1080 24p quality on this breakthru camera is indie filmmaker's dream

Aaron Koolen · April 4th, 2005, 10:06 PM

Yeah it was a totally awful looking film. But it entertained me enough.

Aaron

Joshua Starnes · April 4th, 2005, 10:20 PM

I believe what he said was that he liked the look of it for what he was doing, but that was really a by product of the fact that the prosumer cameras were extemely fast to light in low light, and he could monitor a lot of them all at once and know that what he was seeing was what he was getting, which was vital for the London scenes at the beginning, because he couldn't close of the London streets for more than a few minutes (mostly at dawn) for that abandoned look. So, no he's not stupid, just aware of the difficulties of making what he wanted to make and looking for out of the box ways to solve his problem.

And some people might yell why didn't he shoot on HD - but that wasn't really an option at the time. He shot 28 Days Later in the summer of 2000 (it took 2 years to find an American distributor, must not have been that easy a sell) at which time there were only 2 1080 24p HD cameras in the world, and they were both in Sidney. So he made do with what he had.

It's easy to point fingers and say this guy should have done that and that guy should have done this. But the fact is, the guy you're talking about is an extremely experienced director with a large budget behind him who knew what he was doing, not some naybob with his first video camera. If he had wanted to shoot 35, he certainly had the money to do so - but like any good director, he picked the format that worked logistically with the schedule and budget he had.

Michael Pappas · April 4th, 2005, 11:48 PM

What is "going Godiva" mean Chris?

michael

Chris Hurd · April 5th, 2005, 12:16 AM

Trust me Michael... if you don't know... then you don't want to know.... you'll be much better off that way with your sensibilities preserved intact.

Aaron Koolen · April 5th, 2005, 12:31 AM

As in Lady Godiva.........

Anthony Gratl · April 5th, 2005, 01:30 AM

"I think this camera would be a good deal at $25,000. I'm glad it's not $25,000, but I think it would be a breakthrough at $25,000. At $10,000 it's a steal, for what it is. Obviously it won't be affordable for some. But neither is a Mercedes, neither is a Cadillac, neither is a Honda Accord. But cutting the price of 1080/24p acquisition from $100,000 to under $10,000 qualifies as a "good deal" no matter what."

Barry, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you aren't shilling for panasonic. Why do you repeatedly state that 10K is a great steal of a price. Pricing is all psychologically motivated, so what something is worth may have nothing to do with what it costs to make. So stop hammering out that 10k is a great price, when many can't afford 10k and are hoping that it will be a lot less. If this is supposed to be a breakthrough, then it better be a breakthrough for all, and not just those flush with cash. And incidentally, cutting the price from 100k to 10k doesn't necessarily qualify as a "good deal no matter what". Definitely technology has changed and advanced far more rapidly in general than it has in the video camera industry, where we wait forever for change to occur and pay for it through the nose until it does. The manufacturers have been taking our money without shame for as long as the video camera has been around. So stop your rhetoric. It's getting lame.

Barry Green · April 5th, 2005, 02:01 AM

Hey, to each his own. Depends on what you plan on doing with it.

But before you go calling me a "shill" and say my "rhetoric" is "lame", just put it in context. If you wanted to shoot 1080/24p, you had exactly one choice for that: the Sony CineAlta, at $100,000. For just the body. If you want a lens, that's extra. Viewfinder? Pile on some more. Oh, and if you want to play the footage back, you'll probably want a deck.

By the time you get set up, you're looking at $150,000.

Panasonic's created something that'll let you shoot 1080/24p for under $10,000. With no need to spend extra for a lens or a deck.

How can you call that anything other than "revolutionary" and a "steal"? I mean, it's absolutely a steal. I mean, do you know what it costs to even RENT a CineAlta for a day? One day? Around $1100-$1200. You could buy this camera and its P2 cards and whatever's included in the $10k price for the cost of renting a CineAlta for a week or two. How is that not a screaming bargain? If you wanted to, you could buy it at $10k, use it for a month on your production, then sell it on ebay and probably still get $8,000 for it. So you'd get a 4-week "rental" for about $2,000. Or about the same amount of cash it'd cost to rent a CineAlta for TWO DAYS.

Obviously some people won't be able to afford it. But there are a lot of video professionals who will be able to make their money back on this camera in maybe two months' time. It is ridiculously cheap for what it offers.

You could say that there are people who can't afford it, but that doesn't mean it's overpriced! If you can put it to work, it will pay for itself in short order, and by that standard, it's probably going to be the CHEAPEST video camera on the market. Buying it on speculation would be foolish. But buying it to put it to work -- it's sounding like an incredible value. Ask anyone who owns a production company that's pulling its own weight if they'd be interested in a 1080/24p, 1080/60i, and 720/60p camera for under $10,000 -- I think you'd find that every one of them would agree with me, that that caliber of equipment at that price would qualify as a screaming bargain.

Luis Caffesse · April 5th, 2005, 02:22 AM

"Ask anyone who owns a production company that's pulling its own weight if they'd be interested in a 1080/24p, 1080/60i, and 720/60p camera for under $10,000 -- I think you'd find that every one of them would agree with me, that that caliber of equipment at that price would qualify as a screaming bargain."

I agree whole heartedly Barry.
If this camera can deliver what it promises, it will pay for itself faster than virtually any other piece of gear I have ever purchased.

Last time I shot HD on a 2 day shoot, I spent 1650 on a camera package. I spent 160 on DVCProHD tape stock.
And who knows what else....

All of those costs keep my profit margin too low for my comfort. I was really hot about shooting HD a year ago, and now I find myself not pushing it nearly as hard...because of what it cost me.

This camera could change that.
And pay for itself in the blink of an eye.

Mathieu Ghekiere · April 5th, 2005, 08:02 AM

Laurence, about 28 days later: I saw it on the big screen, and sometimes you could ofcourse say it was DV, but at other moments it really wasn't so bad. (At the time I wasn't very busy with resolution and stuff, but I could see it was DV, but still I think they did a great job)

And I also think the least you can say about the film, or Danny Boyle, that they tried to take the best out of the XL1, a camera which is now nearly 6 years old or so.
(btw: I found that the story took a dive down to after they came with the soldiers, but I still appreciate it)

And for the rest of the thread: I have to agree with Bary too. This camera is way out of my budget (I don't even have a budget now) but looking at the price/quality relation of this camera... we should be very very very grateful to Panasonic for giving us this!

Thank you, Panasonic ;-)!

Chris Hurd · April 5th, 2005, 09:32 AM

To Anthony Gratl:

<< Barry, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you aren't shilling for panasonic. >>

Hello hello, we will have none of that sort of trash talk around here. I realize you are new to this board, but you should have read the forum policies that you agreed to when you registered.

<< Why do you repeatedly state that 10K is a great steal of a price. >>

Beacause... it is a steal of a price, as has been clearly explained.

<< So stop your rhetoric. It's getting lame. >>

Stop your flaming. It's getting lame. I'll warn you just this one time; do it again and you're out of here. Thanks in advance,

Jason Rodriguez · April 5th, 2005, 10:34 AM

Of course you realize on the other end of things, that your margins definitely won't change, at least not for long, because it won't take too much time for others to figure out that they too can get this cheap little camera and be shooting 1080/24p, and do it lower than you can because for whatever reason, they're overhead is lower, they're still living with mom and dad, etc.

So cheap stuff isn't necessarily better, whether it's performance, or even for business in general.

Luis Caffesse · April 5th, 2005, 11:02 AM

"So cheap stuff isn't necessarily better, whether it's performance, or even for business in general."

I completely agree with you Jason.
Although I could easily see my margin on HD work becoming equal to my margin on SD work due to the fact that I could own the gear, and it would eventually pay for itself. That's what's happened with the SD production I've been doing, and now my overhead is virtually nothing (except tapestock, which will eventually go to zero when I'm shooting solid state.)

I agree, cheap isn't better.
And I don't expect to get a Varicam at under 10K.

But quite honestly, most of my HD clients don't need Varicam quality. They're just looking for something higher res than SD. So far this is sounding like a great solution.

Not a magic bullet, but better than the options I've had.
That's all I meant.

Joshua Starnes · April 5th, 2005, 11:15 AM

And of course one thing that is must be kept in mind when comparing this to a CineAlte or a Varicam is that those have 2/3" chips and this camera will almost certainly have 1/3" chips. And that will have an impact on your image quality in comparison with those 'bigger' cameras. It's a great deal, and sounds like a great camera, but it is not, by itself, going to put you into Varicam territory either.

Michael Pappas · April 5th, 2005, 11:17 AM

Oh Chris, how about a hint. How bad can it be?

I should be glad Chris... You acutally care about my sensibilities staying intact. 8-)

Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Trust me Michael... if you don't know... then you don't want to know.... you'll be much better off that way with your sensibilities preserved intact. -->>>

Joe Carney · April 5th, 2005, 12:18 PM

>>What is "going Godiva" mean Chris? <<
Michael he means 'naked' as in the way you are born. (Now that you will have that image stuck in your head for the rest of your life....) but you asked for it, hehehe

I guess we could all just 'hang around' to see what shows up aye?

April 4th, 2005, 10:06 PM	#16
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Yeah it was a totally awful looking film. But it entertained me enough. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 5th, 2005, 12:16 AM	#19
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Trust me Michael... if you don't know... then you don't want to know.... you'll be much better off that way with your sensibilities preserved intact. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 5th, 2005, 12:31 AM	#20
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	As in Lady Godiva......... __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

April 5th, 2005, 02:22 AM	#23
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"Ask anyone who owns a production company that's pulling its own weight if they'd be interested in a 1080/24p, 1080/60i, and 720/60p camera for under $10,000 -- I think you'd find that every one of them would agree with me, that that caliber of equipment at that price would qualify as a screaming bargain." I agree whole heartedly Barry. If this camera can deliver what it promises, it will pay for itself faster than virtually any other piece of gear I have ever purchased. Last time I shot HD on a 2 day shoot, I spent 1650 on a camera package. I spent 160 on DVCProHD tape stock. And who knows what else.... All of those costs keep my profit margin too low for my comfort. I was really hot about shooting HD a year ago, and now I find myself not pushing it nearly as hard...because of what it cost me. This camera could change that. And pay for itself in the blink of an eye. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

April 5th, 2005, 09:32 AM	#25
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	To Anthony Gratl: << Barry, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you aren't shilling for panasonic. >> Hello hello, we will have none of that sort of trash talk around here. I realize you are new to this board, but you should have read the forum policies that you agreed to when you registered. << Why do you repeatedly state that 10K is a great steal of a price. >> Beacause... it is a steal of a price, as has been clearly explained. << So stop your rhetoric. It's getting lame. >> Stop your flaming. It's getting lame. I'll warn you just this one time; do it again and you're out of here. Thanks in advance, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 4th, 2005, 10:20 PM	#17
Joshua Starnes Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 356	I believe what he said was that he liked the look of it for what he was doing, but that was really a by product of the fact that the prosumer cameras were extemely fast to light in low light, and he could monitor a lot of them all at once and know that what he was seeing was what he was getting, which was vital for the London scenes at the beginning, because he couldn't close of the London streets for more than a few minutes (mostly at dawn) for that abandoned look. So, no he's not stupid, just aware of the difficulties of making what he wanted to make and looking for out of the box ways to solve his problem. And some people might yell why didn't he shoot on HD - but that wasn't really an option at the time. He shot 28 Days Later in the summer of 2000 (it took 2 years to find an American distributor, must not have been that easy a sell) at which time there were only 2 1080 24p HD cameras in the world, and they were both in Sidney. So he made do with what he had. It's easy to point fingers and say this guy should have done that and that guy should have done this. But the fact is, the guy you're talking about is an extremely experienced director with a large budget behind him who knew what he was doing, not some naybob with his first video camera. If he had wanted to shoot 35, he certainly had the money to do so - but like any good director, he picked the format that worked logistically with the schedule and budget he had.

April 4th, 2005, 11:48 PM	#18
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	What is "going Godiva" mean Chris? michael

April 5th, 2005, 01:30 AM	#21
Anthony Gratl Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30	"I think this camera would be a good deal at $25,000. I'm glad it's not $25,000, but I think it would be a breakthrough at $25,000. At $10,000 it's a steal, for what it is. Obviously it won't be affordable for some. But neither is a Mercedes, neither is a Cadillac, neither is a Honda Accord. But cutting the price of 1080/24p acquisition from $100,000 to under $10,000 qualifies as a "good deal" no matter what." Barry, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you aren't shilling for panasonic. Why do you repeatedly state that 10K is a great steal of a price. Pricing is all psychologically motivated, so what something is worth may have nothing to do with what it costs to make. So stop hammering out that 10k is a great price, when many can't afford 10k and are hoping that it will be a lot less. If this is supposed to be a breakthrough, then it better be a breakthrough for all, and not just those flush with cash. And incidentally, cutting the price from 100k to 10k doesn't necessarily qualify as a "good deal no matter what". Definitely technology has changed and advanced far more rapidly in general than it has in the video camera industry, where we wait forever for change to occur and pay for it through the nose until it does. The manufacturers have been taking our money without shame for as long as the video camera has been around. So stop your rhetoric. It's getting lame.

April 5th, 2005, 02:01 AM	#22
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Hey, to each his own. Depends on what you plan on doing with it. But before you go calling me a "shill" and say my "rhetoric" is "lame", just put it in context. If you wanted to shoot 1080/24p, you had exactly one choice for that: the Sony CineAlta, at $100,000. For just the body. If you want a lens, that's extra. Viewfinder? Pile on some more. Oh, and if you want to play the footage back, you'll probably want a deck. By the time you get set up, you're looking at $150,000. Panasonic's created something that'll let you shoot 1080/24p for under $10,000. With no need to spend extra for a lens or a deck. How can you call that anything other than "revolutionary" and a "steal"? I mean, it's absolutely a steal. I mean, do you know what it costs to even RENT a CineAlta for a day? One day? Around $1100-$1200. You could buy this camera and its P2 cards and whatever's included in the $10k price for the cost of renting a CineAlta for a week or two. How is that not a screaming bargain? If you wanted to, you could buy it at $10k, use it for a month on your production, then sell it on ebay and probably still get $8,000 for it. So you'd get a 4-week "rental" for about $2,000. Or about the same amount of cash it'd cost to rent a CineAlta for TWO DAYS. Obviously some people won't be able to afford it. But there are a lot of video professionals who will be able to make their money back on this camera in maybe two months' time. It is ridiculously cheap for what it offers. You could say that there are people who can't afford it, but that doesn't mean it's overpriced! If you can put it to work, it will pay for itself in short order, and by that standard, it's probably going to be the CHEAPEST video camera on the market. Buying it on speculation would be foolish. But buying it to put it to work -- it's sounding like an incredible value. Ask anyone who owns a production company that's pulling its own weight if they'd be interested in a 1080/24p, 1080/60i, and 720/60p camera for under $10,000 -- I think you'd find that every one of them would agree with me, that that caliber of equipment at that price would qualify as a screaming bargain.

April 5th, 2005, 08:02 AM	#24
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Laurence, about 28 days later: I saw it on the big screen, and sometimes you could ofcourse say it was DV, but at other moments it really wasn't so bad. (At the time I wasn't very busy with resolution and stuff, but I could see it was DV, but still I think they did a great job) And I also think the least you can say about the film, or Danny Boyle, that they tried to take the best out of the XL1, a camera which is now nearly 6 years old or so. (btw: I found that the story took a dive down to after they came with the soldiers, but I still appreciate it) And for the rest of the thread: I have to agree with Bary too. This camera is way out of my budget (I don't even have a budget now) but looking at the price/quality relation of this camera... we should be very very very grateful to Panasonic for giving us this! Thank you, Panasonic ;-)!

April 5th, 2005, 10:34 AM	#26
Jason Rodriguez Trustee Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 1,095	Of course you realize on the other end of things, that your margins definitely won't change, at least not for long, because it won't take too much time for others to figure out that they too can get this cheap little camera and be shooting 1080/24p, and do it lower than you can because for whatever reason, they're overhead is lower, they're still living with mom and dad, etc. So cheap stuff isn't necessarily better, whether it's performance, or even for business in general.

April 5th, 2005, 11:02 AM	#27
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"So cheap stuff isn't necessarily better, whether it's performance, or even for business in general." I completely agree with you Jason. Although I could easily see my margin on HD work becoming equal to my margin on SD work due to the fact that I could own the gear, and it would eventually pay for itself. That's what's happened with the SD production I've been doing, and now my overhead is virtually nothing (except tapestock, which will eventually go to zero when I'm shooting solid state.) I agree, cheap isn't better. And I don't expect to get a Varicam at under 10K. But quite honestly, most of my HD clients don't need Varicam quality. They're just looking for something higher res than SD. So far this is sounding like a great solution. Not a magic bullet, but better than the options I've had. That's all I meant. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

April 5th, 2005, 11:15 AM	#28
Joshua Starnes Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 356	And of course one thing that is must be kept in mind when comparing this to a CineAlte or a Varicam is that those have 2/3" chips and this camera will almost certainly have 1/3" chips. And that will have an impact on your image quality in comparison with those 'bigger' cameras. It's a great deal, and sounds like a great camera, but it is not, by itself, going to put you into Varicam territory either.

April 5th, 2005, 11:17 AM	#29
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	Oh Chris, how about a hint. How bad can it be? I should be glad Chris... You acutally care about my sensibilities staying intact. 8-) Michael Pappas http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS <<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Trust me Michael... if you don't know... then you don't want to know.... you'll be much better off that way with your sensibilities preserved intact. -->>>

April 5th, 2005, 12:18 PM	#30
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	>>What is "going Godiva" mean Chris? << Michael he means 'naked' as in the way you are born. (Now that you will have that image stuck in your head for the rest of your life....) but you asked for it, hehehe I guess we could all just 'hang around' to see what shows up aye?