Camera ability discussion
 

My question is simple...is there anyway to get the quality of this (picture below), out of say a camera in the range of a JVC GY HD200u(b)?

Just interested... :)

It said that the photo was processing...I hope it gets posted! :(

you most likely need to make the picture smaller, if its not loading

I think i got it this time!

Ok so let me refine my question a bit...is it possible to get the quality of the camera in the photo (apocalypto - Mel Gibson) out of a JVC GY HD200u(b)? If say the same scene was shot with both of these cameras, could you tell?

yes and no.

i have an HD100 and have seen my work projected on the wide theater screen via digital DLP projection.

Yes, -you can get close to the "look and feel" if viewed on a small screen assuming you use a lens adapter to replace the stock lens.

No, if you expect it to have the same quality and latitude with those cams on the wide screen. But it doesnt mean that the hd100 looks bad on the wide screen, it just look -well "different".

I ve seen apocalypto and there are a lot of 'dark' scenes where you want to have a medium with the best latitude. The hd200 they say have better light performance due to better 14 bit ad processing. Im not sure it can be close to the latitude of those cams.

Ted

Terry
 

I not being disrespectful here, but the tripod this camera sits on would be worth as much as the HD200, so you can't compare the images they would produce, especially in low light where the mosquito noise screams in the HD200 series, more so than the 100 series.
Having said that, that is only if you record to tape/drdh100 in HDV, but if you intend to record via component analogue out or sdi out, then you image is a lot cleaner and of course in 4:2:2 colour space vs 4:2:0 of HDV.
So if you get the new convergent design xdr when it comes out, will get you somewhere close to super 16mm in quality. These sort of devices is the reason I went for the 251 as my intention when buying the camera was as a 4:2:2 camera once the technology was available to make it so.
Now if you asked me if something like a Red camera could give comparable results then you'd be cooking with gas :-P

regards

Adam

It's a bit like asking if a Ford transit van will perform as well as a Ferrari.

Different tools for different jobs and in a different price range.

What camera is that?

I have a 2 questions

what kind of camera is Mel Gibson using there

and what would a rig like that cost?

Joe

That is a Panavision Genesis and they are not for sale. You can rent one from Panavision for $3500/day (body only) and then you have to add on the HDCAM SR deck, HD monitors, accessories and lenses (the one in the picture is a big ass zoom, probably anamorphic... I'll have to find my American Cinematographer issue on Apocalypto to confirm.)

To address Terry's original question: YES... if the same scene was shot with a Genesis and HD200 you would be able to tell.
There is a world of difference between a digital camera body that rents for $3500/day and a full system you can own for $7000. The three big differences are CCD size (full 12megapixel [downconverted to 1080P] Super-35 on Genesis vs 1/3" 1megapixel 720p on ProHD), 4:4:4 output to HDCAM SR tape (versus mpeg2 4:2:0 encoding on ProHD) and an incredible 12+ stops of latitude in Panalog (as opposed to approximately a usable 5 stops in ProHD.)
The Genesis is a Digital Cinema camera system designed specifically to emulate 35mm film in as many ways as technologically possible. Other similar camera systems include Arri's D20, the Dalsa Origin and arguably Red One and Red Epic.

This of course doesn't mean that you can't shoot HDV on the HD200, film it out to a 35mm print and be happy with the results.
JVC designed the ProHD cameras for the independent filmmakers who couldn't even consider shooting 35mm within their budgets but still wanted 24P "film-like" images in HD. Red is actively trying to close the gap between something like the Panavision Genesis and sub-$10,000 HD24p systems. It is certainly an interesting time for digital cinema!

Hello everyone! Thank you for replying to my question!

I ask this question not of my skepticism for the hype of large major production film cameras but because I am concerned about the look and feel of my film. I have chosen the HD200u to be the primary camera of choice for this film...but what I am wanting the film to have is quality as seen in Apocalypto. I know that this takes alot more than the camera its self, but I am concerned if wether the look of the shots from the HD200u will have a negative effect on the overall look that I am wanting to get in my film.

Regards,
Terry.

"Quality" means different things to different people. In my opinion (and my definition of "quality") it would be impossible to get the same "quality" out of your HD200 that you would on a Panavision Genesis, even with the most careful lighting in the most controlled environment. Does this mean that Apocalypto couldn't have been shot on the HD200? No, of course not. Any film can be shot on any camera with various results. In fact, in the hands of the right DP you could probably approximate most aspects of the look of that film on the HD200 with the right accessories and careful execution (except of course for the raw resolution.)
You should tell us exactly which qualitative aspects (depth of field, lens flares, sharpness, grain, motion blur, highlight handling, colour, etc) of Apocalypto you liked and we can suggest ways to attempt to achieve similar results with the HD200.

Relax! I can guarantee you, 100%, that the HD200 will NOT be the limiting factor. I'm not sure what you mean by "Quality", do you mean the look? For example the blown out whites and desaturation of "Three Kings"? Noir? or do you mean it in objective sense, like sharpness or latitude? I don't know. Either way if all the other elements of your production are solid, SCRIPT, talent, lighting, sound, The JVC will get you home.

I know a lot of people that have judged film festivals, the thing they always complain about is a lack of script and on the technical side, it's always sound. Never the camera.

True that!

Can I third that? In a Hollywood film the lowest paid person above the Line is the script writer, and below the line in a cast of 50, crew of of 800, with 3,000 extras.. there is 1 sound guy/gal. Two under appreciated members I always thought. First thing to go (get dumped) in a low budget production is sound, (sad since it's one of our primary senses) and the script writer is often forgotten in shooting when the Producer or Director change things on the fly and actors think they know better than the writer for what to say. Of course in TV, the Producer is often the the lead writer, so script and production tend to follow each other closer.

But how good can the camera be? Very good. I'm getting better every week. I just really need to dump the stock lens and maybe (I hope) the 17x is good enough. But remember when you see a finished film. They have taken the footage and after editing is complete, the whole project is then adjusted for color/contrast etc. And that person can make or break the footage as well. One popular software plug is MAGIC BULLET, and that can take your footage to the next level. So even when you think you have your camera at it's best, there is a whole next level for adjusting color, contrast etc, just like a photographer does in the darkroom with an enlarger and a pack of filters. Ansel Adams the photographer took great Black and White pictures, but he also shot them, knowing how he would develop the negative and how he was likely to print them on which paper.