The first cameras shipped, and if you look around the web, there are pockets of people posting footage and samples. As far as how many, well that is something that on a worldwide basis, I really don't know.
Best regards,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems
Re: It's Q1 2006 by doka15 on Jan 2, 2006 at 12:17:57 am
Cool so you guys made the dead line you set. What I am really interested in seeing is this footage transferred to film. But I guess that will be some time until I can see that. But I am eagerly waiting.
This month in DV magazine they did an article on HDV to film transfer and all I could think was what a waste of time. But the article said that it looked OK, almost like 16mm blown up to 35mm. I
The guys from Moviola, Plaster City Digital Post did a film out of the footage that they shot just prior to DV Expo. While I did not see it, I heard it looked very good. I did see the footage on a 20' screen at Plaster City, and it looked unbelieveable. Hard to image that the images came from a $6,000 camera.
But you don't say where you are from, so it may take some time for the same test to happen near you, but if you are in LA, call them up and ask them.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems
Re: It's Q1 2006 by doka15 on Jan 2, 2006 at 5:05:54 pm
I'm just north of LA in a small town called Santa Ynez. So it would be worth calling these people and seeing what it looks like. As a film maker I really believe this camera is going to be the bridge for video to film for low budget projects. It's nice to know that if you make a movie with this camera and the movie is good then you can transfer to film for theatrical projection.
Re: It's Q1 2006 by Ron Lindeboom on Jan 2, 2006 at 5:42:08 pm
[doka15]"I'm just north of LA in a small town called Santa Ynez."
Hi Lars,
Santa Ynez, eh? With a name like Lars, I would have thought that you were just across the street from Santa Ynez over in Solvang.*
;o)
Kathlyn and I live up the road a ways from you in Cambria.
You live in a gorgeous area, Lars. I hope you are not washing away with the rains.
Best regards,
Ron Lindeboom
creativecow.net
*Solvang, for those who are not from nor aware of this area, is a town founded by Danes and is noted as a wonderful tourist town with windmills and other architectural similitudes to what you might see in Denmark.
Re: It's Q1 2006 by I. Friedman on Jan 4, 2006 at 11:10:40 pm
Jan Wrote:
"The guys from Moviola, Plaster City Digital Post did a film out of the footage that they shot just prior to DV Expo. While I did not see it, I heard it looked very good. I did see the footage on a 20' screen at Plaster City, and it looked unbelieveable. Hard to image that the images came from a $6,000 camera."
I am the producer of this project. If anyone has questions, feel free to contact me directly.
Look for an upcoming article from me with extensive tests going from Varicam to 35mm. Complely objective real world test. Almost completed, I am just having trouble getting a 1200A for the 1080 recapture.
Re: It's Q1 2006 by doka15 on Jan 2, 2006 at 5:10:11 pm
Interesting. But the Varicam to 35mm will be better quality due to many factors, lenses being a large part I am sure. I would love to see the 2 cameras, Varicam and HVX200 in a film transfer test to see the differences.
I will look for your article. What magazine is it in?
I hope the people at the Cow here might want to put the article on the site.
I am doing it as a workflow test for an upcoming project I am working on, thought I would share it in the interest of helping out other indy film makers.
I will not be comparing the Varicam and the HVX but it will be a step by step from the Varicam to 35mm via the ARRI Laserwriter.
I like knowing that Supersizeme was shot on mini DV and had a wide theatrical release. It is great to plan for the best picture but the story will aloways determine the finish. They weren't about to shelve a film like supersizeme becasue it was shot in an inferior format. I think that small indy films are always going to cut through when they are about story and about good acting or revealing new great talents. It is great to know that the films will be of a much more pleasing quality but I did not mind the quality of supersizeme, rogerandme, bowling for columbine, murderball (dvx100a) and other recent theatrical successes.
Re: It's Q1 2006 by Joe Yaggi on Jan 2, 2006 at 9:24:52 pm
Hi Guys,
So the camera is out. Thats cool! Two questions:
1. When the PAL version be available.
2. How do you think it looks for some decent storage solutions?
I was recently at the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Fest and, like most of my colleagues, storage was one of the big questions on our minds. For me, a typical shoot could involve a month in the field, under very harsh conditions (for cameras as well as people) and it wouldn't be unusual for me to shoot 60+ tapes.
Thanks and best regards for the New Year!
Joe
Joe Yaggi
Creative Supervisor, Director, DP
Jungle Run Productions
www.jungle-run.com
Filmmakers for Conservation - Board Member
TVE Asia Pacific - Indonesia Regional Representative
t: +62.361.975378 (+fax), 979110, 979109
m: +62.8123.813.887
PO Box 455
Ubud, Bali Indonesia 80571
Re: It's Q1 2006 by Blub on Jan 2, 2006 at 10:18:25 pm
I thought I would contribute some observations to this thread. it seems to be popping up all over the place.
1) They have been transferring video (SD) to film for decades, some of it is stunningly good.
2) GIGO, garbage in garbage out, does anyone think that a better image from any HD camera is going to produce lesser quality results when transferred to film than SD footage? Better footage in, better film quality out.
3) 99.999999 of all Indy projects that get any kind of release to the public do so as video. Whether its DVD TV internet etc. Where is the broad need for film.
4) Big scale theaters do not show small video Indy projects it is usually in the smaller venues, and they often show them vie video projectors.
5) Last time I looked film as a distribution format was on its way out. It might take time but why be on the wrong side of this trend? Some HD video cameras in the right hands produce extremely pleasing results.
6) Most people who do Indies and beg and shout for a film transfer do so because they want to show off. In a way they want to finally tell the truth when they refer to their FILM.
7) Shoot film for film, it looks better, although there is no auto exposure, auto focus etc, it requires craftsmanship and skill, and when you talk about your FILM it wont be code language for what you wish it were.
8) Some people seem to think that a film transfer will wipe away all the grit and lack of skill from the run and gun style that is part of so many Indy projects, save your money, it isn
Re: It's Q1 2006 by Mike Schrengohst on Jan 3, 2006 at 1:42:07 am
I will help you clean up...
No really, I could not agree more. The people
pushing the tape to film thing are the labs
that still have a big overhead to cover.
Granted there might be a need here and there
but really by the time I shoot my "film" on
my HVX and edit electronically I don't
see the need for a film transfer unless
Universal picks it up.. and then who cares?
I can go shoot my real film with 35MM and then
get it transferred to HDCAM SR and go edit at
Skywalker Ranch!!
Re: It's Q1 2006 by doka15 on Jan 4, 2006 at 6:23:02 am
I have to agree and disagree with that. For the past 15 years since film school everyone says that. "Don't worry what you shoot it on just finish it, if it's good it will be good no matter what it is on". I also read a good book a while back "How to make an action movie for $99" That was a good book and I recommend it for low budge film makers.
But for me this camera opens up the 'what if' door. What if I shoot my movie and it's a hit, picked up and transfered to 35mm. I have seen SD to film and it looks bad. Even though 99.99999 % of films are right to DVD or TV. The low budget creator has a dream to make the best posiable motion picture he can. I never like approching projects saying "Ahh, it's only going to be on DVD so who cares." Even though your point are valid and people have heard them before, this camera opens the 'what if'door a little wider and that gets me a little excited. It's about the dream.
Re: It's Q1 2006 by Blub on Jan 4, 2006 at 4:53:21 pm
Check out some video/films shot by AFI grads. I have seen some that were shot on DigiBeta and transferred to film, WOW! If it were not done by a friend of mine I would not have believed it was a video transfer. Who ever they hire for the transfer is the place to go.
Maybe you have seen transfers done elsewhere.
Re: It's Q1 2006 by Mike Schrengohst on Jan 4, 2006 at 9:26:27 pm
It gets down to a point of convenience.
Imagine if you had to book and rent a computer
to write a script??
You might have to write on paper with a pen
for gods sake!!
I remember many friends in the printing
industry saying how much business they
were losing to people with computers.
I said why don't you hire some of them
or get your computers??
I don't expect a $6,000 camera to hurt the
Hollywood box office, but for those of us
in back of the line I see some light
at the end of the tunnel.
(It's probably the SuperTrain)
