feature films shot on HD? at DVinfo.net

Aviv Hallale · April 16th, 2006, 12:52 PM

I was wondering, what are the differences between the HD cameras that were used to shoot films like Sin City, Star Wars, Once Upon A Time In Mexico etc compared to the Sony HDV cameras like the FX1 and its bigger brother?

James Lundy · April 16th, 2006, 12:56 PM

About £87,000.00. :)

Chris Hurd · April 16th, 2006, 01:14 PM

The crew behind them.

Aviv Hallale · April 16th, 2006, 01:21 PM

Thanks for putting a damper on my dreams.

:P

What is the difference between the cameras though? Do they not work in the same way?

Chris Hurd · April 16th, 2006, 01:33 PM

The biggest differences lie in the HD recording formats, size of the image sensors, bit depth of the processors, and quality of the optics. For starters.

Mathieu Ghekiere · April 16th, 2006, 02:10 PM

As Chris pointed out, these cameras indeed have better lenses, image sensors, recording formats and so on, and so on. But as Chris also said in the former post, it's especially about the crew and the professionalism of the people who work there.
Because, as a comparison between low budget and high end HD cameras told, there isn't THAT much of a difference (well, not enough to justify the cost, but be sure to check out our RED boards :-D) but it's about the story they tell, how they tell it, how they light it,...

There have been feature films made on mini-dv...
It's all about content and how you put it on screen (no shaky camera movement - exept if it's part of the concept - light your images, choose good actor's, edit well,... and so on, and so on)

Best regards,

Don Donatello · April 16th, 2006, 02:21 PM

the basic process ( camera, tape or recording media) is the same between a 3K and 300k camera. 300k camera just cost more to operate/edit

you could look at it from a film POV . reg8/super 8 , 16m/super16 , 35/super 35/anamorphic , 65mm ... = they are all basically the same process but the film is larger as you move up to larger # the price tends to increase 4X-8X with each # ( 8, 16,25,65) ... hollywood shoots on 35mm & no to low budgets or beginners might shoot super8 .. once the film size is choosen ALL production is approx same - pre-production ( planning), production ( the shooting, sets , lights, actors, problem solving) , and POST ( editing ) = it's all the same and again the larger the the film size the more $$ it cost ...

so HDV with 1/3 CCD look at it as super 8 .. and the viper, cinealta type camera's think 35mm ... so for approx $3400 ( sony hdv) you get a very good image (above super8 ) for a very good price ...

Daniel Epstein · April 16th, 2006, 06:10 PM

No they don't work in the same way.
Beside the crew and lenses and size of the CCD's used to capture the image there is a really big difference between the big cameras signal processing and cameras like the Sony FX1 HDV. All this adds up to a significant difference. The kind of compression they use on the big HD cameras (except for the Viper which is basically uncompressed) is frame based. Each frame is compressed and stands alone. The data rates are 4 times more on the low end and higher than HDV 25MBPS and have more color depth as well.
The kind of compression used to derive an HDV signal is multiframe. This is a great technical achievement to bring down the data rate needed to record an HD signal at a 1/4 of the rate of the Varicam for example. In the FX 1's case this Group of Pictures is 15 frames long. The first frame is a full frame but the next fourteen use parts of each other to save space. A very simplified example would be the compression of a blue wall which doesn't move during the group of Pictures (GOP). You don't compress it 15 times you only compress it once and use the same information 14 times. This works well with static and slow moving scenes.
HDV has a harder time with more complex images with motion. Artifacts of the compression can show up in certain situations but different techniques from different manufacturers seem to have different results. The technique doesn't have to be used to bring the compression to 25MBPS. Sony is using the same technique for XDCAM XD but the higher quality data rate is 35MBPS. Also worth mentioning is the Canon XLH1 HD-SDI output is not compressed like an HDV signal so if you can record it it has a higher quality output than any of the other 1/3 inch cameras (at least until next week)
There are tricks to overcome some of the differences between an HDV camera and the Varicam or an HDCAM like 35 MM adapters and such but there is a reason the pro's don't just switch over to consumer cameras lock stock and barrel.
As to whether it is worth the cost to go with the big Iron or the smaller cameras I tend to use the motto the right tool for the right job. Sometimes you need the big stuff sometimes the little stuff.

April 16th, 2006, 12:52 PM	#1
Aviv Hallale Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Cape Town, South Africa Posts: 276	feature films shot on HD? I was wondering, what are the differences between the HD cameras that were used to shoot films like Sin City, Star Wars, Once Upon A Time In Mexico etc compared to the Sony HDV cameras like the FX1 and its bigger brother?

April 16th, 2006, 01:14 PM	#3
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	The crew behind them. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 16th, 2006, 01:33 PM	#5
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	The biggest differences lie in the HD recording formats, size of the image sensors, bit depth of the processors, and quality of the optics. For starters. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 16th, 2006, 02:10 PM	#6
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	As Chris pointed out, these cameras indeed have better lenses, image sensors, recording formats and so on, and so on. But as Chris also said in the former post, it's especially about the crew and the professionalism of the people who work there. Because, as a comparison between low budget and high end HD cameras told, there isn't THAT much of a difference (well, not enough to justify the cost, but be sure to check out our RED boards :-D) but it's about the story they tell, how they tell it, how they light it,... There have been feature films made on mini-dv... It's all about content and how you put it on screen (no shaky camera movement - exept if it's part of the concept - light your images, choose good actor's, edit well,... and so on, and so on) Best regards, __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

April 16th, 2006, 12:56 PM	#2
James Lundy Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: West Lothian - Bonnie Scotland Posts: 51	About £87,000.00. :)

April 16th, 2006, 01:21 PM	#4
Aviv Hallale Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Cape Town, South Africa Posts: 276	Thanks for putting a damper on my dreams. :P What is the difference between the cameras though? Do they not work in the same way?

April 16th, 2006, 02:21 PM	#7
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	the basic process ( camera, tape or recording media) is the same between a 3K and 300k camera. 300k camera just cost more to operate/edit you could look at it from a film POV . reg8/super 8 , 16m/super16 , 35/super 35/anamorphic , 65mm ... = they are all basically the same process but the film is larger as you move up to larger # the price tends to increase 4X-8X with each # ( 8, 16,25,65) ... hollywood shoots on 35mm & no to low budgets or beginners might shoot super8 .. once the film size is choosen ALL production is approx same - pre-production ( planning), production ( the shooting, sets , lights, actors, problem solving) , and POST ( editing ) = it's all the same and again the larger the the film size the more $$ it cost ... so HDV with 1/3 CCD look at it as super 8 .. and the viper, cinealta type camera's think 35mm ... so for approx $3400 ( sony hdv) you get a very good image (above super8 ) for a very good price ...

April 16th, 2006, 06:10 PM	#8
Daniel Epstein Trustee Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,267	No they don't work in the same way. Beside the crew and lenses and size of the CCD's used to capture the image there is a really big difference between the big cameras signal processing and cameras like the Sony FX1 HDV. All this adds up to a significant difference. The kind of compression they use on the big HD cameras (except for the Viper which is basically uncompressed) is frame based. Each frame is compressed and stands alone. The data rates are 4 times more on the low end and higher than HDV 25MBPS and have more color depth as well. The kind of compression used to derive an HDV signal is multiframe. This is a great technical achievement to bring down the data rate needed to record an HD signal at a 1/4 of the rate of the Varicam for example. In the FX 1's case this Group of Pictures is 15 frames long. The first frame is a full frame but the next fourteen use parts of each other to save space. A very simplified example would be the compression of a blue wall which doesn't move during the group of Pictures (GOP). You don't compress it 15 times you only compress it once and use the same information 14 times. This works well with static and slow moving scenes. HDV has a harder time with more complex images with motion. Artifacts of the compression can show up in certain situations but different techniques from different manufacturers seem to have different results. The technique doesn't have to be used to bring the compression to 25MBPS. Sony is using the same technique for XDCAM XD but the higher quality data rate is 35MBPS. Also worth mentioning is the Canon XLH1 HD-SDI output is not compressed like an HDV signal so if you can record it it has a higher quality output than any of the other 1/3 inch cameras (at least until next week) There are tricks to overcome some of the differences between an HDV camera and the Varicam or an HDCAM like 35 MM adapters and such but there is a reason the pro's don't just switch over to consumer cameras lock stock and barrel. As to whether it is worth the cost to go with the big Iron or the smaller cameras I tend to use the motto the right tool for the right job. Sometimes you need the big stuff sometimes the little stuff.