What did they shoot THE ANNIVERSARY PARTY on? I heard that's the best DV to film, low budget, yet. (Non-HD, of course.)

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : 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. -->>>

They shot it on a PAL DSR 500.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : They shot it on a PAL DSR 500. -->>>

Did the motion look all right? My film has a lot of steadicam and stuff I plan on doing.

heath

If you rent it you will see what I am talking about. While the motion in the anniversary party wasn't as annoying as The King is Alive, it was still there. If you have a lot of stedi-cam shots, I would definately stick with a progressive camera. But rent the anniversary party to see what I am talking about. What's wrong with renting the SDX900 or Sony MPEG IMX camera?

My friend is deciding between buying the PAL Ikegami HL-DV7W and the SDX900 and decided the SDX900 isn't ideal for going to hi-def or 35 mm film. He based this on renting both cameras and said in he (and his company's) professional opinion, the Ikegami was closest to the VariCam when the Ike is transferred to HD and 35 mm.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : If you rent it you will see what I am talking about. While the motion in the anniversary party wasn't as annoying as The King is Alive, it was still there. If you have a lot of stedi-cam shots, I would definately stick with a progressive camera. But rent the anniversary party to see what I am talking about. What's wrong with renting the SDX900 or Sony MPEG IMX camera? -->>>

I was under the impression that 900 wasn't shipping until May----.

I heard that too. It's almost pointless to have this debate since I won't be going into production on my film 9:04 AM for at least 18 months.

heath
www.904am.net

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : I was under the impression that 900 wasn't shipping until May----. -->>>

Yes, the SDX900 isn't even out yet.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : My friend is deciding between buying the PAL Ikegami HL-DV7W and the SDX900 and decided the SDX900 isn't ideal for going to hi-def or 35 mm film. He based this on renting both cameras and said in he (and his company's) professional opinion, the Ikegami was closest to the VariCam when the Ike is transferred to HD and 35 mm. -->>>

If the Ike is DVCAM with 4:1:1 at 5:1 compression I would have to say his eyes need lots of help.

I'd also wonder how he rented both since the 900 isn't out yet. Something seems fishy about these references to Ike.

I reviewed it and it's great for $12,000. But it's no SDX-900. Not even close.

I'm sorry, I meant the Sony 500 PAL...Ugh, how embarressing.

The Ike is fine, according to my friend, who has shot everything from small movies to a documentary on Creed. I would say his eyes are just fine.

Heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : My friend is deciding between buying the PAL Ikegami HL-DV7W and the SDX900 and decided the SDX900 isn't ideal for going to hi-def or 35 mm film. He based this on renting both cameras and said in he (and his company's) professional opinion, the Ikegami was closest to the VariCam when the Ike is transferred to HD and 35 mm. -->>>

If the Ike is DVCAM with 4:1:1 at 5:1 compression I would have to say his eyes need lots of help.

I'd also wonder how he rented both since the 900 isn't out yet. Something seems fishy about these references to Ike.

I reviewed it and it's great for $12,000. But it's no SDX-900. Not even close. -->>>

To be honest, I really don't see what the market will be for the SDX-900. As great as an SD camera that it probably is, it's still just that, an SD camera, and one that costs a lot of money at that.
$30,000 for the body alone, add $12,000 for a decent lens If I were thinking of making a feature film (to go to 35mm or just to be projected on a big screen), and I had that kind of money to buy a camera, I would find the extra $20,000 from somewhere and go HD for the resolution alone. If I were renting, I wouldn't think this camera will rent for much under $600-$700 per day, and I hear you can get great deals on renting the Varicam these days. If this camera had come in the uner $20,000 category I would have some hope for it, but as it stands I would think that most serious digital film-makers would go HD rather than use this camera, but perhaps they'll drop the price radically which will make it make more sense.

Paul

I agree, but I wonder if I'll continue doing super-low budget films...They're fun, but a b--ch to do, but cost nothing (both a blessing and a curse). I probably will, and that's where our friend the mini-HD camera comes in (no matter which brand). Next year, my XL-1 will see it's 5 year wattanty expire and be, well, 5 years old. That's when I shall move to a new camera, hopefully a mini-HD and not DV or SD.

heath


<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : To be honest, I really don't see what the market will be for the SDX-900. As great as an SD camera that it probably is, it's still just that, an SD camera, and one that costs a lot of money at that.
$30,000 for the body alone, add $12,000 for a decent lens If I were thinking of making a feature film (to go to 35mm or just to be projected on a big screen), and I had that kind of money to buy a camera, I would find the extra $20,000 from somewhere and go HD for the resolution alone. If I were renting, I wouldn't think this camera will rent for much under $600-$700 per day, and I hear you can get great deals on renting the Varicam these days. If this camera had come in the uner $20,000 category I would have some hope for it, but as it stands I would think that most serious digital film-makers would go HD rather than use this camera, but perhaps they'll drop the price radically which will make it make more sense.

Paul -->>>

Paul,

Varicams, with lenses and all accessories, rent for at least 1,400 a day. Plus, you have to add in the fact that editing HD is much much more expensive then editing DV. So there is another big savings right there. 4:2:2 50mbps DV is becoming cheaper and cheaper to edit, all thanks to NLEs like Final Cut Pro4, and VTR manufacturers like Panasonic whom incorporate firewire into their 50mbps decks. As for the 900’s price, when it’s all said and done, the camera body might sell for somewhere in the upper ball park of 20k. That rental price, with a lens, should put it somewhere around 500 to 600 to rent for a day. Nonetheless, I defiantly see a market for the 900, especially when you take into consideration that shooting HD for a straight to DVD project is simply overkill. But, if one can afford HD, by all means, shoot in it.

We aren't going straight-to-DVD on this film, just an HD master for the major film fests that accept digital, but only in HD. We also hope to go to tranfer to two or three 35 mm prints.

heath
www.904am.net

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

Varicams, with lenses and all accessories, rent for at least 1,400 a day. Plus, you have to add in the fact that editing HD is much much more expensive then editing DV. So there is another big savings right there. 4:2:2 50mbps DV is becoming cheaper and cheaper to edit, all thanks to NLEs like Final Cut Pro4, and VTR manufacturers like Panasonic whom incorporate firewire into their 50mbps decks. As for the 900’s price, when it’s all said and done, the camera body might sell for somewhere in the upper ball park of 20k. That rental price, with a lens, should put it somewhere around 500 to 600 to rent for a day. Nonetheless, I defiantly see a market for the 900, especially when you take into consideration that shooting HD for a straight to DVD project is simply overkill. But, if one can afford HD, by all means, shoot in it. -->>>

I've heard significantly lower prices than $1400 a day banded about for a Varicam, but you may well know better than I. But even at $1,000 a day it makes more sense to go HD and do a offline FCP edit with HD conform, which should be relatively cheap. I think most indie filmakers realize that resolution is a more important factor for big-screen projection quality than 24p, at least those that have seen the comparisons do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the SDX900 is a great SD camera, and I would love one if I could afford it, but if I were thinking of making a low-budget indie feature, HD would be my choice.

All the best

I agree, too. Now if only I can figure out what the hell is wrong with my new Mac...

heath
www.904am.net

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : I've heard significantly lower prices than $1400 a day banded about for a Varicam, but you may well know better than I. But even at $1,000 a day it makes more sense to go HD and do a offline FCP edit with HD conform, which should be relatively cheap. I think most indie filmakers realize that resolution is a more important factor for big-screen projection quality than 24p, at least those that have seen the comparisons do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the SDX900 is a great SD camera, and I would love one if I could afford it, but if I were thinking of making a low-budget indie feature, HD would be my choice.

All the best -->>>