[Graeme Nattress]

“G Earthquaker” in Set 2 can be set to fake bad camerawork. Try out the demo at http://www.nattress.com and see.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

Film Effects at https://www.nattress.com will do exactly what you want. There’s a free demo and it also does so much more!

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

But modern D-SLRs have more lattitude than their 35mm counterparts….. Less grain too. How times change….

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

I’d use PhotoJPEG@75% myself – better picture than DVCproHD, smaller file size, and cross platform.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

Except the JVC HDV and Sony HDV are only mildly compatible with each other…..

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

Odd, I’d say so. You should have seen the Sony rep’s face when I asked if the deck took big tapes 🙂 I thik Sony see HDV as a transition format, and for consumers. What they really want you to buy is HD on XDCAM when that comes out! IMHO, of course.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

I find 4:1:1 more ameanable to algorithmic improvement than progressive 4:2:0, but really, there’s nothing in it. Interlaced 4:2:0 should be avoided at all costs.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

You can loop through the deck, but only for DV video, not high def HDV video. One of the major failings of HDV is you can’t play back through the deck in real time to get monitoring – for that you need an HD card in your mac like a Decklink.

Also, you do realise that that deck is just a camcorder without a lens? It’s not a pro deck with the speed or robustness of even a DSR-11. I’d think you’d be further ahead getting an FX1 camera as your deck, and then you’ve got a second camera for B-roll. Also, that deck doesn’t take big tapes – what on earth were Sony thinking?

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

4:2:0 in interlaced video can be quite ghastly, but it’s not too bad in progressive, but I still prefer 4:1:1

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP

[Graeme Nattress]

What I saw was an independent study by a Toronto production house, that was a special for the local SMPTE, not a Sony sponsored “Sell HD” show, and it was done primarily for their own learning, not for anything else. I saw this about 4 years ago, so I don’t think it’s the same thing you saw.

Sure negatives have a nice high resolution, but the joe public in the cinema, watching the print never, ever see that resolution, not least because the print is poorly made, shown on a projector that is not properly maintained, and the focus is off because, well, nobody cares and the audience can’t see what’s wrong….

But, another factor is the people. Stick a film person on a video camera they could very well produce rubbish as they don’t know how to shoot for video. Similarly, stick a video person on a film camera, and I doubt they’ll even be able to switch it on, and will spend the rest of the day looking for the auto-focus button 🙂

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP