Sony's new era
by Sanjin Jukic
on
Mar 7, 2005 at 10:06:49 am
Sony's new era starts today with Sir Howard Stringer and also Sony's HDV leadership becoming must have for the new company's look and cutting costs of production. All other competing companies like Panasonic, Canon, Sharp or JVC are technologically far behind Sony in low cost HD and JVC's new ProHD is not going to ruin FX1/Z1 success for sure just because of price tag and smaller resolution at 720p..
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by Guy Barwood on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:05:35 am
I think your missing the point that JVC have lead the HDV market for the longest of all, and Sony have only just entered the market. Sure, the 1U/10U may not be the ideal camera to work with, but they are a lot better than what Sony had. While Sony may have the glory for now, it will be short lived. I think JVC are as committed to maintaining their lead with HDV and low cost HD as Sony, the only difference is in the marketing $$$
Just like everything else, the latest products are often the best, and its pretty rare for two companies to release products on the same day...
Lets wait to judge the second generation JVC camera when we have some real details and real pricing, not what you think it will be based on the specs leaked so far.
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by Sanjin Jukic on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:33:09 am
OK let's wait for NAB and after NAB time to show who is who in a low cost HD arena or who is gladiator, who is imperator and who is audience or the plebs.
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by RobRoy on Mar 7, 2005 at 12:34:27 pm
I don't think Sony is in the least bit worried, judging by the number of Z1s purchased down here if they don't sell another unit post NAB they'll still be laughing all the way to the bank. We've bought 4, another outfit 10 and another 15. We're all within a 1 Km radius and still we cannot keep up with the demand of people wanting to hire them.
Users are about 60% using them to shoot DV25 and 40% shooting HDV. Bear in mind down here 4:3 has gone the way of the dodo and there wasn't a huge choice in sub $10K 16:9 cameras.
I don't know what all the fuss is about in editing HDV, I've found it no more difficult that DV25. Learning to get the best out of the Z1 is a more difficult task, in general I find applying the same rules as shooting 35mm seem to work.
Sure it doesn't take much effort to pull some real ugly footage out of the Z1 but so what when you can also get stunning results within acceptable boundaries. I don't think this justifies the level of scorn that some are aiming at these cameras, from what I've seen I can see nothing stopping them being used to shoot serious productions destined for the big screen. Of course that's not to say they come even close to HDCAM, anyone making that sort of claim needs new glasses or else hasn't looked at intercut footage on a big screen.
All that aside, I don't see why any of this is appearing on this forum. If this was a HDCAM forum it'd be fair enough, surely the purpose of this forum is for those who, rightly or wrongly, are into HDV and want to get the best our of it, or get answers to difficulties they're having. I seriously doubt anyone is so dumb as to part with $5K for a camera based on marketing hype or if they are, well I doubt anything here is going to save them from themselves anyway.
Maybe the real issue here is that for every one posting here there are another hundred who've just bought the camera and are out there getting on with it.
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by george caramanna on Mar 7, 2005 at 3:00:02 pm
I couldnt agree with you more Robroy. Shooting with film takes alot of skill and experience. Video is generally brainless. With HDV you really do have to think and I believe this is why people are complaining. To get the best out of the Sony you cant just point and shoot.
I also shoot in 16 and S8 and the mind-set is much more focused. Know the limitations and shoot within them for excellent results.
For example. Video including HD and HDV doesnt look good for wide angle landscape or large city views. Its much better to rent a film camera for a day to get these type of shots and intercut with other footage. No use complaining about the limitation. Use the best tool at the best price for the needed job.
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by Leo Ticheli on Mar 7, 2005 at 3:53:25 pm
What format is "brainless?"
As a Cinematographer, I've found film to be the easiest format; the exceptionally wide dynamic range allows the Colorist to make pretty pictures from material that was a good bit under or over exposed. They can even make it look somewhat richer if the lighting was a little too flat. Sure, the camera is more complex in loading, but everything else is easy. Light to your eye, pick up a reading from your Spectra, and shoot. I do agree that you need an experienced eye because it's the only "monitor" you have for lighting. Video Assist is great for watching the action, but worse than useless for lighting. We always tried to hide the Video Assist from the client while lighting because the client would look at it and think that was how the picture was going to look!
HD is the next easiest format; pretty wide dynamic range and it does have one dramatic advantage over film in the lighting stage; you can see on the HD monitor exactly what you're getting. This makes communication with the Gaffer and lighting crew extraordinarily fast and easy. I find I can light much faster for HD and because the cameras are so sensitive, we're using less light. Not fewer lights, mind you, but fewer watts. That means smaller fixtures and a cooler set.
SD video is the most difficult; you still have the advantage of WYSIWYG with the broadcast monitor, but you have a narrower dynamic range and all the challenges of NTSC, such as moire. Much more care must be taken with things like wardrobe density, pattern, and color and you are always worried about excessive clipping of the highlights.
Is SD video "brainless?" I do agree that there probably more miles of horrible material shot on SD video than film; film is expensive, tape is cheap. I do not agree that SD video has to be bad; excellent SD video is certainly not, "point and shoot." I've always felt SD people who did wonderful things deserved more respected than their film colleagues. I think we'd all agree that we've seen some amazingly beautiful scenes shot on SD.
I agree that HDV is not an easy format; you have the same challenges as shooting SD video and some additional ones to consider.
In the final analysis, the talent and skill of the Cinematographer is far more important than the format.
Good shooting!
Leo
Director/Cinematographer
Southeast USA
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by karl on Mar 7, 2005 at 4:37:30 pm
i have to agree
Film is FAR more forgiving than video. Anyone who has lit for film and lit for video will know that you have to be much more careful for video. As video has a narrow lattitude, not only do you have to be careful to expose highlights correctly, but the depth between pure white and black is so narrow that subtle lighting takes much longer; a lighting difference of just half a stop could be the difference between a correctly exposed subject and one which is too bright or dark - not the case with film.
in post - colour correcting DV or HDV is much harder than colour correcting uncompressed film footage. Similarly if you underexpose Video and try to bring the levels up - you wont have much success as you would with a print.
There has always been this stigma that film is harder than video. Film is faffy, and video may be a more convenient format, but to get good images you actually have to work a lot harder with video than you do with film.
Re: Film WAS harder... by Blub on Mar 7, 2005 at 7:35:42 pm
Shooting film was much harder than video years ago. Up until the early mid 1980s film speed was 100 asa (neg). Most lighting was bare bulb 1000watts and the lens was typicaly slow. It required so much work to get to the point you could get good images from the less expensive easly available facilities.
Video of the same era was easy, you recorded just what you saw, this was not the case with film. There was a brand of shooting film that was for the pont and shoot crowd, what we now call ENG or EFP a CP16 camera and that odd higher speed film that was reversal for TV news productions. It did have a wider range but the image was hardly worth the price and effort.
Now, with 500 asa film stock and fast lenses that are relatively cheep, film is a breaze. The skills you learned from the old days with the 100 asa 7247 film will always be useful but film has had a transformation.
The persception has not changed though. Now I think people say and think film is harder because of some attempt to argue that film people have greater skills than video people. Some do most do not, fast film stock and amazing film transfer techniques and equipment has allowed any idiot to shoot film and hit rather than miss more often than not.
Regarding the new Managemnt at Sony, so what. Can you say raise prices and dump people? The new guy Howard Stringer is a jack ass. He comes from CBS news, was a producer for Dan Rather, a brown noser of epic scale. Worked his way up the ladder to head of CBS news kissing ass. How in the world he got to Sony is unknowable. Getting the top job at Sony becasue Sony was losing money on sales in America and Europe is interesting sence he was the head of most of the groups that were losing money, typical.
The Japanese are impressed with his British (welsh) accent and that fact that he is a bright buy but, I cant imagine that guy will be able to transform Sony in a way that will mean anything to use other than the usual price rise.
Re: Film WAS harder... by RobRoy on Mar 7, 2005 at 10:17:52 pm
Probably I should have been a bit more specific. Yes video is in most ways much trickier than film, lighting is critical and as rightly pointed trying to pull up video just 1 stop is nigh impossible, I know I tried a few days ago!
What I was refering to though was how you MOVE the camera. With HD or SD video you can use the camera like a garden hose (not that you should) and nothing will fall apart, except maybe the audiences stomach. HDV on the other hand requires a more 'filmic' approach to how you move the camera. If you must pan you need to watch the panning rate. From the little I know about shooting 35mm much the same applies but for other reasons. You can shoot fast action but you let the action happen within the frame or else you keep the action in the frame by tracking. Now for example you might find your backgound falling apart a bit with HDV but the motion blur from the slow shutter speeds will hide that.
Where some of the comments quite surprise me is I hear complaints about well know limitations of HDV from doing things that you should never do if your target is the big screen. Sure more expensive HiDef formats will cope better, if not perfectly, but why would you be wanting that on the big screen. No I'm not saying there aren't real world shooting scenarios where HDV can let you down but the same goes for any system. In many cases for example high end cameras be they film or video simple will not fit into the space available or are too valuable to risk in hazardous situations. Every format has it's limitations, I'm very much of the get over it and get on with it mindset.
Re: Film WAS harder... by Sanjin Jukic on Mar 7, 2005 at 10:36:55 pm
It's a pleasure to deal with 1920x1080 px just for about US $ 3.500. 1920x1080 px is HDV size of the movie picture resolution. Of course that it is a different to deal that with even smaller HD at 1280x720 px. It is about the geometry and a space feeling. It is not just a bigger resolution. It is about aesthetic value that you would not be able to achieve with DV, SD or even smaller HD size at 1280x720 px. Cinematographer is like a painter, a size of canvas sometimes has matter. But in moving images a size of canvas is a crucial element of movie aesthetic. Do not forget this. 1080i is entry HD and 1080p is a real professional digital cinema resolution size. 720p variants are suitable for broadcasting. But sorry I would like to be a filmmaker...
Re: Film WAS harder... by Leo Ticheli on Mar 7, 2005 at 10:37:47 pm
Actually, shooting at 24p, you move an HD camera exactly like a film camera shooting at 24 fps. The effects are identical; pan too rapidly, and you will see strobbing; subjects moving too quickly horizontally across the frame will produce the same effect. Every film shooter knows this basic principal.
Interlaced video is capturing 2.5 times as many "looks" at the action, so it appears smoother; unfortunately, this comes at a high price; interlace in all it's flickering glory and the lack of the magic 1/48 second exposure duration with the 50% gap in the action caused by the 180° shutter. This is the primary reason test audiences prefer the look of film and HD (24 fps) to the look of video at 60i.
Video shooters experienced only with 60i, often learn about panning too fast the hard way. Fortunately, once is usually enough!
Good shooting!
Leo
Director/Cinematographer
Southeast USA
Re: Film WAS harder... by Sanjin Jukic on Mar 7, 2005 at 10:51:04 pm
[Leo Ticheli]"Video shooters experienced only with 60i"
Video world is still not uniformed like the most US citizens do not see that "the world is a GLOBE and not a flat field of 60i". For example 50i region or in former description PAL never had 24 fps cam on the market. All that cam were sold with 25 fps. So should not repeat that between 24 fps and 25 fps is about 4% difference that every pro NLE could confirm the speed you want. To conclude is to say that wide range of video shooters experience a different camera speeds. 50i still has a huge advantage (I know that Steve M. will not agree with that in advance). But industry agreed. Z1 has multiple options 60i or 50i. Choose what ever cover your need.
Re: Film WAS harder... by Leo Ticheli on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:02:21 pm
I quite agree that there are definite advantages to PAL's 50i vs. NTSC's 60i.
However, 50i is still twice as many shots per second than 24 fps, so I could say that any "interlaced-only" shooter may not have learned to pan more slowly with film or HD at 24p.
The difference between 25 fps and 24 fps does not seem to be significant and films shot at one rate are regularly shown at the other without even needing a correction for the audio pitch shift.
Good shooting, my friend,
Leo
Director/Cinematographer
Southeast USA
That's really not fair, George by Tim Allison on Mar 8, 2005 at 7:09:35 pm
I can shoot bad film just as easily as I can shoot bad video. It just costs more to shoot bad film.
Anyone that brainlessly shoots film will come up with just as bad of a product as someone who brainlessly shoots video. But shooting good film AND good video takes knowledge, experience and skill.
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by Derek Antonio Serra on Mar 7, 2005 at 3:09:35 pm
[RobRoy]"I don't see why any of this is appearing on this forum. If this was a HDCAM forum it'd be fair enough, surely the purpose of this forum is for those who, rightly or wrongly, are into HDV and want to get the best our of it, or get answers to difficulties they're having. I seriously doubt anyone is so dumb as to part with $5K for a camera based on marketing hype or if they are,"
I'm glad to see that others support my philosophy on the purpose of this forum as well. With some of the comments being made, you'd think this was the "anti-hdv" forum. I'm "pro-hdv" and proud of it.
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by Tom Bates on Mar 7, 2005 at 7:32:45 pm
Derek,
I can agree with you that some contributions, and some threads, stray a bit beyond the declared HDV interests, but I don't think we are permanently damaged by this. I do think that your sensitivity might be tuned a bit high, however.
A comparison of HDV results to lower DV standards or higher HD standards is most often brought up as a way of judging where this HDV format sits when we evaluate its usefulness. We all wish it were Cinealta standards at candy store prices, but deep down we know that it's not. But we also generally (but not all of us) agree that it is a step up in production tools over last year's DV tools for producing products on a budget. And the performance gain per dollar spent is exhilarating.
I think that it is inevitable and unstoppable that people will refer from time to time to the other options on the price/performance scale because the varying applications and varying strengths and weaknesses of equipment make these comparisons hard to define and agree on within a few sentences. I remember laughing a few months ago when a debate about acceptable standards broke down into one contributor saying something like "well it might be usable if you are shooting a wedding video, but not if you are shooting a feature film" and the other contributor said "I am shooting wedding videos and I agree that it is a perfect tool!" We will never be completely done with these comparisons because we will have new stuff to get our brains around at NAB and the debate about cosmic values starts anew.
I think I gain a little insight from all the postings, and I would especially include your contributions in that statement. But I wish you good luck trying to stem the tides here. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.
Re: Sony's new era could only last another 7 weeks... by George Caramanna on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:02:14 pm
Re: video being harder than film to shoot. I must confess that Ive never heard that one before. I suspect that RobRoys reason for this statement is that he is very skilled in shooting on film and video. The difficulty suggested I suspect is far more esoteric and concerned with acheiving a certain preferred look.
From a fundamental point of view however, A 5 year old can literally shoot a video camera. Heck look at the blair witch project. Wasnt that a bunch of 5 year olds?
Anyhow lighting is always needed for any decent shooting and the principals are the same between video and film.
