You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Camera Help...Which One?

Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 8:06pm

Post 1 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

I am getting ready to buy a new camera but I am confused as to which one will best suite my needs. I will be using it to film a feature length film and I do my editing in FCP. I want to film in HD and I want the end result to look as much like film as possible. I know that that has as much to do with lighting and editing as it does with the camera but I am unsure as to which of the cameras I have been looking at will work the best. I have read that some cameras record in file formats that need to be converted and some some do not. The cameras I have been looking at are the JVC GZ-HD7, the Panasonic AG-HSC1U, and the Sony HVR-HD1000U. The JVC and Panasonic have 3CCD image sensors which from what I can tell are better than the CMOS chip that the Sony has. Also, I read that the JVC records in an uncommon file format. Which one should I get? My budget is around $1500 or less.

Thanks, Ryan
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 9:51pm

Post 2 of 44

GeeksGoneBad

Force: 1350 | Joined: 15th Apr 2002 | Posts: 664

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I don't know anything about those cameras - but for the "Film Look" you want 24p with a 1/48 shutter + no digital gain added from the camera - which means you should invest in some lights and learn how to light the scenes properly + you'll probably want the depth of field and "soft" look of a 35mm adapter

so I'm not sure if those cameras support those options or not - but that's how the "film Look" is acheived with digital camcorders in general...

i use the Canon HV20 and all of the above can be acheived - so that's my only experience... YMMV smile
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 9:52pm

Post 3 of 44

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

First of all, shoot with tape if you can help it. DV tapes store your video uncompressed, so it will end up looking better when you edit. If you can't help using a hard drive, dig around and see if you can find out how much video is compressed when it is stored. Go with the one with the least compression. Also, you are right, you want the 3 chips. This will help with color capture, and also with low light performance. Which camera you buy really has the most to do with what exactly you are going to shoot. Is there a lot of action, or mostly still frame shots? Also, if your films will be dialog-centric, you might want to think about which cameras have better mics, or which have mic inputs at all. I have had some experience with Panasonics and can tell you that they are generally very reliable and work well.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 10:20pm

Post 4 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

It sounds like the cannon cameras are very popular. I noticed that they all have the CMOS sensor. Wouldn't I be better off with a 3CCD camera. Also, I was looking at this Cannon as well.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539290-REG/Canon_2573B001_VIXIA_HF_10_AVCHD_16GB.html

It has flash memory, i.e. no moving parts in the hard drive. Would this be a good option? I didn't see any spec on how much it compresses the video though...
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 10:21pm

Post 5 of 44

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

DV tapes store your video uncompressed, so it will end up looking better when you edit.
DV (DV25) as a format is compressed 5:1, with low chroma subsampling (4:1:1 - NTSC or 4:2:0 - PAL). You can't get uncomressed video in a consumer format. Just for the record.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 10:38pm

Post 6 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

I am getting ready to buy a new camera but I am confused as to which one will best suite my needs. I will be using it to film a feature length film and I do my editing in FCP. I want to film in HD and I want the end result to look as much like film as possible. I know that that has as much to do with lighting and editing as it does with the camera but I am unsure as to which of the cameras I have been looking at will work the best. I have read that some cameras record in file formats that need to be converted and some some do not. The cameras I have been looking at are the JVC GZ-HD7, the Panasonic AG-HSC1U, and the Sony HVR-HD1000U. The JVC and Panasonic have 3CCD image sensors which from what I can tell are better than the CMOS chip that the Sony has. Also, I read that the JVC records in an uncommon file format. Which one should I get? My budget is around $1500 or less.

Thanks, Ryan
Here's *my* suggestion. And on dvinfo.net - plenty of people agree with this.

Canon XH A1 with 35mm adapter (eg: red rock micro m2).

If you want that 'film' look while using HDV.

Canon makes good cameras, and this one really is a strong workhouse that gives you best bang for the buck imho.

As for technical details - you can find them all by google 'canon xh a1 review'. Yes it is 3CCD.

Oh don't forget a matte box. Unless you want lens flares.

Go on amazon.com and lookup reviews too. Almost all positive.

d
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:28am

Post 7 of 44

Tim L

Force: 580 | Joined: 4th Aug 2006 | Posts: 297

Windows User

Member

Mr. Donut,

If you can get all that for $1500, please pick one up for me also. biggrin

Thanks!
Tim L

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

Which one should I get? My budget is around $1500 or less.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 4:43am

Post 8 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

Any other opinions...The more I read about this new Canon HF10, the more I think it may work out the best but I still really like the look of this Sony HVR-HD1000U. Does any one have any personal experience with any of the cameras I have mentioned?
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:22am

Post 9 of 44

dungmeister

Force: 0 | Joined: 13th May 2007 | Posts: 13

Member

My advice to you would be to get a canon HV20 camera and invest in other equipment that would help with obtaining 'the look'.

You can get a HV20 for USD$650 at eCOST
http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=36786586&source=EWBBASE&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=36786586

And other accessories for it would be a 35mm DOF Adapter for USD$350 (vibrating Adapter)
http://www.35mmadapters.co.uk/ Then go to vibrating adapter.

A good lens would cost a bit of money, I reccommend the Nikon 50mm f1.4
Ebay for about $300:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-AF-Nikkor-50mm-f-1-4D-f1-4-fr-D200-D80-1-4-UV_W0QQitemZ110228833577QQihZ001QQcategoryZ30067QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Then you could get other accessarioes such as a Rode Video Mic - $150
Cinetactics Matteblox DV - $?
Bogen-Manfrotto Tripod - $?
External monitor (for focusing, get a good one so you can see what your doing) - $200+
And then maybe a lighting kit from BHPhotoandvideo.com

That would be the ulitmate pack and all that for around the price you wanted to spend on the camera alone, you would save big bucks and have better quality video at the same time. The camera alone won't make it look good, you need the accessories as well.

Jojodungy
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:26am

Post 10 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Don't ever ever ever ever post a brand new topic again ever without searching.


For more emphasis; that's ever ever ever never ever.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:34am

Post 11 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

Atom wrote:

Don't ever ever ever ever post a brand new topic again ever without searching.


For more emphasis; that's ever ever ever never ever.
Well I searched for topics about the cameras I am interested in and did not find any relative answers to my questions. Do you have any constructive advise to my questions regarding which camera would best suite my needs? Or maybe a link to a previous thread that I couldn't find? Sorry to so blatantly cross the line with my filmaking question on the filmaker's forum...
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:38am

Post 12 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

FXhomer58679 wrote:

My advice to you would be to get a canon HV20 camera and invest in other equipment that would help with obtaining 'the look'.

You can get a HV20 for USD$650 at eCOST
http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=36786586&source=EWBBASE&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=36786586

And other accessories for it would be a 35mm DOF Adapter for USD$350 (vibrating Adapter)
http://www.35mmadapters.co.uk/ Then go to vibrating adapter.

A good lens would cost a bit of money, I reccommend the Nikon 50mm f1.4
Ebay for about $300:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-AF-Nikkor-50mm-f-1-4D-f1-4-fr-D200-D80-1-4-UV_W0QQitemZ110228833577QQihZ001QQcategoryZ30067QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Then you could get other accessarioes such as a Rode Video Mic - $150
Cinetactics Matteblox DV - $?
Bogen-Manfrotto Tripod - $?
External monitor (for focusing, get a good one so you can see what your doing) - $200+
And then maybe a lighting kit from BHPhotoandvideo.com

That would be the ulitmate pack and all that for around the price you wanted to spend on the camera alone, you would save big bucks and have better quality video at the same time. The camera alone won't make it look good, you need the accessories as well.

Jojodungy
Are these lenses really that important...What I mean is I was under the impression that a good camera would have an adequate lense straight out of the box. Is there anywhere that I can find some video examples of what these lenses would look like?
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 5:53am

Post 13 of 44

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

Are these lenses really that important...What I mean is I was under the impression that a good camera would have an adequate lense straight out of the box. Is there anywhere that I can find some video examples of what these lenses would look like?
He's referring to a lens that you'll need if you're going to use a 35mm adaptor.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 7:11am

Post 14 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Another newbie who thinks he's hot sh*t. Sigh. Well, I'll humor you:

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

I want to film in HD and I want the end result to look as much like film as possible. I know that that has as much to do with lighting and editing as it does with the camera but I am unsure as to which of the cameras I have been looking at will work the best.
Want that film look? You're absolutely right, it is a lot to do with lighting and grading. But if you want a camera that delivers that specific "look" on the cheap, I wouldn't suggest either camera you're looking at, especially for $1500. For that price I'll show you my megapost, but we'll get there later.

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

Well I searched for topics about the cameras I am interested in and did not find any relative answers to my questions. Do you have any constructive advise to my questions regarding which camera would best suite my needs? Or maybe a link to a previous thread that I couldnt find?
Just to prove a point, type "camera" in the search bar:
Bang.
Bang.
Bang.
Bang
Bang.
Bang
Bang.

Why should I do the work for you? I typed in 'camera' on the search and got that. Which includes a post of mine with several links:

Atom wrote:

Of course. The GL2 interest will never die. smile


Bam!

Bam!

Bam!

(All recent GL2/XM2 threads/questions)

And of course the commonly-used 'seller post' from me and Ben: Sha-bing!

Me wrote:

Ben wrote:

Buy the Canon GL2.

Why? Mainly, because it is the best priced 3CCD camcorder in its range; meaning you won't find a better price:quality ratio for $2,000 and under.

The Canon GL2 has 3CCDs- meaning it picks up color better than lower-end cameras- and a fluorite lens, which is made to prevent chromatic abberation and digital artifacts- meaning the image is pretty damn good.

If you need examples, here are some below....

Links to video are in blue.


standard graded, Marathon, short film


extreme graded, Marathon, short film


standard graded, Redemption, short film


standard graded, Redemption, short film


standard graded, Rebirth Promo, corporate promotional video


ungraded, Thomas the Drum Major, documentary


ungraded, Pandarosa concert, event footage


lightly graded (desaturation, luminance), Cover's Story, short film


standard graded, Cover's Story, short film


standard graded, Cover's Story and Splinter Cell, short film


graded, Splinter Cell, short film

graded, test footage, short film


lightly graded (hue shift), SWEET myspace pic, personal use


Baaaaaaaasically, the GL2 rocks. There are naysayers out there who will tell you to buy the Sony VX2100 or the Panasonic GS400/500 (CRAP camera compared to the GL2), but don't listen.

I think the GL2 will suit you and your budget nicely.
Throw this all together and you've got a really nice setup for the price, especially. That's my SD suggestion. Second to that I'd suggest the Panasonic DVX100b, although I'm not a big fan of it.

HD-wise, I would seriously look into my current favorite, the Canon XH-A1. Hands down. It's a tad more expensive, but totally versatile and great in quality. About half of my movie, Marathon, was shot on it. Past that, I've heard good things about the Panasonic HVX200, but don't like it enough myself (or them P2 cards) to really suggest it. Plus it's way out of the price-range.
Might I also say, though, that this all, of course, requires proper lighting and cinematic know-how. This kinda stuff isn't achievable, on any level with any camera, if it isn't accompanied with many other things. Talent included.
Sorry to so blatantly cross the line with my filmaking question on the filmaker's forum...
There's no need to get cocky, especially when it deals with laziness. It's okay to ask questions, and I can appreciate you being a brand new member, but this question comes up about once a day and no one bothers to simply type in "camera" or "what camera" or "which camera" in the search bar. (On the main forum's page there's one) I'm happy to say I think I personally answer most of these types of threads with in-depth answers and links, at least the majority of the ones I happen to pass; so it gets fairly annoying. Especially when hour-old members get on their high-horse.
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 12:35pm

Post 15 of 44

GeeksGoneBad

Force: 1350 | Joined: 15th Apr 2002 | Posts: 664

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

FXhomer58679 wrote:


A good lens would cost a bit of money, I reccommend the Nikon 50mm f1.4
Ebay for about $300:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-AF-Nikkor-50mm-f-1-4D-f1-4-fr-D200-D80-1-4-UV_W0QQitemZ110228833577QQihZ001QQcategoryZ30067QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I'm building my 35mm adapter now and it was my understanding that I should NOT go with the auto focus lens... manual focus only... Do you have some info that I don't have? wink it's all still a little confusing LOL
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 3:26pm

Post 16 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

Atom, thanks for the reply...I'll look into the GL2. The only reason I didn't consider it is because the distributer(s) I have been working with are really looking for HD or even HDV movies. I think that we all know at this point that SD is a dying format and in the not too distant future, everything will be HD. If I filmed with a GL2, I feel like I will have a hard time getting the commitment from these distributors. I have done music for a few projects that were done with the GL2 and they looked great but I really wanted to do this thing in HD and keep my options open. I have seen a few things recently filmed with HV20's and the Sony HVR-HD1000U and they looked stunning. That is why I have been asking about the HD cameras I listed earlier in this thread. If anyone has an opinion on any of the cameras I asked about that would be great help...Thanks, -R
Posted: Thu, 6th Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Post 17 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

Atom, thanks for the reply...I'll look into the GL2. The only reason I didn't consider it is because the distributer(s) I have been working with are really looking for HD or even HDV movies. I think that we all know at this point that SD is a dying format and in the not too distant future, everything will be HD. If I filmed with a GL2, I feel like I will have a hard time getting the commitment from these distributors. I have done music for a few projects that were done with the GL2 and they looked great but I really wanted to do this thing in HD and keep my options open. I have seen a few things recently filmed with HV20's and the Sony HVR-HD1000U and they looked stunning. That is why I have been asking about the HD cameras I listed earlier in this thread. If anyone has an opinion on any of the cameras I asked about that would be great help...Thanks, -R
It's because people are buying HD tvs, HD players and HD cable boxes. So they want to see HD stuff. I'm in the same boat. I watch my HD channels all day.

SD is good for learning, and creating youtube stuff.

d
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 12:10am

Post 18 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

SD is good for learning, and creating youtube stuff.
We've gone over this before: SD is still "in the game". For instance, I still make my movies mostly in SD and it's hardly simply for "learning" or "youtube" (which I assume you're meaning crappy or carefree). I've built my own body of work in SD and will continue to. And it's done as much as sealing the deal on getting me into some tough and competitive film schools in various colleges. Against thousands upon thousands of students that shoot in HD. Can't put that HD on a DVD to send off now can you, though? smile

Which makes your persistent statements about SD mediocrity, EvilDonut, kind of demeaning.

You couldn't be further from wrong to assume SD is out. It simply isn't. And right now, with no good consumer/prosumer format besides the clunky HDV; you might as well get an SD camera. Give me some time, and I'll find the most recent threads that explain why.

Seasoned professionals in TV like pdrg and myself agree: there's absolutely nothing wrong with SD. I've still got a great, crisp, high-resolution image. It just isn't as high. But it offers you the more film-like look instead. Which makes you question? Are you going for style or are you going for quality of image?

You should be somewhere between both, and this is still achievable, if not moreso currently, with an SD camera like the GL2.

I completely understand your hesitance, Magothy, and don't let me spoil your views, but: The stuff like the HV20 can only do so much without manual controls. Honestly. And for professionalism, professional technique, at least to me, is more important than slightly better clarity. Truth is, though, there's no real "instant good look" to a camera image; HD or SD. It's all in the lighting, depth of field, and numerous other things including talent.

But I'll stick to it: like I've said earlier, HD has by no means completely "arrived" yet. Not in the least. Blu-Ray just won over the HD transportable format wars and it'll be a few years if not longer but it really picks up and we begin to start burning to that and widely viewing it. What does this mean? It means who cares if something's in "HD" (often those two letters grandstanded with nothing to show for it) if over 80% of consumers that own an HDTV don't even have HD-subscribed broadcasting? And what about when less than 10% of those people have a player that can play HD?

Right now, TV shows aside, things are largely shown, broadcasted, and transported in SD form. Just look at the DVD. If you want to show someone your work, are you really going to give them a flash thumb drive with your HD movie? Are you going to give them a Blu-Ray disc?

More likely than not, you're just going to give them a simple DVD. But this is really overcomplicating things to begin with. If you're looking at a camera for $1500 and plan to show it to somebody important- you should worry less about the allure of the gimmicky "HD" tag on everything and more on the raw elements like lenses, lights, and sound.
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 1:03am

Post 19 of 44

GeeksGoneBad

Force: 1350 | Joined: 15th Apr 2002 | Posts: 664

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

We ned to remember that the OP want's HD...

SD is not "out" and probably never will be - heck - we've all still got VHS tapes and probalby will for a long time - so SD isn't "going" anywhere... But HD *IS* the future - and for me personally I wanted to start playing in it as soon as I could smile

and to stick up for the HV20 - you guys keep saying that it doesn't have manual controls and that's simply not true - I can manually control everything - granted some with a "trick" and others are clunky (manual focus) I can still control them wink and when my 35mm adapter is done (working on this now) I'll upload some video y'all can drool over - hehe
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 1:04am

Post 20 of 44

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom, do you read at all? There shouldn't be any debate about whether SD is on the way out or not in this thread because he wasn't asking for a comparison of the two definitions, he was asking for camera suggestions and supplied the necessary criteria. For example:

The distributer(s) I have been working with are really looking for HD or even HDV movies
This rules out the GL2 and any other SD cameras because that's what he's asking for. There's always so much complaining on this forum that people aren't specific enough with their questions and then when they are they get a whole load of replies suggesting things that don't fit the requirements/budget.

I also wasn't aware that you were a "seasoned professional in TV like PDRG". I mean you've only even been on this site for 3 or 4 years. It's much easier to give advice when you've climbed down off your high horse - that way, if nothing else, you can at least hear what question is actually being asked and you won't get bogged down in any unnecessary nonsense.
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 2:16am

Post 21 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

Easy guys...I wasn't trying to start a debate over SD vs. HD. I just wanted some opinions on a few cameras. I think I am between the Sony HDR-HD1000U the Canon HF-10, and the JVC GZ-HD7. The Canon has the most manual control (although it does not have a focis ring) and I think it has the best image sensor. It also will record in 24P. The Sony looks really nice but I haven't been able to find more in depth specs like what manual controls it has and if it will also do 24P. The JVC looks interesting as it is 3CCD but other than that I just don't know. I am kind of leaning toward the Sony but some of the shots I have seen with the consumer Canon cameras just look great. Keep the comments coming. These remarks all have been very helpful.
-R
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 2:20am

Post 22 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

I also wasn't aware that you were a "seasoned professional in TV like PDRG".
Perhaps bad wording? "Myself and seasoned professionals in TV like pdrg" suit you better?

I mean you've only even been on this site for 3 or 4 years. It's much easier to give advice when you've climbed down off your high horse
A bit hypocritical to stamp over my posts when you've just outlined what is wrong with what I'm writing and done nothing to help the man either, eh? Forget you, Rawree.

I'll acknowledge I get to be a haughty person, sure, but there's absolutely no need to poke around the forums if you're simply going to just find where I say something and attack it. Really. The 'tude doesn't help anything, either. smile

Past that, I didn't mean to start an argument here, Magothy. Sorry about that.

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

The Canon has the most manual control (although it does not have a focis ring) and I think it has the best image sensor. It also will record in 24P.
I think you have an answer then. smile Unless you shoot very tight always and like to really, really control your focus (my brother, Ben, does) then I'd say manual controls and 24P outweigh the no focus ring issue. I've had only really great luck with Canon cameras. And if you're able to control the aperture and exposure; you should be pretty well off.

Just for the record, I knew what you were talking about. I knew what cameras you mentioned. I was just trying to offer some aside on other options to weigh after reading why and what you really want out of the camera. I hope that's okay, wasn't meaning to go off on a tangent. smile
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 2:35am

Post 23 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

Atom wrote:

[
I think you have an answer then. smile Unless you shoot very tight always and like to really, really control your focus (my brother, Ben, does) then I'd say manual controls and 24P outweigh the no focus ring issue. I've had only really great luck with Canon cameras. And if you're able to control the aperture and exposure; you should be pretty well off.

Just for the record, I knew what you were talking about. I knew what cameras you mentioned. I was just trying to offer some aside on other options to weigh after reading why and what you really want out of the camera. I hope that's okay, wasn't meaning to go off on a tangent. smile
Thats what I have been thinking as well. Although the Sony has a much more Pro look to it, I think the Canon might be a bit more versatile in the long run. Just as you were saying in another thread about why you wouldn't show up to a gig with an HV20 instead of your GL2, I was thinking the same with the Sony vs. the Canon. I guess I need to keep digging for some more info on the Sony before I buy one. BTW, I checked out your Marathon trailer and it looks great. Did you do the grading with an FXhome product? -R
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 3:00am

Post 24 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

'Marathon' is actually a short film up on here. I haven't made a trailer for it, maybe you saw the whole thing? smile

No, I graded (and edited it) in Sony Vegas. It was shot largely on the GL2 with some shots on a Canon XH-A1.
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 4:29am

Post 25 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

[quote="Atom"]

EvilDonut wrote:

hould worry less about the allure of the gimmicky "HD" tag on everything and more on the raw elements like lenses, lights, and sound.
lol @ "HD is a gimmick"

You haven't countered my point. Selling to a distributor == Shooting in HD.

Your argument is all emotion and nothing in facts.

Have you sold anything in the past year in SD. Name one project?

Thought so. Hey if you wanna walk into NBC with your SD stuff and get laughed at. Go right ahead. Tell me if you can even get through the front door.

Hey, why not go all the way - show up with your film on video cassette!!

d
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 4:43am

Post 26 of 44

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom, read up on HD a bit. While I won't be as cynical as donut, I think there's a lot to be learned.

For instance, you suggested I couldn't put my HD footage onto a dvd. There's plenty of hacks I've seen on burning a hd-dvd and a blu ray dvd using a normal dvd burner. Now they aren't in fact blu ray discs they can just play on a blu rap player. You can also make a dvd with it if you wanted.

There are plenty of ways to distribute with an HD cam. I agree with both of you on certain things but don't be blind just because you have cash invested in a certain system.

EDIT: I just read more of your posts Atom. Remember when you did the seniority thing to donut? Well Rawree has seniority over you and you totally just crapped all over him. The way you argue your point you make it so that when Rawree brings up a good point, you say "WELL YOU OFFER NOTHING TOO!" Please.

To the OP: I would say it matters more what you can do with the camera than what people will say about what camera hangs on your shoulder. I have the HDV version of the HF10, the HV20. The only reason I didn't hold out for it was I didn't necessarily like the storage option. But I'm sure the Canon will be a good choice. The HV20 has been great for me so far.

Last edited Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 4:58am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 4:57am

Post 27 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut, let me answer you questions and then if you want to respond I'll ask you to do so in private messaging. I would, I guess, seem a bit of a hypocrite saying that, but I'm willing to live with that. smile

Perhaps you misunderstand me, and maybe you'll agree with me once you know what I'm talking about. Maybe. smile

I'm calling the letters together "HD" a "gimmick" because to me it seems everything is turned into that. Today I saw a $125 Aiptek 'HD' camera. That's all it said on it. Who knows how shitty it is, who cares if it has the letters 'HD' slapped on it, right? I see more and more of this every day- and while HD is the clear next step in everything video- I have to roll my eyes at people who want serious equipment for $1,000 and get an HD crapcam simply because the title sounded newer than an actual prosumer, 3CCD camera they sadly and ignorantly turn away from because it doesn't tout 'HD'. When, quite clearly, quality outdoes resolution at a point. But that's another story.

EvilDonut wrote:

Have you sold anything in the past year in SD. Name one project?

Thought so. Hey if you wanna walk into NBC with your SD stuff and get laughed at. Go right ahead. Tell me if you can even get through the front door.
What a dismal attitude you have.

What are you, a millionaire TV exec? How the hell do you know exactly what people want? And for that matter, why are you always so keen to bring up this random TV distributor everyone always supposedly wants to sell to? Maybe it's pertinent to this thread, but it seems ever-common in all of your posts to push that everyone wants to sell their stuff to NBC or CBS or the lot.

That simply isn't true. This community is, for the most part, mid to low-level enthusiasts. For those like myself, who are looking for something a little higher; it mostly isn't marketing a specific movie we've made (as in the rare instances on here like 'Nightcast') it's showing the quality of the body of work we've made to.......perhaps.....get a job doing the same thing.

I don't know what experience you have and, quite frankly, I don't care. Because with this ongoing attitude you won't last on FXHome for long. To add insult to injury: I worked with NBC Universal last year on a Bravo special and showed some of the coordinators some of my work in SD. They didn't laugh at me, they applauded me. It was a really humbling experience, actually. Whilst they couldn't offer me any work right there past what we were already doing, they hardly threw me out on my feet for not having HD.

But it looks like you've got a greater grasp on the reality that is filmmaking, so I'll leave my minor, faint brushes with it to the wind. Quite clearly.

And good point, sbfmovieco. I'm hardly the LaserDisc junkie holding preciously onto his dying format- but I hope my logic about the average consumer up top is at the very least sensible.

Sorry, again, Magothy. Really.
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 6:43am

Post 28 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Atom I'm being a realist. The world doesn't revolve around "I'd like it to be this way". And yes, i've spent a decade in TV production.

Unfortunately, 99% of filmmakers find this out the hard way when they walk into that office and talk to someone with money.

When you go into a world of profit/loss and being told what to do - whether it be employee, or being distributed - your wishes become moot. "What sells" becomes the rule of the day.

And "what sells" right now is HD content. Film, TV, Cable, Commercials, Sports. It's been all-HD for awhile now.

But hey, if you want to create a for-profit product in SD, and put your life savings into it, go ahead. Why do you care what I think?

I don't buy SD DVDs anymore. smile


d
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 6:59am

Post 29 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

I don't buy SD DVDs anymore. smile
I can just picture you as one of those suckers with an already huge HD-DVD collection sobbing in the wake of it's death. smile

Private message sent.
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 8:07am

Post 30 of 44

dungmeister

Force: 0 | Joined: 13th May 2007 | Posts: 13

Member

GeeksGoneBad wrote:

FXhomer58679 wrote:


A good lens would cost a bit of money, I reccommend the Nikon 50mm f1.4
Ebay for about $300:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-AF-Nikkor-50mm-f-1-4D-f1-4-fr-D200-D80-1-4-UV_W0QQitemZ110228833577QQihZ001QQcategoryZ30067QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I'm building my 35mm adapter now and it was my understanding that I should NOT go with the auto focus lens... manual focus only... Do you have some info that I don't have? wink it's all still a little confusing LOL
Hey sorry yeah your right, I just ebayed a Nikon 50mm 1.4 and thats what came up, I didnt really read about the auto focus but now that you mentioned it I realise. Just a question though, have you managed to find a Manual focus lens? I searched ebay then and could find nothing? maybe just my bad looking? oh well. The plans I'm going off (not plans but adapter) is that of twoneils over at the HV20.com thread (found here:http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=2825&highlight=Twoneil)
The footage looks good and its the right price, only static though so I am hesitant as to the quality. (the videos are high quality,but Im not sure if hes a "pro" or not).

Yep, well if you find a cheap nikon 50mm with F1.4 or 1.8 with MF let us know. Thanks for the correction.


And yes I do think you have to use a Manual focus lens otherwise it wont work properly, but your best bet is to ask at hv20 cause I'm not up to date with that shit either.

Jojodungy
Posted: Fri, 7th Mar 2008, 11:27am

Post 31 of 44

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +3

Oh what a mess...all terribly emotive and personal, no need for it...

Buy whichever camera you like the look of, have a go with a couple in the shop, buy from a reputable place, I'm sure you'll be happy.

Now to rejoin the bunfight for a moment...

The number of pixels in an image isn't the sole indicator of quality. Assuming the picture is equally well lit and composed, with equally good sound, the number of pixels still isn't the only indicator of quality.

The lens an image is filmed through will have a great bearing on the image itself - this is why Paparazzi (how *do* you spell that word? I'm on my PDA so can't check, forgive me if it's wrong, I'm not of Italian descent) tend to use SLR bodies (where they can use long, good lenses) as opposed to 8MP kodak £100 pocket happy-snap cameras - the quality of the optics is generally low in lower-end cameras, and quickly negates the number of pixels on your sensor. Images are generally darker, and with more distortion - fine for domestic use, not great for any self-respecting broadcaster.

Another thing worth considering in this debate is bitrate. The BBC, and I'm sure NBC/CBS/Discovery/etc have certain standards to what they'll screen. The Beeb won't buy programming with over a certain (minority) %age HDV (and then, it still has to be 'good' HDV). The bitrate for HDV is around 20Mbps, the lowest 'acceptable' HD format is 33Mbps (which is why everyone is excited about the EX1 - Z1 form factor, decent data rate (35Mbps), hence lower compression). We'll see a lot more EX1-sourced material coming along soon, certainly for ENG, etc. But even that's too low for any decent production value, which just about starts with HDCAM or better still HDCAM SR.

When broadcasters want more HD footage (no argument there, they do, and technologically it is the emerging future), then they're not saying yes to every kid with a £200 HDV camera, they still have quality standards. I don't genuinely believe execs are sitting listening to commission pitches and laughing people out of the room for proposing to shoot DigiBeta instead of HDV. HDCAM, maybe, but HDV? HDV is the format of the youtube generation, a technological miracle, but has its limits. Combine it with a crappy lens, ouch.

So I wouldn't urge anyone to ignore HD. It's clearly got benefits for everyone. What I would say is bad programming won't become good programming with the addition of HD. A good, well composed shot, well lit, good sound, technical quality will be more pleasurable to many (most?) people than slapdash HDV. Networks reject shit the whole time, HDV and SD.

Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin were stars of their time, talkies took a chunk of their audience, but their estates still to this day collect healthy royalties. Colour scared black and white out of the cinema, but again you see It's a Wonderful Life collecting royalties, even theatrically still. DTS/Dolby, fantastic - but stereo films still get made, we could, of course, argue that HD is a passing fad like the rest, and that we should all shoot everything 3D (in fact this is the case for a lot of theatrical productions - they are starting to take it very seriously). The march of technology doesn't mean quality from previous eras is redundant. And a low-end DigiBeta camera still costs more than a top-end HDV one.

So, camera-wise, buy what you want, makes no difference to me...but personally I'd look at quality over format, it'll be more enduring in the long run. If you're pitching professional programming, hire instead of buy once you have your commission. If you're selling on-spec, after the heartbreak of NBC and CBS laughing at you for not shooting HD (HDV!!), there are still plenty of SD sales windows, and there will remain so for several years. However you may not be making broadcast content (or the broadcasters would reject your content HDV/HDCAM SR/XDCAM HD 422/whatever), so get the camera you feel you get most expression with, which would typically mean the one you get most control over.

-pdrg

Oh, this just in...
"Channel 4's new HD tech spec specifically states that Varicam
is not acceptable for HD 1080 delivery unless for overcranking". Networks have minimum quality standards, don't be dazzled into thinking a higher-pixel consumer format is all that stands between you and your commission!
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 1:18am

Post 32 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

pdrg wrote:

I don't genuinely believe execs are sitting listening to commission pitches and laughing people out of the room for proposing to shoot
Execs won't even see your SD footage, to let alone laugh at it.

Let me explain 'how it works'. Here's my free knowledge smile

To make a 'pitch' of a media product to a series - you have to sign about 6 forms. You can find them with the girl at the front desk. Some places even require you to get them notarized. You know, legal reasons.

Then it gets submitted to some lowly mail or intern guy who sifts out the pure spams.

Then it's sent to a marketing person to analyze which stuff has potential (don't ask why it's marketing). This is where your SD footage, if nothing exciting about it - gets thrown out. Think of this guy as a Walmart buyer, and you just sent him your lemonade stand sample.

Then it's sent to the engineering department to ingest it into similar formats. Such as a DVD, or 9 small clips onto one DVD.

Then it's sent to the regional sales/purchasing guy to view this DVD. Think an A&R guy at a record company who reviews cds. He looks at what is interesting - then forwards it to VP's who watch it at a monthly meeting.

VP likes it. Calls you.

95% of these submissions are from PROFESSIONAL production houses. The ones already on contract with the network - bypass all the steps - and go right to the VP. Ex: you develop queer eye for the straight guy, american idol, some mini-series, etc. etc.

Sure there's a SLIGHT CHANCE you may have something awesome - but you need a contact to get that footage DIRECTLY to the VP/Purchasing agent. If not, your product will be thrown out with the 1,000 entries they get a month. Short stories, films, student films, foreign, demo reels, agent submissions, etc. etc.

Trust me - getting your product in front of 6 million people is a LOT more complex than people think. True, you can get an agent - but no A-class agent is going to take on a nobody.

But hey if you want to make it as hard as possible for yourself from the starting gate - feel free.

d

Last edited Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 2:22am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 1:48am

Post 33 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm just interested, EvilDonut. What exactly do you do and at what company? You're refuting, almost completely and in a seemingly mean way, the overall neutral and helpful post of pdrg, a known professional in TV for...what was it pdrg, 18 years?

You may think you know how it goes. You may very well know how it goes; but when you offer such a ridiculously pessimistic and stubborn point: who wants to hear you talk? I don't, and that's enough for me to completely pass this thread.

I wasn't ever trying to deny that TV wants to see HD. I'll even agree with that. But when you leave your opinion to be regarded as ironclad, to the point of going out of your way to slam every other persons opinion or perspective on the matter: you hit 'I'm right, you're wrong!' territory. You have no more basis or provable credibility to make your posts and perspective any more authoritative than anyone elses.

And that may be the only true fact in any of this.
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 2:20am

Post 34 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

I like to remain anonymous. Heck, for all you know - i could be a fat 15 y/o female from South Korea. smile

d
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 5:06am

Post 35 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

This is all good advise guys but just in case I wasn't clear, I am making a feature film. More than likely it will end up at Best Buy and Target all across the country and it will be packaged along with 4 or 5 other features as a bargain pack. If I'm lucky it will be packaged and sold as its own DVD but that depends on the final product. I also have an outside shot at a better deal with a larger distributer such as Lion's Gate or Castle Bay. Before you all go slamming this post and calling BS, understand that I am working with a few established actors and an award winning screen writer. I am a partner in the company that is producing the film and I also have composed music a few film projects. I guess its possible that it could end up in TV but unless the distributer has that connection, I doubt it.

Now back to my camera questions, I have narrowed it down to the Sony HVR-HD1000U and the JVC GZ-HD7. I am not worried about their reported low light performance because I am filming on a well lit set. Also I am not concerned with the audio quality because I have lots of very nice gear to handle that. The JVC has more manual control but the Sony appears to have better optics. Could you guys check out the reviews on these things and tell me what you think. I have read them all but to be honest, the really technical stuff is a bit over my head.

Thanks, Ryan
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 6:32am

Post 36 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Magothy Entertainment wrote:

This is all good advise guys but just in case I wasn't clear, I am making a feature film. More than likely it will end up at Best Buy and Target all across the country and it will be packaged along with 4 or 5 other features as a bargain pack. If I'm lucky it will be packaged and sold as its own DVD but that depends on the final product. I also have an outside shot at a better deal with a larger distributer such as Lion's Gate or Castle Bay. Before you all go slamming this post and calling BS, understand that I am working with a few established actors and an award winning screen writer. I am a partner in the company that is producing the film and I also have composed music a few film projects. I guess its possible that it could end up in TV but unless the distributer has that connection, I doubt it.

Now back to my camera questions, I have narrowed it down to the Sony HVR-HD1000U and the JVC GZ-HD7. I am not worried about their reported low light performance because I am filming on a well lit set. Also I am not concerned with the audio quality because I have lots of very nice gear to handle that. The JVC has more manual control but the Sony appears to have better optics. Could you guys check out the reviews on these things and tell me what you think. I have read them all but to be honest, the really technical stuff is a bit over my head.

Thanks, Ryan
I still think you should seriously look into the Canon xh a1+ series.

d
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 7:33am

Post 37 of 44

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

EvilDonut wrote:


95% of these submissions are from PROFESSIONAL production houses. ...
Sure there's a SLIGHT CHANCE you may have something awesome - but you need a contact to get that footage DIRECTLY to the VP/Purchasing agent. If not, your product will be thrown out with the 1,000 entries they get a month. Short stories, films, student films, foreign, demo reels, agent submissions, etc. etc.

Trust me - getting your product in front of 6 million people is a LOT more complex than people think.
Ha! Somewhere you got it into your head that I think getting a series commissioned is an easy, trivial experience - pfffft! Of course it isn't, certainty not for the quality broadcasters at least. And you have to be pitching to the bottom of the market to even imagine HDV is an attractive rather than detractive option.

Aside from what came across as your 'buy HDV then sell a series' initially, I have no argument with your posts content, it's always interesting to see how market segments and processes work in different territories. I must return to the unaddressed HDV point though, explained at some length in my previous post. I agree it is hard to get a commission, indeed nigh-on impossible for an outsider, without challenge. I maintain that nothing about shooting HDV changes that. If you're commissioned to make network-standard HD, you'll hire HDCAM anyway. As I have repeated, HDV is at best tolerated in small amounts for ENG and convenience.

I know you have 13 years executive TV experience (with a major network?), so no need to be shy about the rest of your experience - have you had treatments pitched to you, or been on the frustrating end of pitching yourself? Did you/your production company get a series? Be proud! I keep myself to myself too, that's fine - nobody here knows my work, there's nothing in the FXcinema, I deliberately don't refer to my projects, etc. Indeed in a year or so, this thread is the first mention of my technical history, and only then as credentials/credibility for a discussion on tape/compression formats. I understand the wish to be private online totally. Do feel free to outline your experiences in your time in the trade - you don't have to name your programmes/films or companies, but a bit of background to support your statements is always handy and interesting too!

Last edited Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 7:50am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 7:37am

Post 38 of 44

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

clap
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 4:45pm

Post 39 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

[quote="pdrg"]

EvilDonut wrote:


Ha! Somewhere you got it into your head that I think getting a series commissioned is an easy, trivial experience - pfffft! Of course it isn't, certainty not for the quality broadcasters at least. And you have to be pitching to the bottom of the market to even imagine HDV is an attractive rather than detractive option.

Aside from what came across as your 'buy HDV then sell a series' initially, I have no argument with your posts content, it's always interesting to see how market segments and processes work in different territories. I must return to the unaddressed HDV point though, explained at some length in my previous post. I agree it is hard to get a commission, indeed nigh-on impossible for an outsider, without challenge. I maintain that nothing about shooting HDV changes that. If you're commissioned to make network-standard HD, you'll hire HDCAM anyway. As I have repeated, HDV is at best tolerated in small amounts for ENG and convenience.

I know you have 13 years executive TV experience (with a major network?), so no need to be shy about the rest of your experience - have you had treatments pitched to you, or been on the frustrating end of pitching yourself? Did you/your production company get a series? Be proud! I keep myself to myself too, that's fine - nobody here knows my work, there's nothing in the FXcinema, I deliberately don't refer to my projects, etc. Indeed in a year or so, this thread is the first mention of my technical history, and only then as credentials/credibility for a discussion on tape/compression formats. I understand the wish to be private online totally. Do feel free to outline your experiences in your time in the trade - you don't have to name your programmes/films or companies, but a bit of background to support your statements is always handy and interesting too!
I just explained how tough it is, and you agreed with me.

Then you ask if I have pitched stuff! What point does that make? I could say yes, I could say no. I could even say i'm the one who hires/fires. It's the internet, it's pointless. I'm a 15 y/o fat teenage girl from Korea remember?

I know my background and that's all that matters. But Wed morning, i'll be back in LA working in 'the industry' in some setting, earning a paycheck. That's all you need to know.

You can pickup the phone and call any network, ask for 'purchasing', and ask any q you want. Takes about 2 minutes. Please don't dirty up this thread with babble senor.

d
Posted: Sat, 8th Mar 2008, 8:23pm

Post 40 of 44

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:


I just explained how tough it is, and you agreed with me.

Then you ask if I have pitched stuff! What point does that make?
I know my background and that's all that matters. But Wed morning, i'll be back in LA working in 'the industry' in some setting, earning a paycheck. That's all you need to know.
Please don't dirty up this thread with babble senor.
Blimey. Sorry I asked, just being friendly. It's not a competition, y'know.
Posted: Fri, 21st Mar 2008, 3:27am

Post 41 of 44

Magothy Entertainment

Force: 0 | Joined: 5th Mar 2008 | Posts: 17

Member

Decided on the canon hv30. With a few mods it will do exactly what I need. Thanks for all the help. -R
Posted: Fri, 21st Mar 2008, 8:19am

Post 42 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

trust me. that's good enoguh.

*IF* you get to the point of sitting with execs at a table with your footage.

they won't care hdv, hv30, keying, explosions, whatever. They can make one call to engineering, and have a PRO team out tomorrow to help you reshoot everything professionally. Yes they can do that. Don't be shocked if a production truck is waiting outside your house with $5M worth of equipment inside.

So don't sweat it. Concentrate on your content. Content, content, CONTENT.

d
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 7:01am

Post 43 of 44

jfreedan

Force: 680 | Joined: 18th Sep 2005 | Posts: 50

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I honestly think the market is changing so rapidly that in about 10 years, the TV networks won't be as influential as they are now, so none of this matters that much.

Indie film-making is the new garage band; sure, anyone can do it, but if you have talent and imagination, you can rise up to the top.

The technology is extremely affordable, and the internet has opened up distribution to the little guy. Hell, things like Youtube, Myspace and Facebook have made TV commercials obsolete. I went two years without even watching cable TV and I missed absolutely nothing because it's all available online.

Self-distribution of indie films via POD technology and iTunes is going to change everything. Video Streaming networks like Youtube have already made it possible for people to make their own original series and get paid for doing so, because they retain all the licensing rights. Hell, you can even pickup the all important "rental royalties" from Netflix.

Hell, the guys who made "Myspace the Movie" got to pitch a pilot for a TV series to Fox based solely on the number of views that movie received online, and they weren't alone: Andy Milonakis wrote some god awful songs and got a TV series on Comedy Central because there was a indeed market for what he was doing, and the internet proved that. Even Chris Crocker has a TV show now. Emo Rangers was picked up by MTV. So have many other talents who have built fanbases on the web.

The "old way" of Hollywood and TV-Land is changing and it is becoming much easier to "break in" than submitting some paperwork to a marketing guy and hoping for the best.

Sure, this the opinion of someone who hasn't been in the system for decades, but anyone who really looks around can tell the scenery has changed. I hear many of the teachers in my film program mock Youtube and claim it has deteriorated the industry, but the truth is the flood-gates have been opened.

I'm pretty sure within ten years we will have reached the point you can make your own hour long TV series on the web and sell your own ad space inside that show, sell your own custom merchandise, and sell DVD copies of that TV series without having to go anywhere near any major city, and without having to pay for anything except the cost to form an LLC and buy your own equipment.

We're already half-way there, because people are doing this stuff right now with ten minute shows on Youtube.

As for SD vs HD, as a consumer I honestly don't think SD has been made a dead format because many SD cameras are capable of producing very watchable footage. I would much rather watch a film like '28 Days Later' (where a Cannon XL1 was used to film much of it) than 'Scary Movie 4' (which was shot in HD).

The only real problem with SD cameras like the GL2 is that they don't shoot in true 16:9 so it makes theatrical releases somewhat unlikely, but there are SD cameras that do....plus, they put Blair Witch on the big-screen, didn't they?

What you point your camera at matters so much more than how good your footage looks. A turd shot in HD still looks like a turd.

Last edited Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 7:14am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 7:11am

Post 44 of 44

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

that's true - if you're just pitching an idea, or pitching yourself - they don't care how pro your video, lighting, acting is.

They have pros with lights years of experience above you who can do all of that with one phone call. Want an explosion? They call me. I call Andrew Kramer. Voila, problem solved in 30 seconds!

But having a MARKETABLE, MONEY-MAKING, DELIVERABLE, UNIQUE, CONTENT is where 99% of people fail to deliver!!

Sad, cuz like you said - it's so flippin' easy. And TV is all about buying up cheap productions, paying actors didly and then raking in the profits.

creative creative creative. I feel like a broken record. lol.

d