[Dan Brockett]

Bryan:

If ever some testing was in order, this is the time to do it. Personally, for what you are doing, I would ditch the FireStores, you don’t need them. When shooting time lapse, you will not be filling up those cards very rapidly, as long as you keep an eye on them and change them when needed, you should be fine.

I have experimented with all of the different intervals and with driving and here is what I like, but YMMV. I don’t even use the interval setting, I used the Barry Green frame rate hack (There is a video on YouTube on how to set it up or it is all over the web, just Google “HVX200 frame rate hack”). I setup 2 FPS with 360 shutter as a preset on my F1 preset. This gives the video a smeary, kind of cool look, headlights leave trails, it looks like film with a wide open shutter. If you just use interval, it will look like a series of still frames.

But you need to experiment to determine the look that you want. The HVX200 is capable of many different looks, you just have to be talented enough to set them all up and analyze them to determine the look that you want.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

After shooting with both of these cameras, IMHO, there is nothing that the EX3 does better than the HPX300 other than having slightly shallower depth of field and possibly a tiny bit faster exposure capability.

XDCAM EX is a pretty lousy codec when compared to AVCINTRA 100

In ergonomics, the EX3 is a pretty big compromise in comparison with the handling on the HPX300

The Fujinon lens on the HPX300 is superior to the Sony Fujinon lens on the EX3 (IMHO).

While P2 continues to grow and flourish, all signs are pointing toward SxS possibly becoming the latest Sony orphan format, if you research, Sony has a long a rich history at inventing codecs and formats and then abandoning them. Doing this is a definite Sony marketing strategy that baffles me.

The Sony comes from the box setup to take Sony consumer batteries, whereas the HPX300 comes setup to take industry standard AB or V-Mount batteries.

Nothing wrong with the Sony, I shoot with it often but it comes up short against the HPX300. It is a glorified EX1, whereas the HPX300 is a miniaturized and feature downgraded HPX2700/3700. Two different approaches.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

Hi Phil:

I am 6′ 1″ and weigh 165, so I am tall and skinny. It worked out perfectly for me, it was the most comfortable camera I have ever used. I used to shoot with a BVWD600, which was a beast when paired with the Anton Bauer bricks back in the day. I am not a big guy so it is hard for me to say but I think that with the lens, two P2 cards and battery, you are around 11-13 pounds. I doubt if it would be as rock steady as a 22lb F950 but it is definitely steadier than cameras like the EX3 and the XLH1.

Best thing to do is to rent or borrow one and test drive it. You will never know until you try it for yourself.

Thanks,

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

Hi:

Glad you found the article helpful.

Hmmm…interesting dilemma. The two cameras use the same codec so that isn’t a variable. The 3000 is much bigger and heavier, true. But the 3000 is going to probably come with a lens that costs about 3-4 times as much as the entire HPX300. Glass always wins out, I would go with the 3000s unless your concept will suffer from using the bigger, heavier cameras. The lens on the 300 is essentially free and while it is great for the money, it is not in the same league as a $20k broadcast piece of glass that would typically accompany the 3000.

If price if not a factor for you, I would go with the 3000s.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

I agree, Panasonic has given us all a really generous present with the HPX300.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

Hi Jason:

Thanks for the feedback and glad you enjoyed the diary. That HPX300 is a pretty impressive camera, especially now with the rebate. By far the best bang for the buck on the market although the special trade-in deal with the 3700 right now is amazing as well. But $30k still puts it out of reach of most.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

Assuming you need to buy one and have no friends you can mooch or borrow one off of, I would check out any of the Canon Vixias. Even the discontinued ones from last year are excellent and the new crop that replaced them are even more pro.

I ended up buying the 5D MKII instead but I really like the HFS100 but it is over $1,000.00. Check out the lower end models and the last years models. All are 1080p (over 59.94)

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

After producing docs on Surtees, Rosson, Glennon and Toland, I totally agree, nobody will use hard lighting on actors today unless they are in costume or heavy makeup. It is a shame, I think that the digital medium and the lack of desire in the current crop of cinematographers has basically left lighting talent with hard light a dying art. A shame because soft light, while beautiful, is only one flavor of beauty, hard light can look amazingly beautiful if it is done right.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

Keep in mind that the reason that the Wizard of Oz looks as vibrant and as great as it does today is because Warners spent a LOT of time, effort and money restoring the prints and doing a 4k scan and transfer of the remaining composite elements. I can’t recall if the original three strip negs were still around but I suspect not.

I produced the Wizard of Oz three disc collector DVD set for Warners in 2005 and we included a very nicely done mini doc on the entire restoration process, with interviews with all of the restoration staff and the whole DNR process. It was pretty cool, when they released the box set, they also had an invitation only screening at the DGA Theater of a newly restored print. Oz never looked better, you aren’t even really seeing the true colors on any form of video, you have to see it projected to really see what audiences saw in 1939. The colors might look better on Blu Ray when that is available.

Coincidentally, I also produced the John Ford box DVD set for Warners although it did not contain Mogambo. Mogambo was shot in 1952-53 and was shot in Technicolor. Most of the films made toward the end of Ford’s career were still Technicolor up until the VistaVision used for Cheyenne Autumn and yes, I am with you, I really miss three strip Technicolor, that looks has never even been closely mimicked in the digital realm.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Dan Brockett]

Couldn’t you just select the master clip and mark it in and out at the head and tail and treat that clip? You probably should have done that before you edited though.

I do the same thing with color correction, it is much easier to CC an entire interview before editing, chop it up and use it and be done than to chop it all up, then have to go back and CC each clip.

Not sure if there is a way to round trip the entire clip and have it match back to only selected portions of the clip? Advanced editors, anyone know? Probably an obvious way to do this but I am not an advanced editor, I am barely an intermediate.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs