Are they looking for HD or are they looking for 4:2:2--Are they willing to pay the price-----? My understanding is that most corporations are cutting back on media acquisition and if anything, they are looking to save money for the work they need?

Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. They would like to produce ancillary pieces, promotional work etc. at affordable prices. They want their corporate pieces to be tied together and have a similar look.

We do work in Digibeta, mini DV, HD and Beta SP. I've pretty much switched them away from Beta SP to mini DV. The next step is an affordable alternative to Digibeta and HD. I shot mini DV and occasionally Digibeta for them. I have never shot HD. The AD's use me as a consultant on many of their projects because of my long standing relationship with them.

The JVC's might not be the ultimate solution, but it might fill a need until the ultimate solution is introduced and adopted by more of the masses.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. -->>>

Jeff's talking about the customers who JVC is aiming for.

Shoot HD, edit a simple but great looking HD production that incorporates hi-res stills, xfer to S-VHS, and show on a JVC progressive HD I-DLA projector.

By simple, I mean that HD doesn't require snazzy FX to dazzle the eye. A simple mountain range or sunset shot will speak volumes.

That's why for me FCP isn't necessary. A series of geourges shots with dissolves will be fine. I can do that in ANY NLE. Toss in graphics and music. That's not rocket science in any NLE.

With images that have visual impact -- I wouldn't consider obscuring them by muli-layering them.

I hope HD will kill the MTV style s**t we see folks doing with Avid and FCP. Back to the power of the unadorned image.

Watching jitter-cam on a 6-8 foot screen can make you sick. Watching NYPD tonight I could see how dated it looked when projected large and WIDE.

HD is about a lot more than the technology.

I absolutely agree. With images of such clarity that you can discern blades of grass in a wide shot, HD should cause a total re-examination of just how to assemble a story. Or to put it another way, it should cause a migration towards the same production values as 35mm film has established for Hollywood. How many theatrical releases do you see where the picture changes every two seconds? Or where you have 13 different images layered over each other? You don't see any. You hardly see any pans or zooms either, both staples in the world of SD video. There it didn't matter because everything was self-contained in a "tiny" little screen the size of a microwave your eye could assimilate in a half-second glance. Nor did it matter much since the only way you could resolve a blade of grass was to get an extreme close-up. Wide-screen HD thankfully throws all those limitations out the window. I for one will not be sorry to see 4:3 TV go. I've produced documentary-style video for years with nothing more than the occasional dissolve and white letters on black BG for titles. I'm sure some folks are just dying to break the rules in HD land but they may discover that flashing HD images in rapid-fire on the big, wide screen can be almost nauseating. As well as a waste of screen time and space when there's so much precious information contained in a single static frame.

Of course people go overboard with NLE. Cuts, fades and dissolves is all you need for a movie, or most movies. Unfortunately this is not a movie camera or a camera to make movies with. It is a consumer camera with a better handle, better microphone jacks and a better viewfinder that still has 5x less pixels than the imager. How are you going to focus this thing in manual? Hook up to a separate monitor? Only NTSC output is available during shooting. Sold by Broadcast Division!!!!!

Why talking about a stem of grass if the consensus of people who have seen the camera is that the image is lousy. Realize that this is a finished product already selling in Japan and manufacturers at shows are very good at making the image look better than it is. The same people are telling us that it is worse than it will be when the consumer will use it. They are tweaking up the image, using some math formulas? How? The processors will stay the same. There is nothing to tweak on those.

Anyone seen Russian Arc? Great movie. The whole film was made in one shot. No editing at all, shot on HD fed to hard drives. 2hrs long. Anyone knows what camera were they using? Viper? CineAlta? It is true that NLE's are overused for editing but this is a digital camera and it is ridiculous that the user should be limited to some primitive optical style effects, or that a camera sold by the broadcast division could only use the consumer version software.

Steve, it was a Cinealta--and I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just saw Russian Ark for the second time---fantastic work of art.

You're Straying Far Off-Topic
 

Here's a lengthy thread on this fiilm.

Steve,

You said FCP isn't needed to do dissolves; it sounds like you say FCP is for heavy f/x and stuff. FINALLY! When I bought FCP 1.0 and a G3 PowerMac, I was told FCP was a "joke" system and only good for dissolves. You saying that any NLE can do simple dissolves proves my theory that FCP is a heavy hitter.

BTW, until we get the JVC HD in our hands, why keep debating? It goes back and forth so much, I don't know if it's a revolutionary piece of technology or "just a step in the right direction."

And does one chip mean less quality or not? A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.

Heath McKnight
Indie Filmmaker
www.mpsdigital.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. -->>>

Jeff's talking about the customers who JVC is aiming for.

Shoot HD, edit a simple but great looking HD production that incorporates hi-res stills, xfer to S-VHS, and show on a JVC progressive HD I-DLA projector.

By simple, I mean that HD doesn't require snazzy FX to dazzle the eye. A simple mountain range or sunset shot will speak volumes.

That's why for me FCP isn't necessary. A series of geourges shots with dissolves will be fine. I can do that in ANY NLE. Toss in graphics and music. That's not rocket science in any NLE.

With images that have visual impact -- I wouldn't consider obscuring them by muli-layering them.

I hope HD will kill the MTV style s**t we see folks doing with Avid and FCP. Back to the power of the unadorned image.

Watching jitter-cam on a 6-8 foot screen can make you sick. Watching NYPD tonight I could see how dated it looked when projected large and WIDE.

HD is about a lot more than the technology. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.
-->>>

I got to laugh twice at this comment.

1) If I had the money for a CineAlta camcorder I wouldn't waste my time commenting on a $4,000 camcorder.

2) However, if I owned a CineAlta camcorder I would be worried that my $100,000 rig had already become obsolete. As indeed it has!

I proclaim that anyone not shooting 1080x1920, 4:4:4 RGB video at 440megbits-per-second is NOT shooting "true" HD. Feel free to quote me to your friend. :)

He must immediately sell his rig and upgrade to HDCAM SR before his work is rejected as not being of high-quality. Oh, by the way his replacement rig will cost about $200,000. That may include a tiny LCD HD monitor that Sony is pricing at "less than" $10,000. But maybe not.

Your friend thinks 3-chips are necessary, but I think 4:4:4 RGB is necessary to get true HD quality. After all, if the 3-chip image is compressed to ONLY 140Megabits-per-second all the image quality will be ruined.

Now that I think about it, since so many here have claimed MPEG-2 can't be used for HD -- I guess Sony's HDCAM SR can't be HD because it is MPEG-4. That means I must reject HDCAM SR because it "can't be" HD.

Shucks! And Sony had offered me one for review. Oh well! I guess I'll wait for the next generation so it lives up to my demanding standards.

The CineAlta is the number one selling camera Sony has EVER had, period; there is a 32 week waiting period. They won't be updating the CineAlta until AT LEAST 2005, as a promise to owners of the CineAlta. This stems from a backlash of releasing the CineAlta 6 months after they released the HDW-F700 camera and owners were PISSED. Plus, they're in R&D with Lucas and Panavision on the next generation.

Therefore, the CineAlta is not outdated yet; I never said, for one, mpeg-2 wasn't HD. I'm just not used to acquiring in mpeg-2, only finishing (in DVD).

My friend also uses the AG-DVX100 and hates the quality of the 24p mode, but loves the 30p mode best. So he's using everything from an AG-DVX100 to the CineAlta. He can comment about that just like anyone else can.

This is what he said about the mini-HD from JVC:

"I haven't had the chance to read too much about the new JVC HD one chip. I read a pre-release spec sheet that was interesting, but the actual specs are just barely HD. I mean, take the very bottom of what can technically be considered HD in terms of signal level, bandwidth and all, and that's about what that camera is. Not to mention it's a one chip! Maybe useful if you are doing exlusively HD production and need to put a cheap camera in harms way or mounted on the head of a biker or something. But otherwise I don't see how this camera is doing much for the small guy. Except...one major point...It does force the consumer HD issue. It forces other manufacturers to respond. It forces other manufacturers to realize that HD is becoming more and more wide spread. And they have to meet that demand. For that, JVC gets my very sincere thanks."

Again, what I think is, we should all wait to test the camera, then comment. Otherwise, we're wasting bandwidth... :-) Of course, Steve has had his hands on it...And until an update on FCP comes out to edit mpeg-2, I'm holding off on buying. But, like what we've all said, it's going in the right direction! DV is going to die and HD will strive on. Just like Steve's website says, from Hi-8 to HD in a decade (or so). DV killed Hi-8 (BetaSP holds on!!!!) and HD will kill DV.

Heath McKnight
Filmmaker
www.mpsdigital.com


<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.
-->>>

I got to laugh twice at this comment.

1) If I had the money for a CineAlta camcorder I wouldn't waste my time commenting on a $4,000 camcorder.

2) However, if I owned a CineAlta camcorder I would be worried that my $100,000 rig had already become obsolete. As indeed it has!

I proclaim that anyone not shooting 1080x1920, 4:4:4 RGB video at 440megbits-per-second is NOT shooting "true" HD. Feel free to quote me to your friend. :)

He must immediately sell his rig and upgrade to HDCAM SR before his work is rejected as not being of high-quality. Oh, by the way his replacement rig will cost about $200,000. That may include a tiny LCD HD monitor that Sony is pricing at "less than" $10,000. But maybe not.

Your friend thinks 3-chips are necessary, but I think 4:4:4 RGB is necessary to get true HD quality. After all, if the 3-chip image is compressed to ONLY 140Megabits-per-second all the image quality will be ruined.

Now that I think about it, since so many here have claimed MPEG-2 can't be used for HD -- I guess Sony's HDCAM SR can't be HD because it is MPEG-4. That means I must reject HDCAM SR because it "can't be" HD.

Shucks! And Sony had offered me one for review. Oh well! I guess I'll wait for the next generation so it lives up to my demanding standards. -->>>

"The CineAlta is the number one selling camera Sony has EVER had, period"

They've sold more CineAltas than VX1000s? They've sold more CineAltas than Mavicas?

He's referring to the demand.

It's kind of similar to the Canon EOS-10D. Everyone wants one but nobody can get one. It's a matter of allocation. There are more customers for the Cine Alta than there are actual units; hence a 32-week waiting period. He's not referring to the volume, which is actually very low.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : He's referring to the demand.

It's kind of similar to the Canon EOS-10D. Everyone wants one but nobody can get one. It's a matter of allocation. There are more customers for the Cine Alta than there are actual units; hence a 32-week waiting period. He's not referring to the volume, which is actually very low. -->>>

Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. CineAltas are not production-line built.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. -->>>

And it case it wasn't clear the IRONY FLAG was on in my post. I'd certainly review the Sony HDCAM SR. :)

However, in fact, folks making films with CineAlta do not think it is good enough. That's why Sony has a new line Alta CineAlta -- HDCAM SR products. And they are indeed MPEG-4 at 440Mbps. HDCAM at 140Mbps is way too compressed for them.

Sony sold 350 CineAlta camcorders in 2-1/2 years. Still digital cameras are made in typical production runs of 50,000 a month or so per model.

Comment on statement "DV killed Hi-8 (BetaSP holds on!!!!) and HD will kill DV":

The major technology changes were from silent film to talkies, from B/W TV to color TV. The switch to HDTV is just as significant --a lot more than a substep from Hi8 to DV, which can be called evolutionary. Compared to that the step to HD is revolutionary and 720p is only a tip of the icebarg, the lowest end of what is coming.

Still. would I buy the JVC camcorder? No! Would I invest in SD technology duting a period of major technology change? No! I'll wait for Sony and their upcoming blu-ray HD DVD camcorder, or one from Hitachi or another company that will not have 35 Lux rating, and will have a decent picture. 35 Lux in the year 2003? When did JVC start designing this thing? Must not have been in this milleium. Maybe 2000 BC?

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. -->>>

And it case it wasn't clear the IRONY FLAG was on in my post. I'd certainly review the Sony HDCAM SR. :)

However, in fact, folks making films with CineAlta do not think it is good enough. That's why Sony has a new line Alta CineAlta -- HDCAM SR products. And they are indeed MPEG-4 at 440Mbps. HDCAM at 140Mbps is way too compressed for them. -->>>

I noticed something, irony perhaps, sarcasm, definately. :-)

Visit my website: www.mpsdigital.com

Ken Freed wrote: “It is still a work in progress”

Well, if this is true, why does JVC resist making this camera 25p or 24p capable in its HD mode? The reason why I ask this is because JVC could have a market with DV-Theatrical-Hopefuls (aka, those DV moviemakers whom want to retain the POSSIBILITY of a 35mm blowup, even if they don’t get it, which is just about every serious DV moviemaker out there.) Other then offering a better theatrical print, I really don't see the purpose for this camera in North America. Most working class Americans can't afford an HDTV set, and even if they went further into debt to get one, I doubt that they would be happy about spending over $2000 for a home video camera for it. But, I do applaud JVC for advancing digital video, which this camera does do, in a way.

Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. Broadcaster might even prove very interested in a low cost entry to HD. Hence, this cameras appearance at the National Association of Broadcasters show. While it would seem that the addition of 24p would be a logical extension, I can think of several factors that make it unlikely at this time.

The 24p look might not be a welcome look for many in it's intended market. The cost and time delay to develop new algorithms would delay the camera's introduction too much. I think the independent film maker market is smaller than many here are willing to accept. The success of this camera is not dependant on their adopting it. But I doubt JVC is ignoring the comments they are receiving on the camera. Thoughtful, constructive criticism of actual users will prove important for JVC as they develop new HD cameras, for new markets (read independent film makers).

I still want to know if going 24P with MAYBE some theatrical hopefulness, is the right thing. Let's say I shoot on 24P (which a lot of my friends say isn't as good as 30P as far as image goes, which I can't say one way or another, since I've only seen two 24P films, ATTACK OF THE CLONES on film and HITTERS on a 10k lux HD projector) but never go to film; would I have better going 30P HD and used something like Magic Bullet or CineLook or something for the film edge?

heath
www.mpsdigital.com


<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. Broadcaster might even prove very interested in a low cost entry to HD. Hence, this cameras appearance at the National Association of Broadcasters show. While it would seem that the addition of 24p would be a logical extension, I can think of several factors that make it unlikely at this time.

The 24p look might not be a welcome look for many in it's intended market. The cost and time delay to develop new algorithms would delay the camera's introduction too much. I think the independent film maker market is smaller than many here are willing to accept. The success of this camera is not dependant on their adopting it. But I doubt JVC is ignoring the comments they are receiving on the camera. Thoughtful, constructive criticism of actual users will prove important for JVC as they develop new HD cameras, for new markets (read independent film makers). -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. -->>>

Once again I think Jeff is 100% correct on the market for the HD10.

But, I'll add that that notion that $2000 for an HDTV is too much for a "working man" is nonsense. Big screen TVs have been, and are, the biggest selling TVs -- outside of tiny TVs for the kitchen or bedroom. A bigscreen is something the whole family can enjoy. And who do you think are buying $40,000 SUVs and pick-up trucks. (And, this may be their second or third car/truck.)

There is only 6% unemployment (as low as it can go without causing "wage inflation"), real wages are going up -- and inflation is very low. Plus, who doesn't get Zero interest offers every month.

The premium for HD-ready 16:9 over 4:3 is about $500. Any salesperson who can't make the case for spending $500 is a bad one. After all, DVDs are where the action is, and the majority of DVDs are widescreen.

Likewise, the common perception that there is no HD to watch doesn't match reality either. Of course any single individual may live in an apt or condo or a small town in the desert.

But the vast majority of "working familys" live in houses in the suburbs around large cities. They can and do get DBS and cable. They can put an antenna on the roof. If they can do any of these things there are one, or more, HD signals available.

There has been a marked change since the Superbowl was in HD. And ESPN, CBS, and HDnet are pushing HD sports. Cablevision is now pushing HD for ther sports broadcasts. Sports is the driver for HD.

Once someone buys an HDTV -- they are primed for the question: "Do you want all the videos you shoot of your family to obsolete in a few short years?" Who's going to answer -- "I don't care if my video of my new baby can't be watched when she's ten."

Plus, the Soccer mom or dad will get big points for shooting games in HD and playing it on their wide-screen. So the camcorder too beomes a whole family purchase.

I could sell a ton of these at a Best Buy located in any major city just by going around and carefully shooting Little League and other kids games, plus a few cute kids -- and letting the tape play on a nice HDTV on the floor.

What's amazing is the camcorder's quality won't matter as we all know the vast majority of TV owners have no sense of quality! They buy based on other factors. If the salesperson tells them how good it is, and it's BIG, they'll love it. (Afterall look at the $6,000 plasmas being sold and 90% have a terrible image.)

I will point out that discussion of politics or personal attacks are forbidden as described in the DV Info FAQ. I have deleted several inappropriate remarks and/or posts and urge everyone to stay on topic.

Steve,
You'd better stick to video gadgets; your economics are weak.

It's true that non-farm unemployment remains at 6% (as of March, 2003) representing approximately 8.4 million Americans. But that does not tell the true story. Under-employment is the real stinger today. There are 4.7 million Americans only working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. There are also countless people whose financial circumstances have dramatically shriveled because they have been layed-off from jobs and cannot find employment at compensation levels commensurate with what they've lost. (I'm sure that most of us know someone in such a circumstance.)

Employment in the durable goods, transportation and retail sectors has been badly dented, losing nearly 93,000 jobs in March alone.

That said, "wage inflation" is by no means a spectre that can possibly haunt this economy now or any time in the foreseeable future and is not, and never has been, determined by single aggregate unemployment numbers.

Meanwhile, people are borrowing like Saddam's coming to power. Revolving credit rose 8.6% in January (compared to only 4.9% in the entire 1st quarter of 2001), and then rose another 1.0% above that in February. This puts total (US) revolving credit debt at around $721 bil. While not an historical high, it's damn high when viewed in the overall economic context. When combined with the over $1 trillion of non-revolving credit debt it basically means that well over half of average US workers' wages go towards taxes and debt service.

Yes, retail sales have held-up and people are buying big-screen tv's and relatively expensive cars. But nobody expects that to last very long, even with "zero percent" financing deals. (BTW, these 0% deals are killing the bond market prospects for auto manufacturers' financing operations such as GMAC and Ford Motor Credit.) The primary wind beneath the wings of these recent buying binges has been mortgage refinancings, especially cash-out re-fi's, which are rapidly declining as rates have begun to rebound. Say "Gone" to yourself when the Fed begins raising primary rates later this year.

So, I guess this is a windy way to re-assert that the immediate future for the "working man"s discretionary spending levels looks bleak. Additionally, there is little or no impetus to invest in HD home sets, irrespective of broadcast signal availability. (Does anyone really feel the need to watch sitcoms, "reality" shows, or most of the other broadcast tripe in HD?) I believe that HD versions of play-at-home content, such as movies, could be the catalyst that launches widespread conversions. But cooperative decisions on device standards and manufacturing commitments are a long way off.

So I stand by my original projection: 3-5 years before HD finds anything that vaguely looks like a critical mass in US households.

Yes, this is true; credit card spending peaked in 2001 (and hasn't stopped), after going up and up in the late 90s. That's a good reason why the economy was going so good, people were spending on their credit cards (I'm guilty, too, but of buying video equipment to shoot my DV indie films). While it did have a great effect on the economy (I was getting a lot of little video gigs then), people realized soon that it couldn't last forever, thanks in part to the e-economy bust. And we're still feeling the sting from it, in the video business. But not everyone; a company I work for occasionally rents out space at the TV news station I work at fulltime and they are doing gangbuster business! (They also have a 6000 sq. ft. soundstage at their disposal, which helps.)

I agree with Steve, though, more and more folks will go to HD faster, and we can probably thank JVC. I won't buy another mini-dv camera unless it's HD. I bought my XL-1 in Mar. 1999 (made in Nov. 1998) and by next year, I'll have had it for five years. Time to buy a new one then! But not a DV, only HD.

heatho

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : Steve,
You'd better stick to video gadgets; your economics are weak.

It's true that non-farm unemployment remains at 6% (as of March, 2003) representing approximately 8.4 million Americans. But that does not tell the true story. Under-employment is the real stinger today. There are 4.7 million Americans only working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. There are also countless people whose financial circumstances have dramatically shriveled because they have been layed-off from jobs and cannot find employment at compensation levels commensurate with what they've lost. (I'm sure that most of us know someone in such a circumstance.)

Employment in the durable goods, transportation and retail sectors has been badly dented, losing nearly 93,000 jobs in March alone.

That said, "wage inflation" is by no means a spectre that can possibly haunt this economy now or any time in the foreseeable future and is not, and never has been, determined by single aggregate unemployment numbers.

Meanwhile, people are borrowing like Saddam's coming to power. Revolving credit rose 8.6% in January (compared to only 4.9% in the entire 1st quarter of 2001), and then rose another 1.0% above that in February. This puts total (US) revolving credit debt at around $721 bil. While not an historical high, it's damn high when viewed in the overall economic context. When combined with the over $1 trillion of non-revolving credit debt it basically means that well over half of average US workers' wages go towards taxes and debt service.

Yes, retail sales have held-up and people are buying big-screen tv's and relatively expensive cars. But nobody expects that to last very long, even with "zero percent" financing deals. (BTW, these 0% deals are killing the bond market prospects for auto manufacturers' financing operations such as GMAC and Ford Motor Credit.) The primary wind beneath the wings of these recent buying binges has been mortgage refinancings, especially cash-out re-fi's, which are rapidly declining as rates have begun to rebound. Say "Gone" to yourself when the Fed begins raising primary rates later this year.

So, I guess this is a windy way to re-assert that the immediate future for the "working man"s discretionary spending levels looks bleak. Additionally, there is little or no impetus to invest in HD home sets, irrespective of broadcast signal availability. (Does anyone really feel the need to watch sitcoms, "reality" shows, or most of the other broadcast tripe in HD?) I believe that HD versions of play-at-home content, such as movies, could be the catalyst that launches widespread conversions. But cooperative decisions on device standards and manufacturing commitments are a long way off.

So I stand by my original projection: 3-5 years before HD finds anything that vaguely looks like a critical mass in US households. -->>>

staying on topic
 

Circuit City has a nice Panasonic 47" HD Monitor for $1399 with zero interest until 2004.

By Christmas you can bet there be sets at $1000 with no interest until 2005.

And, by then most big cable systems will offer HD -- some for free -- some for $10 over DTV.

I think the price issue are nearly solved. Certainly the availability of HD programs is solved.

But for those who think TV is "tripe" there is no solution coming -- although IF that opinion includes HBO, Showtime, Discovery, ESPN, CBS sports, and PBS -- I've got to wonder why one even owns a TV and hence why one is supposedly interested in the JVC HD camcorder.

When I think about it, I'm not sure how claiming HD isn't near and TV is tripe has anything to do with the topic of the JVC. The size of the market doesn't seem to have bothered JVC, so why should it bother me.

When I bought my first stereo cartridge, an extra amp and speaker -- or when I bought my first color TV -- I didn't ask how big the market was. It was obvious stereo and color were coming. It's obvious HDTV is coming.

Personally, Steve, I hope you're right about HD's rapid acceptance. But, unlike stereo equipment, television is largely a sponsored advertising medium that has relied on wide-market compatibility to make that sponsorship a viable business proposition. The switch from b&w to color sets was expensive for broadcasters but easy for households who simply replaced dying b&w sets with color but could still use b&w indefinitely. Television programming was still in its infancy and there was plenty of impetus for people to switch to color. The airwaves buzzed with imaginative new programming concepts. The only in-home alternative for commercial entertainment was radio.

Today's home entertainment line-up is a whole different ballgame in which television is only one of many choices, and generally not the most interesting or imaginative. With sponsors' targeting such a young demographic market primetime programming is of little interest to older educated viewers (35+).

As I noted, perhaps this basic model will change and other media (like consumer HD content and tools) will lead the parade. I guess we'll just have to see how this plays-out in the coming years.

Our new tower is (or will be by the end of this week) transmitting DTV, aka, Hi-Def. All our news studio floor cameras are HD, our switcher in Master Control is HD. The only things that aren't are our cameras, decks and CineWave Final Cut Pro systems.

It's coming. And now more and more people are talking about this camera, here and in production company offices in my area.

Heath McKnight
www.mpsdigital.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : Personally, Steve, I hope you're right about HD's rapid acceptance. But, unlike stereo equipment, television is largely a sponsored advertising medium that has relied on wide-market compatibility to make that sponsorship a viable business proposition. The switch from b&w to color sets was expensive for broadcasters but easy for households who simply replaced dying b&w sets with color but could still use b&w indefinitely. Television programming was still in its infancy and there was plenty of impetus for people to switch to color. The airwaves buzzed with imaginative new programming concepts. The only in-home alternative for commercial entertainment was radio.

Today's home entertainment line-up is a whole different ballgame in which television is only one of many choices, and generally not the most interesting or imaginative. With sponsors' targeting such a young demographic market primetime programming is of little interest to older educated viewers (35+).

As I noted, perhaps this basic model will change and other media (like consumer HD content and tools) will lead the parade. I guess we'll just have to see how this plays-out in the coming years. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Our new tower is (or will be by the end of this week) transmitting DTV, aka, Hi-Def. All our news studio floor cameras are HD, our switcher in Master Control is HD. -->>>

Heath, what station/ Where?

In NYC I note the new 20/20 and CNN studios have HD/NTSC switchable studio cameras. So, supposedly does Letterman on 53rd st. At NAB I heard they will update his MC late summer so he goes to HD next fall. That would be nice.

But it's Discovery and National Geo. that I really want. And, I'd love NASA TV in 720p since that's what NASA has bought.

A local NBC news affiliate, WPTV in West Palm Beach, Florida. We're actually a legendary station that started in 1954 and in the past 4 years, we've been covering some humdingers: Elian (sorta, that was more Miami), the election debacle, the 9/11 terrorists, the anthrax attacks (happened where my good buddy worked, a tabloid building that just got sold to a private developer)...

www.wptv.com

It's cool because the little monitors attached to the cameras are in 16:9 with a little 4:3 box so the floor crew can frame up okay.

heath
www.mpsdigital.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Our new tower is (or will be by the end of this week) transmitting DTV, aka, Hi-Def. All our news studio floor cameras are HD, our switcher in Master Control is HD. -->>>

Heath, what station/ Where?

In NYC I note the new 20/20 and CNN studios have HD/NTSC switchable studio cameras. So, supposedly does Letterman on 53rd st. At NAB I heard they will update his MC late summer so he goes to HD next fall. That would be nice.

But it's Discovery and National Geo. that I really want. And, I'd love NASA TV in 720p since that's what NASA has bought. -->>>

Who will buy the JVC JY HD10U?
 

I'm curious, who is willing to buy (or is leaning towards it and may do so if a demo is good) the JVC JY HD10U?

I'm on the fence, and would prefer to wait for a 24P version of this camera (or another mini-HD) as I would use the camera 85% for indie filmmaking. And what is ADV 24P, Steve Mullen?

Thanks,

Heath McKnight
www.mpsdigital.com

I would...but
 

If there was a 25p or 24p version I would buy it to...if everything else was on point.

You do not want the JY-HD10 when you plan to transfer to film -- unless you want to use 480p60. No way to get 30p to 24p.

You really want a DVX100 for making films.

And, 24PADV mode is the mode you want to use with the DVX100 when SHOOTING FOR FILM.

Is it HD in 480p60 or is that SD?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : You do not want the JY-HD10 when you plan to transfer to film -- unless you want to use 480p60. No way to get 30p to 24p.

You really want a DVX100 for making films.

And, 24PADV mode is the mode you want to use with the DVX100 when SHOOTING FOR FILM. -->>>

Standard definition.

DVX100 for transfer to film?- I don't think so
 

To anyone thinking of using a DVX100 for making a film/documentary that is intended to be transferred to film I would add a strong word of caution. Go and see what a transfer to film from this camera actually looks like projected on a 40' screen before investing your hard earned cash in a project based around that premise. At Mac World in San Francisco this year, Monaco Labs did just that, showed footage from several DV cameras, and HD cameras, transferred to 35mm and projected in a state of the art cinema. I have to say that the DVX100 footage looked the worst of the bunch, (inlcuding other 60i DV cameras which looked much better) the image was full of nasty artifacts, ghosting and awful pixelation, that you just don't see on a small screen.
Perhaps the footage I saw was not as good as it can be, I am sure this camera is great for other purposes, but based on what I saw, I would NEVER consider it for a Film project. So do yourself a favor and check out what you might be getting before jumping into such a project or buying into the hype surrounding 24p DV cameras, of any make.

All the best

Paul

30p is fine for film production. Landmark theaters are now converting about 150 screens for digital projection. Other theaters use digital projections. Festivals include digital projection. Digital projection is on the rise. With digital projection 720/30p is fine. Transfer to film is extremely costly. If you have the money to transfer to film, you should have enough money to rent Varicam or CineAlta -- and make your film in 24p.

If you don't have the $, you have a choice between 480/24p 4:3 aspect ratio DVX and 720/30p 16:9 HD10; the second is one is the way to go.

30 fps looks better than 24 fps and a lot better than 30p (fps) created from 24 fps. The reason film is not 30 fps or higher speed is economics, not so called film look.

I disagree, if I was limited to the present crop of mini DV cameras to do a project going to film it would be between the DVX100 and XL1S (only because of versatility of interchanging lenses). I've seen DVX100 footage to film and it looks remarkably like super 16mm to me. Other film shooters I know have also done transfers or seen transfers from the DVX100 and have had similar impressions.

I can't comment on how cameras that aren't even released, will look when transferred to film.

Re: DVX100 for transfer to film?- I don't think so
 

My friend in NY who uses everything from the DVX100 up to the CineAlta says the DVX100 in 24P mode is garbage.

hwm

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : To anyone thinking of using a DVX100 for making a film/documentary that is intended to be transferred to film I would add a strong word of caution. Go and see what a transfer to film from this camera actually looks like projected on a 40' screen before investing your hard earned cash in a project based around that premise. At Mac World in San Francisco this year, Monaco Labs did just that, showed footage from several DV cameras, and HD cameras, transferred to 35mm and projected in a state of the art cinema. I have to say that the DVX100 footage looked the worst of the bunch, (inlcuding other 60i DV cameras which looked much better) the image was full of nasty artifacts, ghosting and awful pixelation, that you just don't see on a small screen.
Perhaps the footage I saw was not as good as it can be, I am sure this camera is great for other purposes, but based on what I saw, I would NEVER consider it for a Film project. So do yourself a favor and check out what you might be getting before jumping into such a project or buying into the hype surrounding 24p DV cameras, of any make.

All the best

Paul -->>>

Why can't we use the JY-HD10 in Hi Def mode to shoot with a transfer to 35 mm film in mind, Steve?

heath mcknight

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : You do not want the JY-HD10 when you plan to transfer to film -- unless you want to use 480p60. No way to get 30p to 24p.

You really want a DVX100 for making films.

And, 24PADV mode is the mode you want to use with the DVX100 when SHOOTING FOR FILM. -->>>

DV to 35mm continued
 

Continuing from my previous thread, the other lessons I came away with from that screening were:

1) If you MUST use a DV camera to go to film, go with a 2/3" CCD camera with native 16:9 and a good lens. A DSR-500 level camera looked the best of the bunch at 35mm, though still only barely competing with 16mm.

2) If you can afford 35mm filming, do it, it's beatiful. Next best is HD 24p.

3) If using DV, use close-ups as much as possible. they give the best impression of higher resolution. Some cheaper Sony 60i cam footage filmed this way looked astonishingly good at 35mm

4) Avoid panoramic shots, pans and tilts like the plague, they look like s**t at 35mm. Keep the camera still and on a tripod that is bigger and sturdier than your DV cam as much as possible.

I hope this helps, just personal impressions.

Paul

p.s as far as the HD10 goes, I have not seen the moving picture from it, just stills, which looked very detailed to me. I hear it it still a work in progress, which is a good thing. My impression is that pixel resolution is the #1 factor to consider in a Digital to 35mm blowup (after content of course!), and this camera is offering that at a rock bottom price, so don't knock it to death until you've seen what you can do with it, it might just suprise you.

Re: DV to 35mm continued
 

I can't afford glorious 35 mm film, plus my film company is called MPS Digital Studios (used to be MPS Filmed Entertainment until I realized I couldn't afford to shoot my first feature on film 4 years ago).

I think we're gonna go with a CineAlta; a buddy of mine is partnered with some peeps who own one and he says he'll cut me a sweet deal (esp. if we shoot out of season, like in the summer!). If not the Cinealta, maybe the Varicam. He also suggested going with the Ikegami HL-DV7W PAL camera (DV) because he says put onto hidef, it looks exactly like a Varicam, as well as on film. We'll be staying with DV and HD until we get a deal for release, then we'll go to film. That is, unless we get enough money to throw it on 35 mm when we hit the fests.

THANKS for the great advice, Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!

heath
www.904am.net (the website of the film I'm writing/directing/producing/catering)

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Continuing from my previous thread, the other lessons I came away with from that screening were:

1) If you MUST use a DV camera to go to film, go with a 2/3" CCD camera with native 16:9 and a good lens. A DSR-500 level camera looked the best of the bunch at 35mm, though still only barely competing with 16mm.

2) If you can afford 35mm filming, do it, it's beatiful. Next best is HD 24p.

3) If using DV, use close-ups as much as possible. they give the best impression of higher resolution. Some cheaper Sony 60i cam footage filmed this way looked astonishingly good at 35mm

4) Avoid panoramic shots, pans and tilts like the plague, they look like s**t at 35mm. Keep the camera still and on a tripod that is bigger and sturdier than your DV cam as much as possible.

I hope this helps, just personal impressions.

Paul

p.s as far as the HD10 goes, I have not seen the moving picture from it, just stills, which looked very detailed to me. I hear it it still a work in progress, which is a good thing. My impression is that pixel resolution is the #1 factor to consider in a Digital to 35mm blowup (after content of course!), and this camera is offering that at a rock bottom price, so don't knock it to death until you've seen what you can do with it, it might just suprise you. -->>>