Re: DV to 35mm
 

Well I would personally vouch for the Ikegami HL-DV7W as being an excellent camera as I own and shoot with one myself (not the PAL version) It is capable of a very cinematic picture. I've not seen any footage from it blown up to 35mm, but I'd certainly love to.
Check out this website of an guy that is making a pretty complex feature using the Ikegami in black and white. By the way, did you know that DV desaturated to black and white gives you the equivalent of a 4:4:4 picture, much higher percieved resolution due to the elimination of the chroma sub-sampling. ( I hope I've got that right!)

http://www.makingmymovie.com/

Cheers

Paul

1) The fact that "digital projectors" are being installed has nothing to do with what you shoot. These are 24p 1080x1920 totally encypted DATA moved by optical discs or satellite.

If you want to RELEASE -- you'll still have to get to 24p video or film.


2) The fact that a film lab screwed-up a transfer from the DVX100 (shot in who knows what mode) means nothing. I and others have seen transfers in NYC at top labs and they looked great.

3) So a $3500 DVX100 doesn't look as good as $100,00 camcorder. Really? These constant references to CineAlta and Varicam in this list make no sense. And, of course, 35mm film looks better than HD video. Gee -- that's shocking news!

4) If you want a CINEMA EXPERIENCE (big video projected image) I agree that 30p looks good. Some might like 24P non-ADV mode. Some even defend using 24P-ADV mode. And, some will hate anything other than 60i or 60p. These are esthetic judgements. When shooting video for video, the temporal rate doesn't make a camera bad or good. Your JITTER is someone elses JUDDER.

The only important thing is, if you want 24fps film at the end -- do not use 30p. Use 24p, 25p, 50i, 60p, or 60i. Of these 24p is best -- and 25p is next best.

Re: Re: DV to 35mm
 

Check that, I don't know what it will look like on film, the Ikegami HL-DV7W, though I hear going Pal to 24 frames/second film is also a b---h to do, according to an article from two years ago in an indie film magazine I read. Sorry, can't remember what mag or who the filmmaker was.

THANKS!

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Well I would personally vouch for the Ikegami HL-DV7W as being an excellent camera as I own and shoot with one myself (not the PAL version) It is capable of a very cinematic picture. I've not seen any footage from it blown up to 35mm, but I'd certainly love to.
Check out this website of an guy that is making a pretty complex feature using the Ikegami in black and white. By the way, did you know that DV desaturated to black and white gives you the equivalent of a 4:4:4 picture, much higher percieved resolution due to the elimination of the chroma sub-sampling. ( I hope I've got that right!)

http://www.makingmymovie.com/

Cheers

Paul -->>>

Yes, I keep refering to the hi-end cameras, because I keep hoping to save money by going with the JY-HD10U and transferring to film. I wonder if HD mode on the PAL version of this camera is possible (the PAL JY-HD10U).

heath

ps-I think Chris Hurd said the HD mode on the NTSC JY-HD10U doesn't do well with film, only SD. For now, I need to figure out some re-writes of the script, the potential budget and decide whether or not I want to go to our name actor before or after we have money. He can help us raise money on his commitment, but he then becomes a producer. It's a quandry! ;-) Take care, all!


<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : 1) The fact that "digital projectors" are being installed has nothing to do with what you shoot. These are 24p 1080x1920 totally encypted DATA moved by optical discs or satellite.

If you want to RELEASE -- you'll still have to get to 24p video or film.


2) The fact that a film lab screwed-up a transfer from the DVX100 (shot in who knows what mode) means nothing. I and others have seen transfers in NYC at top labs and they looked great.

3) So a $3500 DVX100 doesn't look as good as $100,00 camcorder. Really? These constant references to CineAlta and Varicam in this list make no sense. And, of course, 35mm film looks better than HD video. Gee -- that's shocking news!

4) If you want a CINEMA EXPERIENCE (big video projected image) I agree that 30p looks good. Some might like 24P non-ADV mode. Some even defend using 24P-ADV mode. And, some will hate anything other than 60i or 60p. These are esthetic judgements. When shooting video for video, the temporal rate doesn't make a camera bad or good. Your JITTER is someone elses JUDDER.

The only important thing is, if you want 24fps film at the end -- do not use 30p. Use 24p, 25p, 50i, 60p, or 60i. Of these 24p is best -- and 25p is next best. -->>>

RE: Jeff Donald's post

I assume that the JVC camera should have a better picture than the DVX, If you letterbox the DVX, we are talking about something like 4x less pixels on the DVX. If HD10 does not look a lot better, then it will be a joke, not an HD camera.


RE: Steve Mullen's post

I doubt that the projection system installed at Landmark Theaters will not project at 30p. It is not the usual high-end system that has a bit stream of some 40 Mbps. We are talking about a lot less expensive system with a projector that is fed by a PC with about 7 Mbps stream. Does anyone know anything about the frame rate? If it will operate at 30p, then there is no need to shoot at 24p. If you have a couple hundred screens in art houses in major markets where you'll be able to project 30p, why be so concerned about shooting at 24 fps? These films have normally extremely limited distribution and have audiences concentrated in the major metropolitan areas only. Now if the system does not do 30p, it's a different story.

Paul,

I think the problem lies with the transfer house. I saw a DVX100 transfer to film done by DuArt and it looked close to 16mm. All the other 60I and 50I cameras didn’t look as good to me.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7879

DVX100 to film
 

I sincerely hope you're right Glenn, but I still think each individual should go along and see one of these transfers projected for themselves before spending money. I would definately need to see something radically different for me to change my mind. For me, unless I was doing something that was purely an "actors piece" such as "The anniversary Party" where conversation carries the day, I would not want less resolution than HD up there on the screen, but this is a purely personal decision. I just worry for those people that think because there camera is 24p, it will look great on film, and it just ain't so. I also find that on the small screen, 30p has more the motion of film than 24p, which looks more jittery than film to me, again, I don't know why, it's just what I see, but I know that many people think the same way.


all the best

paul

Well no one should think that any DV camera is going to give them “35mm” results when blowing up to film. The best that one can hope for is to come close to well shot 16mm. In some ways, DV is actually better blown up to 35mm because it has no grain. But in some ways it is horrible, particularly when it comes to shooting wide shots that have a lot of detail (like a wide shot of a forest.) And when it comes to handling bright highlites.

>>I also find that on the small screen, 30p has more the motion of film than 24p, which looks more jittery than film to me, again, I don't know why, it's just what I see, but I know that many people think the same way.<<

Yes, I agree. For some reason 30p looks more filmic on monitors then 24p does. 24p only shines when it’s transferred to 35mm. If I were shooting a project that was absolutely not going to see the big screen, I would stick with 30p.

I just talked to a guy who is familiar with the Landmark/Microsoft projection system. The transfer rate is higher than I thought, and yes, you can shoot and project at 30p/fps with their system. What does this mean? The JVC camcorder should be OK for film production -- should be a lot better than the DVX. 35 lux rating? DVX is rated 3 lux, but in progressive does not have gain up, so it changes to 24 Lux. If JVC will not be capable of getting decent HD image from this thing, it will become a joke -- sold by Broadcast Division -- and we'll have to wait for Sony or another company to come out with a decent MPEG2 HD camcorder.

The JVC or another 30p HD camcorder would be OK for film production. You just show your stuff at Landmark and other places that have digital projection capable of handling 30p.

Europe? I know from my last visit that their TVs and VCRs do handle NTSC. The VCRs play NTSC tapes and their TVs handle NTSC via A/V inputs. I saw a catalog sheet of a Philips HD monitor sold in England and it did handle 30p. And they have digital projection there too.

So shooting in 30p is fine. If the film ever needs a lot wider distribution, you can slow it down 30 fps to 24 fps via special software, but it is a tedious work that requires manual corrections especially on fast and complex movement. But it does work.

24 fps looks bad on DVD at 30 fps because of the pull down motion artifacts. Anyone tells you that 24 fps is the thing to give you a film look -- tell them that you want better than that type of look, which has too many motion artifacts. Depth of field, together with proper lighting, camera movement, etc. gives you film look. 24 fps is just something we have to live with as it became a standard 3/4 of a century ago.

Some large production movies in the past were actually made in 30 fps, and projected in specially equipped theaters at 30 fps, but because of economic reasons we went back to 24 fps. IMAX HD is 48 fps. The higher the speed, the better the image -- the less motion artifacts you have.

I agree, 100%.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Paul,

I think the problem lies with the transfer house. I saw a DVX100 transfer to film done by DuArt and it looked close to 16mm. All the other 60I and 50I cameras didn?t look as good to me. -->>>

I also saw the DVX100 transfer at DuArt. It looked like grainless 16mm blown to 35mm.

I also saw a test reel and when done by DuArt everything looked good. The Varicam looked best to my eyes.

But I've seen a dozen DV (mostly VX1000) moved to 35mm and they looked OK -- considering the cost.

Saltmen of Tibet looked great! PAL VX1000 transferred by Swiss Effects.

75% of the results are due to the film lab. The rest is the DP. The camera plays a very small part.

Which means -- if the Q of the HD10 is good, 480p60 my look great tranferred by a good lab. It will have a full 480-lines of V rez. Over 525-lines H rez.

I hope your right Mr. Mullen.

But that's the HD10U in SD mode, not HD, right, Steve?

What about using steadicam with everything from an XL-1 to a DVX100 to the higher end SD and HD cameras? What does that reproduce on film transfers? I'm clueless in this area.

heath
904am.net

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen

I also saw the DVX100 transfer at DuArt. It looked like grainless 16mm blown to 35mm.

I also saw a test reel and when done by DuArt everything looked good. The Varicam looked best to my eyes.

But I've seen a dozen DV (mostly VX1000) moved to 35mm and they looked OK -- considering the cost.

Saltmen of Tibet looked great! PAL VX1000 transferred by Swiss Effects.

75% of the results are due to the film lab. The rest is the DP. The camera plays a very small part.

Which means -- if the Q of the HD10 is good, 480p60 my look great tranferred by a good lab. It will have a full 480-lines of V rez. Over 525-lines H rez. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : But that's the HD10U in SD mode, not HD, right, Steve? -->>>

I had a good discussion with JVC at NAB and we talked about how folks were missing SD mode.

Using it one gets:
Native 16:9
Full V rez.
No motion artifacts
High temporal rate
AND
the vast, vast majority of plasmas, LCD/DLP projectors do NOT have HD rez. -- in fact most (in 16:9) offer no more than 480 V rows and about 800/1280 H columns. They run at 480p60 natively and are a perfect match to the HD10 in SD mode.

With all due respect -- the video industry seems to have become obsessed with making FILMs. Panasonic and Apple are really pushing this.

My bet is that most money making projects are either making NTSC TV where any camcorder will work -- or creating a CINEMA EXPERIENCE in non-broadcast applications.

These private event presentations will be shown on plasmas or big projector screens. This is where the HD10 may shine.

Well, in that case, I'll shoot 9:04 AM on either the CineAlta, Varicam or the non-HD but digital Ikegami HL-DV7W PAL (and master in HD and transfer to film, too). I'm a digital filmmaker who knows the reality is most theatres have film still.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : But that's the HD10U in SD mode, not HD, right, Steve? -->>>

I had a good discussion with JVC at NAB and we talked about how folks were missing SD mode.

Using it one gets:
Native 16:9
Full V rez.
No motion artifacts
High temporal rate
AND
the vast, vast majority of plasmas, LCD/DLP projectors do NOT have HD rez. -- in fact most (in 16:9) offer no more than 480 V rows and about 800/1280 H columns. They run at 480p60 natively and are a perfect match to the HD10 in SD mode.

With all due respect -- the video industry seems to have become obsessed with making FILMs. Panasonic and Apple are really pushing this.

My bet is that most money making projects are either making NTSC TV where any camcorder will work -- or creating a CINEMA EXPERIENCE in non-broadcast applications.

These private event presentations will be shown on plasmas or big projector screens. This is where the HD10 may shine. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Well, in that case, I'll shoot 9:04 AM on either the CineAlta, Varicam or the non-HD but digital Ikegami HL-DV7W PAL (and master in HD and transfer to film, too). -->>>

That's the way I would go.

But don't for get the 50Mbps formats: IMX 25p PAL and Pana's wonderful new SDX-900 which has 24p Frankly, I'd go with either the 900 or the Varicam.

If JVC gets the "Euro" model out with 25p -- that would open an important window for filmmakers.

>>If JVC gets the "Euro" model out with 25p -- that would open an important window for filmmakers.<<

Maybe Ken could pass the word on this, I would buy a 25p model.

I'll go with the Ikegami camera PAL if our budget can't afford us the 900 or Varicam. If our budget ends up only $75,000 with a quarter or so of that going to our Hollywood star, I'll go with a mini-HD camera (hopefully they'll have 24P or PAL in two years).

heath
904am.net

If the Ikegami isn’t progressive, I wouldn’t mess with it. I would go with the SDX 900 or Sony MPEG IMX PAL camera, you don't want to mess with an interlace camera when transferring to 35mm. While it can surely be done, and it does happen all the time, a progressive 25p or 24p camera will look much much better in terms of motion. To better understand where I am coming from, rent THE KING IS ALIVE, ANNIVERSARY PARTY or TADPOLE, and pay attention to the motion when the actors quickly move. This is a result of interlace material being converted to 24p.

What did they shoot THE ANNIVERSARY PARTY on? I heard that's the best DV to film, low budget, yet. (Non-HD, of course.)

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : If the Ikegami isn’t progressive, I wouldn’t mess with it. I would go with the SDX 900 or Sony MPEG IMX PAL camera, you don't want to mess with an interlace camera when transferring to 35mm. While it can surely be done, and it does happen all the time, a progressive 25p or 24p camera will look much much better in terms of motion. To better understand where I am coming from, rent THE KING IS ALIVE, ANNIVERSARY PARTY or TADPOLE, and pay attention to the motion when the actors quickly move. This is a result of interlace material being converted to 24p. -->>>

They shot it on a PAL DSR 500.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : They shot it on a PAL DSR 500. -->>>

Did the motion look all right? My film has a lot of steadicam and stuff I plan on doing.

heath

If you rent it you will see what I am talking about. While the motion in the anniversary party wasn't as annoying as The King is Alive, it was still there. If you have a lot of stedi-cam shots, I would definately stick with a progressive camera. But rent the anniversary party to see what I am talking about. What's wrong with renting the SDX900 or Sony MPEG IMX camera?

My friend is deciding between buying the PAL Ikegami HL-DV7W and the SDX900 and decided the SDX900 isn't ideal for going to hi-def or 35 mm film. He based this on renting both cameras and said in he (and his company's) professional opinion, the Ikegami was closest to the VariCam when the Ike is transferred to HD and 35 mm.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : If you rent it you will see what I am talking about. While the motion in the anniversary party wasn't as annoying as The King is Alive, it was still there. If you have a lot of stedi-cam shots, I would definately stick with a progressive camera. But rent the anniversary party to see what I am talking about. What's wrong with renting the SDX900 or Sony MPEG IMX camera? -->>>

I was under the impression that 900 wasn't shipping until May----.

I heard that too. It's almost pointless to have this debate since I won't be going into production on my film 9:04 AM for at least 18 months.

heath
www.904am.net

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mintzer : I was under the impression that 900 wasn't shipping until May----. -->>>

Yes, the SDX900 isn't even out yet.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : My friend is deciding between buying the PAL Ikegami HL-DV7W and the SDX900 and decided the SDX900 isn't ideal for going to hi-def or 35 mm film. He based this on renting both cameras and said in he (and his company's) professional opinion, the Ikegami was closest to the VariCam when the Ike is transferred to HD and 35 mm. -->>>

If the Ike is DVCAM with 4:1:1 at 5:1 compression I would have to say his eyes need lots of help.

I'd also wonder how he rented both since the 900 isn't out yet. Something seems fishy about these references to Ike.

I reviewed it and it's great for $12,000. But it's no SDX-900. Not even close.

I'm sorry, I meant the Sony 500 PAL...Ugh, how embarressing.

The Ike is fine, according to my friend, who has shot everything from small movies to a documentary on Creed. I would say his eyes are just fine.

Heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : My friend is deciding between buying the PAL Ikegami HL-DV7W and the SDX900 and decided the SDX900 isn't ideal for going to hi-def or 35 mm film. He based this on renting both cameras and said in he (and his company's) professional opinion, the Ikegami was closest to the VariCam when the Ike is transferred to HD and 35 mm. -->>>

If the Ike is DVCAM with 4:1:1 at 5:1 compression I would have to say his eyes need lots of help.

I'd also wonder how he rented both since the 900 isn't out yet. Something seems fishy about these references to Ike.

I reviewed it and it's great for $12,000. But it's no SDX-900. Not even close. -->>>

re: sdx-900
 

To be honest, I really don't see what the market will be for the SDX-900. As great as an SD camera that it probably is, it's still just that, an SD camera, and one that costs a lot of money at that.
$30,000 for the body alone, add $12,000 for a decent lens If I were thinking of making a feature film (to go to 35mm or just to be projected on a big screen), and I had that kind of money to buy a camera, I would find the extra $20,000 from somewhere and go HD for the resolution alone. If I were renting, I wouldn't think this camera will rent for much under $600-$700 per day, and I hear you can get great deals on renting the Varicam these days. If this camera had come in the uner $20,000 category I would have some hope for it, but as it stands I would think that most serious digital film-makers would go HD rather than use this camera, but perhaps they'll drop the price radically which will make it make more sense.

Paul

Mini-HD may be in my future
 

I agree, but I wonder if I'll continue doing super-low budget films...They're fun, but a b--ch to do, but cost nothing (both a blessing and a curse). I probably will, and that's where our friend the mini-HD camera comes in (no matter which brand). Next year, my XL-1 will see it's 5 year wattanty expire and be, well, 5 years old. That's when I shall move to a new camera, hopefully a mini-HD and not DV or SD.

heath


<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : To be honest, I really don't see what the market will be for the SDX-900. As great as an SD camera that it probably is, it's still just that, an SD camera, and one that costs a lot of money at that.
$30,000 for the body alone, add $12,000 for a decent lens If I were thinking of making a feature film (to go to 35mm or just to be projected on a big screen), and I had that kind of money to buy a camera, I would find the extra $20,000 from somewhere and go HD for the resolution alone. If I were renting, I wouldn't think this camera will rent for much under $600-$700 per day, and I hear you can get great deals on renting the Varicam these days. If this camera had come in the uner $20,000 category I would have some hope for it, but as it stands I would think that most serious digital film-makers would go HD rather than use this camera, but perhaps they'll drop the price radically which will make it make more sense.

Paul -->>>

Paul,

Varicams, with lenses and all accessories, rent for at least 1,400 a day. Plus, you have to add in the fact that editing HD is much much more expensive then editing DV. So there is another big savings right there. 4:2:2 50mbps DV is becoming cheaper and cheaper to edit, all thanks to NLEs like Final Cut Pro4, and VTR manufacturers like Panasonic whom incorporate firewire into their 50mbps decks. As for the 900’s price, when it’s all said and done, the camera body might sell for somewhere in the upper ball park of 20k. That rental price, with a lens, should put it somewhere around 500 to 600 to rent for a day. Nonetheless, I defiantly see a market for the 900, especially when you take into consideration that shooting HD for a straight to DVD project is simply overkill. But, if one can afford HD, by all means, shoot in it.

We aren't going straight-to-DVD on this film, just an HD master for the major film fests that accept digital, but only in HD. We also hope to go to tranfer to two or three 35 mm prints.

heath
www.904am.net

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Paul,

Varicams, with lenses and all accessories, rent for at least 1,400 a day. Plus, you have to add in the fact that editing HD is much much more expensive then editing DV. So there is another big savings right there. 4:2:2 50mbps DV is becoming cheaper and cheaper to edit, all thanks to NLEs like Final Cut Pro4, and VTR manufacturers like Panasonic whom incorporate firewire into their 50mbps decks. As for the 900’s price, when it’s all said and done, the camera body might sell for somewhere in the upper ball park of 20k. That rental price, with a lens, should put it somewhere around 500 to 600 to rent for a day. Nonetheless, I defiantly see a market for the 900, especially when you take into consideration that shooting HD for a straight to DVD project is simply overkill. But, if one can afford HD, by all means, shoot in it. -->>>

re:sdx-900
 

I've heard significantly lower prices than $1400 a day banded about for a Varicam, but you may well know better than I. But even at $1,000 a day it makes more sense to go HD and do a offline FCP edit with HD conform, which should be relatively cheap. I think most indie filmakers realize that resolution is a more important factor for big-screen projection quality than 24p, at least those that have seen the comparisons do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the SDX900 is a great SD camera, and I would love one if I could afford it, but if I were thinking of making a low-budget indie feature, HD would be my choice.

All the best

Re: re:sdx-900
 

I agree, too. Now if only I can figure out what the hell is wrong with my new Mac...

heath
www.904am.net

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : I've heard significantly lower prices than $1400 a day banded about for a Varicam, but you may well know better than I. But even at $1,000 a day it makes more sense to go HD and do a offline FCP edit with HD conform, which should be relatively cheap. I think most indie filmakers realize that resolution is a more important factor for big-screen projection quality than 24p, at least those that have seen the comparisons do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the SDX900 is a great SD camera, and I would love one if I could afford it, but if I were thinking of making a low-budget indie feature, HD would be my choice.

All the best -->>>