Actually, I don't believe it's the Z1. Lucas is REALLY cautious about endorsements... but I do believe it's the new
that they're using.

Lucas cautious about endorsements? You can't mean *George Lucas* can you? He sure doesn't mind endorsements when it comes to technical stuff. ILM especially is big on endorsements.

I'm never quite sure why shooting on a handycam equates with lower budgets.

Camera operators still have their day rates. So do grips, lighting technicians, assistant directors, DP's, and all the other people needed to put a production together. Marketing still costs the same no matter what format the production is shot on. As far as budget is concerned camera rental is nothing compared to the rest of the costs involved.

I'll put it differently then....to my knowledge, he's not been paid, nor given anything FOC to comment on the camera.

I don't quite get the sarcasm but he was talking about a TV series so lack of shooting in 24p wouldn't be a problem.

As far as budget is concerned camera rental is nothing compared to the rest of the costs involved.

True, but I think it can be safely implied that a lot of other corners are cut too.

No Chapman cranes, no focus assistant much of the time, simpler lighting, editing on desktop computers instead of major workstations, lightweight gear that needs fewer grips and all fits in one truck, etc., etc.

Spielberg used to direct a lot of episodic television before his big screen heyday had come, not bad actually.

I would suggest that Bob's sarcasm is related to exactly what you perceive.
So many people tie the "film look" to only 24p acquisition that it's ridiculous. Talk about the most overblown marketing hype...
Therefore, I think Bob might have been facetiously suggesting that if the camera doesn't do 24p, it's not a usable camera.
BTW, a lot of what you see on television today is originated in 24p.

sorry but what is 24p?

//Garo

24p comes to us from film. 24 frames per second, progressive.

is that all that's needed to get the film look is just shoot it 24p? is there any other filter or plugin during post? or 24p should do the trick?

No, just shooting 24p *doesn't* do the trick. That's the whole irony behind the marketing hype. Hmmmm....."Because film runs at 24p, then I must shoot my video at 24p to get a film look."
that thought process fails to take into account the entire format and medium of film. It doesn't take into account for gamma differences, chroma differences, and or how one film stock might be chosen over another for it's specific characteristics. Various film stocks have various looks, not to mention how film can be managed in both the shooting and development processes. Of all things "film-look" overall, 24fps/p is the least of the ingredients. And getting good 24p out of any 1/3 chip camera is very difficult. You're already dealing with chroma-challenged and compression challenged media in most instances, and unless you're looking for motion blur from moving the camera, you gain little by reducing the temporal resolution at acquisition. 24p at delivery is a whole different animal than 24p at acquisition.
All that said, this is an area of personal preference and great debate. For every negative word I've said about acquiring at 24p in lower cost cameras, there are at least a dozen words in favor of it.

So if you were goign for a "film look" at lower cost you would reccomend shooting at 30 at as High Def as possible with film like lighting setups and framing and movement and converting to 24 and color correcting to make it look more like film? I would agree with that because i;ve played around with the DVX100a and thought switchign to 24pmode would make me be shooting in film... instead it looked like news footage shot on pal... however i probably didnt knwo what i was doing..

I'd shoot at either 50i or 60i, I really like the look of 50i out of these cams. Then I'd edit, then render to 4:2:2 YUV, then output my 24p mpeg from that.

We have at least one client who is shooting for film as opposed to shooting to look like film and Atlabs advice is to shoot at 60i and they'll take care of the rest. One of the biggest problems people shooting for film get into is trying to make the video look like film before it goes onto film. Unless you're previewing on a 2K projection system it's hard to see how much any FXs are knocking the image around, for example enough film grain to make it noticeable on a video monitor is going to look horrendous on the big screen once the image is blown up.
Interesting comments here about how much you might save shooting video versus real 35mm, really depends on what you're shooting. The Cave shot all the underground footage in Mexico on a F950 in purpose built underwater housing. Big savings were made by avoiding magazine changes, to change a mag they would have to have bought the camera to the surface and back down again resulting in serious slowdowns. This not only costs time and money but disrupts the creative process.
The above ground footage was shot on 35mm and the DOP said tests showed that the F950 footage intercut seamlessly with 35mm although the F950 handled highlights differently given the dark nature of where they were shooting this didn't matter. They also tested the differences between recording the F950s output to HDD at 4.4.4 and to tape at 4.2.2 and found it visually indistinguishable.
This does sound like one awesome camera, one thing they did note, this camera is visually better than HDCAM as it records true1920x1080.
Bob.

I've just seen the first part of episode 1 of "The War Criminal" (translating the title back from Norwegian, not knowing for sure what it was called in English) the latest installment of the character Jane Tennyson in a BBC production.
After only five minutes or so I told my wife (who never listens to me when she or I or both are watching television) "They are beating up the Americans and making them look like amateurs when it comes to atmosphere and dialogue." The background for this is that a (too) large proportion of the TV we get are American series which are good, but, like I said....
The point is, if you have good writing it doesn't matter if you have film look or not. And if you have bad writing, it doesn't matter if you have film look or not. I would not be surprised if the difference between good writing and bad amounts to even less cost than the difference between renting a consumer camera and renting a 35 mil. Why are threads about film look always a success in this forum while threads about good writing are non-existent?

George Lucas has been known to post in this forum. Yes indeed. Verily. Well, once.
Tor

Why are threads about film look always a success in this forum while threads about good writing are non-existent?

I'm gonna guess it's because this is a production oriented forum and not a screenwriting one.

I started this thread to point out that a man with every resource at his disposal is using a consumer grade camera for a TV series, and I think this just proves that you're right -- it's the content that will make the difference not the toys and budgets.

Interesting thread, more so as I count Mr. Lucas as one of my biggest heros. ( yeah yeah, the latest Star Wars films sucked - get over it...let's ask your great great grandkids what they think about them )

Spot ? I'm curious....exactly how do you know what camera Lucas is using ? Is that insider info or are you consulting The Force ? Great job on explaining the "24p" myth too. I think 24p is just a big marketing ploy. Why is anything that refers back to an old technology supposed to be better ?

I can't wait for the day when the emulation of old technology is finally dropped for what is a much easier, more convienient and cheaper and YES just as beautiful image-making technology.

If you shoot on HDTV, HDV, VHS, or toilet paper, a beautiful image is a beautiful image. LIghting, composition, color choices, filters all go towards what is a memorable image... not how high tech your imaging device is. Give someone like Spot, GMElliot, MJRoddy, Epirb or Muttley a Hi8 camera and you can bet they'd get great stuff based on talent alone.

( sorry, I just lost a job to some kid because he had a HDV camera and I do not. HEY, if ya have HDV, your a good photographer , right ? )

...no offense to you guys who are working with HDV right now....

rant over...back to your normal Stonefield ( heh )
Stan

I always thought the main enthusiasm for 24p wasn't so much for how it looked on a television monitor but for independent filmmakers shooting digital and hoping to transfer to film for theatrical distribution without having to drop frames. Reportedly, for the past few years the majority of movies submitted to Sundance were shot on DV.