John Sharaf
Forum Replies Created
-
Trip,
The real expense of shooting super 16 film is the film, processing, printing and then cutting negative, answer and release prints. Of course you could telecine and finish in the digital (video) domain, but then the question is why shoot film in the first place.
Granted there are some really cheap film cameras available in the used market, some like the Aaton’s are self blimped and very versatile, but The cost of the film and processing make this a dubious choice.
I’d recommend that you consider a used Varicam, which can be had for about $10000 plus an appropriate HD lens, and the tape is essentially free ($22/ 32 minutes). You can import into an Apple laptop with Final Cut Pro ($1299 for the software) with a firewire cable and you’re editing and finishing in native high def.
The picture quality with this 2/3″ imager at 180 degree shutter at 24fps rivals any 16mm camera and film stock at a fraction of the working cost and is the reason that film had all but vanished from the scene, and why the used cameras fetch such a small price.
If your goal is to tell stories or otherwise communicate important thoughts or messages this scenario lets you do so with beautiful pictures at a manageable price.
JMHO
-
Erich,
I totally agree with you regarding the ill-advised decision from Panasonic to replace the Varicam with two cameras (2700 & 3700). It’s not so much the P2 but the fact that one is 720 and the other 1080 (and only goes to 30 fps frame rate – no slow motion). I made these complaints immediately to the powers that be at last years NAB and was told that they could not come up with a 1920×1080 imager that would do 60fps without overheating. I shouldn’t think the transcode to 720 would be that much of a problem as apparently Sony has accomplished this in their 1080 native PDW-700.
Of course it’s no bed of roses at Sony either; I’ve been waiting for more than two months for a promised “imminent” delivery of two 700’s and HD XDCAM deck, and several of my associates who have received cameras had lit pixels and faulty on-board decks on first use. There is no doubt that Sony is in over their heads in the design, manufacture and delivery of this camera system, even though as you say on paper it looks ideal. Despite these initial hiccups, I believe that the PDW700 camera, both because of it’s “swiss army knife” array of features and formats and the viability of the XDCAM discs as both file media and inexpensive archive, will emerge as the new betacam, especially for news production.
I also believe the future will be defined by parallel infrastructure divided by 8 bit and 10 bit, with television news and doc production being 8 bit and higher end doc, commercial and digital cinema being 10 bit. The higher end folks will use P2, CF, SxS or whatever media it takes to write the least compressed, highest color depth master as possible and will suffer the additional cost and inconvenience which accompanies that decision, in workflow and archiving. I do disagree with you as regards P2, which I think is definately coming into it’s own by virtue of the increased size/capacity and lowered price as well as the availability of cameras like the 3700, which cannot be faulted too much because of the 10bit, AVC-I codec and 4:4:4 capabilities, only because it does not do 720 as well, and maybe Panasonic will get the message. Granted 720 is an inferior format, but there are networks that still (and will) require it.
There are rumors of a HDCAM-SR camcorder, in a F900R type package, being announced at the upcoming NAB which will rival the features of the 3700 (10 bit recording, no horizontal down-rez and 4:4:4 as an optional output) that will both challenge Panasonic and kick-start even more digital cinema style production, so be ready to spend more money (if you have any!).
JS
-
There is nothing cheaper than the Source Fours for the purpose you describe, unless you already own a small Fresnel unit like a LTM Pepper or Mole Tweenie or Baby on which you can add a Focal Spot attachment. The ideal unit for your purpose is a Dedo Light, but these are quite expensive.
JS
-
It’s unlikely that the chip is “off center”, what you’re noticing is tracking error in the zoom lens. This is quite common, even in expensive cine zooms.
JS
-
Bill,
Yes, the X900 has thrown a real monkey wrench in the mix. When the requirement is DVCPRO100 there’s only one reason why a Varicam would be required, and that is compatibility in a multicam shoot. EWven though the two cameras can be made to look similar, the engineering requirement is more complicated and time consuming and there is not always that time available. In addition the X900 does not have the Dynamic Range controls that the Varican has. As an owner of four Varicams, I would not consider replacing them with four X900’s, but if I was starting out now, I’d buy a 900 in a minute, especially because of the lower price (even though it garners an almost equal rental in many uses). Of course, now that Sony is delivering the PDW700, one must seriously consider that camera, because it also offers 720 and 1080 but with a native 2.2 million pixel 1920×1080 imager.
JS
-
Of course a “star filter” will make them stars instead of lines.
JS
-
Flare is reduced by using a matt box and french flag and side wings to eliminate the sources from spilling onto the surface of the lens. When those sources are included in the frame (as in your picture) this is not possible.
The other effect that’s noticeable in your picture is the verticle artifacts from the light sources themselves. Again this is unavoidable because it’s a function of your IT CCD imager overflowing. More expensive cameras that have FIT imagers can minimize this effect somewhat, but at certain angles even they will not.
Like you say, sometimes you like the flare effect. You’ll have to learn to love it all the time if you insist on shooting “into” the lights.
JS
-
I believe the deck is only made in one version.
JS
-
The 1400 is a considerable improvement, first off it does insert and assemble editing which is critical for lay off. In addition it has built in gamma correction which you can use to play in to your NLE and of course it’s got the two optio9n cards built in. At this point you’d only be able to buy a used 1200A, which I would not advise.
JS
-
Brad,
Yeah, I’m afraid you’re kind of missing the whole thing. It’s not as complicated as you seem to want to make it though, so here’s the whole story.
First off, there’s no such thing as 30i. The only interlaced speed is 60i (really 59.94i) in NTSC land. There is also 50i in PAL land. In addition there is 30p (really 29.97) and of course 24p. Your AVID will create timelines in any of these formats. If you’ve shot 30fps aka 30p (really 29.97) on your Varicam it will import as 30p into a 30p timeline or as 60i into a 60i timeline. Of course in the 60i timeline it will merely double each of the 30 progressive frames to create 60 fields. There is no frame rate conversion involved, that is intended for converting any frame rate higher than 24 or 30 into slow motion in a 24 or 30p timeline.
As regards the motion artifact which you describe as jutter (also sometimes called stutter or flutter), this is not an error, it is the actual effect of shooting at 30fps. It certainly is smoother than 24fps with its 3:2 pulldown, but not as smooth as 60p or 60i (as shot on an interlace capable camera like the Sony F900). It really is a matter of taste, and one must decide before you roll frame one of a project what speed you prefer.
One of the most pertinent facts required to make an intelligent decision on frame rate is to know what venue the project will be seen in. Of course 24p is for filmout, 30p is best for internet or DVD and 60 for the live video look.
I hope this helps.
JS