Hey, I've thought about it a lot and I just don't know what to think. I'm wanting to do films, both short and feature, but I can't necessarily go out and buy a Varicam or rent a 35mm ARRI setup for an extended amount of time (much like the rest of you guys ^_^), so I'm happily stuck in the world of DV, which is coming somewhat close to film now with QUALITY HDV cameras on the way, but I pondered whether these cameras would actually be good for what I want to do. Yeah, yeah, I'm stuck with a GL1 for now, which has served its duties well thus far, but I'm thinking on film blowups here and this camera just wouldn't be able to work (the XL1S got away with it because of the interchangeable lense system for 28 Days Later). To me I see it as this, HDV= more resolution for film blowup, so I was all like "Yay!" when the Sony 3CCD HDV FX-1 cam was announced, but then I thought "Hmmmmm, will it work?" Because the JVC isn't compatible with DVFilm.com for blowups, but that's including other factors such as it being 1CCD and all. So what do you guys think about this?

16mm film will blow up to 35mm better than DV. The problem with DV, at least the DV everyone here is talking about, is that it is captured via 1/3" chips. The reason for the hype over the Sony is that theoreticaly, the HDV format's additional resolution will hold up better in a blow up especially with three CCDs rather than the one on the JVC.

Now if you are one of those people that must have 24 individual frames, then niether camera is for you. And I think you are going to wait a long time to get 24p out of any HD format south of $20,000. For that price, shoot quick, shoot smart, and shoot film.

DVFilm's problem with the JVC isn't that it's 1CCD, it's that it shoots at 30 progressive frames per second.

The Sony doesn't have that limitation. It shoots 60 fields per second, and lots of post houses have developed high-quality 60i->24P conversion algorithms for film transfers.

I'm sure we'll be seeing HDV film transfers very soon from the Sony.

I was also thinking about the possibility of "Home Cinema", with the current set of DLP and LCD HD (or 720 anyway) projectors, you could put on a very good show.

How will it transfer? Better than DV, not as good as super16mm.

By the way, for the price of the Sony Pro FX-1, you could rent a killer super16mm setup for 3 weeks to shoot your film.

Mike, that's just the thing, it's a 3 week limit if I rent, I don't want to have to worry about delays or anything like that with DV, I like to keep things simple =). Plus, I'd probably get too attached to the expensive film setups that I may never want to go back =D! But that can't be, especially on my budget. But I mean, Mini DV will work, no doubt about that, but do you think that HDV will make that much of a difference in our current situation?

Mike did you add in the cost of film, lab, prep and transfer to those rental costs.

Costs - of course I didn't add those in, I was just pointing out that the cost of a cam will get you partway home on a pro-looking production. Which is going to do more for your career?

Anyway, I'm sure the HDV pic will be better than DV and blow up better (1080i is good for this) and I imagine people will be shooting features with the Sony starting in January or so, so it's possible by next Sundance or Slamdance you could see the first HDV feature blowups.

But only if the script is goooooooood.

Also - I just saw November and it looked pretty decent, and that was shot on DV without an anamorphic adapter.

So figure native 16x9 with MUCH more resolution, and greatly improved uprezzing programs every six months, and it'll probably look as good or maybe better as say "Annivesary Party"...

What are all "those uprezzing" programs that appears every six months??

Is November out on video yet? I read the article on the making of it in American Cinematographer a while back. I was wondering how the results were.

The Chief Engineer at DVFilm (www.dvfilm.com) says with the FX-1, it's more promising to blow up to film (60i converts to 24p MUCH easier than 30p).

heath

November is not out on video. It has a distribution deal and will be in select indie theaters.

Here my thougths to transfer to film:

I think that the Canon XL-2 is better for that than the Sony FX-1.

If i take the XL-2 (Pal) with 25p mode i have 25 frames with a vertical resolution of 576 lines per frame.

If i take the FX-1 (Pal) with 1080i mode i have 50 fields with a vertical resolutuion of 540 lines per field.

No i think i can't throw the two fields together to become 25 frames with a vertical resolution of 1080 lines and transfer this frames to film. I think in need to interpolate one of the fields and that the second field give me no relevant information to do this interpolation better. And if this is so than i can also interpolate the 576 lines from canon.

I have seen the FX-1 to Fotokina in cologne and if you make a pan with normal speed the picture-quality goes down. Also an MPEG coded film ist in my opinion very bad for color-correction and other image manipulation.


Sorry for my very bad english. Hope you understood what i want mean.


regards
Daniel

You can use 24p conversion software, like DVFilm Maker (www.dvfilm.com) and others, to convert both 60i and 50i footage to 24p.

heath

The /50 European version of the FX1, will produce Progressive HDV format straight out of the box using the Cineframe25 feature. 1080 x 1440 anamorphic progressive with a cinetone look.

This of course will attract a 6db video noise penalty.

One thing that is not clear is whether Sony will disable manual control of exposure in Cineframe mode like they did with the PC350.

It is likely this will be the case and full manual control of exposure will be the domain of the Pro version in Cineframe mode.

I might add that keyframing exposure changes in post is a lot more fun and less processor intensive than using M|B or whatever.

Can it be used for blow ups?

Does a bear sh........

The Cineframe25 feature of Sony's FX-1 is not true progessiv. I think it goes in the same direction as the frame-mode of Canon's XL-1.


regards
Daniel

please quote your source for this information

The statement that the cineframe25 feature is not a true progressiv mode, the price and shipping date came from Sony on the "Fotokina" in Cologne.


regards
Daniel

Pixel shif technology I believe they use. Enables them to derive 1440 pixels from 960 pixel CCD.

I'be just attended a presentation of FX-1. The prof edition will have one feature that I've never seen before, and might help going to 35 mm. The prof camera is switchable between 1080i60 and 1080i50. This means that there will only be one model worldwide. This is of course nice for us Europeans, as we can import cheaper US-cameras, but converting 1080i50 to 24P must be the easy way to get to film for all americans.

Does it mean there will be only one model worldwide?

There's still standard DV mode in there, won't that be either PAL or NTSC? 60i and 50i in HD have nothing to do with PAL or NTSC, they're HD models and all HD sets can play both rates. It seems to me that the only reason they offer both is for the capability of up-rezzing existing NTSC footage and PAL footage to HD resolution: obviously 60i NTSC will up-rez to 1080/60i better than it would to 1080/50i.

But just because it's 50i/60i switchable, does that mean that it'll also be NTSC/PAL switchable? Or do they disable the standard-def mode? Gotta be one or the other...

Just doublechecked. The pro-edition vil be have a PAL/NTSC switch, and will be capable of doing 1080i60 / 1080i50 / 576i50 / 480i60, and there will only be one model worldwide. There will be two consumer models, one for PAL-land and one for NTSC-land.

I have no idea, how the switching between PAL and NTSC is done. But i suspect a menuoption.

But I have a bonafide Sony powerpoint-press comparing PD-170 with the FX1-pro and FX1-consumer. I can't host it myself, so if a kind soul have a few kilobyte to spare I'll be more than happy to mail it to the friendly host.

Rgds

PS: I've played with the FX1 for 10 min. and it really really rocks. Forget about Panasonics and Canons, this is a fantastic camera.

Did someone host this guys ppt slides? I'll do it if no one else wants to

JVC recently showed a prototype 2/3" 3-chip camera in a professional form-factor that will shoot 24p too.

And it's using CMOS sensors! MMmmmmm!

Here's some news coverage here:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/jvc-hdv-3ccd-nab-camcorder-04_20_04.htm

Hi guys.

This is my first post here.

I'm more of a film person really, but I've been watching developments in HD with a lot of interest. I hope you'll be patient with me because of my lack of video expertise (though I shot of stuff on analog and loved it), and that you'll answer my queries without too much heavy technical gumph, or else I'll be asking you more silly questions.

I'm very excited about the release of these two cameras - it looks like we finally have the video cameras indie film-makers have been waiting for. I'm impressed by Kaku's footage (and grateful to him), particularly the low light, and am keen to see a transfer to film done. Maybe I can eventually arrange some tests here. Fortunately in the UK our video is at 25fps, so transfers are rather straightforward (in terms of frame rate). We just live with the change in speed, and use something like Pich'n'time to pitch shift the sound for those who can hear the difference. Or will this camera actually do 24fps?.

So what are your thoughts on the suitability of this camera for originating cinema release footage? I've already seen one person here state <--A shame Sony didn't provide progressive scan on this machine. It'll never stand up to transfer to film.--> What does that mean? And does that apply to the Pro version as well?

Personally, I always think it's a mistake to try to aim for a genuine 'film look'. This where Collateral didn't work for me. It was shot like it was a film; framing, lighting, camera movements, etc. which only served to show up the camera's limitations. Much more successful was 28 Days Later where the makers didn't try to fight the camera's characteristics, but rather exploited them and found their own aesthetic.

My 2p worth...

"<--A shame Sony didn't provide progressive scan on this machine. It'll never stand up to transfer to film.--> What does that mean? And does that apply to the Pro version as well?"

i do not know of any transfer to film from this camera .. i have seen NTSC interlace transferred to FILM ( the fast runner) and it will stand next to any PAL transfer , or progressive transfer ... 10 years ago it was a different story ....

the unknown today for the HDV format is what artifacts are lying in wait when it is transferred to FILM and this is based on current mpeg2 compression ??? and not the compression scheme sony has choosen ... but then all these doubts are just a REPEAT of when sony introduced the VX1000 DV camera and well you can see how that camera changed video and helped level the playing field between the $$$ boys and small independents !!!!

IMO the new sony HDV is the new camera that all other hand size camera's will be measured against .... one really must think hard if wanting to buy a SD 4x3 $2500-5K SD hand size camera over next few months !!

the next few months will be just like when the vx1000, XL1 , DVX100 were introduced - after 3 months we'll all know what this camera can/can't do !!!!

Please perform a search here at the site (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?s=) before posting up. There have been plenty of great discussions on this subject.

heath

I thought someone might provide a not so technical summary.

DVFilm has a lot of answers in terms of going to film and film look (www.dvfilm.com), plus they have a great FAQ (http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm) with tons of info (not much on the FX1 yet)!

heath

From the FX1 1080i footage I've downloaded, thanks Kaku, it converts to 24p great with my Film Effects and Standards converter, and is looking a lot better than the built in 24p mode which seems rather juddery.

Graeme

I don't know who posted that thread at the top above the one I started (the administrator?) whoever it was, thanks - a useful overview.

Or did they just delete mine and paste it at the end of an existing one?

Anyway, I'm glad i found this forum, but I can see I'm going to have to do a lot reading to get up to speed.

Can anyone point me to a decent glossary? (I bet there's one here)

And anyone know of any articles on the shooting of Collatoral? The other films mentioned above don't seem to have got a release here.

Karel,

I simply merged it with this one.

heath

DVfilm maker($145) supports HDV.
Easily transfer 60i to ture 24P.

Well, no software has the capability of making true 24p from 60i, but some can do a very, very good simulation!!!

Graeme

Hey Jack, try purchasing a 16mm short end from a lab, say 50 ft. Then go out and do a test. Seeing it for yourself may do the trick.

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Well, no software has the capability of making true 24p from 60i, but some can do a very, very good simulation!!!

Graeme -->>>


I didn't know that,
DV film ( http://dvfilm.com/maker/index.htm ) claims that it can convert any source of NTSC video to true 24P.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Chung :
I didn't know that,
DV film ( http://dvfilm.com/maker/index.htm ) claims that it can convert any source of NTSC video to true 24P. -->>>


Of course they will claim that! It's their business!

But that doesn't mean they can achieve a completely transparent transfer like you can get from PAL or real 24p.

From what I could find out from quality demanding sources, these two are the better ways to do video for film. Converting PAL to 25p seems to be easy, cheap and transparent too.


Carlos

<<<-- Originally posted by Daniel von Euw : Here my thougths to transfer to film:

"No i think i can't throw the two fields together to become 25 frames with a vertical resolution of 1080 lines and transfer this frames to film. I think in need to interpolate one of the fields"

This is something I have been thinking about - even though the Euro FX1E shoots 1080/50i, each field is only 540 lines (half of 1080).

Am I right in believing (as Daniel seems to) that it is necessary to de-interlace before transferring to film, thereby reducing the 'true' vertical res to 540?

Came across this recently, a demo is available

Framerate Converter HQ
version 2.01 for Windows 9x/Me/NT 4.0/2000/XP

Framerate Converter HQ (FRCHQ) is the video processing tool that can accurately change video framerate, speed and frame aspect.

FRCHQ can:

convert NTSC video to PAL and otherwise
make video with any frame rate (e.g. 23.976 fps) from NTSC or PAL source and otherwise
make non-interlaced video from any interlaced source (e.g. full-speed 59.94 fps from interlaced NTSC) and otherwise
make letterbox video from 16:9 or 2.35:1 squeezed source and otherwise
slow down or speed up any video keeping all movements relatively smooth

FRCHQ offers 8 frame interpolation methods (plus 2 median filters) with definable interpolation range and 5 deinterlacing methods. This program can be used for making high-quality videos without a special equipment as well as for professional video editing.

http://converter.stratopoint.com/


haven't tried it - maybe someone can and report here

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Came across this recently, a demo is available

Framerate Converter HQ
version 2.01 for Windows 9x/Me/NT 4.0/2000/XP

-->>>

In any case that is still a program to stay within video, not to go out to film. To go to film you still have to use some sort of video screen and shoot it frame by frame with a film camera. How you do that, interpolating or not, is what will determine how good it will look.

There is a problem when you go from 60i/30 video frames onto 24 film frames, because you will have to lose 6 frames, and when you lose them certain shots may look strange.

Interpolating software analyzes the image to see how the video looks and it picks the fields so that problems are diminished. The better the software (algorithm they call it), the more transparent the results.

For transferring from 50i/25 frames video you can go two ways:

1) Film frame by frame, and you end up with a film that will run 4% slower when projecting it. This will need a sound pitch correction on some situations.

2) Do a pre-transfer from 25 video frames onto 24 video frames. The rest of the process is the same as above, but you will not need any pitch correction.

Basically these are the existing video to film options we have for "regular" video, that is not 24p or 25p video. These were explained to me on chats I had with several labs, and I could see on the film screen how different options turn up.

As with simpler film or video projects, the quality of your source will very much affect your final results. So the quality of a lens will certainly provide a certain look.

When you have to amplify that image several times to be shown on a large screen, it's obvious that all the lens distortions or aberrations will be there.

That's why I always say that video in general should be considered very much like 16mm or super 16mm, except for very expensive cameras like the top Sony or the Viper, which are probably more film looking than others and very similar to 35mm.

Until recently, video lenses were quite mediocre, as were 16mm lenses until serious filmmakers started doing serious films with it.

We are going through a very similar path with DV and HDV lenses, which probably "distort" very much like the Angenieux 12/120 zoom that was used ad infinitum in a myriad of documentary and low budget films since the late '60s until the early '80s. Films many of us enjoyed.

It's quite likely the look we can get today from HDV, whether coming from an FX1 or a Z1 will be a bit soft, perhaps very much alike shooting using the last analog Betacam cameras we could get in the early '90s. But that's a gigantic step for people on a low budget! You can still get a very good looking product!

Equipment cost is low, media cost is low, and process will hopefully be lower soon too.

What we may have to do is know the weak points in the HDV process and disguise them, exactly like we had to do in 16 and super 16.

So who cares if the lens is not a 20K or 50K type? What we should care for is what we will be shooting with it and how we will shoot it.

Learn to know your lens.

Learn to know your camera.

Learn to know your media.

Those should be the mottos to work on to get a quality product.

Let's go out and shoot!



Carlos

Carlos, If Only a blow-up from the FX1E or Z1 would look anywhere Near that from a quality 16 or S16 original! And I don't mean from a shaky Bolex or CP16 w/$50 zoom lens, either... S16 done right can make 35 prints practically indistinguishable from 35 original when not viewed side by side, except for the generation-induced losses in dynamic range.

But DR will probably be the lowest quality aspect of the HDV film-out, and that's the one some of these threads should be focusing on, how limited it's really going to be w/these cameras.

We know HDV can produce a lot more detail on the big screen than DV (which isn't saying much!), and I believe the Sony's lens will be more or less up to the task (expecting some obvious corner softness and fall off, but probably nothing life-threatening if you aren't a corner-to-corner fanatic), and I'm sure improved methods will arrive - if they aren't completely acceptible already - for decent looking motion from Sony HDV, blown up. So lack of DR sounds like the wild card. But I suspect the newer Sony HAD chips will deliver at least some improvement over their DV models, and even if it's awful, everyone w/designs on a cinema release but limited funds will be shooting with it.

Like on late night TV airings of films from the 70s, from some bad telecine transfer that the small independent stations seemed to get. The long shots are fuzzy, the low-key lighting turns to mud. I remember seeing Dog Day Afternoon on TV like that. Maybe HDV will transfer better, but I expect a little of those qualities to characterize its look on the big screen.

Still, I was completely into watching Dog Day Afternoon, regardless of the transfers look.

<<<-- Originally posted by Vlad Manning : Carlos, If Only a blow-up from the FX1E or Z1 would look anywhere Near that from a quality 16 or S16 original! And I don't mean from a shaky Bolex or CP16 w/$50 zoom lens, either... S16 done right can make 35 prints practically indistinguishable from 35 original when not viewed side by side, except for the generation-induced losses in dynamic range.

But DR will probably be the lowest quality aspect of the HDV film-out, and that's the one some of these threads should be focusing on, how limited it's really going to be w/these cameras.

We know HDV can produce a lot more detail on the big screen than DV (which isn't saying much!), and I believe the Sony's lens will be more or less up to the task (expecting some obvious corner softness and fall off, but probably nothing life-threatening if you aren't a corner-to-corner fanatic), and I'm sure improved methods will arrive - if they aren't completely acceptible already - for decent looking motion from Sony HDV, blown up. So lack of DR sounds like the wild card. But I suspect the newer Sony HAD chips will deliver at least some improvement over their DV models, and even if it's awful, everyone w/designs on a cinema release but limited funds will be shooting with it. -->>>

If you read my mail again, you will see that what I am trying to say is that we have to find out the weak points in HDV and work around them. That's why I compare HDV to what 16mm was in the early '80s, though perhaps with less grain and more speed that the emulsions we had back then.

We can a do a lot with these cameras, if we use them wisely. No one looks at films side by side with anything to compare it with, and realistically speaking very few projects shot in HDV will make it to the big screen. But not because they are HDV but because they do not deserve being there. As many 16, S16, 35 and HD don't. The market will say that.

The gap that is being filled now, in my opinion, is that more people will be able to shoot their dream movies and have a shot at looking for someone to put the rest of the money to finish it. Or show it straight from his DVD-HD on a digital projection theatre.

It's our task, as pals on these threads, to talk about what we do, how we did it and discuss or have a word on what others do or say to improve on this media.

We will necessarily need to put limits to what we can do with HDV. We don't want people to get distracted because something was not done as it should have been.

In the end what really matters is the drama, the emotion of what is being shot with the HDV camera.


Carlos

I've seen stuff shot on the DVX100A and a PAL XL-1 that looked like it originated on film, even BEFORE it was blown up to 35mm. It's all about the DP, lighting and the crew.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : It's all about the DP, lighting and the crew.

-->>>


Completely agreed on that. DP, lighting and blocking will be what makes the difference.



Carlos