XL2 or DVX100A?

Question. Field of debth. Do you need a special lens to blur the background or vice versa with subjects? I couldnt find anything in the manuals about doing it with the JVC HD or the Panasonic PV120.

i want to do this to soften the greenscreen to make composition blend better.
 
It's really about the zoom factor. The easiest (or possibly the only) way to achieve it with DV is to zoom in on your subject, that should effectively blur out the background.

Also keep in mind that when greenscreening the key will work much better if the screen is lit darker than you would think it should be. By dimly lighting the screen it's much easier to get it evenly lit.
 
Mr Goldfish: :)

You bring up a very large topic! Shallow DOF (depth of field) is something that many digital moviemakers are always seeking. One thing that (currently) gives digitally shot productions away as digital is that they have a very deep DOF meaning that most everything is in focus at the same time. The latest star wars movies suffer from this (suffer - assuming you are going for a 35mm look). Look closely next time and you will see that most everything is in focus. Most people can't put their finger on why these movies look digital but this is precisely (one of) the reason.

DOF is, essentially, controlled by two things: focal length and f#. Focal length basically refers to how wide your lens is and f# how open the cameras iris is. Smaller focal lengths refer to wider field of view and deeper DOF (more things in focus at one time) while larger/longer focal lengths refer to a narrower field of view and a (percieved) shallower DOF (less in focus at one time).

The reason video cameras tend to have a deeper DOF (more in focus at once) is because they utilize sensors which are smaller than 35mm film. Because of this you don't have to use as large a focal length to get the same field of view you would with 35mm film. And because you use a shorter focal length the DOF is deeper than 35mm.

The best you can do with video to get a shallow DOF is to zoom in as will says. This will give you a larger/longer focal length.

There are, however, adapters which allow you to use 35mm lenses on video cameras. These tend to be expensive though (the most common system costs about 10K). It is relatively easy to build a system like this at home though for a few hundred dollars.
 
An excellent point Will! Thanks for pointing that out! :)

There is a reason the mini35 costs 10K after all! Most home made mini35 systems I have seen only do a decent job. I have seen only one or possibly two that I would use for pro work. I'm currently building one of these things as well at the moment. The main intent being to build in my own anamorphic system so I can get a true 2.35 image from my DVX.

Have I posted this before? I'm suddenly having some deja vu!
 
hah sorry i wrote that backwards. but Im glad you knew what I meant. The only problem is, I only have so much garage space to shoot in. It has 14 foot cielings but is only 3 car widths wide. I zoom in and all I have is torso and head shots which defeats the purpose of a 14 foot high screen. I can get better results filming my upper body in my bedroom and paint one wall green (as i did before).

thanks for the input guys.
 
Sony HVR-ZU1

iuhoosier336 said:
Which is better for shooting short films? i've worked with the XL1S but didnt like it too much, i hear the XL2 has 24fps though...

Just finished reading the latest issue of VIDEOMAKER magazine. Sony will debut its new High Def camera, the HVR-ZU1. Apparently, it shoots in the following modes:

60i
50i
30
25 frames per second
24 frames per second
XLR imputs
12X Zoom
SMPTE timecode

Here's some links I found on it:

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5327

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5331

http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=29230

I only mention it here because DVFilm.com says that the footage from the Sony FX1 looks really good transferred to film.

Supposedly going to be available in February. Could this be the new indie filmmaker's camera?

filmy
 
Unfortunately the Z1, like the FX1 won't shoot true progressive :(. The 24 emulation is absolutely horrible by all accounts. You could probably come up with some nice footage by deinterlacing PAL footage though! Though when you get right down to it deinterlaced footage isn't that much higher vertical res than normal DV.
 
Shaw said:
Unfortunately the Z1, like the FX1 won't shoot true progressive :(. The 24 emulation is absolutely horrible by all accounts. You could probably come up with some nice footage by deinterlacing PAL footage though! Though when you get right down to it deinterlaced footage isn't that much higher vertical res than normal DV.

From what I understand, DVFilm.com doesn't interlace for transfer to film. According to Marcus van Bavel, with DVFilmmaker, you can get outstanding 24p conversion from the FX1 already. I would assume that the same could be done with the new Z1.

I still like my DVX100A and will wait for Panasonic or JVC to come out with a new lower priced HiDef camera. According to Barry Green at DVXUser.com, Panasonic is coming out with a 3-CCD DVCPRO-HD prosumer camera, priced competitively with the Sony HDV camera. I would jump on one of those in a heartbeat...

filmy
 
i agree with that if that's the panasonic. i have a film entitled SUGAR VALENTINE in BLOCKBUSTER just released october 2004. very good stuff in the digital medium. i am trying to find out what cameras were used on the movie COLLATERAL starring Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx, that was shot 85% digital and it was awesome. if anyone knows, please let me know...shane dean
 
Shaw said:
Unfortunately the Z1, like the FX1 won't shoot true progressive :(. The 24 emulation is absolutely horrible by all accounts. You could probably come up with some nice footage by deinterlacing PAL footage though! Though when you get right down to it deinterlaced footage isn't that much higher vertical res than normal DV.


Its funny, when you ask someone who owns Panasonic, Canon, or JVC products, they say the FX1 or Z1 is a waste of time and the cineframe is horrible.

Then when you ask those who actually own the FX1 or the Z1 and they say it is amazing quality and the cineframe is not really that bad at all.
 
Last edited:
Then when you ask those who actually own the FX1 or the Z1 and they say it is amazing quality and the cineframe is not really that bad at all.

The people who bought the FX1 probably won't need it for what I need the camera for, so their positive feedback doesn't make the camera any better of an option. If they're interested in documentaries, for example, and true 24p is not that important to them, then the HD format is certainly nice to have and beats the pants off the DVX or XL2. But there are technical realities of the camera that no amount of positive testimonials will erase, like the GOP compression structure and the lack of a 24 fps frame rate.
 
True. If you want to shoot very fast moving objects, The FX1 is probably not the camera for you. Any other setting and the GOP Compression is not an issue.

DVFilm does an excellent job of 24p from uncompressed or MJPEG. And oddly enough straight conversion removing the pulldown from 29.97 to 24fps seems to work just fine for me in Vegas.

But its understandable you want uncompressed or DVCPro-HD compressed HD @ 24fps for $5k-$10k.

I would say though if you have a relatively calm film, just a straight up narrative film, you'd be insane to not shoot HD (now or later) compared to DV. I have seen many DV movies blown up to a movie theater screen. Most of the time its not pretty. The best ones are OK.
 
Last edited:
Top