The Panasonic DVX100 24p is for us!


I'm guessing (considering this is a film look thread) that most of us here are indy filmmakers. If your goal is to do indy films with the film look then you should read this. I went and spent an hour with the Panasonic DVX100 at SMS a film and video rental house (and a Panasonic dealer). I'd made the appointment a few days ago and Thrusday I went to see the myth, the legend, the 24p in all her full glory. My conclusion:

Fellow indy filmmakers, the DVX100 is the best way for a filmmaker to get the film look without time consuming software questionable filter processes or special lighting set ups to get the film look. Before I continue let me explain where I?m coming from. First when I say the "film look" I don't mean the professional look and most indie filmmakers don't mean this when they say it. If John Woo used a basic 3 chip video camera say the VX2K and shot like he generally shoots his movies you'd have a very professionally done movie shot on video, but you'd still know it's video. With John Woo's name attached to it it might mean more but we'd still know video when we see it before it's treated with some kind of film look technique. So I'm not talking about a shooting style I'm talking about a look. This camera has proven to me without a doubt that it is the camera I will chose to save money to buy. The GL2 is nice and at this point remains second choice to this Panasonic powerhouse.

Somethings to take into consideration. I shot out doors and when I was inside I shot in basic "store type" lighting, so there were no special set ups for my test.

The Modes

Now I played with the Pana in 24p basic, 24p Advanced, and 30p. I didn't see much of a difference between the 24p settings but I understand the difference of one being used for straight to video use while the other is being used for film transfer (that being advanced mode). In 24p this camera reacted like film to colors and movement. Is it perfect? It's still video, but does look it. Is it better than Canon?s frame mode? Yep, because of the cinegamma. Fast pans will cause a blur, and fast movement is picked up without the heavy strobing some cameras have. The 24p modes look film-like even without the cinegamma which some may choose to shut off to keep control of other camera functions but this is a user choice and doesn't have the same exact look as 24p with the cinegamma on but by no means does it look bad either. I also did 30p with the cinegamma on and it too looked awesome, so those unsure about 24p don?t truely have to use it. Try 30p with cinegamma and see what you think. In normal mode this cam shoots a warm picture with sharp details that can be controled (there's a control called "detail"). In 24p -30p this cam is perfect for low budget indie filmmakers. In normal mode this cam is perfect for pro camera operators of most types and low budget indie horror film makers. (I like the video look for horror flicks but many people will just flick the cine-switch).

Colors

Absolutely vibrant. Saturated reds like some cams saturate greens. I like this (I'm thinking of a particular scene I have planned of a woman in a red dress) but some may not. Play with the Gamma. Colors are warm and accurate. I didn?t see any fringing but I hear you need to be in high contrast situations for that to happen. I was in an urban sprawl but there wasn't a ton of high contrasty things to go by.

Focus Ring

Some complain about it feeling to loose. It got the job done. Personally I would've wanted it to feel more snug myself but it's not a enough to detract from the value camera.

Sound

Many people complain about camera sound. These guys have put an awesome mic on this thing comparable to the one on the GL2. Plus manual sound controls.

16:9

I like to do everything in widescreen mode. The native 16:9 is hot to death. I've gone on about this before but you get to see exactly what you?re recording. No weird stretched picture just beautiful 16:9, especially when shooting in normal mode 16:9 ads a little something.

Gamma
There?s a lot of things you can do color wise by playing with the gamma.

Controls

Very easy to operate, it took me no time to figure out the controls. (I glance at the manual about twice), The button you operate the VCR fuctions with is the same you control the on screen menus with. Nice. Camera to VCR mode is done by pushing a button versus clicking that dial from VCR to CAMERA to OFF. The dial is there but it's just CAMERA and OFF. This baby has two zooms ( a ring and the handle). Didn't really work with the handle zoom, I used the ring. In a film situation I'd probably be more likely to use handle zoom while turning the focus rings. I didn?t test the manual iris.

Style

Several people asked me what I was shooting. If you're not looking to draw attention this cam may not be for you, but then again the VX1K or VX2K don?t exactly look like tourist cams. This is more the GL2's place because it's smaller and lighter.

Close

If you're interested in seeing a tape of this email me at artstar@jps.net and I'll tell you how to get one. If not just go down to your local Pana dealer and get one. I should warn you my shooting is shakey and sporadic. I was specifically interested in the film look. Sadly I taped over my pevious stuff so you won't get to witness my martial arts mayhem. Maybe if they make one of those 35mm adapters you'd have the DOF of film and that would be it for a lot of filmmakers. I think many would never use film again. I think a lot of people new to indy filmmaking should grab this cam provided they can afford it. Peace out.

-Vinson

So you're saying you like it? :)
What do they retail for?

How does it feel egonomicaly? Like when you are hand held shooting. Compared to an XL1?

The short film mentioned in an earlier thread, "Familien Revier," has my vote. Nice lighting, smoked sets, desaturated color, some grain added...nice.

A few questions:


What is "cinegamma"? The name implies it's a some sort of gamma adjust similar to automatic gain control to bracket the dynamic range of an image on-the-fly, but your description implies it's some sort of motion-smearing image processing routine.
How does the "advanced" 24P mode work? If video is actually recorded to the MiniDV tape at 23.98 fps (or 24 fps), then the signal does not conform to the DV standard (or does it??). How does one get the 24P footage off the tape? And if not encoded using the DV standard, what codec is used to compress the footage, and is it less than 5:1 compression ratio?
How does the camera derive 24P in both of its 24P modes? Does it clock off the chip at 23.98 Hz and then perform hardware 3:2 pulldown to record to tape? Or does it (as rumored in this thread http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthre...15&pagenumber=7) clock the chip at 29.97 Hz and then use some signal processing tricks to get at 24P by way of some inverse 3:2 pulldown?
What resolutions does the camera deliver in each mode of operation?
What's the (pre-encoding and post-encoding) image SNR in its various modes?
Does the camera have any timecode capabilities? How does it record timecode in the advanced 24P mode?


These are all issues relevant to the discussion of the usefulness of a 24P mode in a prosumer camera. I'm interested in whether or not the new Panasonic camera can really do anything that can't be done without a Canon XL1 and a computer to process footage.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : So you're saying you like it? :)
What do they retail for?

How does it feel egonomicaly? Like when you are hand held shooting. Compared to an XL1? -->>>

A retailer who supports DV Info (Zotz) has it for roughly $3400. The best price A little cheaper actually and that's with tax and postage. It's the best price I've seen for it. Never compared it to an XL1, but note this cam has to be held with two hands like a GL2 or VX2K and it's 4.4 lbs, feels good in the hands but as with any of these types of cams it can't be held too long. The cool thing about the XL1 is it can be supported by the shoulder, a position which isn't as taxing. The main buttons are all under the LCD screen and all on the left side of the cam and are easy to get to. You have to get used to scrolling with the tiny joystick thing but you'll probably get used to it in under an hour.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : A few questions:


What is "cinegamma"? The name implies it's a some sort of gamma adjust similar to automatic gain control to bracket the dynamic range of an image on-the-fly, but your description implies it's some sort of motion-smearing image processing routine.-->>>

One thing that seperates the look of film from DV and video in general is it's gamma. The the DVX100's cinegamma emmulate's the gamma capacity of film.

<<<--How does the "advanced" 24P mode work? If video is actually recorded to the MiniDV tape at 23.98 fps (or 24 fps), then the signal does not conform to the DV standard (or does it??). How does one get the 24P footage off the tape? And if not encoded using the DV standard, what codec is used to compress the footage, and is it less than 5:1 compression ratio? How does the camera derive 24P in both of its 24P modes? Does it clock off the chip at 23.98 Hz and then perform hardware 3:2 pulldown to record to tape? Or does it (as rumored in this thread http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthre...15&pagenumber=7) clock the chip at 29.97 Hz and then use some signal processing tricks to get at 24P by way of some inverse 3:2 pulldown?-->>>

First you shouldn't even bother with advanced 24p unless your going to film later on. The camera performs an internal pulldown. From what I can gather it's recording at 24p and capturing at 30p. When you get ready to edit in your NLE the extra frames can be dropped and reconverted back to actual 24p footage. Final Cut Pro is coming out with software particularly for this. I'm sure Cinema Tools could probably preform the 24p recapture for you too. There's a little more to it but you'd have to talk to someone who can really give you the skinny on pulldowns and true 24p editing. Otherwise the regular 24p done the same way but only has the look of 24p (it's actually 30p with 24p motion if that makes any sense. Read the follow info).

"The AG-DVX100 offers the freedom to record images in one of three modes.
* 24p mode: 24fps Progressive for images with a film-like look and motion. Two 24p capture methods are offered:
1. 2:3 pulldown-converted for a 24p captured image and 60i recording
2. 2:3:3:2 pulldown-converted for a 24p Advance mode captured image and 60i recording (offers a smoother playback)
* 30p mode: 30fps Progressive
* 60i mode: 60fps Interlaced for standard images.
Any one of the recording modes can be played back on a standard DV VTR and displayed on a standard monitor."
-Panasonic

<<-- What resolutions does the camera deliver in each mode of operation?-->>

I don't think there's a seperate res for each mode, I think it's just 500 lines period.

<<-- What's the (pre-encoding and post-encoding) image SNR in its various modes?-->>

No idea.

<<-- Does the camera have any timecode capabilities? How does it record timecode in the advanced 24P mode?
-->>

Yes. "A SMPTE time code reader/generator is built-in. The time code generator records VITC on the sub-code area of the tape. DF/NDF (Drop Frame/Non Drop Frame) and Free Run/Record Run modes can be selected with preset or regen. User Bits (UB) are also provided, letting you record your choice of date, time, TC value, frame rate or user data."

<<--These are all issues relevant to the discussion of the usefulness of a 24P mode in a prosumer camera. I'm interested in whether or not the new Panasonic camera can really do anything that can't be done without a Canon XL1 and a computer to process footage. -->>>

The big difference I see is being able to go straight from camera to edit. Meaning I won't need any film look software and I can letter box incamera in every mode. So I can do my horror flick in 60i with 16:9 then hit the cineswitch (which isn't really a switch but going to into the menu and setting it up for 24p shooting) and do my action film in with the look of film. As with the GL2 you want to do slow pans if you don't want the blur other than that in my opinon it's better than the GL2 because of the in camera 16:9 and it's film look is truer than the GL2's (and the GL2 does a heck of a job). By the way, I know in camera 16:9 is considered a cheesy feature by some, especially on many lowend cams, but believe me with this cam it's a whole different ball game. Looking at your movie with the screen is like watching a 16:9 movie on DVD only you're filming it. My friend is a screen writer and I bought the footage to his house, hooked my cam up to the television and we compared the GL2 to the DVX100. I showed him the DVX's 16:9 film-like image. He didn't believe the DVX100 was video. And if you don't like the look the gamma controls can be played with. This cam doesn't come with an interchangeable lens but does come with a nice wide angle. With that one lens I could make a ton of movies before even considering another cam.

-Vinson

I can no longer edit my above post "A few questions," but there's a broken link inside it. The correct link is http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1024&perpage=15&pagenumber=7.

Does anyone have any footage to post?

Also does 16x9 mode sacrifice resolution or does it have a native 16x9 lens?

16x9 mode is a special effect, just like the other competing cameras in this category. One noteable thing about the DVX's 16:9 mode is that footage stays letterboxed even when viewing on a 4:3 NTSC monitor.

"DVX's 16:9 mode is that footage stays letterboxed even when viewing on a 4:3 NTSC monitor."

Isn't this a good thing? Just checking.

If it's what I think it is, actually it's not a good thing. That means that it is not real 16x9 but only that it is making the top and bottom portions of the image black.

What is desirable (what is on the Canons) is that the image fills up the entire screen on a 16x9 TV. It doesn't sound like that'd be the case with that mode on the 24p camera.

I would think that there would be a program that would remove the black part above and below easily, or convert it to the same format as the others so it views right...am I wrong? If there is such a program then it would be exactly the same as a native 16x9...except some resolution loss (that I wouldn't think you could really even notice unless viewing on a large HD screen.). If I am way off base and being ignorant...please let me know. And if you can do what I just said above...please let me know. Thanks.

While I don't have a Widescreen TV, I can tell you that it is marked as widescreen when imported into Premiere. Thus, I think it would be shown without bars on a widescreen TV... just like any Canon or Sony.


I like having bars on a 4:3 monitor because it is not as annoying as a strecthed image.

If you want to use 16:9 on any of these cams you have to remember that it will be at a loss of resolution. (all crop the top and bottom) That's why I do my letterboxing from a "standard" 4:3 image in post.

What is the difference from doing it with the camera (being able to see exactly what your shooting) or fixing it in post. There shouldn't be any difference in resolution?...is there? You are still 'cutting' out part of the picture either way. Anyone know exactly what the resolution loss is and if it is really noticible (would any NORMAL person be able to tell the difference at all without a large HD widescreen). Also...you should be able to just 'cut' out those bars in the future if needed to be played on a widescreen...I would think.

Well.. the fact that you loose the same resolution with incamera 16:9 is a truth with a few modifications. It all depends on how it does the blowup basically, before or after its been interlaced. If it scales before interlacing, then you will actually gain a tad more resolution (depending on how well the algorithm that scales is). If it does it after then it will prob be better to do it in post.

I read somewhere that Canon cameras does it before, and sony does it afterwards. I have no idea on the truth of that statement however.

The biggest advantage of shooting 4:3 directly and cropping in post is in composition of the shot. You have the opportunity to change the footage when doing the final editing, pan it up and down. Something i used extensively when shooting my latest musicvideo. I did a few steadycam shots where i went pretty close to the singer, and framed about his entire face in the camera. I could then pan the footage to focus on his eyes or the mouth etc. If i had shot 16:9 directly, i would have been "forced" to compose the shot directly in camera. As it was now i have drawn 16:9 markers on the glass of my monitor. So even if im shooting it in 4:3 i can see where the boundaries for 16:9 is.

Regards,
Henrik

Dylan,

>How does it feel egonomicaly? Like when you are hand held shooting. Compared to an XL1?<

The DVX100 is perfectly balanced, whether you hold it with 1 hand from the side, or hold it by the top handle. The cam is light (and balanced), so you can easily hold it steady for extended periods of time.

For each position (3), there are 3 separate zoom controls. (Really.) A lever on the right side, another lever on top, and a zoom control ring on the lens. I've never seen this many zoom controls on a cam before!

How does the DV100 compare to an XL1 in PAL format? better? worse?

You may want to search that topic. Several PAL XL1S users and perspective DVX100 users have reported comparing the two images. The conclusion was the PAL XL1S was sharper and better color. NTSC converted to PAL looses a lot. When the PAL version of the DVX100 comes out it may be a different story. It's not really a fair comparison (apples to oranges), any camera will lose in a conversion attempt.

Jeff

It is not necessary to convert NTSC to PAL to do any comparison - virtually all modern TV's and monitors in PAL land will play an NTSC signal without difficulty, so in that sense the comparisons were probably fair.

However what may not be fair is to compare NTSC to PAL, if my American cousins will forgive me, a 100 lines more resolution and a noticably more stable colour system (in analogue reception at least) tends to win hands down.

I for my part think that the PAL version of the AG-DVX100 will probably have better resolution, particularly in progressive scan (25p) mode - but not much better - the limitations of the chip size will always hamper this. If you really want top resolution in the DV25 format, and you can afford it, you really need something like a DSR550 or a GYDV700 with native 16:9 chips and 2/3rd" chips and then deinterlace the footage properly - then you WILL notice a difference! Otherwise it's hardly worth worrying about and I would stay with what you have - an excellent camera with a GOOD image designed with a trifle more imagination than the competition - the image quality differences really are minimal in this price bracket!

Regards.

isn't the xl1 resolution 270,000 pixels (250,000 effective pixels)

http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/s.html

as compared to dvx100 410,000 pixels? (380,000 effective pixels)

btw... hey look at some test screens I shot on dvx100

http://www.geocities.com/a_releg

Sony's entry level DigiBeta with 2/3rd" chips is only just over 400,000 pixels and I bet it produces a much better image than your AG-DVX100!

Pixel count is not everything with regards to resolution and anyway Canon claim that with pixel shift the effective resolution is close to 'normal 1/3" chip cameras.

With respect I know you are enamoured with your new camera but I repeat difference in this price bracket are minimal.

I had a look at your pictures but I am sorry they don't look any sharper than stills from my XL1s or any other 1/3" chip camera for that matter!

Regards.

Nice low noise in those low-light stills though. I wonder if noise is any more evident in motion footage.

I made a decision between dvx100, xl1, vx2000 and I went with dvx because of the look it provides. It is different from the movie mode in xl1 (that's why I didn't buy my friend's xl1). The difference in resolution is minimal, but overall look was what I was looking for. Doesn't look excatly like film but to me it is clearly different from video. True progressive at 24fps.
True it will not compare to 2/3" CCD cams but I never compared them for obvious reasons. It won't compare to cinealta or film either.

Robert, here's a link I saw at 2-pop to some motion footage:

http://www.phocinema.com/preview/boat.mp4

http://www.phocinema.com/preview/rice.mp4

Should use quicktime to see it.
It has less of a video look than xl1 that's all I'm saying. Xl1 is still a good cam... especially PAL ver. xl1 can change lenses and dvx cannot, but Leica is pretty good glass for its price.

some were concerned about the PAL version being 25P only. I may be wrong, but I believe European theaters will project at 25p, and have been doing so for a long time. I also heard most theaters can adjust their projectors to either 24 or 25 fps.

Anyone here know for sure? If that is true, then the PAL dvx100, will be the one to get for either side of the pond.

Joe C.

i just went to DuArt Labs in NYC and saw 35mm transfers of nearly every dv camera out there. I saw the dvx100, shot in 24pa in 4:3, then cropped in post and blown up to 35mm and it looked better than anything else they showed me. I saw footage from "Tadpole" and "Personal Velocity" and "Chelsea Walls" and many others ( the latter 2 shot with pd150 pal) and it looked better than both of them. I suggest that anyone who is going to film should make this trip to DuArt. I met the technician Lloyd and Ulla Zwicker(DuArt Marketing #212.757.4580, x712) and they were the nicest people. They hold screenings every friday. check them out! I've been reading forums for months, but gained more info about my camera and how to end up with an awesome 35mm transfer by spending 1 hour with them!

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Taddeo : i just went to DuArt Labs in NYC and saw 35mm transfers of nearly every dv camera out there. I saw the dvx100, shot in 24pa in 4:3, then cropped in post and blown up to 35mm and it looked better than anything else they showed me. I saw footage from "Tadpole" and "Personal Velocity" and "Chelsea Walls" and many others ( the latter 2 shot with pd150 pal) and it looked better than both of them. I suggest that anyone who is going to film should make this trip to DuArt. I met the technician Lloyd and Ulla Zwicker(DuArt Marketing #212.757.4580, x712) and they were the nicest people. They hold screenings every friday. check them out! I've been reading forums for months, but gained more info about my camera and how to end up with an awesome 35mm transfer by spending 1 hour with them! -->>>

I don't live in NYC. Have you got any setup tips or recommendations to share from your meeting? I've used DuArt for 16mm in the past and have always been pleased. Any setup tips from your meeting would be appreciated.

thx,

Skip

Lloyd proved to me that it was a waste of time and money trying to use a anamorphic adaptor (plus the limiting ability of it all) and just crop the top and bottom in post before blow-up (which allows for some choices with the framing!). He said to always shoot "thin"... always use the cine-gamma mode... use the image stablizer and a tripod or steadi-cam (we watched handheld and once it's blown up to 16x9 35mm, well it will make you dizzy, the camera is small and needs to be stablized. the handheld looked very amatur-ish).... SAVE/PROTECT your "whites" at ALL cost! He really emphesised that!!! Frame rate is unimportant in a good transfer... go for the look and feel you want. Edit in 24frame if possible, but NOT necessary. They can pull the frames for you. Don't use any filters other than UV to protect the lens. Don't use wide angle lens. All they do is limit a good clean image. Don't waste time going for filter effects. Get the best "clean" footage possible. This gives them the most room to add colors (warmth) , pull colors, over saturate, over exposed-look, etc etc. He showed me footage from Ethan Hawk's film "Chelsea Walls" where they added "cool blues"and "warm reds" to scenes and it looked great! If you can't go up there, call them! We went to NYC to cast our leads and called DuArt for a private screening. I don't know where you live, but we flew on JetBlue for $44 each way! It''s really worth going!

I live in Austin, Texas but have some friends in NYC. Might be time for a visit. EVERYTHING you said, especially the value of wides and anamorphics for DV.... I KNEW IT! I've been experimenting with different settings etc. Then view via a Pana LCD XGA projector. I project about a 20ft diag screen so when my cam isn't as stable as I thought, or my movement wasn't as stable, I can REALLY tell when it's large. Many of these motion snafus often can look quite acceptable on an average sized display but not large. My projector has been invaluable for checking myself. Also, when there's mpeg2 compression artifact, as well as other digital flaws, it's hard to catch on a smaller/average screen. When projected they stick out like a sore thumb.

Anyway, my recent testing has involved comparing footage (wide and closeup) shot on "THIN" with the detail set at "0" and cinegamma, then cropping to 16:9 and stretching for widescreen displays.... then I compare the source image that hasn't been interpolated and view large. There really isn't much image degradation at all. If you're looking very close, you can tell the "THIN" footage before interpolation looks slightly sharper, but that footage would have to be vertically blurred before NTSC output anyway. The interpolated 16:9 footage shot on "THIN" has basically already been slightly vertically blurred in the process of interpolation so there's really no loss. I scaled some DVX footage up to HD resolution as well. Although the DVX held up much better than I expected, you do start to see some degradation going up that far. However, I was only using AE5.5 so I'm betting hardware designed specifically for this kind of uprezzing could yet very acceptable results.

Did the DuArt people say anything regarding which matrix setting? You said they recommend cinegamma, but what about matrix? Also, what detail setting? I'm guessing "0" that I've been using for my primitive uprezzing tests is probably the best, but did they offer any suggestions in that area?

Also, you implied they really didn't have a preference regarding framerate. This seems odd? I've read 30p can be quite troublesome. Perhaps I should just give them a call.

thx,

Skip Hunt

i didn't ask him about matrix or detail ,but i will! I read a lot of these forums at different sites, but there's nothing like going to the lab and seeing it! that was the bottom line for me!

As a matter of interest just how big was the screen projection - 5, 10 or 50 foot.

I suggest you go and take that DVX100 print and project it on a 50 foot screen and compare it againtst 16mm, 35mm and HD print as well as for good measure other pro DV cameras with 16:9 chips like a DSR-570. Then you may notice more critically limitations of 720 x 480 from small chips cropped and blown up to 35mm.

Comparing a few prints of similar 1/3" chip cameras may not be terribly conclusive.

Regards.

it was about 20'. I suggest everyone see for themselves! In my 7 years in Hollywood working in film, I've spent many hours in screening rooms looking at little details... Seeing is believing for me!

Let me rephrase what I'm trying to say - without reference to known standards projected on the same screen - what you are seeing is simply too subjective - I have seen Super 8 projected on huge screens that looked stunning but I know it would not compare in reality to 35mm! No amount of experience, with respect, can overcome the subjective when we view these things in isolation - do you honestly believe that a cropped NTSC 1/3" chip blow-up, even if it is 24p is going to look as good as Sony Cine Alta? Because that is what your competing against at the end of the day.

For example Danny Boyle has just made a 'DV' feature and as far as I know tried to get the most out of the format unlike the pretentious Soderbergh who merely degraded it - and even general commentators who know very little about filmaking have commented on the poor image quality.

I suggest you return to DuArts and asked them to screen a true 35mm print alongside the DV print.

Regards.

p.s. can anyone tell me how I can stop receiving those anoying e-mails yet still participate in these forums?

Howdy from Texas,

<< can anyone tell me how I can stop receiving those anoying e-mails yet still participate in these forums? >>

When you reply to a post, simply un-check the "email notification" box in the options area just below the reply field. Hope this helps,

Well, I made an appointment with DuArt to go see their demo reel next Friday, Jan. 31 @ 5pm. I'll let you know how it all looks.

Also, of course MiniDV will pale in comparison to 35mm film if you put them side by side. No one is even questioning that. What Tom Taddeo is saying is that it is possible to get results that are acceptable for feature films. The audience in the movie theater will not be watching your DV transfer next to a 35mm movie, they'll just be watching the DV. So, your point about it being subjective is right on, especially when you sit down to watch a DV movie for 90 minutes. After the first 5 minutes, most of the audience will accept that "film" looks like that (if the video is shot professionally) since they're not comparing it to real film at the same time. That is what is so wonderful about the new prosumer cameras like the DVX100 with 24p. With some good production values, you can potentially fool a LOT of people into thinking you shot your low budget flick on film.

I am really excited about going to see the demo reel next week!

Jaime

"With some good production values, you can potentially fool a LOT of people into thinking you shot your low budget flick on film."

What's the old expression ... "you can fool some of the people..." etc. Fooling the moron masses as Hitchcock called them is easy - I doubt most would notice or care ( they WILL notice the lack of big budget production values though). But your peers will certainly dissect it to bits!

My point essentially is that if people can and do accept DV from prosummer cameras blown up to 35mm - and don't get me wrong I'm all for that - then I think the results between a PD150, XL1s and the new DVX100 will be pretty indistinguishable - some labs say they prefer interlaced, others progressive; some the PD150 others the DVX100 or XL1s etc. there are too many subjective variables - forget the hype.

What I am getting at is that I am sure the DVX100 is a fine camera - I know it is - but I wouldn't get hung up on it being the 'panacea' for all independents - I imagine for that matter the 25p Pal version is a lot better - no uneccessary headaches with the tortuous 24p and pulldown issues either.

Look 0.001% of DV features will end up on celluloid - the manufacturers and labs know that - they also know that people are obsessed with this film look thing, as if the mere look is going to help them break into Hollywood - and so in my view they are cynically pandering to that.

What truly depresses me I'm afaid is this 'playing' at Hollywood - like I mean when you visit these endless websites, where for a moment you could be forgiven for thinking you'd stumbled upon Miramax. For example, and I really don't want to be unkind, but... I visited one via a link from here, called "Expired" - nicely shot, poorly acted, unoriginal idea with a credit sequence almost as long as the film itself. Then there was all the stuff about how the graphics were created by another company that was a division of the parent company etc... when you know that the same bedroom was used for editing and graphics - nothing wrong with this, but it does not impress the real studios - ideas and something to say will impress, and quite honestly you could use an old VHS camcorder for all they care! If you don't believe me try and find out exactly how many independently (I mean the guy in his bedroom not Soderburgh) made DV features were picked up by major studios recently.

Anyway sorry for the rant but this film look thing is just getting too much.

Regards.

I guess what it boils down to is, when you see the result of something you created yourself that, in your eyes, resembles what once inspired you to take up this direction in your life in the first place, well, you can't pay for the kind of inspiration that would bring to you. I think that's the way many feel about making their DV projects look like film. And you know what? Good for them.

One artist likes one canvas because the results satisfy him or her, and another artist likes a totally different canvas. We're all different. What else is new? It doesn't have to always be about selling your project to Hollywood or whatever. I think at least some of us are in this for the sheer enjoyment of it.

I DO agree with both of you but I DISAGREE with the notion that if it isn't HD then don't bother trying because SD sucks in comparison. Sure, give me 100K and I'll go HD any day and wear sony cinealta underwear.

Well, I went to DuArt's weekly demo of Video footage transfered to 35mm film. I saw a bunch of footage of many different sources: XL1, XL1s, PD-150, DSR 500, a lot of HD footage (not sure which camera models, but pretty high end stuff), some 16mm film, and some Panasonic DVX100 24p footage. All of which was projected onto a 20 foot screen (diagonally) I believe.

They didn't show any footage originating in 35mm film, so I can't make a completely objective comparison between something shot on 35mm and something on video. HOWEVER, a lot of the footage that I saw was VERY, VERY GOOD QUALITY. Certainly, the HD stuff looked great. So did the DSR 500. Only in the very long shots (of busy city streets and such) would it show slight detail loss. Closeups and medium shots looked, dare I say it, just like film.

I wasn't interested in the HD footage, though. I wanted to look at MiniDV blown up to 35mm, since that is all my budget will allow. The XL1/s footage they showed was from the movie "Piñero", with Benjamin Bratt. It was so-so. You could tell it was a blow-up of video right off the bat. Very poor detail in the long shots. Very jagged edges, and it almost looked out of focus. Closeups were ok.

The PD-150 was better. They showed footage from "Tadpole", and frankly, it didn't look too good. Full of noise, since a lot of it was very poorly lit. However, there were some shots that were promising, and looked like it originated in 16mm. They also had footage from the movie "13 Moons", with Steve Buscemi. It looked REALLY good. They showed the intro sequence, which had a closeup of a clown juggling balls, and it was beautiful. Everyone was very impressed. The folks at DuArt complemented the makers of that film for understanding the limitations of DV and working around them. The average viewer would probably sit through that movie not knowing it was originally video.

Then they showed the footage from the DVX100. I'm serious when I say that nobody in the room (there were about 20 people there), NOBODY could believe that the footage was MiniDV. There were these shots of this 8 year old kid playing with a remote control car, and this turtle walking about, staring at the kid. People asked which HiDef camera had shot that footage. When they said "It's not HD, it's the DVX100", there was an audible gasp from the audience. The footage looked spectacular! Very rich colors, and very high detail. The very fast motion shots looked like 16mm at worst, and the locked closeups were like something out of a high-budget Hollywood movie. I'm not kidding. I should also add that the DVX100 footage of the turtle and the toy car was shot by somebody's son, with no lighting setup (it was outdoors in a backyard) and no planning of anything. He just grabbed the camera, turned it on, and started recording in 24p. I can't imagine what this camera can do if properly set up and used under professional conditions!

So, basically, the DVX100 has produced the most filmic, detailed picture of any of the MiniDV cameras out there that they showed, and it even rivaled some of the HiDef footage taken by cameras that cost 4X as much. If you live in New York, go see DuArt's demo reel.

For independent filmmakers, this is the best MiniDV camera you can get, period.

<<<-- Originally posted by Skip Hunt :
Anyway, my recent testing has involved comparing footage (wide and closeup) shot on "THIN" with the detail set at "0" and cinegamma, then cropping to 16:9 and stretching for widescreen displays.... then I compare the source image that hasn't been interpolated and view large. There really isn't much image degradation at all. If you're looking very close, you can tell the "THIN" footage before interpolation looks slightly sharper, but that footage would have to be vertically blurred before NTSC output anyway. The interpolated 16:9 footage shot on "THIN" has basically already been slightly vertically blurred in the process of interpolation so there's really no loss. I scaled some DVX footage up to HD resolution as well. Although the DVX held up much better than I expected, you do start to see some degradation going up that far. However, I was only using AE5.5 so I'm betting hardware designed specifically for this kind of uprezzing could yet very acceptable results.
>>>

Skip --

Could you please post (or e-mail) step-by-step directions on how to perform that stretch in AE5.5? I have tried to do it several times, with quite poor results. Thanks.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jaime Valles : ...
People asked which HiDef camera had shot that footage. When they said "It's not HD, it's the DVX100", there was an audible gasp from the audience. [..] I should also add that the DVX100 footage of the turtle and the toy car was shot by somebody's son, with no lighting setup (it was outdoors in a backyard) and no planning of anything. He just grabbed the camera, turned it on, and started recording in 24p. I can't imagine what this camera can do if properly set up and used under professional conditions!
-->>>

I assume this was shot (and screened) at 1,33:1. Then, how could anyone ask which HiDef camera had shot that?

<<<--

Skip --

Could you please post (or e-mail) step-by-step directions on how to perform that stretch in AE5.5? I have tried to do it several times, with quite poor results. Thanks. -->>>

Basically make sure you shoot with the "THIN" vert res setting. I use the letterbox as guides and just pay close attention to framing when I shoot. Then created a 16:9 composite in AE5.5. Drag your footage into the new 16:9 comp and then scale up until you don't see the letterbox anymore (approx 133%). Make sure you render at High quality. That's it.

Skip

In those screenings, all the PD 150 were PAL, I got that. But the DVX100, was it the NTSC version or the PAL version? I'm thinking about buying it, and I was thinking about the PAL version, but it the NTSC looks that good, since i'm in NTSC land, I won't bother again with PAL
Thanks
Philippe

Yes, the DVX100 footage they showed was NTSC, and it looked better than the PD-150 PAL that they showed (particularly "Chelsea Walls" and "Tadpole")

wow,
do you attribute the quality of the DVX 100 NTSC to the camera itself or to the fact that tadpole and Chelsea walls were poorly shot? Or both?
I don't doubt that the DVX is an amazing cam though, but it must be even better than what I thought to transfer better than PAL mini DV
Philippe

Probably both. The folks at DuArt said they had to do LOTS of work on the final look of "Tadpole", because it was shot with such poor lighting. "Chelsea Walls" was a bit better, but showed a lot of detail loss in the wide shots of building exteriors, and edges looked quite jagged.

The DVX100, although not perfect, showed much better color and detail, and fewer jagged edges in the fine detail. Though I think that the PD-150 was not used to its full potential in most cases (except for "13 Moons", which looked great), some of the DVX100 footage was shot without any consideration of exposure settings, lighting, or composition, and it STILL looked better than the PD-150 (more detail and better color with less noise).

To me, at least, the DVX100 consistently produced better looking (more film-like) images than the PD-150 when transfered to film by DuArt labs.