-
1. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
JSS1138 Apr 24, 2009 10:17 PM (in response to windowman)I think DV will be around for a while. But if it were my money, I'd probably be one of the guys selling on Craig's List rather than buying. I think my own next camera will be HD or better.
-
2. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
Mitch Lerman Apr 25, 2009 8:44 AM (in response to windowman)My personal opinion is that the wedding video market is in a tailspin. Video seems to be one of the lowest priorities for a wedding and with the economy slow, the market has slowed dramatically. I expect the wedding video market to improve with the economy but I think it will take a long time to recover, sort of like trying to sell SUVs. So people are trying to sell their equipment.
Specifically, on miniDV. Blu-ray players are selling for about $200. I think this is the last year where it will be reasonable to stay in business with miniDV. The bad news is that HD cameras are more expensive and adding to your cost in a slow economy just doesn't make a lot of business sense.
-
3. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 25, 2009 9:13 AM (in response to Mitch Lerman)I don't know that I can disagree with any of that Mitch. It could well be that some guys are selling their cams because they aren't making money with them anymore as you suggest. I'm not really sure how much that pertains to St Louis in general though sinced we don't seem to be nearly as much effected by the economy here. Most of the business owners I know say business is down, but they're still making money. I used to be booked two months out with work (not video related); now I'm booked three to four weeks, so I can't complain. I'm still working everyday. But I'm sure you're correct about people being more careful with their money and not spending it as lavishly on things like wedding videos. I don't shoot weddings yet, but I imagine the market for it must certainly be hurting a bit.
-
4. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
Ann Bens Apr 25, 2009 11:53 AM (in response to windowman)Everybody these days is into widescreen. These old camera's have 4:3 ccd's and produce horrible widescreen footage.
That was one of the main reson i dumped my Sony 2100.
-
5. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 25, 2009 4:55 PM (in response to Ann Bens)It bothers me a little that it won't shoot in 16x9 too. But on the other hand, I saw the film "November" when it first came out at a theater that had a fairly large screen (probably 30 foot) and couldn't believe how good it looked. It was shot on a little DVX100A and they didn't bother using the 16x9 mode instead choosing to go full frame 4x3 and then cropping in post. I would have sworn it was 16mm. The only thing that gave it away was a couple of outdoor long shots that were a bit broken up. After I saw that I wasn't so concerned with 16x9 anymore. I mean, if the cam came with a 16x9 view finder then I'd be more apt to shoot in that, but if I had to view a stretched pixel look on a 4x3 view finder then I'd prefer to go ahead and take my chances with 4x3 and crop later.
Of course it would be nice just to have a pair of great HD cams, but I just can't swing it right now.
-
6. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 25, 2009 5:12 PM (in response to JSS1138)Jim,
Which do you think is better: Red or Viper? Red shoots a bigger frame, but the Viper has a more robust data rate and 4:4:4 RGB.
-
7. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
JSS1138 Apr 25, 2009 10:13 PM (in response to windowman)I know the last four episodes of ER were shot exclusively on the RED ONE, as was the currently playing film Knowing, starring Nicholas Cage. I saw a little bit of the very last episode of the Crichton medical drama, and am still trying to find time to see the Cage flick. My concern here is how good does the RED stack up against real film. So far, so good.
One 'advantage' the RED may have is its resolution. Currently, the RED ONE is a 4K camera (with 5K res on the way), whereas the Viper seems limited to HD resolutions. I put the word advantage in quotes for a reason, however. Gay jokes aside, I'm a pretty big Mann fan. Michael used the Viper for most of both Collateral and Miami Vice. The Tubbs/Crockett update did show some pretty serious grain in some of the nighttime scenes, but I'd be willing to bet this was a look sought after by the Mann, because similar city skylines of nighttime L.A. looked much cleaner on the Cruise vehicle using the same camera. Not knowing these were shot on Digital Cinema cameras at HD resolution, I'd probably never notice any missing resolution. (I certainly didn't notice for Star Wars:The Clone Wars, which was actually shot at 1440 x 1080 and cropped in post to 2.39:1, which leaves far less 'resolution' than one could get from film originals.)
Still, higher resolution is a nice thing to have if you want it. And as far as I know, Thompson has no plans to make an 'affordable' Viper as an analog to the upcoming RED Scarlet.
(By the way, RED can also record 10 bit 4:4:4 as well as RAW.)
-
8. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 26, 2009 8:14 AM (in response to JSS1138)I thought Red could only do 4:2:2?
I saw Knowing and thought it was quite good. You have to be able to suspend your beliefs in the material world for a couple of hours and wrap your head around fantasy to enjoy it though.
The first TV show I saw in HD was a good kid's show called Joan of Arcadia and it looked just like film to me. I also noticed saw several others around that time like Crossing Jordan and Dead Like Me and I never would have known any of them weren't film. Stick a 35mm lens on those cams and shoot in 24P, play with the blacks and gamma a bit, maybe add a little grain and then soften it--I can't tell it from film. Well, I shouldn't say that. There's still a certain flatness to the overall picture I think, but it's close enough I wouldn't care.
-
9. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
tclark513 Apr 26, 2009 8:36 AM (in response to windowman)I'll tell you what...I just came back from seeing Crank: High Voltage and that looked amazing. This film was shot with five Canon XH-A1's and I could not believe that it looked so amazing for a $3500.00 camera. No average person would ever know that this was not shot on film. It blew me away. I did not see any video side effects whatsoever. It convinced me to get one of these when I get the money. Times are truly changing and people can really start to make some pretty professional images with smaller budgets.
-
10. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 26, 2009 9:45 AM (in response to tclark513)Interesting. I haven't seen anything shot on HDV on a big screen yet. Did they have any outdoor shots that were long range such as a big landscape or mountain range? When I saw November they were smart enough not to do hardly any of that. The few outdoor shots that were long range only lasted for a couple of seconds each, but those were the only shots in the film where you could tell it was miniDV. They were a bit pixelated there. I'm anxious to see if HDV looks any better in that regard on a big screen.
-
11. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
tclark513 Apr 26, 2009 10:20 AM (in response to windowman)Yes there were some long shots but they were not on screen long enough for me to see every bit of the image. You should check out the Trailer to the movie. They have an HD version that looks incredible.
-
12. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 26, 2009 2:16 PM (in response to tclark513)I saw the trailer. It's not my kind of movie, but it looked okay. It was hard to tell really because nearly everything I saw was green screened to hell and back. I'm sure the kids will like it though. But I really need to see some long shots at the theater before I can tell anything. Maybe I'll find it tonight somewhere.
-
13. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
tclark513 Apr 26, 2009 2:56 PM (in response to windowman)It's a crazy movie but it does hold up "camera" wise. I am a very detailed person and believe me when I tell you that you would never know it was shot with a 3500.00 camera. I am really looking forward to the DVD release for more info on the post side of it.
-
14. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 26, 2009 9:04 PM (in response to tclark513)The big cine in the next town over is playing it, but I'm going to wait until next week to see it. It's stadium seating, so it ought to be on a pretty big screen.
-
15. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
JSS1138 Apr 26, 2009 10:48 PM (in response to windowman)You have to be able to suspend your beliefs in the material world for a couple of hours and wrap your head around fantasy to enjoy it though.
That is the very purpose of cinema, my friend. But more to the point, how did it look? Did you know it was shot on a RED? Did you see a film projection or digital projection?
The first TV show I saw in HD was a good kid's show called Joan of Arcadia and it looked just like film to me.
I'm an Amber fan. I never saw the show in HD, but it did look like film original to me. I'd never have known it wasn't shot on film. Same with Jordan. Never saw anything amis that would suggest a non-film source.
I thought Red could only do 4:2:2?
"We deliver 12M pixels at up to 60fps and record RAW, or 2x over-sampled HD in 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, your choice."
-
16. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
novelt-7 Apr 27, 2009 2:51 PM (in response to windowman)i personally have stopped recording to tape. i have a DVX100 and i use the s-video output on the camera to record to a hard-drive. granted it's a big setup in a sense, but after i saw the difference between the DV-compression and capturing analog i no longer wanted to record to tape.
we were shooting a scene for my movie and i was watching a monitor. afterwards i was playing back the tape and saw a huge difference in what was once "live" into now what was recorded. so i set up a test and recorded to the tape and via the analog out and then compared the two side by side and the analog capture was visually better than the DV footage.
however i believe it's the end of days for miniDV because the majority of consumer cameras either record to an internal hard drive, DVD, or SD cards. then on a pro level companies are no longer making standalone equipment to playback miniDV tapes. miniDV has quickly become fossilized and obsolete acquiring a place of fame alongside 8-track.
-
17. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
JSS1138 Apr 27, 2009 9:38 PM (in response to novelt-7)How do you actually record the analog signal? There must be something in between the S-Video output and the hard drive.
-
18. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
novelt-7 Apr 27, 2009 10:32 PM (in response to JSS1138)i have an analog capture card. so it's the s-video out to the s-video in of the capture card. it's the video advantage pci...i got it on sale and now i see why they no longer make them. i think the company is focusing solely on the audio market. however i do have a pinnacle BOB and the ads tech video xpress both of those capture s-video. granted once i get the hvx or one of panasonic's other HDV cams then i won't be using that set up any longer, but right now it's good stuff. plus it's being able to go right to work instead of finding the takes i want on the tape and then transferring to the PC. everything i need and/or want is already on the hard drive ready to go.
-
-
-
21. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman Apr 30, 2009 6:59 PM (in response to novelt-7)Well I saw part of "Crank: High Voltage" today. I only stayed for about 45-minutes. This movie is so bad it makes "Plan Nine fron Outer Space" look like a chef-d'oeuvre. It was hard to tell much about the cam quality. The entire thing was shot handheld. Imagine taking a cam, zooming in 10x, turning off image stabilization, and then running as fast as you can with it for two hours. That's just about how every single scene in this movie looked. I gave up trying to tell anything about image quality after 45-minutes and left. For what it's worth (and that's not much) the few big outdoor shots I saw where things were anywhere close to stable didn't look much better than miniDV to me. It was better, but only slightly. I also thought the older DVX100 still looks much more like film. This to me looked like miniDV trying to look like film if you know what I mean. Kind of like a girl trying to act sexy, and there's nothing less sexy than someone trying to act sexy. Whereas the DVX100 actually does look like film--as if it's not even trying. If this is all HDV has to offer then I'm sticking with miniDV for a long time. I'll take a DVX100 any time over what I saw today.
-
22. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
tclark513 May 1, 2009 3:35 PM (in response to windowman)Well I saw part of "Crank: High Voltage" today. I only stayed for about 45-minutes. This movie is so bad it makes "Plan Nine fron Outer Space" look like a chef-d'oeuvre. It was hard to tell much about the cam quality. The entire thing was shot handheld. Imagine taking a cam, zooming in 10x, turning off image stabilization, and then running as fast as you can with it for two hours. That's just about how every single scene in this movie looked. I gave up trying to tell anything about image quality after 45-minutes and left. For what it's worth (and that's not much) the few big outdoor shots I saw where things were anywhere close to stable didn't look much better than miniDV to me. It was better, but only slightly. I also thought the older DVX100 still looks much more like film. This to me looked like miniDV trying to look like film if you know what I mean. Kind of like a girl trying to act sexy, and there's nothing less sexy than someone trying to act sexy. Whereas the DVX100 actually does look like film--as if it's not even trying. If this is all HDV has to offer then I'm sticking with miniDV for a long time. I'll take a DVX100 any time over what I saw today.
What??????????? There had to be something going on with the theatre. This movie looked so much like film I couldn't believe it. I have used all sorts of cameras including the DVX-100 and nothing looked as good as this did in my opinion....but you know what they say about opinions :-)
-
23. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
JSS1138 May 3, 2009 9:21 PM (in response to tclark513)The History Channel miniseries Conquest of America was shot entirely on DVX100's. I thought it looked very much like 35mm film.
-
24. Re: The Demise of miniDV?
windowman May 13, 2009 11:43 AM (in response to tclark513)"This movie looked so much like film I couldn't believe it."
Yeah, I overstated things. It did look like film, but not good film. I think the footage from a DVX100 looks much more filmlike. However, I would like to see the same director and cinematographer that did November work with this Canon HDV cam to see what they could do with it in a more dramatic project. It may be more a matter of the way the cam was used. So I guess I'll sort of reserve judgment until I see a better movie shot with the cam. You really couldn't tell much from this one. The only time the cam was still was during some close-up shots in a car, and that doesn't really tell me anything about the cam because even footage from a VHS camcorder wouldn't look too bad on the big screen in close-ups. Close-ups are easy. The lack of definition shows itself in the distant shots, and the few distant shots in this movie were very blurry probably because of the cam moving constantly.




