JVC GY-HD100 720 True 24P or Sony HVR-Z1U 1080 60i converted to 24P?

Douglas Spotted Eagle · October 3rd, 2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

I managed to get the rendering faster but still this is almost useless right now for hours worth of footage. I'm also not even sure if I recomend doing this anymore anyways since you would end up encoding your video multiple times. Who knows maybe Cineform will add this feature in the future so this is done in the background inside your NLE.

Depending on the NLE, there are indeed more efficient workflows.
For me:
1. Capture m2t. Place on timeline
2. Cut segments of unwanted footage from timeline, leaving me with a non-sequenced rough cut. (sequenced if shot in sequence)
3. Use GearShift to convert those segments to either CineForm or 4:2:2 YUV. If I'll be editing the project on a slower laptop, I'll convert to DVproxy with color mod for 709 vs 601.
4. Edit complete with HD title sequences, etc.
5. Replace DV Proxy or CineForm file with 4:2:2, or replace DVProxy with m2t, depending on destination. If it's going to HDCAM, I replace with 4:2:2, if it's going to DVD, I replace with m2t.

Render, output, done.
In this process, it's part of the conversion to go to 60p from 60i, if it's going to 720 from 1080. Otherwise, I merely convert the 60i to 30p. Then it's just a blend or interpolation of the fields.

Murray Buesst · October 3rd, 2005, 06:02 PM

In response to the original question, I have shot with a variety of film and DV cameras over the years, principally PD-150 and Canon XL1 on video and Arri SR2 on film, though also Panavision Millennium and Sony Z1.

For what it's worth, I think the HD-100 (which, as of a week ago, I own) is much closer to a 16mm experience than any other video camera currently available in the price range. This is principally because of the lens. I'm well aware of the Chromatic Aberation issue, not to mention the split-screen effect (from which my camera also suffers - hmmm), but I'm still delighted with (by?) it. Why? Because it makes me want to go out and buy a tape measure and a light meter and remember the days of shooting on a wing and a prayer ... and not really knowing if it was in focus and correctly exposed until several days later ... and using my eyes, rather than a monitor ... and some intuition ... oh, and some testing beforehand ... and actually thinking through what the scene is about emotionally.

And now I want a proper dolly that takes four people to lift, and some HMIs for night shots, and worrying whether the jenny's going to be audible, and whether we're going to need insect repellent, and what about the permits, and can we live without a script supervisor, and can I get a boom in there, and are the actors going to turn up, and what is the scene actually about emotionally ...

And, yes, it is about the lens, because for all its shortcomings, this is the real thing ... you actually have to think about whether its in focus, and frankly who cares whether there's a purple / green thing going on around highlights, and yes it not so much breaths as hyperventilates when you pull focus, but it feels right.

I guess I'm trying to say that I'm in love - not with a camera but with the rediscovered idea of being so nervous before shooting that I might have to throw up ... and the elation of capturing a look ... a moment ... a happy accident. And being prepared to put myself through hell to achieve it. Or not ahieve it. Because there's always the spectre that when you sit down to edit, you discover that is was all boring ... and flat ... and not what you meant. Because the scene was about something else emotionally, and you didn't find it. Or perhaps it was just a bad scene. But then again, maybe not ... whatever, it's really not the camera's fault.

JVC's brochure makes a big thing about this being the camera for every purpose. This is utter nonsense. I've shot weddings, and this is simply not the right tool. This camera needs light - lots of light to avoid the split screen thing - and time. If you want to get something half-way decent (or better) on the hoof, get the Z1. If you want to save thousands of pounds / dollars / ringits in stock and processing, but take a few days off your life expectancy every time you switch it on, get the HD-100.

Actually, get the Z1 - it's a lot easier.

Oh, and don't listen to me - I'm new to all this, and it's late ...

Stephen L. Noe · October 3rd, 2005, 06:26 PM

1080 24 is already on the Liquid timeline. We just can't capture it...

October 3rd, 2005, 06:02 PM	#17
Murray Buesst Tourist Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4	But does it make you want to throw up? In response to the original question, I have shot with a variety of film and DV cameras over the years, principally PD-150 and Canon XL1 on video and Arri SR2 on film, though also Panavision Millennium and Sony Z1. For what it's worth, I think the HD-100 (which, as of a week ago, I own) is much closer to a 16mm experience than any other video camera currently available in the price range. This is principally because of the lens. I'm well aware of the Chromatic Aberation issue, not to mention the split-screen effect (from which my camera also suffers - hmmm), but I'm still delighted with (by?) it. Why? Because it makes me want to go out and buy a tape measure and a light meter and remember the days of shooting on a wing and a prayer ... and not really knowing if it was in focus and correctly exposed until several days later ... and using my eyes, rather than a monitor ... and some intuition ... oh, and some testing beforehand ... and actually thinking through what the scene is about emotionally. And now I want a proper dolly that takes four people to lift, and some HMIs for night shots, and worrying whether the jenny's going to be audible, and whether we're going to need insect repellent, and what about the permits, and can we live without a script supervisor, and can I get a boom in there, and are the actors going to turn up, and what is the scene actually about emotionally ... And, yes, it is about the lens, because for all its shortcomings, this is the real thing ... you actually have to think about whether its in focus, and frankly who cares whether there's a purple / green thing going on around highlights, and yes it not so much breaths as hyperventilates when you pull focus, but it feels right. I guess I'm trying to say that I'm in love - not with a camera but with the rediscovered idea of being so nervous before shooting that I might have to throw up ... and the elation of capturing a look ... a moment ... a happy accident. And being prepared to put myself through hell to achieve it. Or not ahieve it. Because there's always the spectre that when you sit down to edit, you discover that is was all boring ... and flat ... and not what you meant. Because the scene was about something else emotionally, and you didn't find it. Or perhaps it was just a bad scene. But then again, maybe not ... whatever, it's really not the camera's fault. JVC's brochure makes a big thing about this being the camera for every purpose. This is utter nonsense. I've shot weddings, and this is simply not the right tool. This camera needs light - lots of light to avoid the split screen thing - and time. If you want to get something half-way decent (or better) on the hoof, get the Z1. If you want to save thousands of pounds / dollars / ringits in stock and processing, but take a few days off your life expectancy every time you switch it on, get the HD-100. Actually, get the Z1 - it's a lot easier. Oh, and don't listen to me - I'm new to all this, and it's late ...

October 3rd, 2005, 06:26 PM	#18
Stephen L. Noe Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,214	1080 24 is already on the Liquid timeline. We just can't capture it...