HVX200 & P2 - it is THE revolution

[Jim Giberti]

<<That's not exactly what I said/meant.>>

Well it is what you said: ""Only nature shooters needing extreme telephoto really benefit by Canon's XL system"

And so I made my point as to why I and many other producers find the Canon XL lens system of great value and much greater than a fixed lens system. So do most/all professional film makers for all the same reasons. A good camera with a fixed lens is good. A good camera with lens options is better...again for obvious reasons. If you're talking price point then that's another discussion, but from a strict quality issue, more creative options are always better.

<< The 20X Flourite lens reach on the XL2 is available on GL series, well before, so it's use on the XL2 is not even evolutionary>>

I'll keep my revolutionary assesments and you can keep yours <g>. And for the record the GL lens is not the 20X XL2 flourite. And again, a flourite lens under 2k with 850mm reach, image stabilization, progammable focus and zoom as well as the variable zoom options is pretty revolutionary if you've lived in the multi lens world that I have.

<<. The 13X reach of the HVX200 is pretty good in my book.>>

I would never dispute that. But the idea of interchangeable lenses being a "marketing gimmick" is just totally far fetched from a professional stand point.



20X is a useful lens, but it's not wide and most cinematographers I talk to, including myself :), prefer wide over telephoto if given the choice.>>

Which is why I and most cinematograhers :) prefer an interchangeable system for serious work.


<<The Canon 3X is okay, but I consider the Leica on the DVX100 series is superior
glass in every way (quality, range, sharpness, color rendition, focus and zoom controls).>>

I've worked with both from different shooters and multi cams and never seen that advantage, so it's awfully subjective.


<<I respectfully disagree and have posted here about this in the past.>>

No direspect takem, but having worked and working in film and using a box of pimes on my P&S set up, I kust don't agree with your opinion, but I appreciate your thoughts on it.

<<Short DOF is used by 1/3" video shooters to mimic the look of 35mm.>>

Too sweeping. Short DOF is a technique in analog and digital photography (I use both) and a technique in analog and digital film making ( I use both). I'm not mimicing anything, I'm going for a certain look based on the creative needs of my project. Having those options is better than not having them and you're never going to convince someone who wants the full range of creative options that they're trends or mimes, just because new inexpensive cameras don't offer them.

Good discussion Stephen.

[Heath McKnight]

I'd say it's evolutionary--it's the natural next step for DVCProHD and even the DVX100A.

heath

[Luis Caffesse]

Wow, great discussion here guys.

I couldn't help but point out the Freudian typo here Jim,

"I'll add one to the toll box when it's released."

Given the cost of all the new toys coming out, "toll box" may be more fitting than "tool box" actually.

:)
That gave me a good laugh.

Almost as good as a paper I once wrote in college for a psych class, where I apparently had a repeated typo throughout the paper which spellcheck didn't catch. I referred to "Freud" as "Fraud" more than once.
:)
The professor had a good laugh over that one.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I have to agree with Jim on the fact that an interchangeable lens system isn't a gimmick, I think it really gives people freedom. You can pick the lens that's best for each shot. I know maybe Canon didn't bring out a whole bunch of lenses specifically for the XL series, but they at least showed you could have an interchangeable lens system on a dv cam.
I think that deserves respect, at the least.

[Jesse Bekas]

Nobody thinks this camera is going to write their script for them, or guarantee other high production values, so saying the camera isn't revolutionary because of it is a little silly.

The revolutionary factor of the cam is that it shoots on a professional format and includes professional features (variable frame rates, etc...). Up until now, equipment in this price range was shooting compromised formats, and were purposefully crippled so as not to "cannibalize" higher end models.

[Kevin Dooley]

Finally, someone else who understands what I've been trying to say about it...

You still need skill and talent to make this camera worth anything, but it's nowhere near the compromise that a DV or HDV camera is in terms of format and features (minus of course the non-interchangeable lenses).

[Jim Giberti]

<<Wow, great discussion here guys.

I couldn't help but point out the Freudian typo here Jim,

"I'll add one to the toll box when it's released."

Given the cost of all the new toys coming out, "toll box" may be more fitting than "tool box" actually.
>>



Yeah <g>. I never proof my posts which is pretty bad for a writer, but when I do take the time to post instead of usually just reading, I'm always firing something off between studios and meetings. I just looked back at that post and it looks like a remedial 6th grader typed it.

At least I didn't call it a "troll" box.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

>>Canon XL lens system of great value and much greater than a fixed lens system. So do most/all professional film makers for all the same reasons.

Not all, I sold my XL1, standard lens, 14x manual and 3X lens after 3 years of use. The standard lens was not a joy to focus and zoom, the 14x was good on focus, but no motor zoom or OIS, the 3X no manual control, limited focal range and sloppy focus, esp on wide without production monitor.

I agree with your arguments completely in principle about value of interchangeable lense verses fix. Completely. But only in principal. The Canon XL "system" is just not really a interchangable lens "system". And I don't agree with the design engineers on how they split up the features.

I found all the lens choices (including the new 20X) to be nothing but 4 compromise rather than 4 great choices. So that's why I finally decided it was more gimmick and theory than practice. Just look at the EF lens line compared - or even the new digital line from Canon. That's an interchangeable lens system, Canon's XL is just really 3 options.

I've never missed anything but a little telephoto on my DVX100a - focusing is much faster and more accurate, wide is wonderful and no need to change lenses when going from telephoto to wide.

>>I'll keep my revolutionary assesments and you can keep yours <g>. And for >>the record the GL lens is not the 20X XL2 flourite.

Well, it's 20X and it's Flourite, so is it very, very similar glass.

>I've worked with both from different shooters and multi cams and never >seen that advantage, so it's awfully subjective.

In films that were shot at our 48 Hour Film Festival last year, there was a huge difference between the sharpness and color of XL1s and DVX100a footage. I attribute some of that to the lens (XL1s were using 16x standard lens) some to progressive scanning. Perhaps it's all due to progressive, but my eye says otherwise.


>>Too sweeping. Short DOF is a technique in analog and digital photography (I use both) and a technique in analog and digital film making ( I use both). I'm not mimicing anything, I'm going for a certain look based on the creative needs of my project. Having those options is better than not having them and you're never going to convince someone who wants the full range of creative options that they're trends or mimes, just because new inexpensive cameras don't offer them.

Again, I agree in principle, but the DOF range differences between the XL2 and HVX200 are not signifigant to affect a purchase decision. I still see plenty of DV projects with excessive short DOF (as well as plenty of that crappy fake short DOF, focus blur stuff even on film and HD commercials). It is a visual trend.

I have a whole soapbox rant about how easy it is to zoom in a single object for a "cool shot" vs. carefully composing a wide shot with multiple points of interest, but that is very area 51 :)

Bottom line, I had three gripes with my DVX100a:

1 - No native 16:9 (after one shoot with the anamorphic, despite Barry Green's excellent book, it went on eBay).

2 - No 16:9 in LCD

3- 10x too short at long end

This camera solves my only gripes plus gives me HD with the HDV which has not impressed me at all. And then give me 1080p 24fps. I still can't quite get over it.

If you look at all the many tiny changes as well vs. the DVX100a series, Panasonic seems to be the manufacturer listening most to boards like this.

That I respect and I hope continues. It wouldn't hurt to see other manufacturers doing the same.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I can simplify my long rant this way:

P2 + HVX200 = Revolution

One without the other is not the huge deal that both of them are together (if not for the simply fact that P2 drops $20K from cam's price and probably 5-10 lbs from the weight since no need for DVCPro-HD deck.

[James Darren]

thanks for that Doug :) i hope everyone else understood my sarcasm..

maybe going off topic here a bit... but isn't it funny that if you start a thread regarding camera specs, or camera A vs camera b, or which camera specs are better showdown you'll get 50 replies... but when i started a thread in the "techniques for independant filmmakers" section on this board about the short documentary film i'm planning on making & asking any advice on how to do it, storyline, tips etc I got no response at all!..... wouldn't it be nice if we focussed on those things as much as camera specs? now that would be REVOLUTIONARY!

[Simon Wyndham]

Absolutely.

The problem is that I see a lot of people, as per the Sony, somehow looking upon the new cameras as being some kind of saviour that will enable them to hit the big time and be taken seriously by big movie moguls.

I for one would love to see the other forums pick up much more. The film look forum rarely seems to have anything new posted for example. Its almost as if people think that SD has frozen and theres no point in even planning any new projects until the new camera arrives.

It would be nice if conversation shifted mainly over to production techniques. That way no matter whether we are shooting with a Panny GS400 or a SDX900, or an HVX200, we would all be working towards getting awesome results regardless. Resolution is just resolution. It doesn't mean the techniques of lighting, editing, acting, composition etc go away.

Lastly I'm going to be very hard on some. On many forums people really do seem to think that the HVX will be their holy grail. That they will be able to make a film taken seriously by people. That they will be able to get a film out. Approx 0.000001% of these people will ever do a film out of their production. If they, or anybody here, is serious about filmmaking and thinks the HVX will be the saviour, I just want to say one thing.

If you want to make a movie for filmout now, you can hire a Varicam for a very reasonable price. Your lighting and crew will cost the same whatever camera you use depending on how you do it (volunteers, industry vets, whatever). Your filmout will cost the same too (even though it would be the distribution company, not you, that pays for this). But I can tell you now that hiring that Varicam would probably work out cheaper than buying a new HVX for the production. If your film is successful you could buy a hundred HVXs!

If you want to shoot high def and release a film you can do it now. There's nothing to stop people other than talent or lack of it.

So I think James that you should keep repeating the mantra. This camera is many months off. Lets have some proper discussion on the real issues of moviemaking on the other forum subjects,

[Jesse Bekas]

Originally Posted by James Darren

thanks for that Doug :) i hope everyone else understood my sarcasm..

maybe going off topic here a bit... but isn't it funny that if you start a thread regarding camera specs, or camera A vs camera b, or which camera specs are better showdown you'll get 50 replies... but when i started a thread in the "techniques for independant filmmakers" section on this board about the short documentary film i'm planning on making & asking any advice on how to do it, storyline, tips etc I got no response at all!..... wouldn't it be nice if we focussed on those things as much as camera specs? now that would be REVOLUTIONARY!

I think we do focus on those aspects....away from here.

When I come to the board I usually do so to read about equipment. I learn how to shoot from working and school, or through research. I'll only delve into discussions on technique here if somebody asks a specific question, such as "How do I light _____ scene?", or when I need to know how to do something specific.

For most members generalized discussions on shooting techniques aren't interesting. With those broad topics/questions such as "How do I make an independent film?" (not singling you out, they pop up all the time). There's way too much info to post, so most people just pass them by. This doesn't mean we're not concerned with similar things, just that the medium iof a message board might not support that kind of vast discussion.

[James Darren]

well said Simon...

whats so difficult about giving advice in general on short doco films? hasn't anyone on here made one before? surely there must be someone who's made this type of film who can give any general advice in point form or similar...

and if my question is boring about advice on a short film, don't you find this P2 section even more boring? virtually every post is the same thing about whether the cam can record to HD etc.....

[Stephen van Vuuren]

While I still think this camera is a revolution in, well cameras, and the holy grail of motion cameras, a camera is only a tool.

While some people may spend all their time on camera boards obsessing about technical minutue, a lot of people here, including myself, are making films or working on projects most of the time and use whatever tool works for us.

I currently have two of my short films on the film festival circuit, "The Golden Girl and the Sea of Tranquility", shot with a $199 VHS-C consumer camera. It premieres tomorrow at RiverRun (www.riverrunfilm.com) and "Lunatic", a frame by frame restoration from VHS of a Super-8 film I shot years ago.

I also just completed two HD stop-motion pieces that I created using the still camera function off an Optura 40. How's that for the first 1080p 24fps HD project made with a $700 miniDV cam. I've entered those in a couple of fests.

And I'm in post in my current project "Outside In" that mixes DVX100a anamorphic,1080p graphic footage and my own 35mm motordrive motion footage where I create 24 fps 35mm footage using a Canon SLR and Twixtor from RevisionFX.

And there are many other working filmmakers and videographers here using all sorts of stuff. But while online forums are great way to discuss technical, procedural and other issues, I don't think they are they best way to interact creatively with others.

That's face to face - here in Greensboro we created www.triadindie.com for just that reason. Group101 films, film Salons, and similar do the same thing. Get people out there, creating, interacting, sharing, learning. You're not going to get that on BBS.

[Pete Bauer]

"wouldn't it be nice if we focussed on those things as much as camera specs? now that would be REVOLUTIONARY!"

No basic disagreement with your point, James. But to be fair, it IS the week of NAB. Can't blame the boyz and gurlz if they're excited about new toyz!