Report from NAB

[Jeff Donald]

I disagree, if I was limited to the present crop of mini DV cameras to do a project going to film it would be between the DVX100 and XL1S (only because of versatility of interchanging lenses). I've seen DVX100 footage to film and it looks remarkably like super 16mm to me. Other film shooters I know have also done transfers or seen transfers from the DVX100 and have had similar impressions.

I can't comment on how cameras that aren't even released, will look when transferred to film.

[Heath McKnight]

My friend in NY who uses everything from the DVX100 up to the CineAlta says the DVX100 in 24P mode is garbage.

hwm

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : To anyone thinking of using a DVX100 for making a film/documentary that is intended to be transferred to film I would add a strong word of caution. Go and see what a transfer to film from this camera actually looks like projected on a 40' screen before investing your hard earned cash in a project based around that premise. At Mac World in San Francisco this year, Monaco Labs did just that, showed footage from several DV cameras, and HD cameras, transferred to 35mm and projected in a state of the art cinema. I have to say that the DVX100 footage looked the worst of the bunch, (inlcuding other 60i DV cameras which looked much better) the image was full of nasty artifacts, ghosting and awful pixelation, that you just don't see on a small screen.
Perhaps the footage I saw was not as good as it can be, I am sure this camera is great for other purposes, but based on what I saw, I would NEVER consider it for a Film project. So do yourself a favor and check out what you might be getting before jumping into such a project or buying into the hype surrounding 24p DV cameras, of any make.

All the best

Paul -->>>

[Heath McKnight]

Why can't we use the JY-HD10 in Hi Def mode to shoot with a transfer to 35 mm film in mind, Steve?

heath mcknight

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : You do not want the JY-HD10 when you plan to transfer to film -- unless you want to use 480p60. No way to get 30p to 24p.

You really want a DVX100 for making films.

And, 24PADV mode is the mode you want to use with the DVX100 when SHOOTING FOR FILM. -->>>

[Paul Mogg]

Continuing from my previous thread, the other lessons I came away with from that screening were:

1) If you MUST use a DV camera to go to film, go with a 2/3" CCD camera with native 16:9 and a good lens. A DSR-500 level camera looked the best of the bunch at 35mm, though still only barely competing with 16mm.

2) If you can afford 35mm filming, do it, it's beatiful. Next best is HD 24p.

3) If using DV, use close-ups as much as possible. they give the best impression of higher resolution. Some cheaper Sony 60i cam footage filmed this way looked astonishingly good at 35mm

4) Avoid panoramic shots, pans and tilts like the plague, they look like s**t at 35mm. Keep the camera still and on a tripod that is bigger and sturdier than your DV cam as much as possible.

I hope this helps, just personal impressions.

Paul

p.s as far as the HD10 goes, I have not seen the moving picture from it, just stills, which looked very detailed to me. I hear it it still a work in progress, which is a good thing. My impression is that pixel resolution is the #1 factor to consider in a Digital to 35mm blowup (after content of course!), and this camera is offering that at a rock bottom price, so don't knock it to death until you've seen what you can do with it, it might just suprise you.

[Heath McKnight]

I can't afford glorious 35 mm film, plus my film company is called MPS Digital Studios (used to be MPS Filmed Entertainment until I realized I couldn't afford to shoot my first feature on film 4 years ago).

I think we're gonna go with a CineAlta; a buddy of mine is partnered with some peeps who own one and he says he'll cut me a sweet deal (esp. if we shoot out of season, like in the summer!). If not the Cinealta, maybe the Varicam. He also suggested going with the Ikegami HL-DV7W PAL camera (DV) because he says put onto hidef, it looks exactly like a Varicam, as well as on film. We'll be staying with DV and HD until we get a deal for release, then we'll go to film. That is, unless we get enough money to throw it on 35 mm when we hit the fests.

THANKS for the great advice, Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!

heath
www.904am.net (the website of the film I'm writing/directing/producing/catering)

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Continuing from my previous thread, the other lessons I came away with from that screening were:

1) If you MUST use a DV camera to go to film, go with a 2/3" CCD camera with native 16:9 and a good lens. A DSR-500 level camera looked the best of the bunch at 35mm, though still only barely competing with 16mm.

2) If you can afford 35mm filming, do it, it's beatiful. Next best is HD 24p.

3) If using DV, use close-ups as much as possible. they give the best impression of higher resolution. Some cheaper Sony 60i cam footage filmed this way looked astonishingly good at 35mm

4) Avoid panoramic shots, pans and tilts like the plague, they look like s**t at 35mm. Keep the camera still and on a tripod that is bigger and sturdier than your DV cam as much as possible.

I hope this helps, just personal impressions.

Paul

p.s as far as the HD10 goes, I have not seen the moving picture from it, just stills, which looked very detailed to me. I hear it it still a work in progress, which is a good thing. My impression is that pixel resolution is the #1 factor to consider in a Digital to 35mm blowup (after content of course!), and this camera is offering that at a rock bottom price, so don't knock it to death until you've seen what you can do with it, it might just suprise you. -->>>

[Paul Mogg]

Well I would personally vouch for the Ikegami HL-DV7W as being an excellent camera as I own and shoot with one myself (not the PAL version) It is capable of a very cinematic picture. I've not seen any footage from it blown up to 35mm, but I'd certainly love to.
Check out this website of an guy that is making a pretty complex feature using the Ikegami in black and white. By the way, did you know that DV desaturated to black and white gives you the equivalent of a 4:4:4 picture, much higher percieved resolution due to the elimination of the chroma sub-sampling. ( I hope I've got that right!)

http://www.makingmymovie.com/

Cheers

Paul

[Steve Mullen]

1) The fact that "digital projectors" are being installed has nothing to do with what you shoot. These are 24p 1080x1920 totally encypted DATA moved by optical discs or satellite.

If you want to RELEASE -- you'll still have to get to 24p video or film.


2) The fact that a film lab screwed-up a transfer from the DVX100 (shot in who knows what mode) means nothing. I and others have seen transfers in NYC at top labs and they looked great.

3) So a $3500 DVX100 doesn't look as good as $100,00 camcorder. Really? These constant references to CineAlta and Varicam in this list make no sense. And, of course, 35mm film looks better than HD video. Gee -- that's shocking news!

4) If you want a CINEMA EXPERIENCE (big video projected image) I agree that 30p looks good. Some might like 24P non-ADV mode. Some even defend using 24P-ADV mode. And, some will hate anything other than 60i or 60p. These are esthetic judgements. When shooting video for video, the temporal rate doesn't make a camera bad or good. Your JITTER is someone elses JUDDER.

The only important thing is, if you want 24fps film at the end -- do not use 30p. Use 24p, 25p, 50i, 60p, or 60i. Of these 24p is best -- and 25p is next best.

[Heath McKnight]

Check that, I don't know what it will look like on film, the Ikegami HL-DV7W, though I hear going Pal to 24 frames/second film is also a b---h to do, according to an article from two years ago in an indie film magazine I read. Sorry, can't remember what mag or who the filmmaker was.

THANKS!

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Well I would personally vouch for the Ikegami HL-DV7W as being an excellent camera as I own and shoot with one myself (not the PAL version) It is capable of a very cinematic picture. I've not seen any footage from it blown up to 35mm, but I'd certainly love to.
Check out this website of an guy that is making a pretty complex feature using the Ikegami in black and white. By the way, did you know that DV desaturated to black and white gives you the equivalent of a 4:4:4 picture, much higher percieved resolution due to the elimination of the chroma sub-sampling. ( I hope I've got that right!)

http://www.makingmymovie.com/

Cheers

Paul -->>>

[Heath McKnight]

Yes, I keep refering to the hi-end cameras, because I keep hoping to save money by going with the JY-HD10U and transferring to film. I wonder if HD mode on the PAL version of this camera is possible (the PAL JY-HD10U).

heath

ps-I think Chris Hurd said the HD mode on the NTSC JY-HD10U doesn't do well with film, only SD. For now, I need to figure out some re-writes of the script, the potential budget and decide whether or not I want to go to our name actor before or after we have money. He can help us raise money on his commitment, but he then becomes a producer. It's a quandry! ;-) Take care, all!


<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : 1) The fact that "digital projectors" are being installed has nothing to do with what you shoot. These are 24p 1080x1920 totally encypted DATA moved by optical discs or satellite.

If you want to RELEASE -- you'll still have to get to 24p video or film.


2) The fact that a film lab screwed-up a transfer from the DVX100 (shot in who knows what mode) means nothing. I and others have seen transfers in NYC at top labs and they looked great.

3) So a $3500 DVX100 doesn't look as good as $100,00 camcorder. Really? These constant references to CineAlta and Varicam in this list make no sense. And, of course, 35mm film looks better than HD video. Gee -- that's shocking news!

4) If you want a CINEMA EXPERIENCE (big video projected image) I agree that 30p looks good. Some might like 24P non-ADV mode. Some even defend using 24P-ADV mode. And, some will hate anything other than 60i or 60p. These are esthetic judgements. When shooting video for video, the temporal rate doesn't make a camera bad or good. Your JITTER is someone elses JUDDER.

The only important thing is, if you want 24fps film at the end -- do not use 30p. Use 24p, 25p, 50i, 60p, or 60i. Of these 24p is best -- and 25p is next best. -->>>

[Joseph George]

RE: Jeff Donald's post

I assume that the JVC camera should have a better picture than the DVX, If you letterbox the DVX, we are talking about something like 4x less pixels on the DVX. If HD10 does not look a lot better, then it will be a joke, not an HD camera.


RE: Steve Mullen's post

I doubt that the projection system installed at Landmark Theaters will not project at 30p. It is not the usual high-end system that has a bit stream of some 40 Mbps. We are talking about a lot less expensive system with a projector that is fed by a PC with about 7 Mbps stream. Does anyone know anything about the frame rate? If it will operate at 30p, then there is no need to shoot at 24p. If you have a couple hundred screens in art houses in major markets where you'll be able to project 30p, why be so concerned about shooting at 24 fps? These films have normally extremely limited distribution and have audiences concentrated in the major metropolitan areas only. Now if the system does not do 30p, it's a different story.

[Glenn Gipson]

Paul,

I think the problem lies with the transfer house. I saw a DVX100 transfer to film done by DuArt and it looked close to 16mm. All the other 60I and 50I cameras didn’t look as good to me.

[Glenn Gipson]

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7879

[Paul Mogg]

I sincerely hope you're right Glenn, but I still think each individual should go along and see one of these transfers projected for themselves before spending money. I would definately need to see something radically different for me to change my mind. For me, unless I was doing something that was purely an "actors piece" such as "The anniversary Party" where conversation carries the day, I would not want less resolution than HD up there on the screen, but this is a purely personal decision. I just worry for those people that think because there camera is 24p, it will look great on film, and it just ain't so. I also find that on the small screen, 30p has more the motion of film than 24p, which looks more jittery than film to me, again, I don't know why, it's just what I see, but I know that many people think the same way.


all the best

paul

[Glenn Gipson]

Well no one should think that any DV camera is going to give them “35mm” results when blowing up to film. The best that one can hope for is to come close to well shot 16mm. In some ways, DV is actually better blown up to 35mm because it has no grain. But in some ways it is horrible, particularly when it comes to shooting wide shots that have a lot of detail (like a wide shot of a forest.) And when it comes to handling bright highlites.

>>I also find that on the small screen, 30p has more the motion of film than 24p, which looks more jittery than film to me, again, I don't know why, it's just what I see, but I know that many people think the same way.<<

Yes, I agree. For some reason 30p looks more filmic on monitors then 24p does. 24p only shines when it’s transferred to 35mm. If I were shooting a project that was absolutely not going to see the big screen, I would stick with 30p.

[Joseph George]

I just talked to a guy who is familiar with the Landmark/Microsoft projection system. The transfer rate is higher than I thought, and yes, you can shoot and project at 30p/fps with their system. What does this mean? The JVC camcorder should be OK for film production -- should be a lot better than the DVX. 35 lux rating? DVX is rated 3 lux, but in progressive does not have gain up, so it changes to 24 Lux. If JVC will not be capable of getting decent HD image from this thing, it will become a joke -- sold by Broadcast Division -- and we'll have to wait for Sony or another company to come out with a decent MPEG2 HD camcorder.

The JVC or another 30p HD camcorder would be OK for film production. You just show your stuff at Landmark and other places that have digital projection capable of handling 30p.

Europe? I know from my last visit that their TVs and VCRs do handle NTSC. The VCRs play NTSC tapes and their TVs handle NTSC via A/V inputs. I saw a catalog sheet of a Philips HD monitor sold in England and it did handle 30p. And they have digital projection there too.

So shooting in 30p is fine. If the film ever needs a lot wider distribution, you can slow it down 30 fps to 24 fps via special software, but it is a tedious work that requires manual corrections especially on fast and complex movement. But it does work.

24 fps looks bad on DVD at 30 fps because of the pull down motion artifacts. Anyone tells you that 24 fps is the thing to give you a film look -- tell them that you want better than that type of look, which has too many motion artifacts. Depth of field, together with proper lighting, camera movement, etc. gives you film look. 24 fps is just something we have to live with as it became a standard 3/4 of a century ago.

Some large production movies in the past were actually made in 30 fps, and projected in specially equipped theaters at 30 fps, but because of economic reasons we went back to 24 fps. IMAX HD is 48 fps. The higher the speed, the better the image -- the less motion artifacts you have.