Is anyone shooting HD films this year?

3

396222687862

New member
Thread title says it all.

And for a heads up. I'm talking HD video. 1920x1080, 4.2.2 colors.

Just seeing if anyone is wanting to shoot non-hdv, no compression to tape, straight HD.

And there are many cameras, including HDV's out there that can do it.

The biggest hardship is the hard drive space and speed.

Uncompressed 8bit Yuv 1080i29.97 = 124 MB/sec

HDV 1080i = 3.12 MB/sec

i'd be really interested to see any companies, or just individuals rock the full HD quality.
 
yes, it is. There are only a handful of cameras that can shoot at 2k and 4k. The HVX can produce 4K images, but the company that was working on the mod for it stopped working on it for some reason.
 
Many of the professional films are shot on actual film and then converted into a digital format later. They do this because no matter how sensitive the chips are, they will never produce the same picture quality that a high end film camera can capture. Once made digital, they can be HD or DV, or export in both formats separately.
 
Tapes take away 4.2.2 thats the main thing. and can not handle some other things.
an HVX and XD EX right now are the only cameras around that are shooting HD (unless ur using a harddrive with ur camera or hdmi to ur computer), and not the only ones, but the only ones around that are in this industry.
Im using a lot of hvx shots and converting all my other v1u shots to 422 and its native field is 1920.

i dont believe hv20 is true hd. plus its just a 1 chip camera. even if its directly to ur comp.

 
You can't really compare the two, they are both in completely different leagues of their own. I'd say give it another 4 years, and no one will be using film, except maybe a few die hard film makers. So many films are shot digitally now, you'd be surprised. Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman have a movie coming out that was shot on the RED camera. The thing is a $20,000 camera and a major Hollywood motion picture was shot on it, that is an incredibly huge jump in digital film making.
 
digital will get bigger and better for sure.  but film has that look that no digital camera will ever be able to acomplish.  digital will always have some hint of that digital look, while film will always have that great natural look. its a natural process so its very smooth and has unique characteristics. 

alot more films are being done with digital cameras, but there are still tons that use film, and with the budget hollywood production companies have, they dont give a shit what they use, as long as it gives them the look they want.

and as digital technology is getting better, film is too, but nomatter what digital will never surpass film.
 
I really disagree with the statement that Digital will never surpass

film. The possibilities with digital film making are endless. Give it

a few years and you will see new cameras and processes that will be

able to replicate the exact look of film. It makes no sense to keep

developing film technology in the next few years. Sure it's got a

nostalgic feeling that comes along with it, but the cost definitely

outweighs that. I'm not dissing film, all I'm saying is that it makes

no sense to keep developing new film technology when you can shoot

digitally for a fraction of the cost and still get results that are

indistinguishable to the everyday viewer.
 
Shooting with film has distinct advantages. Film has much more control of variable frame rates. Most prosumer dont have variable frame rate control. the dvx100 can shoot in 60i, which interlaces the frames, considerably decreasing the quality of the shot. the hvx200 shoots at 6, 24, 30 or 60, but this is a rare exception. Many film cameras can shoot at 75-150 frames per second.
Film cameras have cheaper better lenses and the follow focus is always better than digital cameras. There are very few digital cameras that are capable of lens interchangeability ie canon XL series, and these have very expensive lenses. The image manipulation through the lens is the most important technical aspect to a camera when it comes to picture quality. Interchangeable lenses can give you complete control of optical zoom, focus and depth of field, which are important to all film makers.
Film stocks have a greater dynamic range of colors and lights/darks, which is known as the latitude. Film is able to clearly show objects in shadows where digital cannot.
Film can be edited digitally can be rendered as HD or SD depending on the application.

Of course for any non professionals, or pros with no money, digital will give you perfect results for your needs, but for the high budget film makers, Analog is still the way to go.
 
yeah listen to him^  that pretty much explains it.

anyway if digital truely could be better, there would be nobody using film anymore in hollywood movies, the technology for very very high end digital cameras is insane,  yet most still prefer film.  you said the possibilites for digital are endless, but for film this is even more true,  if im correct most big production companies shoot 35mm. and i max is i think 70.  you can find some new way to get super high resolution for digital cameras, but all they would have to do for film is increase the size.  but there is no reason to since 35mm already has very high resolution. though higher resolution doesent mean better, lower resolution can work better for some things than very high resolution.

shit id watch super 8 footage over any prosumer HD camera footage any day. 

and with how expensive prosumer HD cameras are now to shoot, like dont p2 cards cost 800? that plus the camera can add up to alot. and for that much money you could probably shoot 16mm which is way better and it would end up costing the same.

they both have their advantages, but after everything, it all comes down to image quality, and film will always be better. 

 
I'm not comparing film to XL2s or prosumer cams... What I'm getting at

is that with new digital technology, there will soon be a day where a

very large majority of motion pictures will be shot digitally. I'm not

saying film will go away, it just will not be used as widely as it is

now. With the younger generation growing up with new digital

technology, it only makes sense that the film industry will move in the

digital direction, it's the evolution of technology. I'm not sure you're seeing where I'm going with this.
 
I shoot with an HV20, and it is true HD, and it shoots in true anamorphic 16:9. Meaning, the resolution is 1920 by 1080. It is single chip so it wont get the same quality as the 3CCD equivalents like the XH A1 or the HVX200. There are HD prosumer cameras that do not shoot in true HD, such as the Sony HDR FX1 and the HDR FX7. These cameras are meant to film in a 4:3, so when the shoot in "16:9" they crop out the top and bottom rather than add to both sides, so they shoot in 1440X1080 rather than 1920x1080. HV20 does shoot in true hd though. for the price, it kicks ass.
 
My friend will be shooting our footage with his brand new canon hv20, dont know if it really classifies as HD but it can be, but it'll be a real amateur film, im editing with FCE yeah
 
yeah i get what your saying, digital will definatly still get much bigger and more widely used, this isnt because of digitals quality, its becase its soooo much easier to use. but still it can never match the quality that is possible with film.  and especially with hollywood movies and their crazy budgets, it doesnt matter how much it costs.  i have a friend in his 2nd year in film school, and EVERYONE he has talked to says that film is better and always will be the best format, its not even debatable.   its like with photography, you look in a digital photography magazine and almost all the covers and half the shots inside are shot with film.  pretty much every professional photographer shoots tons of digital now just cause its so easy.  but when it comes to getting the best quality possible, and they dont need to take 200 shots for a wedding, they will always say that film is better..
 
the hv20 is not true hd no matter what.
it shoots in 1080i24p or 30p.
there is a difference. what that means is its taking a 1080i60 and making it 30 progressive or 24 progressive (through 3:2 pulldown), therefore its not true hd like you think.
just thought i would fill you in.
and i didnt read nething bout it being 4:2:2, but i believe it is threw hdmi.

 
THE POST IS ABOVE IS FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE GUY I QUOTED.
it just explains how hv20 is not true hd. dont take offense, im just trying to educate you guys.
thank you
 
the hv20 shoots in 1920 x 1080, at 29.97 fps, it is true HD. when written to a tape, it uses HDV compression to make it 1440x1080 and compressed, but when connected with an HDMI cord into a computer, or the new cineform remote HD capture device, it is in true HD. Comes in at 120ish mbs, its true HD
 
it can shoot in 60i or 24P. I know the 24P uses pulldown, im not saying the 24P is true 24P. i'm saying the camera has the capibility of shooting True HD
 
im not denying the fact that ur camera doesnt shoot 1920x1080, its that 1920x1080 is not what is defined as TRUE HD. i have a camera that shoots that as well.

True HD is from my understanding is defined as true 1080p, which is not what an hv20 is no matter what you do. In a way its what you can call almost a fake progressive scan. Cuz it is shooting based off 1080i at 60 fps, and then if your shooting in 30p it isnt actually shooting in 30 true frames of progressive scan. Its using the 60 to make it an in a way de interlaced 30.

hoping its easy to understand this way, but thats why when you see your camera advertised it will say a 1080i camera, and not 1080p.

You can deny what i am saying as being true if you want, im just telling you the knowledge i know and trying to help you understand it all and why, from my knowledge, it isnt "true hd."

 
I'm skeptical as to the truth of this, but i have no way to disprove it. can you give an example of a camera that shoots in "true hd" by your definition. I know that the HVX200 shoots at 60fps, but very few other prosumer camcorders shoot at full 60p.
 
its not defined as true 60p.. its true 30p. Cameras that say 1080i30p are not true 30p, which is what the hv20 is. It uses 60fps to get its 30p instead of just shooting 30p, which is why the camera says 1080i.
 
The Sony XD Ex is true HD. 1080p.

super sick camera and it has 3 1/2 cmos chips, which is amazing that it is down to 1/2 now instead of 1/3
 
Im sure all the ski company producers have an HVX, I doubt any of them are filming the the EX right now. It just came out and im sure they don't switch cameras during their seasons.
 
Level 1 is actually on XD Ex1's right now.
I plan on switching over this summer. You will be suprised how many companys can switch over that quickly, and lots of freelancers got this camera, which means a lot of third party people that sell their footage will be selling XD footage.
Its the new thing and i am soo stoked on it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top