We're about 2-4 months away from beginning production on a $400k feature. We're budgeted for one of the nicer HD packages...perhaps not the cinealta but still a very nice package.

Our DP has used the cinealta and various other pro HD gear, but not the HD10. Anyway, we're thinking about putting the camera package budget line toward a purchase of 1 or 2 HD10s instead, which would save us money. I know the HD10 does not have a 24p mode, and I know that 30p -> 24p conversions are supposed to be a bad source of motion artifacts...

BUT, all that said, has anyone here actually done a blow up to 35mm from the HD10? If so, what'd you see? How'd it look? I did a search here and found some folks who said they were going to do this, but I wasn't able to find any results...

Thanks in advance,
TM

http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm#HD-1

34. Can I use the JVC HD-1 to shoot hi-def and transfer to film?

No. The JVC's 16:9 HDTV (720p30) format is 30 frames/sec progressive-scan and cannot be converted to 24 frames/sec. (Normal interlaced NTSC is 60 fields/sec and is easily converted to 24, but 30P formats have only 30 motion samples per second and no smooth conversion to 24 is possible).

The other modes of the JVC are standard definition and offer no real advantages. Wait for the European version (720p25) if there will be one.



****************

I'd say that's just his opinion except that they are the #3 xfer house behind Swiss Effects and Sony Hirez center.

I would have thought the 60P mode on the JVC camera would have been a plus over 60i

But definately you can't shoot 720 30p and expect to make a transfer.

you can get the HD10A and a Kona SDI card and a laptop and strap it onto your camera to get 1080i 59.96.

then you will have NO problem with the xfer.

I have a film recorder that I built for this purpose. I've tried it out with uprez DV and it is excellent at least the = of 16super to 35mm blowup.

I got this from the guys at AJA.com

the HD10A is AJAs A/D converter.

The JVC JY- HD10U is Analog out (not sure if the GR-HD10U is different). We have tested and added updates to our HD10A ( hi-def analog to digital converter) to make it work with the JVC camera. We then tested the output of the HD10A into a Kona-HD (in 1080i 59.94) and it worked fine.

For $400,000, I'd recommend shooting on a DVX100, higher-end HD or some other SD format, PAL or 24P.

heath

when you're talking about doing a real production then you can't seriously be considering a prototype camera.

if you're just doing an indy for "fun" great. but if it's for pay get the real camera.

I've seen blow-ups with the panasonic SDX- 900 that looked like it originated on film.

Definitely take a look at what the SDX900 can do. Much larger capture and much more color detail.

- don

I've heard so much great stuff about the DVX100 that we're probably gonna use it to shoot my next film, which will be uprezed to HD and probably 35 mm.

Otherwise, I would probably avoid the one-chip JVC, because even JVC (http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/faq.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101394&itempath=&feature_id=13) admits that a 3-chip camera is better. But maybe if you're looking for something cool and different, you could do the uprez to 1080i 59.96, as explained by James Ball, then go to film.

I'd also recommend reading Jon Fordham's new review (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19828) of the camera. We shot a short together, and his thoughts on the camera are interesting. Jon is a pro-level DP.

heath

I've shot out some test runs to film using footage on an AJD-210 though that I thought were better.

The real advantage though if you're going out to film is the 24P and being able to tell real time if you are panning too fast.

If you're inexperienced as a DP and you can't affort to rent the 900 then I'd 100% go with the DVX100

The thing I like about the AJD-210 (215 has firewire out) is that it is DVCPro so you have lower compression and a choice of lenses. These cameras were hot 4-5 years ago so the prices now are in the toilet even though they are solid 1/3" 3CCD cameras.

Another thing great about the DVCPro 25/50 on a PAYING shoot is that you won't have the problems with dropout etc. that you have with the miniDV format.

If you decide to go the DVX100 route I would definately pony up for the firestore or some other DTR solution to side-step the dropout problem.

My heart has sank more than once when I got back to the barn and found I had bad footage due to a dropout.

Converting to 1080i60 will not help going to 24p, as the signal is now effectively 1080p30. You might as well stick with 720p30 and process from there to avoid any interim scaling artifacts. Several users have experimented with PC based filters (like Twixtor) to convert 30p to 24p with surprisingly good results (I too have had go success with this tool.) So don't necessarily rule out 720p30 based on frame rate issue.

Basically you could use a HD10 or DXV100 or DV5000 or pxl2000 to shoot your film, all result in a completely different looks. Chose the look you want and go with that. Basically uprezed materials will always look uprezed, and footage with poor latitude will always have poor latitude. There will never be a camera that meet every need and look.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Newman : Converting to 1080i60 will not help going to 24p, as the signal is now effectively 1080p30. You might as well stick with 720p30 and process from there to avoid any interim scaling artifacts. Several users have experimented with PC based filters (like Twixtor) to convert 30p to 24p with surprisingly good results (I too have had go success with this tool.) So don't necessarily rule out 720p30 based on frame rate issue.

Basically you could use a HD10 or DXV100 or DV5000 or pxl2000 to shoot your film, all result in a completely different looks. Chose the look you want and go with that. Basically uprezed materials will always look uprezed, and footage with poor latitude will always have poor latitude. There will never be a camera that meet every need and look. -->>>

ANNNNND, you can always have a free 1 minute test done from a film out place.

heath

Why are you blowing up to 35mm?

Thanks so much for all the thoughts and replies. Great food for thought. Like I said originally, we're budgeted for a higher end HD package, and our DP has used them before. So, chances are that's the way we'll go. I got to thinking about the HD10 b/c I saw some clips (they were hosted by someone on the AVS forums if you guys want to look for them) and thought they looked pretty good all things considered. But I'd never shoot the film without having some sense of how the blow up would look in advance, hence my post. I like Heaths idea about the 1 minute sample...

As to why the blowup, we'll be taking it to markets/festivals.

Thanks again,
Tony

Have you budgeted $300 per minute for the blowup?

I'll have to double check the budget (it's on another computer and I don't have a hard copy in front of me) but I want to say we have it budgeted at slightly less than that.

TM

I noticed a lot of people talking about transferring to film without realizing the cost involved. That $300 figure might be tops. But when you add that in, sometimes it's cheaper to start with film and get a more flexible format for foreign, dvd and theatre distribution as well as a better look.

I hear that for sure Rob. My sense of all in costs (including post costs, stock, editing, etc) is that a conversion is cheaper than shooting on 35mm. What's your take?

Thanks,
TM

We're going to shoot my next film like we're going to 35 mm, but let a distributor, if they pick us up, pay for the print.

heath

Thanks Heath. That is definitely a strategy we're considering too. However, we have plans in place to take it to a few markets, and if you're going to do a screening...

That said, I have a latest generation consumer DLP projector and a 110 inch screen in my theater. The PJ is relatively light and portable. It'd be tough to create a nice viewing environment on the road (i.e. light control, nice seating), but it's possible to just output to MPEG2 and burn a DVD to screen for prospective buyers.

TM

before you start buying perhaps you should speak to a video to FILM transfer house. they know what works and doesn't. i'm sure by now they've had many questions on the JVC ...
most of theses houses do not want you converting 60i/30p to 24fps because twixter and other like products/methods are inferior to their method.

the JVC is not a HD VARI 27 ... the dvx100 is not a sdx 900
the larger camera will give you a image far superior to the hand size camera. if your budget drops in 1/2 the you might look around for a different camera/format ...

The biggest issue Jon Fordham and I had when we shot a short and looked at it on both and HD and SD CRT TV was the pixelated look. I'd hate for that to go to film. Look here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18762) and here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19828) for our reviews.

heath

Don,
My question was not intended as a replacement for an inquiry to a conversion shop, merely a supplement. I figured if anyone had actually done what I asked, they would be hanging around here. Nor did I think that the (much) lower priced cams were substitutes for the more expensive ones... Simply, they are another choice.

Heath,
Thanks for pointing out the reviews. I'd found yours but not Jon's. At this point it would seem for many reasons that the HD10 is not the right choice! Too bad, it might've been fun.

TM

It's a great camera, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure it's good for a $400,000 film.

Here's Jon's review. Click:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19828

heath

According to John's review, he wouldn't recommend this camera for 99.9% of shoots. That doesn't sound like a glowing review to me, certainly not a "great" camera. What good is a camera that can only be used .1% of the time?
I was seriously considering buying my own HD-10, but now I'm not so sure it would be worth the investment.
The question is - Heath, have you finished the movie? If so, how did the final cut look?
I also want to shoot my own movies and I want to shoot in high definition -affordably. I had high hopes for the HD-10.

I will be cutting the film next week--I've been in the middle of a couple of editing projects since Dec. and am wrapping up this weekend.

heath

ps-Jon and I really liked this one shot, which I'll have up this weekend, I promise! It was a totally controlled situation, ie, lights (not the sun) and we REALLY took our time. I'll also show you guys and gals a shot from outside.

Just a short note from a film and video distributor. We have a very difficult time selling buyers on digitallly originated material in domestic tv and video markets as well as overseas. The first question everyone asks at the markets is "what was it shot on?". Well maybe the second question. The first is "who is in it?". I have producer friends shooting 35mm anamorphic for $150,000, so it's always a surprise to me to see people shooting digi formats at larger budgets.

Steve Lustgarten
LEO FILMS
leofilms.com

A popular trend these days is to shoot super 16, and finish as a DI ( Digital Intermediate ).
I scan a full feature for well under $10K , and the result is a high bit depth scan. No blown out whites or lost shadows, as film holds up to 10 stops of detail. The users can then color correct far more, and they end up with the bonus of DVD and HD master at the end.
It's a great hybrid methodology, using the film just to capture the image.
I'm shooting for a full DI for about $60K, filmed out on a ArriLaser for the 35mm negative.
-Les

Ah someone who know's DI. What file format is everybody using
for those large resolutions and bitdepths, Les?

Steve: your site seems to have the HTML document inside a
Word(!) document. It creates all kind of garbage on my screen.

"The first question everyone asks at the markets is "what was it shot on?". Well maybe the second question. The first is "who is in it?".

i see the same 2 question is same today as it was back in 70-80's. back then it was 16 or 35 .. 16 being they didn't have much interest.

distributors & hollywood production company's don't know what will be a HIT or miss .. if they knew then all those 50-100mil movies would all be hits - seeing how nobody sets out to make a bad/dog/ movie?

all distributors will tell you don't shoot on hand size dv camera's etc .. however once you have shot it and it's edited just about ALL will take a look at it. for them bottom line is "can i MAKE $$$ off your movie." if they think they can make $$ then they will get it to any format that they think they can make $$ from. if they don't think they can make $$ then they will tell you they don't handle video projects, you don't have name actor and other excuses etc. = translated in plain english "we feel we can't make $$ off your movie" ...

just about all movies made by nobody's with nobody actors have a 95% chance of going nowhere - doesn't matter if shot on 35m or pixel vision the odds are not in your favor.

Rob,
The standard format is 10 bit Cineon. Each frame is about 10 meg, 2048 x 1556 pixels.
Cineon does not offer any type of image compression, so for in house work I use other file formats with equal bit depth. The 10 bit Cineon format ( Kodak ) is basically 0.002 Density units per code value ( 1024 steps per color ) .
-Les


<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Ah someone who know's DI. What file format is everybody using
for those large resolutions and bitdepths, Les?

Steve: your site seems to have the HTML document inside a
Word(!) document. It creates all kind of garbage on my screen. -->>>

Can your lab do 4k scans?

No, 2K only. Almost all DI work is 2K, for 4 perf 35mm work.
-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : Can your lab do 4k scans? -->>>

Yeah, that's sad.

How long does it take, ie, per minute or whatever?

It takes about 600 frames an hour.
It's not the 2K res you need to be 'sad' about, because thats not the problem (limit) what it's all said and done.
Most theaters projection quality is what's the issue. Due to frame registration jitter, and poor optics ( the kid doesn't focus) the resolution is about 1000 pixels across, at best.
A good percentage of theaters are really DVD quality, I'd say.
-Les

Les,

Where do you get for film scan done? $10k seems cheap. How much film is being scanned for $10k?

What are you editing on?

Film out is still pretty expensive right? I see numbers like $300 per minute.

dustin

The scan he's talking about is scanning the dailys to a digital format. Telecine.

the digital intermediate is on your hard disk

you can burn this out for the $300/minute you mention is burning the edited film + sound to 35mm film.

I understand the entire DI process. Actually he is not talking about telecine. Telecine is the process of scanning film and converting it into video. Typically used for offline. He is doing full rez 2K scans.

I am interested in hearing about how many feet of film he is scanning at 2K for $10K. $10K isn't that much. My problem would then be how to get that footage to me in Hawaii. 2K scans can add up to a lot of TB.

No Telecine here. Full 2K Cineon files, with full chroma res, as opposed to the HD transfers that give you lower quality.
7000 ft ( 80 min) for $10K

As far as getting the files shipped, all I can say is that 200 plus gig firewire drives are getting mighty cheap these days !
I used to use 35 gig DLT tapes, but those are obsolete now.Also, I have a file format that supports compression with 12 bits per channel, that makes each frame about 5 meg instead of the normal 10 megabytes.

I'm not new to this, trust me :)

-Les

Les,

What file format are you using?

I was recently reading about a new Lacie 1TB firewire drive that would make things easier.

Is it your business that does the scans or do you send it out?

I own the scanner, but it is run by a small company for me, which I have an agreement with. You can email me privately if you would like to pursue this, since it's getting a bit off topic here on the DV forum. My mail is lesd@earthlink.net.

A small TB drive array would do it, or even a couple of 300 gig drives. FedEx is a good slow speed network. The drives would be passed back and forth a few times, during the project.

I can get some good laser output rates as well, either at the company that runs my scanner, or a large studio I have some connections with. Both are Arri Lasers.

-Les

If my math is correct the cineon files are around 12 MB per frame
(instead of 10, (2048 x 1556 x 30) / 8 = 11.95), which yields
288 MB per second (at 24 fps), or 17280 MB per minute (17 GB).

For those 80 minutes that would be 1382400 MB which is roughly
1350 GB or 1.3 TB. Or five 300 GB drives.

Thanks Rob,
I like to use 10 to make my mental math easier!
The 300 GB drive mechanisms are about $270 these days, making them much cheaper than the old DLT tapes that were the industry standard for file swapping only 2 years ago.
-Les

yo les,

i remember you writing on usenet that the most rez anybody will ever squeak out of 16mm color neg is about 1700 pixels across, and any more than that is just sub-sampling the grain.

obviously there's a big difference between 7245 shot at f8 on a sunny day through a $5000 prime, and 7279 shot at f2 with a filmschool bolex. so i assume grainier stocks shot under non optimal conditions can probably be scanned at less that 1700 wide. but how much less? 1k?

heres another question:

when you scan 16mm do you scan at 2k and then scale it down to 1280+ , or do scan a 1700 wide window out of a 2k area.

Hi Chaim,
As you know, film stocks are evolving along with video, and the newest stocks from Eastman are showing almost no grain. With super 16, we get the full 2K across and resize to a smaller frame as needed. As disk storage is so cheap now, it's feasible to deliver uncompressed frames to the client.
To compete with the HD transfers, the scanning rates have dropped well below 10 cents a frame. In fact, the cost more depends on if the film is being scanned as a cut negative, or in other words, keeping the amount of winding and reel swapping down to a minimum.
-Les