[macintologist]

Originally Posted by filmmaker2002

I can post some later today or tomorrow for you to get a look at.

Sooo..you gonna post any?

[rezzi]

I remember an Aaton Super 16mm LTR that I drooled at a good number of years ago. I saw a short while back where that thing was fetching several thousand dollars--used. In the cinema world (as others have noted) the cam is not so much the problem as the film stock and processing is what really sets you back. The situation is reversed in the video world.

[JB72]

I know of at least a couple of cheap 16mm cameras still being made today:

- http://www.ikonoskop.com/
- http://www.k3camera.com/

Neither of them would be what you're looking for unless you're prepared to modify, and get spendy on stock etc.

I could go on about the advantages of film (contrast etc.) but I think your best bet would be to check out some of the low-end HD cameras, especially the ones just announced at NAB. Eventually you'll want to invest in some simple lighting. Practice practice practice. Shoot anything you can, for anybody. Learn all about your camera.

That's my advice. Good luck!

[barang]

You can find old Bell and Howell spring cameras on eBay for under 2,000 sometimes. Good cameras that last forever. They accept 100' daylight reels.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by willab

Basically, interlaced combines two pictures in each frame. Progressive is just one. Therefore, progressive is higher quality.

Um, as I understand it, interlaced will create a smoother, more lifelike image, particularly on a TV set. Traditional Cathode Ray Tube television sets "paint" every other row of pixels, or fields, on each pass. Therefore, to maximize efficiency, we put different frames on each field. So essentially, with fields is higher quality -- 60i is better than 30i. HOWEVER, and this is what I think you meant by saying progressive is better. If you have 60i, that means you have 60 interlaced frames every second, which works out to be the screen getting redrawn 30 times a second. If you were to have 60p (i dont think such a camera exists) then you would have 60 frames, and 60 times the image is redrawn every second. But then you may as well do 120i, because you have more frames, but it still only needs to be drawn 60 times every second.

So basically, interlaced is both better and worse than progressive, but progressive has the edge in that 24p is the coveted "film look."

******************

Macintologist:
If you want the film look, dont bother with a film cam. Its not true that digital isnt good-its much cheaper and can easily get the same quality with an app like Shake 3.5 and a simple telecine pulldown. George Lucas filmed the recent Star Wars in digital (although a much higher quality digital than any prosumer device)
but you seem faily convinced out of film already, so...
the AG-DVX100 is a pretty good camera, so is the GL-2 (I like the DVX better) I havnet actually used the XL2, but it has some really good reviews. If you want to cut back on the spending, you might want to go with a lower-quality AG-DVC line camrea. (but the DVC60 got some bad reviews...)
If you can get a cam that films in 16:9 AND has a 16:9 CCD, then youre in luck. Otherwise, you have a hard-matte and a crappy, low res picture. Anamorphic ratio converters for prosumer cams typically run 700-1000 dollars, although I've seen one specifically for the DVX100 that is around 300, as well as a 27mm for 300, but any camera thats only 27mm is bound to be lower quality.

****************

This is how A&M Photoworld works:
You buy a product.
You get an email, which tells you to call to confirm the order (fishy already)
You call, and they try to talk you into buying accessories that evenually double the price of your order.
If you refuse, your order is cancelled
If you accept, you've been had, AND you end up with no warranty or batteries, etc.

Stay away from A&M Photoworld.
B&H Photo & Video has a sparkling reputation. There are cheaper prices out there, but theyre as low as you'll get for an authorized dealer and the service.

[willab]

Originally Posted by loki74

Um, as I understand it, interlaced will create a smoother, more lifelike image, particularly on a TV set. Traditional Cathode Ray Tube television sets "paint" every other row of pixels, or fields, on each pass. Therefore, to maximize efficiency, we put different frames on each field. So essentially, with fields is higher quality -- 60i is better than 30i. HOWEVER, and this is what I think you meant by saying progressive is better. If you have 60i, that means you have 60 interlaced frames every second, which works out to be the screen getting redrawn 30 times a second. If you were to have 60p (i dont think such a camera exists) then you would have 60 frames, and 60 times the image is redrawn every second. But then you may as well do 120i, because you have more frames, but it still only needs to be drawn 60 times every second.

So basically, interlaced is both better and worse than progressive, but progressive has the edge in that 24p is the coveted "film look."

******************

Macintologist:
If you want the film look, dont bother with a film cam. Its not true that digital isnt good-its much cheaper and can easily get the same quality with an app like Shake 3.5 and a simple telecine pulldown. George Lucas filmed the recent Star Wars in digital (although a much higher quality digital than any prosumer device)
but you seem faily convinced out of film already, so...
the AG-DVX100 is a pretty good camera, so is the GL-2 (I like the DVX better) I havnet actually used the XL2, but it has some really good reviews. If you want to cut back on the spending, you might want to go with a lower-quality AG-DVC line camrea. (but the DVC60 got some bad reviews...)
If you can get a cam that films in 16:9 AND has a 16:9 CCD, then youre in luck. Otherwise, you have a hard-matte and a crappy, low res picture. Anamorphic ratio converters for prosumer cams typically run 700-1000 dollars, although I've seen one specifically for the DVX100 that is around 300, as well as a 27mm for 300, but any camera thats only 27mm is bound to be lower quality.

****************

This is how A&M Photoworld works:
You buy a product.
You get an email, which tells you to call to confirm the order (fishy already)
You call, and they try to talk you into buying accessories that evenually double the price of your order.
If you refuse, your order is cancelled
If you accept, you've been had, AND you end up with no warranty or batteries, etc.

Stay away from A&M Photoworld.
B&H Photo & Video has a sparkling reputation. There are cheaper prices out there, but theyre as low as you'll get for an authorized dealer and the service.

Progressive is much better quality. A CRT does scan every other line, then go back to the top, but they can do this fast enough now that progressive works. 60p does exist. Take a look at the HVX 200 and the Panasonic Varicam. I believe that both Fox and ABC are using 60p. You are the first person I have ever heard say that interlaced looks better. Have you ever looked at progressive pictures from the DVX? You might be able to make digital as high resolution as film, but it won't look like film. I much prefer the look of film to high definition video.

[willab]

Here's a great explanation of progressive. http://www.mandarinpictures.com/stephenzinn/

[loki74]

My knowledge on the issue I got from my 3D modeling/animation/rendering program, regarding the "Field Render" option "...so it will look twice as smooth, but will take twice as long to render."

Maybe its different between film and 3D animation or somehting... I dunno.

[macintologist]

woops

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by direktor

Hadocon, I appreciate that you're somehow connected with the business, but you should realize that you have a lot of misinformation in your post. (You can get cameras cheaper, hardly anybody uses Nagras anymore professionally, it doesn't cost a ton to sync audio if you have a FCP rig, etc etc). I realize you're exagerrating to make your point Hadocon, but don't go nuts.

To the original poster: Shooting film is expensive, there's no two ways about it unless your uncle owns a camera rental house and your grandpa owns a lab. Don't fret however.

I recommend a couple things if you hate the look of video...either get a Bolex 16mm and prepare to pay about $120 a minute to get the shot film to tape so you can edit, or get a 24P video camera.

A 24P DV camera like the Panasonic DVX, or the Canon XL2 can look amazingly filmic if you take care not to expose it's shortcomings, and you color-correct in post (in your case, FCP). For somebody trying to learn and get the most bang for their buck, it is THE way to go. Then if you get good at it, you'll be able to start shooting film on OTHER people's dime.

In the meantime I'd recommend finding somebody in your area with a 16mm cam, and asking if you can sit down with it. Modern 16mm cameras cost $50,000 and up, modern 35mm start at about $100,000. Most people who use them rent, which runs about $500-$2000/day. This means that even a short production (like a music video), for just camera rental, raw film stock, processing and telecine will run about $7,000. Almost triple that number for 35mm.

Again, whether you know it or not, what you want it a 24P miniDV camera. You'd be blown away to know how many things on TV are being shot on them and being passed off for film.

Good luck!

I read quite a bit about video cameras and subscribe to 2-3 different video magazines. I echo what direktor says here. To underscore his assertion that many TV shows are shot on 24P mini DV cameras, here is a terrific example. The four episode miniseries on Bravo named, "FORTY DEUCE."
It was shot primarily with the Panasonic AG-DVX100A in 24p and I loved not only the story but the look and feel.

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/directors...le_12344.shtml

Directors World Feature

Light and Shadow: 'Forty Deuce'
By Staff
Apr 13, 2005, 12:29

The world of burlesque receives the reality show treatment in Bravo’s latest series and like the art form itself, a slow striptease with the emphasis on tease rather than strip, the show is designed to titillate viewers without revealing too much. Named “Forty Deuce” after the club it features, the four episode “mini series” follows club promoter Ivan Kane and his wife and business partner, Champagne Suzy (once a burlesque dancer herself), as they oversee their trendsetting Los Angeles venue and try to launch a spin-off club in Las Vegas.

Since its inception in 2002, Forty Deuce (the club, not the show) has become a hotspot for hip Angelenos as well as a celebrity magnet drawing the likes of Nicole Kidman, Brad Pitt, Mick Jagger, George Clooney and Demi Moore, to name only a few. The vibe is upscale and retro, recalling a bygone era of guys-and-dolls glamour as twice a night, each dancer performs an 8-minute set to a live three-piece jazz combo. Barring a wardrobe malfunction, there is never any nudity but each dancer eventually strips down to tiny panties and a flesh-colored bra. And there to capture it all is director Zalman King, known for the scorcher “Wild Orchid” as well as the erotic Showtime series, “Red Shoe Diaries.”

The show originated when Kane approached King, who describes himself as “very interested in dance,” with the basic idea and King pitched it to Bravo. The drama revolves around Kane’s attempt to open a Vegas franchise of Forty Deuce but for King, the appeal was deeper. “What really interested me beyond that were the girls who danced there,” says King. “The central theme of the piece is what it’s like to be young, beautiful, talented and working at a nightclub in Los Angeles.”

Shot over a nine-month period that only recently ended, the production on “Forty Deuce” was sporadic though well orchestrated. Sometimes he would shoot for an hour or two, sometimes for several days in a row. King, who not only direct but lit the show and operated the camera himself for the most part, describes the production schedule like this. “When something came up, we would shoot. When a girl was having a crisis or something was happening, we would get a call and Ivan would say, ‘You should really come today when the drama’s going on.’” Kane is credited as one of the show’s executive producers.

Most of the production was shot with an exceptionally small crew: King, his producer (Patrick Davenport), and occasionally another person. “We were very mobile and had very little equipment so we were able to go quickly whenever something was happening,” says King.

For the bulk of production, King used one of two cameras, the Panasonic DVX100A for the verité footage and the Panasonic Varicam for the more stylized dancing footage so he could shoot in slow-motion. He often cranked the Varicam to 60 frames-per-second to capture the dance moves in slow-motion.

“We were able to create fantastic rhythm that way,” says King. “I love that camera.” King worked with cinematographer Ethan Phillips for the high-end dancing segments but even then, the crew remained very small and King never used more than one or two lights — a Leico, a couple of PARs or a spotlight that King would blend with the stage lights already present at the club. There were never any dollies and only one day of Steadicam, which was used to stylize a specific dance sequence.

The shoot was relatively easy by King’s standards because as he says, “We were so contained.” The harder part was the editing. He worked with two editors, brothers David and Nick Golding, who cut on the Avid Xpress DV. They worked to structure each of the four one-hour episodes with its own beginning, middle and end while making sure it worked in the context of the entire series.

The first episode introduces the club, the main characters and the fact that Las Vegas might be a reality. In the second episode, Kane hires more dancers for his LA club and the focus shifts to the new dancers vs. the seasoned dancers. In the third episode, Kane travels to Las Vegas, Miami and New York looking for more dancers while the new club is being built. The fourth and final episode focuses on the opening of the new club in November 2004.

For the big dance sequence in the final episode, King changed his shooting style a bit. While the other dance sequences had been shot on the Varicam, he shot 90% of the finale on the DVX100A. “I just wanted a different look from the other dance sequences,” says King. “I have such a passion for it. I love to shoot dance.”

Describing the overall experience, King says, “I was blessed. Ivan and Suzy turned out to be wonderful performers and they were very comfortable in front of the camera since they had both been actors.”

King also appreciated the freedom of a small, intimate reality show. “It was a pleasure for me to do it, especially after doing films and having the pressure of a big crew and making days. I can’t say this was without anxiety but it was a different world and it allowed me to experiment, which I love to do.”

These days, King is doing his first experiments with the Sony HDR-FX1 camcorder, making a low-budget film about country singer Dale Watson that mixes documentary and fiction. Though he started shooting on the DVX100A and only recently purchases the Sony HD Camcorder, he says he has had no trouble blending footage from the two cameras. “Even in the same scene I can use them with a bit of color correction,” says King.

“Forty Deuce” (the show, not the club) debuted on Bravo April 7.


For in-depth info re: the show, go to:
http://www.bravotv.com/Forty_Deuce/index.shtml

They have film clips so you can see the quality of the finished product. I was impressed.

[JB72]

A History Channel special we recently edited, Conquest of America, was shot with the DVX100A in 24P. I thought it looked great considering.

Of course, it's the man not the machine. It's more important to learn the craft and invest in some lighting.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by JB72

A History Channel special we recently edited, Conquest of America, was shot with the DVX100A in 24P. I thought it looked great considering.

Of course, it's the man not the machine. It's more important to learn the craft and invest in some lighting.

[loki74]

the DVX100A is a very good camera, and good value too. However, if you plan on getting more than one, I suggest the Canon XL2 instead. You'll spend $700 on anamorphic converters per camera, unless you want to drastically lose resolution in the available hard matte, soft matte, and stretch options available for the DVX100A. The XL2's CCD's is actually 16:9, so you dont lose on resolution. (It doesnt use the left and right sides when in 4:3 mode). The DVX does have a lot of value, but it quicly loses it when your buying more than one AND anamorphic lenses. If you only need one, or you dont need widescreen, go with the DVX. Otherwise, go with the XL2.

[U n i o n 0015]

I was faced with the choice of buying an XL2 or a DVX100A. The general consensus among all the people I talked with was that the XL2, even in 24P, looked more like video. So I went with the DVX. Fantastic camera. Some of the standard gamma settings are amazing and come very close to creating the look of film. And once you know what you're doing, you can get it to look even more like film.

Panasonic had a nice $300 rebate going recently, so you could pick up a DVX for 3 grand.. So you can get two DVXs and two anamorphic adapters for $7400 versus two XL2s for $9000.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by loki74

the DVX100A is a very good camera, and good value too. However, if you plan on getting more than one, I suggest the Canon XL2 instead. You'll spend $700 on anamorphic converters per camera, unless you want to drastically lose resolution in the available hard matte, soft matte, and stretch options available for the DVX100A. The XL2's CCD's is actually 16:9, so you dont lose on resolution. (It doesnt use the left and right sides when in 4:3 mode). The DVX does have a lot of value, but it quicly loses it when your buying more than one AND anamorphic lenses. If you only need one, or you dont need widescreen, go with the DVX. Otherwise, go with the XL2.

Anamorphic 16:9 was never high on my priority list, (though it IS an important feature) therefore I never really checked the specs on the Panasonic AG-DVX100A. Well, today I did and whattya know!?!?

Looky here!

http://www.videomaker.com/scripts/article.cfm?id=10224

TECH SPECS
Format: Mini DV
Lens: Leica DICOMAR F/1.6, 10:1 optical zoom, 72mm filter diameter
Image Sensor: 3 1/3-inch CCDs, 410,000 pixels each
Viewfinder: 0.44-inch color LCD, 180,000 pixels
LCD Monitor: 3.5-inch color, 200,000 pixels
Focus: auto, manual focus ring
Anamorphic 16:9: yes
Image stabilization: optical
Exposure: auto, manual
Minimum shutter speed: 1/4 (60i, 30p); 1/6 (24p)
Maximum shutter speed: 1/2000 (60i), 1/1000 (30p, 24p)
Iris: manual
Gain: low, medium, high
White balance: auto, manual, presets
Audio: 12-bit, 16-bit; audio dub mode available
Microphone input: XLR x2, switchable to line input
Headphone output: 1/8-inch stereo mini plug
Inputs: FireWire, S-video, RCA-style composite video, stereo audio
Outputs: FireWire, S-video, RCA-style composite video, stereo audio
Edit interface: FireWire, 2.5-inch wired remote
Other features: 60i, 30p and 24p record modes, user presets, scene presets, audio level meters, hot shoe, built-in lens shade, stereo on-camera microphone, zebra stripes, internal speaker
Dimensions (wxhxd): 5 1/2 by 6 1/3 by 14 1/2 inches
Weight: 3.7 lb (sans tape and battery)