[TrueIndigo]

OSV: "portable mp3 recorders are fairly cheap, and they have decent sound quality." --yep, my recorder is quite cheap and does uncompressed wav up to 24-bit (much better than camcorder onboard sound).

OSV: "but really, how many people are going to use a vdslr to shoot something that will get into film distribution?" -- I suppose the same question could be asked of someone using a prosumer camcorder. Anything less than 35mm cine or a digital cinema camera would be considered below normal for theatrical distribution. But if you want to go ahead without funding, you just choose your preferred affordable option: camcorder, video DSLR, Fisher Price pixel vision (whatever).

OSV: "give us some examples of ANY pentax vdslr that was used to make a film that actually went into distribution...REAL FILM DISTRIBUTION" -- well, that wouldn't be possible. Even if someone started principal photography on a feature length project on the first day of K-7 availability, you might see the movie in your local theatre sometime next year maybe. But for the sake of argument, suppose the normal turn around time were reduced to zero to explain the lack of a k-7 movie right now, the most likely reason would be that the no budget films made were not sufficiently compelling for a sales agent or distributor to want to represent them. Could you blame the camera for that?

OSV: "the video camcorder market has long been distorted by jogibas that think that every camcorder that gets sold is going to be used for a "film" -- if that is the case, how will we ever know now what the normal market might have been like after such long term distortion? Human beings are complex enough for me to be confident I will never get to the bottom of why they buy stuff. And does it really matter why camcorders are bought? I'm more interested in what people do with them.

OSV: "engineering resources get wasted on crippled formats like 24p" -- 24 fps is a filming speed, used in cinema. Are you referring to video codecs?

OSV: "the consumer ends up paying for something that they have no use for." -- according to falconeye (a Pentax Alpha tester in Germany) with the k-7, Pentax were able to implement the video functionality without an increase in cost at all.

OSV: "canon has stated that they developed their vdslr functionality for news reporters and such, NOT "film"... that's not a situation where you'll want to be using a separate audio recorder." -- agreed. For news gathering the onboard sound may be good enough and is convenient (you can also easily fix a top-mount separate mic). If you use the camera for drama, you have the time to set up separate sound (which is the usual method in that environment).

[jogiba]

portable mp3 recorders are fairly cheap, and they have decent sound quality... but really, how many people are going to use a vdslr to shoot something that will get into film distribution? give us some examples of ANY pentax vdslr that was used to make a film that actually went into distribution... and please, no jogiba wet dreams confusing youtube with REAL FILM DISTRIBUTION, o.k.? lol

the video camcorder market has long been distorted by jogibas that think that every camcorder that gets sold is going to be used for a "film"... engineering resources get wasted on crippled formats like 24p, and the consumer ends up paying for something that they have no use for.

canon has stated that they developed their vdslr functionality for news reporters and such, NOT "film"... that's not a situation where you'll want to be using a seperate audio recorder.

osv, you quit with this total BS. You are a troll so YOU better stay off this Pentax Video Forum.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1565060/

"Reverie" is the first ever feature length film to be shot entirely on the Nikon D90, A Digital SLR Camera.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1432978/

[osv]

osv, you quit with this total BS. You are a troll so YOU better stay off this Pentax Video Forum.
36 Stairs (2010)

Reverie (2009/I)

"Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change"

thanks for proving my point, lol... post-production is NOT distribution, you know nothing about video or film.

[osv]

OSV: "but really, how many people are going to use a vdslr to shoot something that will get into film distribution?" -- I suppose the same question could be asked of someone using a prosumer camcorder. Anything less than 35mm cine or a digital cinema camera would be considered below normal for theatrical distribution. But if you want to go ahead without funding, you just choose your preferred affordable option: camcorder, video DSLR, Fisher Price pixel vision (whatever).

i'm not saying that film distribution from a vdslr source is impossible, distribution has actually been done from worse source formats than that... there were apparently a few crowd shots in slumdog millionaire that were apparently done with a cheap still camera.

when it comes to cheap source recording capability, vdslrs are up against the red one, among others... why create a 2k vdslr to compete with red? it's pointless.

OSV: "engineering resources get wasted on crippled formats like 24p" -- 24 fps is a filming speed, used in cinema. Are you referring to video codecs?

do you know why 24fps became the default standard? hint: picture quality wasn't the priority.

OSV: "the consumer ends up paying for something that they have no use for." -- according to falconeye (a Pentax Alpha tester in Germany) with the k-7, Pentax were able to implement the video functionality without an increase in cost at all.

that would have been physically impossible... there is always overhead when functionality is added... if nothing else, think about the people who had to write the firmware... i guess that falconeye thinks that they were interns? they were working for free? lol

[jogiba]

"Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change"

thanks for proving my point, lol... post-production is NOT distribution, you know nothing about video or film.

osv are YOU retarded or what ? Go get your mommy to read the posts to you since you are too brain dead to see what was posted.

Reverie" is the first ever feature length film to be shot entirely on the Nikon D90, A Digital SLR Camera.

Reverie (2009/I) - IMDb user reviews

This is the Pentax Video forums and Trolls like you do not belong here so go take your $700 Canon HF11 to that link you keep posting and get your cookies.

[karl79]

This is the Pentax Video forums and Trolls like you do not belong here so go take your $700 Canon HF11 to that link you keep posting and get your cookies.

really osv, all you do is trying to be right and prove others wrong - it's annoying

[osv]

osv are YOU retarded or what ? Go get your mommy to read the posts to you since you are too brain dead to see what was posted.

Reverie (2009/I) - IMDb user reviews
.

no, jogiba, distribution does NOT come before post-production DISTRIBUTION IS THE LAST STEP

"Film production occurs in five stages:[1]

Development—The script is written and drafted into a workable blueprint for a film.
Pre-production—Preparations are made for the shoot, in which cast and crew are hired, locations are selected, and sets are built.
Production—The raw elements for the finished film are recorded.
Post-Production—The film is edited; production sound (dialogue) is concurrently (but separately) edited, music tracks (and songs) are composed, performed and recorded; sound effects are designed and recorded; and any other computer-graphic 'visual' effects are digitally added, all sound elements are mixed into "stems" then the stems are mixed then married to picture and the film is fully completed ("locked").
Sales and distribution—The film is screened for potential buyers (distributors), is picked up by a distributor and reaches its cinema and/or home media audience."

[osv]

osv are YOU retarded or what ? Go get your mommy to read the posts to you since you are too brain dead to see what was posted.

Reverie (2009/I) - IMDb user reviews

IMDB IS NOT DISTRIBUTION ...why do i have to repeat the obvious?

"IMDb essentially accepts data submissions from any individual who acquires a login and submits information using the site's submission pages. This information is then reviewed by an IMDb data manager, who decides whether or not 1.) to post the information on the website; 2.) to send the submitting party an email requesting further documentation or clarification; or 3.) to ignore or set the submission aside indefinitely. Although IMDb's data managers are presumably knowledgeable in at least some aspects of film history, they are not, per se, more knowledgeable about the information they are processing than those who have submitted it[citation needed] (and in many cases - particularly when dealing with more obscure areas - are almost certainly less knowledgeable). IMDb's data managers rarely engage in primary research in the effort to verify submissions: the data managers' most common form of verification involves web-based resources, a serious limitation given the vast amount of information that has yet to be made available on the internet and given the high level of erroneous, questionable and poorly documented data that circulates there... since IMDb employs no formal method for determining the credentials of the individual submitting information, it is entirely possible for the site's managers 1.) to accept faulty information from a misinformed source, or 2.) to refuse well-documented information from a qualified researcher whose sources are not currently accessible via the internet. In a kind of methodological Catch-22, the surest way to ensure information is accepted by IMDb is to first make it available through other (often) less reliable and less rigorous web-based channels."
Internet Movie Database - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jogiba]

It is too funny that people who come to Pentax Forums to discuss their K-7 and KX HD videos have to see this poor Troll (RiceHigh) go off the deep end.

[TrueIndigo]

OSV: "when it comes to cheap source recording capability, vdslrs are up against the red one, among others... why create a 2k vdslr to compete with red? it's pointless." -- a video DSLR shooting 2k CinemaScope is not intended to compete against a RED (which is an expensive, genuine digital cinema camera), as I mentioned in my opening posts. The aspiration for 2k in a video DSLR is not pointless, because not everyone can afford a RED for their movie project.

OSV: "do you know why 24fps became the default standard? hint: picture quality wasn't the priority." -- the 24 fps shooting/projection standard had a financial aspect to it (regarding film stock consumption), though was still quicker than the previous speed(s) of 16-21 fps (hand crank for silent pictures). But why are you talking about this? The thread is not about trying to overturn an internationally agreed, long-established cinema standard!

OSV: "that would have been physically impossible... there is always overhead when functionality is added... if nothing else, think about the people who had to write the firmware... i guess that falconeye thinks that they were interns? they were working for free? lol" -- maybe falconeye will chime in with an explanation. I don't pretend to know how a camera's initial and on-going firmware costs are spread over the development budget of a particular camera (or for particular implementations, such as video). Clearly, time was spent on it, but not necessarily impacting on the planned price to the customer (within unit margins). I was simply quoting from falconeye, who has credibility in my mind, so I felt confident to mention it. Not everyone has credibility...

[osv]

a video DSLR shooting 2k CinemaScope is not intended to compete against a RED (which is an expensive, genuine digital cinema camera), as I mentioned in my opening posts. The aspiration for 2k in a video DSLR is not pointless, because not everyone can afford a RED for their movie project.

it seems to me that the proper way to make a movie would be to rent the red, preferably with an operator, so that the picture quality of your movie wouldn't hinder a possible distribution deal... why pay for a 2k vdslr that will give you inferior picture quality?

do you want a distribution deal, or don't you? do you know what digital projection is? if the potential distribution deal included that, would a 2k vdslr be good enough?

the 24 fps shooting/projection standard had a financial aspect to it (regarding film stock consumption), though was still quicker than the previous speed(s) of 16-21 fps (hand crank for silent pictures). But why are you talking about this? The thread is not about trying to overturn an internationally agreed, long-established cinema standard!

financial aspect? lol, that was the ONLY reason that the world got stuck with 24fps... hopefully you are knowledgeable enough to understand how and why it is inferior.

in this thread, we are addressing the futility of pining for a 2k vdslr... that includes the pointlessness of including a crippled format like 24fps, that will never be used as intended, in the vdslr world... a world where red has replaced film acquistion, for budget shooting, and digital projection will someday replace film, and even jogiba can't find a vdslr film that has made it into distribution

maybe falconeye will chime in with an explanation. I don't pretend to know how a camera's initial and on-going firmware costs are spread over the development budget of a particular camera (or for particular implementations, such as video). Clearly, time was spent on it, but not necessarily impacting on the planned price to the customer (within unit margins). I was simply quoting from falconeye, who has credibility in my mind, so I felt confident to mention it. Not everyone has credibility...

true, noobs will sometimes confuse post-whoring with expertise.

the last time that i talked to falconeye out here, he was pimping a vimeo snob routine, claiming that it had better picture quality than youtube... he had assertively taken a stance on the issue, that he ended up admitting was wrong.

i'm not sure why you would infer that development costs might not be reflected in the pricing of the unit, but i can assure you that running a business like that is a good way to go bankrupt, lol

[TrueIndigo]

OSV: "it seems to me that the proper way to make a movie would be to rent the red, preferably with an operator, so that the picture quality of your movie wouldn't hinder a possible distribution deal." -- yes, that is the proper way to make a movie. Not everyone who wants to make a movie though can afford that type of budget or achieve that type of investment to follow that type of film making model.

OSV: "why pay for a 2k vdslr that will give you inferior picture quality?" -- because they can't afford to shoot with a RED, presumably. They don't want an inferior picture, but they get to the point where they make their movie any way they can with whatever they have.

OSV: "do you want a distribution deal, or don't you? do you know what digital projection is? if the potential distribution deal included that, would a 2k vdslr be good enough?" -- I think you answered this earlier yourself when you said: "i'm not saying that film distribution from a vdslr source is impossible, distribution has actually been done from worse source formats than that." Using lower level cameras is not ideal, but it may be the only way some people can try out their story ideas without re-mortgaging their home. If these efforts get distribution at all, it will probably be on DVD, and the picture quality of these cameras may be good enough for that. If theatre projection is indeed offered, this must mean the project has been considered favourably enough by a company to include plans on how best to proceed with the material. The main point to acknowledge here is, that the film would probably not exist if the film maker had not shot it themselves.

OSV: "financial aspect? lol, that was the ONLY reason that the world got stuck with 24fps... hopefully you are knowledgeable enough to understand how and why it is inferior." -- I'm really not bothered by 24 fps. Perhaps you could contribute your thoughts on that subject in a thread which is discussing it?

OSV: "in this thread, we are addressing the futility of pining for a 2k vdslr." -- I was hoping that the thread would openly discuss any positive opportunities for a Pentax DSLR to include the CinemaScope ratio in 2k, because the image area is less than 16:9 1080p. If this idea is not technically possible this year, nothing lost. But if something new came to light from this community discussion, then happy days.

Prefer not to quote your remarks about jogiba and falconeye, but you probably know where I stand anyway. Life is difficult enough as it is, so I try to stay positive.

OSV: "i'm not sure why you would infer that development costs might not be reflected in the pricing of the unit, but i can assure you that running a business like that is a good way to go bankrupt, lol" -- I meant that the effort of including video in the firmware may have already been financially covered by the predicted cost of camera firmware work generally (for the stills functionality), and therefore the particular work on firmware for video specifically would appear to be "free" in that sense (the firmware bill might be the same even if video had not been included). I repeat, I do not know if that is actually the case, but I don't feel bad about it because not many people do!

[osv]

OSV: "it seems to me that the proper way to make a movie would be to rent the red, preferably with an operator, so that the picture quality of your movie wouldn't hinder a possible distribution deal." -- yes, that is the proper way to make a movie. Not everyone who wants to make a movie though can afford that type of budget or achieve that type of investment to follow that type of film making model.

"...I think all of your decisions should be made as if you are going to be successful, as nothing else makes sense"
-james cameron, post magazine, 1/2010

i'd guess that the cost of renting a red might not be that much different than buying a 2k vdslr.

[karl79]

i'd guess that the cost of renting a red might not be that much different than buying a 2k vdslr.

You keep talking like a pro but obviously have no real world experience at all. We always rent a RED ONE if budget of client allows it. It's around 1500€ / 2000$ for a single week, around 550€/750$ if you rent it for just one day.
And by then you don't even have lenses and additional gear you need yet so add the same amount on top of that.

So, no, there's not much difference in price, it's just a couple of ten thousand dollar more if you plan to shoot a movie.
But hey, I heard some Canon consumer camcorder has a totally awesome resolution, much better than any DSLR!!!

I was hoping that the thread would openly discuss any positive opportunities for a Pentax DSLR to include the CinemaScope ratio in 2k, because the image area is less than 16:9 1080p. If this idea is not technically possible this year, nothing lost. But if something new came to light from this community discussion, then happy days.

As the sensor reads out the image from top to bottom (or other way around @ K-x) each horizontal line would be more data, but then again there'd be less lines overall to read out. (With my limited technical understanding) I don't see a problem doing so?! Would it maybe increase rolling shutter issues as it perhaps takes longer to read each line?

[osv]

You keep talking like a pro but obviously have no real world experience at all.

that's funny, aren't you the noob who just told us that pentax mjpeg looked "organic"?

It's around 1500€ / 2000$ for a single week, around 550€/750$ if you rent it for just one day.
And by then you don't even have lenses and additional gear you need yet so add the same amount on top of that.

which proves that you aren't in the business at all... red packages with red glass start at under $500/day $1400/week in l.a., less if you know the right people.

So, no, there's not much difference in price, it's just a couple of ten thousand dollar more if you plan to shoot a movie.

so you think that a 2k vdslr is going to cost the same as a k-x costs now, and you failed to take into account the prices of the "lenses and additional gear" you were claiming for the red rental... classic noob thinking.