OK -- so I'm working on a project and for it I need to really understand what DV does best as a format, from a cinematographer's POV.

It's cheapness is a given.

What I'm really interested in, is what as a format it does really, really well -- in comparison with other formats.

So, for instance, it's inherently easier to focus -- it copes with movement better than HDV etc etc.

Any thoughts at all you have about the visual strengths of DV would be appreciated.

My current thoughts all relate to how well it handles natural light -- its inherent fitness for ENG purposes.

Thanks
Clive

My response to this question deals not with DV, but more with which camera you intend to use. Or rather what you intend to use the camera for. Visually, different cameras do things differently with the DV storage.

If you want an analogue for this, think of DV as the actual celluloid upon which the silver halide is applied. It's only so wide, so what the individual film manufacturer chooses to do with the chemistry of what goes onto the celluloid (I know, it's not celluloid anymore - leave me alone) determines the different looks in the same way different film stocks provide for different color reproduction and lighting requirements. If you don't believe me here...watch the response to the statement:

"Canon makes the absolute best DV camera in the XL series."

The Panasonic folks are cringing right now trying not to type disparraging comments toward me. The color reproduction differs between the two...I think Panasonic does a better job at getting punchier, more vibrant colors. I think Canon gives a better more lifelike reproduction of colors that looks a little more muted (which I personally like). Both do a phenomenal job of acheiving sharp images and good detail in the distance (for SD).

The specific question "what is DV best at" can really only be answered in cost/storage savings.

It has a limited lattitude that can be "overcome" with careful lighting. B/W or Color Noir is easy with it's high contrast images. Low key lighting will get better results if the darks are attended well and the highlights are exposed well...expose for the highlights and bring the shadows into compliance.

It has a limited color space that can be "overcome" with careful scene composition and set design.

It has the same DoF (just about) of 8mm at the same iris size - for a 1/3" chip camera.

Cost/runtime allows for longer takes/shots than film would. "Rope" could've been shot with only one body wipe cut in the film.

Some cameras have a built in intervalometer that allows not just single frames to be shot at given intervals, but small bursts of frames at given intervals.

Given correct white balance, flesh tones tend to be very realistic...this, again, depends on camera manufacturer, I like JVC's colorspace the best for this in their SD cams. Canon tends to run a bit red and Panasonic tends to go a bit over saturated for me on everything. Granted, you can desaturate the panny and turn down the reds a bit on the canon, but then it doesn't matter what camera you have and the argument turns back to cost savings and appearance on set.

So, can I just paraphrase back at you, to make sure I understand

DV has increased contrast -- and limited latitude -- that's useful + good fleshtone reproduction.

Just to cloud the issue -- the camera most likely to be used is a Sony!

It's the VX9000, a fairly rare camera -- but in terms of performance it's akin to the VX2000. Same electronics. This gives it the same inherent strengths and weaknesses of the PD150.

I'm beginning to think I'm going to have to do an extensive set of camera tests -- because there is such limited information on this particular topic.

Which is odd, because it's been the indie format of choice for god knows how many years.

most DV cameras create the "video" look which often times is negatively referenced but in reality it can give a much more authentic and intimate voyueristic feel than film, I feel. The more fluid motion of 30fps and the limiting features can make it look like it was a guy (or gal) with a camera who found two people and followed them around capturing their story - hence the visual acceptance of the blair witch project and open water. You can accept it much easier than a voyueristic view shot on 35mm in my POV, because we all can relate the video look to reality and home videos much easier than the pleasing look of film.

So using it for that effect I think it can be very useful. For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake.

I agree, these camera systems were designed for ENG and have become a mainstay of "reality" style TV and docos.

I've just ordered some of the more successful dv movies from amazon -- The Idiots, Bamboozled, The Last Broadcast -- to see what they did with it as a format.

The nature of all those styles is hand held -- constant movement -- ambient lighting.

For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake.

I disagree, there just needs to be lighting and space considerations to make the cinematic quality work in the DV format. Disfaming something because it's more difficult to achieve is counter to telling stories visually which is an inately challenging prospect. I personally feel the format forces you to work more creatively than film would (being the "accepted" way to tell cinematic stories). You can find volumes of reference for making a "Hollywood" looking "cinematic" piece of story telling using Film and 35mm, but much less reference with DV. This is partially due to its' youth and lack of acceptance by the mainstream filmmaking structure which is based strictly around money. Part of that money is derived from producing and processing film stock.

The resolution of DV is lower which forces tighter shots to hide backgrounds. This lends to more intimate story telling for which film is simply overkill.

The lower resuolution and long DoF also makes backgrounds distracting taking consideration spacially when setting up your shots. More space between your subject and background and lots of space between camera and subject allowing to pull the backgrounds out of focus. This also makes for a more "cinematic" look although the background being pulled closer when compressing space by zooming will look like you could only get hold of a longer lens.

The motion of 30p vs 24p is negligible...60i is much more distinguishable and this is the way DV folks tend to shoot when shooting to be printed to film (Open water is one of these examples). 24p is also achievable out of the box on most higher end DV cameras now...but as Clive is in the UK, he'll most likely be shooting pal which in progressive mode is 25p...with a simple 6% slowdown on the timeline it's nearly indistinguishable from 24p. The chief consideration is the shutter speed when shooting...it should emulate a 180 degree shutter, so for PAL, 25p the shutter should be at one half the temporal resolution or 1/50th of a second. for NTSC, 30p it would be 1/60th. This will render the motion in either format with the correct amount of missing information that we generally associate with film subconsciously.

Those are the difficulties in getting the correct technicalities to achieve the "Film/cinema" look...the rest is the same stuff already done for film anyway (careful lighting, set design, color palette choices, costume design, careful motion design within the frame and with the camera, etc. )...so if a cinema feel cannot be achieved in DV, difficulty would be had doing so in Film as well.

In case you can't tell, I completely disagree with WideShot. This is not a personal attack, just an attack on a prevalent attitude when having this discussion. I believe that attitude is antiquated and is falling victim to the opinions of experienced film based filmmakers who are clinging to a career that technology is changing against their will.

I hear fundamentally the same arguments when I mention that I am an admin of a high end 200 node data mining cluster based entirely on the Apple Macintosh platform...they can't be used for business, they aren't PC's. Yet, we drew in tens of millions of dollars a year using them at about $.05 per transaction (running up to 1000 trans/sec at any given time 24/7 with 99.999% uptime).

The fact is that both mediums capture light and DV does an admirable job of it. Yes, it's lacking the resolution of 16mm and higher filmstock, but the effective resolution of 8mm is 1k...HD is being shot at 1k now. HD's lattitude seems much more forgiving than SD DV...even with HDV. Shunning digital for Film will soon be equivalent to shunning CD's for Vinyl. In order to sell in the marketplace now...film is still the thing, but that is changing as we speak...and clutching to the past will doom you to failure as festivals start shunning film based on the ease of handling of digital.

P.S...I stopped programming on punchcards when they became obsolete too. If you'd ever written a program on punchcards and dropped them, you'd know what I mean by ease of handling.

I am an admin of a high end 200 node data mining cluster based entirely on the Apple Macintosh platform...they can't be used for business, they aren't PC's. Yet, we drew in tens of millions of dollars a year using them at about $.05 per transaction (running up to 1000 trans/sec at any given time 24/7 with 99.999% uptime).


I have no idea what it means, but it sounds brilliant. I gotta throw my chips in with the admin of a high end 200 node data mining cluster. Unless an executive of a one million diode computer made of chocolate (who is also a ninja) comes along.

But I agree with you- digital is the way to go, but film isn't dead yet. I'd love to use some in my career, even though I'll probably stick with digitial. I think if you come up with wicked stories, and film them creatively, it really doesn't matter about quality. DV works, and makes it cheap and easy. I'd rather spend money on lights than stock.

Film=punch cards? Really, now ... let's not go overboard. Film might be being replaced, but not because it is inferior to DV; only because it is less costly. 35mm film can be scanned at 4K resolution (12M pixels) with full, 4:4:4 chroma resolution. HD isn't there, yet. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the benefits of a larger focal plain, and wider dynamic range; even in the presence of good lighting. I agree with your assessment that DV (especially HD) has a place, and will eventually overtake film. However, you don't need to go overboard. I know a nature photographer who still shoots on 8x10 film with a view camera. Although many people might call him a dinosaur, I challenge you to find any digital camera that can come even remotely close to an 8x10 negative.

My answer to what DV does well is that it lets you spend your money on telling the story, instead of film stock, processing and telecine. A DV camera is also far more portable.

Can we all just stop bashing film, and film people? Here is a still shot I did on 35mm film a few weeks ago (you won't need a punchcard reader for this one). The shallow DOF was key to this photo, so film was the best medium for the shot.
35mm still shot (http://www.oakstreetsoftware.com/~doug/gallery/frame_0003_800x600.jpg)

Can we all just stop bashing film, and film people?

Only if the film people stop bashing the DV and DV people ;) Why can't we all just get along.

I disagree.

And that is completely your option. Hell thats what makes forums like indietalk go 'round.

And yet, i gave DV its due, the same as I give HDV, 4k, 35mm and 65mm its due. They all have a certain purpose.

DV and all digital formats have a certain asthetic which film cannot achieve as well and film has a certain asthetic that digital cannot achieve as well. Thats all. Theres no more discussion, because they are not the same. They do not capture light the same, they do not have the same resolution, and they are not projected the same.

Lets assume we ran a test. We have one set, one lighted scene, and we have whatever DV camera you choose and any standard industry 35mm camera. You shoot the same scene twice, once with each camera.

In a real cinema projection (15' or wider) you cannot stack a 720x480 DV image directly up against a 4k 35mm image without the DV image going off and whimpering in the corner from solid embarassment.

DV is PAINFULLY lacking in resolution and latitude compared to film, but those same limitations can achieve a desired effect, similar to reversal film achieving a higher contrasted and saturated image.

That said, in a direct comparison of the same shot, there is no question in terms of the most asthetically pleasing and theoretically more sophisticated format.

And while your experience as a system administrator is wonderful (hey! I come from a tech background too!), it really has no relevance to a discussion on the asthetics of two formats nor the reality of the business behind the movie industry as a whole.

Furthermore, when you next discuss with a distributor about your next project, make sure to tell them you're going to shoot it on DV and don't have the budget for a 35mm blowup, you have no name talent and its not a hot genre film. That really gets the buzz going.

But again, I think this conversation is getting off track. Its best to treat these formats simply as what they are, different medium to acquire different asthetic, which is most appropriate for your project? And if your excuse for not allowing anything but DV into your budget is because you are self funding your project or can only raise enough to shoot on DV, then I think you are severely limiting yourself and very possibly harming your project.

Thats not to say that you shouldn't make your movie on DV. You just need to realistic views on the potential outcome, and although you can make a beautiful little piece on DV or s8, or 1q6, or 35, it is what it is, and its potential place in the market is pretty well carved out at this point. How many films shot on DV right now are playing at your local Amc, Regal, or any other chain? Is that because theres nobody out there making beautiful films on DV?

Now if you look at the movies that have been shot on DV and had major theatrical distribution, its because there was some major driving force behind it - well known stars, the video asthetic, or a documentary on a hot topic.

Thats not the way I wish it was. Thats the way it is. Maybe the future will change that but we're in the business of making productions for today not five years or more down the road.

So using it for that effect I think it can be very useful. For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake.

I agree that you aren't going to really get that 'cinema' quality, but you can get close. Personally I like the ease and the quickness to which you can begin to edit. Once everything is shot, I could feasibly start editing in a matter of minutes. That is a big part of what I think sells people on DV. And you can get DV to look alittle like film, which for me was a selling point.

....hope that wasn't to obvious an answer....

-- spinner :cool:

The example of the lighted scene between the DV and the film would never hold up...I agree with your statement, but I also wouldn't shoot the scene the same with the different formats. I would shoot in a way that would allow the DV footage to hold up when blown up to that size. I'll go back to previous statements I've made in the past...I've seen Video that makes me think it's film...and film that makes me think it's video. So mych can be done to overcome the shortcomings of DV that you can get to the point where you don't notice it's not film anymore.

to the point of distro:

If I intended to do a 35mm print at the end of a production, I would budget for it and test the filmout and shoot according to the outcome of those tests.

When talking to distributors (which I honestly have no experience with other than understanding the business as a whole), I would also have done my homework not only about the release formats they (specific distributors I intended to approach) tend to use, but the possible other distribution options my project could garner. I would plan and shoot accordingly. If my project could draw big name talent and be projected across the nation in multiplexes...I would absolutely shoot 35mm (or rather, budget to hire someone to do it for me).

If I thought I could turn a good profit shooting HD and printing to film for distro...I would use that option. Any and all combinations here are possible if you can make a solid business case for them. So far, my projects have each cost less than $300 (including my feature), it shows and I'm realistic about the possible outlets for them.

These are all heavily argued topics from other threads here and on every other indie filmmaking board on the web. The bit that got me fired up enough to type these couple of novels of text was the implication that DV isn't able to be used to make anything worth putting on the big screen.

"For a movie of a traditionally cinematic quality I think DV is a huge mistake." - WS

This statement, although clearly stated as opinion, is in a thread in which Clive has asked for information about a specific job.

"I'm working on a project and for it I need to really understand what DV does best as a format, from a cinematographer's POV." - Clive

I have specifically used DV to shoot a traditional Cinematic story, based on the movies I've enjoyed watching myself. I got horrible footage and great footage out of those 47 hours of tape...Some of it will even project quite well when I rent the theater to play this cinematic masterpiece :P The goal of my feature was to learn what the format could and couldn't do. I've put hundreds of hours of research and shooting into this particular format. I've seen my footage projected 30' tall. DV is absolutely capable of being accepted as cinematic at that size if care is taken with it. Reread my previous posts in this thread for how to handle it. I'm sure it's harder to do than shooting the same thing on film and takes alot more planning...but it's absolutely useable for any purpose you can forsee...except maybe a 70mm iMax blowup.

I agree that you aren't going to really get that 'cinema' quality, but you can get close. Personally I like the ease and the quickness to which you can begin to edit. Once everything is shot, I could feasibly start editing in a matter of minutes. That is a big part of what I think sells people on DV. And you can get DV to look alittle like film, which for me was a selling point -- spinner :cool:

But I can get my film processed and telecined to uncompressed blackmagic 8-bit on hardrive, a format far superior technically than DV the same day in any major metro area, for just dailies, editing my edl or finishing on video.

I suppose it's all in the intent... I have no problem with shooting cinematic style stuff for DVD release (talking mostly shorts here) on DV. None at all. In fact, I'd be hesitant to shoot a format other than DV, HDV etc for a short since they're mostly for practice in my opinion (unless I needed do do FX work).

Now if I were shooting for theaters.... there's no doubt I'd be looking at a good format. In fact, I'd probably be looking at the SI 2k or RED cameras.

But I can get my film processed and telecined to uncompressed blackmagic 8-bit on hardrive, a format far superior technically than DV the same day in any major metro area, for just dailies, editing my edl or finishing on video.

...I didn't know you could do that! ....well, I'm not a film person :blush:

...I think I've been away from IndieTalk far too long....:yes:

-- spinner :cool:

These are all heavily argued topics from other threads here and on every other indie filmmaking board on the web. The bit that got me fired up enough to type these couple of novels of text was the implication that DV isn't able to be used to make anything worth putting on the big screen.

...well, just the trailer for Broken proves that to be not so...:)

(...you're welcome for the shout out, guys...:D )

-- spinner :cool:

Thanks Guys -- there are some really interesting POV's here.

Film=punch cards? Really, now ... let's not go overboard. Film might be being replaced, but not because it is inferior to DV; only because it is less costly. 35mm film can be scanned at 4K resolution (12M pixels) with full, 4:4:4 chroma resolution. HD isn't there, yet. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the benefits of a larger focal plain, and wider dynamic range; even in the presence of good lighting.

Red camera with 4k, great latitude (http://www.red.com)

I know a nature photographer who still shoots on 8x10 film with a view camera. Although many people might call him a dinosaur, I challenge you to find any digital camera that can come even remotely close to an 8x10 negative.

digital camera with 216 megapixels (http://www.vexcel.com/products/photogram/ultracamx/features.html)
maybe a bit hard to carry, but you said 'any' :D

Red camera with 4k, great latitude (http://www.red.com)

I said it isn't there, yet, and it's not. Who do you know who has shot a feature on Red? Also, Red does interpolated 4K. It's maximum native resolution is 2K. Assuming it remains true to it's specifications.

digital camera with 216 megapixels (http://www.vexcel.com/products/photogram/ultracamx/features.html)
maybe a bit hard to carry, but you said 'any' :D

216M pixels would be much lower resolution than an 8x10 Kodachrome positive. I pull 16M pixels from a 35mm slide which is about 1/60 of an 8x10. Also, you haven't addressed exposure lattitude.

For a MiniDV camera, I bought the Sony DSR-PD170, the best quality MiniDV camera on the market. It also records DVCAM on standard MiniDV tapes.

IMHO, it's the best MiniDV camera you can get, but we're all at the point where we're looking at HD now. I've seen a large chunk of HD cameras now for around $2K. Pretty soon, they'll be under $1K.

I paid $4K for my PD170 two years ago, and it was well worth it.

I said it isn't there, yet, and it's not. Who do you know who has shot a feature on Red? Also, Red does interpolated 4K. It's maximum native resolution is 2K. Assuming it remains true to it's specifications.

Red is very good on track, so I expect them to deliver the first cameras in autumn 2007. To me that is as near as anything can be. And it's native resolution is 4520 X 2540 pixels, according to their specs.

Have a look at the frame grabs
http://red.com/images/gallery-still/4k_3.jpg
http://red.com/images/gallery-still/4k_1.jpg

Although they didn't use any kind of sharpening, the images already look great. Fire up Photoshop and do an unsharp mask with 400/0.8/2 and have fun with the result.
I especially love the virtually grain free image which allows me to go wild in postproduction.

216M pixels would be much lower resolution than an 8x10 Kodachrome positive. I pull 16M pixels from a 35mm slide which is about 1/60 of an 8x10. Also, you haven't addressed exposure lattitude.

I have worked for that company some years ago, developing the UltraScan 5000. This is a highend scanner with a native resolution of 5080 dpi. I did scan hundreds of 8x10 positives and I can assure you, that with 2540 dpi you already get to see a lot of film grain. It gives you a theoretical 400 megapixel, but with a lot of noise. And as it is a positive film it is easier to break the highlights.

The 216 megapixels of the digital camera on the other hand are again virtually noisefree, giving it better definition. No problem to upscale that to 400 megapixel when needed - you won't notice, granted.

Afaik it has a wide latitude near the positive film range, but not as good as negative film.

I would say, if you do carefully select your 8x10 stock, lenses, f-stops and so on you can get really a lot out of film - no doubt. But there is no need to glorify it. Both technologies will find their market and none will get obsolete soon.

The 216 megapixel camera is used for aerial photos and there it saves a significant amount of time and money compared to the old way. If you prefer to shot landscapes on film, then just do it - I will not complain. Since I got my digital camera my Canon AE-1 rests somewhere in my room.

I've just ordered some of the more successful dv movies from amazon -- The Idiots, Bamboozled, The Last Broadcast -- to see what they did with it as a format.


Be wary of using those as a comparison.... they uprezzed & color corrected at either HD or 2K, then transferred to 35mm film and then did a telecine BACK to video for DVD releases. These are NOT effective demonstrations of the camera, but also the entire post production process of studio sized budgets.

Freezer, this is becoming a pointless, stupid argument. My point was very simple. I did not glorify film, or video ... I was simply expressing that there are pros and cons to both. Maybe you can tell me what it costs for a 216M pixel digital camera, and you might also be able to give me some idea of how it can be practically applied to nature/wildlife photography in the boundary waters of Minnesota. I think you will see, that every tool has a purpose, and bashing one in the interest of promoting the other has no value.

Also, the way digital cameras measure dynamic range is not really applicable to film. The film latitude doesn't plateau like digital. And no, I'm not praising either technology... I use both. I prefer to have the right tool for the job, rather than get bogged down in religious arguments. Again, that was the point of my post ... I thought Knightly went a little overboard in his rave about DV.

You accepted my challenge, and I concede that you may have made a point with a special purpose, I'm guessing extremely expensive, and unwieldy camera.

p.s. They've changed the specification of Red, since I last looked at them. However, you cannot say that August 2007 is here and now. "As near as anything can be" is the camera sitting next to me. Not sometime late next year. If you had left out that statement, I'd have to concede all of your arguments. I'm afraid my customers pay me for actual results, so I'm hopelessly grounded in the tested, tried and true.

Be wary of using those as a comparison.... they uprezzed & color corrected at either HD or 2K, then transferred to 35mm film and then did a telecine BACK to video for DVD releases. These are NOT effective demonstrations of the camera, but also the entire post production process of studio sized budgets.

Thanks Sonnyboo -- that's one of the most useful pieces of information I've had so far.

it really doesn't matter about quality.
Careful... that's the kind of (no offense) careless attitude that causes people to view DV as an inferior 'low-end' option. If lit properly, shots are composed well, etc... the quality will be there, perhaps not the same resolution, but hey, Blair Witch and Open Water got theatrical distribution, parts of BW, and all of OW were standard def DV.

:) Granted, those are poor examples because they weren't properly lit and such, but hopefully I've made my point, no matter how irrelevent it may be.

By the way, I'm sure you meant the quality of the final image (as in resolution, scalability, etc) and not overall production quality -- But, no reason to give 'em any excuses to continue to believe that DV is just a 'cheap' format, because it certainly needent be.

For the record, I love the look of film, and always will. It's like the difference between CDs and Vinyl, some people can't tell, but it's there.

it really doesn't matter about quality. DV worksIn that case, you can have my P.O.S. JVC MiniDV camera. :lol:

Any wide release DV feature will have had tons of time and money thrown at it in post to make it project well...but it has been done. Most of the time if DV is used, it is specifically used to emulate the ENG, video look (28 days later, collateral). I feel these are not representative of the possibilities of DV as they were specifically handled to have a non-cinematic look to them to increase the feeling of immediacy.

The post work will all contain uprezing it, doing blurring and sharpening to it to remove jaggies and smooth gradients into the new colorspace, The motion characteristices are purely a function of exposure time per frame and frames per second...these can be estimated (but never quite accurately reproduced) in post. Heavy color grading work is also done to estimate the colorspace into a more filmic response curve. Given these techniques done to good footage, comparable footage (true not as high native rez, and not as wide native lattitude) is quite possible.

I don't feel I've gone overboard with my arguments - perhaps the tone of them, apologies (No, really, I'm not just trying to justify the last 5 years of my creative pursuits :P ).

Clive, do you have any specifics about shooting environments, lighting setups, moods, etc. that you will be looking for. That would help target the advice.

Clive, do you have any specifics about shooting environments, lighting setups, moods, etc. that you will be looking for. That would help target the advice.

Not at the moment -- I'm just absorbing as much info as I can about the format, in my normal sponge like manner!

When I've got some sense of what the format can do -- and how it is done, then I'll go out and do camera tests until I know absolutely I'll be able to achieve what I want to achieve.

If I can't get what I want, I'll choose another format.

What I'm up to, is I'm planning and preparing a feature length movie -- with the intention of having significant commercial success, but I'm restricting my budget to $1000.

No, I didn't mis-type that, I have set myself a One Thousand Dollar budget to complete the production.

Obviously, with that kind of budget, DV is the most achievable format -- but I haven't made any decisions yet.

I'm very aware that DV presents massive technical and commercial barriers to the kind of distribution I want for the film -- and I've made no firm decisions yet -- like I said -- at this moment I'm just soaking up all the relevant information and letting it percolate.

I am on this issue incredibly open minded.

Except about the budget -- on that there is NO moving -- it will not be one red cent over $1000.

Trust me -- there is method in this madness. :lol:

For what it's worth, I've never felt that my DV (miniDV) camcorder was the weakest link in my movie production. I am with Knightly (although it may not seem that way, at times), in that there are so many factors that play into the quality of a production that it's ridiculous to pigeonhole the medium used to record images.

Having said that, I think DV is super for web-delivery, since I generally end up downscaling anyway. I'm not sold on uprezzing. However, I'm 100% positive, that resolution is only one piece of the puzzle. If you're shooting for iMax, or National Geographic, image quality may be 80%, but for telling a story, I'd only give it 15 to 40%, depending on the material.

So, in the end, DV (or film) can do anything you can do. Like anything, the more you put into it, the more you'll get out of it. I get really depressed when I hear a neophyte say, "I need a better camera", when I know that the camera he/she has is already capable of much more than they'll ever do with it.

For what it's worth, I've never felt that my DV (miniDV) camcorder was the weakest link in my movie production.Well said. Personally, I think the quality of video isn't as important an issue as sound. You can have beautiful, crisp video and absolutely ruin the production with crappy sound (like using the built-in mic embedded in the camera, producing a high-pitched squeal that muffles all other sound in your production).

First, my goal isn't to promote digital over film here just adding some thoughts about RED:

RED is certainly not here now but it don't see it failing yet either. The specs have changed slightly, nothing drastic and they were very upfront fromt he very beginning that this was a work in progress and likely to change. I'd love to get my hands on one but I just don't have the money right now.

Also, Red does interpolated 4K. It's maximum native resolution is 2K. Assuming it remains true to it's specifications.

Yes, true, but I feel we should be careful to define what you mean by interpolate. The camera doesn't uprez in any fashion, it works just like the high end Canon digital cameras by using a bayer pattern. It's a proven technology that produces great results. Heck, all we have to do is look at the images to see that resolution isn't going to be a problem. Nor is chroma sampling.

<mod edit...links to competing forum deleted as referenced in the FAQ>
http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/comps.jpg

All of these were quick, one click keys. That's pretty damn impressive in my book and truly the reason I want one. I'd love to shot a sci-fi piece with this camera.

----

Clive, good luck man! A feature on 1K is quite a feat to achieve!

I have a question about the RED camera.

I've been hearing about this camera for many years now. There's still no physical product out there so I always believed it to be vaporware.

With the extreme resolution its hyping, what's the uses for it? There's no televisions with a resolution higher than 1080. What's the market for it?

Freezer, this is becoming a pointless, stupid argument. My point was very simple. I did not glorify film, or video ... I was simply expressing that there are pros and cons to both. Maybe you can tell me what it costs for a 216M pixel digital camera, and you might also be able to give me some idea of how it can be practically applied to nature/wildlife photography in the boundary waters of Minnesota. I think you will see, that every tool has a purpose, and bashing one in the interest of promoting the other has no value.

Sorry if my writing came out like bashing - it wasn't meant so. It isn't always easy to argue in a foreign language.
I am perfectly aware that you cannot use this camera for your purpose :D
It is meant to be mounted below an airplane ...


Also, the way digital cameras measure dynamic range is not really applicable to film. The film latitude doesn't plateau like digital. And no, I'm not praising either technology... I use both. I prefer to have the right tool for the job, rather than get bogged down in religious arguments. Again, that was the point of my post ... I thought Knightly went a little overboard in his rave about DV.

You accepted my challenge, and I concede that you may have made a point with a special purpose, I'm guessing extremely expensive, and unwieldy camera.

Afaik the camera costs about $ 300.000 - so it won't be the kind of gimick you will get at Walmart. And you might need some more people to carry it around as it weights the same like a grown up. Not exactly that kind of camera you would put into your bag for some nice landscape pictures :D

As far as I can see, we both have made similar points - if you reread my earlier post.

p.s. They've changed the specification of Red, since I last looked at them. However, you cannot say that August 2007 is here and now. "As near as anything can be" is the camera sitting next to me. Not sometime late next year. If you had left out that statement, I'd have to concede all of your arguments. I'm afraid my customers pay me for actual results, so I'm hopelessly grounded in the tested, tried and true.

Red announced they will roll out the first units in April - so I made my estimation based on my own experience in how things can go wrong on a schedule. I expect that I can afford a complete set not until 2008 and then I need another 4-6 months to get the experience and workflow.

There are 3 reasons I'd want Red, if it were available at a price I can justify ...

1) the size of the sensor is the same as 35mm film, so you get the same depth of field (or lack of DOF), that we associate with 35mm. Of course, this enhances selective focus, follow focus, and subject isolation.

2) you can never have too much resolution. Red will let you decide what resolution you need for your shot. 4K might be higher than you'd need for most work (especially considering the storage requirements), but for a chromakey shot, etc.

3) you can pick your framerate, for slowing down fast action, etc.

There are lots of other great features. I'm excited about it, but it's not real, until I can touch it.

(sorry if this post makes no sense, I got a phone call and I can't finish this)

I have a question about the RED camera.

I've been hearing about this camera for many years now. There's still no physical product out there so I always believed it to be vaporware.

With the extreme resolution its hyping, what's the uses for it? There's no televisions with a resolution higher than 1080. What's the market for it?

You should have a look at the http://red.com/gallery-still.htm and download the two 4k stills. There have also been several screenings of 4k movies captured with the first prototype. They said they will go into second prototyp in December 2006 and will deliver the final product in April 2007 (which I personally do not believe).

The uses?
Perfect images for postpro manipulation, I can take the 4k stills and go crazy with them all the way and they still look great. The market is Hollywood motion picture, indie productions, commercials. The images are meant to be projected onto a huge screen. -> http://www.hdforindies.com/archivedarticles/2006_11_01_archived_article.html

And consider this: Even if you are not able to work in 4k, you always can capture in 4k and then downrez to 2k resulting in very sharp and noisefree images. Try this with a photo from your digital camera in Photoshop: downrez it to 25% and see how little noise there is suddenly.

And the rest can be read in oakstreets post :)

I'm worried about the ability to capture at the 4K resolution. That's a helluva lot of data!

Obviously, with that kind of budget, DV is the most achievable format -- but I haven't made any decisions yet.


Consider HDV. The new Canon, Sony, and JVC cameras are offering HD resolution cameras at similar pricing to the high end Mini DV cameras. These almost all have 24P mode and offer much more flxibility than standard defitinition cameras, so you will benefit from the increased picture information in post production.

HDV is NOT HD, as it's compressed natively with MPEG2 compression, but it is still vastly superior to mini DV or DVCAM/DVCPRO.

=======-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-


as for the debate erupting above....

Film is film, video is video. Story is what counts. Take it from someone who has shot extensively with both formats. I'll never forget the day in January 2000 when I met one of my idols, Richard Linklater, who asked me what was more important - owning film stock or telling a story.

Tell a story in the format that most appropriately fits your story. Sometimes that means a Panasonic DVX100A, other stories need 65mm Cinemascope celluloid. If you're making a $1,000 feature, it's unlikely the story will be reaching for film stock. In this day & age, a good story will tell itself through compelling images and performances, as well as sounds.

As Grand Moff Tarkin once said, "This debate is pointless. Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the rebels secret base...."

Well said. Personally, I think the quality of video isn't as important an issue as sound. You can have beautiful, crisp video and absolutely ruin the production with crappy sound (like using the built-in mic embedded in the camera, producing a high-pitched squeal that muffles all other sound in your production).
Absolutely.. Audio is actually about 70% of the final experience. That's pretty significant, for a visual medium. ;)

Oops! Sorry for the link to another forum there mods. Forgot about that since the link was to an image hosted there not the forum itself!

LOC: The extreme resolution, as has been mentioned, is good for theater. On of the digital theater standards is 4K which the camera shoots. It's also possible to downconvert the raw footage (they provide software to do this) to 1080p or any other HD format. You can also shoot with only a part of the sensor for lower resolutions. As for data, it doesn't look like it will be that bad! They are using a wavelet compression scheme to get the data rate down so it's possible to edit RAW footage on a single hard drive - not even a RAID would be necessary. So far the samples of this 'codec' have been very impressive visually and space wise.

We'll see how the project turns out.

Sonnyboo - technically HDV is HD since HD only specifies resolution numbers which must be met. Many people don't consider it professional though and the Discovery channel won't take material shot on an HDV camera.

I am looking at HDV, but it's a format that creates as many problems as it solves -- it's renowned for not handling movement well.

Careful... that's the kind of (no offense) careless attitude that causes people to view DV as an inferior 'low-end' option. If lit properly, shots are composed well, etc... the quality will be there, perhaps not the same resolution, but hey, Blair Witch and Open Water got theatrical distribution, parts of BW, and all of OW were standard def DV.
By the way, I'm sure you meant the quality of the final image (as in resolution, scalability, etc) and not overall production quality -- But, no reason to give 'em any excuses to continue to believe that DV is just a 'cheap' format, because it certainly needent be.

No offense taken! What I mean to say is, that if it's going to come down to a few thousand megapixels, and it's going to cost $1000 more to get them, I'd rather use that $1000 to buy a giant submarine sandwich, and make the crew eat it as their meal throughout the course of a weeks shoot, even if it's a little haggard by the end of it.

But I'm talking about working within Clive's idea. For $1000, quality of video isn't going to be "spectacular". And I'm not a DoP- if I'm shooting a sketch, as long as the jokes are funny, it really doesn't matter to me if you can see the freckles. But with a good DoP who can haggle over quality issues, it can free up the rest of the crew to make a good movie.

Even though the original Clerks was shot on film, if you see the Clerks X DVD, you can see the original cut. It looks ASS terrible (I love you, Kevin Smith). But it got picked up and given the studio handjob. Looking at DV, if you have decent quality image, let the post-production studios worry about resolution and scalability. In the end, whatever you shoot, if it gets sold (big time), it's going to be fixed up anyway. Let your DoP worry about on-set image- as a director, make sure that what the camera (regardless of image quality) is shooting is interesting.

But what Clive seems to be doing is just that- downgrading the quality of everything to it's bare essentials and focussing on a hit story. Personally, if I were him, I'd want to get a DoP like you on the project, who has something to prove about DV being a competitive format. That way, he won't have to worry (too much) about format, lol.

I'd rather use that $1000 to buy a giant submarine sandwich
Now that'd be a BIG sandwich... :lol:

But what Clive seems to be doing is just that- downgrading the quality of everything to it's bare essentials and focussing on a hit story. Personally, if I were him, I'd want to get a DoP like you on the project, who has something to prove about DV being a competitive format. That way, he won't have to worry (too much) about format, lol.

That's exactly what I've done -- I'm working with a DOP who is as comfortable on film as he is on all the digital formats -- he's also keen to make a reputation as an innovator.

On a fundamental level I believe if you get the concept right, write a great script, bring on board incredibly talented actors and a small incredibly talented crew, the format you shoot on is irrelevant, providing it meets the base level of quality for it to be:

a) transferred to a 35mm print
b) acceptable for TV broadcast
c) acceptable for DVD production

There is enough evidence to proove that those benchmarks can just about be met on well shot DV -- even if they are easier to achieve on other formats.

Now, restricted to a $1000 budget, I KNOW I can bring the production in on budget if I shoot high quality DV -- if I shoot any other format, then I'm going to need to do more "ducking and diving" -- more deal cutting, in order to get the job done.

I have no doubt, if I set my mind to it, that I could shoot this feature on film and still hit budget, if I had to.

The risk is -- you only need one good-will deal to collapse and your budget flies out of the window or your project stalls for another six months. That's a huge risk because, as we all know, those kinds of deals fall through more often than not.

But Spatula's right, the whole point of this exercise is to overcome format issues by having OUTSTANDING content, because outstanding content is ALWAYS more important than format, is ALWAYS more important than budget, is ALWAYS more important than genre.

OOPs! Slipped into rant mode there for a moment -- do you get that I'm quite passionate about this?

I'm specifically looking at the Panasonic HVX200 that uses P2 cards: Uncompressed DVCPRO HD at 100Mbps.

Here's the link (http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/hvx200microsite/index.asp) to Panasonic's site.

I'm just waiting for my income tax return... :)

Clive, if you do any chroma-key shots, and you have any trouble keying them, I wish you'd contact me and let me have a few frames to work with. I've done 99% of my testing of my chroma-keyer on NTSC format and PAL uses a different chroma structure. If I had a realworld example, I may be able to iron out kinks. You'd be doing me a favor, so I'd be happy to help you out in return. Also, I would be happy to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or give you whatever assurances you need that I would not distribute your work. I'm just not that kind of guy!

LOC, I think the HVX200 is a solid choice, unless a better model appears before you get your tax return. It also records DV50 (4:2:2 SD), which has double the chroma resolution of DV25 (4:1:1). The only catch is the lack of interchangeable lenses, but that's an expensive option that I may never excercise. It also offers excellent control of it's luminance response curves. For the price, I don't think you can beat it.

Not that you were asking for my opinion, but I have a bad habit of offering opinions without solicitation.

Not that you were asking for my opinion, but I have a bad habit of offering opinions without solicitation.If I didn't want opinions, I wouldn't have posted originally. :lol: I value everyone's opinion.

Clive, if you do any chroma-key shots, and you have any trouble keying them, I wish you'd contact me and let me have a few frames to work with. I've done 99% of my testing of my chroma-keyer on NTSC format and PAL uses a different chroma structure. If I had a realworld example, I may be able to iron out kinks. You'd be doing me a favor, so I'd be happy to help you out in return. Also, I would be happy to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or give you whatever assurances you need that I would not distribute your work. I'm just not that kind of guy!

Thanks for that.

In an early incarnation of this project -- pre-blog, we were planning to do the entire film chroma-key, vectorise the results in After Effects and then export the whole project at full HD -- an entirely doable process.

The only thing that stopped us, wasn't the technical process or budget consideration (it would have made it easier to achieve) -- it was just that neither of us wanted to do a studio shoot.

I'm 95% sure we won't be chroma-keying, but if we do, I WILL take you up on your offer -- you know I rate your software very highly.

I've done 99% of my testing of my chroma-keyer on NTSC format and PAL uses a different chroma structure. If I had a realworld example, I may be able to iron out kinks. You'd be doing me a favor, so I'd be happy to help you out in return. Also, I would be happy to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or give you whatever assurances you need that I would not distribute your work. I'm just not that kind of guy!

If you need PAL greenscreen footage, I can provide you with some I did for our movie 'JENSEITS'.

freezer, I an always use test footage; especially "foreign" formats, like PAL. You need only send me 1 second of video, but it must be native (DV) format, with no additional compression. If it's not in the same format someone would use for editing, then it doesn't work for my testing. I'm sure you understand, since you seem to be a pretty knowledgable guy.

You can e-mail, store on a web-site for me to download, or I'll give you an FTP site you can use to upload. My e-mail address, for this stuff, is support@oakstreetsoftware.com.

Thank you, in advance.

freezer, I an always use test footage; especially "foreign" formats, like PAL. You need only send me 1 second of video, but it must be native (DV) format, with no additional compression. If it's not in the same format someone would use for editing, then it doesn't work for my testing. I'm sure you understand, since you seem to be a pretty knowledgable guy.

As I have the full rights to this footage and some other might be interested in it, I post it here for the members. Clips are 4 seconds each.

Greenscreen-DV PAL (4:2:0), directly from the cam (http://myshare.af-tv.de/download.php?fileid=6301153812188) (RAR compressed)
Greenscreen PAL (HuffYUV 4:4:4), but deinterlaced, denoised, sharpend and chromasampled (http://myshare.af-tv.de/download.php?fileid=6301153812188) (RAR compressed) - use the HuffYUV 2.1.1 Codec. Processing was done with AviSynth.

For those not familiar with PAL: it is 720x576 running at 25 fps.

We should probably start a new thread, but thanks for the test. It's a great test of my vector keyer, because of the loose hair. Do you want to see the result?
http://www.oakstreetsoftware.com/gkey/pal_test_out.jpg

This comment is not off-topic ...

The official word on chroma-keying DV is that there isn't enough chroma resolution in DV to pull a decent key. I'm not going to tell anyone this key is perfect, nor will I say it's as good as you could get if you had more chroma information. However, this is an example of what can be done, if you are determined to make something work, and you're committed to retaining as much quality as possible in each step of the process.

As has already been said, by Knightly, and others, DV can do the job, if you don't listen to all the people who say it can't be done. When I started playing with chroma-keying, I was using an S-VHS camera and digitizing with an analog to DV capture box. Therefore, I was getting the limitations of analog *and* DV compression. I did go buy a DV camcorder, but I refused to accept that I had to spend $25K on a 4:2:2 video camera just to pull a key. So I set about writing my own software, with the specific goal of making the most of the low chroma resolution by analyzing the luminance data, which is much higher resolution.

I'm not going to jump on a pedestal and shout that DV (especially mini-DV 25Mbps) is king, but knowledge, skill, determination and commitment are the key to an excellent production; not the medium on which it is recorded.

I've just started watching Spike Lee's Bamboozled -- It's incredibly depressing -- it's been shot so incredibly badly.

I was hoping to find some innovative, clever uses of DV, instead all I can see are a catalogue of "things you should never do with DV." -- Maybe one shot in twenty is acceptable visually.

Not only is the camera work technically poor -- the script and the performances are patchy at best.

Let's hope Lars Von Trier did better with the Idiots.