View Full Version : Lens adapter on Standard Def Camera


SDBenassi
11-30-2009, 07:34 PM
So, for reasons pertaining to the difficulties of pre-production and budget restraints, I have a much easier time getting a 35mm lens adapter for a standard def Canon XL-2 than a Hi-Def Panasonic HVX200. This is for a short, 5 minute film, which I will be submitting to film festivals, but which will most likely enjoy most of its exhibition life on a standard def dvd with the rest of my reel, or online in a compressed upstreaming format, like on Vimeo. This being the case, how much of a fool would I be for opting for the standard def over the hi-def in this scenario?
(The lens adapter is the Letus35 Ultimate for the Panasonic HVX 200 and the PS Technik for the Canon XL-2. Both will be used in conjunction with Nikon AI lenses. Shooting is entirely indoors with tungsten lighting.)

Brooksy
11-30-2009, 07:55 PM
I don't see a single problem using a standard def camera. Ask yourself this. Is there a single film festival I'm submitting to that is requiring a high def DVD? Am I planning on selling the short film on a high Def DVD?

What other reasons would you have shooting it on HD other then to say you did it? There will always be another short film so plan for that one being on HD. Just an opinion.

Stardust Walking
11-30-2009, 11:12 PM
If you do not need HD then why spend the extra time and money on it.

I have an XL-2 and have used the PS Technik model 400 on an other XL-2, they make a great
tool. You will love working with them.

good luck and have fun.

Terry

M1chae1
12-01-2009, 08:16 AM
What other reasons would you have shooting it on HD other then to say you did it?

Because it's much higher resolution. HD cams tend to capture better light and color. Because people take HD films more seriously. Because HD films project better. Because HD cams tend to give you more control over what you're shooting.

Those are a few reasons. :)

There is nothing wrong with shooting on SD when you start out...the quality of the image doesn't matter when you're practicing. But when you want to be taken seriously, and you want to start creating some really nice photography...I highly recommend getting an HD cam.

There have been many great looking films shot on SD...but these films tend to be handled by experts in cinematography and post production.

No, I'm not an HD snob. lol.

Brooksy
12-01-2009, 09:34 AM
Unfortunately shooting a short or feature in HD doesn't make the project better. Most of the time it doesn't matter how good the resolution, color, or light is, it is going to be a disaster no matter what. Heck, you can even shoot a bad movie on film, happens all the time. What gets you taken seriously is taking yourself seriously. Bringing in professionals, doing research, gaining experience, having a good story, taking the time to light, get great sound, production design - the list goes on and on. Things like this get you taken seriously.

We live in an age where anyone can make a short movie. Anyone can pick up an HD camera and film their friends getting naked and biting each others necks, and call it a vampire movie. Does that make it decent? Does that make it worth watching? I could film the same scene on an HD camera and an SD camera. But if I don't spend the time to light it, use proper sound, get good actors, and use great cinematography then it doesn't matter what camera the scene is shot on.

You also have to see what you are going to do with the piece. He claims it is going to some festivals, and live on the internet. Does that make it imperative that it be shot in HD? In my opinion, no, but maybe to some people it could matter. I don't want to get into a long drawn out argument here I just wanted to say my piece. Good luck and I am sure it will turn out looking great.

M1chae1
12-01-2009, 09:53 AM
Unfortunately shooting a short or feature in HD doesn't make the project better. Most of the time it doesn't matter how good the resolution, color, or light is, it is going to be a disaster no matter what. Heck, you can even shoot a bad movie on film, happens all the time. What gets you taken seriously is taking yourself seriously. Bringing in professionals, doing research, gaining experience, having a good story, taking the time to light, get great sound, production design - the list goes on and on. Things like this get you taken seriously.

We live in an age where anyone can make a short movie. Anyone can pick up an HD camera and film their friends getting naked and biting each others necks, and call it a vampire movie. Does that make it decent? Does that make it worth watching? I could film the same scene on an HD camera and an SD camera. But if I don't spend the time to light it, use proper sound, get good actors, and use great cinematography then it doesn't matter what camera the scene is shot on.

You also have to see what you are going to do with the piece. He claims it is going to some festivals, and live on the internet. Does that make it imperative that it be shot in HD? In my opinion, no, but maybe to some people it could matter. I don't want to get into a long drawn out argument here I just wanted to say my piece. Good luck and I am sure it will turn out looking great.


If he plans to put all this time and talent (which you mentioned) into the rest of the production, why not go HD? HD simply looks better and is taken more seriously (for the most part).

Naturally, it goes without saying, that the format doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doling. I'm talking about competent production levels...and when it boils down to a level playing field in that area, HD is going to look better in the end (a lot better).

Unfortunately shooting a short or feature in HD doesn't make the project better. Most of the time it doesn't matter how good the resolution, color, or light is, it is going to be a disaster no matter what.

I'm not sure what you mean here...what's going to be a disaster and why? Are you saying most films out there are a disaster, so it doesn't matter what format you choose?

The bottom line is...if your production values are high quality, and the story and acting is good, the format isn't going to be the deal breaker...BUT...if a really good movie is put on quality HD or film...the end product is going to be *much* more appealing to audiences and distributors.

wheatgrinder
12-03-2009, 12:23 PM
My $0.02 , coming from an audio background, capture in the highest resolution you can, the more your process, etc, the more detail gets lost, so in this model, HD offers better POST Production options, and when your done "down sample" to SD.

That said, I don't even know what an HD camera looks like!

CDCosta
12-03-2009, 05:37 PM
From an AC: If you can go HD, do it. If you can't, don't worry.

Of course HD has great benefits, but If you can't afford it, SD is still good. Like someone above stated, resolution doesn't make the film.

Brooksy
12-03-2009, 07:50 PM
CDCosta makes a very good point that I don't think I said but I do agree with: " If you can go HD, do it. If you can't, don't worry."

freezer
12-04-2009, 05:07 AM
Because it's much higher resolution. HD cams tend to capture better light and color. Because people take HD films more seriously. Because HD films project better. Because HD cams tend to give you more control over what you're shooting.

Sorry, but I don't find those arguments valuable.
Especially as the topic starter has the choice between XL2 and HVX200.

The HVX200 uses 3 1/3" CCDs with 960x540 progressive Pixels and uprez that by using pixelshifting to HD.
The XL2 uses 3 1/3" 960x480 (NTSC) progressive Pixels and downrez that to Widescreen-SD.
You could uprez the XL2's signal to HD in Post and receive a similarly quality as the HVX200, but with far less noise.

HD cams by nature do NOT capture better light and color than modern SD cameras. It depends on the CCD/CMOS used and on the type of compression used for the recording.

Stardust Walking
12-04-2009, 05:15 AM
Good points Freezer!

Terry

Brooksy
12-04-2009, 10:10 AM
I second Stardust: Excellent points freezer!

M1chae1
12-04-2009, 10:38 AM
Sorry, but I don't find those arguments valuable.
Especially as the topic starter has the choice between XL2 and HVX200.

The HVX200 uses 3 1/3" CCDs with 960x540 progressive Pixels and uprez that by using pixelshifting to HD.
The XL2 uses 3 1/3" 960x480 (NTSC) progressive Pixels and downrez that to Widescreen-SD.
You could uprez the XL2's signal to HD in Post and receive a similarly quality as the HVX200, but with far less noise.

HD cams by nature do NOT capture better light and color than modern SD cameras. It depends on the CCD/CMOS used and on the type of compression used for the recording.

I stand corrected on some of the technical aspects...I'm not a camera wiz, sorry.

I still know for certain that shooting on HD is more attractive in general--both to audiences and distributors. You can upsample all you want, but you're never going to get the crisp hi-rez image you get with true 720 or 1080. Am I right?

And I thought the higher quality HD cams *did* capture more color info than SD cams...hmmm...Ok, you learn something new everyday. *insert foot in mouth*

Thanks.

freezer
12-06-2009, 01:56 PM
I still know for certain that shooting on HD is more attractive in general--both to audiences and distributors. You can upsample all you want, but you're never going to get the crisp hi-rez image you get with true 720 or 1080. Am I right?

You are right that HD looks more attractive in general. A camera with a true highres sensor will record a much crisper image than an upsampled SD image, no doubt. But especially the HVX200 has no highres sensor so in this particular case the topic starter won't gain much in sharpness by using the HVX200 over the XL-2.

Have a look what the HVX200 can resolve on a test chart in 1080p:
http://produktdbimages2.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_iso_klein_70.jp g

Compare that to a Sony EX1 with true 1080p:
http://produktdbimages5.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_iso_klein_42.jp g

or to the Panasonic HPX301E:
http://produktdbimages0.slashcam.de/camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_iso_klein_119.j pg

And I thought the higher quality HD cams *did* capture more color info than SD cams...hmmm...Ok, you learn something new everyday.
A high quality HD cam will capture similar color info to a high quality SD camera. But as SD cameras more and more disappear from the market the HD camera manufacturers will continue to develop better sensors so it is only natural that in a few years HD cameras will outperform by far even high quality SD cameras in the color domain.

Godchoo
12-06-2009, 02:52 PM
Consider this. Most people don't have the capability to even watch
true HD quality video...