Varicam 35 demo cut and mixed on FCP X

Anyone who follows the high-end camera market surely will have seen the beautiful reel that was made to demonstrate the capabilities of the new Panasonic Varicam 35. If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth watching:

vimeo.com/105522587

The demo was directed by Michael Cioni and it was edited using FCP X. But even more: the entire soundtrack for the demo was recorded and fully mixed in FCP X as well. The video about how this was done really shows the deep audio capabilities that are right inside FCP X:

vimeo.com/107825910

- Ronny

Impressive.

- Andreas

Agreed, superb photography, editing and soundtrack. All technical aspects excellent.

EXCEPT... and this is a comment on current trends, fashions, fads: the camera movement began to irritate just slightly. The camera is moved in just about every shot. I began to ask myself, what does the movement add? Compare this with a director like David Fincher who will hardly ever move the camera.

I suppose it should be remembered that this was essentially a camera demo and so the style of the piece is secondary to the technical aspects, and something the director decides on, which is how it should be. But I wonder how this style of camera work will look in ten years time? Will it go the way of crushed blacks, almost non-existent depth of field, etc?

Please don't jump in and start a war: it's just an observation and I wonder if many/any people agree. And maybe it's just me and maybe it needs another thread and maybe it's not even the right forum...

Yeah, it's a product demo, not a Hollywood feature film.

Though I'd personally never compose and mix a full music piece in FCPX (LPX is way easier to work in for that, a DAW and an NLE are not the same), the making-off video is really well done and insightful.

If we could get a real mixer, and a real multi-take folder type device like in STP/LPX, then FCPX would have some of the best audio tools in the biz.

stewpid wrote: ...the camera movement began to irritate just slightly. The camera is moved in just about every shot. I began to ask myself, what does the movement add?

You are too kind.

Éric Rohmer made Pauline à la plage (Pauline at the Beach) with a production crew of five, and they used the trunk of a Renault for the few moving shots.

The people who made this five minute camera demo, according to the credits, used a crew of fifty, many of them apparently production crew.

The constant camera movement is pointless and actually detracts from one's ability to evaluate the camera's images, not that one can do that on the basis of a Vimeo upload anyway.

I found the dolly shots to be very pretty. If there's not enough movement in a video, how can I evaluate the image quality of a "video" camera that shoots movement. It also showed off the slow-motion abilities quite well. The style matched the music. Very pretty. To each his own.

"The demo was directed by Michael Cioni and it was edited using FCP X. "

What was it graded in? If that was all done in X I'm impressed. The editing is great, but it's cuts only for the most part and really could've been done in iMovie. Well, except for the lens flares.

Hey Charlie,

Grading was done by Ian Vertovec at Light Iron, the post production company of Michael Cioni. They are involved in the post-production of many studio features and they are strong advocates of FCP X and Resolve, so there's a fat chance this demo was graded in their Resolve suite.

I agree a demo like this could have been edited in iMovie, just like you can edit anything in any software nowadays. But the particular point here is that he recorded, enhanced and mixed the complete soundtrack in FCP X, which you would find very hard to do in iMovie . I think this is a good demonstration of the existing audio capabilities right inside FCP X, and of how powerful audio in X could become when these capabilities are further developed.

- Ronny

ronny courtens wrote: …
I agree a demo like this could have been edited in iMovie, just like you can edit anything in any software nowadays. But the particular point here is that he recorded, enhanced and mixed the complete soundtrack in FCP X, which you would find very hard to do in iMovie .

Of course. As you know, I'm a big fan of FCP X. and this is a really great piece. I wish they'd graded it in X though, as that would've really been something to brag about! The fact that he scored it in X is very cool, and does demonstrate the accessibility of powerful audio tools in X for folks who may not know about them, or know how to use Logic or another DAW.

P

ronny courtens wrote: ...the particular point here is that he recorded, enhanced and mixed the complete soundtrack in FCP X... I think this is a good demonstration of the existing audio capabilities right inside FCP X, and of how powerful audio in X could become when these capabilities are further developed.

As he says clearly, the workflow that he's talking about is for Do It Yourselfers and would not be followed by a professional.

It seems clear that anyone with the skills he's talking about with music would be using Logic Pro, or equivalent, anyway, and would be pretty familiar, if involved in music to picture, with how to use Logic and Final Cut together.

Looked at from a filmmaker's perspective, it seems clear that the workflow in the video is of use only to filmmakers who are doing their own music, which means that we're talking again about people who almost certainly already own Logic or similar.

So the point seems to be that if you're equally competent in music and film you might be able to save $300 if you're prepared to forego owning Logic. Which nobody who is competent in music would do.

So the point is?

I think they went waaaaaaaaaay overboard on the slow motion. I want to see how natural a person walking across a scene would be in real time. That shows off the ability of a camera much more than slow motion. If I were to take this demo at face value, then this camera would be my slow-mo camera and something else would be my real-speed camera. For all I know real speed on this could be strobey or have other artifacts. There's no way to know from this demo!

But yes, FCPX is amazing in the audio department. I've done many 5.1 mixes with it and they sound great theatrically when listened to in a properly calibrated room (which most theaters are not). I wish FCPX offered support for 7.1 and DTSHDMA or Dolby True HD but since Apple barely acknowledges Blu-ray's existence I guess we're limited to 5.1 which is a true shame.

"or all I know real speed on this could be strobey or have other artifacts."

Um, you do know this is a Varicam, one of the top digital film cameras made, right? I highly doubt there is anything wrong with its normal speed images. Make sense to show off its slow motion footage, as that gives you the most clear view of each frame. You can tell more about a camera in this slow motion footage than normal motion, as you see each frame in more detail. Bear in mind this is one of the top cameras in the industry, it runs right up against Arri and Red. Nothing wrong with its image quality at all.

If I want to look at a single frame I'll pause it. Slow motion does not give a clearer view of any frame. It's still running at 24fps either way. Slow motion was just done for stylish choices. I want to see what it looks like at normal speed with certain shutter settings. The Arri, Red, Genesis etc etc all have their good and bad points. Just because it's a "top camera" does not mean one should just assume everything about it is perfect.

Also, "digital film". Did you just say that? Let's stick with digital cinema. Digital film is like saying digital vinyl.

"It's still running at 24fps either way."

Yes it is, but with dropped frames, giving you partial quality, or with all original frames, giving you full quality?

Yes, digital film, which many of us use as a legitimate term.

Back to OP, the Varicam is one of the TOP cams for shooting with, period.

Dropped frames? So you're saying the Varicam ONLY shoots in overcranked mode? It can shoot anywhere from 1 frame per second to 120. The majority of the footage in this little video was likely shot around 120fps and played back at 24fps. I'm asking for stuff shot at 24fps and played back at 24fps. I apologize if I didn't make that clear but I thought I did. I want to see examples of as many speeds as I can and that includes the normal speeds. No dropped frames needed at all.

Take 120fps clip, remove every other frame, that's what 24fps would have actually shot. But when the camera starts to ship, I'm sure there will be tons of test clips all over the web. I don't want one, I just want to have enough money to afford one...

" I just want to have enough money to afford one..."

Your comment got me curious Ben so I looked in Google. One preview article suggests the price is likely to be "north of $30K". Guess I'll scratch that off my nice-to-play-with list!

The current Varicam model is $30K, bare bones, so yeah, this is not a camera most of us will be rushing out to purchase, and will take far superior images than what most of us use. Although the Panny news releases state it is aimed at the broadcast market, so it may be a tad under $35K. We will have to wait and see.