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

[Radek Svoboda]

This is what Jan Crittenden said in other thread: "While I cannot disscuss how this camera works, I can discuss the concept of the data remaining in the DVCPRO HD signal once the extra frames have been removed. DVCPRO HD has 100Mbps at 60 frames of information. The compression on each frame is equal and the same, d optimized for the compromise of intraframe compression. If we look at the fact that there is 60 frames per second and there is 100Mbps, we have a formula. If we only use 24 of those frames, then we are using a little over 1/3 of the data or about 40Mbps. When working with FCP over firewire, you can reduce the data load from 100Mbps to 40Mbps just by casting off the exta frames. Interestingly enough when working in DVCPRO50 and you remove the pulldown of 2:3:3:2 you are roughly at 40Mbps as well. Do these two look anything alike? No. The size of the image is much larger on the DVCPRO HD."

This makes sense. But DVCPRO HD so far covered only 1080i and 720p. At 1080i, bit rate is 100 Mbps, if it is 50i or 60i. If this camera keeps this high bit rate at 25p and 30p, and most likely will, Sony, watch out. You had monopoly on 1080p with 150,000 USD camcorder, plus in Europe with F750, is around 100,000 euros, equipped.

If this camera has decent CCD chips, there is no reason to think otherwise, we have total breakthrough in indie filmmaking.

P2 SM card seems expensive? Who cares? Your next step costs 10x more and does not send data over firewire to FCP.

[Bob Zimmerman]

cheaper cards,,,,,30 min cards,,,not 4 min cards. The HDX200 for $4,999 with about 2 hours worth of cards would be a good deal. The Panasonic ad does say affordable. $1,700 for a 4 min P2 card is not affordable.

[Aaron Shaw]

I think we're beginning to forget just how great a deal this is even with expensive cards and a 10K camera ;). We can't have everything! But damn if Panasonic hasn't given us a lot!

[Laurence Maher]

Come on Bob!

We know definitely 720p 24p at a good data rate is guaranteed. That would be good enough. But now the possibility of freaking 1080p for under 10k (+ card 11.5 k. What are you waiting for? Ain't gonna be better than that for a while. And you better find a way to get one, because every struggling filmmaker out there is going to. And then you'll be lost in all the competition of low budget / high quality films.

Must think positive. Must think . . . MOOOVIEEEEEEEEE.

[Bob Zimmerman]

Really? This will be the only camera that will make movies? It's a good camera but the memory is the problem. It will work for some and not others. I really don't think this camera was made for struggling filmakers. Struggling filmakers are going to use whatever they can. I'm still waiting to see what this camera is going to do...in a few days we will know more.

[Charles Papert]

Methinks that a bad movie made on HD will not be more successful than a good one made on SD. It will just be a sharper bad movie.

[Laurence Maher]

P.S. Guys,

I'm hardly trying to knock on anyone, I'm just chew'n the fat, so keep that in mind that I wuv everyone here. That said . . .

No, I'm not saying it's the only camera that will make movies. I'm saying it's the only one in that price range that will give us complete and total access to a tool that lets us actually compete with the big boys. Things like Blair Witch or Clerks or El Mariachi or Open Water were a lot closer to winning the lottery type films than they were quality movies. Yes, they were good . . . for being a micro budget "indie" movie. That's the catch. They stood out amongst other micro budget films according to the status quo. But look at the picture quality. And personally I think luck was really the reason they were successful. That and each had a gimmick.

IMHO, man, El Mariachi and Clerks, AFTER being cleaned up by the studios looked and sounded like absolute CRAP. The stories were terrible. The Rodrigez and Kevin Smith's films have gotten much better, but at first . . .

Open water was a pretty lame flick in my opinion too. Interesting up to a point but then just draged and when projected in theaters looked nothing like a real movie.

Blair witch was cool the first time I saw it because I saw a bootleg copy before the film came out, so the tape was really bad, which gave it that extra home movie look. But in the theater I personally thought it came across as cheezy. It did, however have a good story.

The thing the movies all had in common is a gimmick. Blair Witch was the best gimmick. Great marketing like it was supposed to have really happened. Mariachi and Clerks were gimmicks because back then it was very very very hard to make a movie on such budgets, and they were towted as "super micro budget" indie films. Open water was a true story gimmick, because . . . wow! You mean this actually happened.

It is way safe to say, that if the pure quality of the films (well, maybe not for blair witch, because it was supposed to look bad) were 4 or 5 times better, it only would have helped. There's only 2 or 3 slots a year for small indie films to make it to theaters commercial theaters. There are many more for bigger-looking, higher quality films. It's hard enough getting your flick picked up when it looks great. It's expodentially harder if it looks small and meek.

That's why I say in filmmaking reality, yes there are other cameras we indie filmmakers can shoot on for only 10 to 12 k, but then, not really.

[Bob Zimmerman]

I think it will be a awesome camera for alot of things.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Laurence, just out of curiousity, what did you think about 28 days later?
Thanks,

[Michael Pappas]

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher :
Must think positive. Must think . . . MOOOVIEEEEEEEEE. -->>>





90%+ of productions in the world have nothing to do with filmmaking. Those that are actually making movies that are for true release and not in somebody's homemade garage theater are in a niche group when compared to the volume of EFP, ENG work that goes on in the world every minute of the day.

Panasonic wants this camera selling to all markets of production, whether it's your film, a cooking show in the middle the woods or Chris Hurd riding a his horse wearing a pink dress. Now that's entertainment baby! :-O


I like the price $4,999 for HVX200,--- P2 4gig $500. Volume, Volume, Volume think Volume sales.

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

[Barry Green]

cheaper cards,,,,,30 min cards,,,not 4 min cards. The HDX200 for $4,999 with about 2 hours worth of cards would be a good deal.

This is... a simply amazing statement.

A Sony Z1, which shoots 4:2:0 1080i only, is $4999 -- and a screaming deal and a breakthrough, at that price.

With this new Panasonic, you're talking about 720/24p, 720/30p, 720/60p, 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/60i, plus 4:2:2 color sampling, in a frame-discrete codec, PLUS digibeta-caliber DVCPRO50 for SD use, plus revolutionary P2 memory cards, and you think it's not worth a dime more? That it's only a good deal at $4999?

Considering the next-lowest-cost 1080/24p camera is $100,000?

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.

[Chris Hurd]

Agreed. It's a hell of a good deal even if it's over $10K.

<< or Chris Hurd riding a his horse wearing a pink dress. Now that's entertainment baby! >>

Real entertainment would be Chris Hurd riding his horse going Godiva. Now that's what you call a horror movie.

[Laurence Maher]

Mathieu,

About 28 days later,

Story for me started out really cool, but after they got to the soldier barracade, it wasn't as enjoyable because I felt it started using very obvious and typical horror plot. So many horrors have some bad guy whose amazingly stupid that starts running the show because he's a bully, and the good people are now stuck between a rock and hard place, or better said, between a dangerous bully and a lethal monster. That was kind of lame. I thought it started awesome, though. The one cool thing that happened once they got to the barricade was the guy in the hole mentioning that it was probably just England with monsters, and a quarantine has trapped them inside.

Sound was fine.

Image was great the first time I saw it because I saw it in letterbox on a very small television, and I made the mistake of being blown away with the fact that it was shot on the Canon XL-2. But then I saw it on a large TV and instantly noticed the huge degredation in picture quality. I'm sure that if I saw it in the theater, I would have considered the picture quality way sub-standard like Open Water, and would have viewed it as one of those movies that was good for an "indie", type. Of course, there are many a moviegoer that saw the flick and didn't notice too much because a lot of the general public are kind of like cows and didn't notice, or they did notice and were dumb enough to think that it was a "style" for the film as opposed to a film shot on a substandard camera due to money concerns. Incidently, the director himself stated he chose to shoot on that camera because it gave him the look he was going for. Personally, I don't belive that. I think it was for money concerns and he had to come up with an excuse. If he was telling the truth, I think the guy was fairly stupid, for the film would have been far more powerful shot on 35 or with pro quality 720p or 1080p, or super 16. He said something about how he wanted to give it a "documentary" look, which I thought was kind of stupid, as it may have had a documentary level image, but did not have a documentary shooting style. The shooting style was pretty Hollywood-esque. I heard the movie was 3 million, and if it was, I don't see why he didn't why he didn't use a better camera, but maybe he wanted that look and to each his own.

The reason this movie made it to major theaters in my opinion had little to do with the finished product and much to do with the fact that it's the director who did well at Sundance with the infamous Train Spotting, and then I think did well with Shallow Grave, and maybe some other successes. I.e., the man was already in the door. A relatively established director making a blood and guts horror is usually an automatic sell to the studios. It also had an established English actor for a supporting role. (The father of the little girl). So it was likely to make good money in England.

Overall, I didn't knock the film. It was fun to watch and had infinitely more plot than the typical Hollywood horror. I listened to the commentary and was really surprised to here just how much of the movie was shot with common stage lighting and then was completely "re-lit" later in post-production with high-level fx computers. Fasinating.

Bottom line relating to this thread:

IMHO, if this 10k camera had been out at the time, and this guy had a limited budget or whatever, he would have been a fool not to just stick it on the bill, that measly 10- tops 15 - k with a lot of storage, and shoot the hell out of that thing. Even at his established level, I really personally think he would have been a fool. Now that this camera is coming out, I think any truely passionate filmmaker (or videographer for that matter-as soon enough HD TV will be household common/ and any way you look at it, your stuff will beat the heck out of the competitor cameras) that has little money but can SOMEHOW afford this camera would be a fool to not get one. That statement does not apply to people who just can't afford it. It also doen't apply to people who have the budget for say, 35mm. But it DOES apply to all those who could sell a few things here, who could cut corners for a while, or who could put in a few extra hours at work to make up the difference. As I've said before, what do most people pay for a car? What did most people pay for there stereo or home theater system? What do most people pay for the food they eat each meal as opposed to toughing it out with .50 cent cans of tuna, low-cost / high quantity and energy pasta or bread, and cheap-o canned vegetables for a while (which can all be bought at your grocery store right down the street). A couple of meals at chili's could buy you food for a week. It's not as tastey at all, but it's better for ya and might enable you to buy that camera. You'd be surprised just how far only a few months of cut-backs can go.

For people who just want to make a home movie, or a cable access show, no, this camera is not needed. But if your looking to be a professional and compete against others in a professional market, and you're one of the people questioning the price of the hdx-200, take a moment to think where some of your money goes. THAT will tell you if you honestly can't get one, or if you just tell yourself you can't.

I quote the grand master of my karate style . . .

"There is a limit to your abilities, but there is no limit to your effort."

Again, nothing personal about this, just my opinion, and that opinion only counts for one vote out of millions.

[Don Donatello]

"Incidently, the director himself stated he chose to shoot on that camera because it gave him the look he was going for. Personally, I don't belive that. I think it was for money concerns and he had to come up with an excuse. If he was telling the truth, I think the guy was fairly stupid"

the director had stated before , during after the movie his reason for the 'looK" etc ... the budget was more then 3million.
if you don't believe the director ( very independent director that chooses only projects he wants to personally make ) who can one believe ? this was during a time when many directors made a project on mini dv - from Cus Van sant to spike lee = perhpas it was the "in " thing ?
now looking at the list of his movies i just don't see how one can associate him with "fairly stupid" ??

[Aaron Shaw]

It was also shot on the XL1 not the Xl2 :). VHS res on the large screen!