Just stumbled on this. of course, the article gushes, so im not quit sure what to think...
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2003/04_apr/features/ssnabtuesday2.htm

The deal is this. This cam....


records to these little cards....


instead of a tape. The plus being, no heads to keep aligned, ect. But how much do these cards cost? And what is the resolution, pic quality, ect??
R. M.

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans

Like 30 bucks I think, check Ebay.

As for resolution, I'd assume it depends on the camera.


I'm looking forward to getting myself this.

The website lists the format as being DVCPro 25, but the card in the picture says DVCPro 50. Both are standard def formats where 25 is roughly DV quality and 50 is roughly DigiBeta (I'm a little unsure as to whether or not DVCPro 50 can be used as DVCProHD if sped up). It's a cool device for those in the ENG world, but I don't see it being of excessive benefit to the narrative market, but who knows.

I'm a little more interested in this
http://www.joedunton.com/cgi-bin/jdc.pl?info=../mitchell.htm
allowing you to have a super16/HiDef convertible. The physics are a bit shady, but who knows what the engineers will come up with. Even cooler is the possibility of a 35mm version in the future if the Dalsa CCD works out.

There's also already a Disc array Hi-Def camera called the Viper that pretty much destroys the Varicam and the F-900.

Nota "Saving pennies for an Arri 4-35" Mono

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyuzo:

I'm looking forward to getting myself this.

---

Already had the pleasure....

WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo.....................

We are using the varricam again for the feature. We just secured the cam, and an operator day before yesterday. Now, we just gotta raise some money.

NotaMono:
Never got your opinion on the grabs. I am especially interested in what you think of the lighting. Brutal honesty a must.
R. M.

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans

Heh, I did respond in another thread, but it was brief. The brutal honesty, which you probablly won't want to hear, is that they look pretty sweet! I'm actually intrigued by the pro-mist use. It works in it's own way. Unexpected based on the content, but somehow it seems like it might work. Can't say I would've done it myself, but that's why cinematography is so interesting.

The lighting is very nice. My gut reaction on first glance was that I would've liked to see it a little harsher, but combined with the pro-mist it works better as an asthetic the way it is.


Was this the shot you were griping about the DP just throwing a tungsten at you and letting it ride? It doesn't fit with the rest in the pack although I very much like the "Less is more" theory of lighting. It just feels to be from a different movie.

At the same time I must throw out my usual disclaimer that I don't like to judge screen grabs. GIVE ME TRAILER!!! RARGH!!!! NOTAMONO WANT IMAGES MOVE!!!!

Despite that I'll hopefully have grabs soon of my Varicam stuff. We got the downconverts on a hard drive, but it's Mac formatted so I can't copy straight to my machine, and the director is backlogged with some commercials, so I have to wait. I lit it far more naturalistically so hopefully it'll convey the camera's diversity.

Nota "Eats too much fiber to use the solid-state camera" Mono

[This message was edited by NotaMono on April 25, 2003 at 09:42 PM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NotaMono:
Even cooler is the possibility of a 35mm version in the future if the Dalsa CCD works out.

---

Of course, I can't think of a 35mm model where the movement block wouldn't get in the way. Awww nuts....

Nota "Pondering patents" Mono

Okay, can someone explain to me why the Mitchell Company did not want to compare Hi-Def with 35mm? Is it really that crappy? I've liked what I've seen filmed on HD so far, why are these guys being so f'n picky?

-Elliott

quote:

---

Originally posted by NotaMono:

Was this the shot you were griping about the DP just throwing a tungsten at you and letting it ride? It doesn't fit with the rest in the pack although I very much like the "Less is more" theory of lighting. It just feels to be from a different movie.

---

Actually, that is the scene. but not the take. This shot is the beginning...

and this shot is the end....


Of a dollie shot, that came behind the other actors head, so the lighting was designed for the entire shot.
We originally had a locked down shot, which he threw one tungstin at, this is when we gave him his way, and he actually tried to light.

I will admit, the pro mist didnt come out as heavy as they appeared on the monitor, but still softer then I would have liked, especially for the subject matter. The fair shot, and a few others were fine, but it was every shot. Just not my bag, is all. I like things being a little edgier (just not "video" edgy.) Cabnt wait to see your varricam grabs, and Im workin on the trailer man, I really am.
R. M.

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans

That shot looks awesome

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyuzo:

That shot looks awesome

---

For more, check out....

http://www.tizzyentertainment.8m.com/photo.html

Ahh... shamless plug.
R. M.

"Luck, is when opportunity, meets preperation." "There are 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth, and none of us are lying" -Robert Evans

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeGrimlock:
Okay, can someone explain to me why the Mitchell Company did not want to compare Hi-Def with 35mm? Is it really that crappy? I've liked what I've seen filmed on HD so far, why are these guys being so f'n picky?

-Elliott

---

Project them both on a 40" screen and the difference is pretty huge. They also handle certain elements differently where film usually has a more lifelike quality IMO (Closer to the way the human eye sees). Essentially film has much better color rendition and 35mm still has much higher resolution (It's imperfect mathematics, but 16mm has higher resolution as well in most cases). It wouldn't hurt to have the option though.

Hope that helps.

Nota "Uses a 1*2 'Rothko' style camera" Mono

There is a company based near myself who have just shot the UK's first Hi-Def feature. I've seen some of the footage, and while they lit for film (3 key) it still looks to me like bad 16mm.

Fact is, film has a wider exposure latitude than even Hi-Def by the order of 3-4 stops either way.

Hi-Def is a step in the right direction, but it's still got a way to go before it can truely compete with film for quality.

This of course still doesn't stop Mr. Lucas ... :-)

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Someone needs to stop him, because this transition from guns to walky talkies is crazy madness.

Going back to the original question, i'd imagine that the quality from those flash cards would be exactly the same as from the tapes.

I seriously doubt that you could get DVCPRO HD by speeding up the tapes. Panasonic already did that for DVCPRO 50! The tapes last half as long in PRO50 machines then they do in PRO25 machines.

I would also imagine the flash cards themselves would cost the earth. I think I saw one in that pic that was 36 minutes? Okay, multiply 25Mbit/s by 60 then again by 36 to get the data storage capacity required ... solid state memory isn't cheap.

It's worse again for DVCPRO50 since they ganged up two DV codecs. So now the maths now becomes 25 by 60 by 36. Ow! And I thought that 128Mb flash cards were expensive!

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/