Ok, so has anyone ACTUALLY done a 35mm blow up from an HD10?

Anthony Moody · January 15th, 2004, 01:26 PM

I hear that for sure Rob. My sense of all in costs (including post costs, stock, editing, etc) is that a conversion is cheaper than shooting on 35mm. What's your take?

Thanks,
TM

Heath McKnight · January 15th, 2004, 01:42 PM

We're going to shoot my next film like we're going to 35 mm, but let a distributor, if they pick us up, pay for the print.

heath

Anthony Moody · January 15th, 2004, 01:47 PM

Thanks Heath. That is definitely a strategy we're considering too. However, we have plans in place to take it to a few markets, and if you're going to do a screening...

That said, I have a latest generation consumer DLP projector and a 110 inch screen in my theater. The PJ is relatively light and portable. It'd be tough to create a nice viewing environment on the road (i.e. light control, nice seating), but it's possible to just output to MPEG2 and burn a DVD to screen for prospective buyers.

TM

Don Donatello · January 15th, 2004, 02:59 PM

before you start buying perhaps you should speak to a video to FILM transfer house. they know what works and doesn't. i'm sure by now they've had many questions on the JVC ...
most of theses houses do not want you converting 60i/30p to 24fps because twixter and other like products/methods are inferior to their method.

the JVC is not a HD VARI 27 ... the dvx100 is not a sdx 900
the larger camera will give you a image far superior to the hand size camera. if your budget drops in 1/2 the you might look around for a different camera/format ...

Heath McKnight · January 15th, 2004, 03:13 PM

The biggest issue Jon Fordham and I had when we shot a short and looked at it on both and HD and SD CRT TV was the pixelated look. I'd hate for that to go to film. Look here and here for our reviews.

heath

Anthony Moody · January 15th, 2004, 03:32 PM

Don,
My question was not intended as a replacement for an inquiry to a conversion shop, merely a supplement. I figured if anyone had actually done what I asked, they would be hanging around here. Nor did I think that the (much) lower priced cams were substitutes for the more expensive ones... Simply, they are another choice.

Heath,
Thanks for pointing out the reviews. I'd found yours but not Jon's. At this point it would seem for many reasons that the HD10 is not the right choice! Too bad, it might've been fun.

TM

Heath McKnight · January 15th, 2004, 04:35 PM

It's a great camera, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure it's good for a $400,000 film.

Here's Jon's review. Click:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=19828

heath

Glen Vandermolen · January 15th, 2004, 08:58 PM

According to John's review, he wouldn't recommend this camera for 99.9% of shoots. That doesn't sound like a glowing review to me, certainly not a "great" camera. What good is a camera that can only be used .1% of the time?
I was seriously considering buying my own HD-10, but now I'm not so sure it would be worth the investment.
The question is - Heath, have you finished the movie? If so, how did the final cut look?
I also want to shoot my own movies and I want to shoot in high definition -affordably. I had high hopes for the HD-10.

Heath McKnight · January 15th, 2004, 09:16 PM

I will be cutting the film next week--I've been in the middle of a couple of editing projects since Dec. and am wrapping up this weekend.

heath

ps-Jon and I really liked this one shot, which I'll have up this weekend, I promise! It was a totally controlled situation, ie, lights (not the sun) and we REALLY took our time. I'll also show you guys and gals a shot from outside.

Steve Lustgarten · January 16th, 2004, 01:39 AM

Just a short note from a film and video distributor. We have a very difficult time selling buyers on digitallly originated material in domestic tv and video markets as well as overseas. The first question everyone asks at the markets is "what was it shot on?". Well maybe the second question. The first is "who is in it?". I have producer friends shooting 35mm anamorphic for $150,000, so it's always a surprise to me to see people shooting digi formats at larger budgets.

Steve Lustgarten
LEO FILMS
leofilms.com

Les Dit · January 16th, 2004, 02:00 AM

A popular trend these days is to shoot super 16, and finish as a DI ( Digital Intermediate ).
I scan a full feature for well under $10K , and the result is a high bit depth scan. No blown out whites or lost shadows, as film holds up to 10 stops of detail. The users can then color correct far more, and they end up with the bonus of DVD and HD master at the end.
It's a great hybrid methodology, using the film just to capture the image.
I'm shooting for a full DI for about $60K, filmed out on a ArriLaser for the 35mm negative.
-Les

Rob Lohman · January 16th, 2004, 06:12 AM

Ah someone who know's DI. What file format is everybody using
for those large resolutions and bitdepths, Les?

Steve: your site seems to have the HTML document inside a
Word(!) document. It creates all kind of garbage on my screen.

Don Donatello · January 16th, 2004, 12:41 PM

"The first question everyone asks at the markets is "what was it shot on?". Well maybe the second question. The first is "who is in it?".

i see the same 2 question is same today as it was back in 70-80's. back then it was 16 or 35 .. 16 being they didn't have much interest.

distributors & hollywood production company's don't know what will be a HIT or miss .. if they knew then all those 50-100mil movies would all be hits - seeing how nobody sets out to make a bad/dog/ movie?

all distributors will tell you don't shoot on hand size dv camera's etc .. however once you have shot it and it's edited just about ALL will take a look at it. for them bottom line is "can i MAKE $$$ off your movie." if they think they can make $$ then they will get it to any format that they think they can make $$ from. if they don't think they can make $$ then they will tell you they don't handle video projects, you don't have name actor and other excuses etc. = translated in plain english "we feel we can't make $$ off your movie" ...

just about all movies made by nobody's with nobody actors have a 95% chance of going nowhere - doesn't matter if shot on 35m or pixel vision the odds are not in your favor.

Les Dit · January 16th, 2004, 12:53 PM

Rob,
The standard format is 10 bit Cineon. Each frame is about 10 meg, 2048 x 1556 pixels.
Cineon does not offer any type of image compression, so for in house work I use other file formats with equal bit depth. The 10 bit Cineon format ( Kodak ) is basically 0.002 Density units per code value ( 1024 steps per color ) .
-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Ah someone who know's DI. What file format is everybody using
for those large resolutions and bitdepths, Les?

Steve: your site seems to have the HTML document inside a
Word(!) document. It creates all kind of garbage on my screen. -->>>

Rob Belics · January 16th, 2004, 08:19 PM

Can your lab do 4k scans?

January 15th, 2004, 01:42 PM	#17
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	We're going to shoot my next film like we're going to 35 mm, but let a distributor, if they pick us up, pay for the print. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 15th, 2004, 03:13 PM	#20
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	The biggest issue Jon Fordham and I had when we shot a short and looked at it on both and HD and SD CRT TV was the pixelated look. I'd hate for that to go to film. Look here and here for our reviews. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 15th, 2004, 04:35 PM	#22
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	It's a great camera, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure it's good for a $400,000 film. Here's Jon's review. Click: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=19828 heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 15th, 2004, 09:16 PM	#24
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I will be cutting the film next week--I've been in the middle of a couple of editing projects since Dec. and am wrapping up this weekend. heath ps-Jon and I really liked this one shot, which I'll have up this weekend, I promise! It was a totally controlled situation, ie, lights (not the sun) and we REALLY took our time. I'll also show you guys and gals a shot from outside. __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 16th, 2004, 01:39 AM	#25
Steve Lustgarten Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: omaha Posts: 44	Just a short note from a film and video distributor. We have a very difficult time selling buyers on digitallly originated material in domestic tv and video markets as well as overseas. The first question everyone asks at the markets is "what was it shot on?". Well maybe the second question. The first is "who is in it?". I have producer friends shooting 35mm anamorphic for $150,000, so it's always a surprise to me to see people shooting digi formats at larger budgets. Steve Lustgarten LEO FILMS leofilms.com __________________ http://www.leofilms.com Feature Film Distribution

January 15th, 2004, 01:26 PM	#16
Anthony Moody New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 6	I hear that for sure Rob. My sense of all in costs (including post costs, stock, editing, etc) is that a conversion is cheaper than shooting on 35mm. What's your take? Thanks, TM

January 15th, 2004, 01:47 PM	#18
Anthony Moody New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 6	Thanks Heath. That is definitely a strategy we're considering too. However, we have plans in place to take it to a few markets, and if you're going to do a screening... That said, I have a latest generation consumer DLP projector and a 110 inch screen in my theater. The PJ is relatively light and portable. It'd be tough to create a nice viewing environment on the road (i.e. light control, nice seating), but it's possible to just output to MPEG2 and burn a DVD to screen for prospective buyers. TM

January 15th, 2004, 02:59 PM	#19
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	before you start buying perhaps you should speak to a video to FILM transfer house. they know what works and doesn't. i'm sure by now they've had many questions on the JVC ... most of theses houses do not want you converting 60i/30p to 24fps because twixter and other like products/methods are inferior to their method. the JVC is not a HD VARI 27 ... the dvx100 is not a sdx 900 the larger camera will give you a image far superior to the hand size camera. if your budget drops in 1/2 the you might look around for a different camera/format ...

January 15th, 2004, 03:32 PM	#21
Anthony Moody New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 6	Don, My question was not intended as a replacement for an inquiry to a conversion shop, merely a supplement. I figured if anyone had actually done what I asked, they would be hanging around here. Nor did I think that the (much) lower priced cams were substitutes for the more expensive ones... Simply, they are another choice. Heath, Thanks for pointing out the reviews. I'd found yours but not Jon's. At this point it would seem for many reasons that the HD10 is not the right choice! Too bad, it might've been fun. TM

January 15th, 2004, 08:58 PM	#23
Glen Vandermolen Space Hipster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,596	According to John's review, he wouldn't recommend this camera for 99.9% of shoots. That doesn't sound like a glowing review to me, certainly not a "great" camera. What good is a camera that can only be used .1% of the time? I was seriously considering buying my own HD-10, but now I'm not so sure it would be worth the investment. The question is - Heath, have you finished the movie? If so, how did the final cut look? I also want to shoot my own movies and I want to shoot in high definition -affordably. I had high hopes for the HD-10.

January 16th, 2004, 02:00 AM	#26
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	Shoot film, do digital A popular trend these days is to shoot super 16, and finish as a DI ( Digital Intermediate ). I scan a full feature for well under $10K , and the result is a high bit depth scan. No blown out whites or lost shadows, as film holds up to 10 stops of detail. The users can then color correct far more, and they end up with the bonus of DVD and HD master at the end. It's a great hybrid methodology, using the film just to capture the image. I'm shooting for a full DI for about $60K, filmed out on a ArriLaser for the 35mm negative. -Les

January 16th, 2004, 06:12 AM	#27
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Ah someone who know's DI. What file format is everybody using for those large resolutions and bitdepths, Les? Steve: your site seems to have the HTML document inside a Word(!) document. It creates all kind of garbage on my screen. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 16th, 2004, 12:41 PM	#28
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	"The first question everyone asks at the markets is "what was it shot on?". Well maybe the second question. The first is "who is in it?". i see the same 2 question is same today as it was back in 70-80's. back then it was 16 or 35 .. 16 being they didn't have much interest. distributors & hollywood production company's don't know what will be a HIT or miss .. if they knew then all those 50-100mil movies would all be hits - seeing how nobody sets out to make a bad/dog/ movie? all distributors will tell you don't shoot on hand size dv camera's etc .. however once you have shot it and it's edited just about ALL will take a look at it. for them bottom line is "can i MAKE $$$ off your movie." if they think they can make $$ then they will get it to any format that they think they can make $$ from. if they don't think they can make $$ then they will tell you they don't handle video projects, you don't have name actor and other excuses etc. = translated in plain english "we feel we can't make $$ off your movie" ... just about all movies made by nobody's with nobody actors have a 95% chance of going nowhere - doesn't matter if shot on 35m or pixel vision the odds are not in your favor.

January 16th, 2004, 12:53 PM	#29
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	Rob, The standard format is 10 bit Cineon. Each frame is about 10 meg, 2048 x 1556 pixels. Cineon does not offer any type of image compression, so for in house work I use other file formats with equal bit depth. The 10 bit Cineon format ( Kodak ) is basically 0.002 Density units per code value ( 1024 steps per color ) . -Les <<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Ah someone who know's DI. What file format is everybody using for those large resolutions and bitdepths, Les? Steve: your site seems to have the HTML document inside a Word(!) document. It creates all kind of garbage on my screen. -->>>

January 16th, 2004, 08:19 PM	#30
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Can your lab do 4k scans?