Emmanuel Plakiotis
Forum Replies Created
-
If you are planning to make a film out of your work the 24p helps a lot the transfer process because each video frame corresponds to each film frame. In PAL countries we use the 25p instead, which is only 4% faster and most people don’t seem to notice save from a change in the audio pitch. In the latter situation the video will transfer to film at 25p (one video frame to one film frame) and will project a bit slower at 24p in theaters. If you shoot 30p you have to use the pull down claw method during the transfer (which I’m not very familiar since I have never used it) to compensate for the more radical speed change and the outcome will be 24p film which will project normally in theaters.
Most people think that shooting 24p instead of 30p or 60i (the norm for TV in USA), during acquisition, gives video an aesthetic appearance closer to the film one, because it matches the flicker of the film especially during heavy camera movement or rapid action.
I personally disagree with the above statement but I’m a minority, and its probably a huge topic by itself, to elaborate it here.
Apart from the above debatable argument the film look differs from the video look in two other more obvious ways:
1. The depth of field which is swallower in film projects, in any given aperture, because most video cameras have smaller sensors than the 35mm film frame (notable exceptions arri d20, Genesis, F35, Red One). This can be compensated partially by shooting wide open on 2/3 inch cameras, or with a 35mm adapter on 1/2 or 1/3 inch cameras. (The Sony 700 is 2/3 inch).
2. The color and contrast characteristics of the two mediums which are considerably different. This can be remedied up to a point, with meticulously cinematography and color correction during the post.
As for the Red, my opinion is that the hassle of shooting highly compressed RAW as in Red’s case, far outweighs its price advantage with the far more expensive competitors. If you take into account that Red’s daily rate is only half of an F23 in long form productions then Red is more expensive to shoot with.
-
https://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-pro35-1-2.php
Actually there is 1/2 inch version of the PRO35 that according to the link is should be shipping.
Bear in mind that P+S TECHNIK is based in Germany.esp
-
Back in January in a post at the COW Forum, I predicted that a 2/3 version of XDCAM HD is evident and the only reason Sony is holding it back is in order to sell as many XDCAM SD as possible. In my opinion before NAB 20007 there will be a 2/3 version and at a significant lower price than the one mentioned above.
The reason: GRASS VALLEY INFINITY and of course the usual PANASONIC competition.
-
Addition to the my previous post.
Summing up the differences:
XDCAM HD: 1/2 inch CCD 33MBits MPEG2 4:2:0 compression, Optical disc, exchangeable lens, shoulder mount, heavier, USD 16800 or 25000 for HDSDI out and variable shutter
+ 7000 for lensDVCPROHD P2: 1/3inch CCD 100MBits DCT 4:2:2 compression, P2 card, fixed lens, palmcorder, lighter, USD 10000
MPEG2 is more efficient than DCT by a factor of 2.5 so P2 has a slight edge in quality and since is 4:2:2 better chroma key capability. On the other hand if going through networks MPEG2 needs one less compression stage (from DCT to MPEG2 for final transmition).
1/2 versus 1/3 means more pixels and better low light perfomance for the XDCAM. Also less depth of focus for 1/2 inch CCD so more film like.
exchangeable lens and the ability to use 2/3 inch lenses with an adapter is bonus for XDCAM. Also shouldermount style camera and pro type lens configuration will appeal more to seasoned camera operators. On the other hand P2 is lighter, smaller and more manageable. At the bottom end is an entirely up to your style of filming.
P2 vs Optical disc againg depends on what you’re going to shoot but personally I find a big workflow issue with P2 (i.e. what do you give to customers? where do you archive whether on location or projects than need to be edited later? etc.).
-
Sony uses in the XDCAM HD, the HDV compression (MPEG2 4:2:0) but with the option of a higher bitrate than HDV, that is 33MBits. The rule of the thumb is that MPEG2 is at least 2.5X more efficient than DCT of the DVCPROHD which makes them almost equal(2.5X33=82.5 vs 100 for DVCPROHD). But the DVCPROHD has the advantage of being 4:2:2 so its better suited for bluesceen shootings. On the other hand MPEG2 compression is used for TV playout so XDCAM HD will not suffer from recompression artefacts at least within a network environment (and this is the reason of the wide acceptance of XDCAM SD).
The funny thing is that the XDCAM disc is capable of 50Mbits MPEG2 in the SD version but Sony decided to limit the bitrate of the HD variant to 33Mbits. In my opinion Sony was afraid that it will cannibalize the HDCAM sales if (50X2.5=125 vs 135 for HDCAM) it went for the full capabilities of the format. Bear in mind that Sony claims that XDCAM 50Mbits in Standard Def is indistinguishable from DigiBetacam which carries a double price tag and in effect has put it out of market.Nevertheless I have the funny feeling that the Thomson Infinity camera (debut at NAB 06), will force Sony to come out with a 2/3inch XDCAM HD 50Mbits MPEG2 camera (if not higher) by summer and in my opinion the days of the HDCAM are numbered. Only the HDCAM SR will remain unchallenged because the optical disc -if I’m not mistaken- tops at about 100Mbits minus at least 20-30Mbits for overhead errors which is a far cry (even multiplied by 2.5) from the 880Mbits HDCAM SR.
Excuse me if the orthography is not letter perfect, but English is not my native language.
-
karl
I got the information from a Panasonic reperesentative in Greece. He is the head of the Pro department and his word values a lot.
It is true that most of the times, as Noah stated in an earlier message, there is a time difference in the launching between the NTSC and the PAL version, but its not all the time in favour of NTSC. For example we are going to get the JVC HD100 one month earlier (beginning of June) and for those who might be interested the price in Greece (and presumably in the rest of Europe) is Euro 4800 plus V.A.T including the lens.