DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-gl-series-dv-camcorders/)
-   -   What's the worst you can imagine? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-gl-series-dv-camcorders/30184-whats-worst-you-can-imagine.html)

Nick Carr August 6th, 2004 02:28 PM

What's the worst you can imagine?
 
Here's the deal - I'm about to shoot a mini-DV Indy film with a budget of $500,000 in October. Initially, I was going to use the Panny camera. However, with my budget, I would be able to purchase the XL2 if I wanted to. And I would like to!

However, I'm not big on being an early adopter. I'm terrified that if I purchase the camera, something glaring will stand out and I'll be stuck dealing with it. So I'm curious -

Given the release history of Canon's XL line of camera, what is the worst that has happened traditionally? What is the worst you can imagine now?

Thanks!
Nick

Ken Tanaka August 6th, 2004 02:37 PM

With a relatively liberal budget for the project why are you buying a camera at all? Why not rent a camera like the Panasonic SDX900 and a DVCPro50 deck for editing?

Patrick King August 6th, 2004 02:43 PM

Ken's advice notwithstanding (assuming you still want to buy rather than rent), look at the type of technology the XL2 represents.

The XL2 is 'evolutionary' not 'revolutionary'. This is not a slam at all and in fact supports your decision to acquire an XL2. What I mean is that many features have evolved over the development period which includes the XL1 and XL1s. The JVC HD cam is, however, revolutionary. It is trying a format, codec, etc, that haven't been completely ironed out over a few year history and thus, while providing possibly greater capability, it is also with greater risk (namely the risk of the unknown).

My 2cents only, you mileage may vary.

John Mercer August 6th, 2004 03:29 PM

The JVC HDV cam may be 'revolutionary', but unfortunately it is 30p, and so I assume with your budget in mind you may go to film which would present huge problems.

I agree with Ken, if I were given a budget like this to make a feature I would seriously think about renting a camera/deck like the SDX900/DVCPro50 deck - much better than any XL2 or DVX100a an DV25.

If you really must have your own camera then bear in mind that although the XL2 looks great on paper it is totally unproven - it will depend on when you plan to shoot and how you are able to test it out.

Another possibility is approaching Canon to see if they will supply you with some (more than 1) XL2's either as a rental or as some kind of sponsor. You seem to have reasonable indie budget and they may see a possibility in the publicity. Just a thought.

Best regards,
John.

Jaime Valles August 6th, 2004 05:19 PM

I personally wouldn't buy anything unless I see several reviews give it very high marks in all the areas you need. With a budget like that, I'm assuming you're doing a Film-out for distribution? Native 16x9 is definitely best for that, but it remains to be seen if it's better than the DVX100 w/anamorphic adapter.

I assume XL2 reviews will start popping up in the next few weeks. Wait if you can, just to be sure. I do agree that you may do better renting an SDX900 (or even buying it!) since it's basically a DVX100 on steroids (Native 2/3" 16x9 CCDs, etc.).

Chris Hurd August 6th, 2004 05:29 PM

With a budget like that, you can afford to hire a Director of Photography. Let him or her choose the camera of their preference.

Alain Aguilar August 6th, 2004 06:14 PM

You should probably rent the DVX100, try it and see the results. Then add 10 to 20 % improvement and that's what the XL2 should do for you..

Keep in mind the Mini35 and research "28 Days Later" and all those big time video features out there.

Only a thought!

Joe Carney August 6th, 2004 06:19 PM

Chris is right, plus a DP might know a camera operator with their own equipment. Not uncommon.

Don Donatello August 6th, 2004 07:47 PM

with a 500K budget i would also have to ask does the "look" of the hand size XL 2 or dvx 100 fit the project ? this is DV25 with basically a low end camera head ( 1/3" CCD"s) .. a 2/3" CCD will have a much better look and even though they are interlace if you look at the films that were shot on them and converted to 24fps FILM they look better then a hand size Dv camera..
next up would be 2/3 CC'd camera with a 4:2:2 tape format which would give you more detail , smoother colors .... next ?? HD which could hit your budget too much ....

if the hand size camera 'look" fits the script/project then just pick either dvx100 or XL2 ..however if you are looking for little more of the film richness then IMO look at the 2/3" CCD camera's that shoot 4:2:2 format....

as others have suggested RENTING is a option on the larger camera's ....

Daniel Broadway August 7th, 2004 10:27 AM

If you could shoot the film within a week or so, I would rent a Panasonic VariCam. You have enough budget that you really should shoot your film on HD. But it's up to you. However, if you did buy a Canon XL2, I don't think you'd be disappointed.

Nick Hiltgen August 7th, 2004 11:55 AM

The worst thing that I can imagine happening would that there would be some sort of issue with the compression on the camera, so that when it crops down to tape (if shooting 16:9) it ends up giving you strange compression artifacts. The next worse thing I can imagine is that DV ends up not having the resolutions (even at 480P) that you would like it to. I think traditionally the worse thing that has happened has been lens issues with the camera system, however I imagine if you have the budget to do so you'll probably be using a Mini 35 adapter which would introduce a new set of limitations and possible problems.

At the end of the day the worse thing that could happen is you don't test out your camera first before you buy it. I would say there is a less then 5% chance you'd have any problems at all with this camera if you bought it new, and I think that if you bought it and then ran it through it's pases that number goes even further down.

It may seem odd but you might also consider renting over buying because if something does go wrong with the camera you have more insurance (as far as getting a new camera or an insurance company paying for lost days of shooting or someting along those lines)

I imagine if you're lookin to spend so little of your production money on your camera then the rest is gong to be spent on production value, or post production. If this is not the case I think you shoudl really consider hiring a DP to shoot Film or HD.

K. Forman August 7th, 2004 12:28 PM

Or, you could try to hire Charles Papert... ;)

Dylan Couper August 7th, 2004 12:56 PM

Re: What's the worst you can imagine?
 
<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Carr : Here's the deal - I'm about to shoot a mini-DV Indy film with a budget of $500,000 in October. Initially, I was going to use the Panny camera. However, with my budget, I would be able to purchase the XL2 if I wanted to. And I would like to!

However, I'm not big on being an early adopter. I'm terrified that if I purchase the camera, something glaring will stand out and I'll be stuck dealing with it. So I'm curious -

Given the release history of Canon's XL line of camera, what is the worst that has happened traditionally? What is the worst you can imagine now?

Thanks!
Nick -->>>

What is the ultimate destination (be realistic) of your movie? Festivals? Theatrical release? Straight to rental video? Private DVD distribution?

Jay Gladwell August 7th, 2004 03:34 PM

He said the movie was budgeted for $500,000. He didn't say they had secured $500,000 in funding. There is a difference! Which is it, Nick?

Jay

Charles Papert August 7th, 2004 06:15 PM

Aww Keith, that sure was swell of ya! Do you want 10% commission if I take the job? Which of course hasn't even been offered to me!?

I'd hate to jump on the bandwagon since poor Nick has to wade through a real one-day deluge on this, but I'd have to agree about the need to move up to at least the SDX900. And you wouldn't even HAVE to rent the DVC Pro50 deck for the duration if you had time-code accurate MiniDV copies struck for editing, bringing the deck in at the end for the final output (half the disk space in the meantime).

I'm of the mind, as are the others, that MiniDV as a projected medium is a bit dodgy due to the compression. At a $500K budget, it would seem a bit of a stingy move, more in line with a sub-$100K show. At that stated budget, film isn't even out of the question.

Peter Moore August 7th, 2004 06:16 PM

"Let him or her choose the camera of their preference"

I worked with a friend of mine who directed his first money and got this DP who volunteered his services. He was supposedly fairly well known in the indy community, though I've never met anyone other than his friends who knew who he was. Anyway, my friend went that route, letting him make decisions, and wound up talked into renting the Panasonic Varicam to the tune of about $20000 for the month. Fine price, I'll admit that, but was it necessary?

Well, this guy being the blowhard that he was, had no ability to import and edit HD-SDI. So a year later, my friend still has no movie, while this idiot DP still fumbles around trying to figure out how to edit.

My advice is you pick the camera and the budget, know how it's going to be edited and by whom, and then if you want a separate DP, he needs to work with your equipment and budget. He might complain, but too bad - it's your money and project.

Charles Papert August 7th, 2004 06:56 PM

How about this Peter: can we agree that a director/producer pick the FORMAT based on researching the pros and cons for the entire workflow from soup to nuts, and then respect the DP's suggestions within that format? If the DP in question had sold himself as an editor without understanding the post-production workflow, then obviously he screwed himself. Normally it's not the DP's responsibility to figure that out for a production; it's the producer's, and the post-production supervisor.

When it comes to picking the look of a given camera within formats, I believe that to devalue the DP's input is foolish. The decisions should be made via testing. Every rental house is more than happy to provide whatever gear is necessary to shoot tests in house. Which camera is better for the project, the Varicam or the Cinealta? Do we use the DVX100a, or the XL1s? Is the Mini35 worth it? You shoot tests, the director views them with the DP, and they make their choices. Does the DP have to work within the budget? Absolutely. Will and should he recommend and push for what he feels is the absolute best format for the film within those guidelines? Yes he should, if he is passionate about his craft; and if he's not, he's probably not the guy you want to shoot your film.

Years ago I shot a short film for a first time director. We discussed the options and settled on Super 16mm. Literally two days before the shoot, the director had a discussion with somebody who told him "you can't screen Super 16 at festivals, you should make your film on regular 16mm". We had always intended to shoot widescreen, and I patiently pointed out to the director that this would now involve cropping down a much smaller negative to begin with. Imagine this (and watch me deftly bring this discussion around to this forum!): comparing the 16:9 mode of the XL2 to shooting in the 4:3 mode and masking off the top and bottom to create a 16:9 frame within that. That's almost exactly what we ended up doing, much to my chagrin. Not to mention that we were using a high speed stock, and I had suggested that what would have originally resulted in a somewhat grainy look was about to become a REALLY grainy look. The director listened, and said "nevertheless, this is what I want to do".

Cut to a week later in the telecine, when the director turned to me and said "OK--I"m not comfortable with the amount of grain in these images". I ran down a lot of possible responses in my head before selecting the most political one I could muster under the circumstances. Probably went home and got drunk, I don't remember.

And you know what? He cut the film on video, and showed it that way at festivals. It never got conformed back to film. The whole argument was a waste.

Hope I've made my point--or some point of some sort!

Peter Moore August 7th, 2004 08:48 PM

I think it's a good point, In your case, you were the one who knew what he was doing, and the director was not. The pitfalls of having such a knowledge gap between the DP and Director. It's the corrolary to my case, where the director did not know what he was doing, and the DP claimed to but didn't.

If you're putting up your own money, you get burned if you trust someone who turns out not to know what they're doing. Look at his perspective - he thought that he might be disqualified from film festivals because of the choices that were made. It's just about trust, and it's extremely hard to find people you _can_ trust. So in your case, he didn't trust you, but you did the professional thing and let him learn his lesson.

In my case this DP was always going to be the editor (another mistake from the getgo, if you ask me). Yet he never developed an infrastructure plan for editing HD-SDI. I kept telling my friend, "use the DVX100 - it's your first movie, it's not going to be transferred to film, and you're already broke as it is" but instead Svengali got the best of him and now all they have to show for it is about 40 hours of varicam tape that no one has the capacity to import or edit. That's what can happen when you place trust in the wrong guy.

I guess I don't know what the right answer is, other than to only work with people you know you can trust. Unfortunately circumstances don't always give us that luxury.

Charles Papert August 7th, 2004 09:31 PM

Thanks for elaborating on the setup, Peter. If that DP had promised that he would be able to handle the post and hasn't come through, he is definitely in the wrong. At the very least, I think he should pay for DV downconversions (or whatever format he CAN accomodate) out of his pocket, and that way the director can find himself another editor, and the project can continue; it can cut right up to picture lock, then the soundtrack can be taken through to completion. And then your friend will have, for all intents and purposes, a finished film. At that point, he can assess the cost of doing an online assembly in HD, but I'd bet he'd be satisfied with an SD finish...many first time directors are sort of over their first film by the time they have finished editing it, since they have recognized their mistakes and are ready to make another film to improve on it. A lot of films don't get finished for this reason.

K. Forman August 7th, 2004 10:43 PM

"Aww Keith, that sure was swell of ya! Do you want 10% commission if I take the job?"

Gee! Thanks for the offer Charles ;) Just remember me the next time you need some help on a shoot... And I'm not so - Geographicly Undesireable?

Nick Carr August 7th, 2004 10:52 PM

Hey
 
Hey everyone, thanks for the advice.

The deal is as follows: I'm working for a producer who has secured $500,000 in funding for a feature. The film will star one of the hottest stars working in France today (as the film is about a French guy in America). A portion of the budget is going toward that.

Anyway, the producer has been very adament about shooting on mini-DV up until now. I believe that when it comes to the technical aspects, he knows very little, and is relying on his DP to come through. Nonetheless, as he's going to shoot 24p and blow up to 35mm, I figured that by default, he's going to go with the Panny camera. Our shoot dates are in October, and I've been following the XL2 release for a while. I noticed in his budget forms that a large chunk of money has been set aside for mini-DV camera rental, MORE than enough to buy about three cameras. Which is why I had since considered suggesting he purchase whichever camera he goes with, and to further investigate the XL2 as an option.

I will discuss a mini-35 rig with him, but it seems to me that we're going to start paying huge rental prices for lenses. Also, I'm down with trying to convince him to rent the Panny SDX camera.

Given that we are blowing up to 35, which would you recommend as the best in terms of image quality? It's an 18 day shoot, and I imagine that HD will be moving out of our price range. Also, I just saw Open Water, and I must say that I was sorely disappointed with the image quality.

Advice?

Nick Hiltgen August 8th, 2004 02:21 AM

More then enought o buy three cameras? so like in the neighborhood of 12-15 k? for DV rental? Out here (la) 6 primes and a mini 35 rent for 600 a day tops then you usually get 3day weeks (maybe 4 maybe 2) which would put you somewhere in the range of 7200 plus the cost of the camera (which may or may not have been rented with the pacakge) Which would be in the budget of purchasing an xl2 and renting the mini 35 set up WITHOUT hagling, which you should do.

You should consider the panasonic but you should also consider the f900 as I think you could get a month rental with some lenses and support and matteboxes etc, included fpr the mini dv budget you have et aside. I know there are good digital imaging technicians in NYC and I'm sure you could get them fairly cheap. this would give you a look that was closer to "once upon a time in mexico" and further from "collateral" image quality wise. Charles has the best pointin that at the rate you're looking at you should really consider some sort of film as well.

Charles Papert August 8th, 2004 09:21 AM

Nick (Carr), probably what would be a more useful figure than the $500K overall budget would be the below-the-line production budget, i.e. let's talk real numbers after the famous French guy, the producers and director etc. take their cut. Also curious at just why your boss is so hell-bent on DV--is it purely as a cost-cutting factor, or does he like the look? If the latter, which film in particular impressed him?

Joe Carney August 8th, 2004 12:01 PM

Just to put my small .o2 in. I met a guy working with my son who is using the DVX100a and the Tecknik Mini 35 getting excellent results. He does comercials and Mucis Video for MTV's latin markets (works out of Miami). He has nothing but praise for the setup. Just about everone thinks he is shooting on film.


Michael Struthers August 9th, 2004 10:59 AM

You guys are nuts
 
..unless your producer has no clue, if you using a "star" you might as well shoot super16mm. Digital negatives are down to about 10k.

Just wait till your producer says "how come it doesn't look so good" after you are done shooting mini-dv... ;-)

Barry Green August 9th, 2004 02:42 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Carney : Just to put my small .o2 in. I met a guy working with my son who is using the DVX100a and the Tecknik Mini 35 getting excellent results. He does comercials and Mucis Video for MTV's latin markets (works out of Miami). He has nothing but praise for the setup. Just about everone thinks he is shooting on film. -->>>
I've used that combo, and it is capable of superb results -- on a television screen. Not so good for blowing up to film though -- I've transferred mini35/DVX footage to film, and the resulting image was a bit too soft to be acceptable.

Really, the idea of shooting a $500,000 film on DV is -- well, it's kind of silly and a bit misplaced. Unless there's something compelling or overwhelming about the DV format (small size, spontanaeity, something like that) that the script requires, you really should be shooting this on 35mm. Camera rental and film would run you as little as $50,000... a small price to pay for the huge image quality increase and marketability that a 35mm negative will give you.

Peter Moore August 9th, 2004 03:42 PM

Well, maybe they're putting the money toward other important things, like sets, costumes, lights, and sound. Also they may have no way of editing 35mm. I don't know what those machines cost but it can't be cheap.

At the very least, though, you should shoot on the Panasonic Varicam. As long as you know how it's going to be edited ahead of time! :)

Also I'm not sure of this talk of buying multiple cameras. Why? Are you going to have multiple photography units? That's a pretty big undertaking.

Barry Green August 9th, 2004 05:25 PM

Sets, costumes, lights etc. are all important, of course, but a $500,000 budget for a miniDV film? I'm just saying that the priorities seem out of whack a bit. Spending 10% of the budget for shooting on film would probably be a very wise move.

I do agree, the very least they should consider is the VariCam. If your budget is $50,000 then DV makes sense, but at $500,000 it should be at least high-def or 35mm.

As for editing film, nobody edits on film anymore (besides Spielberg). You get it transferred to tape and edit it just like as if you'd shot on a DVX or XL2. When you're done, you output an "edit decision list" and hand that to a negative cutter, who will conform the negative to match what you edited on the computer, and then make an answer print. It's really not too big of a deal.

Yi Fong Yu August 9th, 2004 11:10 PM

gonna have to go with barry here, the proportion seems a whee bit outta whack. then again maybe not right? what's the budget of that thing with seinfield and superman? wasn't that shot on miniDV? i bet that cost close or more than $500k.

Charles Papert August 10th, 2004 12:03 AM

Gents:

My last post seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Our noble thread-creator has indicated that the famous Frenchman is taking a "portion" of the budget. That could easily be a big portion, plus the other above-the-line costs I mentioned earlier. The actual production/postproduction budget could easily be under $100K. That being the case, a $50K chunk for camera rental/filmstock/processing would not be feasible.

Let's hear what Nick has to say about the actual budget that is allocatable to these concerns.

That Seinfeld "thing" had a very sizeable above-the-line budget, but they creamed us on the below-the-line (one reason for the insistence on shooting on DV). I myself had to sleep on friend's sofas for the NYC portion of it, they would only hire me as a local.

Peter Moore August 10th, 2004 07:11 AM

I bet Jerry cost a lot.

Barry, thanks for the info on editing 35 - I didn't realize it was that easy. How much do the transfer to SD video and then recreation of the "decision list" on the final 35 mm negatives ultimately cost?

There's other factors too, right, like color grading? Can a feature on 35mm really be done for $50k including all of those things?

Finally, if anyone knows, is there any hardware out there for PCs that will capture HD-SDI from a tape deck and save it in a format editable by Vegas or any other PC editor?

K. Forman August 10th, 2004 08:01 AM

"You get it transferred to tape and edit it just like as if you'd shot on a DVX or XL2."

And how much is the cost of film, development, transfer, dailies, etc? The main reason DV is so popular, in my opinion, is that it is faster and cheaper than film.

It costs $5-$50 for a one hour tape, depending on type of cam. It is immediately ready to view. *Disclaimer- I believe I heard somewhere...* Film will cost around $1,100 for 1,000 ft, which is 15 minutes? This is including development and daily prints. They'll get it to you as fast as they can.

Sure, there is a big difference in quality, but that would mostly only be noticed on a film screen. Depends on final destination mostly, the rest is various production costs and budget, and he may have backers that expect a return.

This has been my view, and not the views or beliefs of DVinfo.net, or it's members... :)

Peter Moore August 10th, 2004 05:02 PM

Yeah on a DVD, film source or HD source should be virtually indistinguishable. In fact, even on a projector, 720p and 35mm are not terribly far apart. Look at Star Wars Ep. I - that was shot on 720p Varicams if I recall correctly. Ep. II was shot on 1080/24p Cinealtas and was virtually indistinguishable from 35mm.

Dylan Couper August 10th, 2004 10:01 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : I bet Jerry cost a lot.

-->>>

I heard he worked for free just so he could meet Superman...

Ken Tanaka August 10th, 2004 10:36 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I heard he worked for free just so he could meet Superman... -->>>

Huh! That's funny. I heard he worked gratis to meet Charles! <g>

Peter Moore August 11th, 2004 10:58 AM

"rick berman (the producer) has said in an interview (search theforce.net for ep1 news) that lucas did insert a HD shot into ep1"

Rick Berman produces Star Trek.

Sorry but that doesn't make the rest of what you said very credible. :)

Anyway, back to Nick's project - shooting on the Varicam or even Cinealta would be just as good as film, for your purposes I'm sure. And it should be well within your budget. Not sure what the fixation with DV is.

Ken Tanaka August 11th, 2004 12:17 PM

I've split the Star Wars discussion to this thread. Please continue that conversation there.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:04 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network