Jus a question, what kind of cameras do gonzo directors use, are they like the Sony etc.. 2000-3000 $ cameras or cheaper more profesional... Just wondering generally the quality of Cam used in gonzo, red ligt district type shit... gracias if anybody know. sorry if stupid question.
I've never seen anybody shooting gonzo that DOESN'T goes for Sony, Canon or Panasonic "prosumer" cameras that are in the $2500 to $4000 range, whether the mini-DV or fake HD ones. Been asked many times before but not a stupid question.
"alt porn is like the Hot Topic of erotica" -- Smut Mutant
Doyle, most of us use a Sony VX-2100. Some guys, who like the 24 p look, use Panasonic 100's. The last year or so some guys are using the Sony Hi-Def camera,( I have forgotten the model. It's $3300.00 or so for the consumer model, $ 5500.00 for the professional model.) I had one of the Hi-Def models and didn't like it so I went back to the 2100. No question is stupid.
Thanks jake, mucho gracias. So it is recorded onto DVs.
BTW: Jake you should really expand that cathc of the day series on the site it is real interesting should have girls dress normal like they are in video and then just do them with you and the girl. Iknow this isn't terribly original but you personality would make it good.
I use the vx2100 but if I had my way I would use the 2000 the color on the monitor is off on the 2100, you have to use the eye peice, but every one else has the 2100 so your footage doesnt match if you use the 2000.
If i were recomending one though I would say get the 2000 if you find it, and dont have to match
Technical note to Kami - the flip-out screen is off on every camera out there. It's meant to be a reference. It's LCD and low resolution and often shows the shot as much brighter than it is. Only a properly calibrated broadcast monitor can show you what you are actually getting. Also, getting the 2000 to look like the 2100 is as easy as white balancing both cameras to the same source.
Friendly advice for future reference only. No criticism intended.
no its cool but you can't make different cameras match! I challenge you to make the 2100 and 2000 a perfect match! I know you should always use the eye piece but when your shooting a close color range is nice. and its closer on the 2000.
Kami, again no criticism, but seriously, the 2000 & the 2100 are basically the same camera -- the 2100 has a higher LUX rating & is better in lower light situations. Q is on the money when he says you merely have to white-balance them together ... it's not like trying to mix footage shot on a Canon & a Sony, or even a 2000 and an, oh say, 900 (I actually dig the "lesser" & out of production 900 because it gives a grittier, more film-like reaction to light sources than the 2000 series, though the latter boasts -- in the right hands -- a sumptous color pallete the 900 can't compete with on that level).
Edited to add:
Also, it's not totally easy but you can calibrate the flip-out screen for a far more true rough representation of the image, & by turn synch two separate cameras from the same series -- like the 2000 & 2100 -- so that shooting two-camera doesn't have to be complete nightmare. Though I doubt most nu-school gonzo directors know how to do it, to be honest, I would guess that Ivan must know how, or could figure it out in a half-hour or so with the manual & I know for certain that somebody like Glenn Baren or good ol' Claudio --This also can alleviate if not solve many of the brightness margin for error issues Quaze so rightly notes.
I think in this situation we all might be right. for the footage to be an exact perfect match you have to have the same depth of field the same color and the same exposure, the 2100 is more sensitive to light so f8 doesnt look the same so you adjust your exposure to match then you change the depth of field. I dont doubt you can get it close but it is diffrent cameras it will not be exact. you can make the color the same and frankly not a lot of people in porn care about depth of field overly.
they have the same f stops and the same focal length so at different f stops your gonna have a change in depth of field.
I guess you could use an nd filter to solve the diffrence in light sensitivity, but my original point was if everyone else is shooting with a 2100 and you are going to want it to match its way easier to just use a 2100.
The gap between the models most people are mentioning in this thread and $1000 models continues to grow smaller all the time. Such is the nature of technology. Food for thought.
And the "fake" HD models can produce stunning results.
Seriously "Astroknight." What the fuck? You think I am stupid, sorry i havn't reached the pantheon of this message baord that you have as a moderator, or whatever you think entitles you to this position of authority. I am a "newbie", no see I am not going to be peged with any sutpid fucking title like that shit, ever. Also, David Clarke, sorry man i have never heard of your shit, no disrespect, but i know J. Malone's shit and I think RDL could be the Cadillac of Gonzo if it keeps it's shit up. So , anywyay don't underdog the fucking German Shephard:DOYLE
I get myself so convinced everybody is really some one else, nd I also think the FBI reads my e-mail. It's one thing to be paranoid, It's another thing when it makes you miss the joke..
Just for the reccord i meant Red Light District, who I do appreciate. Also, my point was i know this is not my territory and i am not the porn afficiados some of ya'll may be, but i wasn't born in a fucking cave. And will not be treated like a shithead.
sorry for the angry tone Shronker, for real... I ams chilled out just had to get laid.
-RDD
[Link]
Eric381 Deactivated User
What are you looking at? It 2452 Posts 3/05
Posted - Mar 12 2006 : 12:06AM
Jake, something to the tune of the Sony HDR-FX1 perhaps?
Granted, what lil' videowork I do is for different reasons, I was looking at the Canon XL-2 (which I'm told has manual focusing issues?). But someone mentioned if I'm going to spend that kind of dough, to take a look at the Panasonic model(s) and/or this particular Sony model. Any particular favorites yourself...the quality either way is amazing. I prefer MiniDV myself...tape/film rules!
Dave, don't take it to heart man! You're opinion is valued here!! I was always a HandiCam user (albeit the higher-end ones), but the big, bulkier stuff I've never really handled.
DOYLE, I don't see what the quality of camera has to do with the genre of porn they're shooting. So you could have taken better care of DAC's advice as well, regardless how famaliar you are with it.
Having just rented and shot some test footage with the Panasonic Hvx200 all I can say is Holy shit. Yes, the P2 card is somewhat inconvenient at the moment because of limited storage capacity and price but the difference in quality of the DVCproHD codec over the HDV codec used by all of the other camcorders is light years. Plus the Panasonic shoots every format - true 720/24p, 720/30p and 1080i. Not to mention you can shoot with the same variable frame rates of it's larger $70,000 cousin. This is definitely my next camera.
There's still time for it to get banished but until then....
The only issue is that the 8 gig card gives you roughly 15 minutes of video. The camera holds two cards at once so you get 30 minutes before you have to switch cards and then dump the first two to a hard drive or the "P2 store" unit. Switching cards is no big deal but at a cost of about 800 bucks a piece.... you get the picture. That being said, in my opinion, tape will be obsolete when the price drops and the storage capacities get larger. If you edit with Final Cut Pro it's as simple as selecting "Import P2 media" and voila, there's all of your footage in a fraction of the time that it would take to digitize a DV tape.
I forgot to mention that in addition to just shooting 1080i, it also shoots 1080/30 and 1080/24 just like the cinealta. Truly astonishing for the price.
I tested the Panasonic... and maybe is too much for Gonzo. I mean, are you sure you need that much definition in that kind of shooting? I usually work with DigiBeta and for me it's more than enough. Another think to consider with that much "quality"... any skin imperfection, bad lighting etc... will be a lot more exposed. I most of the time recommend Sony hdr fx1 because you can get a decent picture with little knowledge and at good price.
Nobody here expects everybody to come in with full knowledge of the industry and everything like it. If they come in acting more ignorant than just about porn, then they may very well get treated like a "shithead" if they act like one.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
[Link]
Eric381 Deactivated User
What are you looking at? It 2452 Posts 3/05
Posted - Mar 12 2006 : 1:26PM
Ahh Quase, but what about the endless plague of "digital archival storage", that is brought up even with plain old still cameras? Will tape be THAT much more obsolete than the potential of having a storage-unit crash, thus destroying all the precious work that one captured ~ 1 week, 1 month, or years ago? At least well-stored tape can be brought back from the dead, no?
I do like the discussion about upload times...that is steller. Although I use much more amateur software, etc...I found my patience wears thin when having to upload video to my PC.
Yes, that can get EXTREMELY pricey!! $3200 for an hour of footage sounds real ugly. What kind of media are we talking for this type of digital storage ~ certainly not your conventional CF or SD cards, right?
All the other tech talk just baffles the hell out of me. Stuff I obviously still need to read up on before spending that kind of money on such equipment.
As usual, great info...supplementing on that which you've helped with in the past! Thanks!
'Kay, Quaze, please tell me if I've got the picture, here:
To use this camera on set, basically you'd need to have 2 to 4 of the mem cards, & a dedicated assistant to be downloading to an on-set drive while you work.
Considering that unexposed film reels run about the same amount of time as the cards, that part of the set-up doesn't faze me TOO much ...
It also seems that if one' s in charge of the whole production/post-production process -- like in my case, where I edit my own shit -- the time savings in the upload to FCP makes even the $800 cards ultimately pay for themselves ... though I agree they'll obviously be cheaper within 18 months or so ...
As to the image being TOO high-def, as Oscar opines, well, that's what would make this a camera for those of us who actually like to learn the craft of filmmaking & push our boundaries. It does sound too powerful for a beginner, or for the typical "Shooter" who just wants to take something out of a box that he can point at people fucking ....
While we have your attention, I'd like to praise the picture quality in Strip Tease Then Fuck 7. I'm hard pressed to think of a porn DVD with a picture that looked better to me. ZT DVDs always have a really high quality picture, but this one looks the best to me because it is as pristine as other ZT DVDs, but doesn't have a "soft focus" feel to it, if you know what I mean. I am not a videographer so I do not know if you did anything differently. But if you did something differently, I wanted to tell you that I noticed and it worked very well.
I'm sorry mods if this is borderline off-topic, I don't have enough technical knowledge to know for certain if this is on topic.
Walter
PS By the way, STTF7 is a great DVD overall, based on what I have seen of it (I have not watched it in its entirety). Hot sex with enthusiastic pretty women, presented attractively and with no out of place circus acts or macho man bullshit to annoy me. My compliments to the director.
Thanks Walter. Actually, I'd love to tell you that I did something revolutionary for that movie but the truth is I shot it the same as every other ZT movie, film-look and all. Also thanks for noticing the lack of circus acts. I know it's not "cutting edge" if you don't have at least 4.72 ATM's every 11 minutes, but I know there's still some folks out there who appreciate good ol' fashioned sex.
Dac, you don't necessarily need an assistant unless you're shooting a ton of scenes in one day but it would certainly be easier. You're correct about everything else.
And Eric381, you always have the option of laying off either your raw footage or your edit master to a DVCPROHD tape. Of course, the deck is 25 grand. Personally I'll take a chance and store my hard drives.
Did I also mention that you can "downconvert" all of the footage in the camera if you want to. The P2 card will record to a DV tape and downconvert on the fly. The HD portion of the camera will only record on P2 media but you can also shoot standard def DV just like you can with the dvx100.
P.S. The issue of "too high def" is easily solvable with a matte box and creative use of soft filters such as the black or white (or both together) promist.
I so badly want to check this camera out. I've been waited with baited breath for this thing. The P2 cards though always turned me off from it and I wasn't convinced that being tethered to a hard-drive was realible. But man... DVCPRO HD for under 20k... ughhh... it is amazing the time period we live in.
Have you seen the stormdrives?
Is there an actual release date for the camera?
I shot for a long time with the Sony PD150 and it is a camera I can't say a good enough about. I love that little camera. I love how it pops. After several repairs of the PD150 though I had to go buy a new camera and decided the Sony Z1U was the best choice. So far I'm extremely happy with that camera, but i'm sure the HVX200 will make me regret the purchase.
So we develop and purchase expensive high definition cameras that show razor sharp detail, and then add soft filters to the lens to make it blurry again?
Hey Kevin, you can rent it from Express Video Supply in Glendale (evsonline.com). They're really cool guys and they definitely know their shit. The waiting list to buy the camera is about 6 weeks. They have 4 that they rent and I had to book it a month in advance. You'll be blown away, trust me.
The only area where I'm concerned at the moment is when I travel to Europe and shoot close to 40 scenes in two weeks, tape is still more practical for trips like that so I might take the Z1U instead rather than try to fly home with a suitcase full of hard drives.
"Blurry" is not exactly the technical term I would use. Would you want to look at the Playmate of the month without soft filters and retouching? Filters don't take away detail or resolution, they alter it to create a more aesthetically pleasing image... unless you like seeing ingrown ass hairs with razor sharp detail.
How can you say it will not take away the detail and resolution? Of course it will.
I think soft filters (for soft focus) are good for wedding photography, not hardcore gonzo. Although I don't like seeing razor sharp "ingrown ass hairs" in my porn, nor would I want everything to look like the lens was covered with vaseline.
the 8gb cards cost about 1,700 dollar now I am sure the price will drop but that means probably 6000+4500 for three cards/hd system. Also the camera will do 1080/24p too!
Forgive my ignorance but what exactly are your qualifications as a videographer/cinematographer? Even with a soft filter, 1080 interlaced lines of resolution is still exactly that. Even if you leave the lens cap on you'd still be seeing the back of the lens cap in HD. Of course you can use a filter that makes the subject look smeared in vaseline but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about a subtle filter to make imperfections look a little less offensive. Film has more resolution that any HD format and filters are a strategic part of cinematography. Wait until the sequel to Basic Instinct comes out. Sharon Stone looks amazing. Without the creative use of soft filters she'd look like the 47 year old hag that she is.
I think you got me wrong, I don't mean you can't solve the fact that there's too much definition. I mean, if you move to the Hi def is provably because you are looking for film-like texture(Cine gamma and all that stuff) , progressive scan etc.. and that's not really useful in a Gonzo. Because the question was about Gonzo's... I don't see the point spending 6K in the cam + 3K more in accessories when all you need is set in a 3000 USD camera. There are even more facts to consider, depending where you live (my case, in Spain) almost nobody has a HD TV set so... Maybe in two years... but right now, HD is not really useful, why overpay?
Audrey Madison Interview
Posted - Mar 8 2006 : 11:22PM
