<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Dooley : <<<-- Originally posted by Jack Felis :
Finally, if you know what you're doing with movies, then you would know that long takes bore the audience to death most of the time, their eyes get tired even if they see Harrison Ford in the same position for 3 minutes straight, no cuts at all. Fast cuts, smooth cuts, whatever cut you do is necessary to keep the audience's attention and to, most importantly, keep them awake. "The Player" got away with this because it was an interesting introduction to the movie and it doubled as an opening credits shot, so the audience was kept in attention thanks in part to the credit flashes. Forget the camera, how many of you would actually take the time and money to rent enough microphones and block every single little thing in one long take perfectly so that everything matched exactly how it was supposed to? "The Player" though cinematically great, had some pretty bad audio in my opinion and most of it was during that beginning shot. See? Even the pros mess up sometimes. -->>>

I guess simply because it's a blanket statement, I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

There was an extremely long steadicam shot in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Say what you like about Tarantino, but I was at least 5 minutes into the shot when I realized that he hadn't cut in a while. I was so wrapped up in the movie that I didn't notice. I actually ran it back to make sure I didn't just blink at the wrong time. You can have some amazingly long shots that work... you just have to do them right. Is it a good idea to do it all the time? Of course not, that would ignore a little thing called pacing... But it can work. -->>>


Good grief, Kevin, ^_^ I didn't say long cuts didn't work! =D It's just that most of the time, they don't work or don't add anything that the average Joe would get. Long shots work when done right, like you said, I agree, man... maybe I should have just left that part out. =)

Geoff..

Well, if your needs are 24fps 720p then all you need is a drive that can sustain at least 7 mega bytes per second.

Since DVCPRO HD 720P at 24fps is 40mbs ( that is mega bits per second ) which translates into a ball park of 6.5 mega bytes per second there will not be any issues at all.

Ofcourse 100 mega bits per second DVCPRO HD is 14 mega bytes per second. We will have to see. I don't belive there will be any issue either.

Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com




<<<-- Originally posted by R Geoff Baker : Maybe I'm not reading this graph properly, but it would seem to me that these 2.5" HDD are not able to sustain 100Mb/s transfer rates:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/9-25-hdd_5.html

GB -->>>

"Since DVCPRO HD 720P at 24fps is 40mbs ( that is mega bits per second ) which translates into a ball park of 6.5 mega bytes per second there will not be any issues at all.

Ofcourse 100 mega bits per second DVCPRO HD is 14 mega bytes per second"

Actually, 40mbs would equal 5MB/s

And 100mbs would equal 12.5MB/s


8 bits in a Byte.
40 / 8 = 5
100 / 8 = 12.5

Or am I missing something?

Luis.......

I like your numbers even better!


<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : "Since DVCPRO HD 720P at 24fps is 40mbs ( that is mega bits per second ) which translates into a ball park of 6.5 mega bytes per second there will not be any issues at all.

Ofcourse 100 mega bits per second DVCPRO HD is 14 mega bytes per second"

Actually, 40mbs would equal 5MB/s

And 100mbs would equal 12.5MB/s


8 bits in a Byte.
40 / 8 = 5
100 / 8 = 12.5

Or am I missing something? -->>>

"Luis.......I like your numbers even better! "

I thought you might.
Of course, I'm not sure how much actual recording space you would get on a 4GB card... but I think it's safe to assume that it would be slightly less than 4gb (I assume there is some formatting space needed).

So, your original numbers may be a safer estimate.

Man, this NAB show cannot come sooner enough.

Forget the whole storage thing. My main beef with the Z1 is the low light capabilities. Apart from that and some minor faults it is a fantastic camera, really guys. Forget the stats, I've seen the pictures (not of perfectly controlled situations that couldn't look anything less than beautiful, but of high streets etc) and it looks absolutely wonderful.

There is not a decent 16:9 SD camera out there apart from the XL2 which is quite frankly overpriced.

The Z1, with HD 1080i, widescreen, and Sony's knack for getting millions of companies to provide great accesories, is a damn good proposition. As Shannon has pointed out, getting HD on a DV tape is pretty damn cool. Seriously cost effective.

The low light though is whack, and whilst the gain does its job, upon close inspection it is quite noticeable. I'm pretty sure the XL2 is less sensitive than the XL1.

If the HVX uses a similar type of sensor, then I can imagine in progressive modes it will lose LOADS of light. This is the clincher for me. If Panasonic can somehow overcome these things, then I will be impressed.

But like you all they have really got me curious. One picture, and a paragraph of specifications has basically caused thousands of words of conjecture.

Wow, there's a lot of buyer's remorse in this thread here...

The HVX200 doesn't take away any options. It won't make HDV go away. It won't make MiniDV go away. Which is why the Z1/FX1/JVC ProHD/XL2/DVX exist. They're all there. They all work. If you want them, use them. Nobody's forcing you otherwise.

Ahhh... Jaime, that was a breath of fresh air.

Thanks for bringing things into their proper perspective!