JVC Contradictions
 

When the HD1 and HD10 first came out, JVC was saying that these cameras were strictly intended for “home” use, hence why the camera could not run at 25p or 24p. So now I open up DV magazine and see a JVC ad promoting the JVC HD Cam as a tool for movie makers, visa the JVC HD Road show for movie makers. What gives? I would buy this camera, because I actually like the image. However, I’m not going to lock my movies out of the PAL or theatrical markets by shooting on 30p. At one point I was warm to the idea of shooting with this camera due to the Landmark Theater digital projection deal, but after a while I came to the conclusion that it would be a bad financial investment to shoot with this cam. Do others feel the same way?

Yes. I mean, people kept talking about Landmark, but Landmark has, what, around 150 digital theaters in the country? And there are something like 20,000 movie screens in this country? That means that by shooting 30P you're locking yourself out of 99.9% of the potential market.

And something like 70% of the world is PAL...

If it was five years from now and digital projection and HD were universal, it'd be a different story. But of course five years from now the follow-up camera should be out, offering true manual controls and solving all the gripes about the current one.

For moviemaking the HD1/HD10 are a "pass". Wait for the next one, hopefully with 25P or 1080/60i or 50i support.

I prefer the image of the HD10u over any of the other SD cameras including the DVX100. Transferring to Film is just not a realistic option for most of us low budget filmmakers. If you don't have a famous actor in your movie then the chances of a theatrical distribution is very slim indeed. Not being able to go to PAL is the issue that really worries me. When I go for video distribution not being able to go to the PAL market will really limit my options. Is there any way to get 30p to 25p?

How the manufacturer positions the camera, and how people use it, are often entirely separate things. For instance, the Canon XL1S is strictly a *consumer* item and is marketed by their consumer video division. And yet, people use it in a professional capacity all the time. Just because JVC says their cams are strictly for home use, doesn't stop anybody from doing what they want with it, such as commercial shoots, theatrical distrib., etc.

I hear you Chris, but I just find it hard to believe that JVC, coming out with the first sub 4k HD camera, couldn't forsee that movie makers would want to use this camera to.

Because they sold a ton of the cameras to indie filmmakers. And they weren't expecting to sell that many cameras to begin with. Esp. not to indie filmmakers. Hence the change in filmmaking.

I had to shoot my latest film on an XL-1 because the HD10 was in NYC. Of course, now I'm cropping in FCP 3 to do "poorman's letterboxing," but I wish I had the HD10. But that's life. So, as a filmmaker, I now prefer the HD10 to anything else. And I don't go to film, because of the costs.

heath

I'm very excited about this camera for independent filmmaking too but I live in europe where the JVC is limited to 576p. For theatrical distribution I would choose NOT to go out to film if I have a choice. I have still to see a 35mm projection that looks better than a digital quality projection if the the material is of digital origin.

The people will always decide in situations like this. If filmmakers are using the camera, and people want to see their films then theater's or whoever will find away to show it.

Furthermore, there are digital projectors for screening video in movie theaters. Because 99.999% of the theaters will never screen anything other than film (or whatever video format the country has) they only have film projectors. But, the projectors do exist and can be installed. Of course there not set up to do it right now, who would refit their moviehouse for cameras that just came out? Or, wouldn't even have been out, at the time they needed to begin, for the theaters to have them by now.

As a digital filmmaker, I run into the non-film prejudice. I really dislike snooty, film using directors who say my stuff isn't totally great because we shot it on an XL-1, and not 16 mm. But dem da brakes...

Of course I DON'T mean film-using directors are snooty. Just certain ones that have shot on film. Just to clarify!

heath

In the long run, *content* above all else, is king.

Chris, I agree...to so some extent. I mean, even if one does a great movie on the JVC HD Cam, their content will be distorted by the motion problems when going to PAL, if they find a way to go to PAL at all.

If you content is in high enough demmand, a transfer can be done. Fields Kit and Magicbullet combined with Twixtor can get the job done. As well if one really does a great movie on their HD10 then a distributor will have proprietary systems for conversion.
The bottom line?
Worry about making the flick.

There is a guy over at another site who claims to have converted 30p to 24p,

Check it out

http://www.DVXuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/Y...num=1068237783

Glenn, that's not just "a guy," that's Clayton Farr, who is a member here as well.

By far the cleanest conversion from 30p to 24p, I've seen, is made through using Revision fx's Twixtor. Anyone interested in this type of conversion should check out the demo version of the plugin at: revisionfx.com.

Why the hell didn't they just add 24p support? It would not have been terribly difficult.

Probably didn't fit into JVC's business plans, after all they're heavily invested in digital projection technology and aren't interested in supporting competing, albeit antiquated, technologies, i.e. 35mm projection.

>>Glenn, that's not just "a guy," that's Clayton Farr, who is a member here as well.<<

Oh, is he a moderator? I didn't know.

I suppose, but when you think about cost v. benefit, I find it hard to swallow that the cost of adding 24p support would not have been outweighed by the extra profit from indy filmmakers.

So where is a JVC rep to clear all this up? Or would we have better luck contacting the GODs?

Peter-"Why the hell didn't they just add 24p support? It would not have been terribly difficult."

Why is there only one camera on the market for under $20,000 that has 24p? Yes it would have been nice if this cam had 24p but JVC isn't the only player not to offer 24p. Where are Sony and Canons 24p solutions?
Ken

Ken: They're coming; they're just late, like everything else.

Glenn: I can probably get one in here, but you guys have to promise to go easy on him.

Why no 24p?
Well, because almost all the camcorders made are sold to people who don't care for 24.
Remember this sales slogan: " Does the tape play in your VCR?", from the compact VHS days.
That's the market.
It's all about money.
-Les




<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Peter-"Why the hell didn't they just add 24p support? It would not have been terribly difficult."

Why is there only one camera on the market for under $20,000 that has 24p? Yes it would have been nice if this cam had 24p but JVC isn't the only player not to offer 24p. Where are Sony and Canons 24p solutions?
Ken -->>>

Personally I don't care about 24p. Digital projection is the future, as well, 99% of independent movies are seen on cable or rented DVD/vhs. If you have the money to go to film you probably aren't shooting on a $3000 cam. And if you make a movie on a $3000 cam that is worthy of a film transfer, the studio who buys it will have the resources to convert it to 24p.
This does leave PAL users out in the cold though.
I would be very happy to see 24 & 25 fps die away. 30 & 60p are the frame rates of the 21st century.
Ken

>>Glenn: I can probably get one in here, but you guys have to promise to go easy on him.<<

No problem, didn't mean to come off as being hostile.

>>This does leave PAL users out in the cold though.<<

Yes, the real issue with this camera is not being able to go to the PAL market. I to wish 30p could become the world standard, but it just isn't so.

Well, maybe "most people" don't care about 24p, but filmmakers clearly care about it, and filmmakers also care about having HD. So filmmakers would care a whole lot about having an affordable 24p HD camera, and JVC pretty much gave them the finger by not including 24p.

Sure filmmakers want 24p, but those insisting on it from a $3000 cam are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I mean if you have the $250,000 min for a small theatre distribution why would you be filming on a $3000 cam?
Pana made a ton off the DVX100 due to many a filmmaker thinking its 24p mode would make them a Hollywood player. Simply not true. The costs to film distribute are enormous, and the finacial return minimal. But the market for SD material that looks like it was shot on film (which our little JVC certainly does) is huge!
This isn't to say that a film shot on the JVC can't go to film. Twixtor and MagicBullet and such can convert to 24p. As well if you do create a winner, the studio who distributes it, will convert it professionally.
The bottom line is I don't think JVC is giving us the finger. It is marketing. A 24p higher end model is surely in the works as now they understand the demmand. We have to remmember that this is the very first HDV cam ever! Heck Canon has been selling its XL series to filmmakers since 1997 with huge sucess, and they still have no 24p model.
Ken

Well it is certainly true that a small number of people are going to need 24p. And it is also certainly true that this was a marketing decision. But it's still one I don't understand. :)

I suspect the XL2 is coming out soon, and will be HD, 24p. We'll see how well it does if that is the case. I just want it for the 24p "look", not because I think I'll be showing it in the googleplex. :)

Ken is 100% right on the money. Filmmakers should be concerned about content. 99% of the content is shown on video (the largest market by the way). If you make a worthy film picked up by a studio they WILL have the resources to get it on the right format, even if it means giving you the money to RESHOOT it on film.

People concerned about 24 fps are sidetracked by corporate marketing. Unless there are a bunch of alien filmmakers out there, I completely deny any notion the a human being will see the difference in 30 fps or 25, or 24 (still shown at 30p/60i or 25 fps). The vast majority of viewers will not see technical errors, or artifacts in the image. If they do, you don't have a good film. Case and point: No one can think two thoughts at the same time, if there not immersed in thinking about your story, instead of all things, your frame rate! Buddy, you need to put down the camera and step back slowly.

Peter-I just want it for the 24p "look"

I differ in that opinion. 24fps seems to be fine when viewed @ a theatre (I do hate the constant bluring during action though) but 24p from a video source looks like stuttery crap to my eye. 30p is far more fluid. I have asked many a DVX100 user what looks better the 24p or 30p modes. They usually say the 30p looks better but they shoot 24p for film. Then I think to myself, what film?
Ken

>>Sure filmmakers want 24p, but those insisting on it from a $3000 cam are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I mean if you have the $250,000 min for a small theatre distribution why would you be filming on a $3000 cam?<<

I disagree. Filmmakers don’t cover the cost of distribution, so what one can afford camera wise is not the issue here.

>>As well if you do create a winner, the studio who distributes it, will convert it professionally.<<

Distributors are not the technicians who do such things. Every DV to Film transfer house that I know of does not recommend shooting in 30p for a 35mm blow up.

>>Twixtor and MagicBullet and such can convert to 24p.<<

Twixtor and Magic Bullet convert 60i to 24p, not 30p to 24p.

“Stephen wrote – “Ken is 100% right on the money. Filmmakers should be concerned about content. 99% of the content is shown on video (the largest market by the way).”

Yes, and a HUGE segment of the WORLD video market is PAL, here in lies the issue with this camera. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that MOST of the world is PAL, which means that MOST of the world will not even see your movie on VIDEO if you shoot with this camera.

JVC should at least have made this camera 25p capable, and that would have solved the frame rate compatibility issue.

Click on the link below and then scroll to the bottom of the page for an explanation of why 30p can not be converted to 24p smoothly.

http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm

Here's another link:

http://www.dv.com/forums/showReplies...2&tid=92800000

Like the articles say, it can be done, but a straight frame rate conversion isn't ideal and will will produce motion effects.
Twixtor and MagicBullet and such programs would have to be used for sure. As well I would suggest that any "super intense action sceens" be filmed in the 60p mode.
Ken

Twixtor would work, but Magic Bullet doesn't have that kind of processing (30p to 24p) in it.

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Personally I don't care about 24p. Digital projection is the future, as well, 99% of independent movies are seen on cable or rented DVD/vhs. If you have the money to go to film you probably aren't shooting on a $3000 cam. And if you make a movie on a $3000 cam that is worthy of a film transfer, the studio who buys it will have the resources to convert it to 24p.
This does leave PAL users out in the cold though.
I would be very happy to see 24 & 25 fps die away. 30 & 60p are the frame rates of the 21st century.
Ken -->>>

we want 24p because we want to get a cool 'film-like' video rather than a reqular home video, to put it to the film is a reason but its not the main purpose to get 24p.

I would say 30p gives a better "film like" look than video shot @ 24p which to me looks stuttery and "un-film like"
Ken.

I've been doing extensive comparisons between the DVX and the JVC HD1. The DVX is always in 24P.

It is amazing how "video-like" the JVC begins to look, side-by-side. You wouldn't think 24P to 30P would make that much of a difference, but it does. I think just out of the box, not telling someone what they're looking at, most people would be hard-pressed to tell whether something was 24P or 30P. But if you look at 'em side-by-side...

... anyway, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about 30P looking more like film motion than the DVX's 24P. I can't agree, as I've shot identical material on 24fps film and DVX/24P, and the DVX/24P renders motion identical to film. The DVX's motion rendering is identical, absolutely identical, to 24fps film telecine'd to video.

See, this is what I'm talking about. How many people watch films side by side?

Glenn, your right most of the world is PAL, as usual America is bass ackwards. I'm not saying there is a solution available now, but as with any issue, if there becomes a demand, they will find a way to get it done. But in regards to what is "recommended" that doesn't mean can't be done. Most people don't recommend anything that means more work or risk for them.

I'm completely lost on this 24fps thing (why), this from the last century, people need to learn to move on. Why is change so hard? Every good professional Filmmaker strives to get there film to look DIFFERENT, even to the point where some shoot on video. Here everyone wants their's to look like someone else's.

What about when all the theaters finally upgrade to digital projectors (DLP)? Then they can show ANY frame rate they want just like your PC can. Did you know the backup for DLP's are DVD's? Hmmmmm.

Anyone who's been to the movies in the past year has seen a showcase of TV commercials before the show. Hmmmm, thats video content shown at 24 fps. No motion problems, or anyone jumping up from the audience crying out in agony, "Whhhyyyy?". If they can get it to 24 they can get it to 25. Or whatever else you can think up.

I have the HD10 because it blows ANY Prosumer DV cam away. So my films will look different from the flood of DV footage festivals audiences always see. I'm not trying to make a carrier of filmmaking w/ the cam, nor will it be the last camera I shoot with.