-
HDV or DVCPRO HD
I’m setting up a HD FCP w/ dual 2.7 & 6800, 5.6 Xserve RAID, and Kona 2. I’m comparing the Z1U to the hvx-200. Heavily leaning toward the hvx-200, but need to know more about the Kona 2 hardware support within FCP for HDV vs. DVCPRO HD. Any first hand experience with this for direct comparison?
Also, will it be viable to use a laptop for capture for a few months for HD capture until the P2 prices drop?
-
7 Replies
-
I am reliably informed by Jan Crittenden of Panasonic, in response to my email to her, that the camera will indeed capture direct to a laptop and into FCP using firewire.
I too have no desire to spend thousands of $$s on these cards. Besides which, I understand that in HD 1080 24p you munch up 1 gig per minute — so unsuitable for documentary or dramatic film-making. Probably ok for ENG guys.
I am planning on purchasing a LONG firewire cable with a repeater.
Best
H.
PS. There are also plans afoot from a third party to make a direct to hard drive recording system, but I have no idea when this might appear.
-
“HD 1080 24p you munch up 1 gig per minute — so unsuitable for documentary or dramatic film-making”
well in the FILM WORLD 11 min is max you get from a 35mm 1000ft magazine but most of the time you change the mag around 10 min just depends on how long the current scene is timing = if your scene is 3 min then you would have to change the maybe at 8 min , in film you need a little head/tails to run off …
so if what you say is true = 1 gig per min in 1080 24p then 2 8gig p2 cards would be 18 min so you will NOT hear any film persons complaining about that for dramatic film making …
-
9/8/05 6:56 PM
I understand the very valid point you are making, but …
Forgive me, but I’m one of the dramatic “film persons” to whom you refer and who’s directed 8 feature films — none is a particularly big deal, so I have nothing to boast about, however they are dramatic features nonetheless. And I’m complaining precisely because of the reloading issue. I don’t want to have to reload after 15 to 18 minutes. This whole Digital Video thing is supposed to alleviate issues like having to sit around while the P2 cards are downloaded onto a computer and everyone takes a coffee break. And I want to record direct to disk so that I don’t have to worry about the amount of coverage I am giving to a scene. I don’t want to cut at the end of a take when an actor is doing well and warming up. I want to keep rolling and run into another take. That’s expensive with film and, apparently, expensive with the P2 cards at the moment — plus it’s a bit of a pain in the ass.
And, by the way, on my pictures (at least the better ones) I have used 2000′ 35mm mags which give me 22 minutes with the actors without reloading.
About 4 years ago I did a picture with a 10 year old child in the lead called “”Mockingbird Don’t Sing”. It was a serious movie. Since she had no acting experience I would run the camera (shooting 35mm scope) for 15 to 20 minutes at a time to catch a few naturalistic moments with her. Digital recording is supposed to make this easier and cheaper and less troubling for the accountants.
Your point is well made – and who the hell am I to disagree with you? Nevertheless I seriously believe that a producer/director of dramatic films is going to see this as an unfortunate restriction until the P2 cards can record longer scenes … and it would be nice to see them come down in price
Now I feel that I’ve screamed at you and you’re probably a very nice person.
Forgive me for being such a curmudgeon.
Best wishes,
Harry
Harry Bromley-Davenport
-
Reading threads like this is making me truly wonder if people are seriously considering this camera as a replacement for 35mm? Or even Varicam for that matter? Are we all considering that this camera at its price point is going to do it all?
I’m very keen to get a HVX 200 when it is released in PAL, I will even buy 3 cards at first so we cycle effectively, but I’m not going to convince anyone who cares to use it that it will replace a Varicam, or a film camera.
Surely it’s going to create it’s own niche.
Isn’t it designed to expose users of Mini Dv and some higher DV formats to something with some more bells and whistles, something that gives them a taste of what Varicam, and to a lesser degree, Cine gamma enabled Panasonic cameras can do?
I’m not bagging the camera, or anyone with an opinion as what they will do when they get one, but are we maybe getting a little carried away with our expectations of what this little gem can do? -
Well said, Harry!
I think we are on a stage of camera technology and thinking that you can do digitally the same than with film. Next stage will be how to do better than with film, and thats what users are starting to ask.
We are getting more used to computers and digital devices, so questions like “why can’t I just put hard disk inside?” or “can’t you put just one chip inside it to work as hd controller so I could attach any external sata disk to it?” arise… -
I think that what most people forget on here is that tech specs aside, its all about fooling the eye.I have worked with digibeta,beta SP, DVCPRO50, mini DV and once a cinealta. Sure the larger cameras are better – they work better in all round conditions; they have better lenses, CCD’s, and technical gubbings.
However, under the right lighting conditions, can we get our mini-dv footage to look almost as good as the DVCPRO50 to the eye? Pretty much that’s a yes. Maybe it only gets 90% of the way there and technically is a vastly inferior signal – but would our clients notice? No. Absolutely not. Would your average TV viewer notice? again, no. So if you’re not getting into CC, or fine effects work, mini DV can cut it for broadcast – its already been proven as channels all over the world accept and shoot mini DV for many TV series.
This forum has a mixture of people who work at the ‘high end’ and those which are pretty much confined to the world of SD. So of course people are going to look at the introduction of this camera very differently and from very different points of view. Some see it as a revolution, others as a threat to the specialist world of HD they occupy. Its very much like the beta vs mini-DV argument of 10 years ago. The difference here is that the signal compression this time round is as high as the ‘high end’, so were down to CCD and lens differences.
So far the jury is out on the HVX CCD’s, so we can’t comment….People go on about the lens quality and price differnces, but look at it this way – why does my digital SLR with a $60 lens look far, far superior to any still image shot with a digibeta, or cinealta? Its down to the CCD res. Id rather have a digistill from my $600 canon 350D than a still image from a varicam or cinealta with a $20,000 lens. The lenses are much more expensive on these cameras but that really doesnt help when you’re shooting a much lower res signal.
My understanding is that the lens resolving power should match the CCD pick-up. Whats the point having a great lens on a camera that records a 320×240 pixel mpg? Thats extreme, but you see my point. The lens on the HVX is good enough Im sure to sharply reproduce a 1.2 – 2Mpixel image. Yes it will cost 1/40 of the price of a cinealta lens, but it sure wont look 40 times worse. You could argue that some of the resolving power of a cinealta lens maybe lost on only a 2Mpixel pickup….. There will be limitations to the HVX, such as depth of field/low light issues – but you work around them because you didn’t pay $60k for it.
The HVX200 will let us budding indie filmakers to shoot movies that could well be indistinguishable to those shot with a Varicam, and also some that will look massively different. And thats the whole point, technology in the right hands….
If you can afford it you would shoot film – this is all about bringing a very close approximation of a varicam to the masses at a decent price. Just like mini-dv gave the prosumer a step into the broadcast world; the HVX200 will do the same with HD. If it’s used correctly, my guess is most people won’t be able to tell if it was shot with the HVX or varicam.
Even if the trained eye can clearly see the diffrence, I watched ‘open water’ and ’28 days later’ at the cinema. At first I went URGH…. and after 5 mins even I forgot it was shot on mini-dv because I was drawn into the story.
The HVX200 will look a lot better than SD mini-dv footage for CC, keying, and projection. So I’ll be happy with that. Only one day to wait I guess. Do we will get tech specs of the CCD’s they are using today?
-
You’re right, Harry, that digital should make things easier, not harder. Whereas P2 solves a lot of problems, it does indeed generate others, although I do believe there’s a large net benefit to P2 use though. I think Panasonic really has to keep up the hard work to drop the prices on P2 and associated gear ($2500 for a 5 card reader – that’s silly) so that the benefits totally win through. Then we can enjoy high quality, easy to edit HD, with no mucking around with tapes to “capture” the footage, cloning master tapes etc. etc.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up