So what's the Family Truckster worth?

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

You must be a cameraman... That's sounds like a 1st AC talking...?

Can't be a director or producer... :)

All of the above!

Mike, I've been doing this for over 30 years. Let's just leave it at that.

Jay

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Jay Gladwell

Mike, I've been doing this for over 30 years. Let's just leave it at that.

Jay

... and never compromised. I would like to see a director go 30 minutes without having to compromise.

In technical roles it is possible to an extent, but not directing.

I take it from your site that you shoot DV - that is a compromise in price and quality.

I am not having a dig, I just think the ability to make wise compromises is ESSENTIAL to filmmaking. Striving for the highest possible standards is great, but never compromising is impossible.

[Patrick Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

I am not having a dig, I just think the ability to make wise compromises is ESSENTIAL to filmmaking. Striving for the highest possible standards is great, but never compromising is impossible.

Sorry for going OT, oh well ;-)

I'm also not having a dig (and I've been at this significantly under 30 years). I think the ability to adapt to ever-changing situations - aforementioned wise compromises - is far more important nowadays in filmmaking (as well as most avenues of life). The ability to compromise and adjust as needed allows a modern filmmaker to raise their standards far beyond what they would otherwise have if dictated solely by budget, crew, etc - simply by harnessing non-traditional methods or means (not illicit).

Creative ingenuity is a blessing, not a liability.


*edit* Perhaps compromise is the wrong word - gives the wrong idea of having to sacrifice, maybe adapt/consensus would be better as those are more literally about attaining your goal. All still involve adaptation though.

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

It sounds like you want an uncompressed editing suite and scoff at paying 23,000 for it.

I'm not sure if this was for me or not, but if it was that's fine, BUT I really don't "scoff at paying" for anything as long as I can afford it and if it's worth it. I've already got a good start on a quality editing suite with a Mac G5 DP 2.7, Dual 22' Cinema monitors, FCP 5, Adobe AE, GenArts Sapphire, etc. etc., not including my video equipment .

The bigger factor here, for me at least is -

Is it worth the money AND hassle to go the HDV route for on-line video?

If the XL H1 was available today and you were to somehow mount it side-by-side with a XL2 to take the same footage. And then edited each the exact same way, then compressed them so each one looked it's best regardless of file size, then finally posted them side-by-side on-line -

Will a 90 meg XL H1 two-minute long video look that much better than the same movie shot, edited, compressed and posted XL2 video?

If someone can post a quality video on-line that's 30 meg in size and looks really great, how much better will the 90 meg version of that same movie be? Would it even be noticable and if so, by how much? Would it be enough, that an on-line user would want to wait to download an extra 60 megs?

Canon's on-line presentation of the XL H1 looks nice and everything, but if their HDV solution is so much better, why don't they show us with shots of comparisons with the two cameras? Maybe they have, and I just have not seen them yet.

And personally, I'm not looking at this as a debate at all - just a friendly discussion between XL2 users.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Derek West

Is it worth the money AND hassle to go the HDV route for on-line video?

I think yes, particularly since you can deliver HD via web (DivX, WMV or H264).

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I think yes, particularly since you can deliver HD via web (DivX, WMV or H264).

Just this morning I watched some beautifully shot video (XL2) on a HD television. It was simply amazing.

From what I've seen thus far of HD, it simply isn't worth the expense, not for me or my clients (so far). And, as I've said before, web delivery is a not an option, so it can't be taken seriously as an alternative to DVDs.

As I can clearly see that I've reached the point of repeating myself in these discussions, I have, obviously, nothing else to say on the matter.

Ya'all have fun!

Jay

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I think yes, particularly since you can deliver HD via web (DivX, WMV or H264).

Thanks Stephen. I've seen some nice footage in WMV and H264 from regular DV., but all day a question I posted earlier in the thread has gone unanswered with the exception of Steve's post with his movie link, and Kevin Dooley's helpful comment about how most people are posting in raw footage formats that can be looked at in NLE's -

*** Where's all of the great edited HDV footage that everybody's getting?
In Quicktime, Windows Media Player or Flash formats that is.

OR, is this the point where one can say, the HDV solution is good for HDTV's but not for the web?

Yes HD can be delivered via the Internet, but how's it look after it's been compressed in Sorneson, Compressor or any other web compression software? Even if you compress it so it looks good and is 3 times the file size of SD footage?

Once it's gone through the compression can you even tell a difference between HD and SD - on the Internet?

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Derek West

Once it's gone through the compression can you even tell a difference between HD and SD - on the Internet?

You're welcome. Browse on over to www.DivX.com and there are some HD trailers you can download. You're in for a treat.

[Andrew Wills]

Just thought i'd post a link to some great HDV footage over on Apple's site. I couldn't see any previous replies in this thread mentioning this footage so I hope I'm not repeating anything.

Firstly however I should mention that this footage can only be viewed with Quicktime 7 (it's H.264) for either Windows or Mac (which seems to have now been officially released for Windows). I know that some people had compatability problems with Premiere and the pre-release versions of Quicktime 7, so be wary, but I figured I'd bite the bullet and go for it and have experienced NO problems at all.

HDV Gallery of Footage:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

Particularly good Music Video:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide...bymacgone.html

I think the footage looks pretty incredible, and the music video even in the lower quality format is unbelievably sharp and crisp, and at 76mb is pretty impressive compression.

As for the whole XL2 vs XL H1, I recently bought an XL2, and am not disapointed at all with this news. I don't personally think that HDV is going to take off, I think by the time consumers have caught up in order to justify the widespread use of HDV then a new format will have arrived which will utterly trounce it, and consumers will buy that. It's a bit like BetaMax in a way, or Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. One day there will be a winner, but it wont be for another five years at least, and ultimately the average consumer will decide.

Thanks Andrew and Steve. I'm looking forward to seeing these, and will give a totally unbiased opinion when I return to this thread.

[Stephen L. Noe]

And you can leave Microsoft out. Their wmv codec is great as well.

Click here for content

[Nick Hiltgen]

Derek my point was just that given your setup if you decided to go HDV there would be no need to spend any extra cash outside of the cost of the camera, your current system could support it.

I think the SD 24p vs HDV is going to be a subjective issue for you. If you're clients don't care and you're broadcasting on the web and you don't see a need for it what specifications or head to head shots are going to make a difference? If you feel the need to go HD then this is a great product for you, if not then you have the best prosumer SD camera on the market. I think the market is moving toward HD but that might not effect you until the next round of camera's come out. Either way teh xl2 is still a good camera, and only you know what needs will serve you best.

Steve, I had to go the apple site first, just because I'm familiar with it, but will be visiting your link next.

Andrew,

So far I've watched the BBC Africa and Aimee Mann videos. Both had very nice detail. I was a little dissapointed with the saturation of color on the Africa video although the detail was excellent.

Then, I hit the Aimee Mann Video and any concerns I had about HDV displaying nice full, saturated colors were gone.

This is very nice. I'm going to keep watching them. But now, my big question would be -

Were these shot with prosumer level Sony or JVC HD cam's?
Is that known?
And then followed up with -
What kind of editing suites were used?

Not that I expect you to know Andrew, just posting these questions for anyone, or if you know that would be great.

Basically, I just want to figure out if these were shot and just as important, edited with affordable (affordable for most people that is) equipment that I could set my sights on eventually acquiring? Or were they shot using $50,000 to $100,000 HD cams and edited in $40,000 to $50,000 suites.

Please know that I'm just talking equipment here. I realize this footage was shot and edited by people whose skills are highly superior to mine... for now.

Nick,

Thanks for your comments above. If I can edit with my current set up and don't need to add anything else to it and can shoot the quality of footage as displayed in the above links (shooting and editing skills aside, as I know I'm not a professional) with a currently available HDV camera then I'll have to look at aquiring a HD100 or Z1 before the end of the year.

Andrew,

Yeah, so far the Toby Mac video has been the best out of the three. It was good to see the wide range of colors and how effects could be added in.

Steve,

I'm downloading some of the movies you posted links to now.