Hey all, Jarred Land (DVInfo member and proprietor of DVXUser) just reported that his HVX was hired to shoot some pickup shots for "Munich" -- the $75,000,000 five-time-Oscar-nominated Spielberg movie!

He said the HVX was used for "shooting comp pickups for the foreign theatrical release of Munich."

If you want to read his report it's on the other forum. But I thought the very fact of it being used in such a high-profile film would be of interest here seeing as this is one of the largest HVX forums in the world.

Can you please give a link?

So there is HVX footage IN the movie, or am I wrong?

I believe it's http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=46138

Jared's report backs up a few things I've been trying to convince people of:

1) Those who've been working mostly in the DV realm have become accustomed to one-hour tape runs, but in film productions you almost never see anything longer than 11 minute film loads. So, the relatively short record times currently available aren't an issue for film producers, they're used to it. We'll all get spoiled when the 16gb cards become available.

2) The DVCPRO color space is in point of fact superior to HDV, and is better suited for high-end use in keying or any compositing. IMHO HDV is pro-sumer/consumer; DVCPRO-50/100 is absolutely a pro end-to-end color space.

3) The overall image quality IS amazing out of the HVX - and the actual resolution numbers are an esoteric *measurbator* thing to worry about. The final output is always the judge, not the tech specs on paper.

4) The HVX is NOT a pro-sumer body, it's a full-on professional Vari-cam in a smaller form factor. None of the HDV cameras have to deal with things like shutter angles, only Vari-cam has those settings.

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

Well, one thing is for certain... After I pick up my HVX200, 2x8GB cards and a few accessories, new tripod.... and I just set up a G5 quad w/30" LCD and an Xserve fiber RAID, w/FCS & Shake4, yadda, yadda... I am indeed a poor man. :)

Hope my camera gets here soon so I can try to pay this shtuff off.

am indeed a poor man. :)

Hope my camera gets here soon so I can try to pay this shtuff off.

LOL

That's good.

2) The DVCPRO color space is in point of fact superior to HDV, and is better suited for high-end use in keying or any compositing. IMHO HDV is pro-sumer/consumer; DVCPRO-50/100 is absolutely a pro end-to-end color space.

3) The overall image quality IS amazing out of the HVX - and the actual resolution numbers are an esoteric *measurbator* thing to worry about. The final output is always the judge, not the tech specs on paper.



Yeah right, 1920x1080 downsampled to 1280 luma x 640 chroma is just pants. Assuming the CCD res is way below full res to start with and then downsample by a factor of 4 and your not gonna get great colour space, and that's at 1080. If you only at 720p it's downsampled to 960 luma and 480 chroma pixels, hardly HD at all. Don't forget that at 24P DVCPRO HD you only get 40Mb/s intraframe so in reality at 24/25P it's even more compressed than HDV, given the general acceptance that long GOP is in most cases 3 to 4 times more efficient than intraframe!

I agree that it is theoreticaly better colour space than HDCAM (4:1:1), but I'm not going to believe that any sub $20k camera is sctually going to produce images comparable to any of the current HDCAM range.

Jared's report backs up a few things I've been trying to convince people of:

1) Those who've been working mostly in the DV realm have become accustomed to one-hour tape runs, but in film productions you almost never see anything longer than 11 minute film loads. So, the relatively short record times currently available aren't an issue for film producers, they're used to it. We'll all get spoiled when the 16gb cards become available.

3) The overall image quality IS amazing out of the HVX - and the actual resolution numbers are an esoteric *measurbator* thing to worry about. The final output is always the judge, not the tech specs on paper.

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

Maybe in the film industry they're used to short film loads but it doesn't mean they like it that way.

About the image quality, well, any of the 24p cameras (Canon,Panny,JVC) are pretty impressive so I don't know what advantage the HVX would have in that field, in fact it looks blurrier than the other two.

I just don't see why a multi-million dollar production would have any need to use a single low end camera for anything other than collecting some insignificant footage or brand marketing...

About the image quality, well, any of the 24p cameras (Canon,Panny,JVC) are pretty impressive so I don't know what advantage the HVX would have in that field, in fact it looks blurrier than the other two.

...Various frame rate options is one huge reason to pick up the HVX -- if you can use that feature. I do agree that the HVX seems to produce a softer image than the XLH1 or HD100, but I still think it produces amazing video for the price.

And since the movie already opened overseas January 30, 2006 it would be interesting to know what exactly he supposedly shot that was actually in a movie that is already distributed?

Yeah right, 1920x1080 downsampled to 1280 luma x 640 chroma is just pants. Assuming the CCD res is way below full res to start with and then downsample by a factor of 4 and your not gonna get great colour space, and that's at 1080. If you only at 720p it's downsampled to 960 luma and 480 chroma pixels, hardly HD at all. Don't forget that at 24P DVCPRO HD you only get 40Mb/s intraframe so in reality at 24/25P it's even more compressed than HDV, given the general acceptance that long GOP is in most cases 3 to 4 times more efficient than intraframe!

I agree that it is theoreticaly better colour space than HDCAM (4:1:1), but I'm not going to believe that any sub $20k camera is sctually going to produce images comparable to any of the current HDCAM range.

The efficiencies you state for long gop, are however not generally accepted at all. In reality, DVCproHD is at least as good as HDV, and is often better under certain circumstances. However, it's not perfect by any means, and HDV, DVCproHD and HDCAM are all over-compressed.

HDCAM is 3:1:1, not 4:1:1, but the chroma sampling is still quite bad, especially when you consider it means that the chroma is 1/3 of the reduced 1440 rez, not 1/3 of the full raster 1920.

The gamma curves in the Panasonics seem to be a lot nicer than the ones in the Sony cameras, so in many ways they can look superior. For HDCAM looks at bargain prices, that's what XDCAM HD is about. It looks like Sony has just devalued anyone who's bought an HDCAM, nice Sony.

Graeme

4) The HVX is NOT a pro-sumer body, it's a full-on professional Vari-cam in a smaller form factor. None of the HDV cameras have to deal with things like shutter angles, only Vari-cam has those settings.

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

I think you meant variable speed--virtually every (maybe all) camcorders on the market have variable shutter, which just means variable exposure time, and is comparable in effect to the shutter angle adjustment on a film camera.

I would imagine that the HVX is more of a poor-man's Varicam than a Viper--unless the HVX is capable of something that the Varicam is not, of which I'm unaware?

And since the movie already opened overseas January 30, 2006
Didn't open everywhere. There are territories it hasn't opened in yet.

Some territories had a problem with a certain scene so he assisted them in reshooting that particular scene.

This is no "myth."

It looks like Sony has just devalued anyone who's bought an HDCAM, nice Sony. Graeme

Sony has told me directly that XDCAM HD will eventually replace HDCAM/CineAlta -- except for HDCAM SR (which is MPEG-4 based).

Specifically, XDCAM HD at 35Mbps with VBR is 1080i60 (with real 24p) done right -- no MPEG-2 artfacts, just like 72030 is now. But, it is 4:1:1.

Next comes 4:2:2 at 70Mbps -- which more than replaces HDCAM/CineAlta.

And, naturally both blow HDV and DVCPRO HD away. Which is why JVC has ProHD rather than HDV. It too can support higher bit rates. And, Panasonic will move quickly to offer Varicam to P2 using MPEG-2 at higher bit-rates.

Thought it was 4:2:0 not 4:1:1 at 35mps variable? I don't see how you can say it has no MPEG artifacts like 720p30 when 720p30 is known to produce serious MPEG artifacting under certain conditions, and like all highly compressed formats, produces issues for colour correction even under "easy" conditions.

Did they also tell you that >30fps variable frame rates are less than half rez? Who do they think they're kidding?

Graeme

And since the movie already opened overseas January 30, 2006 it would be interesting to know what exactly he supposedly shot that was actually in a movie that is already distributed?

Fact is, he is doing an add-on to the film---you know like the making-of type of thing.

Actually, Jarred just clarified what it was. They had to edit a nude scene with a pregnant woman for release in the middle east. Her belly and legs needed to be covered up. So they shot a bed on a greenscreen, used a body double, pulled the sheets up to cover up her legs etc., then motion-tracked the shot on top of the film and composited it together.

So yes, the HVX footage will be incorporated in the theatrical film release in the middle east.

Yea I guess you are right. I didn't see right. I thought Barry said he shot pick ups for the actual film.

"So yes, the HVX footage will be used in the theatrical film release in the middle east."

Thanks for the clarification Barry. Good for Jarred. Seems like his move to California is off to a good start. LA is a tough place.

Walter

It appears the first Middle East release date is set for:

Egypt March 2006

I hope we get to see the work on the final print ? I'd love to see the finished frame one day.

It would be so much easier if one of us talented, aspiring film makers from this and other boards just put our HVX's Xl-h1, H100's and z1's at work and start doing great feature stuff- stuff nomitaded for awards- and then post them here for everyone to see... Maybe then we could have a potential "better camera"... But... On the other hand... Didn't a documentary shot with the DVX was nomitaded for an Academy award? Didn't Supersize me, shot with the PD-150, won at Sundance? Didn't 28 days After received global comercial success as a Fiction film, shot with the XL1?

It's up to us and our talent (as well as our team- don't forget the team!) that great films are made. Any of these cameras is capable of a High resolution image, and a good Cinema Blow up. Michael Pappas was impressed with the HVX Big Screen showing, as well as many others where impressed with the Canon Xl1, JVC H100 and Sony Z1 bigscreen showings. What does this mean? They are very, very close to each other.

Like Chris Hurd said, it all sums up to what camera you feel more confortable with, and what functions you want from the camera. It's not unlike current NLE's, like someone pointed out. They are starting to be sold as packages and not as single editing units, just because they are in their core very similar

I'm a dvx user for 2 years. I know it like the palm of my hand. The HVX from reports works just like it. I'm quite confident in being able to deliver great images with the Machine. The rest is up to my vision, actors and team.

That's a nice take Sergio

I cannot emphasize the team element any more. Let's make more content and less dribble !

"It appears the first Middle East release date is set for:

Egypt March 2006

I hope we get to see the work on the final print ? I'd love to see the finished frame one day."

Thanks John for the date.

I wonder though if folks worry too much about a camera and not other factors. I can show you ten things all shot with various cameras but it's often never the camera itself that tells you much about the final product. So much hype was presented for the HVX in the beginning and the let down for many was because they worried too much about the hammer and not the blueprint.

But the reality is the HVX can make a great picture. So can most any camera in the right hands. I sure wish folks talked more about the methods then all the tech numbers that tell you a very insignificant part about the camera. There are so many folks out there who spend day and night talking about how a camera is or what it can do and rarely are their discussions about what the people can do. Perhaps the marketing of these cameras has created that atmosphere. It's a shame. Look at resources. I mean real creative resources. There are so many folks dying to learn more but so few places to do that. Very few videos and books cover very few topics to m help folks develop their artistry. Instead its about silly shootouts that split hairs rather than content in many of these magazines that folks can take home and get something appreciable out of. Ten years ago I saw many more articles that were learning articles and commentary, and/or discussions about a job someone did and how they did it. Oh yea they still have those articles but they are sponsored by manufactures to sell equipment, not real life discussions about much that really counts. And of course the limits they give you in word count today are ridiculous because ads are more important. I remember some year sago I was asked to write an article about 9/11. I was told to make it about 1500 words. Imagine, 1500 words? Well what I started out with and what it got trimmed down to and ended up being was ridiculous. It wasn't even the article I wrote to begin with.

It's so frustrating. I spend at least two hours a day answering questions of folks dying for answers to how tos, situations, set-ups questions, etc. And there are so many talented people out there. I know this 16 year old kid who emails me all th´time that is unbelievable. But how do we help get folks the resources we need to? No one wants to do anything unless they can make money and that is sad because there is this entire industry of filmmakers who have no outlet, and no resources. What can we do to make this a better place for someone with a HVX who wants to express himself and get that expression seen? It's so fragmented now. In the eighties I was that guy with the HVx except then it was 16mm and we were making films out of love. And some great stuff too. And now we have so many more folks who have access to equipment but how do we make amore viable industry?

"It's up to us and our talent (as well as our team- don't forget the team!) that great films are made. Any of these cameras is capable of a High resolution image, and a good CInema Blow up. "

Now if only we could get folks to concentrate on the talent and forget the obsession with the tools. As for blow ups from what I have seen (Canon and JVC they all are capable). Blow ups are not an exact science. It's less about better and more about other factors. So much is determined by who shoots and more importantly the process of getting it there. I think though beyond always worrying about blow ups, if the content is there, then no one will care. Was Murderball great looking? Was Roger and Me, or Super Size me, or 28 Days? After a while you simply have to use what works for your budget and forget the hair splitting differences in these cameras. Any camera in the same price range makes about the same picture with subjective tastes coming into play more along with ergonomics and features.

It would be so much easier if one of us talented, aspiring film makers from this and other boards just put our HVX's Xl-h1, H100's and z1's at work and start doing great feature stuff- stuff nomitaded for awards- .

that's exactly what im trying to do. I cant help it if some people spend all of their time arguing about doing something or not doing something or how something cant be true... its not like im sitting in my back closet making this stuff up.

I'm out there using the tools.. not questioning the capability of them. A camera is a camera. Directors and Producers don't spend alot of time wondering what is a better camera, they just spend time wondering what makes a better story. Nobody (outside our little groups here and there) really cares what camera a film was shot on..

So Walter.. instead of spending 2 hours a day arguing with people how to do something right, lets try and spend that time actually doing something right.

Good to see you have a positive attitude about it. It's that attitude that will get you places. A camera NEVER made a difference. In fact it never will. All it will do is allow more folks access. Let more people on the dance floor and there is, one, no room to dance, and two, no room to see the talented folks dancing. Now if we could just make sure those folks know that a hammer is not what makes a carpenter. So education and resources (including your site) need to shift paradigms away from constant and ridiculous equipment comparisons or talk about resolution, resolution, resolution, and start to offer more information about technique, more festivals for talent to enter, and more resources other than impressions about cameras. Using a camera for a shot in a film doesn't make the camera better or any more important, only means the person using it is a better artist. To say one can't control content is true but one can lead and influence the direction of it by example.

What a happy ending. We've reached the conclusion of this thread. Thanks everybody,