I want to speak in tongues

Fred Garhart · November 24th, 2003, 07:50 PM

How am I joking I believe I spoke the truth how I see it. Film making is both an art and a skill but you do not need to go to film school to become a film maker. You only need a professional camcorder and study the manual. It is not difficult. Maybe a little. Anyone can do it. Trust me I did it. It only took me this past week end (two days).

Frank Granovski · November 24th, 2003, 08:16 PM

By golly, you could be on to something there, Fred. I believe you; and I especially liked your car/cam analogy. That was with a professional car/s right?. It makes sense. :-)

John Gaspain · November 25th, 2003, 01:15 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Fred Garhart : Film making is a serious business and it may be humorous or sad. Film making is not just a skill but an art. That is why I was smart to buy a professional Panasonic PV-DV953 camcorder. You do not need to go to film school to become a film maker. You just need to buy a professional camcorder preferably a black one and study the manual like I did. It is not that difficult. It only took me one weekend to learn how to use it professionally. I understand my silver PV-DV953 can do many things like making pictures but why would you want to use the manual mode when it is an automatic camcorder? You do not try to drive a car in with manual if the gears are automatic! Why then use an automatic professional camcorder in manual? This makes sense. Why would you want to transfer your film making video to film when you can watch it on television? This also makes sense. -->>>

well for what you are doing automatic might be fine for now, But should you ever come across a situation where auto wont cut it you need to be able to recognize the deficiency and correct for the cameras deficencies.

Like myself, I deal with tough lighting conditions like snow and overcast days, for these automatic simply does not work period. In auto the bright snow will look grey. I overexpose the image to give it a realistic (non)effect.

or dark wooded areas with bright glints of sun projecting from under the leaves, It depends on your desired effect, like "do I want just the bright streams of light to overexpose" for a dreamy effect or do you want the shadows of the leaves with minimal light coming thu the edges so you can capture just the tree.

I do enjoy your zeal but I think your camera color selection is a bit mis-guided, black, silver, green or whatever color the camera is its the insides of the machine what counts not the color of the plastic case it comes in.

The manual will only take you so far, its up to you to do research on film styles and little tricks of the trade to better yourself and ultimately better your ability to tell the story of the movie.

Fred Garhart · November 25th, 2003, 09:38 PM

I really understand what you are saying but professional camcorders are darker in colour than nonprofessional camcorders. Just look at those black professional Sony camcorders and the MX7000 on the super video pages. Regarding filming in dark wooded areas Calgary doesn't have many trees because the ground water is very deep to keep tree's roots from reaching that deep. What I'm saying is that if the camcorder is automatic than there is no need to try and figure out all those manual controls because it is automatic. I am sure you agree with this.

Frank Granovski · November 26th, 2003, 01:11 AM

Sounds good to me. :-)

Peter Jefferson · November 26th, 2003, 08:40 AM

i dont knwo if im swaying here, but i find the MX500 is good in auto IF the lighting is STABLE...

I HATE the way the MX adjsuts its auto white balance, try moving teh shot around from a dark area to a lighter area and you wil know what im mean.. also the camera adjsuts White Balance according to the light on screen, NOT whats in focus (Like the DVX), which sux as red and blue washes over teh screen if someone decides to walk in fornt of the shot...
also for artsy fartsy shots, its terrible...

apart from that, manual functions are perfect :)

James Emory · November 26th, 2003, 06:21 PM

Dave, you're not the only one. I'm still picking myself up off the floor too. I think Fred has a case of that new camera smell. I think we all get that in the beginning when receiving a new toy, some more than others. He just needs a little time to come down off that dose of dopamine. Let him say all of this in the company of some other "professionals" and he'll come around when they put him in his place. I don't get the emphasis on the body color of the camera necessarily representing a professional camera. I believe that true high end pro gear is of the dark ABS because it shows less scratches and doesn't stand out on sets or in the field. All of this silver and white bodies is pure marketing to stand out from the crowd. Fred is a marketing agency's dream if he is sold on cosmetics so strongly. It doesn't matter if the camera body has pink polka dots as long as the package inside is worthy. I was told by a 2nd AC that Panavision did all kinds of tests to come up with that tan color for their film camera bodies and mags. Apparently it is a very neutral color and does not bring attention to the camera to distract talent. I certainly agree with Fred about the fact that you don't necessarily have to go to film school to make it, but it sure does help. Hands on, intensive workshops are the best short cut in my opinion if long term school is not an option. I use XL-1 systems and get positive and negative comments all the time. I know the limitations of these cameras and that they are NOT professional broadcast cameras at least out of the box (without help from accessories). This on top of the fact that XL-1 systems kick the DV 950's ass. Nothing against Fred personally, but this type of thinking is what gives DV owners/shooters an annoying reputation to the true broadcast professional veterans.

Chris Hurd · November 26th, 2003, 09:25 PM

Thank you James, for making the most intelligent response this thread has. Much appreciated,

November 26th, 2003, 09:49 PM

When I came back from Roscor with a new in the box DVC200 I opened it and your not going to believe this it sat there for about a week I would look at it and I must admit I did not want to break it or even pick it up as the harm I might do to it as it was mine. I do not worship or anything like that it’s just that it was the most expensive tool (Not Toy) I have ever invested at one time.

I guess that is what he is feeling the new camera smell…..

James Emory · November 26th, 2003, 11:46 PM

Now Tom. Please be aware that I was not literal about the word toy. I hope you didn't take it out of context. Just another word for expensive stuff. I sure know that feeling of having something new, especially electronics and not wanting that fresh from Japan packaging smell to escape or to damage it in any way.

Frank Granovski · November 27th, 2003, 12:01 AM

James, Tom wrote, "Not Toy" because it's not a consumer cam but an AG-DVC200; which is a Panasonic Pro 3 chip, the chips being 1/2" in size. A while back, Bruce Johnson wrote a DV Mag. review about it and mentioned "Flex-o-matic" would be a good name for it, as I recall.

Fred Garhart · November 27th, 2003, 12:45 AM

Is the professional Panasonic AG-DVC200 camcorder black? I would thing she is how much did it cost?

James Emory · November 27th, 2003, 01:17 AM

Thanks Frank. I'm all too aware of that camera's value and specs. I wish I could have that level of gear but with multiple units. I was just making sure that he knew I wasn't being harsh.

Frank Granovski · November 27th, 2003, 01:27 AM

I just saw that you didn't understand Tom's toy comment. He basically saying that he owns a pro cam...something that I have no need for nor that I can't really afford. But then I don't shoot the kind of things Tom does for $$$.

November 27th, 2003, 01:28 AM

I was just saying that to me this one was not a toy. I was in construction for 17 years. The toys I bought where great and to me they where toys to play with and to make things that would you believe this they paid me to make things that I enjoyed to do.

“The difference between men’s toys and wom**’s toys is that a man’s cost more.”

Or another saying “He who dies with the most toys wins”

As to the cost of the DVC200 with a lens, battery pack, wide angle adaptor, and tripod was over 8,000.

November 25th, 2003, 01:15 AM	#18
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	<<<-- Originally posted by Fred Garhart : Film making is a serious business and it may be humorous or sad. Film making is not just a skill but an art. That is why I was smart to buy a professional Panasonic PV-DV953 camcorder. You do not need to go to film school to become a film maker. You just need to buy a professional camcorder preferably a black one and study the manual like I did. It is not that difficult. It only took me one weekend to learn how to use it professionally. I understand my silver PV-DV953 can do many things like making pictures but why would you want to use the manual mode when it is an automatic camcorder? You do not try to drive a car in with manual if the gears are automatic! Why then use an automatic professional camcorder in manual? This makes sense. Why would you want to transfer your film making video to film when you can watch it on television? This also makes sense. -->>> well for what you are doing automatic might be fine for now, But should you ever come across a situation where auto wont cut it you need to be able to recognize the deficiency and correct for the cameras deficencies. Like myself, I deal with tough lighting conditions like snow and overcast days, for these automatic simply does not work period. In auto the bright snow will look grey. I overexpose the image to give it a realistic (non)effect. or dark wooded areas with bright glints of sun projecting from under the leaves, It depends on your desired effect, like "do I want just the bright streams of light to overexpose" for a dreamy effect or do you want the shadows of the leaves with minimal light coming thu the edges so you can capture just the tree. I do enjoy your zeal but I think your camera color selection is a bit mis-guided, black, silver, green or whatever color the camera is its the insides of the machine what counts not the color of the plastic case it comes in. The manual will only take you so far, its up to you to do research on film styles and little tricks of the trade to better yourself and ultimately better your ability to tell the story of the movie. __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

November 26th, 2003, 06:21 PM	#22
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Body color = professional Dave, you're not the only one. I'm still picking myself up off the floor too. I think Fred has a case of that new camera smell. I think we all get that in the beginning when receiving a new toy, some more than others. He just needs a little time to come down off that dose of dopamine. Let him say all of this in the company of some other "professionals" and he'll come around when they put him in his place. I don't get the emphasis on the body color of the camera necessarily representing a professional camera. I believe that true high end pro gear is of the dark ABS because it shows less scratches and doesn't stand out on sets or in the field. All of this silver and white bodies is pure marketing to stand out from the crowd. Fred is a marketing agency's dream if he is sold on cosmetics so strongly. It doesn't matter if the camera body has pink polka dots as long as the package inside is worthy. I was told by a 2nd AC that Panavision did all kinds of tests to come up with that tan color for their film camera bodies and mags. Apparently it is a very neutral color and does not bring attention to the camera to distract talent. I certainly agree with Fred about the fact that you don't necessarily have to go to film school to make it, but it sure does help. Hands on, intensive workshops are the best short cut in my opinion if long term school is not an option. I use XL-1 systems and get positive and negative comments all the time. I know the limitations of these cameras and that they are NOT professional broadcast cameras at least out of the box (without help from accessories). This on top of the fact that XL-1 systems kick the DV 950's ass. Nothing against Fred personally, but this type of thinking is what gives DV owners/shooters an annoying reputation to the true broadcast professional veterans.

November 26th, 2003, 09:25 PM	#23
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Thank you James, for making the most intelligent response this thread has. Much appreciated, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 26th, 2003, 11:46 PM	#25
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Toys! Now Tom. Please be aware that I was not literal about the word toy. I hope you didn't take it out of context. Just another word for expensive stuff. I sure know that feeling of having something new, especially electronics and not wanting that fresh from Japan packaging smell to escape or to damage it in any way.

November 27th, 2003, 01:17 AM	#28
James Emory Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 1,892	Pro Line Thanks Frank. I'm all too aware of that camera's value and specs. I wish I could have that level of gear but with multiple units. I was just making sure that he knew I wasn't being harsh.

November 24th, 2003, 07:50 PM	#16
Fred Garhart Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 53	How am I joking I believe I spoke the truth how I see it. Film making is both an art and a skill but you do not need to go to film school to become a film maker. You only need a professional camcorder and study the manual. It is not difficult. Maybe a little. Anyone can do it. Trust me I did it. It only took me this past week end (two days).

November 24th, 2003, 08:16 PM	#17
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	By golly, you could be on to something there, Fred. I believe you; and I especially liked your car/cam analogy. That was with a professional car/s right?. It makes sense. :-)

November 25th, 2003, 09:38 PM	#19
Fred Garhart Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 53	I really understand what you are saying but professional camcorders are darker in colour than nonprofessional camcorders. Just look at those black professional Sony camcorders and the MX7000 on the super video pages. Regarding filming in dark wooded areas Calgary doesn't have many trees because the ground water is very deep to keep tree's roots from reaching that deep. What I'm saying is that if the camcorder is automatic than there is no need to try and figure out all those manual controls because it is automatic. I am sure you agree with this.

November 26th, 2003, 01:11 AM	#20
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Sounds good to me. :-)

November 26th, 2003, 08:40 AM	#21
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	i dont knwo if im swaying here, but i find the MX500 is good in auto IF the lighting is STABLE... I HATE the way the MX adjsuts its auto white balance, try moving teh shot around from a dark area to a lighter area and you wil know what im mean.. also the camera adjsuts White Balance according to the light on screen, NOT whats in focus (Like the DVX), which sux as red and blue washes over teh screen if someone decides to walk in fornt of the shot... also for artsy fartsy shots, its terrible... apart from that, manual functions are perfect :)

November 26th, 2003, 09:49 PM	#24
Guest Posts: n/a	When I came back from Roscor with a new in the box DVC200 I opened it and your not going to believe this it sat there for about a week I would look at it and I must admit I did not want to break it or even pick it up as the harm I might do to it as it was mine. I do not worship or anything like that it’s just that it was the most expensive tool (Not Toy) I have ever invested at one time. I guess that is what he is feeling the new camera smell…..

November 27th, 2003, 12:01 AM	#26
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	James, Tom wrote, "Not Toy" because it's not a consumer cam but an AG-DVC200; which is a Panasonic Pro 3 chip, the chips being 1/2" in size. A while back, Bruce Johnson wrote a DV Mag. review about it and mentioned "Flex-o-matic" would be a good name for it, as I recall.

November 27th, 2003, 12:45 AM	#27
Fred Garhart Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 53	Is the professional Panasonic AG-DVC200 camcorder black? I would thing she is how much did it cost?

November 27th, 2003, 01:27 AM	#29
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I just saw that you didn't understand Tom's toy comment. He basically saying that he owns a pro cam...something that I have no need for nor that I can't really afford. But then I don't shoot the kind of things Tom does for $$$.

November 27th, 2003, 01:28 AM	#30
Guest Posts: n/a	I was just saying that to me this one was not a toy. I was in construction for 17 years. The toys I bought where great and to me they where toys to play with and to make things that would you believe this they paid me to make things that I enjoyed to do. “The difference between men’s toys and wom**’s toys is that a man’s cost more.” Or another saying “He who dies with the most toys wins” As to the cost of the DVC200 with a lens, battery pack, wide angle adaptor, and tripod was over 8,000.