XD Cam HD...Worth the price?

Jimi King · December 5th, 2006, 11:01 PM

Thanx dude.But I wanted to see a movie shot with that.I guess I will be the first one to do that.
JK

Nate Weaver · December 6th, 2006, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimi King

I guess I will be the first one to do that.
JK

I highly, highly doubt it. The cameras have been in the wild since March.

Dutch Rall · December 7th, 2006, 02:26 AM

I'll be finished editing this feature by the end of the year

http://www.theincurable.com has some stills.

and a 1.5 hour doc for PBS by Feb.

Also segments on this soon to be national arts show.

http://www.klru.org/incontext
or
http://www.incontext.tv

The 330 and 350 in 24p, 35bit are an indie dream come true. If you have a script and the money and can't wait for RED, rent one of these.

Keith Nealy · December 7th, 2006, 07:57 PM

The images look incredible.

What lensing did you use?

Did you use a P+S or M2 adapter?

Aloha,

Keith

Dutch Rall · December 8th, 2006, 04:50 AM

Thanks Keith.

I have the HSs18x5.5BRM Fuji. No adapters. For the feature, I tried to shoot about 3/4 of the way zoomed in whenever the situation/ space allowed to avoid the worst of the CA and get as much shallow DOF as possible if the scene called for it.

It's a good piece of all-around glass for the 330. I wouldn't want to spend any more unless I were moving up in a camera as well.

Again, this is the camera that I would have (insert over-the-top phrase here) for about 10 years ago.

The only reason I can think not to use this system for a low-budget feature is if you're wanting to air on HDNet. Even though Bubble was shot on HDCAm at 1440x1080 3:1:1, they only accept 1920x1080 from people outside their system. And you will never fool them becasue the 1440 multiburst falls apart when compared to HDCAm SR.

For HBO, Sundance and others where content is more important than specs, this camera is more than fine.

Jimi King · December 8th, 2006, 07:36 PM

Thanx Dutch that was awsome.I can't wait to see that on a big screen.You got a 35 mm print right?I hope you do.
Anyway keep up the good work man.

Nate Weaver · December 8th, 2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch Rall

The only reason I can think not to use this system for a low-budget feature is if you're wanting to air on HDNet. Even though Bubble was shot on HDCAm at 1440x1080 3:1:1, they only accept 1920x1080 from people outside their system.

Wha!?!

You're telling me HDCAM is not good enough for HDNet? HDCAM SR only?

I was under the impression HDCAM SR was 1440x1080 anyway, with the only improvements (not to diminish them) being the options of 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 color. The 4:2:2 mode is lower compression than reg HDCAM.

Dutch Rall · December 8th, 2006, 09:35 PM

Hey Jimi,
I'm going to try not to have to print out to 35mm. DLP in Landmark, etc instead.
All of the equipment and most of the locations were borrowed on weekends and nights. The total budget came in under 7K (I paid actors $100/day indie SAG rates to be legal, fed everyone, media, wardrobe for the leads and a make-up artist for 4 days for things like dinner scenes)... so the 60K it would take to get a decent print just doesn't seem justified... I could 4-wall maybe 6 to 10 markets with press with the same amount of $ using digital projection. And honestly, I've seen Sex and Lucia projected from film and digitally. Guess which looked cleaner, sharper and just plain better?
But, we'll see what happens over the course of 2007.

Nate,
I didn't want to believe it either. But, back in March when I started really thinking about putting this together, the vice pres of HDNet acquisitions was gracious enough to meet with me during SXSW... and that's what I was told. She has to defer to her engineers, who just that week had not let her rent a couple of all-time classic 70's films which had recently run on HBO because the studio's transfer was below their standards.
I know thier 1080i 19mb signal resqueezed and resized on everyone's 720p home screens isn't going to look any better from 4:2:2 1920... but they're trying to sell to the boys with the latest toys who think bigger numbers means better picture.
And, I suspect it's more of a filtering process to keep from having to preview a glut of ultra-low budget features with little potential viewer interest, which I certainly understand.

Jimi King · December 8th, 2006, 11:48 PM

Hey Dutch good luck.
Looking forward to see you do other stuff.
XD rocks

Nate Weaver · December 9th, 2006, 01:09 AM

I certainly believe what you were told, but since I've had execs from other large broadcasters mess up specs that they were supposed to be relaying to me...I dunno. That sounds crazy. Most post houses here in LA working in HD have HDW-500s, D5s, or Pana 1200As, but not SRW decks. Those are still top, top end.

On the front page of the HDNet site they have a "Tech Specs" link, and a PDF block diagram of what I guess to be some part of the HDNet operation. Why, I have no idea, but...they have a bunch of HDW-500s on that diagram...

Dutch Rall · December 9th, 2006, 03:16 AM

Nate,

I sent your link of the XDCAM concert footage to our Austin City Limits crew. I think it looks fantastic

The HDNET spec sheet you're looking at and the other tech info is for their trucks and studio stuff for in-house productions on HDNet.

HDNet Movies (a seperate thing that I'd want my film to be on) is mostly content provided by large studios which originated on 35mm film. They also sometimes broadcast things made by HDNet Films out of New York. Like Bubble, which was HDCam at 1440 (an exception to their rule). The 1920 rule is for capture, not broadcast. Does that make sense.? it's late.

They're 2 seperate things run by 2 sets of people with 2 sets of specs (and all of the politics that happen between engineers and production). Maybe from the same Denver building. Or, I'd like to think from Mark Cuban's personal rocketship flying loopdeeloops over the American Airlines Center in Dallas.

Again, as I understand it, the 1920 rule is at capture, not broadcast. It'd be great to have a shot at selling my feature to them. If the HD XDCAM stuff is good enough for PBS and Discovery, it should be good enough for every broadcaster.

We have a couple of SR decks upstairs which we use to master things. I don't have the money at the moment, but I am diiiiiiing to transfer the finished film over to the SRs and get the color correction done from that master.

Anyone want to loan me thousands of dollars?

But... there is really no need to do this for projection in Landmark theaters. You just send them an mpeg2 file. So, you know, that's nice.

Simon Wyndham · December 9th, 2006, 04:44 AM

Quote:

I was under the impression HDCAM SR was 1440x1080 anyway,

No, its full 1920x1080.

Those specs for HDnet sound utterly absurd. I don't dispute what you are saying Dutch, but those specs are pretty far out. The only way of recording such a signal would be to shoot with an F950, Viper, Dalsa, etc. That would pretty much exclude the vast majority of current HD productions!

If the aim is to stop amateur stuff from being broadcast then they have a very funny way of going about it. Engineers are a funny bunch of people. Often they can be awkward just for the sake of being awkward.

Jung Kyu · December 9th, 2006, 11:13 AM

all three camera looks good but hv10 is pretty amazing.

HV10

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0145477.jpg

xdcam

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0152271.jpg

fx1
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...315_016186.jpg

Simon Wyndham · December 9th, 2006, 11:48 AM

The difference in contrast handling by the XDCAM is very obvious in these shots.

December 7th, 2006, 02:26 AM	#33
Dutch Rall Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: LA, CA Posts: 50	feature I'll be finished editing this feature by the end of the year http://www.theincurable.com has some stills. and a 1.5 hour doc for PBS by Feb. Also segments on this soon to be national arts show. http://www.klru.org/incontext or http://www.incontext.tv The 330 and 350 in 24p, 35bit are an indie dream come true. If you have a script and the money and can't wait for RED, rent one of these. __________________ http://www.dutchrall.com

December 7th, 2006, 07:57 PM	#34
Keith Nealy Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Big Island, Hawaii Posts: 27	The images look incredible. What lensing did you use? Did you use a P+S or M2 adapter? Aloha, Keith __________________ Keith Nealy Productions

December 8th, 2006, 04:50 AM	#35
Dutch Rall Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: LA, CA Posts: 50	Thanks Keith. I have the HSs18x5.5BRM Fuji. No adapters. For the feature, I tried to shoot about 3/4 of the way zoomed in whenever the situation/ space allowed to avoid the worst of the CA and get as much shallow DOF as possible if the scene called for it. It's a good piece of all-around glass for the 330. I wouldn't want to spend any more unless I were moving up in a camera as well. Again, this is the camera that I would have (insert over-the-top phrase here) for about 10 years ago. The only reason I can think not to use this system for a low-budget feature is if you're wanting to air on HDNet. Even though Bubble was shot on HDCAm at 1440x1080 3:1:1, they only accept 1920x1080 from people outside their system. And you will never fool them becasue the 1440 multiburst falls apart when compared to HDCAm SR. For HBO, Sundance and others where content is more important than specs, this camera is more than fine. __________________ http://www.dutchrall.com Last edited by Dutch Rall; December 8th, 2006 at 04:56 AM. Reason: i just can't spell...

December 8th, 2006, 09:35 PM	#38
Dutch Rall Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: LA, CA Posts: 50	Hey Jimi, I'm going to try not to have to print out to 35mm. DLP in Landmark, etc instead. All of the equipment and most of the locations were borrowed on weekends and nights. The total budget came in under 7K (I paid actors $100/day indie SAG rates to be legal, fed everyone, media, wardrobe for the leads and a make-up artist for 4 days for things like dinner scenes)... so the 60K it would take to get a decent print just doesn't seem justified... I could 4-wall maybe 6 to 10 markets with press with the same amount of $ using digital projection. And honestly, I've seen Sex and Lucia projected from film and digitally. Guess which looked cleaner, sharper and just plain better? But, we'll see what happens over the course of 2007. Nate, I didn't want to believe it either. But, back in March when I started really thinking about putting this together, the vice pres of HDNet acquisitions was gracious enough to meet with me during SXSW... and that's what I was told. She has to defer to her engineers, who just that week had not let her rent a couple of all-time classic 70's films which had recently run on HBO because the studio's transfer was below their standards. I know thier 1080i 19mb signal resqueezed and resized on everyone's 720p home screens isn't going to look any better from 4:2:2 1920... but they're trying to sell to the boys with the latest toys who think bigger numbers means better picture. And, I suspect it's more of a filtering process to keep from having to preview a glut of ultra-low budget features with little potential viewer interest, which I certainly understand. __________________ http://www.dutchrall.com

December 9th, 2006, 01:09 AM	#40
Nate Weaver Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,100	I certainly believe what you were told, but since I've had execs from other large broadcasters mess up specs that they were supposed to be relaying to me...I dunno. That sounds crazy. Most post houses here in LA working in HD have HDW-500s, D5s, or Pana 1200As, but not SRW decks. Those are still top, top end. On the front page of the HDNet site they have a "Tech Specs" link, and a PDF block diagram of what I guess to be some part of the HDNet operation. Why, I have no idea, but...they have a bunch of HDW-500s on that diagram... __________________ My Work: nateweaver.net

December 5th, 2006, 11:01 PM	#31
Jimi King Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Long Beach New York Posts: 36	Thanx dude.But I wanted to see a movie shot with that.I guess I will be the first one to do that. JK

December 8th, 2006, 07:36 PM	#36
Jimi King Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Long Beach New York Posts: 36	Thanx Dutch that was awsome.I can't wait to see that on a big screen.You got a 35 mm print right?I hope you do. Anyway keep up the good work man.

December 8th, 2006, 11:48 PM	#39
Jimi King Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Long Beach New York Posts: 36	Hey Dutch good luck. Looking forward to see you do other stuff. XD rocks

December 9th, 2006, 03:16 AM	#41
Dutch Rall Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: LA, CA Posts: 50	Nate, I sent your link of the XDCAM concert footage to our Austin City Limits crew. I think it looks fantastic The HDNET spec sheet you're looking at and the other tech info is for their trucks and studio stuff for in-house productions on HDNet. HDNet Movies (a seperate thing that I'd want my film to be on) is mostly content provided by large studios which originated on 35mm film. They also sometimes broadcast things made by HDNet Films out of New York. Like Bubble, which was HDCam at 1440 (an exception to their rule). The 1920 rule is for capture, not broadcast. Does that make sense.? it's late. They're 2 seperate things run by 2 sets of people with 2 sets of specs (and all of the politics that happen between engineers and production). Maybe from the same Denver building. Or, I'd like to think from Mark Cuban's personal rocketship flying loopdeeloops over the American Airlines Center in Dallas. Again, as I understand it, the 1920 rule is at capture, not broadcast. It'd be great to have a shot at selling my feature to them. If the HD XDCAM stuff is good enough for PBS and Discovery, it should be good enough for every broadcaster. We have a couple of SR decks upstairs which we use to master things. I don't have the money at the moment, but I am diiiiiiing to transfer the finished film over to the SRs and get the color correction done from that master. Anyone want to loan me thousands of dollars? But... there is really no need to do this for projection in Landmark theaters. You just send them an mpeg2 file. So, you know, that's nice. __________________ http://www.dutchrall.com

December 9th, 2006, 11:13 AM	#43
Jung Kyu Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 143	s all three camera looks good but hv10 is pretty amazing. HV10 http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0145477.jpg xdcam http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...15_0152271.jpg fx1 http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04...315_016186.jpg

December 9th, 2006, 11:48 AM	#44
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	The difference in contrast handling by the XDCAM is very obvious in these shots.