Report from NAB

Jeff Donald · April 14th, 2003, 09:10 PM

DV is in it's twilight. I'm not investing any more dollars in mini DV hardware. Most DV shooters I know are saying the same thing. The few that have invested recently, did so in the Panasonic DVX100. I was prepared to spend $10,000 + if the right new equipment had come along at NAB.

Can you still make money with mini DV? Sure you can, but it is quickly becoming and event, wedding format. I have clients that are wondering why I'm still shooting with an XL1s.

I will reserve judgement on JVC's entry level HD products until I can see it and shoot with it myself.

If your profession is video production then $1500 to $2000 is not expensive. If video is your hobby then $2000 is a lot of money. When I look around my studio, there isn't much that was less than $1500. Sure, some audio gear and soft goods (cases etc.) But all my major components are that much and more.

I have clients right now that would pay for HD production. But current gear is too costly, even rental. Medium and large corporations have the need, and equipment (viewing capability) to use HD. Only affordable equipment (either to own or rent) keep me and many clients on the sidelines. The JVC's may not be the cameras for me. But I'll approach the topics and equipment with an open mind so I can learn and better serve my clients.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · April 14th, 2003, 10:22 PM

Let's hope Jeff's right.

If nothing else, the JVC HD cam will inspire Canon, SONY, etc. to put out great prosumer HD cams which take the technology to the next level. (Can't wait for the XL2--!)

Bryan Beasleigh · April 14th, 2003, 10:31 PM

"DV is in it's twilight"
"it is quickly becoming and event, wedding format."

Gee! What else is there? What are the options right now? Absolutely nothing! We have a glimmer of what is coming down the road. We need a clearer definition of what will finally be accepted as a standard.

This implies that people should cease to equip because something new is coming. I stand with David on this issue. HD is coming but know one here can say when and what the final standards will be. It's only guess work right now.

A true technicrat will continue to work with present technology with one eye open to what is coming down the road. Keeping an open mind also means the good sense to realize that technology and it's standards are fickle and change with the wind. The best and most logical is not always the winner.

Now I won't be selling the farm to buy anything I don't really need but I certainly won't be betting my housecat on the success of JVC's new HD Cam.

Who will want High definition video, what will they play it on and what medium will we use. Most of the enjoyment I get from this hobby is sharing my work with others. Until the standard is clear it won't include me.

I will admit that there will be a limited market at outset of the HD cams release. This will include those that will want HD at any cost. It may well peter out when they realize that we have a way to go yet.

One last point. Because someone disagrees with certain opinions, does not make them a Sony or Canon hack. I find statements like that beneath this Forum.

Allan Rejoso · April 14th, 2003, 10:39 PM

When I posted my impression that the HD1 is too jittery under HD mode, I wasnft asking for any technical explanation at all, since all technical aspects of this cam are readily available in Jap websites and catalogues which Ifve probably read at least 10x. Even Victor gadmitsh this issue based on the disclaimer written in their website and catalogue. I will post that sentence here both in Japanese characters and Roman alphabet (for those who cannot read kanji but can understand Japanese)

I quote:

gHDƒ‚[ƒh‚Å‹L˜^‚µ‚½‰f‘œ‚ÍA•bŠÔ30ƒRƒ}‚Å‹L˜^‚µ‚Ä‚¢‚é‚½‚ßAÄ¶‚Ì‰f‘œ‚Í“®‚«‚ª‚¬‚±‚¿‚È‚_Œ©‚¦‚é‚±‚Æ‚ª‚_‚è‚Ü‚·B h

gHD mode de kiroku shita eizou haAbyoukan 30koma de kiroku shiteiru tame, saisei no eizou ha UGOKI GA GIKOCHINAKU mieru koto ka arimasu.h

The simplest English translation is as follows:
Since the image recorded in HD mode is recorded at 30p, movement in playback image looks clumsy/stiff/awkward.

If there are any Japanese experts in this forum, please correct the above translation as necessary.

I am particularly interested in this jittery image issue hoping that real experts would teach us how to handle this cam. As a regular home video guy who looks forward to upgrading to HD soon, I would find very limited use for a cam that would give me terrible headache/dizziness (both during recording and playback) when panning and zooming. The HD1 is afterall a consumer cam. Guys who have seen JVCfs sample footages might have noticed that they are mostly static. I just cannot imagine myself shooting video only that way and I personally have very little interest in frame grabs. But thatfs just me. BTW, I know the HD1 can playback 1125i according to specs, but I doubt whether it will work as good as anyone can expect (given the above disclaimer). You experts tell us when you finally get hold of this cam.

Ken Tanaka · April 14th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Well, all I can say is don't tell a family of four with $55,000 of annual household income, $120,000 of mortgage debt, $10,000 of credit card debt and two car payments that $2,000 isn't alot of money. Sound silly? Think again. What I've described is the dead-center norm of middle America, the people on whom the adoption of HD ultimately relies. They're the "viewers" that the sponsors chase with video.

No, don't throw away your NTSC gear just yet.

Lynne Whelden · April 15th, 2003, 05:50 AM

Oh, well.

Jeff Donald · April 15th, 2003, 07:27 AM

The first VHS VCR's were well over $1,000, the first CD players were over $1,500. But $1500 to $2,000 seems cheap for a wide screen HDTV. Early adoptees always pay a premium and they are not your average American. They have discretionary income, even during a down turn in the economy.

Several weeks ago I talked to a friend in sales at a major electronics chain and he related that sales of large screen TV's before the recent Super Bowl were extraordinary. Demand exceeded supply (Tampa was in the SB) and many people had to settle for 32 to 36 inch CRT's.

S-VHS was never popular with home users. Yet, it was used commercially from the late '80's to today and sold 100's of millions of dollars of equipment. I was an early adoptee of S-VHS. It provided better quality than 3/4 U-Matic and was considerably less expensive than 3/4 SP. It ultimately proved to be very successfull, with even Sony getting into the game.

JVC's HD format only needs to be successful with a certain market segment of commercial, industrial users. Corporate users will lead the way. The format will be picked and used first by production companies that cater to the needs of the corporate world. Then corporate users will pick it up and the cycle continues. It may never see huge numbers in the home. It would be nice, but it's success doesn't depend on that.

David Mintzer · April 15th, 2003, 08:59 AM

I would be interested in knowing which clients of Jeff are questioning his shooting in DV? What do they want you to shoot in and what market are they?

Joseph George · April 15th, 2003, 09:16 AM

1. Why is the JVC footaage jittery? It is recorded at 30p, not 60i. It is what some call the film look -- motion artifacts on movement. 24p is even more jittery.

2. We should thank JVC for bringing out this camcorder, and Panasonic for bringing out their DVX camcorder. What should have we been thanking for Sony lately?

Sony, the most innovative company of the past is unable to create innovative prosumer products anymore. Matsushita (Panasonic, JVC) came out with DVX, HD1 HD camcorder. Sony came out with PDX10 -- 1/5" CCD camcorder. While everyone was making DV camcorders smaller, Sony came out with Digital 8, a step backwards. That size tape would be perfect for consumer HD. While JVC is coming out with HD DV, Sony is dropping Digital 8 and announced a bunch of DVD based camcorders; a long time after Hitachi and Panasonic started making them. Sony came out with Micro DV, with image that is inferior to mini DV. JVC and Panasonic have been making D-VHS recorders for a long time while Sony quit making S-VHS and started to concentrate on VHS only. Apple came out with IPOD. Sony, unable to develop its own system, is selling Palm-based organizers, in a world of Windows based organizers; even Samsung adapted the Window based system and they already announced one with SVGA screen. Sharp is selling in Japan Linux based one with VGA screen for some time.

Sony failed in Japan with their cell phones because of too many problems and defects. So they joined with Ericson instead, promising all kinds of stuff and sales that they failed to deliver.

Sony missed the boat with late introductions of flat screens displays, and unable to produce what the market needs, Samsung is producing these for Sony under private label.

JVC pro DV and D9 camcorders are a lot better bargains than Sony's equivalent products.

It is no longer Sony, it is Matsushita that is creating and delivering the most exciting and innovative products for the prosumer market.

All great things must end. I think that Sony should stick to promoting Michael Jackson's albums and making B movies and toys like Playstation. They are losing the prosumer market fast. Will the high-end market be next? There are a lot of innovative companies out there. Thomson Viper, new JVC HD CMOS box camera.

Panasonic is including 24 fps on their products, showed prototype of a tapeless camcorder. Trinitron used to be the king. Now it's everyone else but Sony in new display technologies.

While Sony claims that no one needs 480p and DVX is not hurting their sales of 480i products, the market is slipping from under their feet. It is no longer Sony that introduces products first and Matsushita copies them, with improvements. It is Matsushita that is introducing products first, and Sony is not able to copy them even without improvements. Sony's answers to DVX and HD1/10? Silence of a fatally wounded giant.

Jeff Donald · April 15th, 2003, 10:11 AM

The clients are wanting higher resolution for corporate promotional work (trade shows), internal use (corporate networks, video walls). I work directly with these companies and separate promotional/marketing companies that are hired to work with specific brands.

David Mintzer · April 15th, 2003, 10:18 AM

Are they looking for HD or are they looking for 4:2:2--Are they willing to pay the price-----? My understanding is that most corporations are cutting back on media acquisition and if anything, they are looking to save money for the work they need?

Jeff Donald · April 15th, 2003, 10:39 AM

Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. They would like to produce ancillary pieces, promotional work etc. at affordable prices. They want their corporate pieces to be tied together and have a similar look.

We do work in Digibeta, mini DV, HD and Beta SP. I've pretty much switched them away from Beta SP to mini DV. The next step is an affordable alternative to Digibeta and HD. I shot mini DV and occasionally Digibeta for them. I have never shot HD. The AD's use me as a consultant on many of their projects because of my long standing relationship with them.

The JVC's might not be the ultimate solution, but it might fill a need until the ultimate solution is introduced and adopted by more of the masses.

Steve Mullen · April 15th, 2003, 10:39 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. -->>>

Jeff's talking about the customers who JVC is aiming for.

Shoot HD, edit a simple but great looking HD production that incorporates hi-res stills, xfer to S-VHS, and show on a JVC progressive HD I-DLA projector.

By simple, I mean that HD doesn't require snazzy FX to dazzle the eye. A simple mountain range or sunset shot will speak volumes.

That's why for me FCP isn't necessary. A series of geourges shots with dissolves will be fine. I can do that in ANY NLE. Toss in graphics and music. That's not rocket science in any NLE.

With images that have visual impact -- I wouldn't consider obscuring them by muli-layering them.

I hope HD will kill the MTV style s**t we see folks doing with Avid and FCP. Back to the power of the unadorned image.

Watching jitter-cam on a 6-8 foot screen can make you sick. Watching NYPD tonight I could see how dated it looked when projected large and WIDE.

HD is about a lot more than the technology.

Lynne Whelden · April 16th, 2003, 05:30 AM

I absolutely agree. With images of such clarity that you can discern blades of grass in a wide shot, HD should cause a total re-examination of just how to assemble a story. Or to put it another way, it should cause a migration towards the same production values as 35mm film has established for Hollywood. How many theatrical releases do you see where the picture changes every two seconds? Or where you have 13 different images layered over each other? You don't see any. You hardly see any pans or zooms either, both staples in the world of SD video. There it didn't matter because everything was self-contained in a "tiny" little screen the size of a microwave your eye could assimilate in a half-second glance. Nor did it matter much since the only way you could resolve a blade of grass was to get an extreme close-up. Wide-screen HD thankfully throws all those limitations out the window. I for one will not be sorry to see 4:3 TV go. I've produced documentary-style video for years with nothing more than the occasional dissolve and white letters on black BG for titles. I'm sure some folks are just dying to break the rules in HD land but they may discover that flashing HD images in rapid-fire on the big, wide screen can be almost nauseating. As well as a waste of screen time and space when there's so much precious information contained in a single static frame.

Steve Bell · April 16th, 2003, 06:08 PM

Of course people go overboard with NLE. Cuts, fades and dissolves is all you need for a movie, or most movies. Unfortunately this is not a movie camera or a camera to make movies with. It is a consumer camera with a better handle, better microphone jacks and a better viewfinder that still has 5x less pixels than the imager. How are you going to focus this thing in manual? Hook up to a separate monitor? Only NTSC output is available during shooting. Sold by Broadcast Division!!!!!

Why talking about a stem of grass if the consensus of people who have seen the camera is that the image is lousy. Realize that this is a finished product already selling in Japan and manufacturers at shows are very good at making the image look better than it is. The same people are telling us that it is worse than it will be when the consumer will use it. They are tweaking up the image, using some math formulas? How? The processors will stay the same. There is nothing to tweak on those.

Anyone seen Russian Arc? Great movie. The whole film was made in one shot. No editing at all, shot on HD fed to hard drives. 2hrs long. Anyone knows what camera were they using? Viper? CineAlta? It is true that NLE's are overused for editing but this is a digital camera and it is ridiculous that the user should be limited to some primitive optical style effects, or that a camera sold by the broadcast division could only use the consumer version software.

April 14th, 2003, 09:10 PM	#31
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	DV is in it's twilight. I'm not investing any more dollars in mini DV hardware. Most DV shooters I know are saying the same thing. The few that have invested recently, did so in the Panasonic DVX100. I was prepared to spend $10,000 + if the right new equipment had come along at NAB. Can you still make money with mini DV? Sure you can, but it is quickly becoming and event, wedding format. I have clients that are wondering why I'm still shooting with an XL1s. I will reserve judgement on JVC's entry level HD products until I can see it and shoot with it myself. If your profession is video production then $1500 to $2000 is not expensive. If video is your hobby then $2000 is a lot of money. When I look around my studio, there isn't much that was less than $1500. Sure, some audio gear and soft goods (cases etc.) But all my major components are that much and more. I have clients right now that would pay for HD production. But current gear is too costly, even rental. Medium and large corporations have the need, and equipment (viewing capability) to use HD. Only affordable equipment (either to own or rent) keep me and many clients on the sidelines. The JVC's may not be the cameras for me. But I'll approach the topics and equipment with an open mind so I can learn and better serve my clients. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 14th, 2003, 10:22 PM	#32
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Let's hope Jeff's right. If nothing else, the JVC HD cam will inspire Canon, SONY, etc. to put out great prosumer HD cams which take the technology to the next level. (Can't wait for the XL2--!) __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 14th, 2003, 11:19 PM	#35
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Well, all I can say is don't tell a family of four with $55,000 of annual household income, $120,000 of mortgage debt, $10,000 of credit card debt and two car payments that $2,000 isn't alot of money. Sound silly? Think again. What I've described is the dead-center norm of middle America, the people on whom the adoption of HD ultimately relies. They're the "viewers" that the sponsors chase with video. No, don't throw away your NTSC gear just yet. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

April 15th, 2003, 07:27 AM	#37
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	The first VHS VCR's were well over $1,000, the first CD players were over $1,500. But $1500 to $2,000 seems cheap for a wide screen HDTV. Early adoptees always pay a premium and they are not your average American. They have discretionary income, even during a down turn in the economy. Several weeks ago I talked to a friend in sales at a major electronics chain and he related that sales of large screen TV's before the recent Super Bowl were extraordinary. Demand exceeded supply (Tampa was in the SB) and many people had to settle for 32 to 36 inch CRT's. S-VHS was never popular with home users. Yet, it was used commercially from the late '80's to today and sold 100's of millions of dollars of equipment. I was an early adoptee of S-VHS. It provided better quality than 3/4 U-Matic and was considerably less expensive than 3/4 SP. It ultimately proved to be very successfull, with even Sony getting into the game. JVC's HD format only needs to be successful with a certain market segment of commercial, industrial users. Corporate users will lead the way. The format will be picked and used first by production companies that cater to the needs of the corporate world. Then corporate users will pick it up and the cycle continues. It may never see huge numbers in the home. It would be nice, but it's success doesn't depend on that. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 15th, 2003, 10:11 AM	#40
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	The clients are wanting higher resolution for corporate promotional work (trade shows), internal use (corporate networks, video walls). I work directly with these companies and separate promotional/marketing companies that are hired to work with specific brands. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 14th, 2003, 10:31 PM	#33
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	"DV is in it's twilight" "it is quickly becoming and event, wedding format." Gee! What else is there? What are the options right now? Absolutely nothing! We have a glimmer of what is coming down the road. We need a clearer definition of what will finally be accepted as a standard. This implies that people should cease to equip because something new is coming. I stand with David on this issue. HD is coming but know one here can say when and what the final standards will be. It's only guess work right now. A true technicrat will continue to work with present technology with one eye open to what is coming down the road. Keeping an open mind also means the good sense to realize that technology and it's standards are fickle and change with the wind. The best and most logical is not always the winner. Now I won't be selling the farm to buy anything I don't really need but I certainly won't be betting my housecat on the success of JVC's new HD Cam. Who will want High definition video, what will they play it on and what medium will we use. Most of the enjoyment I get from this hobby is sharing my work with others. Until the standard is clear it won't include me. I will admit that there will be a limited market at outset of the HD cams release. This will include those that will want HD at any cost. It may well peter out when they realize that we have a way to go yet. One last point. Because someone disagrees with certain opinions, does not make them a Sony or Canon hack. I find statements like that beneath this Forum.

April 14th, 2003, 10:39 PM	#34
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	When I posted my impression that the HD1 is too jittery under HD mode, I wasnft asking for any technical explanation at all, since all technical aspects of this cam are readily available in Jap websites and catalogues which Ifve probably read at least 10x. Even Victor gadmitsh this issue based on the disclaimer written in their website and catalogue. I will post that sentence here both in Japanese characters and Roman alphabet (for those who cannot read kanji but can understand Japanese) I quote: gHDƒ‚[ƒh‚Å‹L˜^‚µ‚½‰f‘œ‚ÍA•bŠÔ30ƒRƒ}‚Å‹L˜^‚µ‚Ä‚¢‚é‚½‚ßAÄ¶‚Ì‰f‘œ‚Í“®‚«‚ª‚¬‚±‚¿‚È‚_Œ©‚¦‚é‚±‚Æ‚ª‚_‚è‚Ü‚·B h gHD mode de kiroku shita eizou haAbyoukan 30koma de kiroku shiteiru tame, saisei no eizou ha UGOKI GA GIKOCHINAKU mieru koto ka arimasu.h The simplest English translation is as follows: Since the image recorded in HD mode is recorded at 30p, movement in playback image looks clumsy/stiff/awkward. If there are any Japanese experts in this forum, please correct the above translation as necessary. I am particularly interested in this jittery image issue hoping that real experts would teach us how to handle this cam. As a regular home video guy who looks forward to upgrading to HD soon, I would find very limited use for a cam that would give me terrible headache/dizziness (both during recording and playback) when panning and zooming. The HD1 is afterall a consumer cam. Guys who have seen JVCfs sample footages might have noticed that they are mostly static. I just cannot imagine myself shooting video only that way and I personally have very little interest in frame grabs. But thatfs just me. BTW, I know the HD1 can playback 1125i according to specs, but I doubt whether it will work as good as anyone can expect (given the above disclaimer). You experts tell us when you finally get hold of this cam.

April 15th, 2003, 05:50 AM	#36
Lynne Whelden Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: williamsport, pa Posts: 604	Oh, well.

April 15th, 2003, 08:59 AM	#38
David Mintzer Rextilleon Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Pleasantville, NY Posts: 520	I would be interested in knowing which clients of Jeff are questioning his shooting in DV? What do they want you to shoot in and what market are they?

April 15th, 2003, 09:16 AM	#39
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	1. Why is the JVC footaage jittery? It is recorded at 30p, not 60i. It is what some call the film look -- motion artifacts on movement. 24p is even more jittery. 2. We should thank JVC for bringing out this camcorder, and Panasonic for bringing out their DVX camcorder. What should have we been thanking for Sony lately? Sony, the most innovative company of the past is unable to create innovative prosumer products anymore. Matsushita (Panasonic, JVC) came out with DVX, HD1 HD camcorder. Sony came out with PDX10 -- 1/5" CCD camcorder. While everyone was making DV camcorders smaller, Sony came out with Digital 8, a step backwards. That size tape would be perfect for consumer HD. While JVC is coming out with HD DV, Sony is dropping Digital 8 and announced a bunch of DVD based camcorders; a long time after Hitachi and Panasonic started making them. Sony came out with Micro DV, with image that is inferior to mini DV. JVC and Panasonic have been making D-VHS recorders for a long time while Sony quit making S-VHS and started to concentrate on VHS only. Apple came out with IPOD. Sony, unable to develop its own system, is selling Palm-based organizers, in a world of Windows based organizers; even Samsung adapted the Window based system and they already announced one with SVGA screen. Sharp is selling in Japan Linux based one with VGA screen for some time. Sony failed in Japan with their cell phones because of too many problems and defects. So they joined with Ericson instead, promising all kinds of stuff and sales that they failed to deliver. Sony missed the boat with late introductions of flat screens displays, and unable to produce what the market needs, Samsung is producing these for Sony under private label. JVC pro DV and D9 camcorders are a lot better bargains than Sony's equivalent products. It is no longer Sony, it is Matsushita that is creating and delivering the most exciting and innovative products for the prosumer market. All great things must end. I think that Sony should stick to promoting Michael Jackson's albums and making B movies and toys like Playstation. They are losing the prosumer market fast. Will the high-end market be next? There are a lot of innovative companies out there. Thomson Viper, new JVC HD CMOS box camera. Panasonic is including 24 fps on their products, showed prototype of a tapeless camcorder. Trinitron used to be the king. Now it's everyone else but Sony in new display technologies. While Sony claims that no one needs 480p and DVX is not hurting their sales of 480i products, the market is slipping from under their feet. It is no longer Sony that introduces products first and Matsushita copies them, with improvements. It is Matsushita that is introducing products first, and Sony is not able to copy them even without improvements. Sony's answers to DVX and HD1/10? Silence of a fatally wounded giant.

April 15th, 2003, 10:18 AM	#41
David Mintzer Rextilleon Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Pleasantville, NY Posts: 520	Are they looking for HD or are they looking for 4:2:2--Are they willing to pay the price-----? My understanding is that most corporations are cutting back on media acquisition and if anything, they are looking to save money for the work they need?

April 15th, 2003, 10:39 AM	#42
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. They would like to produce ancillary pieces, promotional work etc. at affordable prices. They want their corporate pieces to be tied together and have a similar look. We do work in Digibeta, mini DV, HD and Beta SP. I've pretty much switched them away from Beta SP to mini DV. The next step is an affordable alternative to Digibeta and HD. I shot mini DV and occasionally Digibeta for them. I have never shot HD. The AD's use me as a consultant on many of their projects because of my long standing relationship with them. The JVC's might not be the ultimate solution, but it might fill a need until the ultimate solution is introduced and adopted by more of the masses. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 15th, 2003, 10:39 PM	#43
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. -->>> Jeff's talking about the customers who JVC is aiming for. Shoot HD, edit a simple but great looking HD production that incorporates hi-res stills, xfer to S-VHS, and show on a JVC progressive HD I-DLA projector. By simple, I mean that HD doesn't require snazzy FX to dazzle the eye. A simple mountain range or sunset shot will speak volumes. That's why for me FCP isn't necessary. A series of geourges shots with dissolves will be fine. I can do that in ANY NLE. Toss in graphics and music. That's not rocket science in any NLE. With images that have visual impact -- I wouldn't consider obscuring them by muli-layering them. I hope HD will kill the MTV style s**t we see folks doing with Avid and FCP. Back to the power of the unadorned image. Watching jitter-cam on a 6-8 foot screen can make you sick. Watching NYPD tonight I could see how dated it looked when projected large and WIDE. HD is about a lot more than the technology. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

April 16th, 2003, 05:30 AM	#44
Lynne Whelden Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: williamsport, pa Posts: 604	I absolutely agree. With images of such clarity that you can discern blades of grass in a wide shot, HD should cause a total re-examination of just how to assemble a story. Or to put it another way, it should cause a migration towards the same production values as 35mm film has established for Hollywood. How many theatrical releases do you see where the picture changes every two seconds? Or where you have 13 different images layered over each other? You don't see any. You hardly see any pans or zooms either, both staples in the world of SD video. There it didn't matter because everything was self-contained in a "tiny" little screen the size of a microwave your eye could assimilate in a half-second glance. Nor did it matter much since the only way you could resolve a blade of grass was to get an extreme close-up. Wide-screen HD thankfully throws all those limitations out the window. I for one will not be sorry to see 4:3 TV go. I've produced documentary-style video for years with nothing more than the occasional dissolve and white letters on black BG for titles. I'm sure some folks are just dying to break the rules in HD land but they may discover that flashing HD images in rapid-fire on the big, wide screen can be almost nauseating. As well as a waste of screen time and space when there's so much precious information contained in a single static frame.

April 16th, 2003, 06:08 PM	#45
Steve Bell New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 22	Of course people go overboard with NLE. Cuts, fades and dissolves is all you need for a movie, or most movies. Unfortunately this is not a movie camera or a camera to make movies with. It is a consumer camera with a better handle, better microphone jacks and a better viewfinder that still has 5x less pixels than the imager. How are you going to focus this thing in manual? Hook up to a separate monitor? Only NTSC output is available during shooting. Sold by Broadcast Division!!!!! Why talking about a stem of grass if the consensus of people who have seen the camera is that the image is lousy. Realize that this is a finished product already selling in Japan and manufacturers at shows are very good at making the image look better than it is. The same people are telling us that it is worse than it will be when the consumer will use it. They are tweaking up the image, using some math formulas? How? The processors will stay the same. There is nothing to tweak on those. Anyone seen Russian Arc? Great movie. The whole film was made in one shot. No editing at all, shot on HD fed to hard drives. 2hrs long. Anyone knows what camera were they using? Viper? CineAlta? It is true that NLE's are overused for editing but this is a digital camera and it is ridiculous that the user should be limited to some primitive optical style effects, or that a camera sold by the broadcast division could only use the consumer version software.