HVX200 used for Spielberg's "Munich"

[Barry Green]

Hey all, Jarred Land (DVInfo member and proprietor of DVXUser) just reported that his HVX was hired to shoot some pickup shots for "Munich" -- the $75,000,000 five-time-Oscar-nominated Spielberg movie!

He said the HVX was used for "shooting comp pickups for the foreign theatrical release of Munich."

If you want to read his report it's on the other forum. But I thought the very fact of it being used in such a high-profile film would be of interest here seeing as this is one of the largest HVX forums in the world.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Can you please give a link?

So there is HVX footage IN the movie, or am I wrong?

[Chris Hurd]

I believe it's http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=46138

[Robert Lane]

Jared's report backs up a few things I've been trying to convince people of:

1) Those who've been working mostly in the DV realm have become accustomed to one-hour tape runs, but in film productions you almost never see anything longer than 11 minute film loads. So, the relatively short record times currently available aren't an issue for film producers, they're used to it. We'll all get spoiled when the 16gb cards become available.

2) The DVCPRO color space is in point of fact superior to HDV, and is better suited for high-end use in keying or any compositing. IMHO HDV is pro-sumer/consumer; DVCPRO-50/100 is absolutely a pro end-to-end color space.

3) The overall image quality IS amazing out of the HVX - and the actual resolution numbers are an esoteric *measurbator* thing to worry about. The final output is always the judge, not the tech specs on paper.

4) The HVX is NOT a pro-sumer body, it's a full-on professional Vari-cam in a smaller form factor. None of the HDV cameras have to deal with things like shutter angles, only Vari-cam has those settings.

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

Well, one thing is for certain... After I pick up my HVX200, 2x8GB cards and a few accessories, new tripod.... and I just set up a G5 quad w/30" LCD and an Xserve fiber RAID, w/FCS & Shake4, yadda, yadda... I am indeed a poor man. :)

Hope my camera gets here soon so I can try to pay this shtuff off.

[David Saraceno]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kilgroe

am indeed a poor man. :)

Hope my camera gets here soon so I can try to pay this shtuff off.

LOL

That's good.

[Alister Chapman]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

2) The DVCPRO color space is in point of fact superior to HDV, and is better suited for high-end use in keying or any compositing. IMHO HDV is pro-sumer/consumer; DVCPRO-50/100 is absolutely a pro end-to-end color space.

3) The overall image quality IS amazing out of the HVX - and the actual resolution numbers are an esoteric *measurbator* thing to worry about. The final output is always the judge, not the tech specs on paper.

Yeah right, 1920x1080 downsampled to 1280 luma x 640 chroma is just pants. Assuming the CCD res is way below full res to start with and then downsample by a factor of 4 and your not gonna get great colour space, and that's at 1080. If you only at 720p it's downsampled to 960 luma and 480 chroma pixels, hardly HD at all. Don't forget that at 24P DVCPRO HD you only get 40Mb/s intraframe so in reality at 24/25P it's even more compressed than HDV, given the general acceptance that long GOP is in most cases 3 to 4 times more efficient than intraframe!

I agree that it is theoreticaly better colour space than HDCAM (4:1:1), but I'm not going to believe that any sub $20k camera is sctually going to produce images comparable to any of the current HDCAM range.

[Dave Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Jared's report backs up a few things I've been trying to convince people of:

1) Those who've been working mostly in the DV realm have become accustomed to one-hour tape runs, but in film productions you almost never see anything longer than 11 minute film loads. So, the relatively short record times currently available aren't an issue for film producers, they're used to it. We'll all get spoiled when the 16gb cards become available.

3) The overall image quality IS amazing out of the HVX - and the actual resolution numbers are an esoteric *measurbator* thing to worry about. The final output is always the judge, not the tech specs on paper.

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

Maybe in the film industry they're used to short film loads but it doesn't mean they like it that way.

About the image quality, well, any of the 24p cameras (Canon,Panny,JVC) are pretty impressive so I don't know what advantage the HVX would have in that field, in fact it looks blurrier than the other two.

I just don't see why a multi-million dollar production would have any need to use a single low end camera for anything other than collecting some insignificant footage or brand marketing...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

About the image quality, well, any of the 24p cameras (Canon,Panny,JVC) are pretty impressive so I don't know what advantage the HVX would have in that field, in fact it looks blurrier than the other two.

...Various frame rate options is one huge reason to pick up the HVX -- if you can use that feature. I do agree that the HVX seems to produce a softer image than the XLH1 or HD100, but I still think it produces amazing video for the price.

[Walter Graff]

And since the movie already opened overseas January 30, 2006 it would be interesting to know what exactly he supposedly shot that was actually in a movie that is already distributed?

[Graeme Nattress]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Yeah right, 1920x1080 downsampled to 1280 luma x 640 chroma is just pants. Assuming the CCD res is way below full res to start with and then downsample by a factor of 4 and your not gonna get great colour space, and that's at 1080. If you only at 720p it's downsampled to 960 luma and 480 chroma pixels, hardly HD at all. Don't forget that at 24P DVCPRO HD you only get 40Mb/s intraframe so in reality at 24/25P it's even more compressed than HDV, given the general acceptance that long GOP is in most cases 3 to 4 times more efficient than intraframe!

I agree that it is theoreticaly better colour space than HDCAM (4:1:1), but I'm not going to believe that any sub $20k camera is sctually going to produce images comparable to any of the current HDCAM range.

The efficiencies you state for long gop, are however not generally accepted at all. In reality, DVCproHD is at least as good as HDV, and is often better under certain circumstances. However, it's not perfect by any means, and HDV, DVCproHD and HDCAM are all over-compressed.

HDCAM is 3:1:1, not 4:1:1, but the chroma sampling is still quite bad, especially when you consider it means that the chroma is 1/3 of the reduced 1440 rez, not 1/3 of the full raster 1920.

The gamma curves in the Panasonics seem to be a lot nicer than the ones in the Sony cameras, so in many ways they can look superior. For HDCAM looks at bargain prices, that's what XDCAM HD is about. It looks like Sony has just devalued anyone who's bought an HDCAM, nice Sony.

Graeme

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

4) The HVX is NOT a pro-sumer body, it's a full-on professional Vari-cam in a smaller form factor. None of the HDV cameras have to deal with things like shutter angles, only Vari-cam has those settings.

I'd agree with Jared about the HVX's intended market: It's a poor-mans Grass Valley "Viper", period.

I think you meant variable speed--virtually every (maybe all) camcorders on the market have variable shutter, which just means variable exposure time, and is comparable in effect to the shutter angle adjustment on a film camera.

I would imagine that the HVX is more of a poor-man's Varicam than a Viper--unless the HVX is capable of something that the Varicam is not, of which I'm unaware?

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Walter Graff

And since the movie already opened overseas January 30, 2006

Didn't open everywhere. There are territories it hasn't opened in yet.

Some territories had a problem with a certain scene so he assisted them in reshooting that particular scene.

This is no "myth."

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

It looks like Sony has just devalued anyone who's bought an HDCAM, nice Sony. Graeme

Sony has told me directly that XDCAM HD will eventually replace HDCAM/CineAlta -- except for HDCAM SR (which is MPEG-4 based).

Specifically, XDCAM HD at 35Mbps with VBR is 1080i60 (with real 24p) done right -- no MPEG-2 artfacts, just like 72030 is now. But, it is 4:1:1.

Next comes 4:2:2 at 70Mbps -- which more than replaces HDCAM/CineAlta.

And, naturally both blow HDV and DVCPRO HD away. Which is why JVC has ProHD rather than HDV. It too can support higher bit rates. And, Panasonic will move quickly to offer Varicam to P2 using MPEG-2 at higher bit-rates.

[Graeme Nattress]

Thought it was 4:2:0 not 4:1:1 at 35mps variable? I don't see how you can say it has no MPEG artifacts like 720p30 when 720p30 is known to produce serious MPEG artifacting under certain conditions, and like all highly compressed formats, produces issues for colour correction even under "easy" conditions.

Did they also tell you that >30fps variable frame rates are less than half rez? Who do they think they're kidding?

Graeme