Comments on: Fresh Exclusive: Interview with filmmaker Josh Oakhurst - 720 vs 1080, Progressive for broadcast, Film Look vs Video Look (Part2)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:41:00 +0000

Tip,
I understand that you are a unacomplished writer and an amateur shooter, but you know alot about gear..
Shut up

By: Tip McPartland

Tip McPartland — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:41:00 +0000

Josh,

Must take issue with your airhead comment about 720P. The JVC 720P is testing to have better real-world resolution than the Sony Z-1 due to the Sony’s green pixel shift compromise (real H rez is 960) and the necessary line summation that all interlaced formats must apply to remove line twitter brings it’s vertical resolution down to equal or below the 720P JVC.

I trust Adam Wilt’s engineering skills vastly more than I do yours, and this is what he and others doing a test for DV magazine discovered. So much for your technical knowledge, hopefully your creative chops make up for this gaping deficiency.

Tip McPartland

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:21:00 +0000

So what is ART to you,Josh? I find your comments somewhat narrow-minded.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:05:00 +0000

Geez, I thought it was pretty simple,
interlaced for action and progressive for sexy storytelling!
P2 dead before it really starts?
Sounds bogus!

By: pat

pat — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:04:00 +0000

Josh has some good points, especially as related to the practicality of doing this indie prod thing. P2 isn’t a great thing if you’re out shooting on location. I say this because I’ll need 2 8GB cards and their disk drive. And more importantly, I’ll need 1 more crewmember on a shoot, to shuffle the cards between the camera and the drive. Sure, for you that may not be a big deal. But for me it is.

Not to say I don’t like the idea of 4:2:2. But hey, may as well get bigger CCDs on the camera too, then. And so on.

But the bottom line is probably:

Any of these cameras can create kickass movies.

By: Shane Ross

Shane Ross — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:03:00 +0000

I disagree with his assessment of 720p. Coming from the world of sports, of course he is in favor of 1080i…60 frames of full frame action goodness. But that format doesn’t really work for those of us in the narrative and documentary fields. 1080i is TOO good. Heck, my producer was complaining that 720P was too good…too much detail. And the 24P look and feel film speaks to our aesthetics of watching movies. I myself like to feel like I am watching something that ISN’T real life. Being drawn into the story, having focus and grain to defocus the backgrounds so that my attention is where the filmmakers want it. 1080i is too real. Actions are too smooth. Why don’t many TV shows shoot nice clean digibeta, instead of film? For the feeling you get watching 24fps I really can’t explain how that works on my psyche in terms of watching a story. But I get really distracted by watching films or TV shot with a video camera. It is TOO REAL. Like I am right there, and I don’t want to be right there, I want to be watching at a distance.

720P a dead format? Hardly. Sports may never use it, but narrative projects sure will.

P2 dead soon? Also hardly. Yes, it has a few stumbling block out of the gate, nearly all formats do. But in the end I think it will be used far more than you think.

If you went to the movie theatre to watch Indiana Jones 4, can you honestly tell me that you’d prefer the hyper reality feeling of 1080i over the filmic look and feel of 720P?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:45:00 +0000

Well that was quit interesting. I enjoy reading other peoples ideas. And i believe they were all valid arguments. For the most part I would agree with the 24p comments. If i could shoot 60p and have it work on everything, I would. But that is not possible. Although, 24p is very benificial in that. for one in the editing process you dont have to worry about interlacing (I hate interlacing). DVD player will play back 24p if you have progressive TV, And it is very easy to telecine it for broadcast. So that is why i like 24p, not because of filmlike look but it is more versatile.

By: Josh Oakhurst

Josh Oakhurst — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:07:00 +0000

JOSH OAKHURST SAYS:
Thanks everyone for reading!

P2 Prices/ Capacity:
http://www.joshoakhurst.com/?p=112

More reasons I believe P2 will fail:
http://www.joshoakhurst.com/?p=11

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:08:00 +0000

I like being pissed off about everything sometimes too, but it doesn’t accomplish anything. I totally disagree with your comment about making all “look” effects in camera. What if in post that look doesnt work anymore? You’re stuck with it now. Shoot a good, clean, image and if changes need to be made for effect, post is where that should take place. Every decient cameraman knows that.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:01:00 +0000

Hey guy, you are completely full of it. Try and get your facts straight instead of trying to make yourself so good.

By: My Own Private Indie

My Own Private Indie — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:18:00 +0000

I can relate to his “small four” comments. Early on, I almost bought a DVX100b for the 24p alone. Then I thought, why shoot SD? Considered the HD100u, but no 1080i. Can’t afford the XL-H1 or HVX, so the process of elimination brings me to the Z1U/FX1.

Great interview, love his take on things.