ELLENTIGER said:
Hi all.
I just read all the current discussions between DVX, ZU1, and FX1. I am a budding filmmaker (I guess we all are), but here's my questions: When is Panasonic really going to unveil its new HD camera? It is sometime in 2005?
I think it is supposed to be at the end of 2005 but that will be announced at NAB.
Excuse me for sounding naive but what's the difference between shooting in 50i and 60i? I'm not a techy, so what does it even mean? 24p conversion, NLE, what's that?
50i = 25fps @ 2 interlaced fields per second, hence 50i. This is PAL framerate, as in what most of Europe watches.
60i = 30fps or 29.97fps @ 2 interlaced fields per second, hence 60. This is NTSC as in what most of North America watches.
24p = 24 progressive fps. Instead of interlaced fields, it has one frame of the full picture.
Interlaced fields are essentially half of the lines of resolution in one field (even), and then the other half in the next field (odd). This started with Television, because this is the easiest way to reduce the badwidth required to broadcast by half - simply scan from top to bottom the even field, then do the same on the next field. Unfortunately, this means that on any other medium than a television, where movement occurs, there will be a difference between odd fields and even fields which is visible, creating a very ugly "interlaced" effect. To counter this, one can "deinterlace" the image which can be fairly good but you always will lose at least some resolution in this, especially in the area in motion.
Progressive scan fixes this. It scans both fields, from line 1 to line 525 from top to bottom, creating no interlacing effect. There is 24p and 30p, meaning 24 progressive fps, or 30 progressive fps.
Coincidentally, film is also 24p (basically). So this means that the end frame rate will be very similar to film.
24p conversion from 30i or 60i (they're the same thing) is technically very complicated, requiring many procedures to take place such as elimination of frames and combining of others. That doesn't mean it can't be done, I've done it, and the end product is relatively nice.
24p conversion from 50i is very much more simple. The software only has to try to take 1 frame out of 25, and technically creates a nicer picture with less loss than the previous method.
Either can be done with 24pfilmmaker or even with Virtualdub or Vegas or Premiere to a lesser extent.
NLE = Non Linear Editor. Premiere, Vegas, Avid, Windows Movie Maker, Final Cut Pro... these and almost all others are non linear editors.
All I want to be able to have a camera that would have a film-like feature capabilities, compatible with either any editing software, and plug-ins.
You should be more focused on learning the basics/fundamentals of videography and filmmaking before making an expensive purchase and trying to make an epic "film-like" movie. You should also be aware that Mini-DV movies are (although most here are not willing to accept it) NOT going to ever be film, and are nor anywhere close to as valuable of an acquisition medium as film or high definition. So if your intent is to buy this camera, make an epic, have it find theatrical distribution, and become famous, I'm sorry to tell you DV is about akin to winning the Daytona500 with a showroom Dodge. HDV is better of a solution, but it is not without its faults, either, namely the MPEG-2 compression codec used during acquisition and storage which in circumstances with high motion (water splash, person running right in front of the camera) produces HEAVY artifacts.
The biggest drawback, despite all of the wonderful features of all of the DV cameras, is the resolution. While acceptable for DVD, it has to be shot so well that only very seasoned pros can pull it off - for the big screen. And even then there is absolutely no competition for well shot HD which is about equal to well shot super 16mm which is no match for well shot 35mm. To give you a comparison, 720x480 vs. 1920x1080 is the difference in resolution between DV and High Definition or Super 16mm. That is a huge difference, especially at 50' in a theater.
You might hear people tell tales of 28 Days Later, a movie made entirely on DV for theatrical which looked "pretty good". What they won't tell you is that 28 days later spent TONS of money in post production to look that good, as do most good looking DV movies - to some extent.
You should really read this article by SonnyBoo:
Link
So as long as you keep yourself in check, make DV movies you aren't planning to become Steven Spielberg with, but that you can experiment very highly with and possibly make a movie good enough to win an award or two at festivals and sell some DVD's, then you should be in the right frame of mind.
The end all thing is that theatrical distributors want a product they can sell NOW. That's why 35mm features are still the majority of features out there. High Def and s16 movies to a much smaller extent. It would have to be revolutionary to be picked up if it is DV.
What is the best camera that would do that?
Right now the best DV Cameras for DV filmmakers are the Panasonic DVX100a and the Canon XL2.
The best HDV Camera is the Z1, followed by the FX1. The JVC models that are out there right now are not worth your time.
The best HD camera is arguable at this point. They are so expensive that it depends what you need. Viper, CineAlta, Varicam, all produce great pictures, the Viper probably the nicest of the lot, but again extremely expensive.
With film, I suggest you either start with super 8mm or else forget it. You have a lot to learn before using a film camera.
As far waiting for Panasonic's HD, I can wait but what big difference will it have against the DVX100A?
It will be the lowest end of High Definition. similar to the VariCam. It is technically much smaller resolution that the FX1 and Z1, but it should have none of the problems associated with the FX1 and Z1 such as the artifacts and lower color sampling. It should be a nicer picture, just not as much overall resolution as the FX1 or Z1.
The soon-to-be-announced JVC camera is supposed to be the same resolution as that, But HDV, But also 24p.
How does one transfer tape to film?
Through a laser or CRT recorder. This is around $160-$250 US per minute of screen time. That makes it unfeasable for just about every DV production BUT the bigger budgeted ones. It makes it so expensive that there is just about no reason to not originate on film, if you plan to finish on it.
I guess I really need a crash course in this whole camera and editing stuff.
Read some books, read this website
Link, read everything you can get your hands on. Get a cheap camcorder and shoot, shoot, shoot, learn, learn, learn.
I am making a Camera FAQ which I will be adding all of this info to and will post it soon enough. You might learn some things from that.
My screenplay is near completion and I am looking into actually producing and shooting it in the Philippines. I just got a bad news that film stocks and camera rentals (16mm and 35mm) costs an arm and a leg! So now, I am thinking of getting my own camera that would shoot like a film camera.
Again, it is my opinion, but you will be making the mistake of your life if you have a script and a budget and no experience making any type of cinema. If you don't know how to frame shots, how to tell a story as a director, how to direct actors, how to make contracts, releases, marketing as a producer, edit with a NLE, you will, in all seriousness, fail miserably. ESPECIALLY if you try to shoot film. And even if you do have a DP with you on a film set, if you've never directed before, you will be pissing off everyone around you. Do you know what a shot list is? What a Shooting script is? What a slate is? If not, you need to do some serious studying before jumping into the deep end of the pool.