Here's a clip from the footage we shot in the desert with the 4008:
http://www.navel.net/super8/index.htm
Printable View
Here's a clip from the footage we shot in the desert with the 4008:
http://www.navel.net/super8/index.htm
Hey, that was really cool.
I GUARANTEE you I could degrain your Super-8 Transferred footage.
If you're interested, let me know.
Yes, it's possible to wipe virtually all the grain out, but with the penalty of lost resolution. I was a beta tester for the latest release of Grain Surgery, the most advanced de-noiser I've seen, and even it was not capable of 100% de-noise without losing significant detail in the Super-8 footage--since it was handheld virtually every frame is different from the one before and de-noisers hate that.
For my money, Commotion Pro's built-in denoiser does an outstanding job, renders at least twice as fast as Grain Surgery, and for about the same price you get a full rotoscoping, compositing and animation capabilities, plus some great lighting effects.
Dave
If you have a beta-cam SP clone of the original film transfer and want to send it to me...I'd like you to compare what I can do wersus other methods you have tried.
I don't think Mini-DV is considered better than BetaCam SP.
It's only better if you plan on going a few generations.
Sony has stopped making BetaSP cameras and the format is inevitably doomed, despite being in wide use. Notice BetaSP prices on eBay lately? Diving.
MiniDV has in just a few years apparently achieved nearly half the penetration (gotta love this jargon!) that BetaSP did in 20 years.
A good MiniDV camera coupled with a great lens is at least equal to SP, and since multiple generations are a given in almost any production aside from a live news feed, then the question is pretty well settled right there--virtually lossless editing will result in a better final image.
There have been some technical debates on this over at 2-pop.com. Basically it seems to boil down to the cameras, not the format. A single 1/5" chip consumer camera will obviously not rival a decent BetaSP rig. But today's $8,000 Sony DVCAM or JVC DV cameras with 2/3" chips will provide the equal of yesterday's $50,000 BetaSP image to most eyes, especially in PAL, with the added chrominance range.
BTW: Have you seen Sony's freebie DVD on their HDCAM line? Man, it is outrageous. They do side-by-side comparisons of 35mm and 24p HDCAM. You need a very sharp eye to see the difference, and only someone in the field would know what to look for. Really amazing stuff.
--Dave
Beta-Cam SP video edit deck prices are NOT falling on E-bay.
They hold between 50% - 80% of their value, truly an amazing amount.
You have to be careful about where you get your info.
2-pop.com is an excellent source of information for final cut pro and mini-dv. But along with that excellent information and enthusiasm is the fervent belief that digital has toppled both film & analog and that it is king of the world.
For every mini-dv project that gets sold, would you believe me if I told you there are 5,000 that don't?
Mini-DV is an amazing and cost-effective learning tool that is being overhyped as the be all end all.
Sony discontinued Betacam SP ENG recording backs, that is all.
Beta-Cam SP Studio-Recorders are still being made and sold and coveted by anyone and everyone who cannot afford digital Beta-Cam yet understands the importance of archivability, tape-durability, SMPTE time-code setting capability setting, analog Dolby encoded HIGH-QUALITY sound that will NOT be corrupted by damaged tape (as is the case with digital).
Sad to say, NOTHING out there is BOTH an affordable AND durable replacement to BetaCam-SP.
All other formats are either cheaper AND more fragile while offering many less options for setting time-code and adjusting video levels OR they are vastly more expensive than Beta-cam SP.
BetaCam SP still rules as the ideal show mastering format that is both affordable and archivable.
As time goes on, Beta-Cam SP proves to be TOO BIG a cassette size to justify being used, but NOTHING out there is both cheaper and just as durable...it's really a tremendous oversight by the video manufacturers of the world to have not come out with a true economical digital replacement to BetaCam SP.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2003 10:41 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>
The PDF 150 and VX-2000 are terrific cameras. However, neither allows one to set time-code (I'm not sure about the PDF 150)...a MUST for virtually all professional applications.
The VX-2000 DOES NOT have a professional audio interface (aka XLR). The PDF 150 ONLY shoots in DV-CAM with mini-dv tape, meaning you only get 41 minutes of record time on it.
What you are really witnessing are news organizations who have owned Beta-CAM SP cameras for the last 10 years, and spent over $50,000 dollars for each one, salivate at the thought of buying $3,000 dollar cameras that fit in suitcases and will be ALLOWED ON AIRPLANES.
News Organizations would be wise to split their fleet of Cameras. Carry half of the PDF 150's and VX-2000, and half of a higher end dockable 3-chip camera, higher quality cameras that sell for under $10,000.00 yet allow the cameraperson to dock a variety of video formats, including DV-CAM.
In a rush to embrace the smallest digital technology, the "craftsmen" aspect of being a cinematographer is being shown the door because of digital editing.
However, the mundane aspect of Cinematography, such as Professional audio interfaces, Professional tripods rather than toy tripods which are used on many small digital cameras, Time-code capability, are being downplayed as not important.
Digital Integration should be achieved in steps, rather than in one fell swoop that doesn't account for the basics.
And of course, those who do switch rapidly not only endanger the continuity of what they do, they also are lowering their own salaries.
NOBODY will pay someone a true living wage operating a camera that costs a fraction of what they earn in a year.
Embracing the format and the cameras before they have earned the moniker is economic idiocy masked as progress.
I wouldn't mind owning the XL-1 or the Sony one but the price is steep and I have 0.0 video editing equipment of any kind.
I'll stick with Hi-8 for what little video shooting I do [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
Holy moly, Mrs. Simpson! Such emotion we have not seen here at the Quickie Mart for so many, many days!
Alex--As I said above, the real comparison is camera-to-camera, not to the format. The PD-150 has completely settable timecode, plus user bits. DF, NDF, REC RUN, FREE RUN, and so on. (Be careful where you get your info...heh! And yes, I know you qualified it.) And yes, you certainly want XLR inputs on a pro camera, and yes you can find them on many MiniDV models, but not the low-end consumer cameras.
However, I wouldn't use the PD150 for a feature. I'd use a JVC GY-DV500 or better, with 750 lines from the head and its timecode capabilities, and digital sound (probably with redundant DAT backup). If for some reason I wanted to do an analogue feed at the same time, the composite outputs are there. Again, at about $5,000 with the stock lens.
These debates generally get argued most vehemently by those with vested interests in one format or the other. The BetaSP guys have invested tens of thousands of dollars in their gear and they are loathe to see the format give way so rapidly to the newcomer. (BetaSP prices ARE falling; I've watched them myself.)
I and many others just want great images that can be achieved at more reasonable cost, and MiniDV (standard or DVCAM) is the solution. Your note about cinematographic expertise is right-on. It's a skill you acquire, but it's divorced from the format. Badly shot SP will look worse than well shot Hi8, eh?
BBC has apparently shifted entirely to DVCAM for field reporting and its easy to see why from the other post above. Who says that networks are obligated to spend a ton of money on getting stories? Isn't it better to send three reporters out who can handle their own cameras rather than one reporter and a crew of two?
If this were truly *only* a cost issue, then Hi8 would have swept the world ten years ago. Good DV is yards better than Hi8 and equal to enough eyes to the former analogue king and that's why it has succeeded so well.
Cheers,
Dave
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2003 10:41 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>
The optimal procedure in my opinion, is settable time-code created on location. Each new location for the same shoot gets assigned a different hour of time-code.
This info is fed into the computer as is.
Once the footage is imported into the computer, If you start re-assigning time-code to the various digitized source tapes, you are creatng the potential for great confusion.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 13, 2002 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 28, 2003 10:42 PM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>
I don't know where to start.
I'm glad to hear the PD150 has settable time-code and XLR, I thought they might, but I wasn't sure.
However, the limiting factor is mini-dv recorded in the DV-CAM format is only 41 minutes!
BetaCam SP has 31 minute length tapes for the field, not exactly a huge improvement going to 41 minutes.
Now DV-CAM tapes, that is another matter, the three hour tapes are pretty amazing. But I was responding to the letter that was posted, which states they are dropping Beta-Cam SP for either mini-dv and non professinal audio interfaces, or for DV-CAM on a mini-dv tape, therefore only 41 minute run time. Those are poorly thought out plans.
And I agree with you about going with the JVC camera, that's a smart move. I own a JVC KY-19, with a dockable back capability, so my camera is still in the upper echelon even though it's 6 years old. I can record on S-VHS or Beta-Cam Sp, but I can also record to DV-CAM by simple buying the portable DV-CAM record back.
I also bought an after market lens for my JVC-Camera, which makes a significant difference, especially in low light and wide open F-stops.
I don't understand why news stations would get rid of all of their Beta-Cam SP cameras. If the BetaCam SP cameras are dockable, just purchase the DV-CAM docking back!
By the way, S-VHS in BW mode is spectacular. And S-VHS played back in the highest quality S-VHS decks made (JVC BRS-522,525,622,822 with the optional Digital Noise Reduction Cards installed) do a really good job, far superior to HI-8.
It's actually a sharper picture than mini-dv, when you add the digital noise reduction capability, the results are quite surprising.
When I do two camera low-budget live-evetn shoots in S-VHS and go directly to BetaCam SP, people don't believe it's second generation analog. JVC actually made a hybrid analog digital deck, but mismarketed it. These S-VHS decks really are miracle machines but nobody knows!
However, I definitely prefer BetaCam SP for most short-term situations.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 13, 2002 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I don't understand why news stations would get rid of all of their Beta-Cam SP cameras. If the BetaCam SP cameras are dockable, just purchase the DV-CAM docking back! </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Portability, don't you think? And cost? If you want to go smaller (and getting a full rig inside an airplane cabin IS a hassle), then something on the order of a PD150 works. Buying a new head for an older dockable probably (this is a shot in the dark) costs as much as buying an entire DVCAM ENG camera. I'd probably go for the new camera, too, considering the old lens is probably compatible.
On the tape length issue, hmm. I just don't see that as a factor. 40 minutes in DVCAM and 60 minutes in MiniDV is a very long run time, especially when the cassettes are less than half the size of a pack of cigarettes. When do you need to shoot more than a 40 minute take on a daily basis? And there's no tape blacking or any of that required, so you just pop in a new tape and off you go. Of course, the larger Sonys take the longer tapes, so you're set there, too, for the wedding ceremonies s that never end, etc.
Looking at DV cassettes from a film perspective, it's miraculous--long takes, virtually no down time for mag changes, and way, way less expensive.
But wait! The ultimate convenience--2 minute Super-8 cartridges at 24fps! (Or are they 2:15 at that rate, I don't remember.) Talk about careful shot planning required! I thought it miraculous the first time I saw a "giant" 400 ft 16mm mag on a Bolex. Oh, what days those were...
Time for a [img]graemlins/beer.gif[/img]
Ah, but now it gets confusing. Does the PD-150 record in both mini-dv and dv-cam, or just dv-cam?
I believe because it supports time-code, it only records in DV-CAM, so you only have 41 minute run times when you use a PD-150.
My previous point was that News Media should mix their cameras, and not commit to one style only.
A big camera still has uses. For instance, when you must be in the back of the room covering an event, and fluid pans and zooms are a must.
I swear by my Sachtler Video 18 Caddy tripod, and I would never have someone videotape an event from the back of a room with a mini-dv camera on a pair of cheap sticks.
I know they have steadi shot, but I don't think it's up to snuff with the real deal, a big heavy camera on a wonderful Sachtler tripod.
When you want to be absolutely certain the footage comes out, like a foreign dignitary comes to town, and it's a once in a lifetime moment, BetaCam SP or DV-CAM full size cassette will always be more reliable than a mini-dv tape.
Legal depositions, I doubt anyone in that field prefers mini-dv over S-VHS.
For most news situations, I think the smaller camera is better and a more logical choice, but not for all situations.
My point is the total and sudden abdication of all that went before is unsound.
Again, it's the camera, not the format.
The PD150 records timecode, completely customizable, in either standard DV or DVCAM. The JVC line of larger cameras (DV500+) does the same in MiniDV, with audio locked to picture.
The other post on timecode is also spot-on--the NLE is going to create new timecode for a project, so the only relevance in the camera's ability to produce code is in the downloading to the computer. Duplicate code is irrelevant since you assign different file names to each clip. As long as there is unbroken code of any type, the NLE can capture it.
Once it's on the timeline in the NLE, the important timecode is the NLE's timecode, not the clip's. Each clip could have the identical timecode. The NLE doesn't care.
By the way, anyone here who may be pondering adding a PD150 to their camera fleet might want to check out this link if your plan is to shoot with an anamorprhic adapter for widescreen:
http://www.navel.net/pd150/index.htm
Agreed, by the way, on the importance of steady sticks. Unfortunately, you need to pay a small fortune to get a decent head and tripod. The little Manfrotos don't cut it.
Cheers,
Dave
By the way, all DV cameras record timecode. It's part of the spec.
The variation comes in whether the camera operator can CHANGE the timecode type, start time, etc.
However, again, as long as the code is without breaks, the NLE doesn't care whether it's DF, NDF, starts at hour 1, or what have you, when it's imported to the editor.
Dave
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Daveduck:
Again, it's the camera, not the format.
The PD150 records timecode, completely customizable, in either standard DV or DVCAM.
Dave</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mini-DV has been around for about 5-6 years, this is the first I've heard that the compact mini-dv camera such as a PD150 allows for settable time-code on a mini-dv tape recorded in mini-dv. I'm assuming you've done this, yes?
It's not however, business as usual, This is truly a breakthrough,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Daveduck:
The other post on timecode is also spot-on--the NLE is going to create new timecode for a project, so the only relevance in the camera's ability to produce code is in the downloading to the computer. Duplicate code is irrelevant since you assign different file names to each clip. As long as there is unbroken code of any type, the NLE can capture it.
Once it's on the timeline in the NLE, the important timecode is the NLE's timecode, not the clip's. Each clip could have the identical timecode. The NLE doesn't care.
Dave</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you're talking about something different. I understand that the NLE time-line creates it's own time-code. It's always been standard operating procedure to not have repeating time-code on your source tapes if you can avoid it. I know you can label each tape as a different file name, although, the tapes are so darn small that to actually put labels on the tape is a pain.
When projects go through many hands, nothing is as reliable as good old-fashioned labels on tapes that explain what is on the tape, and differentiating time-code.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Daveduck:
Agreed, by the way, on the importance of steady sticks. Unfortunately, you need to pay a small fortune to get a decent head and tripod. The little Manfrotos don't cut it.
Cheers,
Dave</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
For the individual filmaker who wears all the hats, DV is much more user friendly then when it needs to be shared by many.
That is a distinction that is not addressed that often.
Not to belabor the point, but DV cameras aimed at pros (vs. consumers) tend to have pro options. The JVC camera we used for the feature we originally bought in 2000, and the model had been on the market since at least 1999. Full manual time code, etc.
However, as with other DV cameras I've used, I never bothered with TC. Pop the cassette in and shoot, and let the NLE create new code in the editing, which it will do whether you want it to or not. This just isn't the major issue in DV that it is in analogue.
Hey--here's an interesting link to Soderbergh's latest film, which he shot on DV with the XL1-S. He talks about the editing, too. (The XL1-S does not allow custom timecode settings, by the way.)
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/article...4/fullfrontal/
And yeah, the little labels may not allow for much writing, but generally I just scratch a roll number on 'em and refer to the shot log to see what we have on a given tape
[img]smile.gif[/img]
Well, the letter that was posted referred to PD-150's and VX-2000.
The PD-150 is a new camera, I'm sure it's only been out for between 6 months to one year.
The JVC camera is an entirely different camera. It looks and is sized like an ENG camera, and would be more difficult to get on and off of an airplane.
I posted a Steve Soderbergh quote from Entertainment Weekly, where he stated that the XL-1 was meant to look like video footage.
The post was lost when Hostboard shut down for a while, and I don't have the time to retype it right now.
I think for the individual, these new digital cameras represent excellent options, but they truly are not the complete replacement to what came before, that is the point I am making.
Have fun keeping your logs with your tapes!
Producers like to make notes and ATTACH them via label to the tapes. In many instances, it's their lifeline when important footage must be retrieved instantly from a mystery tape.
Hmm, wonder if the VX1000, which the VX2000 and PD150 replaced, had settable TC. Beats me! [img]smile.gif[/img]
As much as this appears to be a discussion about the merits of settable time-code and tapes big enough to write documentation on, it's really a discussion about the breaking up of studio type of organizations and replacing them with small stealth crews.
Steath Crews versus Studio crews is a topic that deserves its own topic thread. I must go stealth for the next day or so and finish a very important editing job.
See you all soon.