Emotional Impact: Waiting For HD100 for 18 years

Boyd Ostroff · September 17th, 2005, 01:41 PM

Geez, with one foot in the grave at age 56 I don't even make your list...

Seriously, don't feel sorry for me. Things change. And where is it carved in stone that shooting video - or film - is the be all and end all of existence? What about those poor, poor people who lived in the 1800's? They didn't even know what a movie was! Man, I *really* feel sorry for them. My daughter, who is 23 and an actress, and I often talk about differences in our childhoods. She finds it remarkable that my generation only had 3 or 4 black and white TV channels to watch and no VCR's or DVD's. Imagine that - how did we pass the time? Sometimes we actually had to just sit around and *think* about stuff instead of being assaulted by mass media everywhere ;-)

When I was 18 I was doing live theatre, for real audiences. Difficult as it might be to believe, people are actually still doing this today as well, and some of us manage to make a pretty good living at it :-)

All sarcasm aside, these are exciting times with lots of new products coming along to empower the "little guy." But the same could be said for the printing press, radio, automobile and many other things. And 30 years from now your kids will "feel sorry" for you since you didn't have holographic virtual reality teleportation when you were 18. So enjoy it while you can, and do the best job possible with the tools and media that are available. That's pretty much what every generation has done since man first started illustrating hunting stories on cave walls...

Mathieu Ghekiere · September 18th, 2005, 06:52 AM

Yes, thanks for all the replies, I know it's not right to feel sorry, or to feel bad about it, and I realise it, but... well, just, let's say that I'm very lucky to have maybe more tools available, and I often think about it.
And I certainly know much crap is being made now, that's why a part of me still is happy that interlaced footage exists in consumer cams and that 16mm and 35mm is still expensive, so you already (often) need to have experience to work with film. Indeed, same example with music.

PS: Boyd, you talked about feeling about people in the 1800's who didn't know movies existed. I know you're completely right, and it will sound a little bit dumb, but when I was a little bit younger I indeed thought about this :-)
"Oh god, people in the 1800's never got to see ET!"
Héhé, and I know I'll miss much things in the future too, when I'm dead, but like you said: that doesn't worry me.
At least I know it's a little unjustified sentiment, but I still feel it, once in a while.
PPS: I know I'm a sentimental sucker from time to time :-D

Anhar Miah · September 18th, 2005, 08:14 AM

I think there is a danger in the amount of well.. lets just call it garbage being produced will increase linearly as the technology also increases. As it gets easier for the avergae Joe to have access to higher and higher creating tools the more crap is going to be produced BUT at the same time the one redeming factor is that content is an individual component as it remains the same (i.e a bad story is still bad even if its shot on the best camera in the world).

I think we should be careful in who is driving who, as in "Is techonology driving people OR people driving technology?"

Becasue It will be a sad day when people make movies NOT becasue they want to but because they CAN!

Anhar

Boyd Ostroff · September 18th, 2005, 08:21 AM

That day has long passed I think. But really, it's not all that different from the invention of the printing press is it? Suddenly anyone could be an author and their works could be widely distributed. The church and heads of state were not happy about this. And just look at the amount of trash that exists in printed form everywhere today. But nevertheless, there are still things worth reading.

John Poore · September 18th, 2005, 10:02 AM

When computer word processors first came out people were promising that we'd all be authors and newspaper publishers, same tune when the internet got going. What is happening is that only the medium has become cheaper and accessible. Talent and marketing for example have meanwhile become much more expensive and a new barrier to creating a product that will actually earn money.
A lot goes into a movie, and a camera and editing is just a small slice of it. You need uniquely talented writers, editors, camerapeople, marketers, managers etc etc to make the medium work for you. You need true vision and passion as well, its acutally a tough combination to find.

Having said this, were are in the middle of an explosion of recorded media due mostly to the rapid expansion of television on sattelite and so on. Television production companies are booming in many places, but you need to look at the content they are producing and get rid of traditional ideas of movie making. Its all about CONTENT and being open to new ideas and having the foresight to execute them.

The future is something only defined when you realise it has already happened. The revolution has been n progress for while now, but not everybody knows this, yet.

Dutch Rall · September 18th, 2005, 04:14 PM

"Its all about CONTENT and being open to new ideas and having the foresight to execute them."

True. It's also important to keep an eye towards distribution methods. What still separates 99% of the music biz's technologically level playing field is corporate's hold on dist channels. Hdv-as-printing press will largely depend on large corp's lobbyists future success or failure to place barriers along the infotainment superhighway.

My fingers are crossed for the little (and talented) guys.

Joe Carney · September 18th, 2005, 10:10 PM

This all brings backs memories for me. When I was a Junior in High School in 1973, I got to make a very short video as part of an English Lit class of all places. It was a black and white unit with a huge deck and we thought it was awesome. I was also in drama class my senior year (knew Lesa Blount the actress who was a year behind me) and I dreamed of being able to make a movie, but reality and a baby and no great job prospects, and living in the then very conservative South (where movies were Satans work...) and joining the Army and life in general..., long time depression... delayed it for over 2 decades. So, nearing 50, I realize I have no exuse, I'm not to old, and after making my living writing software, no issues with technology.

And so far the best part is watching my son create a syndicated fishing show in his converted dining room using a couple of DVX100As, Vegas, and some pro equipment (vtr, monitor..). He has been my inspiration and motivaton to try and finally bring my dreams back alive. I made sure he didnt' take 'just' a job to make a living, ever since I saw him making perfect copies of comic strips freehand at the age of 5.

And this new JVC seems to be the ticket to help me get there. Finally. I know it's just a camera, but it's the camera I've been waiting for.
It's never to late and don't let youth oriented culture stop anyone. Buit most of all, I need to find a great script, or script writer to create one.

Heath McKnight · September 19th, 2005, 07:52 AM

I read a quote from Tim Burton about Corpse Bride's stop-animation and how he hopes it will make a come back. But he also stresses how everyone thinks a CG-animated film will ALWAYS do better than traditional hand-drawn. He noted that it's the STORY, not the technology, that will always win out.

When I got into film as a 13 year old in 1989, I had Hi-8 and VHS only at my disposal. All edits were done as we shot, in the camera. By 1995, at film school, I was using hi-8, VHS, BetaSP and 16mm film. By 1999, I bought an XL-1 and started making indie movies on my own.

I got caught up in the technology aspect more times that I wish to admit, but at the end of the day, it was about the story. Sure, a movie shot on the FX1 will look better than VHS, but it still comes down to the story, the skills of the director, along with his cast and crew.

heath

Kevin Shaw · September 19th, 2005, 09:31 AM

Tim: for what it's worth, if there's a paradigm shift taking place today in terms of video recording technology, it's probably Sony and not JVC which will get much of the credit. True, JVC got the ball rolling for affordable HD videography with the HD1U and HD10U, but neither of those enjoyed even a fraction of the success of the Sony FX1 and Z1U. And now the HD100 is "late to the game" by comparison with a fairly high price tag and limited 720p recording format, which probably will not hold up over time compared to 1080i and 1080p. So yes, the HD100 is an interesting camera and will get its share of attention, but when the history books are written it will be the Sony cameras (and maybe the Panasonic HVX200) which will be listed as the ones which got everyone doing HD video work. JVC will be lucky to get any long-term credit for the coming HD revolution, because they aren't shipping cameras which "hit the mark" with a widespread audience.

Sean Hansen · September 19th, 2005, 09:41 AM

Now this is what I have been talking about in almost all of my posts around these forums! As much as everyone hails this camera over that one, and if you onlu spend an extra "10-20k you could get this extra equipment and make this more like that"...Really what matters is having a well written story, and actors who can truly feel the characters they are playing, a great cast makes it feel more like a movie. A good location/set and well lit to give atmosphere...and your project can be something to be remembered.

I remember as a kid not even having the luxury of a camera, but using a simple tape recorder and acting out a total audio presentation. We laughed and had so much fun doing it, we stayed up all night making it "just right" and then playing it to family and friends. Moved on to helping my brother with his college films, and then getting my own vhs camera and having a blast creating things we wanted to see. Today we have such great ways to create amazing things. I am in fact glad to be 35 and not younger. Now I can take my experience and put it to greater things.

Anyhow, it's a pleasure to read some great posts about people remembering that it's "not all about the camera you use", but the whole package coming together. And your own personal experiences make it all the more a pleasurable read.

Sean

Dave Ferdinand · September 19th, 2005, 11:28 AM

I don't think Timothy was suggesting the camera alone will do all the job for you... He was just showing his appreciation for the amazing evolution (revolution?) of the video cameras of today and their amazing potential.

It's easy to say the story, etc. is what counts, but if you go out there and get and old Hi8 video cam and try to shoot a movie on that... well, good luck, that's all I can say. Sure, Blair Witch worked, but it was a 'reality show' kind of film, not your traditional film. Don't think it would be fair to make it the rule, it's more of an exception.

DV has changed the way people see 'amateur' videography, and HD more so. HD is indeed a dream come true and the HD100 is the zenith of it all for the time being - 24p at under $6000, now that's something.

As what age is concerned... well, I personally think that us in early/mid 30s are probably in the best position to take advantage of this cameras, because not only we have the experience but also a different outlook in life.

Thomas Smet · September 19th, 2005, 02:04 PM

I 100% agree that story, acting, lighting, etc make a good movie and not the camera. But at the same time I have to think to myself that if Star Wars Episode 3 was shot on DV that the fans would have hated it and those who still hated it would have hated it even more. I do not think it would have made nearly as much money as it did or stand out to as many as it did.

Movies are immortal and will live on forever for people to watch and enjoy. Way after the time when we are dead hopefully our movies will still be here for people to get something from. To me it is like the Roman collisium. No matter what material they used the design would have still been great. How how long will it have lasted in the eyes of the viewer. If the Collisium was built out of wood we even have it to look at today? It part of it was still there how many of us would look at it the same as we do now?

If the quality wasn't also an important (not as important but still an important piece of the puzzle) part to the story telling then maybe Hollywood should just start making all of their movies on DV cameras to cut costs so they can make profits again. Part of me thinks movies just wouldn't have the same impact as they do now.

I think DV finally got us to the point where we can shoot video that could actually hold up for many many years. It may be small compared to the size of video in the future but it will still look clean and clear. HDV brings us that small one final step closer to making our movies last forever.

Timothy Patrick Murray · September 19th, 2005, 03:45 PM

Some great stories and insights...

This camera may not be remembered by name-
it is but one of a series, a single part of an arcing evolution
that will never stop its' progress...

but the films made by this camera will be remembered-
the best of them- films that would not be realized and of
sufficiently professional in quality (technical and artistic)
to be widely distributed if not for HD technology.

I predict someone from this board makes a great movie
with this very camera (and others will make great movies
with other HD cameras) and that is what I am talking about-
the empowerment of the individual gained by this psrticular
threshold of technical quality.

And while I look at envy at the youth of today (like Mathieu)
because of the extra time they have, I agree with the post
that believes the 30ish and above people will take best advantage
of this technology- for they understand best what this remarkable
technology allows them to do at new efficiencies... youth will
always be brash and brilliant, but I see the painterly hand of
those in their 30s 40s and 50s to capture a profound and powerful
story of this medium... for art is the antithesis of athletics: on old
bones rests the wisdom of experience and the miracle of empirical knowledge... the all-stars of literature and cinema are ever-advanced
in age, with no decline in creative energy and executive ability.

(P.S. Answer: Ron Shelton is attached to direct THE LAST GAME remake...
we will see if it gets green light...)

Sean Hansen · September 19th, 2005, 04:19 PM

Yup all of you are right, and I agree. My post was meant that this camera(why my post is on here) and other cameras we now have access to, can give our productions a more accepted result.

I, and most people I know don't have the budget & won't be shooting a Star Wars ep.3 anyhow. So really, that's not an issue. But I agree that it wouldn't be anywhere near what that movie is if shot on dv. And I know I can't afford that, but a good story & acting, lights, etc. go a long way for telling a story. Something we all agree on.

Enjoy filming with what you have and make the most of it. Most of all have fun with it and learn. Being 35, with all these new goodies abound, kinda feel like a kid anyhow! Time to go play with my new toys!

September 18th, 2005, 08:14 AM	#18
Anhar Miah Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: United Kindom, England Posts: 290	"The power of dreamz" -OOPs don't sue me Honda :) I think there is a danger in the amount of well.. lets just call it garbage being produced will increase linearly as the technology also increases. As it gets easier for the avergae Joe to have access to higher and higher creating tools the more crap is going to be produced BUT at the same time the one redeming factor is that content is an individual component as it remains the same (i.e a bad story is still bad even if its shot on the best camera in the world). I think we should be careful in who is driving who, as in "Is techonology driving people OR people driving technology?" Becasue It will be a sad day when people make movies NOT becasue they want to but because they CAN! Anhar

September 18th, 2005, 04:14 PM	#21
Dutch Rall Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: LA, CA Posts: 50	"Its all about CONTENT and being open to new ideas and having the foresight to execute them." True. It's also important to keep an eye towards distribution methods. What still separates 99% of the music biz's technologically level playing field is corporate's hold on dist channels. Hdv-as-printing press will largely depend on large corp's lobbyists future success or failure to place barriers along the infotainment superhighway. My fingers are crossed for the little (and talented) guys. Last edited by Dutch Rall; September 18th, 2005 at 06:18 PM.

September 19th, 2005, 07:52 AM	#23
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I read a quote from Tim Burton about Corpse Bride's stop-animation and how he hopes it will make a come back. But he also stresses how everyone thinks a CG-animated film will ALWAYS do better than traditional hand-drawn. He noted that it's the STORY, not the technology, that will always win out. When I got into film as a 13 year old in 1989, I had Hi-8 and VHS only at my disposal. All edits were done as we shot, in the camera. By 1995, at film school, I was using hi-8, VHS, BetaSP and 16mm film. By 1999, I bought an XL-1 and started making indie movies on my own. I got caught up in the technology aspect more times that I wish to admit, but at the end of the day, it was about the story. Sure, a movie shot on the FX1 will look better than VHS, but it still comes down to the story, the skills of the director, along with his cast and crew. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 19th, 2005, 11:28 AM	#26
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	I don't think Timothy was suggesting the camera alone will do all the job for you... He was just showing his appreciation for the amazing evolution (revolution?) of the video cameras of today and their amazing potential. It's easy to say the story, etc. is what counts, but if you go out there and get and old Hi8 video cam and try to shoot a movie on that... well, good luck, that's all I can say. Sure, Blair Witch worked, but it was a 'reality show' kind of film, not your traditional film. Don't think it would be fair to make it the rule, it's more of an exception. DV has changed the way people see 'amateur' videography, and HD more so. HD is indeed a dream come true and the HD100 is the zenith of it all for the time being - 24p at under $6000, now that's something. As what age is concerned... well, I personally think that us in early/mid 30s are probably in the best position to take advantage of this cameras, because not only we have the experience but also a different outlook in life. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

September 19th, 2005, 03:45 PM	#28
Timothy Patrick Murray New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 9	Great Posts Some great stories and insights... This camera may not be remembered by name- it is but one of a series, a single part of an arcing evolution that will never stop its' progress... but the films made by this camera will be remembered- the best of them- films that would not be realized and of sufficiently professional in quality (technical and artistic) to be widely distributed if not for HD technology. I predict someone from this board makes a great movie with this very camera (and others will make great movies with other HD cameras) and that is what I am talking about- the empowerment of the individual gained by this psrticular threshold of technical quality. And while I look at envy at the youth of today (like Mathieu) because of the extra time they have, I agree with the post that believes the 30ish and above people will take best advantage of this technology- for they understand best what this remarkable technology allows them to do at new efficiencies... youth will always be brash and brilliant, but I see the painterly hand of those in their 30s 40s and 50s to capture a profound and powerful story of this medium... for art is the antithesis of athletics: on old bones rests the wisdom of experience and the miracle of empirical knowledge... the all-stars of literature and cinema are ever-advanced in age, with no decline in creative energy and executive ability. (P.S. Answer: Ron Shelton is attached to direct THE LAST GAME remake... we will see if it gets green light...)

September 17th, 2005, 01:41 PM	#16
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Geez, with one foot in the grave at age 56 I don't even make your list... Seriously, don't feel sorry for me. Things change. And where is it carved in stone that shooting video - or film - is the be all and end all of existence? What about those poor, poor people who lived in the 1800's? They didn't even know what a movie was! Man, I really feel sorry for them. My daughter, who is 23 and an actress, and I often talk about differences in our childhoods. She finds it remarkable that my generation only had 3 or 4 black and white TV channels to watch and no VCR's or DVD's. Imagine that - how did we pass the time? Sometimes we actually had to just sit around and think about stuff instead of being assaulted by mass media everywhere ;-) When I was 18 I was doing live theatre, for real audiences. Difficult as it might be to believe, people are actually still doing this today as well, and some of us manage to make a pretty good living at it :-) All sarcasm aside, these are exciting times with lots of new products coming along to empower the "little guy." But the same could be said for the printing press, radio, automobile and many other things. And 30 years from now your kids will "feel sorry" for you since you didn't have holographic virtual reality teleportation when you were 18. So enjoy it while you can, and do the best job possible with the tools and media that are available. That's pretty much what every generation has done since man first started illustrating hunting stories on cave walls...

September 18th, 2005, 06:52 AM	#17
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Yes, thanks for all the replies, I know it's not right to feel sorry, or to feel bad about it, and I realise it, but... well, just, let's say that I'm very lucky to have maybe more tools available, and I often think about it. And I certainly know much crap is being made now, that's why a part of me still is happy that interlaced footage exists in consumer cams and that 16mm and 35mm is still expensive, so you already (often) need to have experience to work with film. Indeed, same example with music. PS: Boyd, you talked about feeling about people in the 1800's who didn't know movies existed. I know you're completely right, and it will sound a little bit dumb, but when I was a little bit younger I indeed thought about this :-) "Oh god, people in the 1800's never got to see ET!" Héhé, and I know I'll miss much things in the future too, when I'm dead, but like you said: that doesn't worry me. At least I know it's a little unjustified sentiment, but I still feel it, once in a while. PPS: I know I'm a sentimental sucker from time to time :-D

September 18th, 2005, 08:21 AM	#19
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	That day has long passed I think. But really, it's not all that different from the invention of the printing press is it? Suddenly anyone could be an author and their works could be widely distributed. The church and heads of state were not happy about this. And just look at the amount of trash that exists in printed form everywhere today. But nevertheless, there are still things worth reading.

September 18th, 2005, 10:02 AM	#20
John Poore Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 107	When computer word processors first came out people were promising that we'd all be authors and newspaper publishers, same tune when the internet got going. What is happening is that only the medium has become cheaper and accessible. Talent and marketing for example have meanwhile become much more expensive and a new barrier to creating a product that will actually earn money. A lot goes into a movie, and a camera and editing is just a small slice of it. You need uniquely talented writers, editors, camerapeople, marketers, managers etc etc to make the medium work for you. You need true vision and passion as well, its acutally a tough combination to find. Having said this, were are in the middle of an explosion of recorded media due mostly to the rapid expansion of television on sattelite and so on. Television production companies are booming in many places, but you need to look at the content they are producing and get rid of traditional ideas of movie making. Its all about CONTENT and being open to new ideas and having the foresight to execute them. The future is something only defined when you realise it has already happened. The revolution has been n progress for while now, but not everybody knows this, yet.

September 18th, 2005, 10:10 PM	#22
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	This all brings backs memories for me. When I was a Junior in High School in 1973, I got to make a very short video as part of an English Lit class of all places. It was a black and white unit with a huge deck and we thought it was awesome. I was also in drama class my senior year (knew Lesa Blount the actress who was a year behind me) and I dreamed of being able to make a movie, but reality and a baby and no great job prospects, and living in the then very conservative South (where movies were Satans work...) and joining the Army and life in general..., long time depression... delayed it for over 2 decades. So, nearing 50, I realize I have no exuse, I'm not to old, and after making my living writing software, no issues with technology. And so far the best part is watching my son create a syndicated fishing show in his converted dining room using a couple of DVX100As, Vegas, and some pro equipment (vtr, monitor..). He has been my inspiration and motivaton to try and finally bring my dreams back alive. I made sure he didnt' take 'just' a job to make a living, ever since I saw him making perfect copies of comic strips freehand at the age of 5. And this new JVC seems to be the ticket to help me get there. Finally. I know it's just a camera, but it's the camera I've been waiting for. It's never to late and don't let youth oriented culture stop anyone. Buit most of all, I need to find a great script, or script writer to create one.

September 19th, 2005, 09:31 AM	#24
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Tim: for what it's worth, if there's a paradigm shift taking place today in terms of video recording technology, it's probably Sony and not JVC which will get much of the credit. True, JVC got the ball rolling for affordable HD videography with the HD1U and HD10U, but neither of those enjoyed even a fraction of the success of the Sony FX1 and Z1U. And now the HD100 is "late to the game" by comparison with a fairly high price tag and limited 720p recording format, which probably will not hold up over time compared to 1080i and 1080p. So yes, the HD100 is an interesting camera and will get its share of attention, but when the history books are written it will be the Sony cameras (and maybe the Panasonic HVX200) which will be listed as the ones which got everyone doing HD video work. JVC will be lucky to get any long-term credit for the coming HD revolution, because they aren't shipping cameras which "hit the mark" with a widespread audience.

September 19th, 2005, 09:41 AM	#25
Sean Hansen Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 50	Now this is what I have been talking about in almost all of my posts around these forums! As much as everyone hails this camera over that one, and if you onlu spend an extra "10-20k you could get this extra equipment and make this more like that"...Really what matters is having a well written story, and actors who can truly feel the characters they are playing, a great cast makes it feel more like a movie. A good location/set and well lit to give atmosphere...and your project can be something to be remembered. I remember as a kid not even having the luxury of a camera, but using a simple tape recorder and acting out a total audio presentation. We laughed and had so much fun doing it, we stayed up all night making it "just right" and then playing it to family and friends. Moved on to helping my brother with his college films, and then getting my own vhs camera and having a blast creating things we wanted to see. Today we have such great ways to create amazing things. I am in fact glad to be 35 and not younger. Now I can take my experience and put it to greater things. Anyhow, it's a pleasure to read some great posts about people remembering that it's "not all about the camera you use", but the whole package coming together. And your own personal experiences make it all the more a pleasurable read. Sean

September 19th, 2005, 02:04 PM	#27
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I 100% agree that story, acting, lighting, etc make a good movie and not the camera. But at the same time I have to think to myself that if Star Wars Episode 3 was shot on DV that the fans would have hated it and those who still hated it would have hated it even more. I do not think it would have made nearly as much money as it did or stand out to as many as it did. Movies are immortal and will live on forever for people to watch and enjoy. Way after the time when we are dead hopefully our movies will still be here for people to get something from. To me it is like the Roman collisium. No matter what material they used the design would have still been great. How how long will it have lasted in the eyes of the viewer. If the Collisium was built out of wood we even have it to look at today? It part of it was still there how many of us would look at it the same as we do now? If the quality wasn't also an important (not as important but still an important piece of the puzzle) part to the story telling then maybe Hollywood should just start making all of their movies on DV cameras to cut costs so they can make profits again. Part of me thinks movies just wouldn't have the same impact as they do now. I think DV finally got us to the point where we can shoot video that could actually hold up for many many years. It may be small compared to the size of video in the future but it will still look clean and clear. HDV brings us that small one final step closer to making our movies last forever.

September 19th, 2005, 04:19 PM	#29
Sean Hansen Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 50	Yup all of you are right, and I agree. My post was meant that this camera(why my post is on here) and other cameras we now have access to, can give our productions a more accepted result. I, and most people I know don't have the budget & won't be shooting a Star Wars ep.3 anyhow. So really, that's not an issue. But I agree that it wouldn't be anywhere near what that movie is if shot on dv. And I know I can't afford that, but a good story & acting, lights, etc. go a long way for telling a story. Something we all agree on. Enjoy filming with what you have and make the most of it. Most of all have fun with it and learn. Being 35, with all these new goodies abound, kinda feel like a kid anyhow! Time to go play with my new toys!