John Sharaf
Forum Replies Created
-
Jeff and all,
As far as the lead in the controller, I’m merely repeating the explaination I received from Steve Mahrer of Panasonic, who I consider the most well informed and knowledgable of Panasonics people. Perhaps because he works in NJ and you are in LA you don’t know what the other is promulgating as the gospel.
As far as people asking for more control, I rather doubt that if they knew the cost would be more than double they’d want the extra buttons and size involved. In the multicam environment, one needs a controller for each camera, so the costs add up quickly, and the concept of a more expensive controller for a less expensive camera just does not compute. It would be another matter if the controller were more like the Ike MCP or Sony RCP panels and accomodates banks of cameras from one controller.
As regards the EC3 CCU, to the contrary, most knowledgable users agree that it is an extremely useful and complete controller for EFP work, especially considering it’s street price (less than half of what the new controller will go for). By comparision to the Sony RM-B150 it is much more useful, especially as regards accessing all menu functions and it is much cheaper and even more friendly than the otherwise very sexy Sony RM-B750, mostly in both cases because the Sony menu nomenclature can only be seen on the Y channel, not the HD-SDI which is more commonly used for monitoring.
My main problem with the new controller is that it is not compatible with the old cameras nor the new camera compatible with the old controller; Sony and Ike have been very smart and considerate to protect their users’ investments in controllers by making them compatible to their complete line of cameras, to me this is a very gracious courtesy to their clientel that is forced more and more to deal with built-in obscelesence because of the rapid progress of technology.
-
Jay,
I can tell you from my own research at the show that yes, there is no paintbox compatibility; the EC3 has lead in it so a whole new, unique paintbox (and connector on the camera) was designed for the HVX900. It will not work on the Varicam nor will the EC3 work on the HVX. Of course you’ve probably noticed that the tape size is different between the two models as well. Both of these things will create problems in the field when the two cameras are inevitably used concurrently in DVPRO100 HD productions.
As regards the 1080, I believe you’ve hit that on the head; because it’s the same 1 million pixel chipset as on the Varicam, it must be a transcode (like the 1200A deck does as well) that creates the 1080 on the tape. To my mind this is not a particular deal breaker, at least for televsion use, but for filmout, I can tell you based on my own observations of the 1080 transcode through the 1200A vs. Cine Alta picture (on my 1920×1080 eCinema display)that the “true” 1080 is slightly sharper.
-
David,
With the current $7000 rebate on Varicams, the real street price differance between the two will be closer to $20K! Besides, the HVX900 is not available yet and one could not help but wonder when it rteally will be considering Panasonic’s record with HVX200 delivery.
The main differences between the two cameras are:
Varicam is true variable speed camera; 4-60 fps, like a film camera.
Varicam has superior HD grade prism block, I believe the HVX900 has the SDX900 leftovers.
Varicam has 200-500% dynamic range control, HVX200 has 3 Cine Gamma presets.
Varicam takes “L” version tapes, HVX900 takes the medium size limited to 30 minutes. Varicam has 18 micron heads, HVX900 has 9 micron heads, so tapes cannot be read on older 130 and 150 decks.
HVX900 cannot be controlled by the current EC3 CCU.
In summary, the HVX900 is a great concept and realization, especially at the price point, but it does not replace the Varicam. In truth though it will definately affect future Varicam sales, because despite protestations to the contrary, most capital investments for video gear are economicly driven, and the with current state of obscelesence it makes great sence to buy the cheapest possible solution.
JS
-
No,
“Poisoning” requires puting the same 4′ (most common) lamps that are in the ceiling in 4′ Kino Flo units; then all the lamps are the same and the white balance corrects for the green spike. I don’t think you’ll ever find a practical interior lit with the globes you put in a Diva!
As far as gelling hot lamps, I don’t recommend this as the flourescents you’re trying to match are discontinous light sources and cann’t be easily matched. Best to “poison” your 4′ Kinos and use them on the floor to light the faces and eyes with the same light that lights the ambience in the room. The only other adjustment is to control the “top” light from the flourescents directly above your subject by either turning them off, or flaging them from “spilling” onto the nose and forehead and overlighting these areas, destroying the modeling and portraiture you’d otherwise like!
This is sometimes a complex stratagy to get your head around, but it is the best, cheapest, easiest and most elegent solution there is; all others are expensive and time consuming (relamping the entire room) or simply don’t work (gelling the practicals or the hot lights).
-
Ovalteens,
If you search the archive here you’ll see that I’ve suggested and explained this many times, but the short answer is that the most elegent and cheapest solution is to use four foot kino flo units for the flour light keys and fills that have been “poisoned” by relamping them with the same practical flourescents that are in the ceiling. Then either turn off or flag-off the ceiling lights directly overhead of the subject to avoid the toppy nose light.
White balancing is not a headache, in fact it solves the problem of the greenish spike in the practical flouresents, the headache is mixing with motion picture lights and/or gelling.
JS
-
John,
We need more information; firewire or HD-SDI out? Digitize to FCP or AVID? in HD or SD. Deck probably wants same sync as system you’re digitizing to, namely tri-level to HD or conventional to SD. Also there’s a weird systems menu setting (I think #26) that offsets the sync, make sure that’s normalized.
A breakup similar to what you’re talking about actually is normal on monitoring through firewire, but doesn’t appear on the recording (digitizing in this case), except the error message is troubling.
There are many peculiarities to this deck and its complex menu system as you well know, and the uninitiated often make menu changes without realizing it. It’s therefore a good idea to memorize your own “user” file to resort to when there’s trouble.
Wish I could be more specific with a solution!
JS
-
Dan,
There is a three popsition slide switch just above the two XLR inputs on the back of the camcorder; these allow the proper input for mike or line levels.
JS
-
J,
I would guess that because the Varicam records audio digitally (converts A to D on input and D to A on output to headset and 5-pin XLR) there is no Dolby encodeing. Dolby was designed initially to minimize tape hiss on analog recordings!
JS
-
Michael,
To be sure, I don’t have any argument with you; in fact of all the experts who contribute to this and other HD forums I find that I agree with you almost every time (both factually and humorously). In fact I consider you to be my “go to guy” when I really need the straight facts and I find that even though you work for the leading Sony dealer you too always have a realistic understanding of the complaints that folks have with Sony.
I’ve had many complaints myself in the past I’ll admit, but lately I’ve come to take them a lot less personally; mainly because I now seem to get the same treatment from Panasonic as well (I own four Varicams as you might know).
I believe the industry is caught up in a swirling cycle of product development that is costly to both the manufacturers and the end user/owners, and can only engender ill will.
The ploriferation of formats can only be blamed on the Advanced TV commission’s mandate to let the market decide; maybe in the end, several years from now when this does sort itself out there will be format “winners” for both TV and MP use but I don’t think it will ever be as simple as the old 35, 16, Super 8mm paradigm!
-
Michael,
The Varicam is a “progressive” camera, and as such writes 60p (progressive) frames per second. When in 24p rate (which exactly mimics the speed of a sync sound camera, the Varicam writes the 60 frames (per second) with the 3:2 pulldown included. Many NLE systems then “extract” the “A” frames to create a 24p project. This sames an enourmous amount of bandwidth and storage requirement (24 is 40% of 60).
The best way to conceptualize it is to consider the DVPRO100 footage as what would emerge from telecine after you’ve converted your 24fps film to tape for editing or exhibition. The bonus is that with the flagged frames you can remove all but the discreet/individual frames for the purpose I mentioned above.
In addition, of course, the Varicam can record at other frame rates, in this case imitating the over and undercranking that is popssible with some film cameras. A hardware or software (in FCP) conversion converts it back for insertion in a 24 or 30fps project.
In addition to frame rate, the Varicam has electronic settings in it’s “Film Rec” menu that imitate the gamma curve of film. The “dynamic range” replaces conventional knee point and slope with four presets known as 200,300,400 and 500% which crush the blacks and whites effectively lowering the contract so that it can be added back in when “filmed out” on a laser or other type of printer.
If your project is not intended for this “film our” process where the finished tape is converted to film for exhibition on a conventional “movie” projector, but rather shown on television (or even a digital projector) I advise using the lower settings of “dynamic range” such as 200 or 300% to minimize post production color correction and to get more of a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WUSIWUG) look.