El camera (a thread for asian allen)

HD is defined as any resolution higher than than 720x480...  The whole HDV isn't HD argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

So when you are watching The Deadliest Catch in HD, which is shot on the Sony Fx1(HDV), tell me how that isn't HD?

HDV is high def, and it records onto mini dv tapes.  It's that simple

.

we have still yet to answer the creators question..

I keep seeing people say "True HD".  "True HD" is any camera that shoots at a resolution higher than 720x480 simply put.  There are varying forms of codecs and ways that cameras handle the information, but if a camera says it shoots HD, then it shoots HD.  A $400 HD camera and a $10,000 HD camera both shoot HD, the $10,000 camera is no more "True" than the $400 camera.

HD refers to frame size, it's not a codec.  And if you're under the impression that the HPX shoots uncompressed HD or as you call it "True HD", you're mistaken.

And to answer the thread creators question again, go with a used HV30 and start shooting.  The HV30 is a good camera, and if you know how to shoot, you'll do good things with it.

Examples of some HV30 work.
http://www.vimeo.com/3801912
http://www.vimeo.com/2372395
http://www.vimeo.com/2803679

This is true, but I find it strange how there is such a variety of "HD" quality. For instance, HDV generally looks like shit wheras p2 looks somewhat good...I think there needs to be a new term for cameras that actually shoot "good" HD, yadadamean?

You're just watching the wrong stuff man.  HDV footage shot by some kid on the hill with a little handy cam does look like crap a lot of the time.  There have been numerous films shot on HDV that look really good. 

Crank 2: High Voltage, shot on Canon XHA1's and canon HF10's.  A  $4,000 HDV cam and a $1,000 avchd cam.  The average HDV user would never guess in a million years that it was shot on the XHA1 because the film is shot so damn well, and in such a ground breaking way.  To say HDV generally looks like crap is false, you have to look outside of NS at what is being shot on HDV cams.  In the era of amazing new digital techonology, a lot of people are forgetting that it's the film maker that creates the content, and that the camera is merely a tool and is 1/10 of what makes a film good.  The camera doesn't make your subject look good, the eyes behind the camera do.  I think a lot of kids with no understanding of the art of film making are going out and buying HD cams thinking and expecting that their footage will look amazing, and that couldn't be any further from the truth.

Case and Point.  This just proves that a good film maker can go out and create something amazing with a "lousy HDV camera".  It makes me upset that the average viewer wont and can't apprecaite how much talent it takes to make a film like this.  Just from watching the trailer, I'm already really excited about this film, it's a big F you to all the HDV haters out there.  I'll admit, I got caught up in the whole new technology wave, but this film snapped me out of it and back to reality and into the true art of film making.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/crank2/

I agree, the filmmaker is the biggest factor in what makes footage look good. But I also feel that the camera equipment plays an equal role in supporting the filmmaker's needs.

Take 28 Days Later for instance. Even though it was shot on an XL1, it came out really good. That doesn't mean I'd consider the XL1 a nice camera though, by any means. It must've been a HUGE pain in the ass to blow an SD image up to a theatre screen, let alone cc the bogus color codec that comes with miniDV.

The same can be said for the Crank footage, which was HDV as you say. Whoever made that is no doubt a talented filmmaker and all, but just because he was somehow able to pull off footage that is somewhat convincing doesn't mean that the equipment he was using is any more decent. I personally wasn't a fan of that footage, either, and I still have yet to see HDV footage that impresses me.

No I'm not judging HDV based on NS videos, that would be unfair. I can't count how many kids on this site have expensive cameras and have no idea how to use them. I've been watching short films of all sorts, from the Cinemek, Brevis, and DVXuser forums, and STILL haven't seen anything impressive.

I don't know, perhaps I just suck at finding good short films?

It's true that equipment does need to support the film makers needs.  The reason why crank 2 was shot on a1's is because of their size.  They were able to do things that would have been impossible with a 30 pound shoulder rig.  And again, it comes down to the average viewer having no idea that it was shot on a camera that they could go buy at their local best buy.

Of course you can't expect to get miracle images out of an HDV camera, it just doesn't happen.  HDV is limited, just the same as any other medium is.  The point I was trying to make is, image quality aside, it is more important to rely on the other pieces of the equation to make a film good.  Story line, acting, lighting, locations, crew, all should be considered first before choosing a camera to shoot on.  You make a camera decision based off the things listed.  You pick a camera that suits your needs, and in crank 2's situation, that was the canon XHA1.

Check out this guys work, he shoots with the A1 a lot. 
http://www.vimeo.com/pinelakeflms

Also a number of big budget hollywood films have used HDV cams here and there for certain shots.  I'll see if I can come up with a list.

In the end, if the audience enjoys what you have created, all the tech talk is meaningless.  They wont care if it was shot on a Thomsen Viper or a sony handycam, if it's good, it's good.

I think that's my problem; I mean if I create something that people tell me looks amazing in every way, but there's one detail that I'm not happy with, I'll count it as a failure in my mind. I don't care what other people think of my videos; I make them for self-satisfaction only.
And really, resolution is probably the last thing I care about when picking out a camera. The main problem I see with HDV is that aside from offering 1080i (which I absolutely refuse to shoot in) what else can it do? This is what I see as the biggest downfall...

And as for Crank 2, I can see how they would go with the A1; it being an action movie and all, where an intense, real look is needed. I can see how it would be easier to make HDV footage look intense and real than it would be to make it look like an Aronofsky film.

On a sidenote, if you're the type of person who is into the whole digi-skater cam look, HDV is probably an awesome format to shoot.

out of curiosity what cam do you use?

Dvx100b and hpx170

I also have super8 and 16mm setups, but I don't really shoot either much since I'm broke

im in between this and a hmc150, do you think its worth the extra 2 grand + the much more expensive p2 cards?

Unless you plan on making money with the 170, that's a ton of cash to throw down.  I'd go with the 150.  AVCHD work flow is a bit odd right now with most editors, but it's going to be addressed very very soon.

Yep I'm filming a full length ski/snowboard film on a DVX.......DV will be dead very soon though.

Go with an HV30.

so alex, did you purchase a camera?

nope, but im really torn right now. its HV30 vs hf100 vs hg10. Still not sure but I think im gonna buy a used hv30

this