[John Sharaf]

Simplest method is to grab board with the grip head and hold down other end with grip clip (pony clamp)

JS

[John Sharaf]

The large size of a fill card (usually 4×4′)is difficult to recreate with a fill “light” so a card is often more maneuverable and subtle.

JS

[John Sharaf]

I’m sorry, but this is why some formats are professional and others are prosumer. When the information is spread out over more than one frame it’s a compromise in both motion reproduction and in editing. One has to really look at the whole system of photography, from mastering, editing, duplication and exhibition, yet changes in all these spheres are taking place so fast one cannot really master it all.

In the old days of film, things were simple and well understood. Now we have to think about compound compressions, sequential detail manipulation, matrixs added to matrixs, aspect ratios and framerates, not to mention putting our precious pictures on cell phones!

There are compromises at each turn, some predictable and others not even conceived of yet. That’s why the least compression and futzing with the motion the better, save all that for the last step.

The newer schemes take some of the more modern problems and uses into mind, that’s why I’d go with MPEG4/AVC-I over the old MPEG2 any day, but I’m not foolish enough to disregard the fact that ultimately it’s the economics that drive the innovations not quality and those of us who aspire to maintain what we’ve had in the past are rarely listened to except in the rarefied air of mega features, where the innovators are tasked to create images that do not even exist in the real world.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Michael,

I believe at this point your best workflow with AVC-I is ProRes 422 in FCP.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Michael,

The 2000 is more like the Varicam, in that it has a 1280×720 native imager but with the AVC-I codec there is no horizontal down res and full 10 bit recording. You have to go to the next model up (3000) to get a 1920×1080 native imager, but I believe the benefits of the improved recording format outways the slight handicap of the internal 720 to 1080 transcode. For critical work however, you could accomplish the same end by using the HD-SDI outputs of the PDW700 and recording onto a P2 mobile. This is a workflow promoted by Panasonic to leverage continued use of the Varicam.

JS

[John Sharaf]

AVC-I offers DVCPRO100 quality at 50 Mb or D5 quality at 100 Mb
XDCAM is limited to MPEG2 at 50 MB.

In a way it’s four times as good.

The recording format of the PDW700 is really it’s limiting characteristic. It’s meant to be a news camera where quality is not the defining characteristic, the limited bandwidth itself is the reason it will become the HD news standard. I don’t think that acceptance in other genres will be as enthusiastic.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Randy,

These are good questions, but the real difference between these two cameras is the recording format. The Panasonic AVC-I is really four times as good as that on the XDCAM. For this of course you are going to pay the premium of the more complicated archival process, but depending on your work, this may or may not be an issue.

Remember that right now the PDW700 is vaporware, and when it does street it will not have 24p or other features that will come later. Both P2 and XDCAM can be dealt with without conventional VTR’s; there are inexpensive readers to connect with NLE’s so there is savings here as well.

While the XDCAM discs can be re-recorded, that is unlikely as they serve as an excellent archive and of course the P2 cards will come down in price and increase in size to the point where someday they might even be archival master media as well.

If I had to buy today, I’d go with the 2000!

JMHO

JS

[John Sharaf]

Goran,

News is more likely shot at 50i frame rate. 25fps is a progressive rate that duplicates identical frames to replicate a “film look”. News is usually shot to look more “live” which 50i does by creating a new field every half frame.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Chris,

My experience with filters for HD is to use half the normal amount not more, except for effects. The logic for this is that quite often the Hd is downconverted and shown on SD and artificial detail is added in that processs. If detail is added to an overly soft image, artifacts and other imperfections appear. I’d suggest that you control detail down in the HD camera to make the image more filmlike and noise free. Furthermore, it’s very difficult to visualize the effect of the filters because of the horizontal down res done by the recording (in both DVCPRO100 and HDCAM). The picture you’re looking at on your monitor is sharper than that which is recorded, and unless you are looking at a full res monitor (like a Cinetal or eCinema) you are not getting an accurate representation of the picture. Be careful with filters; you can always add in post, but you can’t take away. If there is insistence to you filters, use less that you would with SD (where detail is turned up just to get an acceptably sharp picture) and test, test, test with the complete postr workflow and view in conditions that the final product will be shown.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Chris,

I have had exactly the same experience; only a trip to Panasonic solves head clogs. I can say that I’ve had better luck with my 1400 than the 1200A’s I owned before.

JS