was ment to be a joke. Those camera had no colour or sound! I was just proving my point that great film is not reliant on just the camera. Odd that you would then accuse me of not knowing this?

And if your really saying resolution plays no part in the artistic quality of the movie why do you use DV gear? Why not stay with VHS-C or 8mm? An artist always wants the best tool he can afford. Film is the pinacle tool for this art because? Yes its resolution. And this camera gets me the closest for a reasonable amount of money.

Resolution has nothing to do with art.

Huh? Okay, if you say so. But my money's on Ken:And if your really saying resolution plays no part in the artistic quality of the movie why do you use DV gear? Why not stay with VHS-C or 8mm?

Shawn, I really don't think that Waking Life is a good example of a DV film. True, it was captured in DV, but in the end it is an animated film. Every single frame of the film has been painted in post production. The DV camera was used simply because it was all they needed to begin the painting process.

Brad

Yes Brad, and yet, how can it not count? Dv has been used, creatively. In fact the three films I mentioned each did wonderfully soulfully unique things with digital video, and soul really is all that counts. The history of art reveals surprises in what, or how little, can be used to moving effect. We're all making choices on technology, but do they really have to do with the end result? In the end, the materials could never be the point. Maybe this techno quest has some psychological merit, acting as impetus to do greater things, and certainly conventions can dictate what goes in the professional world, but what, say in 80 years, to come full circle, will the viewer's experience and/or judgement be based upon? That it was shot HD? That it wasn't?
Ken, I think I've made unnecessarily flippant remarks at your expense. I apologize. And I hope I haven't made this thread inappropriate to the hd10 post site, certain topics/ideas get me going!

Yes I agree that it is the soul of the film that is most important, and I think that is the point Ken was trying to make when he started this thread. However, I still believe that "Waking Life" is a poor example of a DV film. The filmmakers could have captured the live action using any format, film, HD, or DV it didn't matter because it was all going to be covered up and at a much higher resolution I might add. Which I point out because after all resolution is really the heart of all the debates in this forum. For "Waking Life," they simply chose the format that offered the greatest ease of use as well as the lowest cost, but all of the formats would have provided more or less the same end result. Look at it this way, would you place the Disney classics such as Snow White in the category of 35mm films along with other live action 35mm films simply because the hand painted cells of Snow White were captured frame by frame with a 35mm camera?

Brad