"The CineAlta is the number one selling camera Sony has EVER had, period"

They've sold more CineAltas than VX1000s? They've sold more CineAltas than Mavicas?

He's referring to the demand.

It's kind of similar to the Canon EOS-10D. Everyone wants one but nobody can get one. It's a matter of allocation. There are more customers for the Cine Alta than there are actual units; hence a 32-week waiting period. He's not referring to the volume, which is actually very low.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : He's referring to the demand.

It's kind of similar to the Canon EOS-10D. Everyone wants one but nobody can get one. It's a matter of allocation. There are more customers for the Cine Alta than there are actual units; hence a 32-week waiting period. He's not referring to the volume, which is actually very low. -->>>

Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. CineAltas are not production-line built.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. -->>>

And it case it wasn't clear the IRONY FLAG was on in my post. I'd certainly review the Sony HDCAM SR. :)

However, in fact, folks making films with CineAlta do not think it is good enough. That's why Sony has a new line Alta CineAlta -- HDCAM SR products. And they are indeed MPEG-4 at 440Mbps. HDCAM at 140Mbps is way too compressed for them.

Sony sold 350 CineAlta camcorders in 2-1/2 years. Still digital cameras are made in typical production runs of 50,000 a month or so per model.

Comment on statement "DV killed Hi-8 (BetaSP holds on!!!!) and HD will kill DV":

The major technology changes were from silent film to talkies, from B/W TV to color TV. The switch to HDTV is just as significant --a lot more than a substep from Hi8 to DV, which can be called evolutionary. Compared to that the step to HD is revolutionary and 720p is only a tip of the icebarg, the lowest end of what is coming.

Still. would I buy the JVC camcorder? No! Would I invest in SD technology duting a period of major technology change? No! I'll wait for Sony and their upcoming blu-ray HD DVD camcorder, or one from Hitachi or another company that will not have 35 Lux rating, and will have a decent picture. 35 Lux in the year 2003? When did JVC start designing this thing? Must not have been in this milleium. Maybe 2000 BC?

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. -->>>

And it case it wasn't clear the IRONY FLAG was on in my post. I'd certainly review the Sony HDCAM SR. :)

However, in fact, folks making films with CineAlta do not think it is good enough. That's why Sony has a new line Alta CineAlta -- HDCAM SR products. And they are indeed MPEG-4 at 440Mbps. HDCAM at 140Mbps is way too compressed for them. -->>>

I noticed something, irony perhaps, sarcasm, definately. :-)

Visit my website: www.mpsdigital.com

Ken Freed wrote: “It is still a work in progress”

Well, if this is true, why does JVC resist making this camera 25p or 24p capable in its HD mode? The reason why I ask this is because JVC could have a market with DV-Theatrical-Hopefuls (aka, those DV moviemakers whom want to retain the POSSIBILITY of a 35mm blowup, even if they don’t get it, which is just about every serious DV moviemaker out there.) Other then offering a better theatrical print, I really don't see the purpose for this camera in North America. Most working class Americans can't afford an HDTV set, and even if they went further into debt to get one, I doubt that they would be happy about spending over $2000 for a home video camera for it. But, I do applaud JVC for advancing digital video, which this camera does do, in a way.

Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. Broadcaster might even prove very interested in a low cost entry to HD. Hence, this cameras appearance at the National Association of Broadcasters show. While it would seem that the addition of 24p would be a logical extension, I can think of several factors that make it unlikely at this time.

The 24p look might not be a welcome look for many in it's intended market. The cost and time delay to develop new algorithms would delay the camera's introduction too much. I think the independent film maker market is smaller than many here are willing to accept. The success of this camera is not dependant on their adopting it. But I doubt JVC is ignoring the comments they are receiving on the camera. Thoughtful, constructive criticism of actual users will prove important for JVC as they develop new HD cameras, for new markets (read independent film makers).

I still want to know if going 24P with MAYBE some theatrical hopefulness, is the right thing. Let's say I shoot on 24P (which a lot of my friends say isn't as good as 30P as far as image goes, which I can't say one way or another, since I've only seen two 24P films, ATTACK OF THE CLONES on film and HITTERS on a 10k lux HD projector) but never go to film; would I have better going 30P HD and used something like Magic Bullet or CineLook or something for the film edge?

heath
www.mpsdigital.com


<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. Broadcaster might even prove very interested in a low cost entry to HD. Hence, this cameras appearance at the National Association of Broadcasters show. While it would seem that the addition of 24p would be a logical extension, I can think of several factors that make it unlikely at this time.

The 24p look might not be a welcome look for many in it's intended market. The cost and time delay to develop new algorithms would delay the camera's introduction too much. I think the independent film maker market is smaller than many here are willing to accept. The success of this camera is not dependant on their adopting it. But I doubt JVC is ignoring the comments they are receiving on the camera. Thoughtful, constructive criticism of actual users will prove important for JVC as they develop new HD cameras, for new markets (read independent film makers). -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. -->>>

Once again I think Jeff is 100% correct on the market for the HD10.

But, I'll add that that notion that $2000 for an HDTV is too much for a "working man" is nonsense. Big screen TVs have been, and are, the biggest selling TVs -- outside of tiny TVs for the kitchen or bedroom. A bigscreen is something the whole family can enjoy. And who do you think are buying $40,000 SUVs and pick-up trucks. (And, this may be their second or third car/truck.)

There is only 6% unemployment (as low as it can go without causing "wage inflation"), real wages are going up -- and inflation is very low. Plus, who doesn't get Zero interest offers every month.

The premium for HD-ready 16:9 over 4:3 is about $500. Any salesperson who can't make the case for spending $500 is a bad one. After all, DVDs are where the action is, and the majority of DVDs are widescreen.

Likewise, the common perception that there is no HD to watch doesn't match reality either. Of course any single individual may live in an apt or condo or a small town in the desert.

But the vast majority of "working familys" live in houses in the suburbs around large cities. They can and do get DBS and cable. They can put an antenna on the roof. If they can do any of these things there are one, or more, HD signals available.

There has been a marked change since the Superbowl was in HD. And ESPN, CBS, and HDnet are pushing HD sports. Cablevision is now pushing HD for ther sports broadcasts. Sports is the driver for HD.

Once someone buys an HDTV -- they are primed for the question: "Do you want all the videos you shoot of your family to obsolete in a few short years?" Who's going to answer -- "I don't care if my video of my new baby can't be watched when she's ten."

Plus, the Soccer mom or dad will get big points for shooting games in HD and playing it on their wide-screen. So the camcorder too beomes a whole family purchase.

I could sell a ton of these at a Best Buy located in any major city just by going around and carefully shooting Little League and other kids games, plus a few cute kids -- and letting the tape play on a nice HDTV on the floor.

What's amazing is the camcorder's quality won't matter as we all know the vast majority of TV owners have no sense of quality! They buy based on other factors. If the salesperson tells them how good it is, and it's BIG, they'll love it. (Afterall look at the $6,000 plasmas being sold and 90% have a terrible image.)

I will point out that discussion of politics or personal attacks are forbidden as described in the DV Info FAQ. (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/misc.php?s=&action=faq#deleted) I have deleted several inappropriate remarks and/or posts and urge everyone to stay on topic.

Steve,
You'd better stick to video gadgets; your economics are weak.

It's true that non-farm unemployment remains at 6% (as of March, 2003) representing approximately 8.4 million Americans. But that does not tell the true story. Under-employment is the real stinger today. There are 4.7 million Americans only working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. There are also countless people whose financial circumstances have dramatically shriveled because they have been layed-off from jobs and cannot find employment at compensation levels commensurate with what they've lost. (I'm sure that most of us know someone in such a circumstance.)

Employment in the durable goods, transportation and retail sectors has been badly dented, losing nearly 93,000 jobs in March alone.

That said, "wage inflation" is by no means a spectre that can possibly haunt this economy now or any time in the foreseeable future and is not, and never has been, determined by single aggregate unemployment numbers.

Meanwhile, people are borrowing like Saddam's coming to power. Revolving credit rose 8.6% in January (compared to only 4.9% in the entire 1st quarter of 2001), and then rose another 1.0% above that in February. This puts total (US) revolving credit debt at around $721 bil. While not an historical high, it's damn high when viewed in the overall economic context. When combined with the over $1 trillion of non-revolving credit debt it basically means that well over half of average US workers' wages go towards taxes and debt service.

Yes, retail sales have held-up and people are buying big-screen tv's and relatively expensive cars. But nobody expects that to last very long, even with "zero percent" financing deals. (BTW, these 0% deals are killing the bond market prospects for auto manufacturers' financing operations such as GMAC and Ford Motor Credit.) The primary wind beneath the wings of these recent buying binges has been mortgage refinancings, especially cash-out re-fi's, which are rapidly declining as rates have begun to rebound. Say "Gone" to yourself when the Fed begins raising primary rates later this year.

So, I guess this is a windy way to re-assert that the immediate future for the "working man"s discretionary spending levels looks bleak. Additionally, there is little or no impetus to invest in HD home sets, irrespective of broadcast signal availability. (Does anyone really feel the need to watch sitcoms, "reality" shows, or most of the other broadcast tripe in HD?) I believe that HD versions of play-at-home content, such as movies, could be the catalyst that launches widespread conversions. But cooperative decisions on device standards and manufacturing commitments are a long way off.

So I stand by my original projection: 3-5 years before HD finds anything that vaguely looks like a critical mass in US households.

Yes, this is true; credit card spending peaked in 2001 (and hasn't stopped), after going up and up in the late 90s. That's a good reason why the economy was going so good, people were spending on their credit cards (I'm guilty, too, but of buying video equipment to shoot my DV indie films). While it did have a great effect on the economy (I was getting a lot of little video gigs then), people realized soon that it couldn't last forever, thanks in part to the e-economy bust. And we're still feeling the sting from it, in the video business. But not everyone; a company I work for occasionally rents out space at the TV news station I work at fulltime and they are doing gangbuster business! (They also have a 6000 sq. ft. soundstage at their disposal, which helps.)

I agree with Steve, though, more and more folks will go to HD faster, and we can probably thank JVC. I won't buy another mini-dv camera unless it's HD. I bought my XL-1 in Mar. 1999 (made in Nov. 1998) and by next year, I'll have had it for five years. Time to buy a new one then! But not a DV, only HD.

heatho

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : Steve,
You'd better stick to video gadgets; your economics are weak.

It's true that non-farm unemployment remains at 6% (as of March, 2003) representing approximately 8.4 million Americans. But that does not tell the true story. Under-employment is the real stinger today. There are 4.7 million Americans only working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. There are also countless people whose financial circumstances have dramatically shriveled because they have been layed-off from jobs and cannot find employment at compensation levels commensurate with what they've lost. (I'm sure that most of us know someone in such a circumstance.)

Employment in the durable goods, transportation and retail sectors has been badly dented, losing nearly 93,000 jobs in March alone.

That said, "wage inflation" is by no means a spectre that can possibly haunt this economy now or any time in the foreseeable future and is not, and never has been, determined by single aggregate unemployment numbers.

Meanwhile, people are borrowing like Saddam's coming to power. Revolving credit rose 8.6% in January (compared to only 4.9% in the entire 1st quarter of 2001), and then rose another 1.0% above that in February. This puts total (US) revolving credit debt at around $721 bil. While not an historical high, it's damn high when viewed in the overall economic context. When combined with the over $1 trillion of non-revolving credit debt it basically means that well over half of average US workers' wages go towards taxes and debt service.

Yes, retail sales have held-up and people are buying big-screen tv's and relatively expensive cars. But nobody expects that to last very long, even with "zero percent" financing deals. (BTW, these 0% deals are killing the bond market prospects for auto manufacturers' financing operations such as GMAC and Ford Motor Credit.) The primary wind beneath the wings of these recent buying binges has been mortgage refinancings, especially cash-out re-fi's, which are rapidly declining as rates have begun to rebound. Say "Gone" to yourself when the Fed begins raising primary rates later this year.

So, I guess this is a windy way to re-assert that the immediate future for the "working man"s discretionary spending levels looks bleak. Additionally, there is little or no impetus to invest in HD home sets, irrespective of broadcast signal availability. (Does anyone really feel the need to watch sitcoms, "reality" shows, or most of the other broadcast tripe in HD?) I believe that HD versions of play-at-home content, such as movies, could be the catalyst that launches widespread conversions. But cooperative decisions on device standards and manufacturing commitments are a long way off.

So I stand by my original projection: 3-5 years before HD finds anything that vaguely looks like a critical mass in US households. -->>>

Circuit City has a nice Panasonic 47" HD Monitor for $1399 with zero interest until 2004.

By Christmas you can bet there be sets at $1000 with no interest until 2005.

And, by then most big cable systems will offer HD -- some for free -- some for $10 over DTV.

I think the price issue are nearly solved. Certainly the availability of HD programs is solved.

But for those who think TV is "tripe" there is no solution coming -- although IF that opinion includes HBO, Showtime, Discovery, ESPN, CBS sports, and PBS -- I've got to wonder why one even owns a TV and hence why one is supposedly interested in the JVC HD camcorder.

When I think about it, I'm not sure how claiming HD isn't near and TV is tripe has anything to do with the topic of the JVC. The size of the market doesn't seem to have bothered JVC, so why should it bother me.

When I bought my first stereo cartridge, an extra amp and speaker -- or when I bought my first color TV -- I didn't ask how big the market was. It was obvious stereo and color were coming. It's obvious HDTV is coming.

Personally, Steve, I hope you're right about HD's rapid acceptance. But, unlike stereo equipment, television is largely a sponsored advertising medium that has relied on wide-market compatibility to make that sponsorship a viable business proposition. The switch from b&w to color sets was expensive for broadcasters but easy for households who simply replaced dying b&w sets with color but could still use b&w indefinitely. Television programming was still in its infancy and there was plenty of impetus for people to switch to color. The airwaves buzzed with imaginative new programming concepts. The only in-home alternative for commercial entertainment was radio.

Today's home entertainment line-up is a whole different ballgame in which television is only one of many choices, and generally not the most interesting or imaginative. With sponsors' targeting such a young demographic market primetime programming is of little interest to older educated viewers (35+).

As I noted, perhaps this basic model will change and other media (like consumer HD content and tools) will lead the parade. I guess we'll just have to see how this plays-out in the coming years.

Our new tower is (or will be by the end of this week) transmitting DTV, aka, Hi-Def. All our news studio floor cameras are HD, our switcher in Master Control is HD. The only things that aren't are our cameras, decks and CineWave Final Cut Pro systems.

It's coming. And now more and more people are talking about this camera, here and in production company offices in my area.

Heath McKnight
www.mpsdigital.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : Personally, Steve, I hope you're right about HD's rapid acceptance. But, unlike stereo equipment, television is largely a sponsored advertising medium that has relied on wide-market compatibility to make that sponsorship a viable business proposition. The switch from b&w to color sets was expensive for broadcasters but easy for households who simply replaced dying b&w sets with color but could still use b&w indefinitely. Television programming was still in its infancy and there was plenty of impetus for people to switch to color. The airwaves buzzed with imaginative new programming concepts. The only in-home alternative for commercial entertainment was radio.

Today's home entertainment line-up is a whole different ballgame in which television is only one of many choices, and generally not the most interesting or imaginative. With sponsors' targeting such a young demographic market primetime programming is of little interest to older educated viewers (35+).

As I noted, perhaps this basic model will change and other media (like consumer HD content and tools) will lead the parade. I guess we'll just have to see how this plays-out in the coming years. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Our new tower is (or will be by the end of this week) transmitting DTV, aka, Hi-Def. All our news studio floor cameras are HD, our switcher in Master Control is HD. -->>>

Heath, what station/ Where?

In NYC I note the new 20/20 and CNN studios have HD/NTSC switchable studio cameras. So, supposedly does Letterman on 53rd st. At NAB I heard they will update his MC late summer so he goes to HD next fall. That would be nice.

But it's Discovery and National Geo. that I really want. And, I'd love NASA TV in 720p since that's what NASA has bought.

A local NBC news affiliate, WPTV in West Palm Beach, Florida. We're actually a legendary station that started in 1954 and in the past 4 years, we've been covering some humdingers: Elian (sorta, that was more Miami), the election debacle, the 9/11 terrorists, the anthrax attacks (happened where my good buddy worked, a tabloid building that just got sold to a private developer)...

www.wptv.com

It's cool because the little monitors attached to the cameras are in 16:9 with a little 4:3 box so the floor crew can frame up okay.

heath
www.mpsdigital.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Our new tower is (or will be by the end of this week) transmitting DTV, aka, Hi-Def. All our news studio floor cameras are HD, our switcher in Master Control is HD. -->>>

Heath, what station/ Where?

In NYC I note the new 20/20 and CNN studios have HD/NTSC switchable studio cameras. So, supposedly does Letterman on 53rd st. At NAB I heard they will update his MC late summer so he goes to HD next fall. That would be nice.

But it's Discovery and National Geo. that I really want. And, I'd love NASA TV in 720p since that's what NASA has bought. -->>>

I'm curious, who is willing to buy (or is leaning towards it and may do so if a demo is good) the JVC JY HD10U?

I'm on the fence, and would prefer to wait for a 24P version of this camera (or another mini-HD) as I would use the camera 85% for indie filmmaking. And what is ADV 24P, Steve Mullen?

Thanks,

Heath McKnight
www.mpsdigital.com

If there was a 25p or 24p version I would buy it to...if everything else was on point.

You do not want the JY-HD10 when you plan to transfer to film -- unless you want to use 480p60. No way to get 30p to 24p.

You really want a DVX100 for making films.

And, 24PADV mode is the mode you want to use with the DVX100 when SHOOTING FOR FILM.

Is it HD in 480p60 or is that SD?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : You do not want the JY-HD10 when you plan to transfer to film -- unless you want to use 480p60. No way to get 30p to 24p.

You really want a DVX100 for making films.

And, 24PADV mode is the mode you want to use with the DVX100 when SHOOTING FOR FILM. -->>>

Standard definition.

To anyone thinking of using a DVX100 for making a film/documentary that is intended to be transferred to film I would add a strong word of caution. Go and see what a transfer to film from this camera actually looks like projected on a 40' screen before investing your hard earned cash in a project based around that premise. At Mac World in San Francisco this year, Monaco Labs did just that, showed footage from several DV cameras, and HD cameras, transferred to 35mm and projected in a state of the art cinema. I have to say that the DVX100 footage looked the worst of the bunch, (inlcuding other 60i DV cameras which looked much better) the image was full of nasty artifacts, ghosting and awful pixelation, that you just don't see on a small screen.
Perhaps the footage I saw was not as good as it can be, I am sure this camera is great for other purposes, but based on what I saw, I would NEVER consider it for a Film project. So do yourself a favor and check out what you might be getting before jumping into such a project or buying into the hype surrounding 24p DV cameras, of any make.

All the best

Paul

30p is fine for film production. Landmark theaters are now converting about 150 screens for digital projection. Other theaters use digital projections. Festivals include digital projection. Digital projection is on the rise. With digital projection 720/30p is fine. Transfer to film is extremely costly. If you have the money to transfer to film, you should have enough money to rent Varicam or CineAlta -- and make your film in 24p.

If you don't have the $, you have a choice between 480/24p 4:3 aspect ratio DVX and 720/30p 16:9 HD10; the second is one is the way to go.

30 fps looks better than 24 fps and a lot better than 30p (fps) created from 24 fps. The reason film is not 30 fps or higher speed is economics, not so called film look.

I disagree, if I was limited to the present crop of mini DV cameras to do a project going to film it would be between the DVX100 and XL1S (only because of versatility of interchanging lenses). I've seen DVX100 footage to film and it looks remarkably like super 16mm to me. Other film shooters I know have also done transfers or seen transfers from the DVX100 and have had similar impressions.

I can't comment on how cameras that aren't even released, will look when transferred to film.

My friend in NY who uses everything from the DVX100 up to the CineAlta says the DVX100 in 24P mode is garbage.

hwm

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : To anyone thinking of using a DVX100 for making a film/documentary that is intended to be transferred to film I would add a strong word of caution. Go and see what a transfer to film from this camera actually looks like projected on a 40' screen before investing your hard earned cash in a project based around that premise. At Mac World in San Francisco this year, Monaco Labs did just that, showed footage from several DV cameras, and HD cameras, transferred to 35mm and projected in a state of the art cinema. I have to say that the DVX100 footage looked the worst of the bunch, (inlcuding other 60i DV cameras which looked much better) the image was full of nasty artifacts, ghosting and awful pixelation, that you just don't see on a small screen.
Perhaps the footage I saw was not as good as it can be, I am sure this camera is great for other purposes, but based on what I saw, I would NEVER consider it for a Film project. So do yourself a favor and check out what you might be getting before jumping into such a project or buying into the hype surrounding 24p DV cameras, of any make.

All the best

Paul -->>>

Why can't we use the JY-HD10 in Hi Def mode to shoot with a transfer to 35 mm film in mind, Steve?

heath mcknight

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : You do not want the JY-HD10 when you plan to transfer to film -- unless you want to use 480p60. No way to get 30p to 24p.

You really want a DVX100 for making films.

And, 24PADV mode is the mode you want to use with the DVX100 when SHOOTING FOR FILM. -->>>

Continuing from my previous thread, the other lessons I came away with from that screening were:

1) If you MUST use a DV camera to go to film, go with a 2/3" CCD camera with native 16:9 and a good lens. A DSR-500 level camera looked the best of the bunch at 35mm, though still only barely competing with 16mm.

2) If you can afford 35mm filming, do it, it's beatiful. Next best is HD 24p.

3) If using DV, use close-ups as much as possible. they give the best impression of higher resolution. Some cheaper Sony 60i cam footage filmed this way looked astonishingly good at 35mm

4) Avoid panoramic shots, pans and tilts like the plague, they look like s**t at 35mm. Keep the camera still and on a tripod that is bigger and sturdier than your DV cam as much as possible.

I hope this helps, just personal impressions.

Paul

p.s as far as the HD10 goes, I have not seen the moving picture from it, just stills, which looked very detailed to me. I hear it it still a work in progress, which is a good thing. My impression is that pixel resolution is the #1 factor to consider in a Digital to 35mm blowup (after content of course!), and this camera is offering that at a rock bottom price, so don't knock it to death until you've seen what you can do with it, it might just suprise you.

I can't afford glorious 35 mm film, plus my film company is called MPS Digital Studios (used to be MPS Filmed Entertainment until I realized I couldn't afford to shoot my first feature on film 4 years ago).

I think we're gonna go with a CineAlta; a buddy of mine is partnered with some peeps who own one and he says he'll cut me a sweet deal (esp. if we shoot out of season, like in the summer!). If not the Cinealta, maybe the Varicam. He also suggested going with the Ikegami HL-DV7W PAL camera (DV) because he says put onto hidef, it looks exactly like a Varicam, as well as on film. We'll be staying with DV and HD until we get a deal for release, then we'll go to film. That is, unless we get enough money to throw it on 35 mm when we hit the fests.

THANKS for the great advice, Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!

heath
www.904am.net (the website of the film I'm writing/directing/producing/catering)

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Continuing from my previous thread, the other lessons I came away with from that screening were:

1) If you MUST use a DV camera to go to film, go with a 2/3" CCD camera with native 16:9 and a good lens. A DSR-500 level camera looked the best of the bunch at 35mm, though still only barely competing with 16mm.

2) If you can afford 35mm filming, do it, it's beatiful. Next best is HD 24p.

3) If using DV, use close-ups as much as possible. they give the best impression of higher resolution. Some cheaper Sony 60i cam footage filmed this way looked astonishingly good at 35mm

4) Avoid panoramic shots, pans and tilts like the plague, they look like s**t at 35mm. Keep the camera still and on a tripod that is bigger and sturdier than your DV cam as much as possible.

I hope this helps, just personal impressions.

Paul

p.s as far as the HD10 goes, I have not seen the moving picture from it, just stills, which looked very detailed to me. I hear it it still a work in progress, which is a good thing. My impression is that pixel resolution is the #1 factor to consider in a Digital to 35mm blowup (after content of course!), and this camera is offering that at a rock bottom price, so don't knock it to death until you've seen what you can do with it, it might just suprise you. -->>>

Well I would personally vouch for the Ikegami HL-DV7W as being an excellent camera as I own and shoot with one myself (not the PAL version) It is capable of a very cinematic picture. I've not seen any footage from it blown up to 35mm, but I'd certainly love to.
Check out this website of an guy that is making a pretty complex feature using the Ikegami in black and white. By the way, did you know that DV desaturated to black and white gives you the equivalent of a 4:4:4 picture, much higher percieved resolution due to the elimination of the chroma sub-sampling. ( I hope I've got that right!)

http://www.makingmymovie.com/

Cheers

Paul

1) The fact that "digital projectors" are being installed has nothing to do with what you shoot. These are 24p 1080x1920 totally encypted DATA moved by optical discs or satellite.

If you want to RELEASE -- you'll still have to get to 24p video or film.


2) The fact that a film lab screwed-up a transfer from the DVX100 (shot in who knows what mode) means nothing. I and others have seen transfers in NYC at top labs and they looked great.

3) So a $3500 DVX100 doesn't look as good as $100,00 camcorder. Really? These constant references to CineAlta and Varicam in this list make no sense. And, of course, 35mm film looks better than HD video. Gee -- that's shocking news!

4) If you want a CINEMA EXPERIENCE (big video projected image) I agree that 30p looks good. Some might like 24P non-ADV mode. Some even defend using 24P-ADV mode. And, some will hate anything other than 60i or 60p. These are esthetic judgements. When shooting video for video, the temporal rate doesn't make a camera bad or good. Your JITTER is someone elses JUDDER.

The only important thing is, if you want 24fps film at the end -- do not use 30p. Use 24p, 25p, 50i, 60p, or 60i. Of these 24p is best -- and 25p is next best.

Check that, I don't know what it will look like on film, the Ikegami HL-DV7W, though I hear going Pal to 24 frames/second film is also a b---h to do, according to an article from two years ago in an indie film magazine I read. Sorry, can't remember what mag or who the filmmaker was.

THANKS!

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Well I would personally vouch for the Ikegami HL-DV7W as being an excellent camera as I own and shoot with one myself (not the PAL version) It is capable of a very cinematic picture. I've not seen any footage from it blown up to 35mm, but I'd certainly love to.
Check out this website of an guy that is making a pretty complex feature using the Ikegami in black and white. By the way, did you know that DV desaturated to black and white gives you the equivalent of a 4:4:4 picture, much higher percieved resolution due to the elimination of the chroma sub-sampling. ( I hope I've got that right!)

http://www.makingmymovie.com/

Cheers

Paul -->>>

Yes, I keep refering to the hi-end cameras, because I keep hoping to save money by going with the JY-HD10U and transferring to film. I wonder if HD mode on the PAL version of this camera is possible (the PAL JY-HD10U).

heath

ps-I think Chris Hurd said the HD mode on the NTSC JY-HD10U doesn't do well with film, only SD. For now, I need to figure out some re-writes of the script, the potential budget and decide whether or not I want to go to our name actor before or after we have money. He can help us raise money on his commitment, but he then becomes a producer. It's a quandry! ;-) Take care, all!


<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : 1) The fact that "digital projectors" are being installed has nothing to do with what you shoot. These are 24p 1080x1920 totally encypted DATA moved by optical discs or satellite.

If you want to RELEASE -- you'll still have to get to 24p video or film.


2) The fact that a film lab screwed-up a transfer from the DVX100 (shot in who knows what mode) means nothing. I and others have seen transfers in NYC at top labs and they looked great.

3) So a $3500 DVX100 doesn't look as good as $100,00 camcorder. Really? These constant references to CineAlta and Varicam in this list make no sense. And, of course, 35mm film looks better than HD video. Gee -- that's shocking news!

4) If you want a CINEMA EXPERIENCE (big video projected image) I agree that 30p looks good. Some might like 24P non-ADV mode. Some even defend using 24P-ADV mode. And, some will hate anything other than 60i or 60p. These are esthetic judgements. When shooting video for video, the temporal rate doesn't make a camera bad or good. Your JITTER is someone elses JUDDER.

The only important thing is, if you want 24fps film at the end -- do not use 30p. Use 24p, 25p, 50i, 60p, or 60i. Of these 24p is best -- and 25p is next best. -->>>

RE: Jeff Donald's post

I assume that the JVC camera should have a better picture than the DVX, If you letterbox the DVX, we are talking about something like 4x less pixels on the DVX. If HD10 does not look a lot better, then it will be a joke, not an HD camera.


RE: Steve Mullen's post

I doubt that the projection system installed at Landmark Theaters will not project at 30p. It is not the usual high-end system that has a bit stream of some 40 Mbps. We are talking about a lot less expensive system with a projector that is fed by a PC with about 7 Mbps stream. Does anyone know anything about the frame rate? If it will operate at 30p, then there is no need to shoot at 24p. If you have a couple hundred screens in art houses in major markets where you'll be able to project 30p, why be so concerned about shooting at 24 fps? These films have normally extremely limited distribution and have audiences concentrated in the major metropolitan areas only. Now if the system does not do 30p, it's a different story.

Paul,

I think the problem lies with the transfer house. I saw a DVX100 transfer to film done by DuArt and it looked close to 16mm. All the other 60I and 50I cameras didn’t look as good to me.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7879

I sincerely hope you're right Glenn, but I still think each individual should go along and see one of these transfers projected for themselves before spending money. I would definately need to see something radically different for me to change my mind. For me, unless I was doing something that was purely an "actors piece" such as "The anniversary Party" where conversation carries the day, I would not want less resolution than HD up there on the screen, but this is a purely personal decision. I just worry for those people that think because there camera is 24p, it will look great on film, and it just ain't so. I also find that on the small screen, 30p has more the motion of film than 24p, which looks more jittery than film to me, again, I don't know why, it's just what I see, but I know that many people think the same way.


all the best

paul

Well no one should think that any DV camera is going to give them “35mm” results when blowing up to film. The best that one can hope for is to come close to well shot 16mm. In some ways, DV is actually better blown up to 35mm because it has no grain. But in some ways it is horrible, particularly when it comes to shooting wide shots that have a lot of detail (like a wide shot of a forest.) And when it comes to handling bright highlites.

>>I also find that on the small screen, 30p has more the motion of film than 24p, which looks more jittery than film to me, again, I don't know why, it's just what I see, but I know that many people think the same way.<<

Yes, I agree. For some reason 30p looks more filmic on monitors then 24p does. 24p only shines when it’s transferred to 35mm. If I were shooting a project that was absolutely not going to see the big screen, I would stick with 30p.

I just talked to a guy who is familiar with the Landmark/Microsoft projection system. The transfer rate is higher than I thought, and yes, you can shoot and project at 30p/fps with their system. What does this mean? The JVC camcorder should be OK for film production -- should be a lot better than the DVX. 35 lux rating? DVX is rated 3 lux, but in progressive does not have gain up, so it changes to 24 Lux. If JVC will not be capable of getting decent HD image from this thing, it will become a joke -- sold by Broadcast Division -- and we'll have to wait for Sony or another company to come out with a decent MPEG2 HD camcorder.

The JVC or another 30p HD camcorder would be OK for film production. You just show your stuff at Landmark and other places that have digital projection capable of handling 30p.

Europe? I know from my last visit that their TVs and VCRs do handle NTSC. The VCRs play NTSC tapes and their TVs handle NTSC via A/V inputs. I saw a catalog sheet of a Philips HD monitor sold in England and it did handle 30p. And they have digital projection there too.

So shooting in 30p is fine. If the film ever needs a lot wider distribution, you can slow it down 30 fps to 24 fps via special software, but it is a tedious work that requires manual corrections especially on fast and complex movement. But it does work.

24 fps looks bad on DVD at 30 fps because of the pull down motion artifacts. Anyone tells you that 24 fps is the thing to give you a film look -- tell them that you want better than that type of look, which has too many motion artifacts. Depth of field, together with proper lighting, camera movement, etc. gives you film look. 24 fps is just something we have to live with as it became a standard 3/4 of a century ago.

Some large production movies in the past were actually made in 30 fps, and projected in specially equipped theaters at 30 fps, but because of economic reasons we went back to 24 fps. IMAX HD is 48 fps. The higher the speed, the better the image -- the less motion artifacts you have.

Yes, I agree. For some reason 30p looks more filmic on monitors then 24p does. 24p only shines when it?s transferred to 35mm. If I were shooting a project that was absolutely not going to see the big screen, I would stick with 30p.
I agree, 100%.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Paul,

I think the problem lies with the transfer house. I saw a DVX100 transfer to film done by DuArt and it looked close to 16mm. All the other 60I and 50I cameras didn?t look as good to me. -->>>

I also saw the DVX100 transfer at DuArt. It looked like grainless 16mm blown to 35mm.

I also saw a test reel and when done by DuArt everything looked good. The Varicam looked best to my eyes.

But I've seen a dozen DV (mostly VX1000) moved to 35mm and they looked OK -- considering the cost.

Saltmen of Tibet looked great! PAL VX1000 transferred by Swiss Effects.

75% of the results are due to the film lab. The rest is the DP. The camera plays a very small part.

Which means -- if the Q of the HD10 is good, 480p60 my look great tranferred by a good lab. It will have a full 480-lines of V rez. Over 525-lines H rez.

I hope your right Mr. Mullen.

But that's the HD10U in SD mode, not HD, right, Steve?

What about using steadicam with everything from an XL-1 to a DVX100 to the higher end SD and HD cameras? What does that reproduce on film transfers? I'm clueless in this area.

heath
904am.net

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen

I also saw the DVX100 transfer at DuArt. It looked like grainless 16mm blown to 35mm.

I also saw a test reel and when done by DuArt everything looked good. The Varicam looked best to my eyes.

But I've seen a dozen DV (mostly VX1000) moved to 35mm and they looked OK -- considering the cost.

Saltmen of Tibet looked great! PAL VX1000 transferred by Swiss Effects.

75% of the results are due to the film lab. The rest is the DP. The camera plays a very small part.

Which means -- if the Q of the HD10 is good, 480p60 my look great tranferred by a good lab. It will have a full 480-lines of V rez. Over 525-lines H rez. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : But that's the HD10U in SD mode, not HD, right, Steve? -->>>

I had a good discussion with JVC at NAB and we talked about how folks were missing SD mode.

Using it one gets:
Native 16:9
Full V rez.
No motion artifacts
High temporal rate
AND
the vast, vast majority of plasmas, LCD/DLP projectors do NOT have HD rez. -- in fact most (in 16:9) offer no more than 480 V rows and about 800/1280 H columns. They run at 480p60 natively and are a perfect match to the HD10 in SD mode.

With all due respect -- the video industry seems to have become obsessed with making FILMs. Panasonic and Apple are really pushing this.

My bet is that most money making projects are either making NTSC TV where any camcorder will work -- or creating a CINEMA EXPERIENCE in non-broadcast applications.

These private event presentations will be shown on plasmas or big projector screens. This is where the HD10 may shine.

Well, in that case, I'll shoot 9:04 AM on either the CineAlta, Varicam or the non-HD but digital Ikegami HL-DV7W PAL (and master in HD and transfer to film, too). I'm a digital filmmaker who knows the reality is most theatres have film still.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : But that's the HD10U in SD mode, not HD, right, Steve? -->>>

I had a good discussion with JVC at NAB and we talked about how folks were missing SD mode.

Using it one gets:
Native 16:9
Full V rez.
No motion artifacts
High temporal rate
AND
the vast, vast majority of plasmas, LCD/DLP projectors do NOT have HD rez. -- in fact most (in 16:9) offer no more than 480 V rows and about 800/1280 H columns. They run at 480p60 natively and are a perfect match to the HD10 in SD mode.

With all due respect -- the video industry seems to have become obsessed with making FILMs. Panasonic and Apple are really pushing this.

My bet is that most money making projects are either making NTSC TV where any camcorder will work -- or creating a CINEMA EXPERIENCE in non-broadcast applications.

These private event presentations will be shown on plasmas or big projector screens. This is where the HD10 may shine. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Well, in that case, I'll shoot 9:04 AM on either the CineAlta, Varicam or the non-HD but digital Ikegami HL-DV7W PAL (and master in HD and transfer to film, too). -->>>

That's the way I would go.

But don't for get the 50Mbps formats: IMX 25p PAL and Pana's wonderful new SDX-900 which has 24p Frankly, I'd go with either the 900 or the Varicam.

If JVC gets the "Euro" model out with 25p -- that would open an important window for filmmakers.

>>If JVC gets the "Euro" model out with 25p -- that would open an important window for filmmakers.<<

Maybe Ken could pass the word on this, I would buy a 25p model.

I'll go with the Ikegami camera PAL if our budget can't afford us the 900 or Varicam. If our budget ends up only $75,000 with a quarter or so of that going to our Hollywood star, I'll go with a mini-HD camera (hopefully they'll have 24P or PAL in two years).

heath
904am.net

If the Ikegami isn’t progressive, I wouldn’t mess with it. I would go with the SDX 900 or Sony MPEG IMX PAL camera, you don't want to mess with an interlace camera when transferring to 35mm. While it can surely be done, and it does happen all the time, a progressive 25p or 24p camera will look much much better in terms of motion. To better understand where I am coming from, rent THE KING IS ALIVE, ANNIVERSARY PARTY or TADPOLE, and pay attention to the motion when the actors quickly move. This is a result of interlace material being converted to 24p.